Gokaldas Images Private Limited, Bangalore V. DCIT, Bangalore

ITA 1502/BANG/2014

• Counselvise Citation: [2020] 111 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 6940 (ITAT-BANGALORE)
• Duration Of Justice: 5 year(s) 2 month(s) 11 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 05-02-2020
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Next Hearing Date: 27-01-2020
• Assessment Year: 2009-2010
• Appeal Filed On: 24-11-2014
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: NEERA MALHOTRA CIT D R ITT
• Assessee Lawyers: SATHYANARAYANA MURTHI
• Keywords: Depreciation; Transfer pricing; International transaction; Rule of consistency; Notional interest; Commercial expediency
• Section: 92C; 143(3); 10B; 144C; 143(2); 13

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL BANGALORE BENCHES A BENCH: BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI A.K. GARODIA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI PAVAN KUMAR GADALE, JUDICIAL MEMBER IT(TP)A NO. / C.O. NO. & ASST. YEAR APPELLANT RESPONDENT 77/BANG/2015 2010 - 11 DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 3(1)(2), BANGALORE. M/S. GOKALDAS IMAGES PVT. LTD., 7 & 12, INDL. SUBURB, 2 ND STAGE, YESHWANTHPUR, BANGALORE - 560 022 PAN AAACG6637Q C.O. NO.82/BANG/2015 (IN IT(TP)A NO.77/BANG/2015) M/S. GOKALDAS IMAGES PVT. LTD., 7 & 12, INDL. SUBURB, 2 ND STAGE, YESHWANTHPUR, BANGALORE - 560 022 DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 3(1)(2), BANGALORE. 439/BANG/2016 2011 - 12 - DO - - DO - 582/BANG/2016 2011 - 12 DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 3(1)(2), BANGALORE. M/S. GOKALDAS IMAGES PVT. LTD., 7 & 12, INDL. SUBURB, 2 ND STAGE, YESHWANTHPUR, BANGALORE - 560 022 1502/BANG/2014 2009 - 10 M/S. GOKALDAS IMAGES PVT. LTD., 7 & 12, INDL. SUBURB, 2 ND STAGE, YESHWANTHPUR, BANGALORE - 560 022 DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 11(3), BANGALORE. 1557/BANG/2014 2009 - 10 DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 3(1)(2), BANGALORE. M/S. GOKALDAS IMAGES PVT. LTD., 7 & 12, INDL. SUBURB, 2 ND STAGE, YESHWANTHPUR, BANGALORE - 560 022 ASSESSEE BY: SHRI SATHYANARAYANA MURTHI, C.A. REVENUE BY: MS. NEERA MALHOTRA, CIT (D.R) 2 IT(TP)A NOS.1502&1557/BANG/2014; 439 & 582/BANG/2016; 77/BANG/2015 & CO NO.82/BANG/2015 DATE OF HEARING : 27.01 .20 20 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 0 5 .02 .20 20 O R D E R PER BENCH : THESE ARE THE C ROSS APP EALS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AND R EVE NUE AGAINST THE ORDER OF CI T ( APPEALS ) AND ORDER/SEC143 (3) R W S 144C (13) OF THE ACT. A ND C.O. IN REVENUE APPEAL BY THE ASSESSEE. SINCE THE ISSUES IN THESE APPEALS ARE COMMON AND IDENTICAL , HENCE, THEY ARE CLUBBED AND HEARD AND COMMON CONSOLIDATED ORDER IS PASSED. FOR THE SAKE OF CON VENIENCE, WE SHALL TAKE UP THE A SSESSEE APPEAL IN ITA NO.1502/BANG/2014 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2009 - 10 AND FACTS NARRATED THEREIN. 2. THE ASSESSEE HAS RAISED THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS OF APPEAL : 3 IT(TP)A NOS.1502&1557/BANG/2014; 439 & 582/BANG/2016; 77/BANG/2015 & CO NO.82/BANG/2015 4 IT(TP)A NOS.1502&1557/BANG/2014; 439 & 582/BANG/2016; 77/BANG/2015 & CO NO.82/BANG/2015 3. THE BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT THE ASSESSEE IS IN THE BUSINESS O F MANUFACTURE AND E XPORT OF READYMADE GARMENTS , AND FILED THE RETURN OF INCOME FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2009 - 10 ON 30.09.2009 WITH NET LOSS OF RS.81,72,35,289. SUBSEQUENTLY, THE CASE WAS SELECTED FOR SCRUTINY AND NOTICE UNDER SECTION 143(2) OF THE ACT WAS ISSUED. 4. THE LEARNED AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE APPEARED FROM TIME TO TIME AND SUBMITTED THE INFORMATION BEFORE THE AUTHORITIES. THE ASSESSING OFFICER FOUND THAT THERE ARE INTERNATIONAL TRANSACTIONS WHICH ARE EXCEEDING THE LIMIT ; THEREFORE THE MATTER WAS REFERRED TO THE TRANSFER PRICING OFFICER (TPO) . WHEREAS TPO HAS 5 IT(TP)A NOS.1502&1557/BANG/2014; 439 & 582/BANG/2016; 77/BANG/2015 & CO NO.82/BANG/2015 PASSED THE ORDER DT.23.01.2013 AND NOT SUGGESTED ANY TRANSFER PRICING ADJUSTMENT U NDER SECTION 92CA OF THE ACT. THE ASSESSING OFFICER ON PERUSAL OF THE BALANCE SHEET AS ON 31.03.200 9 FOUND THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS MADE ADVANCES TO THE SI STER CONCERNS I. GOKALDAS IMAGES INFRASTRUCTURE PVT. LTD. OF RS.20,19,58,023 AND II. HINDUJA REALTORS PVT. LTD. OF RS.85,87,05,910. THE ASSESSEE HAS SU BMITTED THE DETAILS OF INTEREST EXPENDITURE AND EXPLAINED THE REASONS FOR THE ADVA NCES TO THE SISTER CONCERNS ON COMMERCIAL EXPEDIENCY AND SURPLUS FUNDS AVA ILABLE TO THE ASSESSEE. T HE ASSESSING OFFICER DEALT ON THE ISSUES IN RESPECT OF THE ADVANCES AND ON THE CLAI M OF DEDUCTION UNDER SECTION 10B OF THE ACT. WHEREAS AO IS OF THE OPINION THA T THE ASSESSEE HAS DIVERTED FUNDS TO THE SISTER CONCERNS WITHOUT CHARGING ANY INTE REST OVER A PERIOD. THEREFORE T HE ASSESSING OFFICER WORKED OUT THE INTEREST DISALLOWANCE @ 12% P.A ON THE 80% OF THE AMOUNT ADVANCED R S.84,85,31,146 BEINGR S.10,18,23, 738 AND DIS ALLOWANCE UNDER SECTION 10B OF THE ACT ON THE ADJUSTMENT OF PROFITS AND ASSESSED THE TOTAL INCOME OF RS.15,77,21,683 AND PASSED THE ORDER UNDER SECTION 143(3) R.W.S . 92C OF THE ACT DT.11.03.2013. AGGRIEVED BY THE ORDER, THE ASSESSEE HAS FILED AN APPEAL WITH THE CIT(APPEALS) .IN THE APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS THE CIT(APPEALS) CONSIDERED THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL AND FINDINGS OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER , AND DEALT ON THE FINANCIA L STATEMENTS OF EARLIER YEARS IN RESPEC T OF ADVANCES TO THE SISTER CONC ERNS AND OBSERVED THA T THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT FURNISHED THE DETAILS OF ADVANCES AND JUSTIFICAN OF C OMMERCIAL EXPEDIENCY. HENCE THE CIT ( APPEALS) DIRECTED THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO RECAL CULATE INTEREST ON 6 IT(TP)A NOS.1502&1557/BANG/2014; 439 & 582/BANG/2016; 77/BANG/2015 & CO NO.82/BANG/2015 INCREMENTAL ADVANCES MADE TO THE GOKALDAS IMAGES INFRASTRUCTURE PVT. LTD. AND HINDUJA REALTORS PVT. LTD. FURTHER IN RESPECT OF ALLOCATION OF EXPENSES, THE CIT(APPEALS) HAS DIRECTED THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO RE W ORK THE DISALLOWANCE ON THE RULE OF CONSISTENCY. WHEREAS FOR SET OFF OF PROFIT OF EOU UNITS, THE CIT(APPEALS) RELIED ON THE HONBLE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT DECISION OF CIT VS. YOKOGAWA INDIA LTD 341 ITR 385 (KAR) AND DIRECTED THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO RECOMPUTE THE ELIGIBL E DEDUCTION UNDER SECTION 10B OF THE ACT AND PARTLY ALLOWED THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE. AGGRIEVED OF THE ORDER OF CIT(APPEALS), THE ASSESSEE HAS FILED AN APPEAL WITH THE TRIBUNAL. 5. AT THE TIME OF HEARING , THE LEARNED AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE SUB MITTED THAT THE CIT(APPEALS) HAS ERRED IN DIRECTING THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO RECOMPUTE THE INTEREST, IRRESPECTIVE OF THE FACT THAT THE ADVANCES WERE PROVIDED TO SISTER CONCERNS FOR BUSINESS ACT IVITIES ON COMMERCIAL EX PEDIENCY. FURTHER THE ADVANCES ARE OUT OF SURPLUS FUNDS AVAILABLE WITH THE ASSESSEE AND SUPPORTED HIS ARGUMENTS WITH THE DECISION OF HON'BLE BOMBAY HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. RELIANCE UTILITIES AND PO WER LTD. 313 ITR 430 (BOM) , AND THE PRESUMPTION THAT , ADVANCES ARE MADE OU T OF SURPLU S FUNDS. THE LD. AR ALSO RELIED ON THE DECISION OF HON'BLE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. GO LF VIEW HOMES LIMITED 394 ITR 5 4 0 (KAR) FOR ADVANCES PROVIDED TO THE SISTER CONCERNS ON COMMERCIAL EXPEDIE NCY. AND IN ASSESSEE OWN CASE, THE CO - ORDINATE BENCH OF THIS TRIBUNAL FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2008 - 09 DEALT ON THIS ISSUE. FURTHER T HE LD. AR SUBMITTED THAT THE GROUND NOS.4, 7 IT(TP)A NOS.1502&1557/BANG/2014; 439 & 582/BANG/2016; 77/BANG/2015 & CO NO.82/BANG/2015 5, 6, 7 & 8 ARE IN RESPECT OF THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL RAISED BEFORE THE CIT(APPEALS) WHICH WERE NOT ADJUDICATED BY THE CIT(APPEALS) AND PRAYED FOR ALLOWING THE APPEAL. CONTRA, THE LEARNED DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE SUPPORTED THE ORDERS OF THE ASSESSING OFFI CER AND REFERRED TO THE FACTS DEALT BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER AT PAGE 5 PARA 8 OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER AND RELIED ON THE CIT(APPEALS) ORDER. 6. WE HEARD THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS AND PERUSED THE MATERIAL ON RECORD. ON THE FIRST DISPUTED ISSUE OF DISALLOWANCE OF I NTEREST BY THE AO , THE LEARNED AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE SUB MITTED THAT THE CIT(APPEALS) HAS ERRED IN DIRECTING THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO REWORK THE INTEREST DISALLOWANCE OVERLOOKING THE FACTS THAT THE ADVANCES MADE BY THE ASSESSEE TO SISTER CONCERNS ARE OUT OF SURPLUS FUNDS AVAILABLE WITH THE ASSESSEE , AND NO BORRO WED FUNDS WERE UTILIZED . FURTHER THERE IS ALSO REIMBURSEMENT OF EXPENSES ON COMMERCIAL EXPEDIENCY OF BUSINESS TRANSACTIONS. THE LD. AR REFERRED TO THE ORDER OF CIT(APPEALS) AT PARAS 4.5 AND 4.6 WHERE THE CIT(APPEALS) HAS CONSIDERED THE SUBMISSIONS, F INDI NGS OF THE A O AND HAS DIRECTED THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO RECALCULATE INTEREST ON ADVANCES CONSIDERING THE INCREMENTAL INCREASE IN THE CURRENT YEAR. WE FOUND THE CO - ORDINATE BENCH OF THIS TRIBUNAL IN ASSESSEE OWN CASE IN ITA NO.667/BANG/2013 AND C.O. NO.9 7/BANG/2013 DT.26.09.2014 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2008 - 09 (GOKALDAS IMAGES PVT. LTD. VS. ADDL. CIT) HA S DEALT ON THE DISPUTED ISSUE AT PAGE 12 PARA 11(A) WHICH IS AS UNDER : 8 IT(TP)A NOS.1502&1557/BANG/2014; 439 & 582/BANG/2016; 77/BANG/2015 & CO NO.82/BANG/2015 W WE FIND THE LD A R RELIED ON JUDICIAL DECISION OF CIT VS. RELIANCE U TILITIES AND P OWER L TD . (SUPRA) AND CIT VS GOLF VIEW HOMES LTD (SUPRA).WHICH ARE NOT APPLICABLE TO THE DISPUTED ISSUE, I N VIEW OF FINDINGS OF COORDINATE BENCH OF TRIBUNAL THAT LOANS ARE GIVEN OUT OF BARROWED FUNDS AND NOT OWN FUNDS, WHICH COULD 9 IT(TP)A NOS.1502&1557/BANG/2014; 439 & 582/BANG/2016; 77/BANG/2015 & CO NO.82/BANG/2015 NO T BE CONTROVERT BY LD . A R EVEN IN THE PRESENT YEAR. ACCORDINGLY , WE ARE NOT INCLINED TO INTERFERE WITH THE FINDINGS OF C I T (A) ON THE ISSUE. WHEREAS IN RESPECT OF ADVANCES TO HINDUJA REALTORS PVT. LTD., THE TRIBUNAL OBSERVED AT PAGES 13 TO 15 PARA 11(C) WHICH IS READ AS UNDER : 10 IT(TP)A NOS.1502&1557/BANG/2014; 439 & 582/BANG/2016; 77/BANG/2015 & CO NO.82/BANG/2015 WE, FOLLOW THE JUDICIAL PRECEDENCE AND OBSERVATIONS OF THE TRIBUNAL , WHICH ARE IDENTICAL TO THE PRESENT CASE ON HAND, AND RESTORE THE DISPUTED ISSUE TO THE FILE OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER FOR FRESH CONSIDERATION ON THE SIMILAR DIRECTIONS TO DECIDE A S PER PROVISIONS OF LAW AND A PROVIDE ADEQUATE OPPORTUNITY OF HEARING TO THE ASSESSEE AND ALLOW THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL OF ASSESSEE FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. 7. FURTHER THE LD . A R SUBMITTED THAT THE CIT(APPEALS) HAS NOT ADJU DICATED, THE GROUND S OF APPEAL NOS.4 TO 8 RAISED BEFORE THE AUTHORITY. WE FOUND CIT(APPEALS) HAS REFERRED THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL IN HIS ORDER AT PAGES 3 & 4 BUT THERE IS NO FINDING OR OBSERVATI ON S OF THE APPELLATE AUTHORITY. ACCORDINGLY , WE RESTORE THE 11 IT(TP)A NOS.1502&1557/BANG/2014; 439 & 582/BANG/2016; 77/BANG/2015 & CO NO.82/BANG/2015 GROUNDS OF APPEAL , TO THE FILE OF CIT(APPEALS) TO GIVE APPROPRIATE FINDINGS AND PASS A SPEAKING ORDER , AND ALLOW THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. 8. IN THE RESULT, THE ASSESSEE A PPEAL IS PARTLY ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURP OSES. NOW WE SHALL TAKE UP REVENUES APPEAL IN ITA NO.1557/BANG/2014. 9. THE REVENUE HAS RAISED THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS OF APPEAL AS UNDER : 12 IT(TP)A NOS.1502&1557/BANG/2014; 439 & 582/BANG/2016; 77/BANG/2015 & CO NO.82/BANG/2015 10. AT THE TIME OF HEARING , THE LEARNED DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE SUBMITTED THAT THE GROUND NO.1 IS GENERAL IN NATURE AND GROUND NO.2 IS IN RESPECT OF THE OBSER VATIONS OF THE CIT (APPEALS) ON CALCULATING THE INTERES T ON ADVANCES. WHEREAS THE LD . A R SUBMITTED THAT THE CIT (APPEALS) HAS DEALT ON THE ISSUE AND HAS DIRECTED THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO RECALCUL ATE THE INTEREST DISALLOWANCE ON ADVANCES AT PARA 4.6 OF THE ORDER. WE FOUND THE ASSESSEE IN ITA N O . 1502/ B N G /2014 IN ABOVE PARAGRAPHS COULD NOT SUBSTANTIATE WITH EVIDENCE ON COMMERCIAL EXPEDIENCY OF ADVANCING THE LOAN . WE RELIED ON ASSESSEE OWN CASE, FOR THE ASST. YEAR 2008 - 09 AND RESTORED THE MATTER TO THE FILE OF ASSESSING OFFICER WITH THE DIRECTIONS TO REWORK THE INTEREST CALC ULATIONS ON ADVANCES . ACCORDINGLY, WE 13 IT(TP)A NOS.1502&1557/BANG/2014; 439 & 582/BANG/2016; 77/BANG/2015 & CO NO.82/BANG/2015 CONS ID ER IT APPROPRIATE TO RESTORE THE DISPUTED ISSUES IN GROUND S OF APPEAL RAISED BY THE REVENUE , TO THE FILE OF ASSESSING OFFICER AS THE ISSUES ARE INTER - RELATED AND ALLOW THE GROUND OF APPEAL OF REVENUE FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. 11. ON THE GROUND NOS. 3 & 4, THE LEARNED DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE SUBMITTED THAT THE CIT (APPEALS) WAS NOT CORRECT IN DIRECTING THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO COMPUTE , DEDUCTION UNDER SECTION 10B OF THE ACT WITH OUT SETTING OFF OF THE LOSS, DEPRECIATION / B USINESS PERTAINING TO NON - 10B UNITS PLACING RELIANCE ON THE DECISION OF JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS . YOKOGAWA (SUPRA). WHEREAS THE LD. AR SUPPORTED THE ORDER OF CIT (APPEALS) ON THIS GROUND OF APPEAL. 12. WE HEARD THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND PERUSED THE MA TERIAL ON RECORD. WE FOUND THAT THE CIT (A PPEALS) HAS RELIED ON THE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT DECISION WHICH WAS CONFIRMED BY THE HON'BLE SUPREME COURT IN CIVIL APPEAL NO.8498/2013. THE LEARNED DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE COULD NOT CONTROVERT THE OBSERV ATIONS O F THE CIT (APPEALS) WITH COGENT EVIDENCE. ACCORDINGLY, WE ARE NOT INCLINED TO INTERFERE WITH THE ORDER OF CIT (A) ON THIS DISPUTED ISSUE AND CONFIRM THE SAME AND DISMISS THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL OF THE REVENUE . 13. IN THE RESULT, THE REVENUES APPEAL IS PARTLY ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. 14. NOW WE SHALL TAKE UP THE REVENUES APPEAL IN IT(TP)A NO.77/BANG/2015 FOR THE ASST. YEAR 2010 - 11 AND C.O. OF THE ASSESSEE IN ITA NO.82/BANG/2015. 14 IT(TP)A NOS.1502&1557/BANG/2014; 439 & 582/BANG/2016; 77/BANG/2015 & CO NO.82/BANG/2015 15. THE REVENUE HAS RAISED THE FOLLOWING GR OUNDS OF APPEAL : 16. AT THE TIME OF HEARING, THE LEARNED DEPARTMENTAL REPR ESENTATIVE ARGUED GROUND NO.2 IS IN RESPECT OF CLAIM OF DEDUCTION UNDER SECTION 10B OF THE ACT. WE 15 IT(TP)A NOS.1502&1557/BANG/2014; 439 & 582/BANG/2016; 77/BANG/2015 & CO NO.82/BANG/2015 HAVE ALREADY D EALT ON THIS ISSUE FOR THE ASST. YEA R 2009 - 10 IN REVENUES APPEAL ITA NO.1557/BANG/2014 AND THE SAME DECISION SHAL L APPLY . THE LEARNED DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE COULD NOT CONTROVERT THE OB SERVATIONS OF THE DRP WITH COGENT EVIDENCE. ACCORDINGLY, WE ARE NOT INCL INED TO INTERFERE WITH THE FINDING OF THE DRP ON TH IS DISPUTED ISSUE AND CONFIRM THE SAME AND DISMISS THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL OF THE REVENUE . 17. IN REVENUES APPEAL GROUND NOS.3 & 4 ARE IN RESPECT OF DIRECTIONS OF THE DRP TO THE TPO/ASSESSING OFFICER . 18. THE LEARNED DEPARTMENTAL REP RESENTATIVE SUBMITTED THAT THE DRP HAS ERRED IN ITS OBSERVATIONS AND DIRECTIONS TO TPO/AO ON NO TRANSFER PRICING ADJUSTMENT . WE FOUND THAT DRP AT PAGE 3 CONSIDERING THE OBJECTIONS OF THE ASSESSEE IN TRANSFER PRICING HAS DEALT ON THE ISSUE IN DETA IL ON TRANSFE R PRICING ADJUSTMENT AT PAGE 3 AND 4 OF THE ORDER WHICH IS READ AS UNDER : 16 IT(TP)A NOS.1502&1557/BANG/2014; 439 & 582/BANG/2016; 77/BANG/2015 & CO NO.82/BANG/2015 WE FOUND THE LEARNED DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE COULD NOT CONTROVERT THE OBSERVATIONS OF THE DRP AND RELIED ON THE TPO ORDER. ACCORDINGLY, WE DO NOT FIND MERI TS IN T HE SUBMISSIONS AND CONFIRM THE OBSERVATIONS OF THE DRP AND DISMISS THESE GROUNDS OF APPEAL OF REVENUE. 19. THE ASSESSEE HAS FILED C.O. NO. 82/BANG/2015 IN SU PPORT OF THE DRP. SINCE THE REVENUE APPEAL IS DISMISSED, C.O. IS IN FRUCTUOUS AND DISMISSE D . IN THE RESULT, THE REVENUE APPEAL AND C.O. OF THE ASSESSEE ARE DISMISSED. 20. FOR THE ASST. YEAR 2011 - 12 IN ITA 439/BANG/2016, THE ASSESSEE HAS FILED GROUNDS OF APPEAL AS UNDER : ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, THE LEARNED ASSESSING OFFICER ERRED IN DISALLOWING NOTIONAL INTEREST OF RS.14,21,84,775 ON THE 17 IT(TP)A NOS.1502&1557/BANG/2014; 439 & 582/BANG/2016; 77/BANG/2015 & CO NO.82/BANG/2015 RECEIVABLE AMOUNT OUTSTANDING FROM GOKALDAS IMAGES INFRASTRUCTURE PVT. LTD. ON THE GR O UND THAT THE SAME IS CAPITAL IN NATURE. 21. THE LEARNED AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE HAS MADE SUBMISSIONS IN RES PECT OF DISALLOWANCE OF INTEREST AND LEARNED DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE HAS SUPPORTED THE ORDERS OF THE DRP . WE FOUND THAT THIS ISSUE ON USAGE OF FUNDS IS DEALT IN ASSESSEE OWN CASE FOR THE ASST. YEAR 2009 - 10 I N ITA NO.1502/BANG/2014 WHERE THE MATTER WAS RESTORED TO THE FILE OF ASSESSING OFFICER FOR FRESH CONSIDERATION. A CCORDINGLY , WE RESTORE THE DISPUTED ISSUE TO THE FILE OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER ON THE SIMILAR DIRECTIONS FOR FRESH CONSIDERATION AND DECIDE A S PER PROVISIONS OF LAW AND A PROVIDE ADEQUATE OPPORTUNITY OF HEARING TO THE ASSESSEE AND ALLOW THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL OF ASSESSEE FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. . 22. THE REVENUE HAS FILED APPEAL IN IT( TP)A NO.582/BANG/2016, THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL RAISED BY REVENUE ARE AS UNDER : 23. AT THE TIME OF HEARING, THE LEARNED DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE HAS SUBMIT TED THAT DRP HAS ERRED ON OBSERVATIONS AND ADOPTING OF ASSESSEE OBJECTIONS 18 IT(TP)A NOS.1502&1557/BANG/2014; 439 & 582/BANG/2016; 77/BANG/2015 & CO NO.82/BANG/2015 FOR NO TRANSFER PR ICING ADJUSTMENT. WE FOUND THE DRP IN ORDER AT PAGES 2 & 3 HAS HELD AS UNDER : 24. WE HAVE ALREADY DEALT ON THIS ISSUE FOR THE ASST. YEAR 2010 - 11 IN REVENUES APPEAL ITA NO.77/BANG/2015 AND THE SAME DECISION SHALL APPLY. THE LEARNED DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE COULD NOT CONTROVERT THE OBSERVATIONS OF THE DRP 19 IT(TP)A NOS.1502&1557/BANG/2014; 439 & 582/BANG/2016; 77/BANG/2015 & CO NO.82/BANG/2015 WITH COGENT EVIDENCE. ACCORDINGLY, WE ARE NOT INCLINED TO INTERFERE WITH THE ORDER OF DRP ON THIS DISPUTED ISSUE AND CONFIRM THE SAME AND DISMISS THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL OF THE REVENUE . 25. IN THE RESULT, THE ASSESSEE'S APPEAL IS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES AND REVENUES APPEAL IS DISMISSED. 26. NET RESULT , THE IT(TP)A NOS. 1502/BANG/2014 ASSESSE APPEAL & THE IT(TP)A 1557/BANG/2014 REVENUE APPEAL FOR ASSTYEAR2009 - 2010 ARE PARTLY ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES . IT(TP)A NO . 77/BANG/2015 REVENUE APPEAL AND C.O. NO.82/BANG/2015 ASSESSEE CO FOR ASST YEAR2010 - 2011 ARE DISMISSED. FOR ASST YEAR 2011 - 2012 IT(TP)A NO . 439/BANG/2016 OF ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES AND IT(TP)A NO. 582/BANG/2016 OF REVENUE IS DISMISSED. PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON THE DATE MENTIONED ON THE CAPTION PAGE. S D / - S D / - (A.K. GARODIA) (PAVAN KUMAR GADALE) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER DATED: 0 5 .02 . 20 20 . *REDDY GP 20 IT(TP)A NOS.1502&1557/BANG/2014; 439 & 582/BANG/2016; 77/BANG/2015 & CO NO.82/BANG/2015 COPY TO 1. THE APPELLANT 2. THE RESPONDENT 3. CIT (A) 4. PR. CIT 5. DR, ITAT, BANGALORE. 6. GUARD FILE BY ORDER ASSISTANT REGISTRAR INCOME - TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL BANGALORE