M/s. Geodis Overseas Private Limited, Gurgaon V. DCIT, New Delhi

ITA 1688/DEL/2014

• Counselvise Citation: [2018] 126 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 3634 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 3 year(s) 10 month(s) 9 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 31-01-2018
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Bench Allotted: I1
• Next Hearing Date: 21-12-2016
• Assessment Year: 2009-2010
• Appeal Filed On: 21-03-2014
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: SANJAY I BARA
• Keywords: Transfer pricing; Opportunity of being heard; International transaction
• Section: 143(3); 234B

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH I-1, NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI R. K. PANDA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI SUDHANSHU SRIVASTAVA, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA NO.1688/DEL/2014 ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2009-10 GEODIS OVERSEAS PRIVATE LIMITED, DLF CYBER TERRACES, BUILDING NO.5, TOWER- B, 10 TH FLOOR, DLF CYBER CITY, PHASE-III, GURGAON. VS. DCIT, CIRCLE- 12(1), NEW DELHI. PAN : AAACC6168L (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY : SHRI VISHAL KALRA, ADV. MS. REEMA MALIK, CA RESPONDENT BY : SHRI SANJAY I. BARA, CIT-DR DATE OF HEARING : 20-12-2017 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 31-01-2018 O R D E R PER R. K. PANDA, AM : THIS APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS DIRECTED AGAIN ST THE ORDER DATED 20.01.2014 PASSED U/S 143(3) R.W.S. 144C BY THE ASS ESSING OFFICER RELATING TO ASSESSMENT YEAR 2009-10. 2. FACTS OF THE CASE, IN BRIEF, ARE THAT THE ASSESS EE IS A COMPANY ENGAGED IN THE BUSINESS OF TRANSPORTATION OF TIME SENSITIVE PA CKAGES, DOCUMENTS AND CARGO TO DOMESTIC AND INTERNATIONAL DESTINATIONS. IT FIL ED ITS RETURN OF INCOME ON 30.09.2009 DECLARING LOSS OF RS.1,20,27,664/-. THE ASSESSING OFFICER REFERRED THE MATTER U/S 92CA(1) TO THE TPO TO DETERMINE THE ARMS LENGTH PRICE OF THE INTERNATIONAL TRANSACTIONS ENTERED INTO BY THE ASSE SSEE. DURING THE TP 2 ITA NO.1688/DEL/2014 ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, THE TPO NOTED THAT THE ASSE SSEE HAS ENTERED INTO THE FOLLOWING INTERNATIONAL TRANSACTIONS WITH ITS AES : - NATURE OF TRANSACTION METHOD SELECTED TOTAL VALUE OF TRANSACTION (RS.) FREIGHT CHARGES RECEIVED TNMM 453,147,324 FREIGHT CHARGES PAID 45,700,026 REIMBURSEMENT OF EXPENSES TO GEODIS INDIA 12,095,165 REIMBURSEMENT OF EXPENSES BY GEODIS INDIA 76,798,863 3. AFTER CONSIDERING THE VARIOUS SUBMISSIONS MADE B Y THE ASSESSEE FROM TIME TO TIME DURING THE TRANSFER PRICING ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, THE TPO MADE THE FOLLOWING ADJUSTMENT :- INTERNATIONAL TRANSACTION ADJUSTED AMOUNT (IN RS.) FREIGHT CHARGES PAID AND RECEIVED 6,38,01,680 REIMBURSEMENT OF INTRA GROUP / MANAGEMENT SUPPORT FEES 7,48,79,780 TOTAL 13,86,81,461 4. THE ASSESSEE APPROACHED THE DRP WHO UPHELD THE A DJUSTMENT MADE IN RESPECT OF REIMBURSEMENT OF INTRA-GROUP SERVICES AN D FREIGHT CHARGES. HOWEVER, IT DIRECTED THAT THE REIMBURSEMENT MADE FOR MANAGEM ENT SUPPORT FEE SHOULD NOT BE CONSIDERED AS AN EXPENSE FOR THE PURPOSE OF DETE RMINING THE NET PROFIT MARGIN OF THE ASSESSEE WHILE BENCHMARKING THE FREIGHT FORW ARDING INTERNATIONAL TRANSACTION. CONSEQUENTLY, THE ASSESSING OFFICER P ASSED FINAL ORDER GIVING EFFECT TO THE DIRECTION OF THE DRP. THE TP ADJUSTM ENT IN RESPECT OF FREIGHT CHARGES WAS REDUCED TO RS.2,02,96,397/- AND ADJUSTM ENT IN RESPECT OF MANAGEMENT SUPPORT SERVICES AMOUNTING TO RS.7,48,79 ,781/- WAS UPHELD. 5. AGGRIEVED WITH SUCH ORDER OF THE LD. ASSESSING O FFICER, THE ASSESSEE IS IN APPEAL BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL BY RAISING THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS :- 3 ITA NO.1688/DEL/2014 1. THAT ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN LAW, THE AO HAS ERRED IN ASSESSING THE INCOME OF THE APPELLANT FOR THE RE LEVANT A Y AT INR 12,66,53,800, AS AGAINST RETURNED LOSS OF INR 1,20,27,664. 2. THAT ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN LAW, THE AO/ DISPUTE RESOLUTION PANEL ('DRP')/ TRANSFER PRICING OFFICER ('TPO') HAVE ERRED IN MAKING TRANSFER PRICING ADJUSTMENTS AND THE DRP HAS FURTHE R ERRED IN UPHOLDING ADJUSTMENT OF INR 13,86,81,461 (INR 6,38,01,680 ON ACCOUNT OF PROVISION AND RECEIPT OF FREIGHT FORWARDING SERVICES AND INR 7,48,79,781 ON ACCOUNT OF REIMBURSEMENT OF MANAGEMENT AND SUPPORT FEES) TO THE TRANSFER PRICE OF THE INTERNATIONAL TRANSACTIONS OF THE APPELLANT, ALLEGING THE SAME TO BE NOT AT AR M'S LENGTH IN TERMS OF THE PROVISIONS OF SECTIONS 92C(1) AND 92C(2) OF THE ACT, READ WITH RULE 10D OF THE INCOME-TAX RULES, 1962 ('RULES'). 3. THAT ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE FACTS AND IN LAW, THE AO/ DRP/ TPO ERRED IN NOT APPRECIATING THE BUSINESS MODEL, F UNCTIONAL, ASSET AND RISK ANALYSIS UNDERTAKEN BY THE APPELLANT AND HAVE FURTHER ERRED IN NOT ACCEPTING THE ECONOMIC ANALYSIS UNDERTAKEN BY THE APPELLANT IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE PROVISIONS OF THE ACT READ WITH RULES FOR THE DETERMINATION OF THE ARM'S LENGTH PRICE. 4. ADJUSTMENT ON ACCOUNT OF PROVISION AND RECEIPT OF FREIGHT FORWARD SERVICES 4.1 THAT ON FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE A ND IN LAW, THE AO/ DRP/ TPO ERRED IN NOT APPRECIATING THE REVENUE SPLIT BUSINES S MODEL BETWEEN THE APPELLANT AND ITS ASSOCIATED ENTERPRISES (AE') IN RELATION TO IN TERNATIONAL TRANSACTIONS, IE, PROVISION AND RECEIPT OF FREIGHT FORWARDING SERVICE S AND, FURTHER, ERRED IN MAKING AN UPWARD ADJUSTMENT, ALLEGING THAT SUCH TRANSACTIONS WERE NOT AT ARM'S LENGTH. 4.2 THAT ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE C ASE AND IN LAW, THE AO/ DRP/ TPO HAVE ERRONEOUSLY COMPUTED THE TRANSFER PRICING ADJU STMENTS AND THE DRP HAS FURTHER ERRED IN UPHOLDING ADJUSTMENT OF INR 6,38,01,680 IN RELATION TO PROVISION AND RECEIPT OF FREIGHT FORWARDING SERVICES. 4.3 THAT ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE C ASE AND IN LAW, THE AO/ DRP/ TPO ERRED IN USING THE ENTITY-WIDE MARGIN TO COMPUT E ADJUSTMENT ON THE INTERNATIONAL VALUE OF TRANSACTIONS. 4.4 THAT ON THE FACTS AND THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF T HE CASE AND IN LAW, THE AO/ DRP/ TPO HAVE ERRED IN DISREGARDING THE ADJUSTMENT ON AC COUNT OF CAPACITY UTILISATION AND FIXED ASSET INTENSITY WHILE COMPUTING THE NET PROFI T MARGIN OF THE APPELLANT UNDER TNMM. 4.5 THAT ON THE FACTS AND THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF T HE CASE AND IN LAW, THE AO/ DRP/ TPO HAVE ERRED IN NOT ACCORDING ANY COMPARABILITY A ND ECONOMIC ADJUSTMENTS AS REQUIRED UNDER RULE 1 0B( 1)(E)(III) OF THE RULES. 4.6 THAT ON THE FACTS AND THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF T HE CASE AND IN LAW, THE AO/ DRP/ TPO HAVE ERRED IN MAKING A TRANSFER PRICE ADJUSTMEN T TO THE ENTIRE VALUE OF INTER- COMPANY RECEIPTS AND PAYMENTS AS SUCH RECEIPTS AND PAYMENTS INCLUDED A COST TO COST REIMBURSEMENTS, IE, RECHARGE OF THE FREIGHT CHARGES AND FURTHER ERRED IN NOT RESTRICTING THE SAME ONLY TO THE PROFIT ELEMENT IN THE TRANSACTION. 4.7 THAT ON THE FACTS AND THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF T HE CASE AND IN LAW, THE AO ERRED IN NOT GIVING EFFECT TO THE DRP DIRECTIONS DIRECTIN G THE AO/TPO TO RE-COMPUTE THE MARGINS OF THE APPELLANT AND COMPARABLES BY ADHERIN G TO THE DEFINITION OF OPERATING EXPENSES AND OPERATING INCOME MENTIONED IN THE SAFE HARBOUR RULES, 2013. 5. ADJUSTMENT ON ACCOUNT OF REIMBURSEMENT OF MANAGEMEN T SUPPORT SERVICES 5.1 THAT ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE C ASE AND IN LAW, THE AO/ DRP/ TPO HAVE ERRED IN DISALLOWING PAYMENT OF INR 7,48,7 9,781 BY THE APPELLANT TO ITS AES ON ACCOUNT OF REIMBURSEMENT OF MANAGEMENT SUPPO RT SERVICES AND DETERMINING THE ARM'S LENGTH PRICE TOWARDS SUCH PAYMENT FOR MAN AGEMENT SUPPORT SERVICES AS 4 ITA NO.1688/DEL/2014 'NIL', ALLEGING THAT NO SERVICE/BENEFIT WAS RECEIVE D BY THE APPELLANT. 5.2 THAT ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE C ASE AND IN LAW, THE AO/ DRP/ TPO HAVE ERRED IN UNDERTAKING SEPARATE BENCHMARKING ANALYSIS FOR REIMBURSEMENT OF MANAGEMENT SUPPORT SERVICES, IGNORING THE FACT THAT THE REIMBURSEMENTS WERE BENCHMARKED WITH THE PRIMARY TRANSACTION USING ENTI TY LEVEL TNMM. 5.3 THAT ON THE FACTS AND IN CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN LAW, THE AO/ DRP/ TPO HAVE ERRED IN BENCHMARKING THE REIMBURSEMENT OF MANAGEMENT SUPPORT SERVICES WITHOUT CORRECTLY APPLYING ANY OF THE TRANSFER PRIC ING METHOD IN THE MANNER PRESCRIBED UNDER RULE 10 OF THE RULES. 5.3.1 THAT ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN LAW, THE AO/ DRP/ TPO HAVE ERRED IN APPLYING THE COMPARABLE UNCONTROL LED PRICE ('CUP') METHOD TO BENCHMARK THE REIMBURSEMENT OF MANAGEMENT SUPPORT SERVICES AND HAS FURTHER ERRED IN NOT APPLYING THE SAID METHOD I N THE MANNER PRESCRIBED UNDER RULE 10 OF THE RULES. 5.3.2 THAT ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN LAW, THE AO/ DRP/ TPO HAVE ERRED IN ARBITRARILY APPLYING CUP AS 'NIL' WITHOUT APPLICATION OF AN APPROPRIATE METHODOLOGY TO DETERMINE THE ARM'S LENG TH PRICE 6. THAT ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN LAW, THE AO/ DRP/ TPO HAS ERRED BY NOT ALLOWING THE APPELLANT THE BEN EFIT OF 5 PERCENT RANGE AS PROVIDED BY THE PROVISO OF SECTION 92C(2) OF THE AC T. 7. THAT ON FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN LAW, THE AO/DRP/TPO HAVE ERRED IN IGNORING THE PROVISIONS OF RULE 10B(4 ) OF THE RULES AND JUDICIAL PRONOUNCEMENTS, WHICH ADVOCATE USAGE OF MULTIPLE YE AR DATA OF COMPARABLE COMPANIES FOR THE PURPOSE OF DETERMINATION OF THE A RM'S LENGTH PRICE. 8. THAT ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN LAW, THE AO ERRED LEVYING INTEREST UNDER SECTION 234B AND SECTION 234 D OF THE ACT. EACH OF THE ABOVE GROUNDS IS INDEPENDENT AND WITHOU T PREJUDICE TO THE OTHER GROUNDS OF APPEAL PREFERRED BY THE APPELLANT. THE APPELLANT PRAYS FOR LEAVE TO ADD, ALTER, VARY, OMIT, SUBSTITUTE OR AMEND THE ABOVE GROUNDS OF APPEAL, AT ANY TIME BEFORE, OR AT, THE T IME OF HEARING OF THE APPEAL. 6. LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE DID NOT PRESS GROUN D NO.1, 2 AND 3 BEING GENERAL IN NATURE AND THESE ARE DISMISSED AS NOT PR ESSED. 7. SO FAR AS GROUNDS NO.4.1 AND 4.2 ARE CONCERNED, THE SAME RELATE TO ADJUSTMENT IN RELATION TO PROVISION AND RECEIPT OF FREIGHT FORWARD SERVICES. 8. AFTER HEARING BOTH THE SIDES, WE FIND THE TPO DI D NOT ACCEPT THE ENTITY LEVEL MARGIN COMPUTED BY APPLYING TNM METHOD AFTER REJECTING CERTAIN ECONOMIC ADJUSTMENTS MADE BY THE ASSESSEE FOR THE P URPOSE COMPUTING MARGINS. HE CONCLUDED THAT THE MARGIN OF THE ASSESSEE IS 1.7 2% AS AGAINST 4.66% 5 ITA NO.1688/DEL/2014 COMPUTED IN THE TP STUDY. SINCE THE WEIGHTED AVERA GE MARGIN OF THE COMPARABLE COMPANIES WAS AT 5.297%, THE TPO MADE AD JUSTMENT OF RS.6,38,01,680/- WHICH HAS BEEN REDUCED BY THE DRP TO RS.2,02,96,397/-. IT IS THE SUBMISSION OF THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD ENTERED INTO PROFIT SHARING AGREEMENT WITH ITS AES WHEREIN THE RESIDUAL PROFITS EARNED FROM THE SHIPMENT OF PACKAGES/TIME SENSITIVE CARGOS ARE SPLIT BETWEEN THE ASSESSEE AND THE AES AS PER THE AGREED RATIO. IT I S HIS SUBMISSION THAT THE TPO AND THE DRP DID NOT APPRECIATE THE ALTERNATE CONTEN TION OF THE ASSESSEE THAT AS PER RESIDUAL REVENUE SPLIT MODEL THE INTERNATIONAL TRANSACTIONS OF SHIPMENT OF CARGOES/ GOODS IS AT ARMS LENGTH PRICE. IT IS ALS O HIS SUBMISSION THAT THE DRP MERELY UPHELD THE APPROACH OF THE TPO WITHOUT PASSI NG A SPEAKING ORDER ALTHOUGH DETAILED SUBMISSIONS WERE MADE BEFORE THE DRP. IT IS ALSO HIS SUBMISSION THAT THE TRIBUNAL IN ASSESSEES OWN CASE FOR ASSESSMENT YEARS 2006-07, 2007-08 AND 2008-09 REMITTED THE ISSUE TO THE FILE OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER/ TPO FOR FURTHER EXAMINATION. REFERRING TO PAGE 670 TO 673 AND 677 TO 678 OF PAPER BOOK III, LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESS EE SUBMITTED THAT IN THE REMAND PROCEEDINGS FOR ASSESSMENT YEARS 2006-07 TO 2008-09, THE TPO EXAMINED THE ISSUE AND DELETED THE ADJUSTMENT AFTER APPRECIATING THE REVENUE SPLIT MODEL ADOPTED BY THE ASSESSEE TO BENCHMARK TH E FREIGHT FORWARDING TRANSACTION. HE ACCORDINGLY SUBMITTED THAT THE REV ENUE SPLIT MODEL DESERVES TO BE UPHELD AND THE ISSUE MAY BE RESTORED TO THE FILE OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER FOR 6 ITA NO.1688/DEL/2014 THE LIMITED PURPOSE OF VERIFICATION OF THE ARMS LE NGTH PRICE OF THE INTERNATIONAL TRANSACTION IN THE LIGHT OF THE DIRECTION OF THE TR IBUNAL. 9. THE LD. DR HAS NO OBJECTION FOR THE ABOVE PROPOS ITION OF THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE THAT THE MATTER MAY BE RESTORED TO THE FILE OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER/TPO. 10. AFTER HEARING BOTH THE SIDES, WE FIND AN IDENTI CAL ISSUE HAD COME BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL IN ASSESSEES OWN CASE IN THE IMMEDIAT ELY PRECEDING ASSESSMENT YEARS I.E. ASSESSMENT YEARS 2006-07 TO 2008-09 AND THE TRIBUNAL HAS RESTORED THE ISSUE TO THE FILE OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER/TPO FOR FURTHER EXAMINATION OF THE ISSUE WITH CERTAIN DIRECTIONS. RESPECTFULLY FOLLOW ING THE DECISION OF THE TRIBUNAL IN ASSESSEES OWN CASE IN THE IMMEDIATELY PROCEEDINGS ASSESSMENT YEARS, WE RESTORE THE ABOVE GROUNDS TO THE FILE OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER WITH THE DIRECTION TO RE-ADJUDICATE THE ISSUE IN THE LIGHT O F THE DECISION OF THE TRIBUNAL. THE GROUNDS RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE ARE ACCORDINGLY ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. 11. SO FAR AS GROUNDS NO.4.3 TO 4.7 ARE CONCERNED, LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT THE ABOVE GROUNDS BECOME ACADEMIC IN VIEW OF THE GROUNDS NO.4.1 TO 4.2. IN ABSENCE OF ANY OBJECTION FROM TH E LD. DR, THE ABOVE GROUNDS ARE DISMISSED BEING ACADEMIC IN NATURE. 12. SO FAR AS GROUNDS NO.5.1 TO 5.3 ARE CONCERNED, THESE RELATE TO ADJUSTMENT ON ACCOUNT OF REIMBURSEMENT OF MANAGEMENT SUPPORT S ERVICES BY THE ASSESSEE TO ITS AE. 7 ITA NO.1688/DEL/2014 13. AFTER HEARING BOTH THE SIDES, WE FIND THE TPO D ETERMINED THE ARMS LENGTH PRICE OF PAYMENT MADE IN RELATION TO MSS AS NIL ON THE GROUND THAT NO SERVICES WERE RECEIVED BY THE ASSESSEE. THE DRP UP HELD THE ACTION OF THE TPO ON THE GROUND THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS ONLY DEMONSTRAT ED GENERIC NATURE OF BENEFIT AND, THEREFORE, THE TPO RIGHTLY DETERMINED THE ARM S LENGTH PRICE OF THE SERVICES AS NIL. IT IS THE SUBMISSION OF THE LD. COUNSEL FO R THE ASSESSEE THAT THE TRIBUNAL IN ASSESSEES OWN CASE IN THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2008- 09 HAS RESTORED THE ISSUE TO THE FILE OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER/TPO FOR DE-NOVO ADJUDICATION AND THE TPO VIDE ORDER DATED 03.08.2016 HAS DELETED THE ADJUSTM ENT WITHOUT DRAWING ANY ADVERSE INFERENCE WITH REGARD TO THE ARMS LENGTH P RICE OF THE INTERNATIONAL TRANSACTION. IT IS ALSO HIS SUBMISSION THAT FOR AS SESSMENT YEARS 2006-07 AND 2007-08, THE TPO HAD ACCEPTED BENCHMARKING ANALYSIS IN RESPECT OF FEES FOR MMS AND NO ADJUSTMENT WAS MADE. IT IS ALSO HIS SUB MISSION THAT THE ARMS LENGTH PRICE OF MSS SEGMENT WAS DETERMINED AS NIL W ITHOUT PROVIDING AN OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD TO THE ASSESSEE AND WITH OUT EXAMINATION OF THE DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCES FURNISHED BY THE ASSESSEE BEF ORE THE LOWER AUTHORITIES. 14. AFTER HEARING BOTH THE SIDES WE FIND THE TRIBUN AL IN ASSESSEES OWN CASE FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2008-09 HAS REMITTED THE ISSUE TO THE ASSESSING OFFICER/TPO FOR DE-NOVO ADJUDICATION. RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING THE DECISION OF THE TRIBUNAL IN ASSESSEES OWN CASE, WE DEEM IT PRO PER TO RESTORE THE ISSUE TO THE FILE OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER/TPO FOR ADJUDICATION OF THE ISSUE AFRESH IN THE LIGHT OF THE DIRECTION OF THE TRIBUNAL IN ASSESSEES OWN CASE FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 8 ITA NO.1688/DEL/2014 2008-09. NEEDLESS TO SAY, THE ASSESSING OFFICER/TP O SHALL GIVE DUE OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD TO THE ASSESSEE AND DECI DE THE ISSUE AS PER LAW. WE HOLD AND DIRECT ACCORDINGLY. THE GROUNDS RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE ARE ACCORDINGLY ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. 15. GROUND NO.6 BEING GENERAL IN NATURE IS DISMISSE D. 16. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS PARTLY ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON THIS 31 ST DAY OF JANUARY, 2018. SD/- SD/- (SUDHANSHU SRIVASTAVA) (R. K. PANDA) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER DATED: 31-01-2018. SUJEET COPY OF ORDER TO: - 1) THE APPELLANT 2) THE RESPONDENT 3) THE DRP- 1, NEW DELHI 4) THE DR, I.T.A.T., NEW DELHI BY ORDER //TRUE COPY// ASSISTANT REGISTRAR ITAT, NEW DELHI