M/s Alumeco India Extrusion Limited, Hyderabad V. Asst.CIT,Cir- 6(1), Hyderabad

ITA 1712/HYD/2012

• Counselvise Citation: [2013] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 69747 (ITAT-HYDERABAD)
• Duration Of Justice: 8 month(s) 29 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 22-08-2013
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Assessment Year: 2008-2009
• Appeal Filed On: 23-11-2012
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: K GNANAPRAKASH
• Keywords: Transfer pricing; International transaction
• Section: 143(3); 92F; 234B; 92

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL HYDERABAD B BENCH, HYDERABAD BEFORE SHRI CHANDRA POOJARI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI SAKTIJIT DEY, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA NO.1712/HYD/2012 ASSESSMENT YEAR 2008-09. M/S.ALUMECO INDIA EXTRUSION LTD .-V- ACIT,CIR- 6(1) HYDERABAD. MEDAK DISTRICT. PAN: AABCP7715M (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY SHRI PVSS PRASAD RESPONDENT BY SHRI K. GNANA PRAKASH DATE OF HEARING 22-08-2013 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT 22-08-2013 ORDER PER SAKTIJIT DEY, J.M: THIS APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS DIRECTED AGA INST THE ASSESSMENT ORDER PASSED U/S 143(3) READ WITH SECTIO N 144C OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT, 1961 AT THE INSTRUCTIONS OF DIS PUTE RESOLUTION PANEL (DRP) RELATING TO ASSESSMENT YEAR 2008-09. 2. THE ASSESSEE HAS RAISED THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS:- 1. THE LEARNED ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (AO) IS ERRONEOUS IN LAW AND ON THE FACTS OF THE CASE. 2. THE LEARNED AO/TPO IS NOT JUSTIFIED IN LAW IN RE JECTING THE M.OST APPROPRIATE METHOD (MAM) ADOPTED BY THE ASSESSEE CO MPANY AS COST 2 ITA NO.1712 OF 2012 ALUMECO INDIA EXTRUSION LTD., HYD. PLUS METHOD (CPM) FOR DETERMINING THE ARM'S LENGTH PRICE IN RESPECT OF INTERNATIONAL TRANSACTIONS OF EXPORT SALES OF RS.76 , 39,85,723/-. 3. ALTERNATIVELY APPELLANT ADOPTED INTERNAL TRANSAC TION NET MARGIN METHOD (TNMM) WHICH WAS ALSO REJECTED. THE LEARNED AO IS N OT JUSTIFIED IN ADOPTING EXTERNAL TNMM FOR COMPUTING ARM'S LENGTH P RICE IN RESPECT OF EXPORT SALES, IGNORING APPROPRIATE METHODS. 4. THE LEARNED AO IS NOT JUSTIFIED IN LAW IN CONSID ERING INAPPROPRIATE COMPARABLES WITHOUT PERFORMING FUNCTIONS, ASSETS AN D RISKS ANALYSIS (FAR ANALYSIS) AND CONSEQUENTLY ARRIVING AT A HIGH ARITHMETIC MEAN OF 12.57% AS A RATIO OF OPERATING PROFIT MARGIN / TOTA L COST. 5. THE LEARNED AO OUGHT TO HAVE ACCEPTED THE METHOD S (CPM/ INTERNAL TNMM) FOLLOWED BY THE ASSESSEE AS APPROPRIATE AND O UGHT TO HAVE ACCEPTED THE INTERNATIONAL TRANSACTIONS AS COMPLYIN G WITH ARM'S LENGTH PRINCIPLE. 6. THE LEARNED AO LEGALLY ERRED IN APPLYING THE PRO FIT LEVEL INDICATOR (PLI) ON THE TOTAL OPERATING COST INSTEAD OF APPLYING PLI ON COST RELATING TO INTERNATIONAL TRANSACTIONS ENTERED WITH ASSOCIATED ENTERPRISES (AE). 7. THE LEARNED AO HAS ERRED IN LEVYING INTEREST UNDER SECTION 2348 OF THE ACT ON ADDITIONAL INCOME ARISING DUE TO TRANSFER PR ICING ADJUSTMENT BY COMPLETELY DISREGARDING THE PROVISIONS OF THE ACT A ND THE JUDICIAL PRECEDENCE. 8. DISPUTE RESOLUTION PANEL (DRP) LEGALLY ERRED IN ENDORSING AO/TPOS ACTION IN RESPECT OF ISSUES EXPLAINED IN THE EARLIE R GROUNDS. 9. ANY OTHER GROUND THAT MAY BE URGED AT THE TIME O F HEARING WITH THE PREVIOUS APPROVAL OF THE HON'BLE TRIBUNAL. 3. GROUND NOS. 1 AND 9 ARE GENERAL IN NATURE AND THEY DO NOT REQUIRE ANY ADJUDICATION. 4. GROUND NOS. 2,3,4 AND 5 ARE INTER-RELATED AND RE VOLVE AROUND THE ISSUE REGARDING ADOPTION OF EXTERNAL TR ANSACTION NET 3 ITA NO.1712 OF 2012 ALUMECO INDIA EXTRUSION LTD., HYD. MARGIN METHOD (TNMM) BY THE TRANSFER PRICING OFFICE R (TPO) INSTEAD OF COST PLUS METHOD (CPM) ADOPTED BY THE A SSESSEE WHILE DETERMINING THE ARMS LENGTH PRICE (ALP) OF THE INT ERNATIONAL TRANSACTION. 5. BRIEFLY THE FACTS ARE, THE ASSESSEE FORMERLY KNO WN AS PENNAR PROFILES LIMITED IS A COMPANY REGISTERED U NDER THE INDIAN COMPANIES ACT, 1956. THE ASSESSEE IS ENGAGED IN THE BUSINESS OF MANUFACTURE OF ALUMINIUM PRODUCTS. FO R THE ASSESSMENT YEAR UNDER DISPUTE, THE ASSESSEE FILED I TS RETURN OF INCOME DECLARING THE TOTAL INCOME AT NIL. DURING THE ASSESSMENT YEAR UNDER DISPUTE, THE ASSESSEE HAD ENTERED INTO I NTERNATIONAL TRANSACTION WITH ITS ASSOCIATED ENTERPRISE (AE) M /S. O & S METAL IMPORT GMBH, GERMANY BY PURCHASING ALUMINIUM BILL ETS, INGOTS AND SCRAP WORTH RS.79,59,40,882 AND SALE OF ALUMIN IUM EXTRUDED PRODUCTS TO ITS AE FOR A SALE VALUE OF RS.76,39,85, 723/-. THE ASSESSEE BENCH MARKED ITS INTERNATIONAL TRANSACTION S BY ADOPTING CPM FOR DETERMINING THE ALP. IN COURSE OF SCRUTINY ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, THE ASSESSING OFFICER NOTICING THAT TH E ASSESSEE HAD ENTERED INTO INTERNATIONAL TRANSACTION WITH ITS AE MADE A REFERENCE U/S 92CA(3) OF THE ACT TO THE TPO FOR DE TERMINING ALP. IN COURSE OF PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE TPO, THE ASSESS EE APART FROM SUBMITTING ALL DETAILS ALSO CONTENDED THAT CPM ADOP TED FOR BENCH MARKED EXPORT SALES TO ITS AE WAS MOST APPROPRIATE METHOD IN VIEW OF OTHER INTERNAL COMPARABLES AVAILABLE IN THE FORM OF DOMESTIC SALES MADE TO OTHER UNRELATED PARTIES. THE TPO HOWEVER DID NOT ACCEPT THE CPM ADOPTED BY THE ASSESSEE ON THE GROUND THAT DIRECT COST WERE HIGHLY DISPERSED AND HENCE H E FELT GROSS MARGIN CANNOT BE ACCURATELY ESTIMATED AND THEREFORE WAS NOT RELIABLE FOR COMPARISON. HE FURTHER OBSERVED THAT UNDER CPM THE ASSESSEE HAD NOT GIVEN COMPARABLE COMPANIES, COMPAR ING THE 4 ITA NO.1712 OF 2012 ALUMECO INDIA EXTRUSION LTD., HYD. GROSS PROFIT MARGIN OF COMPARABLES WITH THAT OF THE GROSS PROFIT MARGIN OF THE ASSESSEE. AS NO SUCH STUDY WAS UNDER TAKEN BY THE ASSESSEE, UNDER CPM, THE TPO FOUND THE TPO FILED T HE TP STUDY OF THE ASSESSEE TO BE DEFECTIVE AND PROCEEDED TO DE TERMINE THE ALP ADOPTING TRANSACTIONS OF TNMM AS MOST APPROPRIA TE METHOD. WHILE DOING SO THE TPO SELECTED COMPARABLES FROM DI FFERENT DATA BASES AND BY ADOPTING THE AVERAGE ARITHMETIC MEAN O F OPERATING PROFIT MARGIN TO TOTAL COST AT 12.57% DETERMINED TH E ALP AT RS.89.22 CRORES THEREFORE RESULTING IN AN UPWARD TR ANSFER PRICING ADJUSTMENT OF 12.83 CRORES. IN TERMS WITH THE AFORE SAID ORDER PASSED BY THE TPO, THE ASSESSING OFFICER PASSED A D RAFT ASSESSMENT ORDER WHICH WAS CHALLENGED BY THE ASSESS EE BEFORE THE DRP. THE DRP HAVING CONFIRMED THE DRAFT ASSES SMENT ORDER, THE ASSESSEE HAS PREFERRED THE PRESENT APPEAL BEFOR E US AGAINST THE FINAL ASSESSMENT ORDER PASSED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. 6. AT THE VERY OUTSET, THE LEARNED AUTHORISED REPR ESENTATIVE FOR THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED BEFORE US THAT THE ISSUE IS SQUARELY COVERED BY THE DECISION OF THE CO-ORDINATE BENCH IN ASSESSEES OWN CASE RELATING TO EARLIER ASSESSMENT YEARS IN IT A NOS. 613 AND 614/HYD/2009, 845/HYD/2011, 941/HYD/2011, 1475/HYD/ 2010 AND ITA NO.2070/HYD/2011 DATED 31-5-2013. 7. THE LEARNED DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE ALSO AGR EED T THE FACT THAT THE ISSUE IS COVERED BY THE EARLIER DECI SION OF THE TRIBUNAL IN ASSESSEES OWN CASE. 8. WE HAVE CONSIDERED RIVAL SUBMISSIONS OF THE PART IES AND PERUSED THE MATERIAL ON RECORD. ON A PERUSAL OF THE ORDER DATED 31-5-2013 PASSED BY THE CO-ORDINATE BENCH OF INCOME -TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL IN CASE OF THE SAME ASSESSEE IN ITA NOS. NOS. 613 AND 614/HYD/2009, 845/HYD/2011, 941/HYD/2011, 1475/HYD/2010 AND ITA NO.2070/HYD/2011 DATED 31-5-2 013 5 ITA NO.1712 OF 2012 ALUMECO INDIA EXTRUSION LTD., HYD. RELATING TO THE ASSESSMENT YEARS 2003-04 TO 2007-08 , IT IS TO BE SEEN THAT THE IDENTICAL ISSUE RELATING TO ADOPTION OF TNMM AS MOST APPROPRIATE METHOD BY THE TPO IN PLACE OF CPM ADOPT ED BY THE ASSESSEE CAME UP FOR CONSIDERATION BEFORE THE TRIBU NAL. THE CO- ORDINATE BENCH HELD IN THE FOLLOWING MANNER:- 52. WE ARE OF THE OPINION THAT IT WOULD SEEM ERRONEOUS TO COMPARE SUCH A LOSS-MAKING COMPANY, AT LEAST WITHOUT NON-TRIVIAL ADJUSTMENTS, TO VARIOUS OTHER COMPANIES PERFORMING ACTIVITIES IN THE SAME DOMAIN VIA EXTERNAL TNMM ESPECIALLY WHEN READILY AVAILABLE INT ERNAL TRANSACTIONS ARE THERE AS A BENCHMARK. 53. FINALLY, WE NOTE THAT THE TPO HAS TRIED TO DIS MISS THE INTERNAL CPM FOR INCORRECT ALLOCATION OF COSTS THIS BY ITSELF CANNOT BE THE REASON FOR REJECTING THE CPM M ETHOD ITSELF. IF ANYTHING, THE ALLOCATION OF COSTS MAY BE LOOKED INTO AND BE COMPUTED CORRECTLY. 54. IN OTHER WORDS, WHEN THE ASSESSEE HAS CHOSEN A MOST APPROPRIATE METHOD (MAM) AND SUBSTANTIATED THE CHOICE IN ITS TP STUDY, WE FEEL THAT IT IS UP TO TH E TPO TO RECORD AND SUBSTANTIATE THE REASONS AS TO WHY THE ASSESSES MAM IS INCORRECT AND WHY SOME OTHER TP ME THOD NEEDS TO BE THE MOST APPROPRIATE METHOD (MAM). IN T HE INSTANT CASE HOWEVER WE DO NOT FIND ANY SUBSTANCE I N ANY OF THE TPOS MULTIPLE ARGUMENTS FOR REJECTION OF AS SESSEES INTERNAL CPM AND ADOPTION OF EXTERNAL TNMM. 55. WE FURTHER POINT OUT THAT IN THE RULING OF THE SUPREME COURT IN DIT (INTL. TAXATION) VS. MORGAN ST ANLEY (292 ITR 416) IT WAS HELD THAT THE MOST APPROPRIATE METHOD HAS TO BE APPLIED FOR COMPUTATION OF THE ARM S- LENGTH PRICE. IT WILL DEPEND ON FACTS AND CIRCUMSTA NCES OF EACH PARTICULAR INTERNATIONAL TRANSACTION.. APPLYING THIS 6 ITA NO.1712 OF 2012 ALUMECO INDIA EXTRUSION LTD., HYD. RATIO, CONSIDERING THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES IN T HE INSTANT CASE, INTERNAL CPM SEEMS TO BE THE MOST APPROPRIATE METHOD (MAM) RATHER THAN EXTERNAL TNMM. THE ASSESSEE HAS RELIED ON THE DECISION OF ACIT VS. MSS INDIA 32 SOT 132 (PUNE) WHEREIN IT HAS BEEN HELD THAT IN A SITUATION IN WHICH THE ASSESSEE HAS FOLLOWED ONE OF THE STANDARD METHODS OF DETERMINING ALP, SUCH A METHOD CANNOT BE DISCARDED IN PREFERENCE OVER TRANSACTIONA L PROFIT METHODS UNLESS THE REVENUE AUTHORITIES ARE ABLE TO DEMONSTRATE THE FALLACIES IN APPLICATION OF STANDAR D METHODS. IN ANY EVENT, ANY PREFERENCE OF ONE METHOD OVER THE OTHER METHOD MUST BE JUSTIFIED BY THE TRANSFER PRICING OFFICER ON THE BASIS OF COGENT MATERIAL AND SOUND REASONING. 56. THEREFORE, WE HOLD THAT THE TPOS CURSORY DISMISSAL OF CPM AND APPLICATION OF EXTERNAL TNMM I S UNFOUNDED. HOWEVER THE ALLOCATION OF COSTS TO DOME STIC, EXPORT AND JOB-WORK ACTIVITIES NEEDS TO BE RE-EXAMI NED IN DETAIL. WE THEREFORE SET ASIDE THE ORDER TO THE AO/ TPO TO COMPUTE THE ALP OF THE ASSESSEES TRANSACTIONS USIN G INTERNAL CPM AS SUBMITTED BY THE ASSESSEE AND TO CA LCULATE THE APPROPRIATE ALLOCATION OF DIRECT AND INDIRECT C OSTS OF THE ASSESSEE TO ITS DOMESTIC, EXPORT AND JOB-WORK ACTIVITIES. HENCE THIS GROUND IS ALLOWED IN ASSES SEES FAVOUR FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. 9. AS CAN BE SEEN FROM THE ABOVE EXTRACTED PORTION, THE CO- ORDINATE BENCH HAS HELD THAT CPM IS THE MOST APPROP RIATE METHOD AND HAS DIRECTED THE ASSESSING OFFICER/TPO TO COMPU TE THE ALP ACCORDINGLY. FACTS BEING IDENTICAL, WE RESPECTFULL Y FOLLOW THE AFORESAID ORDER OF THE CO-ORDINATE BENCH AND DIRECT THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO COMPUTE THE ALP OF INTERNATIONAL TRANSAC TION FOR THE IMPUGNED ASSESSMENT YEAR ALSO IN ACCORDANCE WITH DI RECTION OF 7 ITA NO.1712 OF 2012 ALUMECO INDIA EXTRUSION LTD., HYD. THE CO-ORDINATE BENCH AS CONTAINED IN PARA-56 OF TH E ORDER EXTRACTED HEREINABOVE. IN AFORESAID VIEW OF THE MAT TER, THE GROUNDS RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE ARE ALLOWED FOR STAT ISTICAL PURPOSES. 10. IN GROUND NO.6, THE ASSESSEE HAS ASSAILED THE A PPLICATION OF PLI ON THE TOTAL OPERATING COST INSTEAD OF APPLYIN G THE PROFIT LEVEL INDICATOR (PLI) ON THE COST RELATING TO INTERNATION AL TRANSACTION ENTERED INTO WITH THE AE. WHILE ADVANCING HIS ARGU MENT ON THIS ISSUE, THE LEARNED AUTHORISED REPRESENTATIVE FOR TH E ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT THE PLI SHOULD BE APPLIED ON THE IN TERNATIONAL TRANSACTION ENTERED INTO WITH THE AE AS AGAINST APPLYING PLI ON TOTAL OPERATING COST. IN THIS CONTEXT, THE LEARNED AUTHORISED REPRESENTATIVE FOR THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT THIS ISSUE IS ALSO SQUARELY COVERED BY THE DECISION OF CO-ORDINATE BEN CH (SUPRA) IN THE ASSESSEES OWN CASE FOR THE EARLIER ASSESSMENT YEAR. 11. THE LEARNED DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE ALSO AG REED WITH SUCH CONTENTION OF THE LEARNED AUTHORISED REPRESENT ATIVE FOR THE ASSESSEE. 12. WE HAVE CONSIDERED RIVAL SUBMISSIONS OF THE PAR TIES AND PERUSED THE MATERIAL ON RECORD. ON PERUSAL OF THE O RDER OF THE CO- ORDINATE BENCH (SUPRA) IN ASSESSEES OWN CASE IN TH E EARLIER ASSESSMENT YEARS, IT IS TO BE SEEN THAT WHILE CONSI DERING THE IDENTICAL ISSUE THE CO-ORDINATE BENCH HAS HELD IN T HE FOLLOWING MANNER:- 60. AS REGARDS GROUND 6, IT IS CLEAR THAT ANY AD JUSTMENTS DURING THE COMPUTATION OF THE ARMS-LENGTH PRICE SH OULD BE RESTRICTED ONLY TO THE INTERNATIONAL TRANSACTIONS A ND NOT TO THE ENTIRE TURNOVER OF THE ASSESSEE. IT IS ILLOGIC AL TO MAKE ADDITIONS TO LOCAL TRANSACTIONS BASED ON TP ADJUSTM ENTS AND ANY SUCH ADDITION TO ENTIRE TRANSACTIONS OF THE 8 ITA NO.1712 OF 2012 ALUMECO INDIA EXTRUSION LTD., HYD. ASSESSEE WILL GO AGAINST THE PRINCIPLE AND THE PROV ISIONS OF TP UNDER THE INDIAN IT ACT. OUR VIEW FINDS SUPPORT ON VARIOUS DECISIONS WHICH ARE AS FOLLOWS : (1) ACIT VS. GIVAUDAN FLAVOURS (INDIA) P. LTD. 45 S OT 35 (MUM.) (2) STARLITE VS. DCIT 201-TII-28-ITAT (MUM.) 61. IN THE CASE OF LIONBRIDGE TECHNOLOGIES (P) LTD . VS. DCIT (23 TAXMANN.COM 373 MUMBAI ITAT) THE ITAT OBSERVED AS FOLLOWS: 7. IT IS AXIOMATIC THAT THE TRANSFER PRICING ADJUSTMENT CAN BE MADE ONLY WITH REFERENCE TO THE INTERNATIONAL TRANSACTIONS WITH THE AES AND NOT NON-AES. SPECIAL PROVISIONS RELATING TO THE COMPUTATION OF INCOME FROM INTERNATIONAL TRANSACTIONS WERE INTRODUCED THROUGH SECTIONS 92 TO 92F BY THE FINANCE ACT, 2001 WITH A VIEW TO PROVIDE A STATUTORY FRAME WORK WHICH CAN LEAD TO THE COMPUTATION OF REASONABLE PROFITS AND TAXES IN INDIA IN CASE OF INTERNATIONAL TRANSACTIONS BETWEEN ENTERPRISES OF A MULTI- NATIONAL GROUP. THE OBJECT OF THESE PROVISIONS IS TO ENSURE THAT THE TRANSACTIONS BETWEEN TWO AES ARE NOT ARRANGED IN SUCH A MANNER SO AS TO REDUCE THE INCIDENCE OF TAX DUE IN INDIA. SUCH OBJECT IS ACHIEVED BY DETERMINING ALP AS PER THE RELEVANT PROVISIONS OF THE ACT, WHICH IS THEN COMPARED WITH THE PRICE AT WHICH INTERNATIONAL TRANSACTIONS ARE ACTUALLY ENTERED INTO AND RECORDED IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT. THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE ALP AND THE ACTUAL PRICE, IF LEADING TO THE LOWERING OF INCOME DUE IN INDIA, IS ADDED BY WAY OF TRANSFER PRICING ADJUSTMENT. FROM THE SCHEME OF CHAPTER X OF THE ACT, CONTAINING THE SECTIONS AS AFORE-REFERRED, IT IS MANIFEST THAT THE ADDITION ON ACCOUNT OF TRANSFER PRICING ADJUSTMENT CAN BE MADE ONLY IN RESPECT OF INTERNATIONAL TRANSACTIONS WITH THE AES AND NOT THE NON-AES. IT IS QUITE NATURAL ALSO BECAUSE THERE CAN BE NO SCOPE FOR ARRANGING THE TRANSACTIONS WITH NON-AES SO AS TO REDUCE THE DUE TAX IN INDIA. THAT IS THE REASON FOR WHICH THE TRANSACTIONS WITH NON-AES HAVE BEEN 9 ITA NO.1712 OF 2012 ALUMECO INDIA EXTRUSION LTD., HYD. EXCLUDED FROM THE AMBIT OF CHAPTER X OF THE ACT. 62. HENCE, THE AO IS DIRECTED TO RESTRICT THE ADJUSTMENTS, IF ANY, ONLY TO INTERNATIONAL TRANSACT IONS. THIS GROUND IS ALLOWED IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE. RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING THE AFORESAID ORDER OF THE CO-ORDINATE BENCH, WE DIRECT THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO RESTRICT THE ADJUSTMENT ONLY TO THE INTERNAL TRANSACTION WHILE DETERMINING THE ALP. ACCORDINGLY, THIS GROUND OF THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED . 13. IN GROUND NO.7, THE ASSESSEE HAS CHALLENGED THE LEVY OF INTEREST U/S 234B OF THE ACT. AS THE CHARGING OF I NTEREST U/S 234B OF THE ACT IS CONSEQUENTIAL IN NATURE BEING DEPENDE NT UPON THE FINAL DETERMINATION OF INCOME, THIS GROUND IS NOT R EQUIRED TO BE ADJUDICATED UPON AT THIS STAGE. 14. IN VIEW OF OUR FINDING IN THE PRECEDING PARAGRA PH, NO SEPARATE ADJUDICATION IS REQUIRED IN SO FAR AS GROU ND NO.8 IS CONCERNED. 15. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE STANDS ALLOWED IN PART. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE COURT ON 22 -8-2013. SD/- ( CHANDRA POOJARI) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SD/- (SAKTIJIT DEY) JUDICIAL MEMBER HYDERABAD, DATED THE 22 ND AUGUST, 2013 JMR* 10 ITA NO.1712 OF 2012 ALUMECO INDIA EXTRUSION LTD., HYD. COPY TO:- 1) PRASAD & PRASAD, CAS, FLAT NO.301, MJ TOWERS, RO AD NO.12, BANJARA HILLS, HYDERABAD. 2) ACIT, CIR-6(1), HYDERABAD. 3) DRP, 10-2-3,A, AC GUARDS, HYDERABAD. 4) CIT CONCERNED, HYDERABAD. 5.THE DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE, I.T.A.T., HYDERA BAD. JMR* 11 ITA NO.1712 OF 2012 ALUMECO INDIA EXTRUSION LTD., HYD. *