Vestas Wind Techology India Private Limited, CHENNAI V. ACIT, CHENNAI

ITA 177/CHNY/2016

• Counselvise Citation: [2016] 132 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 9453 (ITAT-CHENNAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 month(s) 20 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 22-04-2016
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: D
• Assessment Year: 2011-2012
• Appeal Filed On: 01-02-2016
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: DR MILIND MADHUKAR BHUSARI
• Assessee Lawyers: AJIT TOLANI
• Keywords: Transfer pricing; Business expenditure; Permanent establishment

Judgement Text

, , IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL D BENCH, CHENNAI . . . , . !'# ! , % !& BEFORE SHRI N.R.S. GANESAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI A. MOHAN ALANKAMONY, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ./ ITA NO.177/MDS/2016 ( )( / ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2011-12 M/S VESTAS WIND TECHNOLOGY INDIA PVT. LTD., NO.298, RAJIV GANDHI SALAI, SHOLINGANALLUR, CHENNAI - 600 119. PAN : AAACA 9274 F V. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CORPORATE CIRCLE 3(2), CHENNAI - 600 034. (+,/ APPELLANT) (-.+,/ RESPONDENT) +, / 0 / APPELLANT BY : SHRI AJIT TOLANI, CA & SHRI DARPAN KIRPALANI, CA -.+, / 0 / RESPONDENT BY : DR. MILIND MADHUKAR BHUSARI, C IT 1 / 2% / DATE OF HEARING : 09.03.2016 3') / 2% / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 22.04.2016 / O R D E R PER N.R.S. GANESAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER: THIS APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER DATED 11.01.2016 CONSEQUENT T O THE DIRECTION OF DISPUTE RESOLUTION PANEL, FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEA R 2011-12. 2 I.T.A. NO.177/MDS/16 2. SHRI AJIT TOLANI, THE LD. REPRESENTATIVE FOR THE ASSESSEE, SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE-COMPANY ENGAGED IN MANU FACTURING AND SERVICE OF WIND TURBINE GENERATORS AND SALE OF WIND TURBINE COMPONENTS. ACCORDING TO THE LD. REPRESENTATIVE, T HE ASSESSEE IS SELLING THE WIND TURBINE GENERATORS AND ITS COMPONE NTS IN THE DOMESTIC MARKET AS WELL AS IN THE INTERNATIONAL MAR KETS. REFERRING TO THE OBJECTION RAISED BEFORE THE DISPUTE RESOLUTI ON PANEL IN THE GROUNDS OF OBJECTION NO.6, A COPY OF WHICH IS AVAIL ABLE AT PAGE 71 OF THE APPEAL FOLDER, THE LD. REPRESENTATIVE SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE CLAIMED BEFORE THE DISPUTE RESOLUTION PANE L THAT THE TRANSFER PRICING OFFICER COMPUTED THE SALES OF THE ASSESSEE BY EXCLUDING THE INCOME FROM ANNUAL MAINTENANCE SERVIC E WITHOUT EXCLUDING THE CORRESPONDING COST OF RENDERING SUCH SERVICES. THE LD. REPRESENTATIVE FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT SINCE THE INCOME FROM ANNUAL MAINTENANCE SERVICE IS NOT INCLUDED IN THE O PERATING REVENUE, THE CORRESPONDING COST ALSO NEEDS TO BE EX CLUDED FROM THE TOTAL COST FOR COMPUTATION OF THE OPERATING MARGINS . REFERRING TO THE DIRECTION OF THE DISPUTE RESOLUTION PANEL, THE LD. REPRESENTATIVE SUBMITTED THAT THIS OBJECTION OF THE ASSESSEE WAS N OT TAKEN COGNIZANCE OF DISPUTE RESOLUTION PANEL, THEREFORE, IT REMAINS TO BE DISPOSED OF. REFERRING TO THE ORDER OF THE TRANSFE R PRICING OFFICER, 3 I.T.A. NO.177/MDS/16 MORE PARTICULARLY THE COMPUTATION OF INCOME, THE LD . REPRESENTATIVE SUBMITTED THAT THE TRANSFER PRICING OFFICER EXCLUDE D THE INCOME FROM ANNUAL MAINTENANCE SERVICE, HOWEVER, FAILED TO EXCLUDE THE EXPENDITURE. REFERRING TO THE ORDER OF THE TRANSFE R PRICING OFFICER, MORE PARTICULARLY PARA 9.1, THE LD. REPRESENTATIVE SUBMITTED THAT THE SHORTFALL IN REVENUE RECOGNITION FROM ANNUAL MAINTE NANCE CHARGES AND THE ADJUSTMENT THEREUNDER REQUIRES NO CONSIDERA TION AS THE SERVICE INCOME FROM ANNUAL MAINTENANCE INCOME IS PR OPOSED TO BE EXCLUDED WHILE COMPUTING THE PROFIT FROM MANUFACTUR E AND SALE OF WIND TURBINE GENERATORS. ONCE THE INCOME IS EXCLUD ED, ACCORDING TO THE LD. REPRESENTATIVE, THE COST IS ALSO TO BE EXCL UDED. SINCE THE COST / EXPENDITURE IS NOT EXCLUDED, THE ASSESSING O FFICER MAY BE DIRECTED TO EXCLUDE THE EXPENDITURE INCURRED BY THE ASSESSEE FOR ANNUAL MAINTENANCE SERVICE. 3. ON THE CONTRARY, DR. MILIND MADHUKAR BHUSARI, TH E LD. DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE, SUBMITTED THAT THE TRA NSFER PRICING OFFICER FOUND THAT INCOME FROM ANNUAL MAINTENANCE S ERVICE NEEDS TO BE EXCLUDED. THEREFORE, THE EXPENDITURE INCURRE D FOR ANNUAL MAINTENANCE SERVICE ALSO NEEDS TO BE EXCLUDED. HOW EVER, IT IS NOT CLEAR FROM THE ASSESSMENT ORDER AND THE ORDER OF TH E TRANSFER 4 I.T.A. NO.177/MDS/16 PRICING OFFICER WHETHER IT WAS REALLY EXCLUDED FROM THE OPERATING COST. THEREFORE, THE ASSESSING OFFICER MAY BE DIRE CTED TO VERIFY WHETHER THE EXPENDITURE FOR ANNUAL MAINTENANCE SERV ICE IS EXCLUDED OR NOT. 4. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS ON EITH ER SIDE AND PERUSED THE RELEVANT MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD. THE TRANSFER PRICING OFFICER BY WAY OF SHOW CAUSE NOTICE OBSERVE D THAT THE MISCELLANEOUS INCOME IN THE FORM ANNUAL MAINTENANCE SERVICE REQUIRES TO BE EXCLUDED. THEREFORE, THE JUSTICE RE QUIRES THAT THE CORRESPONDING COST INCURRED FOR EARNING THE MISCELL ANEOUS INCOME ALSO REQUIRES TO BE EXCLUDED. AFTER REPRODUCING TH E SHOW CAUSE NOTICE DATED 03.11.2014, THE TRANSFER PRICING OFFIC ER FOUND AT PARA 9.1 THAT THE SHORTFALL IN REVENUE RECOGNITION FROM AMC, THE ADJUSTMENT THEREUNDER REQUIRES NO CONSIDERATION AS THE SERVICE INCOME FROM ANNUAL MAINTENANCE IS PROPOSED TO BE EX CLUDED WHILE COMPUTING THE PROFIT FROM MANUFACTURE AND SALE OF W IND TURBINE GENERATORS. THEREFORE, IT IS OBVIOUS THAT THE TRAN SFER PRICING OFFICER HAS PROPOSED TO EXCLUDE THE INCOME FROM ANNUAL MAIN TENANCE CHARGES FROM THE TOTAL INCOME. ONCE THE INCOME WA S EXCLUDED, THE EXPENDITURE FOR EARNING THE ANNUAL MAINTENANCE INCO ME ALSO NEEDS 5 I.T.A. NO.177/MDS/16 TO BE EXCLUDED. AS RIGHTLY SUBMITTED BY THE LD. D. R., IT IS NOT CLEAR EITHER FROM THE ASSESSMENT ORDER OR TPOS ORDER. T HIS ASPECT WAS NOT CONSIDERED BY THE DISPUTE RESOLUTION PANEL IN T HEIR ORDER. THEREFORE, THIS TRIBUNAL IS OF THE CONSIDERED OPINI ON THAT THE MATTER NEEDS TO BE VERIFIED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. ACC ORDINGLY, THE ORDERS OF THE LOWER AUTHORITIES ARE SET ASIDE AND T HE ASSESSING OFFICER IS DIRECTED TO REFER THE ISSUE OF EXPENDITU RE FOR MAINTENANCE CHARGES TO THE DISPUTE RESOLUTION PANEL. IN SUCH R EFERENCE, THE DRP SHALL EXAMINE WHETHER THE EXPENDITURE SAID TO B E INCURRED BY THE ASSESSEE FOR EARNING INCOME FROM ANNUAL MAINTEN ANCE IS TO BE EXCLUDED OR NOT? THE ASSESSING OFFICER AFTER RECEI VING THE REPORT FROM THE DRP, SHALL PASS ORDER IN CONFORMITY WITH T HE DIRECTION OF THE DRP AS PROVIDED IN SECTION 144C(13) OF THE ACT. 5. NOW COMING TO THE SECOND GROUND OF APPEAL WITH R EGARD TO DISALLOWANCE OF ` 10,50,000/- TOWARDS SALES COMMISSION. 6. SHRI AJIT TOLANI, THE LD. REPRESENTATIVE FOR THE ASSESSEE, SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE CLAIMED AN EXPENDITURE OF ` 10,50,000/- TOWARDS SALES COMMISSION. THE ASSESSEE HAD FILED C OPY OF THE INVOICE BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER. THE ASSESSIN G OFFICER DISALLOWED THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE ONLY ON THE GR OUND THAT THERE 6 I.T.A. NO.177/MDS/16 WAS NO AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE PARTIES. ACCORDING TO THE LD. REPRESENTATIVE, THE PAYMENT OF SALES COMMISSION IS NOT IN DISPUTE. ACCORDING TO THE LD. REPRESENTATIVE, SINCE THE ASSE SSEE FILED THE INVOICES BEFORE THE AUTHORITIES BELOW, THERE CANNOT BE ANY DISALLOWANCE, ESPECIALLY WHEN THE PAYMENTS WERE NOT IN DISPUTE. 7. ON THE CONTRARY, DR. MILIND MADHUKAR BHUSARI, TH E LD. DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE, SUBMITTED THAT THE ASS ESSEE HAS NOT FILED THE DETAILS OF SERVICE RENDERED BY THE PERSON TO WHOM THE COMMISSION WAS PAID. EVEN THE NAMES AND ADDRESS OF THE AGENTS WERE NOT PRODUCED. THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT FILED ANY OTHER DETAILS. THEREFORE, THE DISPUTE RESOLUTION PANEL HAS CONFIRM ED THE ORDER OF THE TRANSFER PRICING OFFICER. IN THE ABSENCE OF AN Y EVIDENCE TO INDICATE THE SERVICE SAID TO BE RENDERED BY THE AGE NTS, AN IDENTICAL DISALLOWANCE WHICH WAS MADE FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2010-11. HENCE, DRP HAS RIGHTLY CONFIRMED THE ORDER OF THE T PO FOR THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION ALSO. 8. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS ON EITH ER SIDE AND PERUSED THE RELEVANT MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD. THE ASSESSEE CLAIMS THAT A SUM OF ` 10,50,000/- WAS PAID TOWARDS SALES COMMISSION. THE ASSESSEE HAS FILED COPIES OF INVOI CE. ON PERUSAL 7 I.T.A. NO.177/MDS/16 OF THE DIRECTION OF THE DISPUTE RESOLUTION PANEL, I T SHOWS THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT PRODUCED THE DETAILS OF THE SERVIC E RENDERED, THE NAMES AND ADDRESS OF THE COMMISSION AGENTS AND THE DETAILS OF THE COMMISSION PAID, ETC. EVEN BEFORE THIS TRIBUNAL, T HE DETAILS OF THE AGENTS, THE PAYMENT OF COMMISSION ARE NOT AVAILABLE . THE ASSESSEE CLAIMS A LUMP SUM PAYMENT OF ` 10,50,000/-. IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY DETAILS WITH REGARD TO NAMES AND ADD RESS OF COMMISSION AGENTS AND THE COMMISSION PAID, THIS TRI BUNAL IS OF THE CONSIDERED OPINION THAT THE DISALLOWANCE HAS RIGHTL Y BEEN MADE. IT IS NOT IN DISPUTE THAT AN IDENTICAL DISALLOWANCE WA S MADE IN THE EARLIER ASSESSMENT YEAR 2010-11 ON IDENTICAL SET OF FACTS. THEREFORE, THIS TRIBUNAL DO NOT FIND ANY REASON TO INTERFERE WITH THE ORDER OF THE LOWER AUTHORITY AND ACCORDINGLY, THE S AME IS CONFIRMED. 9. THE NEXT GROUND OF APPEAL IS WITH REGARD TO DISA LLOWANCE OF ` 3,87,91,750/- UNDER SECTION 40(A)(I) OF THE ACT. 10. SHRI AJIT TOLANI, THE LD. REPRESENTATIVE FOR TH E ASSESSEE, SUBMITTED THAT THE PARENT COMPANY OF THE ASSESSEE, NAMELY, VESTAS DENMARK, GAVE GUARANTEE TO THE CUSTOMERS OF THE ASS ESSEE WHO PURCHASED WINDMILL IN INDIA. THE ASSESSEE HAS PAID CORPORATE PERFORMANCE GUARANTEE FEE OF ` 3,87,91,750/- AND CLAIMED THE SAME 8 I.T.A. NO.177/MDS/16 AS EXPENDITURE. THE ASSESSING OFFICER, HOWEVER, FO UND THAT THE PAYMENT MADE BY THE ASSESSEE IS IN THE NATURE OF IN TEREST, THEREFORE, THE ASSESSEE IS LIABLE TO DEDUCT TAX UND ER SECTION 194-I OF THE ACT . REFERRING TO THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL I N ACIT V. GMAC FINANCIAL SERVICES INDIA LTD. IN I.T.A. NOS.1509, 1 537, 1538 & 1539/MDS/2009 DATED 20.04.2011, THE LD. REPRESENTAT IVE SUBMITTED THAT AN IDENTICAL PAYMENT WAS HELD TO BE NOT IN THE NATURE OF INTEREST. IN FACT, THIS TRIBUNAL PLACED HIS RELIAN CE ON THE DOUBLE TAXATION AVOIDANCE AGREEMENT BETWEEN INDIA AND USA. IN THE CASE BEFORE US, THE PAYMENT WAS MADE TO THE PARENT COMPANY AT DENMARK. PLACING RELIANCE ON THE DOUBLE TAXATION A VOIDANCE AGREEMENT BETWEEN GOVERNMENT OF INDIA AND GOVERNMEN T OF DENMARK, THE LD. REPRESENTATIVE SUBMITTED THAT INT EREST IS DEFINED IN ARTICLE 12. ARTICLE 12(4) CLEARLY SAYS THAT IN TEREST MEANS INCOME FROM DEBT-CLAIMED OF EVERY KIND AND INCOME FROM BON DS OR DEBENTURES. HOWEVER, THE PAYMENT OF PENALTY FOR LA TE PAYMENT SHALL NOT BE REGARDED AS INTEREST FOR THE PURPOSE O F THIS ARTICLE. IN VIEW OF THE DOUBLE TAXATION AVOIDANCE AGREEMENT, AC CORDING TO THE LD. REPRESENTATIVE, WHAT IS PAID BY THE ASSESSEE AS GUARANTEE TO THE PARENT COMPANY CANNOT BE REGARDED AS INTEREST. ON A QUERY FROM THE BENCH, WHEN THE ASSESSEE HAS PAID TO THE P ARENT COMPANY 9 I.T.A. NO.177/MDS/16 ON THE BASIS OF GUARANTEE PERFORMANCE GIVEN TO THE CUSTOMERS, WHY SUCH PAYMENT SHALL NOT BE TREATED AS BUSINESS PROFI TS IN THE HANDS OF THE PARENT COMPANY? THE LD. REPRESENTATIVE SUBM ITTED THAT IN CASE THE PAYMENT WAS CONSIDERED AS BUSINESS PROFIT, THEN NATURALLY THERE SHOULD BE A PERMANENT ESTABLISHMENT FOR PAREN T COMPANY IN INDIA. IN THIS CASE, THERE IS NO PERMANENT ESTABLI SHMENT, THEREFORE, PAYMENT MADE TO THE PARENT COMPANY IS NOT CHARGEABL E UNDER THE INDIAN INCOME-TAX. THE LD. REPRESENTATIVE FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT A COPY OF THE GUARANTEE PERFORMANCE GIVEN BY THE PARE NT COMPANY IS AVAILABLE AT PAGE 49 OF THE PAPER-BOOK. THE PARENT COMPANY GUARANTEES TO PERFORM THE CONTRACT OF WARRANTY AND SERVICE IN CASE THE ASSESSEE-COMPANY FAILS TO PERFORM. IN VIEW OF THIS GUARANTEE, ACCORDING TO THE LD. REPRESENTATIVE, THE IMAGE OF T HE ASSESSEE- COMPANY IN THE MARKET INCREASES, THEREFORE, THE ASS ESSEE WAS ABLE TO SELL ITS PRODUCT IN THE INDIAN MARKET. ON A QU ERY FROM THE BENCH, THE LD. REPRESENTATIVE CLARIFIED THAT THE GUARANTEE WAS GIVEN TO THE INDIAN CUSTOMERS BY THE ASSESSEES PARENT COMPANY. THE LD. REPRESENTATIVE FURTHER CLARIFIED THAT THERE IS NO P ROVISION IN THE GUARANTEE PERFORMANCE AGREEMENT FOR A DISPUTE RESOL UTION IN CASE IT ARISES BETWEEN THE INDIAN CUSTOMERS AND THE ASSESSE E. ON A QUERY FROM THE BENCH, WHEN THE INDIAN CUSTOMER IS AGGRIEV ED OVER THE 10 I.T.A. NO.177/MDS/16 PERFORMANCE OF WIND TURBINE GENERATORS, WHERE HE CA N RAISE THE DISPUTE EITHER IN INDIA OR IN DENMARK? THE LD. REP RESENTATIVE SUBMITTED THAT THE AGREEMENT IS SILENT ON THIS ASPE CT. THE LD. REPRESENTATIVE FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT IN VIEW OF TH E GUARANTEE GIVEN BY THE PARENT COMPANY, THE PAYMENT WAS MADE, THEREF ORE, IT IS A BUSINESS EXPENDITURE. 11. ON THE CONTRARY, DR. MILIND MADHUKAR BHUSARI, T HE LD. DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE, SUBMITTED THAT THE SO- CALLED GUARANTEE SAID TO BE GIVEN BY THE PARENT COMPANY IS IN THE NATURE OF INTEREST. THEREFORE, THE DISPUTE RESOLUTION PANEL HAS RIGHTLY CONFIRMED THE ORDER OF THE TRANSFER PRICING OFFICER . 12. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS ON EIT HER SIDE AND PERUSED THE RELEVANT MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD. THE TRANSFER PRICING OFFICER PROCEEDED ON THE PRESUMPTION THAT W HAT WAS PAID BY THE ASSESSEE IS INTEREST. A PERUSAL OF THE DOUBLE TAXATION AVOIDANCE AGREEMENT BETWEEN INDIA AND DENMARK CLEAR LY SHOWS THAT WHAT WAS PAID BY THE ASSESSEE IS NOT INTEREST. IT IS A PAYMENT FOR THE SO-CALLED GUARANTEE SAID TO BE GIVEN BY THE PARENT COMPANY. THE QUESTION ARISES FOR CONSIDERATION IS WHAT KIND OF SERVICES ARE RENDERED BY THE PARENT COMPANY AND WHETHER SUCH SER VICES ARE 11 I.T.A. NO.177/MDS/16 RENDERED IN INDIA AND WHETHER SUCH PAYMENT IS LIABL E FOR TAXATION IN INDIA. THIS TRIBUNAL IS OF THE CONSIDERED OPINION THAT SINCE THE PAYMENT DOES NOT PARTAKE THE CHARACTER OF INTEREST, IT WOULD NATURALLY BE A BUSINESS PROFIT FOR THE PARENT COMPA NY. IN THE COURSE OF ITS BUSINESS ACTIVITY, THE PARENT COMPANY OF THE ASSESSEE GIVES GUARANTEE TO INDIAN CUSTOMERS FOR PERFORMANCE IN CA SE THE ASSESSEE-COMPANY FAILS TO PERFORM ITS OBLIGATIONS. THE AGREEMENT, NAMELY, PERFORMANCE GUARANTEE AGREEMENT, IS SILENT IN RESPECT OF DISPUTE RESOLUTION. AN INDIAN COMPANY OR CUSTOMER NATURALLY CANNOT BE EXPECTED TO TRAVEL ALL THE WAY TO DENMARK FOR EN FORCING THIS GUARANTEE. THIS GUARANTEE AGREEMENT DOES NOT PROVI DE FOR ANY ARBITRATION IN INDIA. THEREFORE, IT HAS TO BE EXAM INED WHETHER THE GUARANTEE SAID TO BE GIVEN BY THE PARENT COMPANY IS ENFORCEABLE IN INDIA? IF IT IS NOT ENFORCEABLE IN INDIA, WHETHER SUCH KIND OF AGREEMENT IS FOR BUSINESS PURPOSE OR NOT? IT ALSO NEEDS TO BE EXAMINED WHEN THE PARENT COMPANY GIVES GUARANTEE TO INDIAN CUSTOMERS IN RESPECT OF THE PRODUCT SOLD BY THE ASS ESSEE-COMPANY IN INDIA, WHETHER THE ASSESSEE-COMPANY CAN BE CONSI DERED AS PERMANENT ESTABLISHMENT IN INDIA IN RESPECT OF THE INCOME EARNED BY THE ASSESSEE IN THE FORM OF GUARANTEE PERFORMANC E FEE? THESE ASPECTS WERE NOT CONSIDERED EITHER BY THE TRANSFER PRICING OFFICER 12 I.T.A. NO.177/MDS/16 OR BY THE DISPUTE RESOLUTION PANEL. THEREFORE, THI S TRIBUNAL IS OF THE CONSIDERED OPINION THAT THE MATTER NEEDS TO BE RE-EXAMINED. ACCORDINGLY, THE ORDERS OF THE LOWER AUTHORITIES AR E SET ASIDE. THE ISSUE OF PERFORMANCE GUARANTEE FEE IS REMITTED BACK TO THE FILE OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER. THE ASSESSING OFFICER SHALL REF ER THE MATTER TO THE DRP. THE DRP SHALL EXAMINE THE ISSUE IN THE LI GHT OF THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD AND THEREAFTER DECIDE THE ISSUE AFTER GIVING REASONABLE OPPORTUNITY TO THE ASSESSEE. THE REAFTER, THE ASSESSING OFFICER SHALL PASS NECESSARY ORDER UNDER SECTION 144C(13) OF THE ACT. 13. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. ORDER PRONOUNCED ON 22 ND APRIL, 2016 AT CHENNAI. SD/- SD/- (. !'# ! ) ( . . . ) (A. MOHAN ALANKAMONY) (N.R.S. GANESAN) % / ACCOUNTANT MEMBER /JUDICIAL MEMBER /CHENNAI, 5 /DATED, THE 22 ND APRIL, 2016. KRI. 13 I.T.A. NO.177/MDS/16 / -267 87)2 /COPY TO: 1. +, /APPELLANT 2. -.+, /RESPONDENT 3. SECRETARY, DRP-2, BANGALORE 4. PRINCIPAL CIT-3, CHENNAI 5. 79 -2 /DR 6. ( : /GF.