Cummins India Limited, Pune V. ACIT CIRCLE 1(1), Pune

ITA 2111/PUN/2019

• Counselvise Citation: [2022] 104 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 9811 (ITAT-PUNE)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 year(s) 9 month(s) 2 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 27-09-2022
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: PartlyAllowed
• Bench Allotted: C
• Assessment Year: 2015-2016
• Appeal Filed On: 25-12-2019
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Keywords: Sale consideration of property below Jantri Value; Depreciation; Transfer pricing; Rectification of order; International transaction
• Section: 92C; 50C; 92B

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PUNE BENCH, ‘C’ PUNE BEFORE SHRI R.S. SYAL, VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI S.S.VISWANETHRA RAVI, JUDICIAL MEMBER आयकर अपील सं. / ITA No.2111/PUN/2019 नधा रण वष / Assessment Year : 2015-16 Cummins India Limited, Tower A, 5 th Floor, Cummins India Office Campus, Balewadi, Pune 411 045 Maharashtra PAN : AAACC7258B Vs. ACIT, Circle-1(1), Pune Appellant Respondent आदेश / ORDER PER R.S. SYAL, VP : This appeal by the assessee is directed against the final assessment order dated 25-10-2019 passed by the Assessing Officer (AO) u/s.143(3) and 144C(13) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter also called ‘the Act’) in relation to the assessment year 2015-16. 2. The first issue raised through six grounds is against the transfer pricing adjustment of Rs.30.28 crore made in the international transaction of `Payment of Royalty for use of technology’. Assessee by Shri Ketan Ved Revenue by Shri Shivraj Morey Date of hearing 26-09-2022 Date of pronouncement 28-09-2022 ITA No.2111/PUN/2019 Cummins India Limited 2 3. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that the assessee is a Indian company engaged in the business of Manufacture and Sale of Internal Combustion Engines, Spares, Components (including bought outs) thereof and Generating sets; Service of Engines and Gensets; Trading in Power Generating sets and Allied Equipments; Providing Operation & Maintenance facilities for Power Generating sets and Allied Equipments; and Providing Consulting Services in respect of Power Generation and utilization. The assessee filed return with total income of Rs.383.80 crore, declaring certain international transactions. The AO made a reference to the Transfer Pricing Officer (TPO) for determining the Arm’s Length Price (ALP) of the international transactions. In the instant appeal, we are concerned only with the international transaction of `Payment of Royalty for use of technology’ for which a sum of Rs.62,76,42,650/- was paid by the assessee to Cummins Inc., its foreign based Associated Enterprise (AE). The assessee benchmarked this transaction along with certain other international transactions under the overall “Manufacturing Segment”. For doing so, it applied the Transactional Net Margin Method (TNMM) and demonstrated that all such transactions, including the royalty payment, were at ITA No.2111/PUN/2019 Cummins India Limited 3 ALP. The TPO came to the conclusion that the aggregation approach adopted by the assessee for determining the ALP of Royalty payment under the overall Manufacturing segment was not proper. He further observed that the assessee entered into Royalty Agreement on 16-09-2010, under which Royalty was paid to Cummins Inc. at the rates ranging between 1% to 8% on the value-addition made by it. He still further found that Royalty was paid on Domestic sales at the rates ranging between 1% to 5% (on both existing and new products) and at the uniform rate of 8% on export sales (of both the existing and new of products). To put it simply, the assessee paid royalty for the same products at the rates between 1% to 5% when sold in domestic market to non- related enterprises and at 8% when sold by way of exports to the related parties. The TPO noted that the technology provided by the Associated Enterprises (AE) was same for Domestic as well as Export sales but there was vast variation in the rates of Royalty paid by the assessee. He called upon the assessee to furnish the ALP determination of the Royalty transaction on separate basis. The assessee computed its own percentage of Royalty to Net sales at 3.28% by taking the amount of Rs.5,43,00,69,318/- paid as Royalty to its AEs with the corresponding figure of total sale of ITA No.2111/PUN/2019 Cummins India Limited 4 licensed products at Rs.1653,48,57,041. The assessee also chose certain comparables and furnished the ALP determination. The TPO found out the value of domestic sales at Rs.907.73 crore (with value of net sales at Rs.635.79 crore) on which Royalty of Rs.8.15 crore was paid; and the value of exports at Rs.752.13 crore (with value of net sale at Rs.577.41 crore) on which Royalty of Rs.46.16 crore was paid. In view of the fact that the assessee paid Royalty at varying rates on the same products when sold in domestic or foreign markets, the TPO came to the conclusion that payment of such Royalty at different rates was not appropriate. He segregated the amount of Royalty paid on Domestic sales as well as Export sales and found out the percentage of Royalty in case of Domestic sale at 0.89% and in case of Export sales at 6.13%. Without disputing the ALP of royalty payment on the domestic sales, he took up the determination of the ALP of the royalty payment on exports. By adding one more comparable to the list of comparables furnished by the assessee, he worked out 35 percentile at 2.50%; 65 percentile at 3.00%; and median at 2.75% for working out the transfer pricing adjustment at Rs.30.28 crore in respect of the royalty paid on Export sales at the difference between 6.13% (rate of royalty in percentage terms of ITA No.2111/PUN/2019 Cummins India Limited 5 gross value of exports) and 2.75% (arm’s length rate of royalty on gross value of exports). The assessee remained unsuccessful before the DRP, which has brought it before the Tribunal. 4. We have heard the rival submissions and perused the relevant material on record. The issue under consideration has two layers, viz., the justification of the TPO in segregating the international transaction of payment of Royalty from the other international transactions gathered by the assessee under the overall ‘Manufacturing segment’; and segregation of royalty on domestic and export sales. 5. The first layer is the justiciability of segregation of Royalty payment by the TPO from the overall ‘Manufacturing segment’. There is no gainsaying on the application of the TNMM as the most appropriate method by the assessee as well as the TPO. The assessee clubbed the international transaction of `Payment of royalty for use of technology’ along with certain other transactions under the ‘Manufacturing segment’ and applied the TNMM. The TPO, however, separated Royalty for benchmarking it de hors the other transactions under the TNMM. The moot question is whether the aggregation approach adopted by the assessee in the present facts of the case is justified as per law? ITA No.2111/PUN/2019 Cummins India Limited 6 6. Section 92(1) of the Act provides that: ‘Any income arising from an international transaction shall be computed having regard to the arm’s length price.’ The procedure for computation of arm’s length price has been set out in section 92C. Sub-section (1) of section 92C provides that: ‘The arm’s length price in relation to an international transaction shall be determined by any of the following methods, being the most appropriate method .....’. A bare reading of section 92C(1) brings out that the ALP is required to be determined of ‘an’ international transaction. The term ‘international transaction’ has been defined in section 92B to mean: `a transaction between two or more associated enterprises, either or both of whom are non-residents, in the nature of purchase, sale or lease of tangible or intangible property, or provision of services, or lending or borrowing money, or any other transaction having a bearing on the profits, income, losses or assets of such enterprises, .....’. It is discernible from the above definition of the `international transaction’ given in section 92B that it refers to ‘a transaction’ between two or more associated enterprises. The term ‘transaction’ has been defined in section 92F(v) and also in Rule 10A(d) of the Income-tax Rules, 1962. The Rule defines the term ‘transaction’ to include: ‘a ITA No.2111/PUN/2019 Cummins India Limited 7 number of closely linked transactions.’ On going through the above provisions, it becomes palpable that the arm’s length price is essentially determined on transaction-by-transaction approach for each international transaction separately; and for that purpose, a transaction in singular also includes plural for closely linked transactions. In other words, where the transactions are not closely linked, their ALP needs to be determined separately and such determination of the ALP of ‘an’ international transaction as per section 92C(1) of the Act should be done as per the most appropriate method. To put it more simply, each international transaction is viewed separately and independent of other international transactions for determining its ALP unless they are closely linked. It is impermissible to combine more than one unrelated international transaction for determining their ALP in a unified manner when they are diverse in nature. 7. It is simple and plain that cross subsidization of international transactions is impermissible. It is overt from section 92(1) of the Act that if an international transaction is recorded showing a lower income than its ALP income, then the higher ALP income is considered for the purpose of computing total income. Section 92(3) of the Act manifests that the provisions of ITA No.2111/PUN/2019 Cummins India Limited 8 this section shall not apply in a case where the computation of income having regard to ALP has the effect of reducing income chargeable to tax. The net effect of section 92(3) is that if the transacted-value income from an international transaction is more than its arm’s length income, then, the arm’s length income should be discarded and the actual income should be considered. To sum up, it is the higher of actual income or the arm’s length income from an international transaction, which is taken into consideration for computing the total income. It, thus, divulges that the actual more income from one international transaction (vis-a-vis its lower arm’s length income) cannot be combined with the more arm’s length income from another transaction (vis-à-vis its lower actual income), so as to set off the excess income (actual transacted income minus arm’s length income) from the first transaction with the income (arm’s length income minus actual transacted income) arising from the second transaction. When we consider more than one unrelated transaction under the combined umbrella of the TNMM, it is quite possible that a probable addition on account of transfer pricing adjustment arising from one unrelated international transaction may be grabbed or reduced by the income from another unrelated international transaction ITA No.2111/PUN/2019 Cummins India Limited 9 giving higher income on transacted value, throwing the transfer pricing provisions to winds much against the very concept and intent of the provisions of Chapter-X of the Act. Such an attempt of cross subsidization needs to be deprecated. 8. The Hon’ble Punjab & Haryana High Court in Knorr Bremse India (P) Ltd. Vs. ACIT (2016) 380 ITR 307 (P&H) considered the question of aggregation of international transactions. Their Lordships laid down the principles of aggregation of international transactions by holding that several transactions between two or more AEs can form a single composite transaction if they are closely linked transactions and the onus is always on the assessee to establish that such transactions are part of an international transaction pursuant to an understanding between various members of a group. The Hon’ble High Court observed that in case of a package deal where each item is not separately valued but all are given a composite price, these are one international transaction. Further, where a number of transactions are priced differently but on the understanding that the pricing was dependent upon the assessee accepting all of them together (i.e. either take all or leave all), then also they have been held to be taken as one international transaction. But the onus has ITA No.2111/PUN/2019 Cummins India Limited 10 been put on the assessee to prove that although each is priced separately, but they were provided under one composite agreement. It still further held that each component may be priced differently also, but it will have to be shown that they are inextricably linked that one cannot survive without other. In that case, the assessee raised a contention, similar to the one raised before us, as discussed in para 40: `that as the services and goods are utilized by the assessee for the manufacture of the final product they must be aggregated and considered to be a single transaction and the value thereof ought to be computed by the TNMM’. Jettisoning the contention, the Hon’ble High Court held that: `Merely because the purchase of each item and the acceptance of each service is a component leading to the manufacture/production of the final product sold or service provided by the assessee, it does not follow that they are not independent transactions for the sale of goods or provision of services. The end product requires several inputs. The inputs may be acquired as part of a single composite transaction or by way of several independent transactions. In the latter case, the sale of certain goods and/or the provision of certain services from out of the total goods purchased or services availed of by an assessee ITA No.2111/PUN/2019 Cummins India Limited 11 together can form part of a separate independent international transaction. In such an event, the AO/TPO must value this group of sale or purchase of goods and/or provision of services as separate transactions.’ 9. Adverting to the facts of the extant case, it is seen that the transaction of payment of Royalty for use of technical support provided by the AE and other international transactions under the Manufacturing segment are not under any package deal nor is there any such understanding or any inextricable link between these transactions as one not surviving without the other, as has been spelt out in the case of Knorr- Bremse (supra). The assessee paid royalty for the use of technology as a separate independent transaction. Merely because payment of royalty for use of technical support leads to manufacture of final product, it does not follow that they both are dependent or closely-linked transactions. In such circumstances, the ALP of the international transaction of Payment of Royalty for use of technology cannot be aggregated with others. 10. The assessee in Magneti Marelli Powertrain India Pvt. Ltd. vs. DCIT (2016) 389 ITR 469 (Delhi), similar to the present case, entered into agreement with its A.E. for acquiring technology ITA No.2111/PUN/2019 Cummins India Limited 12 required for the purpose of manufacturing. It applied the TNMM to benchmark its international transactions of import of raw materials, sub-assemblies and components, payment of technical assistance fees, payment of royalty, payment of software and purchase of fixed assets. All these transactions were categorized under one broad head, that is, “Manufacturing of automotive components” and shown to be at ALP. The TPO rejected the assessee’s entity level approach applied to benchmark the international transactions, including, Technical assistance fees and proceeded to determine the ALP of the Technical assistance fees separately. The Tribunal approved the TPO’s stand on segregation of payment of Technical assistance fee. The Hon’ble Delhi High Court admitted the question in this regard - `Whether the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal was right in holding that royalty and technical assistance fee did not form part of a composite transaction and have to be treated as two separate transactions for the purpose of benchmarking and computing arms length price?’ and answered it against the assessee thereby affirming the view of the Tribunal that aggregation of the transaction of payment of Technical fees with other international transactions under the common TNMM was not correct. ITA No.2111/PUN/2019 Cummins India Limited 13 Restoring the matter to the TPO/AO, it held that the TNMM should be separately applied for determining the ALP of the international transaction of payment of Technical fee. Reverting to the facts of the instant case, it is found that the TPO after rejecting the assessee’s aggregation approach, resorted to the ALP determination of the Royalty payment transaction separately under the TNMM only. 11. We note that the facts of the instant case are similar to those of Magneti Marelli (supra) in as much as the assessee therein also paid royalty to its AE for use of Technical support for the manufacture of its products, and the Hon’ble High Court did not approve clubbing of payment of technical fees with other transactions under the Manufacturing segment. In view of the foregoing discussion, it is held that the international transaction of payment of Royalty by the assessee for use of technical support cannot be clubbed with other international transactions under the Manufacturing segment. 12. The ld. AR heavily relied on the order passed by the Tribunal in the assessee’s own case for the A.Y. 2006-07 and some of the later years in which the contention of the assessee for aggregation of payment of Royalty with other international ITA No.2111/PUN/2019 Cummins India Limited 14 transactions under the ‘Manufacturing segment’ came to be accepted. We have gone through the lead order passed for the A.Y. 2006-07 in which the Tribunal has accepted the assessee’s contention of aggregation by observing “where the primary activity of the assessee was to manufacture and sell IC engines and components both for domestic market and for exports, then the activity of importing engine parts and components, payment of Royalty for getting know-how, provision of miscellaneous service, i.e. procurement support services to the Associated Enterprises to help the sourcing of components, receipt of IT support services and payment of technical know-how, fees etc. is closely linked to the export of manufactured IC engines.” The fact of the matter is that the Tribunal rendered such decision in the context of an earlier agreement under which Royalty was paid. However, the assessee entered into a new agreement on 16-09- 2010 with Cummins Inc., copy placed at page 350 onwards of the paper book, under which the technical support was received for which the payment of Royalty was made by the assesee for the year under consideration. Page 7 para B of the new agreement provides that the assessee was provided with non-exclusive right and license and its trade secrets, copyrights and other intellectual ITA No.2111/PUN/2019 Cummins India Limited 15 property etc. in connection with the technical support that the Cummins Inc., granted to the assessee for making and selling the licensed products listed in Schedule II in any part of the world. Three exceptions have been carved out. The assessee has been prohibited from exporting Cummins products outside India without prior evaluation/approval from Cummins. The new agreement, which is relevant for the year in appeal, naturally had no occasion to come up for consideration before the earlier Bench. 13. In principle, we are in concurrence with the ld. AR that the per se aggregation rule applies in the transfer pricing provisions and has also been judicially approved as well. However, the question is that which of the international transactions can be aggregated for a combined ALP determination approach? The answer to this question has been given generally in Knorr-Bremse (supra) by laying down the principles of aggregation and specifically in Magneti Marelli (supra) disapproving the aggregation of royalty payment with other international transactions in the manufacturing segment. The assessee does not satisfy either the general or the specific rules of aggregation in the facts and circumstances of the case. ITA No.2111/PUN/2019 Cummins India Limited 16 14. Albeit the judgment in Knorr-Bremse (supra) was delivered prior to the Tribunal order for the A.Y. 2006-07, but it was not brought to the notice of the Bench. However, for the year under consideration, the TPO has specifically taken recourse to this judgment in para 8.6 of his order, in addition to certain other Tribunal orders laying down similar proposition as in Knorr- Bremse case. There is hardly any need to emphasize that the lower wisdom has to make a space for the higher wisdom to prevail. The Tribunal, being, a lower authority cannot continue to follow the decision taken by its predecessor Bench when the same issue has been decided otherwise by the Hon’ble High Courts. Under such circumstances, we are constrained to make a departure from the view taken by the Tribunal in the assessee’s own case for the earlier years as the same is not in consonance with that of the Hon’ble High Courts. As such, the view taken by the TPO on this score is countenanced and it is held that the international transaction of payment of Royalty needs to be separately benchmarked de hors other international transactions under the ‘Manufacturing segment’. 15. Now we espouse the second layer of the issue, which involves the question of segregation within the transaction of ITA No.2111/PUN/2019 Cummins India Limited 17 Royalty payment. It is seen that the assessee paid Royalty to Cummins Inc. for certain existing as well as new products. The Royalty has been paid only on the value addition made by the assessee, which is uncontroverted. Different rates of Royalty have been charged by the AE for use of its technical know-how for the same products - when sold in India to non-AEs and in foreign countries to the AEs. There is a huge variation in the rates of such Royalty for use of the same technical know-how. Whereas Royalty at 1% to 2.5% has been paid by the assessee on existing range of products and at 5% on new models to be introduced on domestic sales and the same products, when sold to AEs in export markets, have been subjected to Royalty at straight 8% both on the existing range of products and also new models. To put it simply, if product A is sold by the assessee in India to non-AEs, it pays royalty at 1% and when it is sold to AEs abroad, it pays royalty at 8%. There is no difference in technology supplied by Cummins Inc. which is used for manufacturing the products meant for sale in domestic market and foreign market. On domestic sales of Rs.907.73 crore, the assessee paid Royalty of Rs.8.15 crore, which is 0.89%; and on export sales of Rs.752.13 crore, the assessee paid Royalty amounting to Rs.46.16 ITA No.2111/PUN/2019 Cummins India Limited 18 crore, which is 6.13%. Whereas, the view point of the TPO is that the assessee paid royalty on goods meant for sale to its AEs at higher rates so as to reduce its income and the consequential tax incidence in India and accordingly segregated the royalty on domestic sale and exports for separate benchmarking, the ld. AR has pitched for aggregating both to be processed as a single transaction for the ALP determination. The ld. AR submitted that this issue was also raised before the DRP through objection no.3. On a perusal of the directions of the DRP, it is seen that the assessee did take up this issue by means of objection no.3 as has been mentioned at page 29 of the Direction. The assessee also tendered its explanation in support of the objection. Though the DRP decided the larger issue and upheld the TPO’s view in segregating the Royalty transaction from the others in the overall Manufacturing segment, but inadvertently omitted to adjudicate the issue of segregation of domestic sale-based and export-based royalty payment raised through objection no. 3. Under such circumstances, we are of the considered opinion that the ends of justice would meet adequately if the impugned order on this specific issue is set-aside and the matter is restored to the file of the DRP for limited purpose of disposing of the assessee’s ITA No.2111/PUN/2019 Cummins India Limited 19 objection no.3. Needless to say, the assessee will be allowed reasonable opportunity of hearing in such fresh proceedings. 16. Ground No.7 taken by the assessee is against the disallowance of expenses u/s.14A of the Act. The assessee earned long term capital gain and dividend income amounting to Rs.178.46 crore which was claimed as exempt u/s.10(34), 10(35) and 10(38) of the Act. The assessee offered disallowance at Rs.84.57 lakh. The AO, in draft order, after discussing the issue at length and recording proper satisfaction, rejected the assesee’s suo motu offer of disallowance and applied Rule 8D(2)(iii) for working out the disallowance at 0.50% of the average value of investments, at Rs.1,85,50,000/- Since the assessee had already offered disallowance at Rs.84.57 lakh, he made further addition of Rs.1,00,93,000/-. No relief was allowed by the DRP, which led to the making of the addition in the final assessment order. 17. Having heard the rival submissions and perused the relevant material on record, it is observed that similar issue came up for consideration before the Tribunal in the assessee’s appeal for the A.Y. 2013-14. A copy of the order dated 19-02-2020 in ITA No.160/PUN/2018 has been placed at page 787 of the paper book. Relevant discussion has been made at page 8 onwards of the order ITA No.2111/PUN/2019 Cummins India Limited 20 and eventually the matter has been restored to the file of the AO for deciding it in conformity with the decision taken by the Tribunal in the assessee’s own case for the A.Y. 2013-14. As the facts are admittedly similar, respectfully following the precedent, we set-aside the impugned order on this score and remit the matter to the file of the AO for deciding it in conformity with the directions given by the Tribunal in its order for the A.Y. 2012-13. 18. Ground No.8 is against the disallowance of additional depreciation in subsequent year. The assessee claimed additional depreciation amounting to Rs.78.54 lakh in respect of plant and machinery acquired in the immediately preceding year, which was put to use for a period of less than 180 days in the earlier year. Relying on the second proviso to section 32(1), the AO did not allow further deduction of 50% of the admissible additional depreciation to the assessee in the year under consideration on the plant and machinery acquired in the preceding year. No reprieve was given by the DRP. 19. After considering the rival submissions and perusing the relevant material on record, it is seen that this issue also came up for consideration before the Tribunal in the case of the assessee for the A.Y. 2013-14. Relevant discussion has been made at page ITA No.2111/PUN/2019 Cummins India Limited 21 12 of the order. The Tribunal has followed its own order for the A.Y. 2012-13 in allowing the assessee’s claim in respect of such additional depreciation. As the facts and circumstances are mutatis mutandis similar, respectfully following the precedent, we allow this ground of appeal. 20. The next ground is against the addition of Rs.3,50,41,050/- made by the AO u/s.50C of the Act. The facts anent to this issue are that the assessee sold certain land in Dewas for a consideration of Rs.8.31 crore. On being called upon to explain as to why provisions of section 50C should not be applied for making addition on account of difference between the stamp value and the declared full value of consideration, the assessee requested for a reference to the DVO. The AO did make such a reference. Since the assessment was getting time barred and report of the DVO was not received till then, the AO made the addition of Rs.3,50,41,050/- as the long term capital gain subject to rectification order on the receipt of DVO’s report, if warranted. The assessee took up the issue before the DRP. In the meantime, the report of the DVO was received. The assessee raised certain objections before the DRP in respect of the valuation made by the ITA No.2111/PUN/2019 Cummins India Limited 22 DVO. The DRP, without dealing with the assessee’s objections, upheld the addition. 21. Having heard both the sides and scanned through the relevant material on record, it is seen that there is, in fact, a difference between the full value of consideration declared by the assessee and the stamp value of the land sold by the assessee. Section 50C, in such circumstances, contemplates that such difference should be brought to tax. However, an option has been given to assessee to seek the valuation of the property from the DVO. The assessee did exercise this option and the DVO determined the valuation of the land, leading to addition of Rs.3.50 crore. It is seen that the objections raised by the assessee before the DVO, though considered by the DVO, but remained to be adjudicated by the DRP. It goes without saying that the DVO’s report is not sacrosanct inasmuch as it is open to adjudication by the higher authorities. If the assessee convinces the higher authorities that the DVO erred in correctly valuing the property, the valuation can be suitably adjusted. Turning to the facts of the instant case, it is seen that though the assessee raised objections before the DRP about certain deficiencies/inconsistencies in the DVO’s report, but the same ITA No.2111/PUN/2019 Cummins India Limited 23 were not adjudicated by the DRP. In our considered opinion, it would be meet the ends of justice if the impugned order on this count is set-aside and the matter is restored to the file of the DRP for disposing of the assessee’s objections against the DVO’s report. Needless to say, a reasonable opportunity of hearing will be accorded to the assessee. 22. The penultimate ground about the disallowance of deduction on Education Cess and Secondary higher education cess has to fail in view of the statutory amendment carried out to section 40(a) with retrospective effect covering the year under consideration. The ld. AR was fair enough to accept this position. This ground is, therefore, not allowed. 23. The last ground about initiation of penalty proceedings is premature and hence dismissed. 24. In the result, the appeal is partly allowed. Order pronounced in the Open Court on 28 th September, 2022. Sd/- Sd/- (S.S.VISWANETHRA RAVI) (R.S.SYAL) JUDICIAL MEMBER VICE PRESIDENT पुणे Pune; िदनांक Dated : 28 th September, 2022 सतीश ITA No.2111/PUN/2019 Cummins India Limited 24 आदेश की ितिलिप अ ेिषत/Copy of the Order is forwarded to: 1. अपीलाथ / The Appellant; 2. थ / The respondent 3. The CIT(A)-13, Pune 4. The PCIT-5, Pune 5. DR, ITAT, ‘C’ Bench, Pune 6. गाड फाईल / Guard file. आदेशानुसार/ BY ORDER, // True Copy // Senior Private Secretary आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण ,पुणे / ITAT, Pune Date 1. Draft dictated on 26-09-2022 Sr.PS 2. Draft placed before author 28-09-2022 Sr.PS 3. Draft proposed & placed before the second member JM 4. Draft discussed/approved by Second Member. JM 5. Approved Draft comes to the Sr.PS/PS Sr.PS 6. Kept for pronouncement on Sr.PS 7. Date of uploading order Sr.PS 8. File sent to the Bench Clerk Sr.PS 9. Date on which file goes to the Head Clerk 10. Date on which file goes to the A.R. 11. Date of dispatch of Order. *