M/s. Digital Juice Animations Pvt. Ltd, Bangalore V. Assistant Commissioner of Income-Tax, Bangalore

ITA 215/BANG/2017

• Counselvise Citation: [2020] 111 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 5757 (ITAT-BANGALORE)
• Duration Of Justice: 3 year(s) 15 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 17-02-2020
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Bench Allotted: C
• Next Hearing Date: 06-02-2020
• Assessment Year: 2012-2013
• Appeal Filed On: 01-02-2017
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: VILAS S SHINDE
• Keywords: Transfer pricing; Working capital adjustments
• Section: 143(3); 113

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL BANGALORE BENCHES C, BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI B.R.BASKARAN, AM & SHRI PAVAN KUMAR GAD ALE, JM IT(TP)A NO.215/BANG/2017 ASST. YEAR : 2012-2013 M/S.DIGITAL JUICE ANIMATIONS PRIVATE LIMITED, 18, SALEH CENTRE, UNIT NO.201, 2 ND FLOOR, CUNNINGHAM ROAD BANGALORE 560 052. PAN :AABCD9298H. VS. THE ASST.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE 2(1)(2) BANGALORE. (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY :SRI.SURESH MUTHUKRISHNAN, CA RESPONDENT BY :SRI.VILAS S.SHINDE, CIT-DR DATE OF HEARING :06.02.2020 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 17.02.2020 O R D E R PER B.R.BASKARAN, AM : THIS APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS DIRECTED AGAI NST THE ASSESSMENT ORDER PASSED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER FO R ASSESSMENT YEAR 2012-2013 U/S 143(3) R.W.S. 144C(13 ) OF THE ACT, IN PURSUANCE OF DIRECTIONS GIVEN BY THE LEARNE D DISPUTE RESOLUTION PANEL (DRP). 2. THOUGH THE ASSESSEE HAS RAISED MANY GROUNDS, AT THE TIME OF HEARING, THE LEARNED AR RESTRICTED HIS ARGU MENTS TO GROUNDS NO.5, 8.4 AND 9. THE LEARNED AR ALSO MADE A NECESSARY ENDORSEMENT IN THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL IN S UPPORT OF HIS SUBMISSION THAT HE IS PRESSING THE ABOVE SAID T HREE GROUNDS ONLY. THE THREE GROUNDS READ AS UNDER:- IT(TP)A NO.215/BANG/2017 M/S.DIGITAL JUICE ANIMATIONS PVT.LTD. 2 5. WITHOUT PREJUDICE TO THE ABOVE, THE LEARNED TPO HAS ERRED IN FAILING TO APPLY THE UPPER LIMIT TURNO VER FILTER, ABSENCE OF WHICH HAS RESULTED IN SELECTION OF IMPROPER COMPARABLES LEADING TO THE DETERMINATION O F A HIGHLY DISTORTED AND EXCESSIVE OPERATING MARGIN UNDER THE TNMM. 8.4 WITHOUT PREJUDICE TO THE ABOVE, THE LD.PANEL HAS ERRED ON FACTS AND IN LAW BY RETAINING BNR UDYOG LIMITED (SEG) (MEDICAL TRANSCRIPTION) AND HOLDING THAT THE SAME IS NOT COMPARABLE TO THE APPELLANT AND THE SAME NEEDS TO BE EXCLUDED FROM THE LIST OF COMPARABLES SELECTED BY THE LD.TPO. 9. THE LEARNED AO / TPO HAS ERRED IN LAW AND ON FACTS BY NOT CORRECTLY IMPLEMENTING THE FORMULA PRESCRIBED BY THE ORGANISATION FOR ECONOMIC CO- OPERATION AND DEVELOPMENT (OECD) AND THE UNITED NATIONS PRACTICE MANUAL FOR DEVELOPING COUNTRIES MODEL CONVENTION TO CARRY OUT WORKING CAPITAL ADJUSTMENT TO THE OPERATING PROFIT MARGINS OF THE COMPARABLE COMPANIES BY : BY COMPUTING THE WORKING CAPITAL ADJUSTMENT AT - 6.24% BASED ON THE OPERATING RESULTS OF THE ELIGIBLE ASSESSEE AS A WHOLE AND NOT CONSIDERING THE SEGMENTAL RESULTS OF THE ELIGIBLE ASSESSEE; BY DISCOUNTING THE PRIME LENDING RATE (PLR) FOR COMPUTING THE WORKING CAPITAL ADJUSTMENT AS THE SAME IS NOT IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE GUIDELINES PROVIDED BY THE ORGANISATION FOR ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT MANUAL ADOPTED BY TPO FOR COMPUTING THE WORKING CAPITAL ADJUSTMENT. ALL THE THREE GROUNDS RELATE TO TRANSFER PRICING AD JUSTMENT MADE BY THE TPO. THE REMAINING GROUNDS ARE DISMISS ED AS NOT PRESSED. IT(TP)A NO.215/BANG/2017 M/S.DIGITAL JUICE ANIMATIONS PVT.LTD. 3 3. THE ASSESSEE-COMPANY IS ENGAGED IN THE BUSINESS OF DESIGN AND DEVELOPMENT OF ANIMATION AND GRAPHICAL S OFTWARE AND MANUFACTURE OF PACKAGING UNIT. IT IS WHOLLY OWN ED SUBSIDIARY OF DIGITAL JUICE INC USA. IT IS A CONTRA CT SERVICE PROVIDER RENDERING ITES SERVICES AND PACKAGING SERV ICES TO ITS AE. THE ASSESSEE ADOPTED TNMM METHOD AS THE MOST APPROPRIATE METHOD FOR BENCHMARKING ITS ITES SERVIC ES. IT ADOPTED OPERATING PROFIT BY OPERATING COST (OP/OC) AS PROFIT LEVEL INDICATOR (PLI). THE ASSESSEE DECLARED A MARG IN OF 22.57%. THE TPO REJECTED THE TRANSFER PRICING STUDY CONDUCTED BY THE ASSESSEE AND SELECTED FOLLOWING 10 COMPARABLES:- SL. NO. NAME OF THE CASE OPERATING INCOME OPERATING COST OP/OC 1. ACCENTIA TECHNOLOGIES LTD. 126,38,02,000 112,89,16,000 11.75 2. UNIVERSAL PRINT SYSTEMS LTD. (SEG)/ (BPO) 6,17,67,000 3,87,49,000 52.46 3. INFORMED TECHNOLOGIES INDIA LTD. 1,96,36,431 1,82,45,770 6.08 4. INFOSYS BPO LTD. 1316,75,11,974 962,91,06,964 36.30 5. JINDAL INTELLICOM LTD. 30,27,51,875 30,29,02,990 -0.05 6. MICROGENETIC SYSTEMS LTD. 1,29,93,217 1,08,63,390 19.61 7. TCS E-SERVICE LTD. 15,78,44,000 9,64,28,000 63.69 8. BNR UDYOG LTD. (SEG) / MEDICAL TRANSCRIPTION) 1,47,04,000 97,87,000 41.58 9. EXCEL INFOWAYS LTD. (SEG) / (IT/BVPO) 790,96,95,000 559,06,04,000 29.79 10 E 4 E HEALTHCARE SERVICES P.LTD. 89,50,04,209 74,59,23,078 19.85 AVERAGE 28.11% 3.1 THE AVERAGE PLI OF THE ABOVE SAID COMPANIES WOR KED OUT TO 28.11%. THE TPO NOTICED THAT THE ASSESSEE IS HAV ING NEGATIVE WORKING CAPITAL. ACCORDINGLY, HE INCREASED THE AVERAGE MARGIN BY 6.24%. ACCORDINGLY, ADJUSTED MARG IN WAS IT(TP)A NO.215/BANG/2017 M/S.DIGITAL JUICE ANIMATIONS PVT.LTD. 4 WORKED OUT AT 34.35% AND TRANSFER PRICING ADJUSTMEN T OF RS.83.74 LAKH WAS MADE BY THE TPO. THE LEARNED DRP GAVE PARTIAL RELIEF TO THE ASSESSEE, WHICH RESULTED IN D EDUCTION OF TRANSFER PRICING ADJUSTMENT TO RS.66.24 LAKH. STIL L AGGRIEVED, THE ASSESSEE HAS FILED THIS APPEAL BEFORE US. 4. IN GROUND NO.5, THE ASSESSEE IS PRAYING FOR APPL ICATION OF TURNOVER FILTER. THE LEARNED AR SUBMITTED THAT THE TURNOVER OF THE ASSESSEE FROM ITES SEGMENT IS AROUND 9 CRORES A ND HENCE IT FALLS UNDER THE CATEGORY OF 1 TO 200 CRORES CATE GORY. ACCORDINGLY, THE COMPANIES, WHICH ARE HAVING TURNOV ER EXCEEDING 200 CRORES CANNOT BE CONSIDERED AS COMPAR ABLE COMPANIES. IN SUPPORT OF THIS PROPOSITION, HE PLACE D RELIANCE ON THE DECISION RENDERED BY THE CO-ORDINATE BENCH I N THE CASE OF MICRO FOCUS SOFTWARE INDIA (P) LTD. V. ACIT [(2020) 113 TAXMANN.COM 244 (BANGALORE TRIB.)] . THE LEARNED AR SUBMITTED THAT, IF THE TURNOVER FILTER IS APPLIED, FOLLOWING COMPANIES WILL GET EXCLUDED:- (I) INFOSYS BPO LIMITED (II) TCS E-SERVICE LIMITED (III) EXCEL INFOWAYS LTD. 5. WE HAVE HEARD THE LEARNED DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENT ATIVE AND PERUSED THE RECORD. ADMITTEDLY, THE ASSESSEE-CO MPANY FALLS IN THE BRACKET OF COMPANIES HAVING TURNOVER E XCEEDING 1 CRORE BUT NOT EXCEEDING 200 CRORES. IT HAS BEEN HEL D IN THE CASE OF AUTODESK INDIA (P) LTD. V. DCIT [(2018) 96 TAXMANN.C OM 263 (BANG. TRIB.)] THAT THE COMPANIES HAVING TURNOVER EXCEEDING RS.200 CRORES CANNOT BE CONSIDERED AS COM PARABLE IT(TP)A NO.215/BANG/2017 M/S.DIGITAL JUICE ANIMATIONS PVT.LTD. 5 COMPANIES IN RESPECT OF THOSE COMPANIES HAVING TURN OVER OF LESS THAN RS.200 CRORES. THE ABOVE SAID DECISION W AS FOLLOWED IN THE CASE OF MICRO FOCUS SOFTWARE INDIA (P) LTD. (SUPRA) . ACCORDINGLY, BY FOLLOWING THE DECISION RENDERED BY THE CO- ORDINATE BENCH IN THE CASE OF AUTODESK INDIA (P) LTD. (SUPRA) , WE DIRECT THE AO / TPO TO EXCLUDE COMPANIES HAVING TURNOVER EXCEEDING RS.200 CRORE. 6. GROUND NO.8.4 RELATES TO A COMPARABLE COMPANY, V IZ., BNR UDYOG LIMITED. THE LEARNED AR SUBMITTED THAT TH E ABOVE SAID COMPANY WAS CONSIDERED BY THE CO-ORDINATE BENC H IN THE CASE OF FNF INDIA (P.) LTD. [IT(TP)A NO.195/BANG/20 16 AND 459/BANG/2017 DATED 03.07.2019 AND THE TRIBUNAL HAS RESTORED THE ISSUE TO THE FILE OF THE ASSESSING OFF ICER. 7. WE HEARD THE LEARNED DR ON THIS ISSUE AND PERUSE D THE RECORD. WE NOTICED THAT THE CO-ORDINATE BENCH IN TH E CASE OF FNF INDIA (P.) LTD. (SUPRA) HAS FOLLOWED THE DECISI ON RENDERED BY ANOTHER CO-ORDINATE BENCH IN THE CASE OF MOBILY INDOTECH INDIA (P.) LTD. V. DY.CIT [(2018) 97 TAXMANN.COM 2 (BANG.-TRIB) WHEREIN THE COMPANY M/S.BNR UDYOG LIMITED WAS EXAMI NED. THE RELEVANT OBSERVATION MADE IN RESPECT OF THE ABO VE SAID COMPANY BY THE CO-ORDINATE BENCH HAS BEEN EXTRACTED AS UNDER:- BNR UDYOG LTD. (SEGMENT MEDICAL TRANSCRIPTION) THE CONTENTIONS OF THE ASSESSEE THAT THE COMPANY B NR UDYOG LTD., IS FUNCTIONALLY DIFFERENT AND FAILS THE RPT FILTER AT THE ENTITY LEVEL. IT WAS FOUND FROM THE RECORD THAT THE BENCHMARKING OF SELE CTED COMPANY 'BNR' HAS BEEN DONE ONLY AT THE MEDICAL TRANSCRIPTI ON SEGMENT AND ISSUE OF RPT HAS NOT BEEN URGED BEFORE THE ASSESSIN G OFFICER/DRP. FOLLOWING THE DECISION OF THE CO-ORDINATE BENCH OF ITAT BANGALORE IN IT(TP)A NO.215/BANG/2017 M/S.DIGITAL JUICE ANIMATIONS PVT.LTD. 6 THE CASE OF INDEGENE (P.) LTD. V. ASSTT . CIT [2017] 85 TAXMANN.COM 60 FOR ASST. YEAR 2012- 13, THE ISSUE OF COMPARABILITY OF 'BNR' WAS REMANDED TO THE FILE FOR THE TPO FOR FRESH CONSIDER ATION ON GROUND THAT IN THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION, THERE WERE 3 SEGME NTS. HOW MUCH OF THE RPT EXPENSES PERTAIN TO EACH OF THE SEGMENTS RE QUIRED EXAMINATION AND THIS ASPECT HAD NOT BEEN ANALYZED BY EITHER THE TPO OR THE ASSESSEE. WHILE IT IS CLEAR FROM THE TPO'S ORDER TH AT IF THE BENCHMARKING IS DONE ONLY FOR THE MEDICAL TRANSCRIP TION SEGMENT, THEN THE RPT PERTAINING TO THAT SEGMENT ONLY SHOULD BE C ONSIDERED. HOWEVER, SINCE HOW MUCH OF THE RPT PERTAIN TO THE M EDICAL TRANSCRIPTION SEGMENT HAS NOT BEEN DETERMINED BY EI THER THE TPO OR THE ASSESSEE, THE BENCH THOUGHT IT APPROPRIATE AND PROPER TO REMAND THE MATTER OF COMPARABILITY OF THIS COMPANY BNR UDY OG LTD., TO THE FILE OF THE TPO FOR DETERMINATION OF THE ISSUE AFRESH IN LINE WITH OBSERVATION ABOVE. FOLLOWING THE ABOVE DECISION OF THE CO-ORDINATE BENCH IN THE CASE OF INDEGENE (P.) LTD. (SUPRA) AND CONSIDERING THE FACTUAL MATRIX INVOLVED, THAT HOW MUCH RPT PERTAINS TO THE MEDICAL TRANSCRIPTION HAS NOT BEEN DETERMINED BY EITHER THE TPO OR THE ASSESSEE, IT WAS FELT APPROPRIATE AND PROPER TO REM AND THE ISSUE OF COMPARABILITY OF THIS COMPANY, BNR UDYOG LTD. TO TH E FILE OF THE TPO FOR DETERMINATION AFRESH. [PARA 8.3.2]. 7.1 IN THE CASE OF MOBILY INDOTECH INDIA (P.) LTD. (SUPRA) AS WELL AS FNF INDIA (P.) LTD., THE ABOVE SAID COMPANY HAS BEEN RESTORED TO THE FILE OF THE AO / TPO FOR EXAMINING IT AFRESH. FOLLOWING THE ABOVE SAID DECISIONS, WE ALSO RESTORE FNF INDIA (P.) LTD., TO THE FILE OF AO / TPO WITH SIMILAR DIR ECTIONS. 8. GROUND NO.9 RELATES TO ADJUSTMENT MADE BY THE LE ARNED TPO IN RESPECT OF NEGATIVE WORKING CAPITAL. THE LEA RNED AR SUBMITTED THAT THE CO-ORDINATE BENCH IN THE CASE OF FNF INDIA (P.) LTD. (SUPRA) HAS HELD THAT THERE IS NO NECESSI TY TO MAKE WORKING CAPITAL ADJUSTMENTS, SINCE THE COMPANY DOES NOT BEAR ANY WORKING CAPITAL RISK. THE RELEVANT DISCUSSIONS MADE BY THE CO-ORDINATE BENCH ON THIS ISSUE ARE EXTRACTED B ELOW:- IT(TP)A NO.215/BANG/2017 M/S.DIGITAL JUICE ANIMATIONS PVT.LTD. 7 14. IN GR.NO.11 THE ASSESSEE HAS CONTENDED THAT TH E TPO AND THE DRP ERRED IN ADDING TO THE AVERAGE ARITHMETIC PROFI T MARGIN OF THE COMPARABLE COMPANIES CHOSEN BY THE TPO, NEGATIVE WO RKING CAPITAL ADJUSTMENT. ON THE ABOVE GROUND, IT IS UNDISPUTED T HAT THE HYDERABAD BENCH OF THE FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2009-2010 IN THE C ASE OF ADAPTEC (INDIA) P. LTD. VS. THE ACIT, CIRCLE 1(1), ORDER DA TED 25.3.2015 HELD THAT NO SUCH ADDITION CAN BE MADE FOR THE FOLLOWING REASONS:- 'GROUND NO.8 PERTAINS TO THE ISSUE OF NEGATIVE WORK ING CAPITAL. AS BRIEFLY STATED ABOVE, AFTER ARRIVING AT THE ARIT HMETIC MEAN OF ALL COMPARABLES AT 22.03%, THE A.O. WORKED OUT NEGA TIVE WORKING CAPITAL ADJUSTMENT OF 3.22% THEREBY, MAKING ARMS LENGTH PRICE AT 25.25%. EVEN THOUGH, DRP REFUSED TO INTERFERE WITH THE OBJECTIONS OF THE ASSESSEE IN ITS ORDER, W E WERE INFORMED THAT DRP HAS DIRECTED THE TPO/A.O. NOT TO MAKE ANY NEGATIVE WORKING CAPITAL ADJUSTMENT IN SOME OF THE CASES IN THE NEXT ASSESSMENT YEAR, IN THE CASES OF MARKET TOOLS RESEARCH P. LTD., AND MEGA SYSTEMS WORLDWIDE INDIA P. LTD., ASS ESSEE PLACED ON RECORD COPIES OF ORDERS OF DRP. IN THAT D RP CONSIDERED THE ISSUE AND DIRECTED THE TPO AS UNDER : '14. GROUND NO.11 : NEGATIVE WORKING CAPITAL ADJUST MENT - MAKING A NEGATIVE WORKING CAPITAL ADJUSTMENT WITH OUT APPRECIATING THE FACT THAT THE COMPANY DOES NOT BEA R ANY WORKING CAPITAL RISKS. ON THIS ISSUE, THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED AS UNDER : 'THE LEARNED TPO DETERMINED THE ALP FOR THE INTERNA TIONAL TRANSACTIONS WITH A.ES BY MAKING A NEGATIVE WORKING CAPITAL ADJUSTMENT FOR THE DIFFERENCES IN WORKING CAPITAL B ETWEEN THE ASSESSEE AND THE COMPANIES CONSIDERED AS COMPARABLE S. THE ASSESSEE DOES NOT AGREE WITH THE LEARNED TPO AS THE COMPANY DOES NOT BEAR ANY WORKING CAPITAL RISK SINCE IT IS BEEN FULLY FUNDED BY IT'S A.E. FROM ITS INCEPTION AND HAS NO W ORKING CAPITAL CONTINGENCIES. THE COMPANY HAS NEVER TAKEN ANY LOAN S TILL DATE FROM THE DATE OF INCORPORATION NOR HAS INCURRED ANY EXPENSE FOR MEETING THE WORKING CAPITAL REQUIREMENT.' WE HAVE GONE THROUGH THE SUBMISSIONS AND THE ORDER OF THE TPO. THE ASSESSEE PLEADED THAT THE DRP HAS ACCEDED SUCH A PL EA IN SOME OTHER CASE. ON EXAMINATION, WE FIND THAT THE DRP, HYDERAB AD IN THE CASE OF CORDYS SOFTWARE INDIA P. LTD., FOR A.Y. 2008-09 IN ITS DIRECTIONS DATED 03.08.2012 HAS GIVEN A FINDING AS UNDER : '7.7. 4 THUS, WORKING CAPITAL ADJUSTMENT IS MADE FO R THE TIME VALUE OF MONEY LOST WHEN CREDIT TIME IS PROVIDED TO THE CUSTOMERS. THE APPLICANT IS NOT AN ENTREPRENEUR BUT A CAPTIVE SERVICE PROVIDER. ITS ENTIRE FUNDING NEEDS ARE PROV IDED BY THE A.E. THIS BEING SO, THE APPLICANT DOES NOT STAND TO LOSE ANYTHING IT(TP)A NO.215/BANG/2017 M/S.DIGITAL JUICE ANIMATIONS PVT.LTD. 8 AS IT IS COMPENSATED ON A TOTAL COST PLUS BASIS. TH E TPO PROBABLY WAS CARRIED AWAY BY THE LARGE AMOUNT OF RE CEIVABLES APPEARING IN THE BOOKS OF THE APPLICANT. BUT THE AP PLICANT IS RUNNING ITS BUSINESS WITHOUT ANY WORKING CAPITAL RI SK WHILE COMPARABLE COMPANIES HAVE SUCH A RISK FOR THEM. IF AT ALL ANY WORKING CAPITAL ADJUSTMENT IS TO BE MADE TO THIS SI TUATION, ONLY A POSITIVE ADJUSTMENT HAS TO BE MADE TO THE COMPARA BLES SO THAT THEY ARE BROUGHT ON PAR WITH THE APPLICANT. IN VIEW OF THE SAME, THE PANEL DIRECTS THAT NEGATIVE WORKING CAPITAL ADJ USTMENT TO THE ARITHMETIC MEAN MARGIN OF THE COMPARABLES SHALL NOT BE MADE.' IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE, THE PANEL DIRECTS THAT NEGATI VE WORKING CAPITAL ADJUSTMENT TO THE ARITHMETIC MEAN MARGIN OF THE COMPARABLES SHALL NOT BE MADE.' 15. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE, WE ARE OF THE OPINION THA T ASSESSEE'S CASE BEING SIMILAR, THERE IS NO NEED FOR MAKING ANY NEGA TIVE WORKING CAPITAL ADJUSTMENT WHEN ASSESSEE DOES NOT CARRY ANY WORKING CAPITAL RISK. IN FACT, TPO SHOULD HAVE DONE NECESSARY WORKING CAPITA L ADJUSTMENT TO THE PROFITS OF THE SELECTED COMPARABLES SO AS TO MA KE THEM COMPARABLE TO THE ASSESSEE. IN VIEW OF THIS, WE DIRECT THE TPO NOT TO MAKE NEGATIVE WORKING CAPITAL ADJUSTMENT. 9. THE LEARNED AR SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE HEREI N IS A CAPTIVE SERVICE PROVIDER AND IT DOES NOT HAVE ANY B ORROWING. SINCE IT DEALS WITH ITS AES AND NOT OUTSIDERS, THER E IS NO WORKING CAPITAL RISK AS PRESUMED BY THE TPO. 10. WE HAVE HEARD THE LEARNED DR ON THIS ISSUE AND PERUSED THE RECORD. WE NOTICED THAT THE CO-ORDINATE BENCH I N THE CASE OF FNF INDIA (P.) LTD. (SUPRA) HAS FOLLOWED THE DEC ISION RENDERED BY THE HYDERABAD BENCH OF THE TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF AUTODESK INDIA (P) LTD. (SUPRA) , IN ORDER TO HOLD THAT WORKING CAPITAL ADJUSTMENT IN RESPECT OF NEGATIVE WORKING C APITAL IS NOT CALLED FOR. FOLLOWING THE SAME, WE DIRECT THE A .O. TO DELETE THE ADJUSTMENT MADE TOWARDS NEGATIVE WORKING CAPITA L. IT(TP)A NO.215/BANG/2017 M/S.DIGITAL JUICE ANIMATIONS PVT.LTD. 9 11. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS TREATED AS PARTLY ALLOWED. ORDER PRONOUNCED ON THIS 17 TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2020 . SD/- SD/- (PAVAN KUMAR GADALE) ( B.R.BASKARAN ) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER BANGALORE; DATED : 17 TH FEBRUARY, 2020. DEVADAS G* COPY TO : 1. THE APPELLANT. 2. THE RESPONDENT. 3. THE DRP-1, BENGALURU. 4. THE PR.CIT, BENGALURU. 5. THE DR, ITAT, BENGALURU. 6. GUARD FILE. ASST.REGISTRAR/ITAT, BANGALORE DATE INITIAL 1. DRAFT DICTATED ON 06.02.2020 SR.PS 2. DRAFT PLACED BEFORE AUTHOR 06.02.2020 SR.PS 3. DRAFT PROPOSED & PLACED BEFORE THE SECOND MEMBER JM/AM 4. DRAFT DISCUSSED/APPROVED BY SECOND MEMBER. JM/AM 5. APPROVED DRAFT COMES TO THE SR.PS/PS SR.PS/PS 6. KEPT FOR PRONOUNCEMENT ON SR.PS 7. DATE OF UPLOADING THE ORDER ON WEBSITE 8. IF NOT UPLOADED, FURNISH THE REASON 8. FILE SENT TO THE BENCH CLERK SR.PS 9. DATE ON WHICH FILE GOES TO THE AR 10. DATE ON WHICH FILE GOES TO THE HEAD CLERK. 11. DATE OF DISPATCH OF ORDER. 12. DRAFT DICTATION SHEETS ARE ATTACHED SR.PS IT(TP)A NO.215/BANG/2017 M/S.DIGITAL JUICE ANIMATIONS PVT.LTD. 10