HENKEL CHEMBOND SURFACE TECHNOLOGIES LTD, NAVI MUMBAI V. ASST CIT CIR 7(1)(2), MUMBAI

ITA 2163/MUM/2017

• Counselvise Citation: [2021] 109 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 5972 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 3 year(s) 10 month(s) 7 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 03-02-2021
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: K
• Assessment Year: 2012-2013
• Appeal Filed On: 27-03-2017
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: SUSHIL KR MISHRASUNIL DESH
• Assessee Lawyers: MADHUR AGRAWALDHIREN
• Keywords: Transfer pricing; Search and seizure; International transaction
• Section: 143(3)

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH K, MUMBAI , # ,$ BEFORE SHRI VIKAS AWASTHY, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI N.K.PRADHAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER. . 2163 / / 2017 (. .2012-13 ) ITA NO. 2163/MUM/2017 (A.Y.2012-13) HENKEL CHEMBOND SURFACE TECHNOLOGIES LTD. (NOW KNOWN AS HENKEL SURFACE TECHNOLOGIES PVT.LTD.) B-23, TODI INDUSTRIAL ESTATE, 2 ND FLOOR, SUN MILL COMPOUND, LOWER PAREL, MUMBAI 400 013. PAN:AAACH7282G / VS. : / APPELLANT ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 7(1)(2), ROOM NO.130, 1 ST FLOOR, AAYKAR BHAVAN, M.K.ROAD, MUMBAI 400 020. : / RESPONDENT ASSESSEE BY : S.SHRI MADHUR AGRAWAL/DHIREN REVENUE BY : S.SHRI SUSHIL KR. MISHRA/SUNIL DESHPANDE / DATE OF HEARING : 21/01/2021 / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 03/02/2021 / ORDER THIS APPEAL BY THE ASSESSEE IS DIRECTED AGAINST THE ASSESSMENT ORDER DATED 30/01/2017 PASSED UNDER SECTION 143(3) R.W. SECTION 144C(13) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 ( IN SHORT THE ACT) FOR THE ASSESSM ENT YEAR 2012-13. 2 ITA NO. 2163/MUM/2017 (A.Y.2012-13) 2. SHRI MADHUR AGRAWAL, APPEARING ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT THE SOLITARY ISSUE RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE IN PRESENT AP PEAL IS AGAINST THE TRANSFER PRICING ADJUSTMENT IN RESPECT OF REGIONAL MANAGEMENT CHARGE S. THE LD. AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE FOR THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE IS A JOINT VENTURE BETWEEN HENKEL KGAA GERMANY(51% EQUITY) AND CHEMBON D CHEMICALS LTD, INDIA(49% EQUITY). DURING THE PERIOD RELEVANT TO ASSESSMENT YEAR UNDER APPEAL, THE ASSESSEE PAID RS.2,24,50,358/- TOWARDS REGIONAL MANAGEMENT CHARGES TO ITS ASSOCIATED ENTERPRISES( IN SHORT AE). THE ASSESS EE FURNISHED NECESSARY DOCUMENTS BEFORE THE TRANSFER PRICING OFFICER TO SUBSTANTIATE THE SERVICES PROVIDED BY THE AE. HOWEVER, THE TPO WITHOUT PROPERLY APPRECIATING THE DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE CONCLUDED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS FAILED TO PROVIDE DOCUMENTS IN SUPPORT OF VARIOUS SERVICES AVAILED AND DETERMINED THE ARMS LENGTH PR ICE (ALP) OF REGIONAL MANAGEMENT SERVICES AT NIL, THEREBY MAKING ADJUST MENT OF RS.2,24,50,358/-. THE ASSESSEE FILED OBJECTION BEFORE THE DRP AGAINST TH E ADJUSTMENT MADE BY TPO. THE DRP VIDE DIRECTIONS DATED 01/12/2016 REJECTED OBJ ECTIONS RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE AGAINST DETERMINATION OF NIL ALP IN RESPECT OF REGI ONAL MANAGEMENT SERVICES. WHILE DECIDING THE ISSUE AGAINST THE ASSESSEE, THE DRP CA TEGORY OBSERVED THAT IN THE PREVIOUS YEAR ALSO, THE ASSESSEE HAS FAILED TO ESTA BLISH THAT SERVICES WERE RENDERED AND IT HAS ALSO FAILED TO ESTABLISH THE ACTUAL BENE FITS FROM THE SERVICES AND THE MARKET VALUE OF SUCH SERVICES, IF ANY. THE DRP FOR REJECTED THE CONTENTIONS OF THE ASSESSEE IN THE IMPUGNED YEAR RELIED ON THE DECISI ON OF DRP IN ASSESSEES CASE FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2011-12. 3. THE LD. AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE FOR THE ASSESS EE SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE IN ASSESSMENT YEAR 2011-12 CARRIED THE ISS UE IN APPEAL BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL IN ITA NO.1049/MUM/2016. THE TRIBUNAL VIDE ORDER D ATED 09/12/2020 DELETED ADJUSTMENT AND DECIDED THE ISSUE IN FAVOUR OF THE A SSESSEE. THE LD. AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE FOR THE ASSESSEE FURTHER POINTED THA T SIMILAR ADJUSTMENT ON ACCOUNT 3 ITA NO. 2163/MUM/2017 (A.Y.2012-13) OF REGIONAL MANAGEMENT CHARGES WAS MADE IN THE ASSE SSMENT YEAR 2013-14. THE ASSESSEE CARRIED THE ISSUE IN APPEAL BEFORE THE TRI BUNAL IN ITA NO.6999/MUM/2017. THE TRIBUNAL FOLLOWING ITS EARLIER ORDER IN ITA NO .1049/MUM/2016 (SUPRA) DECIDED THE ISSUE IN FAVOUR OF ASSESSEE. 4. ON THE OTHER HAND, SHRI SUSHIL KR. MISHRA, REPRE SENTING THE DEPARTMENT VEHEMENTLY DEFENDED THE IMPUGNED ORDER AND PRAYED F OR DISMISSING THE APPEAL OF ASSESSEE. THE LD. DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE SUBM ITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS FAILED TO ESTABLISH SERVICES RENDERED BY THE AE A ND BENEFITS DERIVED BY THE ASSESSEE FROM SUCH SERVICES. 5. WE HAVE HEARD SUBMISSIONS MADE BY RIVAL SIDES AN D HAVE EXAMINED THE ORDERS OF AUTHORITIES BELOW. THE ASSESSEE IN APPEAL HAS R AISED SIX GROUNDS. ALL THE GROUNDS ARE DIRECTED TOWARDS SINGLE ISSUE OF T.P ADJUSTMENT IN RESPECT OF REGIONAL MANAGEMENT CHARGES. WE FIND THAT IDENTICAL ISSUE HAD COME UP BEFORE THE CO- ORDINATE BENCH IN ASSESSEES OWN CASE FOR ASSESSMEN T YEAR 2011-12. THE CONTENTION OF THE ASSESSEE IS THAT THE NATURE OF SERVICES REN DERED BY THE AE IN IMPUGNED ASSESSMENT YEAR AND IN ASSESSMENT YEAR 2011-12 ARE IDENTICAL. THIS SUBMISSION OF THE ASSESSEE ALSO FIND SUPPORT FROM THE OBSERVATION S OF THE DRP IN PARA 2.3 AND PARA 2.3.2 OF THE DIRECTIONS DATED 01/12/2016. THE SAME ARE REPRODUCED HEREIN BELOW FOR READY REFERENCE: 2.3 WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE SUBMISSION MADE BY THE ASSESSEE, THE FINDINGS OF THE TPO AND THE MATERIAL ON RECORD. WE FIND THAT THE ISSUE IS COVERED BY THE DECISION OF THE DRP IN THE CASE OF ASSESSEE FOR A.Y 2011-12. XXXXXXXXXX XXXXXXXXX XXXXXXXXX 2.3.2 IN THE PREVIOUS YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION AND ALSO, THE ASSESSEE HAS FAILED TO ESTABLISH THAT SERVICES, IF ANY, RENDERED WERE REQU ESTED FOR AND THE SERVICES WERE IN THE NATURE OF CHARGEABLE SERVICES. IT HAS ALSO FAILED TO ESTABLISH THE ACTUAL BENEFITS FROM THE SERVICES AND THE MARKET VALUE OF SUCH SERVICES, IF ANY. IT HAS FURTHER FAILED TO DEMONSTRATE THE INCURRENCE OF COST BY THE AE AS WEL L AS ITS ALLOCATION AMONG THE VARIOUS 4 ITA NO. 2163/MUM/2017 (A.Y.2012-13) GROUP ENTITIES. IN VIEW OF THE REASONS GIVEN IN TH E ORDER FOR A.Y.2011-12 IN THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE, QUOTED ABOVE, THE ACTION OF THE TPO I N DETERMINING ALP OF REGIONAL MANAGEMENT SERVICES AT RS.NIL IS UPHELD. 6. IN ASSESSMENT YEAR 2011-12, THE ASSESSEE CARRIE D THE ISSUE IN APPEAL BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL IN ITA NO.1049/MUM/2016 (SUPRA). THE CO-ORDINATE BENCH AFTER CONSIDERING THE FACTS AND VARIOUS JUDGMENTS DELETED THE ADJUSTMENT. THE RELEVANT EXTRACT OF THE FINDING OF THE TRIBUNAL ARE REPRODUC ED HEREIN BELOW:- 9. WE SHALL FIRST DEAL WITH THE ASSESSEES CLAIM T HAT SUPPORTING DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE CLEARLY ESTABLISHING RENDERING OF REGIONAL MANAGEME NT SERVICES BY THE AE WAS DULY PLACED ON RECORD IN THE COURSE OF THE PROCEEDINGS B EFORE THE LOWER AUTHORITIES, VIZ. (I) COPY OF REGIONAL MANAGEMENT SERVICES AGREEMENT, D ATED 23.11.2010 EXECUTED BETWEEN THE ASSESSEE AND ITS AE I.E HENKEL AG & COM PANY KGAA; (II) DETAILS OF REGIONAL MANAGEMENT CHARGES; AND (III). COPIES OF DEBIT NOT ES RAISED ON THE ASSESSEE BY ITS AE TOWARDS REGIONAL MANAGEMENT CHARGES. APART FROM THA T, WE FIND THAT THE ASSESSEE VIDE ITS LETTER DATED 31.12.2014 HAD SUBMITTED WITH THE LOWER AUTHORITIES THE STATEMENT OF COST BENEFIT ANALYSIS OF REGIONAL MANAGEMENT COST FOR THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION ALONG WITH DETAILS VIZ. (I) REQUIREMENT TO AVAIL TH E REGIONAL MANAGEMENT SERVICES; (II) DESCRIPTION OF SERVICES RECEIVED FROM THE AE; (III) INFORMATION IN RELATION TO THE VISITS BY THE OVERSEAS EMPLOYEES FOR RENDERING THE SERVICES; AND (IV) BACK UP DOCUMENTATION SUBSTANTIATING THE BENEFITS RECEIVED BY THE ASSESSE E IN LIEU OF THE SERVICES PROVIDED BY ITS AE. ON A PERUSAL OF THE REGIONAL MANAGEMENT AGREEM ENT, DATED 23.11.2010 EXECUTED BETWEEN THE ASSESSEE AND ITS AE, VIZ. HENKEL AG & C OMPANY KGAA, WE FIND, THAT THE DETAILS OF VARIOUS SERVICES RECEIVED BY THE ASSESSE E COMPANY ARE THEREIN DULY SPECIFIED. IT HAS BEEN THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE BEFORE THE LOWE R AUTHORITIES THAT THE REGIONAL MANAGEMENT SERVICES PROVIDED BY ITS AE, VIZ. HENKE L AG & COMPANY KGAA HAD ASSISTED IT IN ITS DECISION MAKING AND ADOPTION OF THE BEST POLICIES AND PRACTICES WHICH HAD THEREIN RESULTED IN A BETTER MARKET POSITION AND ULTIMATE I NCREASE IN ITS SALES. AS OBSERVED BY US HEREINABOVE, THE A.O/TPO HAD DETERMINED THE ALP OF THE REGIONAL MANAGEMENT SERVICES RECEIVED BY THE ASSESSEE FROM ITS AE AT RS.NIL, FOR THE REASON, THAT NO MATERIAL WAS PLACED ON RECORD BY THE ASSESSEE WHICH WOULD EVIDENCE AVAI LING OF ANY SUCH SERVICES BY THE ASSESSEE FROM ITS AE. WE HAVE PERUSED THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD AND ARE AFRAID THAT THE AFORESAID OBSERVATION OF THE LOWER AUTHOR ITIES DO NOT FIND FAVOUR WITH US. ON A PERUSAL OF THE 'REGIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT', DATED 23.11.2010 EXECUTED BETWEEN THE ASSESSEE AND ITS AE, VIZ. HENKEL AG & COMPANY, KGAA , WE FIND THAT THE COMPLETE DETAILS OF THE REGIONAL MANAGEMENT SERVICES TO BE RENDERED BY THE AE TO THE ASSESSEE ARE THEREIN CLEARLY DESCRIBED AT LENGTH . FURTHER, THE ASSESSEE HAD IN THE COURSE OF THE PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE LOWER AUTHORITIES PLACED ON RECORD THE COPIES OF THE DEBIT NOTES WHICH WERE RAISED ON IT BY ITS AE VIZ. HENKEL AG & COMPANY, KGAA FOR RENDERING OF THE AFORESAID SERVICES. ALSO, COPIES OF THE VARIOUS E-M AIL CORRESPONDENCES BETWEEN THE ASSESSEE AND ITS AFORESAID AE SUPPORTING THE FACTUM OF RENDERING OF REGIONAL MANAGEMENT SERVICES BY THE AE TO THE ASSESSEE COMPA NY WERE FILED IN THE COURSE OF THE PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE LOWER AUTHORITIES. IN FACT, THE ASSESSEE HAD ALSO PLACED ON RECORD 5 ITA NO. 2163/MUM/2017 (A.Y.2012-13) THE COMPLETE DETAILS OF THE PAYMENTS MADE BY THE AS SESSEE TO ITS AE FOR PROVISION OF REGIONAL MANAGEMENT SERVICES. COST BENEFIT ANALYSI S OF REGIONAL MANAGEMENT COST (RMC) PERTAINING TO A RANGE OF REGIONAL SERVICES RE NDERED BY THE AE WITHIN THE GROUP, VIZ.(I) REGIONAL PLANNING AND GUIDING SERVICES; (II ) REGIONAL MARKETING SERVICES; (III) REGIONAL SUPPLY AND CHAIN OPERATIONAL SUPPORT SERVI CES; AND (IV) REGIONAL SAFETY, HEALTH AND ENVIRONMENT SUPPORT COMPLIANCE SERVICES, THEREI N EXPLAINING THE BENEFITS DERIVED BY THE ASSESSEE FROM THE SERVICES RENDERED BY THE AE W ERE ALSO FILED BY THE ASSESSEE BEFORE THE LOWER AUTHORITIES IN ORDER TO DRIVE HOME ITS CL AIM OF HAVING RECEIVED THE AFORESAID SERVICES ALONG WITH BENEFIT DERIVED THEREFROM. IN THE BACKDROP OF THE AFORESAID DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE, WE ARE UNABLE TO COMPREHEND A S TO HOW THE AO/TPO HAD CONCLUDED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD FAILED TO FURNISH T HE REQUISITE DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE WHICH WOULD SUBSTANTIATE RENDERING OF REGIONAL MANA GEMENT SERVICES BY THE AE, VIZ. HENKEL AG & COMPANY, KGAA TO THE ASSESSEE DURING TH E YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION. IN OUR CONSIDERED VIEW, THE MATERIAL PLACED ON RECORD BY T HE ASSESSEE DOES CONSTITUTE SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE WHICH CLEARLY ESTABLISHES THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD RECEIVED REGIONAL MANAGEMENT SERVICES FROM ITS AE, VIZ. HENKEL AG & C OMPANY, KGAA. WE FIND THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD ENTERED INTO THE REGIONAL MANAGEMENT S ERVICE U AGREEMENT' WITH ITS AE, VIZ. HENKEL AG & COMPANY, KGAA PRIMARILY TO BENEFIT FROM THE SERVICES PROVIDED BY THE LATTER ON THE BASIS OF ITS EXPERIENCED PERSONNEL WHO WERE POSSESSED OF RICH EXPERIENCE IN UNDERSTANDING THE PRACTICAL ASPECTS OF THE NATURE O F BUSINESS OF THE ASSESSEE ALONG WITH ITS SERVICE REQUIREMENT. FACT THAT THE SERVICES REC EIVED BY THE ASSESSEE FROM ITS AE HAD VASTLY BENEFITTED IT CAN ALSO SAFELY BE GATHERED FR OM THE COST BENEFIT ANALYSIS OF RMC AS WAS SUBMITTED BY THE ASSESSEE WITH THE AO/TPO. IN T HE BACKDROP OF OUR AFORESAID, DELIBERATIONS, WE ARE, UNABLE TO, CONCUR WITH THE O BSERVATIONS OF THE LOWER AUTHORITIES THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD FAILED TO PLACE ON RECORD DOC UMENTARY EVIDENCE WHICH WOULD SUBSTANTIATE THE RENDERING OF REGIONAL MANAGEMENT S ERVICES BY ITS AE, VIZ. HENKEL AG & COMPANY, KGAA TO THE ASSESSEE COMPANY. WE ARE PERSU ADED TO SUBSCRIBE TO THE CLAIM OF THE ID. A.R THAT AS THE REGIONAL MANAGEMENT SERVICE S RECEIVED BY THE ASSESSEE FROM ITS AE ARE INTANGIBLE IN NATURE, THEREFORE, EVIDENCE IN SUPPORT OF AVAILING OF SUCH SERVICES AND THE BENEFIT RECEIVED THEREFROM CAN ONLY BE DEMO NSTRATED BY NARRATIONS, DESCRIPTIONS AND DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE ON THE BASIS OF OUR AFORESAID OBSERVATIONS, WE ARE OF A STRONG CONVICTION THAT TH E MATERIAL PLACED ON RECORD BY THE ASSESSEE TO SUBSTANTIATE ITS CLAIM OF HAVING RECEIV ED REGIONAL MANAGEMENT SERVICES FROM ITS AE, VIZ. HENKEL AG & COMPANY, KGAA THEREIN CLEA RLY ESTABLISHES THE SAME. WE THUS ARE UNABLE TO PERSUADE OURSELVES TO SUBSCRIBE TO TH E VIEW TAKEN BY THE AO/TPO THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD FAILED TO SUBSTANTIATE ITS CLAIM OF HA VING RECEIVED REGIONAL MANAGEMENT SERVICES FROM ITS AE DURING THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDER ATION. 10. APART FROM OUR AFORESAID OBSERVATIONS WHEREIN I T STANDS CLEARLY ESTABLISHED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD RECEIVED REGIONAL MANAGEMENT SERVICES FROM ITS AE, VIZ. HENKEL AG & COMPANY, KGAA, WE ARE EVEN OTHERWISE UNABLE TO CONC UR TO THE DETERMINING OF THE ALP OF THE REGIONAL MANAGEMENT SERVICES RECEIVED BY THE ASSESSEE FROM ITS AE, VIZ. HENKEL AG & COMPANY, KGAA BY THE TPO AT RS. NIL I.E WITHOUT F OLLOWING ANY ONE OF THE PRESCRIBED METHODS CONTEMPLATED IN SEC.92C(1) OF THE ACT, AS A GAINST THAT DETERMINED BY THE ASSESSEE AT RS. RS.2,61,63,288/- BY ADOPTING TNMM A S THE MOST APPROPRIATE METHOD. IN FACT, OUR AFORESAID VIEW THAT THE TPO IS DIVESTED O F HIS JURISDICTION IN BENCHMARKING THE INTERNATIONAL TRANSACTIONS OF AN ASSESSEE AT NIL OR IN AN AD HOC MANNER WITHOUT FOLLOWING 6 ITA NO. 2163/MUM/2017 (A.Y.2012-13) ANY ONE OF THE PRESCRIBED METHODS IS FORTIFIED BY T HE JUDGMENTS OF THE HONBLE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY VIZ. (I) CIT VS. MERCK LIMITED. (ITA NO. 272 OF 2014), DATED 08.08.2016; (II) CIT VS. LEVER INDIA EXPORTS LIMITED (ITA NO.1306, 1307 AND 1349 OF 2014), DATED 23.01.2017; (III) CIT VS. JOHNSON & JOHNSON LTD. (ITA NO.1030 O F 2014), DATED 07.03.2017; AND (IV) CIT VS. KODAK INDIA PVT. LTD.(ITA NO.15 OF 2014), DATED 11.07.2016. AS OBSERVED BY THE HONBLE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY IN THE AFOREMENTIONED CASES, THE TPO IS NOT PERMITTED TO DETERMINE THE ALP OF THE INTERNATIONAL TRANSACTIONS WITHOUT FOLLOWING ANY ONE OF THE METHODS PRESCRIBED UNDER SEC. 92C(1) OF THE ACT. AC CORDINGLY, IN THE BACKDROP OF OUR AFORESAID OBSERVATIONS WE ARE UNABLE TO SUSTAIN THE DETERMINATION OF THE ALP OF THE REGIONAL MANAGEMENT SERVICES RECEIVED BY THE ASSESS EE FROM ITS AE, VIZ. HENKEL AG & ITA NO.1049/MUM/2016 A.Y. 2011-12 HENKEL CHEMBOND SURFA CE TECHNOLOGY LTD. VS. ACIT,CIRCLE 7(1)(2) 14 COMPANY, KGAA, AT RS. NIL BY THE TPO WITHOUT RESORTING TO ANY TRANSFER PRICING EXERCISE AS PER ANY OF THE METHOD PRESCRIBED IN SEC.92C(1) OF THE ACT, AS AGAINST THAT DETERMINED BY THE ASSESSEE AT RS. 2,61 ,63,288/- BY ADOPTING TNMM AS THE MOST APPROPRIATE METHOD. WE THUS IN TERMS OF OUR AF ORESAID DELIBERATIONS VACATE THE ADDITION TOWARDS TP ADJUSTMENT OF RS.2,61,63,288/- M ADE BY THE AO/TPO. THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL NO. 1 TO 8 ARE ALLOWED IN TERMS OF OUR AF ORESAID OBSERVATIONS. [EMPHASIS BY US] IN THE IMPUGNED ASSESSMENT YEAR WE FIND THAT THE AS SESSEE HAS FILED SIMILAR EVIDENCES AS WERE FILED IN ASSESSMENT YEAR 2010-11. TO AMPLIFY THE SERVICES RENDERED THE ASSESSEE HAS FILED COPIES OF DEBIT NOT ES SUPPORTING REGIONAL MANAGEMENT CHARGES, COST BENEFIT ANALYSIS OF REGIO NAL MANAGEMENT CHARGES, REASONS FOR AVAILING INTRA GROUP SERVICES, NATURE O F SERVICES AVAILED, BASIS OF CHARGES, ETC. THE LD. DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE HAS NOT D ISPUTED THAT THE NATURE OF EXPENDITURE IN RESPECT OF REGIONAL MANAGEMENT CHARG ES IN THE IMPUGNED ASSESSMENT YEAR IS IN ANY MANNER DIFFERENT FROM TH AT IN THE PRECEDING ASSESSMENT YEAR. 7. WE FURTHER OBSERVE THAT IN SUBSEQUENT ASSESSM ENT YEAR I.E. ASSESSMENT YEAR 2013-14, AS WELL, THE TPO HAD MADE SIMILAR TRANSFER PRICING ADJUSTMENT IN RESPECT OF REGIONAL MANAGEMENT CHARGES. THE ASSESSEE CARRIED THE ISSUE IN APPEAL BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL IN ITA NO.6999/MUM/2017. THE TRIBUNAL VID E ORDER DATED 11/01/2021 FOLLOWING ITS OWN ORDER IN ITA NO.1049/MUM/2016(SUP RA) DELETED THE ADDITION IN RESPECT OF REGIONAL MANAGEMENT SERVICES. 7 ITA NO. 2163/MUM/2017 (A.Y.2012-13) 8. CONSIDERING THE FACT THAT IN THE IMPUGNED ASSESS MENT YEAR THE SERVICES WERE RENDERED BY AE IN PURSUANCE TO THE SAME REGIONAL SE RVICES AGREEMENT DATED 23/11/2010 AND THERE HAS BEEN NO CHANGE IN THE NATU RE OF SERVICES RENDERED BY AE AND METHOD OF REMUNERATION, WE SEE NO REASON TO TA KE A DIFFERENT VIEW. THEREFORE, IN THE FACTS OF THE CASE AND THE DECISIONS OF CO-OR DINATE BENCH IN ASSESSEES OWN CASE FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2011-12 AND ASSESSMENT YEA R 2013-14, THE TRANSFER PRICING ADJUSTMENT ON ACCOUNT OF REGIONAL MANAGEMENT CHARGE S PAID TO FOREIGN A.E IS DELETED FOR PARITY OF REASONS. 9. IN THE RESULT, APPEAL BY THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED . ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON WEDNESDAY , THE 3 RD DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2021. SD/- SD/- (N.K.PRADHAN) (VIKAS AWASTHY) $ / ACCOUNTANT MEMBER / JUDICIAL MEMBER / MUMBAI, *'/ DATED: 03/02/2021 VM , SR. PS(O/S) COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. + / THE APPELLANT , 2. #, / THE RESPONDENT. 3. -, ( )/ THE CIT(A)- 4. -, CIT 5. ./#,' , . . . , / DR, ITAT, MUMBAI 6. /0123 / GUARD FILE. BY ORDER, //TRUE COPY// (DY./ASSTT. REGISTRAR) ITAT, MUMBAI