DCIT, CHENNAI V. M/s. Orchid Chemicals & Pharmaceuticals Limited, CHENNAI

ITA 2165/CHNY/2010

• Counselvise Citation: [2013] 120 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 4606 (ITAT-CHENNAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 year(s) 8 month(s) 7 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 30-08-2013
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Next Hearing Date: 29-08-2013
• Assessment Year: 2005-2006
• Appeal Filed On: 23-12-2010
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Assessee Lawyers: T BANUSEKAR
• Keywords: Transfer pricing; Business expenditure; International transaction; Notional interest
• Section: 10B; 10

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL A BENCH : CHENNAI [BEFORE SHRI N.S. SAINI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI V. DURGA RAO, JUDICIAL MEMBER] I.T.A.NO.2165/MDS/2010 ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2005-06 THE DY. CIT COMPANY CIRCLE V(1) CHENNAI VS M/S ORCHID CHEMICALS & PHARMACEUTICALS LTD ORCHID TOWERS 313, VALLUVARKOTTAM HIGH ROAD NUNGAMBAKKAM CHENNAI 600 034 [PAN AAACO 0402 B] (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY : SHRI SHAJI P. JACOB, ADDL. CIT RESPONDENT BY : SHRI T. BANUSEKAR, CA DATE OF HEARING : 29-08-2013 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 30-08-2013 O R D E R PER N.S. SAINI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER THIS IS AN APPEAL FILED BY THE REV ENUE AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A)-V, CHENNAI, DATED 21.9.2010. 2. THE REVENUE HAS FILED REVISED GROUNDS OF APPEAL O N 4.2.2013. AT THE TIME OF HEARING, WE ASKED THE LD. A.R OF THE ASSESSEE THAT THE REVENUE HAS FILED REVISED GROUNDS OF APPE AL AND WHETHER HE I.T.A.NO. 2165/10 :- 2 -: HAD ANY OBJECTION ON THE SAME. HE SUBMITTED THAT H E HAS NO OBJECTION TO THE REVISED GROUNDS OF APPEAL FILED BY THE REVENUE AND THEREFORE, THE APPEAL WAS HEARD ON THE REVISED GROU NDS OF APPEAL FILED ON 4.2.2013 AND DISPOSED OF ACCORDINGLY. 3. GROUND NO.1 & 5 OF THE APPEAL ARE GENERAL IN NATU RE AND HENCE, REQUIRES NO SPECIFIC ADJUDICATION BY US. 4. GROUND NO.2 OF THE APPEAL IS DIRECTED AGAINST THE O RDER OF THE LD. CIT(A) IN DELETING THE ADDITION OF ` 14,60,477/- MADE TOWARDS CONSULTANCY CHARGES. 5. THE BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT THE ASSESSEE P AID CONSULTANCY CHARGES TO MR. YU CHING LEE IN CHINA FO R THE SERVICES RENDERED IN CHINA WITH REGARD TO EXPORT OF THEIR M ATERIALS TO CHINESE CUSTOMERS. THE ASSESSING OFFICER HELD THAT THE EXP ENDITURE PERTAINS TO THE JOINT VENTURE COMPANY AND NOT TO THE ASSESSEE A ND THEREFORE, DISALLOWED THE CLAIM. 6. BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A) THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT T HE CONSULTANT WAS NOT A JOINT VENTURE PARTNER AS WRONG LY PRESUMED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. THE SERVICES WERE RENDERED BY T HE OVERSEAS CONSULTANT IN RESPECT OF BULK PHARMA PRODUCTS AND PROCESS. THE I.T.A.NO. 2165/10 :- 3 -: EXPERTISE OF THE OVERSEAS CONSULTANT HAD BEEN UTIL IZED IN ORDER TO PROTECT THE BUSINESS INTEREST OF THE ASSESSEE AND T O MAINTAIN THE QUALITY OF ITS PRODUCTS AND PROCESSES. 7. THE ASSESSEE FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT IN ASSESSEES OWN CASE FOR ASSESSMENT YEARS 2003-04 AND 2004-05 THE ISSUE WAS DECIDED IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE BY THE LD. CIT(A) AND NO SE COND APPEAL THEREAGAINST WAS PREFERRED BY THE DEPARTMENT. 8. THE LD. CIT(A) OBSERVED THAT THE CONSULTANCY AGREEM ENT WHICH WAS ALREADY PLACED BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFIC ER DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS AND THE INVOICES FOR PAYMENT WERE PRODUCED FOR VERIFICATION BEFORE HIM AND IT WAS FOU ND THAT THE ENTIRE PAYMENT WAS MADE BY THE ASSESSEE AND NOT ON BEHALF OF THE JOINT VENTURE COMPANY. HE FURTHER OBSERVED THAT THE ASS ESSEE HAS LED EVIDENCE TO PROVE THE AVAILMENT OF SERVICES OF THE CONSULTANT. THE PAYMENTS MADE ARE PART OF LEGITIMATE BUSINESS EXPEN DITURE OF THE ASSESSEE. THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS NOT CONTROVERT ED THE SAME WITH ANY EVIDENCE TO SHOW THAT THE EXPENDITURE WAS UNJUS TIFIED CALLING FOR DISALLOWANCE BUT MADE THE DISALLOWANCE ON THE PREMI SE THAT THE PAYMENT WAS MADE TO THE JOINT VENTURE PARTNER WHICH IS NOT PROVED. THE CONSULTANT WAS NOT A JOINT VENTURE PARTNER OF T HE ASSESSEE AND THE I.T.A.NO. 2165/10 :- 4 -: EXPENDITURE WAS INCURRED BY THE ASSESSEE FOR THE BU SINESS AND THEREFORE, THE APPREHENSIONS OF THE ASSESSING OFFIC ER ARE UNFOUNDED. THE LD. CIT(A) FURTHER OBSERVED THAT MOREOVER THE I SSUE HAS BEEN DECIDED IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE IN ASSESSMENT YEA RS 2003-04 AND 2004-05 AND THEREFORE, THE GROUND WAS DECIDED IN FA VOUR OF THE ASSESSEE. 9. THE LD.D.R RELIED ON THE ORDER OF THE ASSESSING OFF ICER. 10. THE LD. AR OF THE ASSESSEE FILED BEFORE US A COPY O F THE ORDER OF THIS TRIBUNAL IN ASSESSEES OWN CASE FOR ASSESSM ENT YEAR 2004-05 INITN 1468/MDS/2009, ORDER DATED 10.6.2010 AND POIN TED OUT THAT THE TRIBUNAL RESTORED THE MATTER BACK TO THE FILE OF TH E ASSESSING OFFICER ON THE GROUND THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER WAS NEVER GIVEN A CHANCE TO EXAMINE THE AGREEMENT AND GIVE HIS COMMENTS THEREON . HE POINTED OUT THAT IN THE PRESENT YEAR OF APPEAL THE AGREEME NT WAS FILED BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND THEREFORE, THE FACTS IN T HE PRESENT YEAR ARE DIFFERENT AND THE LD. CIT(A), ON THE BASIS OF EXAMI NATION OF THE VERY SAME AGREEMENT HAS COME TO A CONCLUSION THAT THE PA YMENTS MADE BY THE ASSESSEE WERE TOWARDS GENUINE BUSINESS EXPEN DITURE AND THAT IT WAS NOT MADE TO A JOINT VENTURE COMPANY. THEREF ORE, THE ORDER FO THE LD. CIT(A) DESERVES TO BE UPHELD. I.T.A.NO. 2165/10 :- 5 -: 11. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND PERUSED TH E ORDERS OF THE LOWER AUTHORITIES AND MATERIALS AVAILABLE ON RECORD. THE UNDISPUTED FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT THE ASSESSEE, DURING THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION PAID ` 14,60,477/- AS CONSULTANCY CHARGES TO MR.YU CHING LEE IN CHINA TOWARDS CONSULTANCY CHARGE S FOR EXPORT OF ITS MATERIALS TO CHINA. THE ASSESSING OFFICER DISALLOW ED THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE ON THE GROUND THAT THE EXPENDITURE PERTAIN ED TO THE JOINT VENTURE COMPANY AND NOT TO THE ASSESSEE. 12. ON APPEAL, THE LD. CIT(A) ALLOWED THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE AFTER EXAMINING THE AGREEMENT DATED 25.1.2005 WITH MR. YU CHING LEE, OF CHINA, A COPY OF WHICH HAS ALSO BEEN PLACE D BEFORE US AT PAGES 2 TO 3 OF THE PAPER BOOK. THE LD. CIT(A), AF TER EXAMINING THE AGREEMENT, HELD THAT THE AGREEMENT WAS NOT WITH THE JOINT VENTURE COMPANY BUT WAS WITH THE ASSESSEE-COMPANY AND THAT THE AMOUNT PAID REPRESENTED THE GENUINE BUSINESS EXPENDITURE O F THE ASSESSEE AND THE SAME WAS PAID IN RELATION TO CONSULTANCY SE RVICES RENDERED IN RELATION TO THE EXPORT BUSINESS OF THE ASSESSEE. N O MATERIAL WAS BROUGHT ON RECORD BY THE REVENUE TO SHOW THAT CONSU LTANCY CHARGES PAID IN QUESTION DOES NOT RELATE TO THE AFORESAID E XPORT BUSINESS OF THE ASSESSEE. FURTHER, THE ASSESSEE ALSO FILED BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER I.T.A.NO. 2165/10 :- 6 -: AND THE LD. CIT(A) COPY OF INVOICE FOR PAYMENT OF CONSULTANCY CHARGES, A COPY OF WHICH HAS BEEN PLACED BEFORE US AT PAGE 4 OF THE PAPER BOOK, IN SUPPORT OF THE CONTENTION THAT THE A MOUNT PAID WAS TOWARDS BUSINESS EXPENDITURE OF THE ASSESSEE. IT I S NOT IN DISPUTE THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS ENGAGED IN THE BUSINESS OF EXPORT ING OF BULK PHARMA PRODUCTS AND PROCESS DURING THE YEAR UNDER C ONSIDERATION. FURTHER, NO SPECIFIC ERROR IN THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A) COULD BE POINTED OUT BY THE LD.D.R. WE, THEREFORE, DO NOT F IND ANY GOOD AND JUSTIFIABLE REASON TO INTERFERE WITH THE ORDER OF T HE LD. CIT(A) WHICH IS CONFIRMED AND THE GROUND OF APPEAL OF THE REVENUE I S DISMISSED. 13. GROUND NO.3 OF THE APPEAL OF THE REVENUE IS DIRECTE D AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A) IN HOLDING THAT LOSSES FROM NON-EXPORT ORIENTED UNITS (NON-EOUS) NEED NOT BE SET OFF AGAIN ST PROFITS OF ELIGIBLE EXPORT ORIENTED UNITS (EOUS) BEFORE COMPUT ING DEDUCTION U/S 10B RELYING UPON THE DECISION OF THE CHENNAI BENCH OF THE TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF SCIENTIFIC ATLANTA INDIA TECHNOLOGY P. LTD VS ACIT, 129 TTJ 273 (SB). 14. THE BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT THE ASSESSEE H AS BOTH EOU AND NON-EOU UNITS. IT CLAIMED DEDUCTION U/S 10 B IN RESPECT OF THE PROFITS OF ITS EOU UNITS. IN ITS NON-EOU UNI TS IT INCURRED LOSSES. I.T.A.NO. 2165/10 :- 7 -: THE ASSESSING OFFICER HELD THAT DEDUCTION U/S 10B W AS AVAILABLE ONLY ON TOTAL INCOME AND NOT ON THE PROFITS OF INDIVIDUA L UNITS. THE ASSESSING OFFICER ALSO OBSERVED THAT THE ASSESSEE I NFLATED ITS PROFITS OF THE EOU UNITS AND THESE LOSSES ARE INTER-CONNECTED WITH THE LOSSES SHOWN IN NON-EOU UNITS. 15. BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A), THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT THE ACTIVITIES OF THE EOU AND THE NON-EOU UNITS ARE IND EPENDENT EXCEPT TO THE EXTENT WHERE THE EOU UNIT SOURCES ITS RAW MATER IALS FROM THE NON- EOU UNITS. THE EOU UNITS THEN UNDERTAKE NUMBER FO PROCESSING ACTIVITIES BEFORE SALES. THE NON-EOU UNITS UNDERTA KE CONSIDERABLE RESEARCH & DEVELOPMENT ACTIVITIES FOR WHICH IT HAS OBTAINED APPROVAL FROM THE DEPARTMENT OF SCIENTIFIC AND INDUSTRIAL RE SEARCH. THUS, THE EXPENDITURE LEVELS IN THE NON-EOU UNITS ARE VERY HI GH AND THESE EXPENDITURES ARE NOT COMPARABLE WITH THE EXPENDITUR E INCURRED BY THE EOU UNITS. IT WAS FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT SEPARATE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT WERE MAINTAINED BY BOTH THE EOU AND THE NON-EOU UNI TS WHICH HAVE BEEN SUBJECTED TO AUDIT BY PROFESSIONAL ACCOUNTANTS . IT WAS FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT SECTION 10B CLEARLY PROVIDES FOR DED UCTION IN RESPECT OF THE PROFITS OF EACH UNDERTAKING AND NOT IN RESPECT OF THE TOTAL INCOME OF AN ASSESSEE. THE ASSESSING OFFICER ADJUSTED THE BROUGHT FORWARD I.T.A.NO. 2165/10 :- 8 -: LOSSES OF THE EOU UNIT AGAINST THE PROFITS OF THES E UNITS DETERMINED U/S 10B AND HAS IMPLIEDLY ACCEPTED THE QUANTUM OF DEDUCTIONS DETERMINED BY THE ASSESSEE. IN SUPPORT OF THE ASSE SSEES CONTENTION THAT DEDUCTION U/S 10B SHOULD BE DETERMINED INDEPEN DENTLY FOR EACH UNDERTAKING BEFORE SETTING OFF OF LOSSES OF NON-EOU UNITS, THE ASSESSEE RELIED ON THE DECISION OF THE CHENNAI BENCH OF THE TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF FORD BUSINESS SERVICES. THE ASSESSEE FURTHER SU BMITTED THAT SUBSEQUENT TO SURVEY BY THE DEPARTMENT, IT WAS SEEN THAT THE METHOD OF COSTING OF INTER UNIT TRANSFER OF MATERIALS WAS WRONG AND THEREFORE, THE COST OF TRANSFER OF MATERIALS FROM THE NON-EOU UNIT TO THE EOU UNIT WAS WRONGLY RECORDED AT HIGHER VALUES RESULTING IN HIGHER LOSS IN THE NON-EOU UNIT AND CORRESPONDING PROFIT IN THE EOU UN ITS. IT WAS SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS ALLOWED DEDUCTION U /S 10B IN RESPECT OF ITS PROFIT FROM EOUS. IT WAS NOT THE FIRST YEA R IN WHICH THE ASSESSEE HAS CLAIMED DEDUCTION. THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS N OT MADE OUT A CASE FOR DENIAL OF DEDUCTION U/S 10B SINCE IT IS ACCEPTE D THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS HAVING EOUS FROM WHICH IT HAS MADE EXPORTS ELIG IBLE FOR DEDUCTION U/S 10B. THE ASSESSEE HAD JUSTIFIED THE HIGHER EXP ENSES IN ITS NON- EOU UNITS AS BEING DUE TO HIGH RESEARCH AND DEVELOP MENT COSTS. IT WAS ALSO SUBMITTED THAT IN THE CASE OF SCIENTIFIC ATLANTA INDIA TECHNOLOGY PVT. LTD VS ACIT (SUPRA) THE SPECIAL BEN CH HAS HELD THAT I.T.A.NO. 2165/10 :- 9 -: LOSSES FROM NON-ELIGIBLE UNITS NEED NOT BE SET OFF AGAINST PROFITS OF ELIGIBLE UNITS BEFORE COMPUTING DEDUCTION. A SIMIL AR VIEW WAS ALSO HELD IN CHANGEPOND TECHNOLOGIES (P) LTD VS ACIT [2008] 1 19 TTJ 18 (CHN) AND ENERCON WIND FARMS (KRISHNA) LTD. VS ACIT [2208 ] 21 SOT 29 (MUM). 16. THE LD. CIT(A) DECIDED THE ISSUE IN FAVOUR OF THE A SSESSEE BY OBSERVING AS UNDER: 3.10. THE GROUND IS THEREFORE, DECIDED IN FAVOUR OF THE APPELLANT. HOWEVER. SINCE THE TRANSFER COST OF MATERIALS BETWE EN THE EOU AND THE NON-EOU UNITS HAS BEEN WRONGLY RECORDED THE DED UCTION U/S 10B SHOULD BE RESTRICTED TO THE PROFITS OF THE EOU UNIT S AFTER RECORDING THE TRANSFER COST OF MATERIALS AT THE CORRECT COST. THIS IS EXTRACTED AS HEREUNDER: ASSESSMENT YEAR 2005-06 FINANCIAL YEAR 2004-05 DIFFERENCE BETWEEN TRANSFER PRICE & COST PRICE OF G OODS TRANSFERRED FROM (IN ` ) NON EOU TO EOU (A10 ALATHUR) PRODUCTS QTY BASIC VALUE TRANSFER PRICE RMC+OH DIFF./KG DIFF. VALUE SAME 8,896 76058653 8550 9,000 -450 -4003097 TOTAL OF MATL TRANSFERRED 8,896 76058653 TOTAL OF DIFFERENCE -4003097 NON EOU TO EOU(IKKT) PRODUCTS QTY BASIC VALUE RATE/KG (RMC+OH) DIFF./KG DIFF. VALUE PLANT DOESNT EXIST TOTAL OF MATL 0 0 TOTAL DIFFERENCE 0 I.T.A.NO. 2165/10 :- 10 -: TRANSFERRED GRAND TOTAL OF MATL TRANSFERRED 8,896 76058653 GRAND TOTAL OF DIFFERENCE IKKT & ALATHUR A - 4003097 THE A.O MAY VERIFY THE CALCULATION BEFORE COMPUTING DEDUCTION ALLOWABLE U/S 10B. 17. THE LD.D.R VERY FAIRLY CONCEDED THAT THE ISSUE AT H AND IS COVERED IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE BY THE DECISION O F THE SPECIAL BENCH OF THE CHENNAI TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF SCIENTIFIC A TLANTA INDIA TECHNOLOGY PVT. LTD (SUPRA). THEREFORE, THIS GROUN D OF APPEAL OF THE REVENUE IS DISMISSED. 18. GROUND NO.4 OF THE APPEAL OF THE REVENUE IS DIRECT ED AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A) IN DELETING THE ADDITION OF ` 39,18,508/- TOWARDS ADJUSTMENT OF INTEREST INCOME E ARNED BY THE ASSESSEE FROM ITS ASSOCIATED ENTERPRISE (AE) ON FUNDS ADVANCED TO ITS AE. 19. THE BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT IN VIEW OF THE SUBSTANTIAL INTERNATIONAL TRANSACTIONS OF THE ASSESSEE, A REFER ENCE HAD BEEN MADE TO THE TRANSFER PRICING OFFICER(TPO). THE TPO RECO MMENDED CERTAIN ADJUSTMENTS IN RESPECT OF INTEREST CHARGED BY THE A SSESSEE FROM TIS AE ON THE FUNDS ADVANCED BY THE ASSESSEE TO ITS AE. T HE ASSESSEE HAD I.T.A.NO. 2165/10 :- 11 -: CHARGED INTEREST AT LIBOR PLUS 1% ON THE ADVANCES M ADE BY IT TO ITS AE. THE TPO WHILE DETERMINING THE ARMS LENGTH PRI CE (ALP) OF THE TRANSACTION HAD MADE ADJUSTMENT BY APPLYING THE PL R ON THE MONIES ADVANCED. 20. BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A) THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT I NTEREST IN AN INTERNATIONAL FINANCIAL TRANSACTION COULD EXPEND ITURE CHARGED ON PAR WITH THE MARKET RATES PREVALENT AMONG FOREIGN BANKS , FOREIGN INSTITUTIONS AND BUSINESS ENTERPRISES WHILE DEALING WITH INDIAN ENTITIES. FOR SUCH TRANSACTIONS, THE RATES CHARGED CANNOT BE RELATED TO THE RATES PREVALENT IN THE DOMESTIC MARKET. THE ASSESSEE FUR THER SUBMITTED THAT WHILE DETERMINING ALP AN INTERNATIONAL TRANSACTION CANNOT BE COMPARED WITH A DOMESTIC TRANSACTION. SINCE THE AS SESSEE HAS CHARGED INTEREST AT RATES PREVAILING IN THE INTERNA TIONAL MARKETS, NO VARIATION WAS CALLED FOR ON THAT GROUND. 21. THE LD. CIT(A), AFTER CONSIDERING THE SUBMISSION OF THE ASSESSEE, HELD THAT IT WAS NOT A CASE THAT THE ASS ESSEE HAS GIVEN AN INTEREST FREE LOAN OR HAS FALLEN OUT OF LINE WITH T HE PRACTICES IN THE INTERNATIONAL FINANCE MARKET. THE ASSESSEE HAS CHA RGED INTEREST AT THE RATE PREVAILING IN THE INTERNATIONAL MARKET AFTER A DDING A SPREAD OF 1%. HE OBSERVED THAT THE DELHI BENCH OF THE TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF PEROT I.T.A.NO. 2165/10 :- 12 -: SYSTEMS TSI (INDIA) LTD VS DCIT [2010] 130 TTJ (DEL ) 685, HAS HELD THAT IN CONSIDERING THE ALP OF A LOAN, THE RATE OF INTEREST HAS TO BE CONSIDERED AND INCOME ON ACCOUNT OF INTEREST CAN BE ATTRIBUTED. HE OBSERVED THAT IN THAT CASE THE TRIBUNAL HAD CONFIRM ED THE UPWARD ADJUSTMENT TO THE EXTENT OF NOTIONAL INTEREST AT LI BOR SINCE THE TRANSACTION WAS AN INTERNATIONAL TRANSACTION. FOLL OWING THE PRINCIPLE IN THE ABOVE CASE, THE LD. CIT(A) HELD THAT THE VARIAT ION MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER ON THIS ISSUE SHOULD BE DELETED A ND ACCORDINGLY DELETED THE ADDITION OF ` 39,18,508/-. 22. THE LD.D.R FAIRLY CONCEDED THAT THE ISSUE WAS DECID ED IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE BY VARIOUS BENCHES OF THE TR IBUNAL. 23. THE LD. AR OF THE ASSESSEE SUPPORTED THE ORDER OF T HE LD. CIT(A) AND SUBMITTED THAT THE CASE LAWS RELIED UPON BY THE ASSESSEE ARE AT SL NO.7 TO 9 OF THE INDEX OF PAPER BOOK ON C ASE LAWS WHEREIN THE ISSUE WAS DECIDED IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE BY VARIOUS BENCHES OF THE TRIBUNAL. THEY ARE SIVA INDUSTRIES & HOLDINGS LTD VS ACIT [2012] 26 TAXMANN.COM 96 (CHENNAI) AURIONPRO SOLUTIONS LTD VS ADDL. CIT IN I.T.A.NO. 7872/MUM/2011 I.T.A.NO. 2165/10 :- 13 -: COTTON NATURALS (I) PVT. LTD VS DCIT IN I.T.A NO.5855/DEL/2012. 24. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE SUBMISSION OF THE LD.D.R, WE D ISMISS THIS GROUND OF APPEAL OF THE REVENUE. 25. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE REVENUE IS DISM ISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED ON FRIDAY, THE 30 TH OF AUGUST, 2013, AT CHENNAI. SD/- SD/- (V. DURGA RAO) JUDICIAL MEMBER (N.S.SAINI) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER DATED: 30 TH AUGUST, 2013, RD COPY TO: APPELLANT/RESPONDENT/CIT(A)/CIT/DR