Harsco India Services Private Limited, Hyderabad V. Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-2(2), Hyderabad

ITA 2176/Hyd/2017

• Counselvise Citation: [2019] 118 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 6476 (ITAT-HYDERABAD)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 29 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 18-01-2019
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Bench Allotted: DB-B
• Next Hearing Date: 22-10-2018
• Assessment Year: 2013-2014
• Appeal Filed On: 19-12-2017
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: Y V S T SAI
• Keywords: Transfer pricing; International transaction; Bad and doubtful debts
• Section: 143(3); 234B

Judgement Text

ITA NO 2176 OF 2017 HARSCO INDIA S ERVICES P LTD HYDERABAD. PAGE 1 OF 14 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL HYDERABAD B BENCH, HYDERABAD BEFORE SMT. P. MADHAVI DEVI, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI S.RIFAUR RAHMAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO.2176/HYD/2017 (ASSESSMENT YEAR:2013-14) M/S. HARSCO INDIA SERVICES PRIVATE LIMITED HYDERABAD PAN: AACCH2515A VS DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 2 (2) HYDERABAD (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) FOR ASSESSEE : SHRI S.P.CHIDAMBARAM FOR REVENUE : SHRI YVST SAI, DR O R D E R PER SMT. P. MADHAVI DEVI, J.M. THIS IS ASSESSEES APPEAL FOR THE A.Y 2013-14 AGAIN ST THE ASSESSMENT ORDER PASSED U/S 143(3) R.W.S.144C(5) R. W.S. 144C(13) OF THE I.T. ACT, 1961. THE ASSESSEE HAS RAISED THE FOL LOWING GROUNDS OF APPEAL: 1. THAT ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, TH E FINAL ASSESSMENT ORDER DATED 27 OCTOBER 2017 (AND RECEIVE D BY THE APPELLANT ON 01 NOVEMBER 2017) PASSED BY THE DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE 2(2), HYDERABAD U /S 143(3) OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT (THE ACT') READ WITH SECTION 144C(5) READ WITH SECTION 144C(13) OF THE ACT PURSUANT TO THE D IRECTIONS ISSUED BY DISPUTE RESOLUTION PANE (DPR) U/S 144C(5) OF THE ACT DATED 02 SEPTEMBER 2017 IS BAD IN LAW AND VOID AB-I NITIO SO FAR AS IT IS PREJUDICIAL TO THE APPELLANT. TRANSFER PRICING GENERAL 2. THAT ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN LAW, THE TPO/AO/DRP ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE TRANSFER PRI CING DATE OF HEARING : 22.10.2018 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT: 18.01.2019 ITA NO 2176 OF 2017 HARSCO INDIA S ERVICES P LTD HYDERABAD. PAGE 2 OF 14 ADJUSTMENT OF RS. 1,97,72,254 ON ACCOUNT OF PROVISI ON OF INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY ENABLED SERVICES (ITES) BY T HE APPELLANT TO ITS ASSOCIATED ENTERPRISES (AES). 3. THAT ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN LAW, THE TPO/AO/DRP ERRED IN REJECTING TRANSFER PRICING DOCUMENTATION MAINTAINED BY THE APPELLANT IN ACCORD ANCE WITH THE PROVISIONS OF THE ACT READ WITH THE INCOME TAX RULES 1952 (RULES') AND UNDERTAKING A FRESH ECONOMIC ANALYSIS DURING THE COURSE 0' ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS AND THEREBY MAKING AN ADJUSTMENT TO THE INTERNATIONAL TRANSACTIONS. SELECTION OF UN-COMPARABLE COMPANIES 45. THAT ON THE FACTS AND THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN LAW, THE TPO/AO/DRP ERRED IN CONSIDERING THE FOLLOW ING COMPANIES AS COMPARABLE A) CAPGEMINI BUSINESS SERVICES (INDIA) LIMITED AND B) HARTRON COMMUNICATIONS LIMITED. 5. THAT ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN LAW, THE TPO/AO/DRP ERRED IN ACCEPTING HARTRON COMMUNICA TIONS LIMITED FOR COMPARABILITY ANALYSIS UNDER TRANSACTIO NAL NET MARGIN METHOD CTNMM') WITHOUT APPRECIATING THAT THE AUDITOR HAS QUALIFIED ITS REPORT ON ACCOUNT OF NON-COMPLIAN CE WITH ACCOUNTING STANDARD-15 REGARDING PROVISION FOR RETI REMENT EXPENSES, FOR WHICH IMPACT ON PROFITS IS NOT ASCERT AINABLE. 6. THAT ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN LAW, THE TPO/AO/DRP ERRED IN ACCEPTING CAPGEMINI BUSINES S SERVICES (INDIA) LIMITED AS A COMPARABLE DISREGARDI NG THE FACT THAT COMPANY IS ENGAGED IN THE PROVISION OF DIVERSI FIED OPERATIONS AND HAVING HIGH SCALE OF OPERATIONS. ERROR IN COMPUTATION OF MARGIN OF COMPARABLE COMPANIES 7. THAT ON THE FACTS AND THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE C ASE AND IN LAW, THE AO/DRP ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE TPO'S STAND OF TREATING THE PROVISION FOR BAD AND DOUBTFUL DEBTS AND BAD DE BTS WRITTEN OFF AS NON-OPERATING EXPENSES FOR THE PURPOSE OF MA RGIN COMPUTATION OF COMPARABLE COMPANIES AS SELECTED BY TPO. REJECTION OF COMPARABLE COMPANIES 8. THAT ON THE FACTS AND THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE C ASE AND IN LAW, THE TPO/AO/DRP ERRED BY NOT INCLUDING FOLLOWIN G COMPANIES AS COMPARABLES: 1. ACE BPO SERVICES PRIVATE LIMITED; 2. INFORMED TECHNOLOGIES INDIA LIMITED AND 3. JINDAL INTELLICOM LIMITED 4. CRYSTAL VOXX LTD ITA NO 2176 OF 2017 HARSCO INDIA S ERVICES P LTD HYDERABAD. PAGE 3 OF 14 9. THAT ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN LAW, THE TPO/AO/DRP ERRED BY NOT INCLUDING COMPANIES AS PER GROUND NO 8 WHICH ARE FUNCTIONALLY COMPARABLE AND M EETS THE FILTER ADOPTED BY THE TPO. 10. THAT ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN LAW, THE TPO J AO J DRP ERRED BY NOT APPRECIATING THAT I NFORMED TECHNOLOGIES INDIA LIMITED AND JINDAL INTELLICOM LI MITED ARE CONSIDERED AS COMPARABLES BY THE TPO IN EARLIER ASS ESSMENT YEAR IN APPELLANT'S OWN CASE AND THE FUNCTIONS OF C OMPARABLE HAVE REMAINED SAME FOR CURRENT YEAR. USE OF FILTERS 11. THAT ON FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN LAW, THE AO/DRP ERRED IN UPHOLDING THE USE OF DIFFERENT FINA NCIAL YEAR END FILTER FOR REJECTION OF COMPARABLE COMPANIES WH ILE UNDERTAKING THE COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS. REJECTION OF USE OF MULTIPLE YEAR DATA 12. THAT ON FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN LAW, THE AO/DRP ERRED IN REJECTING THE USE OF MULTIPLE YEAR DATA AND USING DATA FOR FY 2012-13 ONLY. WORKING CAPITAL ADJUSTMENT 13. THAT ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE OR IN LAW, AO/DRP HAS ERRED IN MAKING NEGATIVE WORKING CAPITAL ADJUSTMENT IN THE APPELLANT'S CASE WHO IS MAINLY A CAPTIVE SERVICE PROVIDER, WITHOUT TAKING INTO ACCOUNT THE J URISDICTIONAL JUDICIAL PRECEDENTS ON THE ISSUE. 14. WITHOUT PREJUDICE TO ABOVE, THE AO/TPO/DRP HAS ERRED IN CONSIDERING THE INCORRECT NUMBERS WHILE CALCULATING AVERAGE RECEIVABLES/PAYABLES OF THE COMPARABLE SELECTED IN THE TP ORDER WHILE COMPUTING THE WORKING CAPITAL ADJUSTMENT. ADJUSTMENT FOR RISK DIFFERENCES 15. THAT ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN LAW, THE AO/DRP ERRED IN DISREGARDING THE RISK PROFILE O F THE APPELLANT VIS-A-VIS ALLEGED COMPARABLE COMPANIES SE LECTED BY THE TPO AND NOT ALLOWING RISK ADJUSTMENT AS PER THE PROVISIONS OF RULE 10B(1)(E) OF THE RULES. ARM'S LENGTH RANGE OF 3% 16. THAT THE AO/TPO BE DIRECTED TO RE-WORK THE PROF IT MARGINS OF THE APPELLANT VIS-A-VIS THE RESULTANT COMPARABLE CO MPANIES AND TO ALLOW THE BENEFIT OF +/ -3% RANGE AS PROVIDED IN PROVISO TO SECTION 92C(2) OF THE ACT. CORPORATE TAX. ITA NO 2176 OF 2017 HARSCO INDIA S ERVICES P LTD HYDERABAD. PAGE 4 OF 14 17. THAT ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN LAW, THE AO HAS ERRED IN COMPUTING THE INTEREST UNDER SE CTION 234B OF THE ACT. 18. THE APPELLANT CRAVES, TO CONSIDER EACH OF THE A BOVE GROUNDS OF APPEAL WITHOUT PREJUDICE TO EACH OTHER AND CRAVE S LEAVE TO ADD, ALTER, DELETE OR MODIFY ALL OR ANY OF THE ABOV E GROUNDS OF APPEAL. 3. AT THE TIME OF HEARING, THE LEARNED COUN SEL FOR THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT GROUNDS 1 TO 3 ARE GENERAL IN NATURE AND NEEDS NO ADJUDICATION AND THAT THE ASSESSEE IS NOT PRESSING GROUNDS 11, 12, 15. AS REGARDS GROUNDS 16 & 17 ARE CONCERNED, THEY ARE CONSEQUENTIAL IN NATURE AND THEREFORE, THE Y NEED NO ADJUDICATION EXCEPT DIRECTION TO THE AO FOR GIVING CONSEQUENTIAL RELIEF, IF ANY, TO THE ASSESSEE. 4. AS REGARDS GROUNDS 4 TO 6 ARE CONCE RNED, BRIEF FACTS ARE AS UNDER. THE ASSESSEE COMPANY FURNISHED ITS RE TURN OF INCOME FOR THE A.Y 2013-14 ON 29.11.2013 ELECTRONIC ALLY U/S 139(1) OF THE IT ACT, DECLARING A TOTAL INCOME OF R S.5,01,65,750. DURING THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS U/S 143(3) OF THE ACT, THE AO OBSERVED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS REPORTED INTERNAT IONAL TRANSACTIONS WITH ITS AES AND THEREFORE, THE DETERM INATION OF THE ALP WAS REFERRED TO THE TPO U/S 92CA OF THE ACT. TH E TPO ISSUED NOTICES TO THE ASSESSEE, IN RESPONSE TO WHIC H THE ASSESSEES REPRESENTATIVE APPEARED AND SUBMITTED TH E DETAILS. 5. THE TPO OBSERVED THAT THE ASSESSEE IS I NCORPORATED AS A PRIVATE LIMITED COMPANY AND IS ENGAGED IN THE BUSIN ESS OF PROVIDING IT ENABLED BACK OFFICE SERVICES AND INFRA STRUCTURE SUPPORT TO HARSCO GROUP OF COMPANIES. HE OBSERVED T HAT THE ASSESSEE HAS SET UP A UNIT UNDER THE SOFTWARE TECHN OLOGY PARKS ITA NO 2176 OF 2017 HARSCO INDIA S ERVICES P LTD HYDERABAD. PAGE 5 OF 14 OF INDIA (STPI) SCHEME AT HYDERABAD, INDIA. HE OPIN ED THAT THE SERVICES OFFERED BY THE ASSESSEE TO HARSCO INFRASTR UCTURE SERVICES ARE IN THE NATURE OF APPLICATION SUPPORT & MONITORING, GLOBAL IT GOVERNANCE AND INFRASTRUCTURE SUPPORT, AC COUNTS PAYABLE SUPPORT AND OTHER SUPPORT SERVICES, IN THE NATURE OF IT ENABLED BACK-OFFICE SERVICES. HE OBSERVED THAT THE ASSESSEE RECEIVES ITS COMPENSATION ON COST PLUS 15% BASIS TO WARDS THE SERVICES RENDERED AS PER THE AGREEMENT ENTERED WITH THE AES. HE OBSERVED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS ENTERED INTO THE FOLLOWING INTERNATIONAL TRANSACTIONS: A.E NATURE OF TRANSACTION AMOUNT (IN RS.) HARSCO GROUP CORPN. USA P ROVISION OF IT ENABLED SERVICES 160901715 REIMBURSEMENT OF EXPENSES 581282 RECEIVABLES 29298909 PAYABLES 651027 HARSCO METAL GROUP LTD, UK PROVISION OF IT ENABLED SERVICES 126795426 RECEIVABLES 23361391 HARSCO INFRASTRUCTURE SERVICES LTD, UK P ROVISION OF IT ENABLED SERVICES 5 6315780 RECEIVABLES 9291542 HARSCO METALS LEXEQUIP, LUXUMBURG PROVISION OF IT ENABLED SERVICES 4604995 RECE IVABL ES 802838 HARSCO METAL LTDA, BRAZIL P ROVISION OF IT ENABLED SERVICES 2320434 RECEIVABLES 170974 H ARSCO METALS SOUTH AFRICA PTY LTD P ROVISION OF IT ENABLED SERVICES 2197198 RECE IVABLES 747974 HARSO INFRASTRUCTURE SERVICES GMBH, GERMANY PAYABLES 473775 AL QUEBEIEISI LLC, SA PAYABLES 106476 6. THE TPO ALSO OBSERVED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS CARR IED OUT THE ECONOMIC ANALYSIS AND HAS ADOPTED TNMM AS T HE MOST ITA NO 2176 OF 2017 HARSCO INDIA S ERVICES P LTD HYDERABAD. PAGE 6 OF 14 APPROPRIATE METHOD AND ARRIVED AT A MARGIN OF COMPA RABLES AT 12.21%. SINCE ITS MARGIN OF 15% WAS MORE THAN THE A VERAGE MARGIN OF THE COMPARABLES, THE ASSESSEE HAD TREATED ITS TRANSACTIONS AT ALP. THE TPO HOWEVER, OBSERVED THAT THE SEARCH PROCESS OF THE ASSESSEE SUFFERED FROM DEFECTS WHICH RESULTED IN SELECTION OF INAPPROPRIATE COMPARABLES AND REJECTIO N OF APPROPRIATE COMPARABLES. THEREFORE, HE REJECTED THE TP DOCUMENT OF THE ASSESSEE AND CONDUCTED AN INDEPENDE NT ANALYSIS BY AGGREGATING ALL THE TRANSACTIONS UNDER TNMM. HE ARRIVED AT THE ALP OF THE COMPARABLES AT 21.67% AND AFTER ALLOWING THE WORKING CAPITAL ADJUSTMENT OF 0.60%, H E DETERMINED THE ALP AT RS.37,59,01,555/- AND SUGGEST ED AN ADJUSTMENT OF RS.2,06,07,079. ACCORDINGLY, A DRAFT ASSESSMENT ORDER WAS PROPOSED, AGAINST WHICH, THE ASSESSEE PRE FERRED ITS OBJECTIONS TO THE DRP. THE DRP GRANTED PARTIAL RELI EF TO THE ASSESSEE AND IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE DRP DIRECTIONS, THE FINAL ASSESSMENT ORDER WAS PASSED, AGAINST WHICH, THE ASS ESSEE IS IN APPEAL BEFORE US BY RAISING THE ABOVE GROUNDS OF AP PEAL. 7. IN GROUNDS 4 TO 6, THE ASSESSEE IS CHALLENGING T HE COMPARABILITY OF CAPGEMINI BUSINESS SERVICES (INDIA) LIMITED AND HARTRON COMMUNICATIONS LIMITED ON ACCOUNT OF FUNCTIONAL DISSIMILARITIES. 8. THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE WHILE REITERATING THE SUBMISSIONS MADE BEFORE THE AUTHORI TIES BELOW SUBMITTED THAT THE COMPARABILITY OF THESE TWO COMPA NIES WITH ITES COMPANIES HAVE BEEN CONSIDERED BY THE COORDINA TE BENCH OF THE TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF HYUNDAI MOTOR INDIA ENGINEERING (P) LTD VS. DY.CIT IN ITA NO.1807/HYD/ 2017) FOR TH E A.Y 2013- ITA NO 2176 OF 2017 HARSCO INDIA S ERVICES P LTD HYDERABAD. PAGE 7 OF 14 14 AND AFTER CONSIDERING SIMILAR SET OF FACTS HAVE HELD THAT THESE COMPANIES NOT TO BE COMPARABLE. A COPY OF THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL IS ALSO FILED BEFORE US. 9. THE LEARNED DR HOWEVER, SUPPORTED THE ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW. 10. HAVING REGARD TO THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS AND THE MATERIAL ON RECORD, WE FIND THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS B EEN TREATED AS AN ITES BACK OFFICE SERVICE PROVIDER AND EVEN HY UNDAI MOTOR INDIA ENGINEERING (P) LTD HAS BEEN CONSIDERED AS IT ES SERVICE PROVIDER AND THE ASSESSMENT YEAR INVOLVED IN THE AP PEAL BEFORE US AS WELL AS IN THE APPEAL OF HYUNDAI MOTOR INDIA ENGINEERING (P) LTD IS A.Y 2013-14. WE ALSO FIND THAT THE COMPA RABLES TAKEN BY THE TPO ARE EXACTLY THE SAME. THEREFORE, THE DEC ISION TAKEN IN THE CASE OF HYUNDAI MOTOR INDIA ENGINEERING (P) LTD WOULD ALSO APPLY TO THE ASSESSEE BEFORE US. THE RELEVANT PORTION OF THE TRIBUNALS ORDER AS REGARDS COMPARABILITY OF CAPGEM INI BUSINESS SERVICES (INDIA) LIMITED AND HARTRON COMMUNICATIO NS LIMITED IS AS UNDER: 8. CAPGEMINI BUSINESS SERVICES (INDIA) LTD. THE LEA RNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT THIS COMPANY IS FUN CTIONALLY DISSIMILAR AS IT IS INVOLVED IN BPO SERVICES, CLOUD BUSINESS INFORMATION MANAGEMENT SERVICES AND OTHER I.T RELAT ED SERVICES AS AGAINST THE SUPPORT SERVICES PROVIDED BY THE ASSESS EE WHICH HAVE BEEN CATEGORIZED AS ITES. ON PERUSAL OF THE ANNUAL REPORTS OF THE SAID COMPANY AT PAGES 863 AND 865 OF THE PAPER BOOK FILED BY THE ASSESSEE, WE FIND THAT THE COMPANY CAPGEMINI BUSINE SS SERVICES (INDIA) LTD IS NOT ONLY TO ITES IN FINANCING & ACCO UNTING BUT HAS ALSO WIDENED THE SCOPE OF SERVICES IN SUPPLY CHAIN, PROCUREMENT, TECHNICAL PUBLICATION SERVICES AND HAS SHOWN THE IN TENTION TO DIVERSIFY THE PORTFOLIOS. WE FIND THAT IT IS ALSO P ROVIDING SERVICES IN RELATION TO THE OPERATIONAL CONTROL SYSTEM AND FOR COMPLIANCE WITH THE PROVISIONS OF THE SARBANES OXLEY ACT, 2002 AND THAT IT ALSO STATED THAT THE COMPANY HAS STRATEGICALLY EXPANDED ITS NEW SERVICES BY INCLUDING NON SOX RELATED ACTIVITIES LIKE I.T RI SK ASSESSMENT, SAS 70, ASSURANCE AND RISK MANAGEMENT TO MANY COMPANIES . FURTHER, ITA NO 2176 OF 2017 HARSCO INDIA S ERVICES P LTD HYDERABAD. PAGE 8 OF 14 WE FIND THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS REPORTED INCOME ONLY FROM THE SALE OF SERVICES. THUS, WE ARE INCLINED TO AGREE WITH THE L EARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE THAT THE ACTIVITIES OF CAPGEMINI BUSIN ESS SERVICES ARE MUCH MORE DIVERSIFIED THAN THE ACTIVITIES OF THE AS SESSEE AND UNLESS AND UNTIL A SUITABLE ADJUSTMENT CAN BE MADE, THE SA ID COMPANY CANNOT BE TAKEN AS A COMPARABLE. IT HAS BEEN HELD I N A NUMBER OF CASES THAT WHERE A COMPARABLE IS INTO DIVERSIFIED A CTIVITIES, THE SAME CAN BE TAKEN AS A COMPARABLE PROVIDED THE SEGMENTAL RESULTS ARE AVAILABLE. AS SEEN FROM PAGE NO.1015 OF THE PAPER B OOK, SEGMENTAL RESULTS ARE NOT AVAILABLE FOR ITES SERVICES. THEREF ORE, WE ARE OF THE OPINION THAT CAPGEMINI BUSINESS SERVICES IS TO BE E XCLUDED FROM THE FINAL LIST OF COMPARABLES. 9. AS REGARDS HARTRON COMMUNICATIONS LTD IS CONCERN ED, THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT THI S COMPANY IS ALSO FUNCTIONALLY DISSIMILAR AS IT PROVIDES MULTIPLE SER VICES LIKE BPO, LPO, BACK OFFICE SOFTWARE DEVELOPMENT, TECHNICAL SO LUTIONS, MEDICAL BUILDING, ETC., AND THAT THE SEGMENTAL INFO RMATION IS NOT AVAILABLE. IT WAS ALSO BROUGHT TO OUR NOTICE THAT T HE AUDITOR HAS CLARIFIED ABOUT THE NON-COMPLIANCE REGARDING PROVIS IONS FOR RETIREMENT BENEFITS AND IMPAIRMENT OF THE ASSETS. F URTHER, HE SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS TAKEN THE OBJECTION ABOUT THIS COMPANY BEFORE THE DRP, BUT THE DRP HAS NOT DISCUSS ED THE SAME AND HAS SIMPLY CONFIRMED THE ORDER OF THE TPO. 10. HAVING REGARD TO THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS AND THE MATERIAL ON RECORD, WE FIND THAT BEFORE THE TPO, THE ASSESSEE H AD ONLY TAKEN AN OBJECTION THAT THE SAID COMPANY IS FUNCTIONALLY DIS SIMILAR. BEFORE THE DRP ALSO, THE ASSESSEE HAD ALSO STATED THAT IN ADDITION TO THE BPO, LPO AND ITES SERVICES, THIS COMPANY IS ALSO EN GAGED IN PROVIDING INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY SERVICES IN THE NAT URE OF PATENT SEARCH, PATENT PROTECTION, AND OBTAINING THE TRADE- MARK SERVICES, IP MANAGEMENT AND FURTHER IN SOFTWARE DEVELOPMENT SERV ICES SUCH AS WEB PAGE APPLICATION, STANDALONE SOFTWARE APPLICATI ON, DISTRIBUTED APPLICATIONS, DESKTOP/LAPTOP APPLICATIONS AND MOBIL E APPLICATIONS. THE ASSESSEE HAD RELIED UPON THE ANNU AL REPORT AS WELL AS WEBSITE INFORMATION OF THE SAID COMPANY TO SUBMIT AS ABOVE AND PLEADED THAT NO SEGMENTAL INFORMATION IS AVAILA BLE. HOWEVER, THE DRP HAS SUMMARILY REJECTED THE ASSESSEE'S CONTE NTION AND HAS CONFIRMED THE ASSESSMENT ORDER. SINCE THE FACTS MEN TIONED BY THE ASSESSEE ABOUT HARTRON COMMUNICATIONS NEED TO BE VE RIFIED, WE DEEM IT FIT AND PROPER TO REMIT THIS ISSUE TO THE F ILE OF THE AO FOR VERIFICATION OF THE ASSESSEE'S CONTENTIONS AND IF I T IS FOUND TO BE IN DIVERSIFIED ACTIVITIES AND NO SEGMENTAL INFORMATION IS AVAILABLE, THEN WE DIRECT THAT THIS COMPANY CANNOT BE TAKEN AS A CO MPARABLE. THUS, GROUNDS OF APPEAL NOS. 3 TO 5 ARE PARTLY ALLOWED FO R STATISTICAL PURPOSES. 11. RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING THE SAME, WE DIRECT THE AO TO EXCLUDE THESE TWO COMPANIES FROM THE FINAL LIST OF COMPARABLES. ITA NO 2176 OF 2017 HARSCO INDIA S ERVICES P LTD HYDERABAD. PAGE 9 OF 14 12. AS REGARDS GROUNDS 8 TO 10 SEEKING INCLUSION OF CERTAIN COMPANIES IS CONCERNED, WE FIND THAT IN THE CASE OF HYUNDAI MOTOR INDIA ENGINEERING (P) LTD, WE HAVE CO NSIDERED SIMILAR CONTENTIONS OF THE ASSESSEE THEREIN AND AT PARAS 12 TO 14 AND 16 TO 20, THE TRIBUNAL HAS HELD AS UNDER: 12. AS REGARDS GROUNDS 8 TO 11 ARE CONCERNED, IT IS FOR INCLUSION OF CERTAIN COMPANIES AS COMPARABLES. THE LEARNED COUNS EL FOR THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT ACE BPO SERVICES LTD WAS TA KEN BY THE ASSESSEE AS A COMPARABLE, BUT THE TPO HAS HELD IT T O BE FUNCTIONALLY NOT COMPARABLE AND THE DRP HAS ALSO CONFIRMED THE R EJECTION ON THE GROUND THAT NO INFORMATION ABOUT THE RPT FILTER IS AVAILABLE IN THE ANNUAL REPORT. IT IS SUBMITTED THAT THE SAID COMPAN Y IS ALSO ENGAGED IN ITES SERVICES AS PER ITS ANNUAL REPORT AND THE C OMPANY'S WEBSITE AND THE RPT DATA IS AVAILABLE IN THE ANNUAL REPORT. 13. THE LEARNED DR, HOWEVER, SUPPORTED THE ORDERS O F THE AUTHORITIES BELOW. 14. HAVING REGARD TO THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS AND THE MATERIAL ON RECORD, WE FIND THAT FROM THE ANNUAL REPORT OF ACE BPO SERV ICES LTD, AT PAGE NOS. 1318 AND 1368 OF THE PAPER BOOK, THIS COMPANY IS INTO BPO SERVICES AND THE TRANSACTIONS WITH RELATED PARTIES ARE ALSO REPORTED. THEREFORE, WE ARE OF THE OPINION THAT THIS COMPANY NEEDS TO BE CONSIDERED AS A COMPARABLE. THE AO IS DIRECTED TO V ERIFY THE INFORMATION FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AND IF IT SATISFI ES THE RPT FILTER, THEN THE SAME SHOULD BE CONSIDERED AS A COMPARABLE. 16. AS REGARDS INFORMED TECHNOLOGIES LTD IS CONCERN ED, THE TPO HAD REJECTED THE SAME ON THE GROUND THAT IT IS FUNCTION ALLY NOT COMPARABLE WHILE THE DRP STATED THAT IT FAILS INCOME FROM ITES MORE THAN 75% TO TOTAL OPERATING REVENUE FILTER. THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT THE SAID COMPANY IS ENGAGED IN ITES SERVICES AS PER THE ANNUAL REPORT AND WAS ACCEPTED AS A COMPARABLE IN THE ASSESSEE'S OWN CASE FOR THE A.YS 2011-12 AND 2012-1 3. WITH REGARD TO THE DRP'S FINDING THAT IT FAILS INCOME FROM ITES MO RE THAN 75% TO TOTAL OPERATING REVENUE FILTER, HE SUBMITTED THAT N EITHER THE TPO NOR THE ASSESSEE HAVE MADE SUCH COMMENT OR SUBMISSION. THE LEARNED DR WAS ALSO HEARD WHO RELIED ON THE ORDERS OF THE AUTH ORITIES BELOW. 17. ON GOING THROUGH THE MATERIAL ON RECORD, PARTIC ULARLY ON PAGE NOS. 1407, 1427 AN 1477 OF THE PAPER BOOK, WE FIND THAT THE SAID COMPANY IS ALSO PROVIDING ITES AND BACK OFFICE BOP SERVICES AND AS SEEN FROM PAGE 1425 IN THE COLUMN OF SEGMENTAL REPO RTING, IT IS STATED THAT THE COMPANY IS PROVISIONALLY ENGAGED IN THE BU SINESS PROCESS OUTSOURCES WHICH IS ONLY REPORTABLE AS PER AS-17 ST ANDARD ISSUED BY THE INSTITUTE OF CHARTERED ACCOUNTS OF INDIA ON SEG MENTAL REPORTING. THUS, WE FIND THAT THIS COMPANY CAN BE CONSIDERED A S A COMPARABLE. FURTHER, THE TPO HAS NOT MENTIONED ABOUT THE FILTER OF OPERATING REVENUE BEING MORE THAN 75%. THEREFORE, THE DRP IS CLEARLY IN ERROR IN CONSIDERING THE SAME. THE TPO IS DIRECTED TO CON SIDER THIS ITA NO 2176 OF 2017 HARSCO INDIA S ERVICES P LTD HYDERABAD. PAGE 10 OF 14 COMPANY AS A COMPARABLE AFTER VERIFYING THE DETAILS FURNISHED BY THE ASSESSEE. 18. AS REGARDS JINDAL INTELLICOM LTD IS CONCERNED, THE TPO HAD REJECTED THE SAME ON THE GROUND THAT IT IS NOT FUNC TIONALLY COMPARABLE AND THE DRP HAS CONFIRMED THE SAME. THE ASSESSEE HA S SUBMITTED THAT THIS COMPANY WAS TAKEN AS A COMPARABLE AND ACCEPTED BY THE TPO IN THE ASSESSEE'S OWN CASE FOR THE A.YS 2012- 13 AND 2 011-12. UPON CONSIDERING THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS, WE DEEM IT FIT A ND PROPER TO REMIT THE ISSUE OF COMPARABILITY OF THIS COMPANY TO THE F ILE OF THE TPO AND IF IT IS FOUND THAT THE SAID COMPANY WAS ACCEPTED TO B E A COMPARABLE COMPANY IN THE EARLIER A.YS, THEN THE AO/TPO SHALL CONSIDER THE SAME AS COMPARABLE FOR THE RELEVANT A.Y, UNLESS THERE IS A DIFFERENCE IN THE SERVICES RENDERED BY BOTH THE COMPANIES IN THE RELE VANT A.YS BEFORE US. 19. AS REGARDS CRYSTAL VOXX LTD IS CONCERNED, THE T PO HAS REJECTED THIS COMPANY ON THE GROUND THAT IT DID APPEAR IN TH E SEARCH ANALYSIS OF THE TPO AND THE DRP HAS CONFIRMED THE SAME. THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE HAS DRAWN OUR ATTENTION TO THE ANNUAL REPORT OF THE COMPANY TO SUBMIT THAT THIS COMPANY I S ALSO A BPO COMPANY AND THERE IS ONLY A SINGLE SEGMENT AND HENC E SHOULD BE CONSIDERED AS A COMPARABLE. 20. AS SEEN FROM THE PAPER BOOK FILED BY THE ASSESS EE, THE ANNUAL REPORT OF THE COMPANY IS AVAILABLE IN THE PUBLIC DO MAIN AND THE ASSESSEE HAD SUBMITTED THE SAME DURING THE ASSESSME NT PROCEEDINGS. SINCE CRYSTAL VOXX LTD IS ENGAGED IN ONLY SEGMENT, BPO, AND IT ALSO SATISFIED THE OTHER FILTERS ADOPTED BY THE TPO, WE DEEM IT FIT AND PROPER TO DIRECT THE TPO TO VERIFY THE COMPARABILIT Y OF THIS COMPANY. THEREFORE, THE MATTER IS REMITTED TO THE FILE OF TH E TPO FOR FRESH ANALYSIS. 13. SINCE THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES BEFORE US ARE SIMILAR, RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING THE DECISION OF THE COORDINATE BENCH TO WHICH ONE OF US (J.M) IS THE SIGNATORY, WE DIRECT THE AO/TPO TO VERIFY THE COMPARABILITY OF THESE COMPANI ES AFRESH. THUS, THE MATTER IS REMITTED TO THE TPO FOR FRESH A NALYSIS AND THE GROUND IS TREATED AS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PU RPOSES. 14. AS REGARDS GROUND NO.7, IT IS THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE THAT THE PROVISIONS FOR BAD AND DOUBTFUL DEBTS AND BAD DEBTS WRITTEN OFF SHOULD BE CONSIDERED AS PART OF OPERATING EXPENSES FOR THE PURPOSE OF MARGIN COMPUTATION OF C OMPARABLE COMPANIES SELECTED BY TPO. THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ITA NO 2176 OF 2017 HARSCO INDIA S ERVICES P LTD HYDERABAD. PAGE 11 OF 14 ASSESSEE RELIED UPON THE DECISION OF THE COORDINATE BENCH OF THE TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF KENEXA TECHNOLOGIES PVT. LT D VS. DY.CIT IN ITA NO.243/HYD/2014 FOR THE A.Y 2009-10 FOR THIS PURPOSE WHILE, THE LEARNED DR RELIED UPON THE ORDERS OF THE DRP. WE HAVE GONE THROUGH THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF KENEXA TECHNOLOGIES PVT LTD (SUPRA) AND WE FIND THA T AT PARA 40 TO 42, THE TRIBUNAL HAS HELD AS UNDER: 40. WITH RESPECT TO GROUND NO. 2.6.3 AND 2.6.4, IT WAS ARGUED BY THE LEARNED COUNSEL THAT THE TPO ERRED IN COMPUT ING THE MARGINS OF COMPARABLE COMPANIES BY CONSIDERING THE PROVISION FOR BAD AND DOUBTFUL DEBTS AND BAD DEBTS AS NON- OPERATIVE EXPENDITURE. 41. WE PLACE RELIANCE ON THE DECISION OF ITAT DELHI BENCH IN THE CASE OF SONY INDIA PVT. LTD. VS. DCIT, ITA NO. 1189/DEL/2005, 819/DEL/2007 AND 820/DEL/2007. THE R ELEVANT PORTION IS EXTRACTED BELOW: '106.2 THUS, CREATION OF UNPAID LIABILITY AND ITS W RITE BACK IS A NORMAL INCIDENT OF A BUSINESS OPERATION WHICH IS CA RRIED EVERYWHERE IN ACCOUNTS TO HAVE TRUE PICTURE OF PROF ITS OF THE RELEVANT PERIOD. HAVING REGARD TO STATUTORY PROVISIONS, IT CANNOT BE SAID THAT PROVISIONS OR WRITING BACK OF LIABILITY IS NOT PART OF OPERATING PROFIT OR WOULD NOT BE TAKEN INTO CONSIDERATION FOR COMPUTING THE SAME. WE CAN THEREFORE MAKE A GENERAL OBSERVATION THAT AL L BUSINESS ENTERPRISES ARE MAKING AND WRITING BACK LIABILITIES AS A NORMAL INCIDENT OF OPERATING BUSINESS. THEREFORE ON FACTS WE DO NOT SEE ANY JUSTIFICATION FOR EXCLUDING PROVISIONS WRIT TEN BACK IN THE PROFIT AND LOSS ACCOUNT AS NOT FORMING PART OF THE OPERATING PROFIT OF THE TAXPAYER. ACCORDINGLY CLAIM OF THE TA XPAYER IS ACCEPTED. 107. THE NEXT ITEM RELATES TO BALANCES WRITTEN BACK . IN OUR CONSIDERED OPINION, FINDING GIVEN IN RESPECT OF PRO VISIONS WRITTEN BACK IS EQUALLY APPLICABLE TO BALANCES WRIT TEN BACK MORE PARTICULARLY WHEN LD. CIT(A) HAS NOT GIVEN ANY SEPARATE FINDING AND THE TRANSFER PRICING OFFICER HAS SAID N OTHING SPECIFICALLY ON THIS ITEM. THE BALANCES WRITTEN BAC K SHOULD ALSO BE TREATED AS PART OF OPERATING PROFIT. WE DIR ECT ACCORDINGLY.' 42. WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT IN THE INSTANT CASE BAD DEBTS AND PROVISION FOR BAD AND DOUBTFUL DEBTS ARE PART OF TH E OPERATING EXPENSES AND WE DIRECT THE TPO TO RE-COMPUTE THE MA RGINS OF COMPARABLE COMPANIES BY INCLUDING BAD DEBTS AND PRO VISION FOR BAD AND DOUBTFUL DEBTS AS OPERATING EXPENSES FO R THE ITA NO 2176 OF 2017 HARSCO INDIA S ERVICES P LTD HYDERABAD. PAGE 12 OF 14 PURPOSE OF COMPUTING PROFIT AND LOSS OF COMPARABLE COMPANIES. 15. WE FIND THAT THE DRP HAS ALSO FOLLOWED CERTAIN DECISIONS OF THE TRIBUNAL TO HOLD THAT THE PROVISIO N FOR BAD AND DOUBTFUL DEBTS DO NOT FORM PART OF OPERATING EXPENS ES. WE AGREE WITH THE FINDINGS OF THE COORDINATE BENCH THAT THE PROVISION OF BAD AND DOUBTFUL DEBTS IS PART OF THE OPERATING EXP ENSES. THEREFORE, RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING THE DECISION OF T HE COORDINATE BENCH, WE DIRECT THE AO/TPO TO CONSIDER THE PROVISI ON FOR BAD AND DOUBTFUL DEBTS BOTH IN THE ASSESSEE AS WELL AS COMPARABLE CASES AS PART OF OPERATING EXPENSES. THIS GROUND OF APPEAL IS ACCORDINGLY ALLOWED. 16. AS FAR AS WORKING CAPITAL ADJUSTMENT IN GROUNDS 13 & 14 IS CONCERNED, WE FIND THAT THE AO AND THE DRP HAVE NOT ALLOWED THE WORKING CAPITAL ADJUSTMENT, ON THE GROU ND THAT THERE IS A NEGATIVE WORKING CAPITAL ADJUSTMENT AND THEREFORE, NO ADJUSTMENT SHALL BE MADE. IN SUPPORT OF THIS CONTEN TION, HE PLACED RELIANCE UPON THE FOLLOWING DECISIONS. I) ADAPTEC (INDIA) P LTD VS. ACIT (ITA NO.206/HYD/2014) FOR THE A.Y 2009-10. II) M/S INTOTO SOFTWARE (INDIA) P LTD VS. ITO, BENG ALURU IT (TP)A NO.529/BANG/2016) AND (IT(TP)A NO.491/BANG/2016) FOR THE A.Y 2011-12. 17. HAVING GONE THROUGH THE MATERIAL ON RECORD, WE FIND THAT THE COORDINATE BENCH OF THE TRIBUNAL IN THE CA SE OF ADAPTEC (INDIA) P LTD VS. ACIT (SUPRA) AT PARA 10 & 11 HAS HELD AS UNDER: 10. GROUND NO.8 PERTAINS TO THE ISSUE OF NEGATIVE W ORKING CAPITAL. AS BRIEFLY STATED ABOVE, AFTER ARRIVING AT THE ARITHME TIC MEAN OF ALL COMPARABLES AT 22.03%, THE A.O. WORKED OUT NEGATIVE WORKING CAP ITAL ADJUSTMENT OF 3.22% THEREBY, MAKING ARMS LENGTH PRICE AT 25.25%. EVEN THOUGH, DRP REFUSED TO INTERFERE WITH THE OBJECTIONS OF THE ASS ESSEE IN ITS ORDER, WE WERE ITA NO 2176 OF 2017 HARSCO INDIA S ERVICES P LTD HYDERABAD. PAGE 13 OF 14 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., ASSESSEE PLACED ON RECORD COPIES OF ORDERS OF DRP. IN THAT DRP CONSIDERED THE ISSUE AND DIRECTED THE TPO AS UN DER : '14. GROUND NO.11 : NEGATIVE WORKING CAPITAL ADJUST MENT - MAKING A NEGATIVE WORKING CAPITAL ADJUSTMENT WITHOUT APPRECI ATING THE FACT THAT THE COMPANY DOES NOT BEAR 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 ADJU STMENT FOR THE DIFFERENCES IN WORKING CAPITAL BETWEEN THE ASSESSEE AND THE COMPANIES CONSIDERED AS COMPARABLES. THE ASSESSEE DOES NOT AG REE WITH THE LEARNED TPO AS : THE COMPANY DOES NOT BEAR ANY WORKING CAPITAL RIS K 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 LO ANS 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, HYDERABAD IN THE CASE OF CORDYS SOFTWARE INDIA P. LTD., FOR A.Y. 2008-09 IN ITS DIR ECTIONS 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 CUST OMERS. THE APPLICANT IS NOT AN ENTREPRENEUR BUT A CAPTIVE SERVICE PROVIDER. ITS ENTIRE FUNDING NEEDS ARE PROVIDED BY THE A.E. THIS BEING SO, THE APPLICA NT DOES NOT STAND TO LOSE ANYTHING AS IT IS COMPENSATED ON A TOTAL COST PLUS BASIS. THE TPO PROBABLY WAS CARRIED AWAY BY THE LARGE AMOUNT OF RECEIVABLES APPEARING IN THE BOOKS OF THE APPLICANT. BUT THE APPLICANT IS RUNNING ITS BUSINESS WITHOUT ANY WORKING CAPITAL RISK WHILE COMPARABLE COMPANIES HAV E SUCH A RISK FOR THEM. IF AT ALL ANY WORKING CAPITAL ADJUSTMENT IS TO BE M ADE TO THIS SITUATION, ONLY A POSITIVE ADJUSTMENT HAS TO BE MADE TO THE COMPARABL ES SO THAT THEY ARE BROUGHT ON PAR WITH THE APPLICANT. IN VIEW OF THE S AME, THE PANEL DIRECTS THAT NEGATIVE WORKING CAPITAL ADJUSTMENT TO THE ARITHMET IC 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 COM PARABLES SHALL NOT BE MADE.' 11. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE, WE ARE OF THE OPINION THA T ASSESSEE'S CASE BEING SIMILAR, THERE IS NO NEED FOR MAKING ANY NEGATIVE W ORKING CAPITAL ADJUSTMENT WHEN ASSESSEE DOES NOT CARRY ANY WORKING CAPITAL RI SK. IN FACT, TPO SHOULD HAVE DONE NECESSARY WORKING CAPITAL ADJUSTMENT TO T HE PROFITS OF THE SELECTED COMPARABLES SO AS TO MAKE THEM COMPARABLE TO THE AS SESSEE. IN VIEW OF THIS, WE DIRECT THE TPO NOT TO MAKE NEGATIVE WORKING CAPI TAL ADJUSTMENT. 18. SIMILARLY IN THE CASE OF M/S INTOTO SOFTWARE (I NDIA) P LTD VS. ITO, BENGALURU AT PARA 14, THE DECISION OF THE ITA NO 2176 OF 2017 HARSCO INDIA S ERVICES P LTD HYDERABAD. PAGE 14 OF 14 HYDERABAD BENCH OF THE TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF ADAP TEC (INDIA) P LTD VS. ACIT (SUPRA) WAS CONSIDERED TO DIRECT THE AO NOT TO MAKE ANY NEGATIVE WORKING CAPITAL ADJUSTMENT. RESPE CTFULLY FOLLOWING THE SAME, WE DIRECT THE AO NOT TO MAKE AN Y NEGATIVE WORKING CAPITAL ADJUSTMENT. 19. WITHOUT PREJUDICE TO THE ABOVE GROUNDS, THE ASS ESSEE HAD ALSO STATED THAT THE CORRECT NUMBERS WITH RESPE CT TO AVERAGE RECEIVABLES/PAYABLES OF THE COMPARABLES SELECTED IN THE TP ORDER ARE TO BE CONSIDERED. THEREFORE, WE DIRECT THE TPO TO ADOPT THE CORRECT FIGURE OF AVERAGE RECEIVABLES/PAYABLES FOR COMPUTING THE WORKING CAPITAL ADJUSTMENT. ASSESSEES GROUNDS 13 & 14 ARE ACCORDINGLY TREATED AS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURP OSES. 20. IN THE RESULT, ASSESSEES APPEAL IS PARTLY ALLO WED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 18 TH JANUARY, 2019. SD/- SD/- (S.RIFAUR RAHMAN) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER (P. MADHAVI DEVI) JUDICIAL MEMBER HYDERABAD, DATED 18 TH JANUARY, 2019. VINODAN/SPS COPY TO: 1 M/S. HARSCO INDIA SERVICES (P) LTD, 2 ND FLOOR, BING NO.3, BLOCK NO.6, ILABS CENTRE, P.NO.18,SOFTWARE UNITS LAYOUTS, SURVEY NO.64P, MADHAPUR, HYDERABAD 500081 2 DY.CIT, CIRCLE 2(2), 5 TH FLOOR, SIGNATURE TOWERS,OPP: BOTANICAL GARDEN, KONDAPUR, HYDERABAD 3 DRP-1, KENDRIYA SADAN, 4 TH FLOOR, B&C WING, BENGALURU 560034 4 5 PR. CIT 2 HYDERABAD CHIEF COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (INTL. TAXN) (SZ) BENGALURU 6 THE DR, ITAT HYDERABAD 7 GUARD FILE BY ORDER