Appeal details
Counselvise Citation
[2021] 109 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 8349 (ITAT-DELHI)
Assessee PAN
Bench
Appeal Number
Duration Of Justice
5 year(s) 9 month(s) 1 day(s)
Appellant
Respondent
Appeal Type
Income Tax Appeal
Pronouncement Date
15-01-2021
Appeal Filed By
Assessee
Order Result
Partly Allowed
Bench Allotted
I
Assessment Year
2010-2011
Appeal Filed On
13-04-2015
Judgement Text
PAGE | 1 INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH I-2: NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI KULDIP SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER A N D SHRI PRASHANT MAHARISHI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER (THROUGH VIDEO CONFERENCING) ITA NO. 2185/DEL/2015 (ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2010-11) SERCO BPO PVT. LTD, PLOT NO. 408, UDYOG VIHAR, PHASE-III, GURGAON PAN: AABCV2572L VS. DCIT, CIRCLE-4(1), GURGAON (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) ASSESSEE BY : SHRI VISHAL KALRA, ADV .; & SHRI S. S. TOMAR, ADV. REVENUE BY: SHRI SARABJEET SINGH, SR. D . R . DATE OF HEARING 16 / 10 / 2020 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT 1 5 / 0 1 / 202 1 O R D E R PER PRASHANT MAHARISHI, A. M. 1. THIS APPEAL IS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 30.01.2015 PASSED BY THE LD. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 4 (1), GURGAON, (THE LEARNED AO) UNDER SECTION 143(3) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 (THE ACT) FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2010-11 DETERMINING THE TOTAL INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE AT LOSS OF 466,048,140/ AGAINST THE RETURNED INCOME OF BUSINESS LOSS OF 469,092,838/ AND THE ONLY ADDITION CONTESTED IS ADDITION ON ACCOUNT OF THE TRANSFER PRICING ADJUSTMENT U/S 92CA OF THE ACT WITH RESPECT TO THE ARMS-LENGTH PRICE OF THE INTERNATIONAL TRANSACTIONS PROPOSED BY THE LEARNED TRANSFER PRICING OFFICER (THE LEARNED TPO) WHICH WAS SUBJECTED TO THE DIRECTION OF THE LEARNED DISPUTE RESOLUTION PANEL III, NEW DELHI. 2. THE ASSESSEE HAS RAISED THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS OF APPEAL:- 1. THAT ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN LAW, THE ORDER PASSED BY THE LD. ASSESSING OFFICER (AO) IS BAD IN LAW. 2. THAT ON FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN LAW, THE REFERENCE MADE BY THE LD. AO SUFFERS FROM JURISDICTIONAL ERROR AS THE LD. AO DID NOT RECORD ANY REASONS IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER BASED ON WHICH HE REACHED THE CONCLUSION THAT IT WAS EXPEDIENT AND NECESSARY TC REFER PAGE | 2 THE MATTER TO THE LD. TRANSFER PRICING OFFICER (TPO) FOR COMPUTATION OF THE ARMS LENGTH PRICE, AS IS REQUIRED UNDER SECTION 92CA(1) OF THE ACT. 3. THAT ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN LAW, THE LD. AO ERRED IN DETERMINING THE ARMS LENGTH PRICE (ALP) OF THE APPELLANTS INTERNATIONAL TRANSACTIONS AT RS. 21,307,974 AS AGAINST RS. 18,263,276 DETERMINED BY THE APPELLANT AND RECOMMENDING AN ADDITION OF RS. 30,44,698 ON THAT ACCOUNT TO THE APPELLANTS INCOME BY:- 3.1. NOT APPRECIATING THE FACT THAT AE SEGMENT OF THE ASSESSEE IS PROFITABLE AS COMPARED TO THE NON- AE SEGMENT. 3.2. MODIFYING THE COMPARABILITY ANALYSIS CONDUCTED IN THE TRANSFER PRICING DOCUMENTATION OF THE APPELLANT ON INAPPROPRIATE AND INADEQUATE GROUNDS; 3.3. REJECTING THE APPLICABILITY OF FUNCTIONAL FILTER APPLIED IN THE SEARCH PROCESS BY THE APPELLANT; 3.4. ADOPTING A NEW SEARCH CRITERION AND INCONSISTENTLY APPLYING CERTAIN ADDITIONAL QUANTITATIVE FILTERS; 3.5. REJECTING THE COMPARABLE COMPANIES SELECTED BY THE APPELLANT WITHOUT PROVIDING COGENT AND SUFFICIENT REASONING; 3.6. SELECTING COMPANIES WHICH WERE NOT COMPARABLE TO THE APPELLANT ON VARIOUS GROUNDS; 3.7. INCORRECTLY COMPUTING THE MARGINS OF COMPARABLE COMPANIES SELECTED; 3.8. CONFIRMING THE SELECTION OF CURRENT YEAR (I.E. FINANCIAL YEAR 2009-10) DATA FOR COMPARABILITY; AND 4. THAT ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN LAW THE LD. AO ERRED IN NOT EXAMINING THE VALIDITY OF INITIATION OF PENALTY PROCEEDINGS U/S 271 (1) (C) OF THE ACT. 5. THAT ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN LAW, THE LD. AO ERRED IN CHARGING AND COMPUTING INTEREST UNDER SECTION 234A, 234B AND 234C OF THE ACT. 3. DURING THE COURSE OF HEARING OF THE APPEAL, ASSESSEE FILED AN ADDITIONAL GROUND OF APPEAL CHALLENGING THAT THE ORDER PASSED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS BAD IN LAW. HOWEVER, AT THE TIME OF HEARING ITSELF THE ASSESSEE DID NOT WANT TO PRESS ITS ADDITIONAL GROUND, HENCE IT IS NOT ADMITTED. 4. THE BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE SHOWS THAT ASSESSEE IS A COMPANY ENGAGED IN THE ACTIVITY OF PROVIDING WEB ENABLED CUSTOMER CARE SERVICES, BPO SERVICES, CALL CENTRE SERVICES AND I.T. ENABLED SERVICES. ASSESSEE FILED ITS RETURN OF INCOME ON 8 TH OCTOBER, 2010 DECLARING LOSS OF RS. 31,91,60,458/-. THIS WAS REVISED ON 29 TH OF MARCH, 2012 AT A LOSS OF RS. 46,90,92,838/-. THE ASSESSEE HAS ENTERED INTO CERTAIN INTERNATIONAL TRANSACTIONS AND, THEREFORE, THE CASE WAS REFERRED TO THE LD. TRANSFER PRICING OFFICER (TPO) TO DETERMINE THE ARMS PAGE | 3 LENGTH PRICE OF THE INTERNATIONAL TRANSACTION. THE ASSESSEE HAS ENTERED INTO AN INTERNATIONAL TRANSACTION OF FEES FOR PROVIDING I.T. SERVICES OF RS. 1,82,63,271/- AND FURTHER REIMBURSEMENT EXPENSES TO ASSOCIATED ENTERPRISES OF RS. 1,12,74,845/-. THE ASSESSEE ADOPTED TRANSACTIONAL NET MARGIN METHOD AS THE MOST APPROPRIATE METHOD AND ADOPTED PROFIT LEVEL INDICATOR OF OPERATING PROFIT TO TOTAL COST. ASSESSEE ARRIVED AT 10 COMPARABLE COMPANIES WHOSE AVERAGE MARGIN USING MULTIPLE YEAR DATA WAS 13.60%. THE MARGINS WERE FURTHER UP-DATED. ONLY 9 COMPARABLES REMAINED WITH PLI OF OPERATING PROFIT TO OPERATE COST HAVING MARGIN OF 10.57%. THE ASSESSEES MARGIN WAS 14.78% AND THUS ACCORDING TO TP STUDY REPORT THE ASSESSEE STATED THAT ITS INTERNATIONAL TRANSACTIONS ARE AT ARMS LENGTH. 5. ON REFERENCE TO THE LD. TPO, HE TINKERED WITH THE COMPARABLES SELECTED BY THE ASSESSEE FOR THE REASONS OF FILTERS AND OTHER FUNCTIONAL DISSIMILARITIES. AFTER GIVING A PROPER SHOW-CAUSE NOTICE, THE LD. TPO KEPT 9 COMPARABLES WHOSE ADJUSTED PLI OF OP / OC WAS DETERMINED AT 33.92%. THIS RATIO WAS APPLIED TO THE OPERATIONAL COST OF THE ASSESSEE AT RS. 1,59,10,972/- AND ARMS LENGTH PRICE WAS DETERMINED AT RS. 2,13,07,974/- AGAINST WHICH PRICE RECEIVED BY THE ASSESSEE WAS ONLY RS. 1,82,63,276/- AND, THEREFORE, ADJUSTMENT WAS PROPOSED OF RS. 30,44,698/- AS PER ORDER UNDER SECTION 92CA(3) DATED 30 TH JANUARY, 2014. CONSEQUENTLY, THE DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE- 2, GURGAON, PASSED A DRAFT ASSESSMENT ORDER ON 19 TH MARCH, 2014 DETERMINING TOTAL LOSS OF THE ASSESSEE AT RS.46,60,48,138/- AGAINST RETURNED LOSS OF RS.46,90,92,838/-. 6. AGGRIEVED BY THE SAME, ASSESSEE FILED ITS OBJECTION BEFORE THE LD. DISPUTE RESOLUTION PENAL-III, NEW DELHI. ASSESSEE OBJECTED TO THE COMPARABILITY ANALYSIS WHERE CERTAIN COMPARABLES SELECTED BY THE TPO AND EXCLUDED BY HIM WERE CONTESTED. THE LD. DRP PASSED ITS DIRECTION ON 22 ND DECEMBER, 2014. BASED ON THOSE DIRECTIONS THE LD. ASSESSING OFFICER PASSED AN ORDER UNDER SECTION 143(3) OF THE ACT ON 30 TH JANUARY, 2015 WHEREIN ALL 9 COMPARABLES WERE RETAINED HAVING ADJUSTED PLI OF 32.92% AND FINAL TP ADJUSTMENT ALSO REMAINED UN-CHANGED AT RS. 30,44,698/-. ACCORDINGLY TOTAL LOSS WAS DETERMINED AT RS. 46,60,48,140/-. THUS THIS IS THE ONLY DISPUTE IN THIS APPEAL IS WITH RESPECT TO THE TRANSFER PRICING ADJUSTMENT ON PAGE | 4 ACCOUNT OF ARMS LENGTH PRICE OF INTERNATIONAL TRANSACTIONS AMOUNTING TO RS.30,44,698/-. 7. THE LD. AR HAS CONTESTED ONLY 6 COMPARABLES BEFORE US. THAT THE LD. DR HAS CONTESTED THE FOLLOWING COMPARABLES AND SUBMITTED THAT THEY SHOULD BE EXCLUDED:- (I) ACCENTIA TECHNOLOGIES LIMITED; (II) FORTUNE INFOTECH LTD.; (III) IGATE CLOBAL SOLUTIONS LTD.; (IV) INFOSYS BPO LTD.; (V) TCS E-SERVE INTERNATIONAL LTD.; (VI) TCS E-SERVE LTD. 8. WE HAVE HEARD THE CONTENTIONS OF THE LD. AR WHO HAS SUBMITTED A DETAILED CHART WITH RESPECT TO EACH OF THE COMPARABLES AND GIVING VARIOUS CONTENTIONS FOR WHY THEY SHOULD BE EXCLUDED. HE HAS RELIED UPON SEVERAL JUDICIAL PRECEDENTS WHEREIN THESE COMPARABLES HAVE BEEN EXCLUDED. 9. THE LD. DR HEAVILY RELIED ON THE ORDER OF THE LD. PRICING OFFICER AND THE DIRECTION OF THE LD. DISPUTE RESOLUTION PENAL SUBMITTING THAT EACH AND EVERY CONTENTION HAS BEEN CONSIDERED BY THEM AND, THEREFORE, THERE IS NO INFIRMITY AND NONE OF THE COMPARABLES DESERVE TO BE EXCLUDED. 10. WE HAVE CAREFULLY CONSIDERED THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS AND ALSO PERUSED THE ORDERS OF THE LEARNED TRANSFER PRICING OFFICER AND DIRECTION OF THE LEARNED DISPUTE RESOLUTION PANEL. WE FIRST OF ALL MAKE IT ABUNDANTLY CLEAR THAT THE RELIANCE PLACED BY THE LEARNED AUTHORISED REPRESENTATIVE ON VARIOUS DECISION OF THE COORDINATE BENCHES WHERE ONE OF THE COMPARABLES HAVE BEEN EXCLUDED IN COMPARABILITY ANALYSIS OF DIFFERENT ASSESSEE IS RELIED UPON BY ASSESSEE FOR EXCLUSION OF THAT COMPARABLE IN CASE OF THE ASSESSEE. WE ARE NOT INCLINED TO DO THAT FOR THE SIMPLE REASON THAT WE DO NOT HAVE THE FUNCTIONAL COMPARABILITY OF THAT PARTICULAR COMPARABLE IN WHOSE CASE SOME COMPARABLE HAS BEEN DIRECTED TO BE EXCLUDED AS WELL AS THE FUNCTIONAL PROFILE OF THE ASSESSEE. UNLESS BOTH OF THEM MATCHES, IT IS NOT POSSIBLE TO FOLLOW THAT DECISION. THEREFORE FOR THE PURPOSE OF EXCLUSION OR INCLUSION OF ANY COMPARABLE, ONLY TWO THINGS ARE REQUIRED TO BE LOOKED INTO (1) THE FUNCTIONAL PROFILE OF THE ASSESSEE, (2) THE ANNUAL REPORTS OF THE COMPARABLE COMPANIES. PAGE | 5 THEREFORE EACH COMPARABLE IS REQUIRED TO BE DEALT WITH ON THESE ASPECT ONLY AND NOW WE DEAL WITH EACH OF THE COMPARABLE COMPANY:- (I) ACCENTIA TECHNOLOGIES LIMITED : THE ASSESSEE CONTESTED THAT IT IS FUNCTIONALLY NOT COMPARABLE, DOES NOT HAVE SEGMENTAL DATA, ENTERED INTO EXTRA-ORDINARY EVENTS DURING THE YEAR, OWN BRAND. IT IS ALSO ARGUED THAT IT HAS A FLUCTUATION IN REVENUE AND PROFIT; THEREFORE, IT SHOULD BE EXCLUDED. THE LD. TPO HAS CONSIDERED AND HELD IT TO BE FUNCTIONALLY SIMILAR. IT IS FURTHER HELD THAT IT HAS ONLY ONE SEGMENT AND, THEREFORE, THERE IS NO REQUIREMENT OF ANY SEGMENTAL ANALYSIS. WITH RESPECT TO THE EXTRA-ORDINARY EVENTS HE HELD THAT THERE IS NO DEMONSTRATIVE EFFECT THAT IT IS INFLUENCING THE PRICE OR PROFIT OF THE COMPANY. HE FURTHER HELD THAT EVEN THE ACQUISITION OF GOODWILL DID NOT HAVE ANY EFFECT ON THE PRICING AND PERFORMANCE OF THE ASSESSEE COMPANY. THE ANNUAL ACCOUNTS OF THE ABOVE COMPANY ARE PLACED BEFORE US AT PAGE NOS. 525 TO 631 OF THE PAPER BOOK. STAND ALONE ANNUAL ACCOUNTS ARE AVAILABLE AT PAGE NOS. 588 TO 607 OF THE PAPER BOOK. LOOKING TO THE REVENUE MODEL OF THE COMPARABLE COMPANY AS PER SCHEDULE 8, IT EARNED INCOME FROM MEDICAL PRESCRIPTION, BILLING AND COLLECTION AND INCOME FROM CODING. IN SHORT, IT PROVIDES HRCM SERVICES. IT IS IN FACT THE HEALTH CARE BPO SERVICES. AS THE ASSESSEE IS ALSO PROVIDING BPO SERVICES, WE DO NOT FIND THAT THERE IS ANY FUNCTIONAL DISSIMILARITY AS BOTH ARE IN THE BPO BUSINESS. MERELY BECAUSE THE ASSESSEE AS WELL AS THE COMPARABLE COMPANY OPERATES IN DIFFERENT BUSINESS SEGMENT, IT DOES NOT MAKE THEIR FUNCTIONS DIFFERENT. IT IS UNDISPUTEDLY BOTH ARE ENGAGED IN BPO SERVICES. AS THE COMPARABLE COMPANY HAS ONLY ONE SEGMENT OF HEALTH CARE BPO SERVICES, WE DO NOT FIND ANY REQUIREMENT OF SEGMENTAL INFORMATION. WITH RESPECT TO THE EXTRA-ORDINARY EVENTS STATED BY THE LD. AR IT IS APPARENT THAT THIS COMPANY HAS ENTERED INTO SCHEME OF AMALGAMATION WHEREIN EARLIER THE SUBSIDIARY OF THE COMPANY, AMALGAMATED WITH THE ASSESSEE COMPANY, WITH EFFECT FROM 1 ST APRIL, 2008. THEREFORE, IN THIS YEAR THERE IS NO EXTRA-ORDINARY EVENT BUT IT WAS IN FINANCIAL YEAR 2008-09. THEREFORE, THIS CONTENTION IS ALSO REJECTED. COMING TO THE ISSUE OF GOODWILL AND BRAND IPR WITH THE COMPANY, AS PER PAGE NO. 602 OF THE PAPER BOOK IT IS EVIDENT THAT THE GOODWILL HAS ARISEN ONLY BECAUSE OF ACCOUNTING OF AMALGAMATION. FURTHER, MERELY BECAUSE THERE ARE PAGE | 6 INCREASES IN THE PROFITS IT CANNOT BE EXCLUDED. EVEN OTHERWISE, THIS YEAR THE COMPARABLE HAS EARNED PROFIT OF RS. 26 CRORES WHEREAS IN THE YEAR 31 ST MARCH, 2009 IT HAS EARNED PROFIT OF RS. 25 CRORES. THEREFORE THERE IS NO FLUCTUATION IN PROFIT. THEREFORE WE FIND THIS COMPARABLE COMPANY FUNCTIONALLY SIMILAR AND DOES NOT HAVE ANY OTHER REASONS TO EXCLUDE IT. IN VIEW OF THIS WE DO NOT FIND ANY INFIRMITY IN THE ORDER OF THE LD. LOWER AUTHORITIES IN RETAINING THIS COMPARABLE. THIS COMPARABLE COMPANY CANNOT BE EXCLUDED. (II) FORTUNE INFOTECH LTD. : THE ASSESSEE CONTESTED THAT THIS COMPARABLE COMPANY FAILS THE RECEDING SALES FILTER APPLIED BY THE TPO AND ALSO OWNS ITS OWN SOFTWARE FINETRAN & INDEX. THEREFORE, THIS SHOULD BE EXCLUDED. THE AR FURTHER RELIED UPON THE ORDER OF THE CO-ORDINATE BENCH IN THE CASE OF VERTEX CUSTOMER SERVICES PVT. LTD. VS. DCIT IN ITA. NO. 1508 (DEL) OF 2015 FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2010-11 WHEREIN IN PARA NO. 29 THIS COMPARABLE COMPANY IS EXCLUDED. THE ANNUAL ACCOUNTS OF THE COMPARABLE ARE PLACED AT PAGE NO. 632 TO 662 OF THE PAPER BOOK. ON LOOKING AT SCHEDULE 12 AT PAGE 643 THE COMPARABLE COMPANY HAS INCOME OF RS. 21.43 CRORES IN THE PREVIOUS YEAR WHEREAS IN THE CURRENT YEAR IT IS RS. 9.75 CRORES. THE ASSESSEE HAS SUBMITTED A CHART AT PAGE 214 OF THE PAPER BOOK STATING THAT SINCE FINANCIAL YEAR 2007-08 THE REVENUE OF THE COMPANY IS FALLING. THE LD. TPO WHEN SUBMITTED SO, HE MERELY COMPARED THE REVENUE OF ONLY PREVIOUS YEAR AGAINST WHICH IT IS SHOWN THAT ITS REVENUE IS HALF. HOWEVER, LOOKING AT PAGE NO. 133, WE FIND THAT FILTER NO. 8 APPLIED BY THE LD. TPO ALSO INCLUDES DECLINING SALES. THEREFORE APPARENTLY, THIS COMPARABLE COMPANY DOES NOT PASS IS A FILTER APPLIED BY THE LEARNED TPO HIMSELF. IN VIEW OF THIS, WE DIRECT THE LD. TPO TO EXCLUDE FORTUNE INFOTECH LTD. (III) IGATE CLOBAL SOLUTIONS LTD. : THE ASSESSEE HAS CONTESTED THAT IT HAS ENTERED INTO AN EXTRA-ORDINARY EVENT DURING THE YEAR AS IT IS SUBSIDIARY AMALGAMATING WITH THE COMPARABLE COMPANY. IT IS FURTHER STATED THAT THE COMPARABLE HAS A TURNOVER OF RS. 932 CRORES WHEREAS TURNOVER OF THE ASSESSEE IS MERELY RS. 1.83 CRORES, WHICH IS 509 TIMES MORE. WE RELY ON THE DECISION OF THE HONOURABLE BOMBAY HIGH COURT IN CIT VERSUS PENTAIR WATER INDIA [2016] 69 TAXMANN.COM 180 (BOMBAY)/[2016] 381 ITR 216 (BOMBAY)/[2016] 282 CTR 160 (BOMBAY) WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT SUCH A PAGE | 7 LARGE COMPANY WHEREBY TURNOVER OF 509 TIMES CANNOT BE CONSIDERED AS A COMPARABLE. WE DIRECT THE LD. TPO TO EXCLUDE THE SAME. (IV) INFOSYS BPO LTD. : THE ASSESSEE HAS CONTESTED THAT THE TURNOVER OF THE COMPARABLE IS RS 1126 CRORES WHICH IS 616 TIMES MORE THAN THE ASSESSEE. THEREFORE, ON THIS CRITERIA ITSELF, WE DIRECT THE LD. TPO TO EXCLUDE THIS COMPARABLE COMPANY. (V) TCS E-SERVE INTERNATIONAL LTD. : THE ASSESSEE HAS CONTESTED THAT IT HAS A HUGE BRAND VALUE AS IT BELONGS TO TATA GROUP. WE FIND THAT THIS COMPARABLE COMPANY HAS A TURNOVER OF 1,492,956,000/ WHEREAS THE TURNOVER OF THE ASSESSEE IS MERELY RS1.82 CRORES. THEREFORE ON THIS CRITERIA ITSELF THE LEARNED TPO IS DIRECTED TO EXCLUDE THIS COMPARABLE COMPANY. (VI) TCS E SERVE LIMITED WE ALSO FIND THAT THIS COMPARABLE COMPANY HAS A TURNOVER OF RS 1359 CRORES AND THEREFORE ON THIS CRITERIA ITSELF THE LEARNED TPO IS DIRECTED TO EXCLUDE THIS COMPARABLE COMPANY. 11. NO OTHER ARGUMENTS WERE RAISED BEFORE US, OTHER THAN FOR THE EXCLUSION OF THE COMPARABLES. IN VIEW OF THIS GROUND NUMBER 3 OF THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS PARTLY ALLOWED. 12. GROUND NUMBER 1 OF THE APPEAL WAS STATED TO BE GENERAL IN NATURE, GROUND NUMBER 2 WAS A CHALLENGE OF JURISDICTION, IT WAS NOT PRESSED, THEREFORE THOSE ARE DISMISSED. 13. GROUND NUMBER 4 IS AGAINST THE INITIATION OF PENALTY PROCEEDINGS IN GROUND NUMBER 5 IS WITH RESPECT TO CHARGING OF THE INTEREST, NO ARGUMENTS WERE ADVANCED BEFORE US HENCE, THOSE GROUNDS ARE DISMISSED. 14. IN THE RESULT APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS PARTLY ALLOWED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON : 15/01/2021. SD/- SD/- ( KULDIP SINGH ) (PRASHANT MAHARISHI) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER DATED : 15/01/2021. *MEHTA* PAGE | 8 COPY FORWARDED TO 1. APPLICANT 2. RESPONDENT 3. CIT 4. CIT (A) 5. DR:ITAT ASSISTANT REGISTRAR ITAT, NEW DELHI PAGE | 9 DATE OF DICTATION 1 5 . 0 1 . 2 0 2 1 DATE ON WHICH THE TYPED DRAFT IS PLACED BEFORE THE DICTATING MEMBER 1 5 . 0 1 . 2 0 2 1 DATE ON WHICH THE TYPED DRAFT IS PLACED BEFORE THE OTHER MEMBER 1 5 . 0 1 . 2 0 2 1 DATE ON WHICH THE APPROVED DRAFT COMES TO THE SR. PS/ PS 1 5 . 0 1 . 2 0 2 1 DATE ON WHICH THE FAIR ORDER IS PLACED BEFORE THE DICTATING MEMBER FOR PRONOUNCEMENT 1 5 . 0 1 . 2 0 2 1 DATE ON WHICH THE FAIR ORDER COMES BACK TO THE SR. PS/ PS 1 5 . 0 1 . 2 0 2 1 DATE ON WHICH THE FINAL ORDER IS UPLOADED ON THE WEBSITE OF ITAT 1 5 . 0 1 . 2 0 2 1 DATE ON WHICH THE FILE GOES TO THE BENCH CLERK 1 5 . 0 1 . 2 0 2 1 DATE ON WHICH THE FILE GOES TO THE HEAD CLERK THE DATE ON WHICH THE FILE GOES TO THE ASSISTANT REGISTRAR FOR SIGNATURE ON THE ORDER DATE OF DISPATCH OF THE ORDER
