M/s. Homeward Residential Corpn. India Pvt. Ltd., Pune V. Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax,

ITA 2207/PUN/2013

• Counselvise Citation: [2017] 127 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 9322 (ITAT-PUNE)
• Duration Of Justice: 3 year(s) 5 month(s) 22 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 14-06-2017
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Next Hearing Date: 22-05-2017
• Assessment Year: 2009-2010
• Appeal Filed On: 23-12-2013
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Keywords: Transfer pricing; International transaction; Difference of opinion
• Section: 143(3); 234B; 154

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PUNE BENCH A , PUNE , , BEFORE MS. SUSHMA CHOWLA, JM AND SHRI ANIL CHATURVEDI, AM . / ITA NO. 2207 /P U N/201 3 / ASSESSMENT YEAR : 20 0 9 - 10 M/S. HOMEWARD RESIDENTIAL CORPORATION INDIA PVT. LTD., (FORMERLY KNOWN AS AMERICAN HOME MORTGAGE SERVICING INDIA PVT. LTD.,) LEVEL 1A, 3 & 4, TOWER 6, CYBER CITY, MAGARPATTA CITY, HADAPSAR, PUNE 411013 . / APPELLANT PAN: AAAC O7914J VS. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE - 1(1) , PUNE . / RESPONDENT / APPELLANT BY : S HRI RAJENDRA AGIWAL / RESP ONDENT BY : S HRI RAJEEV KUMAR , CIT / DATE OF HEARING : 0 8 .0 6 . 201 7 / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT: 14 . 0 6 .201 7 / ORDER PER SUSHMA CHOWLA, J M : TH IS APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE DEPU TY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE - 1(1), PUNE DATED 11.10.2013 RELATING TO ASSESSMENT YEAR 20 0 9 - 10 PASSED UNDER SECTION 143(3) R.W.S. 144C(1) OF THE INCOME - TAX ACT , 1961 (IN SHORT THE ACT) . ITA NO. 2207 /P U N/20 1 3 HOMEWARD RESIDENTIAL CORPORATION INDIA PVT. LTD. 2 2. THE ASSESSEE HAS RAISED THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS OF APPEAL: - ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN LAW, THE HON'BLE DRP AND CONSEQUENTIALLY THE LEARNED AO HAVE ERRED AS UNDER: GROUNDS PERTAINING TO TRANSFER PRICING ADJUSTMENT 1. GENERAL GROUND CHALLENGING THE TRANSFER PRICING ADJUSTMENT OF R S 8,08,27,481 ERRED IN MAKING T RANSFER PRICING ADJUSTMENT TO TH E INTERNATIONAL TRANSACTIONS PERTAINING TO RENDERING INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY ENABLED SERVICES (IT ENABLED SERVICES') TO ITS ASSOCIATE ENTERPRISES ('AES'). 2. GENERAL GROUND REGARDING NON ACCEPTANCE OFF F INANCIAL DATA AND ANALYSIS PROVIDED IN THE TRANSFER PRICING STUDY REPORT ERRED BY NOT ACCEPTING THE FINANCIAL DATA AND APPROACH ADOPTED BY THE APPELLANT FOR BENCHMARKING ITS INTERNATIONAL TRANSACTION PERTAINING TO RENDERING IT ENABLED SERV ICES USING TNMM AS THE MOST APPROPRIATE METHOD. 3. INAPPROPRIATE USE OF SINGLE YEAR DATA BY THE LEARNED AO ERRED IN CONSIDERING THE OPERATING MARGINS EARNED BY THE COMPARABLE COMPANIES BASED ON THE FINANCIAL DATA PERTAINING ONLY TO FINANCIAL YEAR EN D ED 31 MARCH 2009 AND REJECTING THE FINANCIAL DATA OF COMPARABLE C OMPANIES FOR PRIOR TWO YEARS (3 1 MARCH 2008 AND 31 MARCH 2007). 4. INAPPROPRIATE USE OF NON - CONTEMPORANEOUS DATA BY THE LEARNED AO ERRED IN COMPUTING THE ARM'S LENGTH PRICE USING THE FINA NCIAL INFORMATION OF COMPARABLE COMPANIES AVAILABLE AT THE TIME OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, ALTHOUGH SUCH INFORMATION WAS NOT AVAILABLE AT THE TIME WHEN THE APPELLANT COMPLIED WITH THE TRANSFER PRICING REGULATIONS. 5. INAPPROPRIATE TREATMENT OF SERVICE TAX REFUND AS NON - OPERATING ITEM FOR FY 2008 - 09 ERRED IN TREATING SERVICE TAX REFUND AMOUNTING TO RS.70,43,045 AS NON - OPERATING ITEM WHILE COMPUTING THE OPERATING MARGIN OF THE APPELLANT FOR AY 2009 - 10. 6. INAPPROPRIATE APPLICATION OF CERTAIN ADDITIONAL/MO DIFIED QUALITATIVE AND QUANTITATIVE FILTERS FOR FY 2008 - 09 WITHOUT PREJUDICE TO THE ABOVE GROUNDS OF APPEAL, ERRED BY APPLYING VARIOUS INAPPROPRIATE QUALITATIVE AND QUANTITATIVE FILTERS. 7. INAPPROPRIATE REJECTION OF CERTAIN COMPARABLE COMPANIES IDENTIFI ED BY THE APPELLANT FOR FY 2008 - 09 ITA NO. 2207 /P U N/20 1 3 HOMEWARD RESIDENTIAL CORPORATION INDIA PVT. LTD. 3 WITHOUT PREJUDICE TO THE ABOVE GROUNDS OF APPEAL, ERRED BY CONCLUDING THAT ALLSEC TECHNOLOGIES LIMITED AND CG - VAK SOFTWARE AND EXPORTS LIMITED ARE NOT COMPARABLE TO THE APPELLANT AND HENCE SHOULD NOT BE CONSIDERED FOR AR RIVING WHILE COMPUTING THE OPERATING MARGINS OF COMPARABLE COMPANIES FOR ARRIVING AT THE ARM'S LENGTH PRICE IN RELATION TO INTERNATIONAL TRANSACTION PERTAINING TO REND ERING IT ENABLED SERVICES TO AE. 8. INAPPROPRIATE ACCEPTANCE OF CERTAIN COMPANIES A S COMPARABLE COMPANIES TO THE APPELLANT FOR FY 2008 - 09 WITHOUT PREJUDICE TO THE ABOVE GROUNDS OF APPEAL, ERRED BY CONCLUDING THAT CERTAIN COMPANIES ARE COMPARABLE TO THE APPELLANT AND HENCE SHOULD BE CONSIDERED WHILE COMPUTING THE OPERATING MARGINS OF COMPARABLE COMPANIES FOR ARRIVING AT ARM'S LENGTH PRICE IN RELATION TO INTERNATIONAL TRANSACTION PERTAINING TO RENDERING IT ENABLED SERVICES TO AE. 9. INCORRECT COMPUTATION OF OPERATING MARGINS OF CERTAIN COMPARABLE COMPANIES WITHOUT PREJU DICE TO THE ABOVE GROUNDS OF APPEAL, ERRED BY INCORRECTLY COMPUTING OPERATING MARGINS OF CERTAIN COMPARABLE COMPANIES FOR FY 20 0 8 - 09 AND THEREBY ARRIVING AT INCORRECT ARM'S LENGTH PRICE IN RELATION TO INTERNATIONAL TRANSACTION PERTAINING TO RENDERING IT EN ABLED SERVICES TO AE. 10. ERRONEOUS COMPUTATION OF WORKING CAPITAL ADJUSTMENT BASED ON INCORRECT OPERATING MARGINS OF CERTAIN COMPANIES WITHOUT PREJUDICE TO THE ABOVE GROUNDS OF APPEAL, ERRED BY COMPUTING THE WORKING CAPITAL ADJUSTMENT BASED ON THE INCOR RECT OPERATING MARGINS OF CERTAIN COMPARABLE COMPANIES FOR FY 2008 - 09 AND THEREBY ARRIVING AT INCORRECT WORKING CAPITAL ADJUSTED ARM'S LENGTH PRICE IN RELATION TO INTERNATIONAL TRANSACTION PERTAINING TO RENDERING IT ENABLED SERVICES TO AE. 11. INAPPRO PRIATE SELECTION OF COMPANIES HAVING SUPER NORMAL PROFITS WITHOUT PREJUDICE TO THE ABOVE GROUNDS OF APPEAL, ERRED BY SELECTING THE COMPANIES HAVING SUPER NORMAL PROFITS AS COMPARABLE TO THE APPELLANT. 12. ERRONEOUS COMPARISON OF FULL - FLEDGED RISK B EARING ENTITIES WITH THE APPELLANT'S CAPTIVE OPERATIONS WITHOUT PREJUDICE TO THE ABOVE GROUNDS OF APPEAL, ERRED IN COMPARING FULL - FLEDGED RISK BEARING ENTITIES WITH THE APPELLANT'S CAPTIVE OPERATIONS WITH O UT MAKING ANY RISK ADJUSTMENT ON ACCOUNT OF DIFFER ENCES BETWEEN THE FUNCTIONAL AND RISK PROFILE OF COMPARABLE COMPANIES VIS - A - VIS THE RISK PROFILE OF THE APPELLANT, 13. INAPPROPRIATE CHEERY PICKING HIGH MARGIN COMPANIES AND DISREGARDING OTHER COMPARABLE COMPANIES WITHOUT PREJUDICE TO THE ABOVE GROUNDS O F APPEAL, ERRED IN ADDITIONALLY CHERRY PICKING HIGH MARGIN COMPANIES FROM ACCEPT - REJECT MATRIX OF THE TRANSFER PRICING STUDY REPORT OF THE APPELLANT AND BY DISREGARDING THE OTHER COMPANIES FROM ACCEPT - REJECT MATRIX SUCH AS ADITYA BIR L A MINACS WORLDWIDE LIM ITED, CEPHA IMAGING PRIVATE LIMITED AND FORTUNE INFOTECH LIMITED, FINANCIAL DATA FOR WHICH IS AVAILABLE IN PUBLIC DOMAIN AND WHICH ARE ITA NO. 2207 /P U N/20 1 3 HOMEWARD RESIDENTIAL CORPORATION INDIA PVT. LTD. 4 OTHERWISE COMPARABLE TO THE APPELLANT IN RELATION TO RENDERING IT ENABLED SERVICES TO AE. 14. NOT GRANTING BENEFIT OF VA RIATION OF 5 % WITHOUT PREJUDICE TO THE ABOVE GROUNDS OF APPEAL, ERRED BY COMPUTING THE ARM'S LENGTH PRICE, WITHOUT TAKING INTO ACCOUNT THE LOWER 5 VARIATION FROM THE MEAN ARM'S LENGTH PRICE DETERMINED. 15. ERRONEOUSLY CONCLUDING THAT THE TRANSFER PRICIN G PROVISION ARE APPLICABLE IN SPITE OF THE FACT THAT THE APPELLANT IS ENJOYING TAX HOLIDAY REGIME WITHOUT PREJUDICE TO THE ABOVE GROUNDS OF APPEAL, ERR ED BY CONCLUDING THAT THE TRANSFER PRICING PROVISIONS ARE APPLICABLE TO THE APPELLANT IN - SPITE OF THE FA CT THAT THE APPELLANT IS ENJOYING TAX HOLIDAY REGIME UNDER SECTION 10A OF THE ACT 16. INCORRECT COMPUTATION OF RELIEF PURSUANT TO RECTIFICATION APPLICATION WITHOUT PREJUDICE TO THE ABOVE GROUNDS OF APPEAL, ERRED IN INCORRECTLY COMPUTING THE RELIEF PURSUA NT TO THE RECTIFICATION APPLICATION FILED BY THE APPELLANT. GROUNDS PERTAINING TO CORPORATE TAX ADJUSTMENT 17. SHORT GRANT OF TDS ERRED IN NOT GRANTING TDS CREDIT OF RS . 35,052 (BEING NOT REFLECTED IN FORM 26AS) WITHOUT APPRECIATING THAT THE ORIGINAL TDS CERTIFICATE HAS BEEN PRODUCED BY THE APPELLANT. OTHER GROUNDS 18. ERRONEOUS LEVY OF INTEREST UNDER SECTION 234B , 234C AND 234D OF THE ACT WITHOUT PREJUDICE TO THE ABOVE GROUNDS OF APPEAL, IF THE TRANSFER PRICING ADJUSTMENT IS SUSTAINED THEN THE LE ARNED AO HAS ERRED IN LEVYING INTEREST, UN D ER SECTION 234B, 234C AND 234D OF THE ACT, WITHOUT CONSIDERING THE FACT THAT THE ADDITION ON ACCOUNT OF TRANSFER PRICING ADJUSTMENT IS DUE TO DIFFERENCE OF OPINION AND AS AT THE DUE DATE OF PAYMENT OF ADVANCE TAX BY NO MEANS THE APPELLANT COULD HAVE ESTIMATED SUCH ADJUSTMENTS AND CONSEQUENTIAL TAX ON SUCH ADJUSTMENT. 19. ERRONEOUS LEVY OF PENALTY UNDER SECTION 271( 1 )(C) OF THE ACT WITHOUT PREJUDICE TO THE GROUNDS ABOVE, IF THE TRANSFER PRICING ADJUSTMENT IS SU STAINED THEN THE LEARNED AO HAS ERRED IN PROPOSING TO LEVY PENALTY UNDER SECTION 271( 1 )(C) OF THE ACT, WITHOUT CONSIDERING THE FACT THAT ADJUSTMENT TO TRANSFER PRICE IS JUST ON ACCOUNT OF DIFFERENCE OF OPINION AND CONSEQUENTLY RESU LTED IN AN ADJUSTMENT TO INCOME. ITA NO. 2207 /P U N/20 1 3 HOMEWARD RESIDENTIAL CORPORATION INDIA PVT. LTD. 5 3. THE LEARNED AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE FOR THE ASSESSEE AT THE OUTSET POINTED OUT THAT A PROPOSITION WAS MADE BEFORE THE COMPETENT AUTHORITIES AND THE MUTUAL AGREEMENT PROCEDURE ( MAP ) PROCEEDINGS HAVE BEEN COMPLETED. THE ASSESSEE HAS ACCEPTED THE PROPOSITION MADE IN THE MAP RESOLUTION FOR THE CAPTIONED ASSESSMENT YEAR IN THE LIGHT OF RULE 44H(4) OF THE INCOME TAX RULES, 1962 (IN SHORT THE RULES) . CONSEQUENT THERETO, INTERNATIONAL TRANSACTIONS OF THE ASSESSEE WITH AMERICAN HOME MORTGAGE SERVI CING INC. HAS BEEN BENCHMARKED @ 15%. THE ASSESSEE THUS, SUBMITTED MODIFIED GROUNDS OF APPEAL NO.1 AND 2 IN SUBSTITUTION OF ORIGINAL GROUNDS OF APPEAL NO.1 AND 2 OF THE APPEAL MEMO EARLIER FILED. THE LEARNED AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE FOR THE ASSESSEE POI NTED OUT THAT THE ASSESSEES INTERNATIONAL TRANSACTIONS WITH THE ASSOCIATED ENTERPRISES OPTION ONE MORTGAGE CORPORATION US IS NOT PART OF MAP RESOLUTION AND CONSEQUENTLY, ADDITIONAL GROUND OF APPEAL IS BEING RAISED THAT EFFECT OF MAP RESOLUTION MAY BE GIVE N TO THE TRANSACTIONS NOT COVERED UNDER MAP. THE LEARNED AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE FOR THE ASSESSEE FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT IN CASE THE ADDITIONAL GROUND OF APPEAL IS ALLOWED, THEN ALL THE OTHER GROUNDS OF APPEAL PERTAINING TO THE APPLICATION OF QUALITATIV E / QUANTITATIVE FILTERS, COMPUTATION OF MARGINS , ACCEPTANCE OR REJECTION OF COMPANIES, ETC. WOULD BECOME ACADEMIC. 4. IN RESPECT OF GROUND OF APPEAL NO.17 I.E. CORPORATE ISSUE OF NOT GRANTING TDS CREDIT, THE LEARNED AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE FOR THE AS SESSEE POINTED OUT THAT THE APPLICATION UNDER SECTION 154 OF THE ACT HAS BEEN MOVED BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER BUT THE SAME HAS NOT BEEN DISPOSED OF AND DIRECTIONS MAY BE GIVEN IN THIS REGARD. ITA NO. 2207 /P U N/20 1 3 HOMEWARD RESIDENTIAL CORPORATION INDIA PVT. LTD. 6 5. IN RESPECT OF GROUND OF APPEAL NO.18, HE FAIRLY ADMITTE D THAT THE ISSUE IS CONSEQUENTIAL AND ISSUE IN GROUND OF APPEAL NO. 19 IS PREMATURE. 6. THE LEARNED DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE FOR THE REVENUE ON THE OTHER HAND, FAIRLY ACCEPTED THAT MAP RESOLUTION HAS BEEN ACCEPTED IN THE CASE OF ASSESSEE IN RESPECT OF INT ERNATIONAL TRANSACTIONS WITH ONE ASSOCIATED ENTERPRISES. HOWEVER, SINCE THE OTHER ASSOCIATED ENTERPRISES HAD CEASED TO BE AN ASSOCIATED ENTERPRISE, MAP RESOLUTION WAS NOT PASSED IN RESPECT OF THE SAID PARTY. 7. THE ASSESSEE HAS NOW RAISED THE FOLLOWING M ODIFIED GROUNDS OF APPEAL AND ADDITIONAL GROUNDS OF APPEAL: - 1. GENERAL GROUND CHALLENGING THE TRANSFER PRICING ADJUSTMENT OF RS.70,40,074 (OUT OF TOTAL TRANSFER PRICING ADJUSTMENT OF RS.8,08,27,481 WHICH IS NOT SUBJECT MATTER OF MAP) ERRED IN MAKING T RANSFER PRICING ADJUSTMENT TO THE INTERNATIONAL TRANSACTION PERTAINING TO RENDERING INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY ENABLED SERVICES ('IT ENABLED SERVICES') TO OPTION ONE MORTGAGE CORPORATION US ('OOMC US'). 2. GENERAL GROUND REGARDING NON ACCEPTANCE OF FINANCIAL DATA AND ANALYSIS PROVIDED IN THE TRANSFER PRICING STUDY REPORT ERRED BY NOT ACCEPTING THE FINANCIAL DATA AND APPROACH ADOPTED BY THE APPELLANT FOR BENCHMARKING ITS INTERNATIONAL TRANSACTION PERTAINING TO RENDERING IT ENABLED SERVICES TO OOMC US, USING TN MM AS THE MOST APPROPRIATE METHOD. CONSEQUENTIAL ADDITIONAL GROUND 3. MAP RESOLUTION EFFECT MAY BE GIVEN TO THE TRANSACTION NOT COVERED UNDER MAP WITHOUT PREJUDICE TO THE OTHER GROUNDS OF APPEAL, HAVING ACCEPTED 91 . 29 % TRANSACTION UNDER MAP SIMILAR M AP RESOLUTION EFFECT MAY BE GIVEN TO TRANSACTION PERTAINING TO RENDERING IT ENABLED SERVICES TO OOMC US WHICH CONSTITUTES 8.71 % OF TOTAL INTERNATIONAL TRANSACTIONS. 8. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS AND PERUSED THE RECORD. THE ASSESSEE WAS AGGRIEVED BY THE UPWARD ADJUSTMENT MADE BY APPLYING THE TRANSFER PRICING ITA NO. 2207 /P U N/20 1 3 HOMEWARD RESIDENTIAL CORPORATION INDIA PVT. LTD. 7 PROVISIONS AT RS.8,08,27,481/ - . THE ADJUSTMENT WAS MADE IN RESPECT OF TRANSACTIONS OF ASSESSEE WITH TWO OF ITS ASSOCIATED ENTERPRISES I.E. AMERICAN HOME MORTGAGE SERVICING INC AND OPTION ONE MORTGAGE CORPORATION US. THE ASSESSEE FILED MUTUAL AGREEMENT PROCEDURE APPLICATION WHICH HAS BEEN ACCEPTED FOR TRANSACTION OF RS.56.82 CRORES BUT IN RESPECT OF BALANCE TRANSACTION OF RS.5.42 CRORES, NO MAP APPLICATION WAS MADE, SINCE THE ENTITY CEASED TO BE THE ASSOCIATED ENTERPRISES W.E.F. 26.06.2008. THE TRANSFER PRICING ADJUSTMENT IN RESPECT OF SAID TRANSACTION WAS RS.70,40,074/ - . THE ASSESSEE HAD IN THE ORIGINAL GROUND OF APPEAL AGITATED THE ISSUE OF UPWARD ADJUSTMENT MADE IN THE HANDS OF ASSESSEE AT RS.8.08 CRORES. HOWEVER, SINCE MAP RESOLUTION HAS BEEN PASSED IN RESPECT OF TRANSACTION TOTALING RS.56.82 CRORES , T HE ASSESSEE HAS FILED MODIFIED GROUNDS OF APPEAL IN RESPECT OF BALANCE TRANSACTION OF RS.5.42 CRORES WITH OPTION ONE MO RTGAGE CORPORATION U S . THE ASSESSEE IN THIS REGARD HAS FILED MODIFIED GROUNDS OF APPEAL NO.1 AND 2 AGAINST THE SAID ADDITION. THE ASSESSEE HAS ALSO FILED CONSEQUENTIAL ADDITIONAL GROUND OF APPEAL AND HAS PLEADED THAT THE MAP RESOLUTION EFFECT MAY ALSO BE GIVEN IN RESPECT OF TRANSACTION NOT COVERED UNDER THE MAP. THE LEARNED AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE FOR THE ASSESSEE IN THIS REGARD PLACED RELIANCE ON THE RATIO LAID DOWN BY THE MUMBAI BENCH OF TRIBUNAL IN J.P. MORGAN SERVICES INDIA P. LTD. VS. DCIT IN ITA NO.477/MUM/2013, REL ATING TO ASSESSMENT YEAR 2008 - 09, ORDER DATED 25.05.2016 . 9. THE MAP RESOLUTION HAS BEEN PASSED IN RESPECT OF TRANSACTION OF ASSESSEE WITH ONE ASSOCIATED ENTERPRISE ; THE TRANSACTION OF ASSESSEE WITH OTHER ASSOCIATED ENTERPRISE WAS NOT PART OF MAP RESOLUTI ON. HOWEVER, THE REVENUE AUTHORITIES HAVE TREATED BOTH THE TRANSACTIONS TO BE AT PAR AND THE ADJUSTMENT ON ACCOUNT OF ARM'S LENGTH PRICE OF INTERNATIONAL TRANSACTIONS HAS BEEN MADE ON IDENTICAL GROUNDS ITA NO. 2207 /P U N/20 1 3 HOMEWARD RESIDENTIAL CORPORATION INDIA PVT. LTD. 8 AND VIDE CONSOLIDATED ADDITION IN RESPECT OF THE SAID TRANSACTION UNDERTAKEN BY THE ASSESSEE WITH ITS ASSOCIATED ENTERPRISES. BOTH THE CONCERN S ARE US BASED ENTITIES. IN VIEW THEREOF, WE FIND MERIT IN THE PLEA OF ASSESSEE THAT THE ORDER OF MAP RESOLUTION BE APPLIED ON THE BALANCE TRANSACTION OF RS.5.42 CRO RES. THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS ACCORDINGLY, DIRECTED TO WORK OUT THE ADDITION IN THE HANDS OF ASSESSEE IN THIS REGARD. THUS, THE ADDITIONAL GROUND OF APPEAL RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED. CONSEQUENTLY, THE MODIFIED GROUNDS OF APPEAL NO.1 AND 2 BECOME ACADEMIC IN NATURE. THE ORIGINAL GROUNDS OF APPEAL NO.1 AND 2 HAVE BEEN SUBSTITUTED WITH MODIFIED GROUNDS OF APPEAL. 10. IN RESPECT OF BALANCE GROUNDS OF APPEAL NO.3 TO 16, THE LEARNED AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE FOR THE ASSESSEE POINTED OUT THAT ALL TH ESE GROUNDS OF APPEAL WOULD BECOME ACADEMIC IN CASE THE ADDITIONAL GROUND OF APPEAL IS ALLOWED. ACCORDINGLY, WE HOLD SO. 11. NOW, COMING TO THE GROUND OF APPEAL NO.17 IN RESPECT OF CORPORATE ISSUE, WHEREIN THE ASSESSEE IS AGGRIEVED BY THE ORDER OF AUTHOR ITIES BELOW IN NOT GRANTING TDS CREDIT OF RS.35,052 / - , WHICH WAS REFLECTED IN FORM 26AS. THE ASSESSEE CLAIMS TO HAVE PRODUCED THE ORIGINAL TDS CERTIFICATE IN THIS REGARD. ACCORDINGLY, WE DIRECT THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO VERIFY THE CLAIM OF ASSESSEE AND DE CIDE THE SAID ISSUE. THE ASSESSEE HAS ALSO MOVED AN APPLICATION UNDER SECTION 154 OF THE ACT IN THIS REGARD WHICH HAS NOT BEEN DISPOSED OF TILL NOW AND THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS DIRECTED TO DISPOSE OF THE SAME. ITA NO. 2207 /P U N/20 1 3 HOMEWARD RESIDENTIAL CORPORATION INDIA PVT. LTD. 9 12. THE ISSUE IN GROUND OF APPEAL NO.18 AGAI NST CHARGING OF INTEREST UNDER SECTION 234B, 234C AND 234D OF THE ACT , IS CONSEQUENTIAL AND HENCE, GROUND OF APPEAL NO.18 IS DISMISSED. 13. THE ISSUE IN GROUND OF APPEAL NO.19 AGAINST IMPOSITION OF PENALTY UNDER SECTION 271(1)(C) OF THE ACT IS PREMATURE AND HENCE, THE SAME IS ALSO DISMISSED. 1 4 . IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF ASSESSEE IS PARTLY ALLOWED. ORDER PRONOUNCED ON THIS 14 TH D AY OF JUNE , 201 7 . SD/ - SD/ - ( ANIL CHATURVEDI ) (SUSHMA CHOWLA) / ACCOUNTANT MEMBER / JUDICIAL MEMBER / PUNE ; DATED : 14 TH JUNE , 201 7 . GCVSR / COPY OF THE ORDER IS FORWARDED TO : 1. THE APPELLA NT ; 2. THE RESPONDENT; 3. THE DIT (INTL. TAXATION), PUNE ; 4. THE DRP, PUNE ; 5. THE DR A , ITAT, PUNE; 6. GUARD FILE . / BY ORDER, // TRUE COPY // / ASSISTANT REGISTRAR, , / ITAT, PUNE