Bitwise Solutions P. Ltd, Pune V. ACIT, Pune

ITA 2292/PUN/2012

• Counselvise Citation: 229224514 RSA 2012
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 9 month(s) 6 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 27-08-2014
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Assessment Year: 2008-2009
• Appeal Filed On: 21-11-2012
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: VERMA
• Keywords: Transfer pricing; Opportunity of being heard; International transaction
• Section: 92C

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PUNE BENCH A, PUNE BEFORE SHRI SHAILENDRA KUMAR YADAV, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI R.K. PANDA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO. 2292/PN/2012 (ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2008-09) BITWISE SOLUTIONS PVT. LTD., BITWISE WORLD, OFF INTERNATIONAL CONVENTION CENTER, SENAPATI BAPAT ROAD, PUNE, MAHARASHTRA 411016 .. APPELLANT PAN NO.AAACB4239K VS. ACIT, CIRCLE-1(1), PUNE .. RESPONDENT ASSESSEE BY : SHRI KISHORE PHADKE REVENUE BY : SMT. M.S. VERMA, CIT DATE OF HEARING : 11-08-2014 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 27-08-2014 ORDER PER R.K. PANDA, AM : THIS APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS DIRECTED AGAIN ST THE ORDER PASSED U/S.143(3) R.W.S. 144C OF THE INCOME TAX ACT FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2008-09. 2. FACTS OF THE CASE, IN BRIEF, ARE THAT THE ASSESS EE IS A PRIVATE LIMITED COMPANY IN WHICH THE PUBLIC IS NOT SUBSTANTIALLY IN TEREST. IT IS ENGAGED IN THE BUSINESS OF SOFTWARE DEVELOPMENT SERVICES. THE ASSESSEE FILED ITS RETURN OF INCOME ON 25-09-2008 DISCLOSING TOTAL INC OME AT RS.1,65,88,178/-. THE ASSESSEE DURING THE IMPUGNED ASSESSMENT YEAR HAS ENTERED INTO INTERNATIONAL TRANSACTION WITH ASS OCIATE ENTERPRISES (AES) AT RS.17,78,87,505/- THE DETAILS OF WHICH ARE AS UNDER : 2 SR.NO. ASSOCIATED ENTERPRISES NATURE OF INTERNATIONAL TRANSACTION AMOUNT IN RS. METHOD ADOPTED 1 BITWISE, INC, USA PROVISION OF SOFTWARE SERVICES 17,74,35,971 TNMM 2 BITWISE, INC, USA REIMBURSEMENT OF EXPENSES 4,51,534 CUP TOTAL 17,78,87,505 2.1 THE ASSESSING OFFICER MADE A REFERENCE U/S.92CA (1) OF THE I.T. ACT TO THE TPO FOR DETERMINATION OF THE ALP. DURIN G THE TRANSFER PRICING ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, THE TPO NOTED THAT THE ASSESSEE IN ITS TP STUDY REPORT HAS DETERMINED THE ALP BY USING CUP METHOD AND TNMM METHOD. THE METHOD ADOPTED BY THE ASSESSEE WA S NOT FOUND ACCEPTABLE TO THE TPO FOR WHICH HE ISSUED A SHOW CA USE NOTICE TO THE ASSESSEE TO SUBSTANTIATE ITS DETERMINATION OF THE A RMS LENGTH PRICE. HE OBSERVED THAT THE ASSESSEE IN ITS TP REPORT HAS CON SIDERED ITSELF AS A TESTED PARTY AND CHARACTERISED AS SOFTWARE DEVELOPER. THE ASSESSEE HAS SELECTED TNMM AS THE MOST APPROPRIATE METHOD. THE TPO ACCEPTED THE TNMM METHOD ADOPTED BY THE ASSESSEE. 2.2 HE NOTED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS SELECTED THE FOL LOWING COMPARABLES FOR BENCHMARKING IN THE TP STUDY REPORT AND HAS ADO PTED THE WEIGHTED AVERAGE MARGIN OF THE YEAR ENDING ON 31-03-2006 AND 31-03-2007 OF THE COMPARABLE COMPANIES : OP/TC SR.NO. COMPANY 31-MAR-06 31-MAR-07 31-MAR-08 3 YEARS AVERAGE 1 AXON INFOTECH LTD. 7.59 6.75 -0.36 4.66 2 BIRLA TECHNOLOGIES LTD. 12.85 -2.68 3.21 4.46 3 GOLDSTONE TECHNOLOGIES LTD. 0.11 20.68 26.19 15.66 4 IKF TECHNOLOGIES LTD. 10.13 11.41 9.91 10.48 5 T SPRITUAL WORLD LTD. 2.61 1.73 2.17 2.17 6 V &K SOFT LTD. -0.79 4.77 2.19 2.06 ARITHMETIC MEAN 5.42 7.11 7.22 6.58 3 HE NOTED THAT THE ASSESSEES TURNOVER ON SOFTWARE D EVELOPMENT SERVICES DURING THE YEAR WAS RS.17.80 CRORE AND THE ASSESSEE HAS APPLIED THE TURNOVER RANGE FROM RS.10 CRORES TO RS.50 CRORES TA KING AVERAGE OF 3 YEARS. ACCORDING TO THE TPO, THE TURNOVER CRITERIA SELECTED BY THE ASSESSEE WAS HIGHLY SUBJECTIVE AND DESIGNED TO MANI PULATE A SET OF COMPARABLES WITH A COMFORTABLE PROFIT MARGIN. HE N OTED THAT THE 6 COMPANIES SELECTED BY THE ASSESSEE ARE UNSUITABLE A S COMPARABLES. HE NOTED THAT IN SOME CASES ASSESSEE HAS OMITTED COMPA NIES WHICH WERE FOUND TO BE SUITABLE COMPARABLE AFTER PROPER FAR AN ALYSIS. 2.3 ACCORDING TO THE TPO AS PER RULE 10B(4) IT IS M ANDATORY TO USE THE CURRENT YEAR DATA, I.E. THE DATA FOR F.Y. 2007- 08. HOWEVER, THE ASSESSEE IN ITS TP STUDY REPORT HAS NOT ADOPTED THE CURRENT YEAR DATA ON THE GROUND THAT THE SAME WAS NOT AVAILABLE. ACCORD ING TO THE TPO, AS PER THE PROVISO TO RULE 10B(4), EARLIER 2 YEARS DA TA CAN ALSO BE USED WHEN IT IS SHOWN THAT SUCH EARLIER YEAR DATA HAS AN INFLUENCE IN DETERMINING THE PRICE. FURTHER, THE EARLIER DATA C AN BE USED PROVIDED THE CONDITION IS SATISFIED AND ALSO IS IN ADDITION TO T HE CURRENT YEAR DATA. HOWEVER, THE ASSESSEE DID NOT GIVE ANY REASON AS TO HOW THE EARLIER DATA HAD AN INFLUENCE OVER THE PRICING EITHER IN THE CAS E OF THE ASSESSEE OR IN THE CASE OF UNCONTROLLED ENTERPRISES. HE, THEREFOR E, USED THE CURRENT YEAR DATA ONLY, I.E. THE DATA FOR THE F.Y. 2007-08. SINCE THE ASSESSEE DID NOT OBJECT TO THE SAME, THE TPO WENT AHEAD IN ADOPT ING THE CURRENT YEAR DATA FOR THE COMPANIES TO BE SELECTED. 4 2.4 THE TPO NOTED THAT USE OF DATA PERTAINING TO F. YRS. 2005-06 AND 2006-07 TO ARRIVE AT THE AVERAGE MARGIN OF THE COMP ARABLES IS NOT PERMISSIBLE. THE TPO SELECTED COMPANIES WITH INCOM E FROM SOFTWARE DEVELOPMENT SERVICES WHOSE REVENUES FROM SOFTWARE D EVELOPMENT SERVICES HAS MORE THAN 75% OF THEIR OPERATING REVEN UES. SIMILARLY, HE ALSO SELECTED THE COMPANIES WITH LESS THAN 25% RELA TED PARTY TRANSACTIONS. HE, HOWEVER, REJECTED THE COMPANIES WITH LESS THAN 75% EARNING FROM EXPORTS, COMPANIES WITH DIFFERENT ACCO UNTING YEAR, COMPANIES WITH PERSISTENT LOSS AND COMPANIES WITH P ECULIAR CIRCUMSTANCES. REJECTING THE TURNOVER FILTER OF RS .10 CRORES TO RS.50 CRORES BY THE ASSESSEE, THE TPO SELECTED THE COMPAN IES HAVING OPERATING COST IN THE RANGE OF RS.1 CRORE TO RS.200 CRORE AS COMPARABLE. IN THIS BACKGROUND, THE TPO HELD THAT THE COMPARABLES SELEC TED BY THE ASSESSEE ARE NOT SUITABLE. ON FAR ANALYSIS IN THE CASE OF GOLDSTONE TECHNOLOGIES LTD., IT WAS FOUND TO BE COMPARABLE. THE TPO THEREFORE ACCEPTED THE SAME. HOWEVER, THE ASSESSEE DID NOT O BJECT FOR REJECTION OF THE OTHER COMPANIES SELECTED EARLIER AND REPORTED I N THE TP REPORT. THE TPO, THEREFORE, REJECTED THOSE COMPANIES AS COMPARA BLES. 3. ON BEING ASKED BY THE TPO, THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTE D A SET OF 35 FRESH COMPARABLES AFTER RE-VISITING THE PROWESS DAT ABASE AND FETCHED COMPARABLES BASED ON THE REVISED PROCESS. THE ASSE SSEE OBJECTED TO THE ADDITIONAL COMPARABLES PROPOSED BY THE TPO IN THE S HOW CAUSE NOTICE. THE ASSESSEE REJECTED MANY COMPARABLE COMPANIES ON THE GROUND OF TURNOVER AND NON-AVAILABILITY OF DATA. THE TPO ON EXAMINATION OF THE COMPARABLES FOUND THAT THE TURNOVER LIMIT APPLIED B Y THE ASSESSEE WAS 5 HIGHLY ARBITRARY AND IN MANY CASES DATA WAS INDEED AVAILABLE IN PUBLIC DOMAIN BUT THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT CONSIDERED THESE CO MPANIES IN ITS TP REPORT. FURTHER, THE ASSESSEE HAS REJECTED A LARGE NUMBER OF SOFTWARE DEVELOPMENT COMPANIES STATING THOSE AS FUNCTIONALLY DIFFERENT COMPANIES. THERE WAS NO EXPLANATION AS TO HOW THES E COMPANIES WERE DIFFERENT FROM OTHER COMPARABLES SELECTED BY THE AS SESSEE. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE, THE TPO CONSIDERED SOME OF THE COMPARABL ES WHICH ARE FOUND TO BE SUITABLE AS COMPARABLES IN THE SHOW CAUSE NOT ICE AND FINALLY THE TPO SELECTED THE FOLLOWING 8 COMPANIES AS FINAL SET OF COMPARABLES, THE DETAILS OF WHICH ARE AS UNDER : SR.NO. NAME OF THE COMPARABLE OP/T C 1 BODHTREE CONSULTING LTD 19.14 2 E INFOCHIPS LTD 30.69 3 EZEST SOLUTIONS LTD 28.95 4 FCSSOFTWARE SOLUTIONS LTD 57.02 5 G OLDSTONE TECHNOLOGIES 27.21 6 HELIOS AND MATHESON I NFOR MATION TECH. 36.33 7 KALS INFORMATION SYSTEM 41.94 8 LGS GLOBAL LTD 26.66 ARITHMETIC MEAN 33.49 (267.94/8) 3.1 THE TPO THEREAFTER MADE AN ADJUSTMENT OF RS.3,2 0,93,437/- TO THE INTERNATIONAL TRANSACTION RELATING TO PROVISION OF SOFTWARE DEVELOPMENT SERVICES, THE DETAILS OF WHICH ARE AS UNDER : DESCRIPTION RS. PRICE CHARGED (OPERATING REVENUE OF THE ASSESSEE) [ B] 17,74,35,971 OPERATING COST (OC) 15,69,62,524 ARMS LENGTH MEAN MARGIN (OP/OC) [D] 33.49 ARMS LENGTH PRICE (ALP) OF THE INTERNATIONAL TRANSA CTION [A] (ALP=OC*(1+D)) 20,95,29,408 5% RANGE ON LOWER SIDE ( THE ASSESSEE'S TRANSACTION FALLS OUTSIDE THE RANGE) 19,90,52,937 ADJUSTMENT OVER OPERATING INCOME [A - B] (SHORTFALL BEING ADJUSTMENT U/S 92CA) 3,20,93,437 6 4. THE ASSESSING OFFICER PASSED THE DRAFT ASSESSMEN T ORDER PROPOSING THE ABOVE ADJUSTMENT WHICH WAS CHALLENGED BY THE ASSESSEE BEFORE THE DRP. HOWEVER, THE DRP REJECTED THE VARI OUS CONTENTIONS RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE AND UPHELD THE ACTION OF THE TPO. THE DRP, HOWEVER, DIRECTED THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO RE-COMPU TE THE CORRECT OP/TC IN THE CASE OF KALS INFORMATION SYSTEMS LTD. HOLDING THAT THE SAME IS FUNCTIONALLY COMPARABLE. SIMILARLY, THE DR P DIRECTED THE ASSESSING OFFICER/TPO TO ALLOW WORKING CAPITAL ADJU STMENT AFTER VERIFICATION. AFTER RECEIPT OF THE ORDER OF THE DR P, THE ASSESSING OFFICER PASSED THE ASSESSMENT ORDER MAKING AN ADJUS TMENT OF RS.2,03,21,113/-. 5. AGGRIEVED WITH SUCH ORDER OF THE ASSESSING OFFIC ER, THE ASSESSEE IS IN APPEAL BEFORE US WITH THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS : ALL THE GROUNDS OF APPEALS ARE INDEPENDENT AND WIT HOUT PREJUDICE TO EACH OTHER : 1. THE LEARNED AO ERRED IN LAW AND ON FACTS IN GI VING EFFECT TO THE SECOND ORDER OF THE LEARNED DRP (DISPUTE RESOLU TION PANEL) PASSED ON 27 TH AUGUST 2012 AND RELEASED ON 12 TH SEPTEMBER 2012, WHICH IS RECEIVED BY APPELLANT ON 15 TH SEPTEMBER 2012; INSTEAD OF FIRST ORDER OF THE DRP PASSED ON 14 TH AUGUST 2012 AND RELEASED ON 31 ST AUGUST 2012. 2. THE LEARNED AO AND LEARNED DRP ERRED IN LAW AN D ON FACTS IN DETERMINING ARM'S LENGTH PRICE OF SOFTWARE SALES TR ANSACTION OF THE APPELLANT AT RS. 19,77,57,084 INSTEAD OF RS. 17 ,74,35,971. 3. THE LEARNED AO & DRP ERRED IN LAW AND ON FACTS IN DETERMINING THE ARM'S LENGTH PRICE (ALP) OF THE APP ELLANT'S INTERNATIONAL TRANSACTIONS FOR SOFTWARE SERVICES BY ADOPTING A MARK-UP OF 28.33% OVER COSTS INSTEAD OF THE APPELLA NT'S EARNED MARK UP OF 13.04% ON COST. 4. THE LEARNED AO ERRED IN LAW AND ON FACTS IN NOT GRANTING APPROPRIATE WORKING CAPITAL ADJUSTMENT TO THE APPEL LANT. 7 5. ALTERNATIVELY, THE LEARNED AO, TPO & THE DRP E RRED IN LAW AND ON FACTS IN NOT CONSIDERING THE ALTERNATE CONTE NTION FOR BENCHMARKING OF THE TRANSACTIONS UNDER CUP APPROACH (I.E. 95 : 5 SHARING OF REVENUE BETWEEN THE APPELLANT AND IT'S U SA AE), THOUGH RAISED SPECIFICALLY BY THE APPELLANT BEFORE THE TPO AND BEFORE THE DRP. 6. THE TPO, AO & DRP ERRED IN LAW AND ON FACTS IN NOT GRANTING BENEFIT OF PROVISO TO SECTION 92C (2) OF T HE ITA, 1961 THOUGH SPECIFICALLY REQUESTED DURING THE COURSE OF HEARING. 7. THE LEARNED AO ERRED ON FACTS IN NOT GIVING EF FECT TO THE TAXES PAID / TDS AMOUNTING TO RS. 58,06,211 WHILE D ECIDING THE FINAL TAX LIABILITY(CLAIMED RS 58,11,483/ - ALLOWED RS.5,272). 8. THE APPELLANT CRAVES LEAVES TO ADD, MODIFY, AL TER, AMEND, OR WITHDRAW ALL OR ANY OF THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL HEREIN AND TO SUBMIT SUCH STATEMENTS, DOCUMENTS AND PAPERS AS MAY BE CON SIDERED NECESSARY EITHER AT OR BEFORE THE APPEAL HEARING. 6. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL ARGUMENTS MADE BY B OTH THE SIDES, PERUSED THE ORDERS OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER/TPO/DRP AND THE PAPER BOOK FILED ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE. WE HAVE ALSO CONSIDERED THE VARIOUS DECISIONS CITED BEFORE US. IT WAS STATED B Y THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE THAT THE TPO REJECTED THE COMPARABLES GIVEN BY THE ASSESSEE ON THE GROUND THAT THE ANNUAL REPORTS ARE NOT AVAIL ABLE. HOWEVER, ALL THOSE ANNUAL REPORTS ARE AVAILABLE IN PUBLIC DOMAIN AND THEREFORE, THE TPO SHOULD NOT HAVE REJECTED THOSE COMPARABLES. HE FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT BY USING THE ASSESSING OFFICERS OWN FILTERING PROCESS THERE WERE 9 NEW COMPARABLES WHICH OUGHT TO HAVE BEEN SELECTED. HOWEVER, THE TPO NEVER ASKED THE ASSESSEE TO PRODUCE ANNUAL REPO RTS OF THOSE 9 COMPANIES AS SUCH AND THEREFORE HIS REJECTION OF TH OSE COMPARABLES WAS NOT CORRECT. HE FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT THE DRP DID NOT CONSIDER THE COPIES OF AVAILABLE ANNUAL REPORTS FILED BEFORE IT. WHILE DEALING WITH THE OBJECTION, THE DRP HAS SIMPLY OBSERVED THAT THE REJECTION OF 9 8 COMPARABLES BY THE TPO WAS CORRECT AS THE ANNUAL RE PORTS OF THE COMPARABLES WERE NOT PRODUCED. HE SUBMITTED THAT T HIS OBSERVATION OF THE DRP IS FACTUALLY INCORRECT SINCE FINANCIAL SUMM ARIES OF ALL THE 9 COMPANIES AND ANNUAL REPORTS OF 7 COMPARABLES OUT O F THOSE 9 COMPARABLES WERE PRODUCED BEFORE THE DRP. HOWEVER, IT WAS IGNORED BY THEM. THEREFORE, SUCH FINDING/OBSERVATION OF TH E DRP IS INCORRECT. HE SUBMITTED THAT THE TPO/DRP HAVE SELECTED HELIOS & MATHERSON INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY LTD. AS A GOOD COMPARABLE. HE SUBMITTED THAT THE TURNOVER OF THIS COMPARABLE IS RS.213 CRORES, I .E. ABOVE RS.200 CRORES. THEREFORE, THE SAID PARTY SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN CONSIDERED AS A COMPARABLE. FOR THE ABOVE PROPOSITION HE RELIED ON VARIOUS DECISIONS. HE SUBMITTED THAT ALTHOUGH THESE WERE BROUGHT TO TH E NOTICE OF THE DRP, HOWEVER, THE DRP REJECTED THE SAME ON THE GROUND TH AT TOTAL COST OF ACTIVITY OF HELIOS WAS LESS THAN RS.200 CRORES. 6.1 SO FAR AS TREATING KALS AS COMPARABLE HE SUBMIT TED THAT THE TPO/DRP HAVE SELECTED THE SAID COMPANY AS A COMPARA BLE ON THE GROUND THAT THE SAID PARTY IS FUNCTIONALLY SIMILAR, I.E. NOT INVOLVED IN SOFTWARE PRODUCT DEVELOPMENT. REFERRING TO VARIOUS DECISIONS OF THE TRIBUNAL HE SUBMITTED THAT THE ABOVE CONTENTION HAS BEEN REJECTED WHILE BENCHMARKING WITH SOFTWARE DEVELOPMENT FUNCTION. H E ACCORDINGLY SUBMITTED THAT KALS ALSO SHOULD BE DELETED FROM THE LIST OF COMPARABLES. HE SUBMITTED THAT IN THE SUBSEQUENT 2 YEARS THERE WAS NO DISTURBANCE BY THE TPO/DRP. HE ACCORDINGLY SUBMITT ED THAT THE MATTER SHOULD BE RESTORED TO THE FILE OF THE TPO FOR FRESH ADJUDICATION OF THE ISSUE WITH A DIRECTION TO CONSIDER THE 9 COMPANIES AS COMPARABLE AND 9 DELETE HELIOS AND MATHERSON INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY LTD. AND KALS INFORMATION SYSTEM LTD. FROM THE LIST OF COMPARABLE S. 7. THE LD. DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE ON THE OTHER HAND FAIRLY AGREED THAT SHE HAS NO OBJECTION IF THE MATTER IS R ESTORED TO THE FILE OF THE TPO FOR FRESH ADJUDICATION. 8. AFTER HEARING BOTH THE SIDES, WE FIND SOME MERIT IN THE ARGUMENTS ADVANCED BY THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE. WE F IND CERTAIN COMPANIES SELECTED BY THE TPO WERE NOT CONSIDERED A S COMPARABLES ON THE GROUND THAT ANNUAL REPORT OF THOSE COMPANIES WE RE NOT AVAILABLE. HOWEVER, WE FIND THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS FILED THE FI NANCIAL SUMMARIES OF THOSE 9 COMPANIES AND ANNUAL REPORTS IN CASE OF 7 C OMPANIES OUT OF THE 9 COMPANIES. WE ALSO FIND MERIT IN THE ARGUMENT OF T HE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE THAT HELIOS AND MATHERSON INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY LTD. WHOSE TURNOVER IS RS.213 CRORES, I.E. ABOVE RS.200 CRORES IS NOT A COMPARABLE CASE. SIMILARLY, FROM THE VARIOUS DECIS IONS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IN THE PAPER BOOK, WE ARE OF THE CONSIDERE D OPINION THAT KALS INFORMATION SYSTEM LTD. CANNOT BE CONSIDERED AS A C OMPARABLE. CONSIDERING THE TOTALITY OF THE FACTS OF THE CASE, WE DEEM IT PROPER TO RESTORE THE MATTER TO THE FILE OF THE TPO TO PASS A PPROPRIATE ORDER AFTER GIVING DUE OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD TO THE ASSESS EE AND DETERMINE THE ADJUSTMENT TO THE ARMS LENGTH PRICE AS PER FACT AN D AS PER LAW. WE HOLD AND DIRECT ACCORDINGLY. GROUNDS RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE ARE ACCORDINGLY ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. 10 9. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 27-08-2014. SD/- SD/- (SHAILENDRA KUMAR YADAV) (R.K. PANDA) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER PUNE DATED: 27 TH AUGUST, 2014 SATISH COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. ASSESSEE 2. DEPARTMENT 3. DY.CIT(TRANSFER PRICING-III), PUNE 4. THE DRP, PUNE 5. THE D.R, A PUNE BENCH 6. GUARD FILE BY ORDER // TRUE COPY // ASSISTANT REGISTRAR ITAT, PUNE BENCHES, PUNE