M/s.Swiss Re Global Business Solutions India private Limited, Bangalore V. Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax, Bangalore

ITA 2315/BANG/2016

• Counselvise Citation: [2017] 128 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 5530 (ITAT-BANGALORE)
• Duration Of Justice: 3 month(s) 17 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 13-04-2017
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Next Hearing Date: 28-03-2017
• Assessment Year: 2012-2013
• Appeal Filed On: 27-12-2016
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Keywords: Transfer pricing; International transaction; Bad and doubtful debts
• Section: 143(3)

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL B BENCH : BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI VIJAY PAL RAO, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI INTURI RAMA RAO, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER IT(TP)A NO. 2315/BANG/2016 ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2012-13 M/S. SWISS RE GLOBAL BUSINESS SOLUTIONS INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED [FORMERLY KNOWN AS SWISS RE SHARED SERVICES (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED], VASWANI CENTROPOLIS, 2 ND TO 6 TH FLOOR, NO. 21, LANGFORD ROAD, LANGFORD TOWN, BANGALORE 560 027. PAN: AAECS 8786L VS. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 6(1)(2), BANGALORE. APPELLANT RESPONDENT APPELLANT BY : SHRI CHAVALI NARAYAN, CA RESPONDENT BY : MS. NEERA MALHOTRA, CIT(DR) DATE OF HEARING : 28.03.2017 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 13.04.2017 IT(TP)A NO. 2315/BANG/2016 PAGE 2 OF 13 O R D E R PER VIJAY PAL RAO, JUDICIAL MEMBER THIS APPEAL BY THE ASSESSEE IS DIRECTED AGAINST TH E ASSESSMENT ORDER DATED 29.11.2016 PASSED U/S. 143(3) R.W.S. 144C(13) OF IT ACT IN PURSUANT TO THE DIRECTIONS OF DRP DATED 01.09.2016 FOR THE ASSESSME NT YEAR 2012-13. THE ASSESSEE HAS RAISED THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS. IT(TP)A NO. 2315/BANG/2016 PAGE 3 OF 13 IT(TP)A NO. 2315/BANG/2016 PAGE 4 OF 13 2. THE ONLY ISSUE RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE IN THIS APPEA L IS REGARDING COMPARABILITY OF CERTAIN COMPANIES SELECTED BY THE TPO AND CONSEQUENT ADJUSTMENT MADE IN RESPECT OF ALP OF INTERNATIONAL TRANSACTIONS. THE ASSESSEE WAS A SUBSIDIARY OF SWISS RE INSURANCE GRO UP, ZURICH AND ENGAGED IN PROVIDING IT ENABLED BACK OFFICE SERVICE S LIKE CONTRACT ADMINISTRATION, CLAIM ADMINISTRATION AND TECHNICAL REINSURANCE ACCOUNTING SUPPORT TO ITS AE. DURING THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERA TION THE ASSESSEE HAS REPORTED THE FINANCIAL RESULTS AND INTERNATIONAL TR ANSACTIONS AS REPRODUCED BY THE TPO IN PARA 2.2 AND PARA 3 AS UNDER. IT(TP)A NO. 2315/BANG/2016 PAGE 5 OF 13 3. TO BENCH MARK ITS INTERNATIONAL TRANSACTION THE ASS ESSEE SELECTED SIX COMPARABLE COMPANIES IN TP STUDY HAVING MEAN MARGIN OF 12.97% AND CLAIMED ITS INTERNATIONAL TRANSACTION AT ARMS LENGT H. THE TPO REJECTED THREE COMPANIES OUT OF THE SIX SELECTED BY THE ASSE SSEE. THE TPO HAS THEN CARRIED OUT THE FRESH SEARCH AND ADDED SIX MOR E COMPANIES TO THE THREE COMPANIES ALREADY ACCEPTED FROM THE SET OF TH E ASSESSEES COMPARABLES. ACCORDINGLY, THE TPO HAS DETERMINED T HE ARMS LENGTH PRICE BY CONSIDERING TEN COMPANIES AS UNDER: IT(TP)A NO. 2315/BANG/2016 PAGE 6 OF 13 4. AFTER ALLOWING THE NEGATIVE WORKING CAPITAL ADJUSTM ENT OF 1.74% THE TPO HAS ARRIVED AT THE ADJUSTED MEAN MARGIN OF 29.85%. ACCORDINGLY, THE TPO HAS PROPOSED AN ADJUSTMENT U/S. 92CA OF RS. 11, 67,33,647/-. THE ASSESSEE CHALLENGED THE ACTION OF THE TPO BEFORE TH E DRP. THE DRP HAS NOT ACCEPTED THE OBJECTIONS OF THE ASSESSEE HOWEVER SUOMOTO REJECTED ONE COMPANY FROM THE SET OF COMPARABLES ON THE GROUND O F DIFFERENT BUSINESS MODEL. THUS THE DRP HAS EXCLUDED M/S. ACCENTIA TEC HNOLOGIES LIMITED FROM THE SET OF COMPARABLES. AFTER THE DIRECTIONS OF THE DRP, THE FINAL ASSESSMENT ORDER WAS PASSED BY CONSIDERING THE NINE COMPARABLE COMPANIES. BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL, THE ASSESSEE IS SE EKING EXCLUSION OF SIX COMPARABLE COMPANIES OUT THE NINE COMPANIES FROM TH E SET OF COMPARABLES ARE AS UNDER: S.NO. COMPANY NAME TURNOVER AS PER TP ORDER (IN INR CRORES) 1. M/S. UNIVERSAL PRINT SYSTEMS LIMITED (SEGMENTAL) 6.18 2. M/S. INFORMED TECHNOLOGIES INDIA LIMITED 1.94 3. M/S. INFOSYS BPO LIMITED 1312.41 4. M/S. MICROGENETIC SYSTEMS LIMITED 1.30 5. M/S. TCS E-SERVE LIMITED 1578.44 6. M/S. BNR UDYOG LIMITED (SEGMENTAL) 1.47 IT(TP)A NO. 2315/BANG/2016 PAGE 7 OF 13 5. THE LD. AR OF THE ASSESSEE HAS SUBMITTED THAT THE T PO HAS APPLIED A TURNOVER FILTER OF LESS THAN ONE CRORE WHILE SELECT ING THE COMPARABLES WHEREAS NO HIGHER LIMIT OF TURNOVER WAS APPLIED BY THE TPO. HE HAS THUS SUBMITTED THAT WHEN TURNOVER WAS CONSIDERED AS A RE LEVANT FACTOR BY THE TPO THEN BOTH THE LOWER END AND HIGHER END OF TURNO VER FILTER SHOULD HAVE BEEN APPLIED. IN SUPPORT OF HIS CONTENTION HE HAS RELIED UPON THE DECISION DATED 02.07.2015 OF HONBLE PUNJAB & HARYA NA HIGH COURT IN CASE OF AGILENT TECHNOLOGIES (INTERNATIONAL) PVT. L TD. VS ACIT IN ITA NO. 121 OF 2014 (O & M) AND SUBMITTED THAT THE HON BLE HIGH COURT HAS UPHELD THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL FOR CONSIDERING TH E IMPACT OF THE TURNOVER ON THE COMPARABILITY. HE HAS ALSO RELIED UPON THE DECISION DATED 16.09.2015 OF HONBLE BOMBAY HIGH COURT IN CASE OF CIT VS M/S. PENTAIR WATER INDIA PVT. LTD. IN TAX APPEAL NO. 18 OF 2015. THUS, THE LD. AR HAS SUBMITTED THAT THE HONBLE HIGH COURT HAS AG AIN UPHELD THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL WHEREIN THE COMPANIES HAVING HUGE T URNOVER WERE EXCLUDED BY THE TRIBUNAL. THUS THE LD. AR HAS SUBM ITTED THAT IF THE FILTER OF TEN TIMES OF THE TURNOVER OF THE ASSESSEE IS APP LIED ON BOTH SIDES THEN ALL THESE SIX COMPANIES HAVE TO BE EXCLUDED FROM TH E SET OF COMPARABLES. IT(TP)A NO. 2315/BANG/2016 PAGE 8 OF 13 6. ON THE OTHER HAND, THE LD. DR HAS SUBMITTED THAT WH EN THE TPO HAS APPLIED ONLY LOWER TURNOVER FILTER THEN AT THIS STA GE OF PROCEEDINGS IT CANNOT BE AMENDED OR CHANGED WHICH DISTURBS THE ENT IRE PROCESS OF SELECTION. SHE HAS RELIED UPON THE ORDERS OF THE A UTHORITIES BELOW. 7. HAVING CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AS WELL AS RELEVANT MATERIAL ON RECORD WE FIND THAT THE TURNOVER IS A RELEVANT FACT OR FOR THE PURPOSE OF DETERMINING THE COMPARABILITY OF THE PROPOSED COMPA NIES FOR THE PURPOSE OF DETERMINING THE ARMS LENGTH PRICE. THE HONBLE BOMBAY HIGH COURT IN CASE OF VS M/S. PENTAIR WATER INDIA PVT. LTD. (S UPRA) WHILE DEALING WITH THE ISSUE OF THE COMPARABILITY OF COMPANIES HA VING HIGH TURNOVER IN COMPARISON TO THE ASSESSEE HELD IN PARA 5 AND 6 AS UNDER. 5. ON PE R USA L O F T HE I MPUGNED O R DER PASSED BY THE T R IBUNA L DATED 23 . 05 . 2014 , WE FIND THAT THE TRIBUNAL HAS RECORDED THE REASONS FOR NOT ACCEPTING THE SAID THREE COMPANIES ARE COMPARA BLE BY STATING AS FOLLOWS: (I) HCL COMNET SYSTEMS & SERVICES LTD:- WE F I ND FORCE IN THE SUBMISSION OF THE ID . AR THAT THIS COMPANY CANNOT BE A COMPARABLE AS THE TURNOVER OF T HIS COMPANY IS 260 . 18 CRORES WHILE IN THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE , THE TURNOVER IS AROUND RS.11 CRORES ONLY. WHILE MAKING THE SELECTIO N OF COMPARABLES, THE TURNOVER FILTER , IN OUR OPINION , HAS TO BE THE BASIS FOR SELECTION. A COMPANY HAVING TURNOVER OF RS.11 CRORE S CANNOT BE COMPARED WITH A COMPANY WHICH IS HAVING TURNOVER OF RS . 260 CRORES WHICH IS MORE THAN 23 TIMES THE TURNOVER OF THE ASS ESSEE. THIS COMPANY CANNOT BE REGARDED TO BE IN EQUAL SIZE TO T HE ASSESSEE . WE , ACCORDINGLY , DIRECT THE AO TO EXCLUDE THIS COMPANY OUT OF THE COMPARABLES. (II) INFOSYS BPO LTD. :- IN THIS CASE ALSO WE NOTED THE TURNOVER IN RESPECT OF THIS COMPANY IS RS . 649 . 56 CRORES WHILE THE TURNOVER OF THE ASSESSEE COMPANY IS AROUND RS . 11 CRORES WHICH IS MUCH MORE THAN 65 TIMES IT(TP)A NO. 2315/BANG/2016 PAGE 9 OF 13 OF THE ASSESSEE'S TURNOVER. WE, THEREFORE , DO NOT FIND ANY ILLEGALITY OR INFIRMITY IN THE ORDER OF CIT(A) IN EXCLUDING THIS COMPANY OUT OF THE COMPARABLES . ACCORDINGLY , WE CONFIRM THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A). (III) WIPRO LTD.:- AFTER HEARING THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS , WE NOTED THAT THE CIT(A) APPLYING THE TURNOVER FILTER HAS EXCLUDED THIS COMP ANY OUT OF THE COMPARABLES . THE TURNOVER REPORTED IN THE CASE OF WIPRO LTD . I S RS . 939 . 78 CRORES WHILE IN THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE THE TUR NOVER IS AROUND RS. 11 CRORES . THEREFORE , ON THE BASIS OF THE TURNOVER FILTER ITSELF THIS COMPANY CANNOT BE REGARDED TO BE COMPAR ABLE TO THE ASSESSEE COMPANY AND ACCORDINGLY , WE DO NOT FIND ANY INFIRMITY IN THE FINDING OF CIT(A) WHILE HE EXCLUDED THIS COM PANY ON THE TURNOVE R CRITER I A FOLLOW I NG THE DEC I S I ON O F THI S TRI B UN A L IN : SONY IND I A ( P ) LT D . VS . D CIT, 11 4 ITD 44 8 DELH I , E-GA I N COMMUN I CAT I ON , 20 08 T IOL 282 ITAT ( PU N E ) DELO I TTEE C ONSULT I NG IN D I A PV T . LT D . VS. DCIT , ITA NO . 1 082 / HYD / 2 01 0 GEN I SYS I NTEGRATING SYSTE M ( INDIA )(P.) L TD . VS DCIT, 53 SOT 159 (B ANG ) ' 6. THE SAID FINDINGS OF THE TRIBUNAL IN RESPECT OF THE SAID THREE COMPANIES ARE ON THE BASIS OF APPRECIATION OF EVIDE NCE ON RECORD. WE F I ND NO INFIRMITY IN THE SAID FINDINGS OF THE TRIBUNA L ON THAT COUNT . IN FACT , THE TRIBUNA L HAS ENDORSED THE VIEWS OF THE CIT APPEALS WHILST COMING TO SUCH CONCLUSIONS. T HE CONCURRENT FINDINGS OF FACTS ARRIVED AT BY THE AUTHORITIES BELOW , CA N NO T BE RE- APPRECIATED BY THIS COURT I N THE PRESENT APPEAL . 8. THUS THE HONBLE HIGH COURT HAS UPHELD THAT THERE W AS NO INFIRMITY IN FINDING OF THE TRIBUNAL ON THIS ISSUE WHEREIN IT WA S HELD THAT THE COMPANY HAVING TURNOVER OF MORE THAN 23 TIMES OF THE ASSESS EES TURNOVER CANNOT BE COMPARED WITH THE ASSESSEE. A SIMILAR VIEW HAS BEEN TAKEN BY THE HONBLE PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT IN CASE OF AG ILENT TECHNOLOGIES (INTERNATIONAL) PVT. LTD. VS ACIT (SUPRA). IT IS P ERTINENT TO NOTE THAT THIS TRIBUNAL IN A SERIES OF DECISION HAS TAKEN A CONSIS TENT VIEW THAT IN CASE IT(TP)A NO. 2315/BANG/2016 PAGE 10 OF 13 TURNOVER FILTER IS APPLIED IT SHOULD BE IN THE MULT IPLE OF THE ASSESSEES TURNOVER AND ACCORDINGLY THE TRIBUNAL HAS TAKEN A V IEW THAT IN NORMAL CIRCUMSTANCES TEN TIMES OF THE ASSESSEES TURNOVER ON BOTH SIDES LOWER AS WELL AS HIGHER WOULD BE AN APPROPRIATE TOLERANCE RA NGE OF TURNOVER WHILE SELECTING THE COMPARABLE COMPANIES. IN THE CASE IN HAND THE ASSESSEES TURNOVER IS RS. 71.37 CRORES. ACCORDINGLY BY APPLY ING THE SAID PARAMETER OF TEN TIMES OF ASSESSEES TURNOVER ON BOTH SIDES T HE COMPANIES WHICH ARE HAVING LESS THAN RS. 7.1 CRORES AND MORE THAN RS. 7 13 CRORES ON TURNOVER WOULD BE EXCLUDED. THUS WE FIND FROM THE ABOVE DET AILS THAT THESE SIX COMPANIES ARE BREACHING THE SAID TOLERANCE RANGE OF TURNOVER EITHER ON THE LOWER SIDE OR ON THE HIGHER SIDE. IN VIEW OF THE A BOVE DISCUSSION AS WELL AS FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, WE DIRECT T HE AO / TPO TO EXCLUDE THE ABOVE MENTIONED SIX COMPANIES FROM THE SET OF C OMPARABLES. 9. THE NEXT ISSUE RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE IS REGARDING THE FOREIGN EXCHANGE FLUCTUATION GAIN TO BE TREATED AS OPERATING IN NATU RE. WE HAVE HEARD THE LD. AR AS WELL AS LD. DR AND CONSIDERED THE RELEVAN T MATERIAL ON RECORD. THE LD. AR OF THE ASSESSEE HAS SUBMITTED THAT THE D RP HAS DIRECTED THE AO / TPO TO CONSIDER THE FOREIGN EXCHANGE FLUCTUATI ON GAIN AS OPERATING IN NATURE HOWEVER THE TPO / AO HAS NOT GIVEN EFFECT TO THE DIRECTIONS OF THE DRP WHILE PASSING THE FINAL ORDER. AT THE OUTS ET WE NOTE THAT THE IT(TP)A NO. 2315/BANG/2016 PAGE 11 OF 13 DRP WHILE DEALING WITH THIS ISSUE HAS DIRECTED THE AO / TPO IN PARA 11.1 AS UNDER. 11.1 PANEL: IN RELATION TO OBJECTION REGARDING TREATING FOREIGN EXCHANGE GAIN / LOSS AS NON-OPERATING IN NA TURE BY THE TPO, THE DECISION OF BANGALORE BENCH OF ITAT IN THE CASE OF SAPLAB INDIA PVT LTD (2010-TII-44-ITAT- BANG-TP) IS APPLICABLE. FOLLOWING THE SAME, OBJECTION OF THE ASSESSEE IS ACCEPTED AND ASSESSING OFFICER / TPO IS DIRECTED TO CONSIDER THE FOREIGN EXCHANGE FLUCTUATION IN RESPECT OF THE ASSESSEE AS WELL AS T HE COMPARABLES AS OPERATING IN NATURE WHILE DETERMINING THE ALP IN THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE . 10. THUS IT IS CLEAR THAT THE DRP HAS DIRECTED THE TPO TO CONSIDER THE FOREIGN EXCHANGE FLUCTUATION IN RESPECT OF THE ASSESSEE AS WELL AS THE COMPARABLES AS OPERATING IN NATURE. SINCE THE ASSESSEE HAS CON TENTED THAT THE TPO HAS NOT GIVEN EFFECT TO THE SAID DIRECTIONS OF THE DRP, ACCORDINGLY WE DIRECT THE AO / TPO TO GIVE EFFECT TO THE DIRECTIONS OF TH E DRP ON THIS ISSUE. 11. THE NEXT ISSUE RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE IS REGARDING INCORRECT MARGINS COMPUTED BY THE TPO IN RESPECT OF CERTAIN COMPARABL E COMPANIES. THE LD. AR OF THE ASSESSEE HAS POINTED OUT THAT THE DRP HAS DIRECTED THE TPO TO RECOMPUTE THE MARGINS OF THESE COMPARABLE COMPAN IES BY EXCLUDING CERTAIN COMPONENTS WHICH ARE FOUND TO BE NOT IN OPE RATING IN NATURE. HOWEVER, THE TPO HAS NOT GIVEN EFFECT TO THE SAID D IRECTIONS OF DRP. THE LD. DR HAS SUBMITTED THAT THIS IS ONLY A MATTER OF RECTIFICATION AND NOT APPEAL. IT(TP)A NO. 2315/BANG/2016 PAGE 12 OF 13 12. HAVING CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND CAREFUL PERUSAL OF THE DIRECTIONS OF THE DRP WE FIND THAT THE DRP IN PARA 10.1 HAS DEALT WITH THIS ISSUE AS UNDER. 10 . 1 PANEL: IN RESP E CT TO THE PROVIS I ON FOR DOUBTFU L DEBTS , P R OVISION WRITTEN BAC K, BANK CHARG E S , MI SCELLA N EOUS I NC OME E TC . THE SAME CANNOT BE CONSIDER E D AS NORMAL EXPENSES AS IT IS DEPENDENT UPON NUMBER OF FACTORS IN RELATION TO THE BUSINESS TRANSACTION, ACCRETION OF A DEBT OR MAKING PROVISIO NS FOR THE DOUBTFUL DEBT DEPENDS UPON THE WISDOM OF THE BUSINE SS ENTERPRISES WITH RE GA RD TO TIMING OF ITS IDENTIF I CATION AND CLAIM AS EXPENDITURE. THE VERY NATURE OF DOUBTFUL DEBTS, TH AT IT IS NOT PECULIAR TO ALL THE BUSINESS TRANSACTIONS, IT CANNO T BE CONSIDERED AS NO R MAL AND DIRECT OPERATING EXPENSES. THE PRINCIPLE L AID DOWN BY TH E HON'BLE IT A T IN THE CASE OF M/S TELCORD IA TE C HN OL O G IES INDIA P VT . LIM I TED 22 TAXM A NN.COM 96 IS SQUARELY APPLICABLE TO T H E ASS E SSEE CASE IN WHICH IT WAS DECIDED THAT THE PROVISIO N FOR DOUBTFUL DEBT CANNOT FORM PART OF OPERATING COS T . F URTHER , IN THE CASE OF THYSSEN KRUPP INDUSTRIES INDIA PVT LTD , 33 T AXMA N N . COM 10 7 THE HON'BLE MUMBAI TRIBUNAL HELD THAT PROVISION FOR DOUBTFUL DEBTS I S T O BE CONSIDERED AS N O N-OPERATING IN NATURE BECAUS E IT IS ONLY A PROVISION. SIMILAR IS THE P OSIT I ON RE G ARD I NG LIABILITIES NO L O NG E R REQUIRED WRITTEN BACK, BANK CHARGES AND M I SC ELLANEOU S INCOME. W H IL E WORKING OUT T HE OPERATING PROFIT, ONLY IT E MS OF RECEIPTS AND EXP ENDITURE , W HIC H H AVE DIR E CT RELA T ION F O R DETERMININ G T HE PROFIT HA VE TO BE TAK E N I N TO ACCOUNT . T H U S THE TPO IS CO R RECT IN H OL DI NG EX C LU S I O N OF PROVISION FOR DOUBTFU L DEBTS , P ROVI SION WRITTEN BACK , BANK CHARGES, MISCELLA N EOUS I NCO M E ETC . AS NO N- O PE RATING ITEMS. AS R E GARDS FACTUAL ERROR IN COMPUTATION IF ANY, TPO/ AO IS DIRECTED TO VERIFY THE SAME AN D CORRECT IT I F THERE I S A NY INACCURACY IN THE SAME. 13. THE ASSESSEE HAS CONTENTED THAT THE TPO HAS NOT GIV EN EFFECT TO THE DIRECTIONS OF THE DRP. ACCORDINGLY, WE DIRECT THE AO / TPO TO GIVE EFFECT TO THE DIRECTIONS OF THE DRP ON THIS ISSUE. IT(TP)A NO. 2315/BANG/2016 PAGE 13 OF 13 14. SINCE WE HAVE DIRECTED FOR EXCLUSION OF SIX COMPANI ES FROM THE FINAL SET OF TPO AND FURTHER THE DIRECTIONS OF THE DRP ARE TO BE GIVEN EFFECT ON CERTAIN ISSUES THEREFORE THE TPO / AO IS DIRECTED T O RECOMPUTE THE ARMS LENGTH PRICE AFTER GIVING EFFECT TO THIS ORDER OF T HE TRIBUNAL AND ALSO CONSIDER THE BENEFIT OF PROVISO TO SECTION 92C(2) O F THE ACT. 15. IN THE RESULT THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS PARTLY ALLOWED. PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON THIS 13 TH DAY OF APRIL, 2017 SD/- SD/- (INTURI RAMA RAO) (VIJAY P AL RAO) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER BANGALORE, DATED, THE 13 TH APRIL, 2017. / MS/ COPY TO: 1. APPELLANT 2. RESPONDENT 3. CIT 4. CIT(A) 5. DR, ITAT, BANGALORE. 6. GUARD FILE BY ORDER ASSISTANT REGISTRAR, ITAT, BANGALORE.