DCIT, New Delhi V. M/s. Danisco (India) Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

ITA 2444/DEL/2012

• Counselvise Citation: [2015] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 96977 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 3 year(s) 2 month(s) 26 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 17-08-2015
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: I
• Next Hearing Date: 18-05-2015
• Assessment Year: 2007-2008
• Appeal Filed On: 21-05-2012
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Assessee Lawyers: HIMANSHU SHEKHAR SINHA; SOMYA SETH
• Keywords: Transfer pricing; International transaction; Rule of consistency

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL (DELHI BENCH I(2) NEW DELHI) BEFORE SHRI N.K. SAINI: HONBLE ACCOUNTANT MEMBER A ND SHRI I.C. SUDHIR: HONBLE JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA NO. 2444/DEL/2012 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2007-08 DEPUTY CIT, VS. M/S. DANISCO (INDIA) PVT. LTD. CIRCLE 10(1), E-5 LOCAL SHOPPING CENTRE, NEW DELHI. MASJID MOTH, GR. KAILAS-II. NEW DELHI-1100 48 (PAN: AAACD8906C) (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) DEPARTMENT BY: SHRI RAHUL G ARG, SR.DR ASSESSEE BY: SH. HIMANSH U SHEKHAR SINHA, ADV. & SHRI SOMYA SETH, CA DATE OF HEARING : 19.05.2015 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT: 17:08.2015 ORDER PER I.C. SUDHIR: JUDICIAL MEMBER THE REVENUE HAS QUESTIONED FIRST APPELLATE ORDER R AISING THE ISSUE AS TO WHETHER THE LEARNED CIT(APPEALS) UNDER THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN LAW IS JUSTIFIED IN DELETING THE AD DITION OF RS.61,62,871 MADE BY ASSESSING OFFICER/TPO ON ACCOUNT OF DIFFERENCE I N ARMS LENGTH PRICE (ALP) OF INTERNATIONAL TRANSACTION. 2. WE HAVE HEARD AND CONSIDERED THE ARGUMENTS ADVAN CED BY THE PARTIES IN VIEW OF ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW, MATERIA L AVAILABLE ON RECORD AND THE DECISIONS RELIED UPON. 2 3. THE FACTS IN BRIEF ARE THAT THE ASSESSEE IS A PR IVATE LIMITED COMPANY REGISTERED IN INDIA AND IS A WHOLLY OWNED SUBSIDIAR Y OF DANISCO A/S, DENMARK. THE ASSESSEE WAS INCORPORATED ON 21.1.1991 FOR MANUFACTURING AND MARKETING OF FOOD AND NON-FOOD INGREDIENTS. M/S . DENISCO INDIA IS PRIMARILY ENGAGED IN MANUFACTURING OF ARTIFICIAL FL AVORS, FOOD AND NON-FOOD INGREDIENTS AND TRADING OF INGREDIENTS. 4. DURING THE YEAR, THE ASSESSEE HAD FOLLOWING INT ERNATIONAL TRANSACTIONS WITH ITS ASSOCIATED ENTERPRISES: S.NO. DESCRIPTION OF THE TRANSACTIONS AMOUNT (IN INR) METHOD APPLIED 1. PURCHASE OF RAW MATERIAL 10,268,532 TNMM 2. PURCHASE OF FINISHED GOODS 92,455,394 TNMM 3. COMMISSION RECEIVED 20,437,822 TNMM 4. ALLOCATION OF INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY (IT) COST. 6,162,862 TNMM 5. REIMBURSEMENT OF EXPENSES 57,416 TNMM TOTAL 129,382,036 5. THE TPO DISCUSSED THE BUSINESS PROFILE OF THE AS SESSEE IN PARA NO. 5. FUNCTIONS, ASSETS AND RISKS WERE ANALYSISED IN PA RAGRAPH NOS. 6 AND TRANSFER 3 PRICING APPROACH OF THE ASSESSEE IN PARAGRAPH NO. 7 OF HIS ORDER. THE ASSESSEE HAD USED TNMM (TRANSACTIONAL NET MARGIN ME THOD) AT THE ENTITY LEVEL AGGREGATING ALL THE TRANSACTIONS. THE ASSESSE E HAD USED SIX COMPARABLES WHO WERE IN THE SIMILAR LINE OF BUSINESS IN INDIA. THE MEAN OP/SALES OF THE COMPARABLES WORKED OUT AT 0.68% AS AGAINST -0.03% O F THE ASSESSEE. AS THE ASSESSEE WAS WITHIN PLUS MINUS 5% OF THE ARMS LENG TH PRICE (ALP), THE ASSESSEE CLAIMED THAT ITS INTERNATIONAL TRANSACTION IS AT ARMS LENGTH. THE TPO DID NOT AGREE WITH THE ASSESSEE AND DECIDED TO BENCHMARK THE INTERNATIONAL TRANSACTION INDIVIDUALLY AS AGAINST T HE AGGREGATE APPROACH OF THE ASSESSEE. 6. THE ASSESSEE HAS PAID RS.61,62,872 TOWARDS ALLOC ATION OF INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY COST. THE TPO ISSUED SHOW-CAUSE NOTICE T O THE ASSESSEE ASKING IT TO JUSTIFY THE PAYMENTS MADE IN THIS REGARD. THE TP O WAS NOT SATISFIED WITH THE CAUSE SHOWN BY THE ASSESSEE AND CAME TO THE CON CLUSION THAT NO SERVICES ACTUALLY HAD BEEN RECEIVED AS NO EVIDENCE HAD BEEN FILED IN SUPPORT. HE OBSERVED FURTHER THAT NO COST SHEETS OR CORROBORATI VE AGREEMENTS HAVE BEEN PROVIDED TO DEMONSTRATE THAT THESE SERVICES WERE AC TUALLY RECEIVED BY THE ASSESSEE. HE HELD FURTHER THAT IF THE SERVICES HAD BEEN RENDERED AT ALL, THOSE MAY BE TERMED AS ANCILLARY SERVICES. NO INDEPENDENT PARTY WOULD PAY ANYTHING FOR SUCH SERVICES UNDER UNCONTROLLED CIRCU MSTANCES. THE TPO THUS 4 HELD THE PAYMENT OF RS.61,62,872 IS NOTHING BUT A D EVICE OF PROFIT SHIFTING AND ARMS LENGTH PRICE OF THIS TRANSACTION SHALL BE DETERMINED AT NIL UNDER CUP METHOD. THE TPO ADDED THE PAYMENT MADE BY THE A SSESSEE TO ITS AE TO THE ARMS LENGTH PRICE CHARGED BY THE ASSESSEE. THE LEARNED CIT(APPEALS) HAS, HOWEVER, DELETED THIS DISALLOWANCE AGAINST WHI CH THE REVENUE IS IN APPEAL BEFORE US. 7. IN SUPPORT OF THE ISSUE, THE LEARNED SENIOR DR H AS BASICALLY PLACED RELIANCE ON THE ORDER OF THE TPO WITH THIS CONTENTI ON THAT THE DECISION OF THE ITAT IN THE CASE OF DRESSER RAND INDIA PVT. LTD. ITA NO. 8753/MUM/2010 FOLLOWED BY THE LEARNED CIT(APPEALS) IS NOT APPLICABLE IN THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE. HE ALSO CITED THE FOLLO WING DECISIONS: 1. DELOITTE CONSULTING INDIA PVT. LTD. ITA NOS.5 79, 1272, 1273/MUM/2011 & 3910, 3911/MUM/2011; 2. GEMPLUS INDIA PVT. ITA NO. 352/BANG./2009; 3. KNORR-BREMSE INDIA PVT. LTD. ITA NO. 5097/DEL /2011; & 4. PETRO ARALDITE PVT. LTD. ITA NO.6217/MUM/2012 . 8. THE LEARNED AR ON THE OTHER HAND TRIED TO JUSTIF Y THE FIRST APPELLATE ORDER ON THE ISSUE. HE SUBMITTED THAT NECESSARY COS T TO RUN THE BUSINESS HAS NOT BEEN DISPUTED BY THE TPO. HE REFERRED PAGE NOS. 199 TO 226 OF THE PAPER BOOK I.E. THE COPIES OF INVOICES RAISED BY THE A.E. FOR IT COST PROVIDING 5 SPECIFIC NATURE OF EXPENSES IN EACH OF THE INVOICES . THE ASSESSEE HAD ALSO PROVIDED THE BREAK UP OF IT EXPENSES DURING THE YEA R MADE AVAILABLE AT PAGE NO. 232 OF THE PAPER BOOK. HE SUBMITTED FURTHER TH AT THE EXPENSES CLAIMED ON ACCOUNT OF ALLOCATION OF INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY (IT) COST WAS REASONABLE LOOKING TO THE TURNOVER OF THE ASSESSEE. THE LEARNE D AR CONTENDED THAT SUCH COSTS ARE BASIC OPERATIONAL REQUIREMENT FOR THE DAY TO DAY OPERATIONS AND IF THERE WERE NO GLOBAL REQUIREMENT, THEN ASSESSEE WOU LD HAVE TO PROCURE ON ITS OWN. ACCORDINGLY, ON AN ARMS LENGTH BASIS, IT WOUL D NOT BE FEASIBLE TO EXPECT ANY INDEPENDENT COMPANY TO PROVIDE SUCH SERV ICES ON A FREE OF COST BASIS AS HAS BEEN CONTEMPLATED BY THE LEARNED TPO I N HIS ORDER. SUCH PAYMENTS WERE MADE ON ACCOUNT OF GLOBAL AGREEMENT P ROCURED BY THE A.E. FOR THE BENEFIT OF ENTIRE GROUP AND WERE MAINLY TOW ARDS INTERNET CONNECTIVITY, STANDARD OPERATING SYSTEM SUCH AS MS OFFICE, SOFTWARE SUPPORT AND IT HELPDESK. THE COSTS HAD BEEN ALLOCATED WITHO UT ANY MARKUP BASED ON THE NUMBER OF HEAD COUNTS USING SPECIFIC IT SERVICE S. HE REFERRED PAGE NOS. 227 TO 232 OF THE PAPER BOOK I.E. COPY OF THE RELEVANT EXTRACTS OF THE SUBMISSIONS BEFORE THE LEARNED TPO AND GIVING THE D ETAILED DESCRIPTION OF THE SERVICES UTILIZED BY THE ASSESSEE IN ITS OPERAT IONS AND THEIR BENEFIT WAS EXPLAINED. HE SUBMITTED THAT THESE SERVICES ARE UTI LIZED BY THE ASSESSEE IN ITS OPERATIONS AND ARE CRITICAL FOR ITS EFFICIENT FUNCT IONING. NO THIRD PARTY WOULD 6 PROVIDE THESE SERVICES FREE OF CHARGE. ARMS LENGTH PRICE OF SUCH SERVICES, BY NO STRETCH OF IMAGINATION, CAN BE DETERMINED TO BE NIL. THE LEARNED AR POINTED OUT THAT IN ITS OWN CASE OF THE ASSESSEE IN ASSESSMENT YEAR 2006-07, THE LEARNED TPO HAS HELD THE PAYMENT OF IT COST OF RS.40,16,126 AT ARMS LENGTH AND NOT DRAWN ANY ADVERSE INFERENCE ON THIS ISSUE. HE SUBMITTED THAT THERE IS NO CHANGE IN THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES O F THE CASE DURING THE YEAR AND THUS THE RULE OF CONSISTENCY SHOULD BE APPLIED. HE CONTENDED THAT IF TNMM IS HELD AS THE MOST APPROPRIATE METHOD, IT IS NOT PERMISSIBLE TO SINGLE OUT CERTAIN COSTS FOR THE SAKE OF SEPARATE BENCHMAR KING ANALYSIS. HE SUBMITTED THAT IN THE PRESENT CASE, THERE IS NO DIS PUTE THAT TNMM IS THE MOST APPROPRIATE METHOD FOR ALL OTHER TRANSACTIONS. CONS IDERING THAT I.T. COSTS FORM A PART OF THE COST BASE IN CALCULATION OF THE PLI (OP/TC), IT WOULD NOT BE APPROPRIATE TO BENCHMARK SUCH COSTS SEPARATELY U NDER ANOTHER METHOD. THE LEARNED AR CONTENDED THAT THE LEARNED TPO WHILE APPLYING CUP METHOD HAS NOT MENTIONED THE SEARCH PROCESS UNDERTA KEN OR METHODOLOGY ADOPTED IN ORDER TO DETERMINE THE ALP OF THE AFORES AID INTERNATIONAL TRANSACTIONS, NOR ARRIVED AT A COMPARABLE UNCONTROL LED PRICE. THE LEARNED TPO HAS NOT FOLLOWED ANY OF THE THREE STEPS FOR APP LICATION OF CUP METHOD AS MENTIONED IN RULE 10B(1)(A) OF THE INCOME-TAX RU LES, 1962. THE EXPENSES INCURRED BY THE ASSESSEE, INCLUDING EXPENS ES FOR I.T. COSTS HAVE 7 FORMED A PART OF THE COST BASE OF THE ASSESSEE. HE PLACED RELIANCE ON THE FOLLOWING DECISIONS: I) DRESSER RAND INDIA PVT. LTD. ITA NO.8753/MUM/ 2010; II) AWB INDIA PVT. LTD. ITA NO. 4454/DEL/2011; III) ERICSON INDIA PVT. LTD. ITA NO. 5141/DEL/20 11; & IV ) MCCANN ERICKSON INDIA PVT. LTD. ITA NO. 587 1/DEL/2011. 9. HAVING GONE THROUGH THE ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITIE S BELOW, WE FIND THAT THERE ARE SOME UNDISPUTED FACTS AND THAT NO SUCH PA YMENT IN QUESTION I.E. INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY COST WAS MADE TO ANY OTHER P ARTY AND IN THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2006-07, THE LEARNED TPO IN THE CAS E OF ASSESSEE ITSELF UNDER ALMOST SIMILAR FACTS HAD HELD THE PAYMENT OF IT COST OF RS.40,16,126 AT ARMS LENGTH PRICE AND HAD NOT DRAWN ANY ADVERSE INFERENCE ON THIS ISSUE. THE CLAIMED EXPENDITURE STATED TO HAVE BEEN INCURRE D ON INTERNET CHARGES, SUPPORT FEES, WAN SITE FEES, SAP SUPPORT FEE, LICEN SE FEE AND SERVICE DESK. THE DETAILED DESCRIPTION OF THE SERVICES UTILIZED B Y THE ASSESSEE IN ITS OPERATION AND THEIR BENEFIT EXPLAINED BY THE ASSESS EE ARE BEING REPRODUCED HEREUNDER: I. INTERNET CHARGES: DANISCO GROUP COMPANIES HAVE A GLOBAL TIE UP WITH THE INTERNET SERVICE PROVIDERS FOR OBTAINING I NTERNET SERVICES. THUS, ALL THE INTERNET SERVICES USED BY DANISCO IND IA ARE ROUTED 8 THROUGH DENMARK. YOUR HONOURS WOULD APPRECIATE THE FACT THAT THE COMPANY DURING THE YEAR HAS NOT INCURRED ANY INTERN ET EXPENSES WHICH ARE NORMAL TO ANY OTHER BUSINESS. II. SUPPORT FEES : THIS COVERS INCIDENT HANDLING, USER SUPPORT AND TRAINING, DAY TO DAY OPERATIONAL SUPPORT TO ALL THE USER FOR APPLICATION SUCH AS LOTUS NOTES (FOR EMAIL & SAME TIME COMMUNIC ATION), MYBIS (USED FOR REPORTING OF ALL THE BUSINESS DATA SUCH A S SALES FINANCE, INVENTORY), CRM (CUSTOMER RELATIONSHIP MANAGEMENT U SED FOR MAINTAINING ALL THE CUSTOMER RECORDS, SALES HISTORY & OPPORTUNITY, PRICING ETC. ), GCMS (GLOBAL COMPLAINT MANAGEMENT S YSTEM FOR ANALYSIS OF CUSTOMER COMPLAINTS BASED ON WHICH CORR ECTION ACTION TAKEN) AND VARIOUS KNOWLEDGE DATA BASE REQUIRED FOR BUSINESS. III. WAN SITE FEES : THIS FEE COVERS THE OPERATION OF DANISCOS GLOBAL WIDE AREA NETWORK WHICH ALLOWS DANISCO INDIA TO COMMUNICATE AND EXCHANGE INFORMATION USING THE GLOBAL NETWORK. IV. SAP SUPPORT FEE: THIS INCLUDES THE EXPENDITURE INCURRED HANDLING, USER SUPPORT AND TRAINING AND MINOR CHANG ES TO THE SAP TEMPLATE. THIS ALSO INCLUDES ALL THE SUPPORT FOR CO MPANY BUSINESS PROCESS SOFTWARE BASED ON SAP PLATFORM AND THE TECH NICAL SUPPORT FOR LOCAL ERP SYSTEM (NAVISION). V. LICENSE FEE: THIS IS THE FEE WITH RESPECT TO LICENSES FOR SOFTWARE SUCH AS LOTUS NOTES, ADOBE, WINDOWS OPERAT ING SYSTEM, ALL SERVER APPLICATION, NAVISION SOFTWARE LICENSE, PRIC ING SYSTEM 9 SOFTWARE, SAP SOFTWARE, BMC REMEDY (PROBLEM REPORTI NG SOFTWARE), AND ANTIVIRUSES WHICH ARE PROCURED GLOBALLY BY THE GROUP COMPANIES; VI. SERVICE DESK : THESE ARE THE CHARGES FOR INTERNET IT SERVICE DES K FOR RESOLUTION OF IT RELATED PROBLEMS FACED BY THE EMPLOYEES. THEY ARE FIRST LEVEL OF SUPPORT FOR ALL DANISCO INDIA IT RELATED PROBLEMS. 10. CONSIDERING THE ABOVE SUBMISSIONS, THE LEARNED CIT(APPEALS) HAS GIVEN FOLLOWING FINDING ON THE ISSUE IN PARA NO.5.1 3 OF THE FIRST APPELLATE ORDER: 5.13 I DO NOT SEE ANY MERIT IN GOING INTO THE RATI O OF THE INTERNATIONAL CASES QUOTED BY THE TPO AS WELL AS THE GUIDELINES I SSUED BY THE OECD BECAUSE THE ISSUE INVOLVED IS OF FACTS WHETH ER THE APPELLANT HAS RECEIVED THE SERVICE OR NOT. IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY PAYMENT TOWARDS ANY OTHER ENTITY FOR THE LICENSE FEE FOR SOFTWARE U SED AND FOR NETWORKING CHARGES, IT IS OBVIOUS THAT THE APPELLAN T HAS RECEIVED THESE SERVICES FROM THE RELATED PARTIES. THE INVOICES PRO DUCED BEFORE THE TPO CLEARLY MENTIONS THE PURPOSE FOR WHICH THESE PA YMENTS WERE MADE. THE ALLOCATION KEY BEING THE NUMBER OF USERS FOR ALLOCATING THESE EXPENSES, I FIND THAT IT IS A REASONABLE ALLO CATION KEY IN SUCH CIRCUMSTANCES. APPELLANT HAS STATED THAT THERE ARE NO WRITTEN AGREEMENTS BETWEEN AES ON THE ISSUE OF COST SHARING IN NO WAY COMES IN THE WAY OF APPRECIATING THE FACT THAT THESE IT R ELATED CHARGES WERE SHARED BETWEEN THE AES. THEREFORE, FOLLOWING THE RA TIO OF DRESSER- RAND INDIA PVT. LTD. (SUPRA), I HOLD THAT THE APPEL LANT HAS RECEIVED THESE SERVICES AND THE ALLOCATION KEY FOR APPORTION ING THE COST IS A 10 REASONABLE ONE. I DIRECT THE TPO/A.O TO DELETE THE ADDITION MADE IN THIS REGARD. 11. IT IS NOT THE CASE OF THE REVENUE THAT THE AB OVE CLAIMED SERVICES ARE NOT REQUIRED TO THE NATURE OF BUSINESS OF THE ASSES SEE, NOR IS IT THE CASE OF REVENUE THAT THE CLAIMED PAYMENT FOR SUCH SERVICES WAS MADE BY THE ASSESSEE TO ANY OTHER ENTITY. THE LEARNED TPO HAS N OT DRAWN ANY ADVERSE INFERENCE ON THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE THAT BASED O N THE BENCHMARKING ANALYSIS UNDERTAKEN, THE MARK-UP EARNED BY THE ASS ESSEE IS AT ARMS LENGTH. THE LEARNED CIT(APPEALS) HAS RIGHTLY FOLLOWED THE D ECISION OF MUMBAI BENCH OF THE ITAT IN THE CASE OF DRESSES RAND INDIA (PVT.) LTD. (SUPRA) HOLDING THAT WHILE EVALUATING THE ARMS LENGTH PRIC E OF A SERVICE, IT IS WHOLLY IRRELEVANT AS TO WHETHER THE ASSESSEE BENEFITS FROM IT OR NOT; THE REAL QUESTION WHICH IS TO BE DETERMINED IN SUCH CASES IS WHETHER THE PRICE OF THIS SERVICE IS WHAT AN INDEPENDENT ENTERPRISE WOULD HAVE PAID FOR THE SAME. UNDER THESE CIRCUMSTANCES, WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT THE LEARNED CIT(APPEALS) HAS KEEPING IN MIND THE PREPONDERANCE OF THE PROBABILIT Y TO RUN THE BUSINESS OF ASSESSEE HAS RIGHTLY ACCEPTED THE CLAIMED EXPENDITU RE ON THE NATURE OF THE SERVICES REQUIRED TO RUN THE BUSINESS OF THE ASSESS EE WITH THE DIRECTION TO THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO ALLOW THE SAME. THE HONBLE JU RISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT OF DELHI IN THE CASE OF HIVE COMMUNICATION PVT. LTD . ( ITA NO. 306/2011 11 FOLLOWED BY THE DELHI BENCHES OF THE ITAT IN THE CA SE OF MCCANN ERICSON INDIA PVT. LTD. (SUPRA) HAS HELD THAT THE LEGITIMAT E BUSINESS NEEDS OF THE COMPANY MUST BE JUDGED FROM THE VIEW POINT OF THE C OMPANY ITSELF AND MUST BE VIEWED FROM THE POINT OF A PRUDENT BUSINESSMAN. IT WAS HELD THAT THE IT IS NOT FOR THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO DICTATE WHAT THE B USINESS NEEDS OF THE COMPANY COULD BE. IT IS THE BUSINESSMAN WHO CAN ONL Y JUDGE THE LEGITIMACY OF THE BUSINESS NEED OF THE COMPANY FROM THE POINT OF A VIEW OF A PRUDENT BUSINESSMAN. THE TERM BENEFIT TO A COMPANY IN REL ATION TO ITS BUSINESS HAS A VERY WIDE CONNOTATION. IT WAS FURTHER HELD THAT I T IS NOT FEASIBLE TO EVALUATE THE PRICE OF EACH SERVICE IN FINANCIAL TERM IN ISOL ATED AND STAND ALONE MANNER FOR EACH SUCH SERVICE OR PART OF THE SERVICE AND HE NCE TNMM AT ENTITY IS ACCEPTABLE. THE FIRST APPELLATE ORDER ON THE ISSUE IS WELL SUPPORTED BY THE DECISIONS CITED BY THE LEARNED AR AND HENCE WE ARE NOT INCLINED TO INTERFERE THEREWITH. THE SAME IS UPHELD. THE GROUND IS ACCORD INGLY REJECTED. 12. IN RESULT, THE APPEAL IS DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 17 .08.2015 SD/- SD/- ( N.K. SAINI ) ( I.C. SUDHIR ) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER DATED: 17 /08/2015 MOHAN LAL 12 COPY FORWARDED TO: 1) APPELLANT 2) RESPONDENT 3) CIT 4) CIT(APPEALS) 5) DR:ITAT ASSISTANT REGISTRAR DATE DRAFT DICTATED ON COMPUTER 17.08.2015 DRAFT PLACED BEFORE AUTHOR 17.08.2015 DRAFT PROPOSED & PLACED BEFORE THE SECOND MEMBER DRAFT DISCUSSED/APPROVED BY SECOND MEMBER. 17. 08.2015 KEPT FOR PRONOUNCEMENT ON 17.08.2015 FILE SENT TO THE BENCH CLERK 17.08.2015 DATE ON WHICH FILE GOES TO THE AR DATE ON WHICH FILE GOES TO THE HEAD CLERK. DATE OF DISPATCH OF ORDER.