Tudor India Limited, Gandhinagar V. The ACIT.,Gandhinagar Circle, Gandhinagar

ITA 2585/AHD/2014

• Counselvise Citation: [2018] 125 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 8160 (ITAT-AHMEDABAD)
• Duration Of Justice: 3 year(s) 8 month(s) 18 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 06-06-2018
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Next Hearing Date: 29-05-2017
• Assessment Year: 2009-2010
• Appeal Filed On: 18-09-2014
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: V K SINGH
• Keywords: Depreciation; Transfer pricing; Capital expenditure
• Section: 142(1)

Judgement Text

, , IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL D BENCH, AHMEDABAD .. , , BEFORE SHRI N.K. BILLAIYA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER & MS. MADHUMITA ROY, JUDICIAL MEMBER ./ I.T.A. NO.2585/AHD/2014 ( / ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2009-10) TUDOR INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED (FORMERLY KNOWN AS TUDOR INDIA LIMITED) A-704, SYNERGY, OPP.COMMERCE HOUSE NR.VODAFONE, CORPORATE ROAD PRAHLADNAGAR,AHMEDABAD- 380015 / VS. THE JT.CIT GANDHINAGAR RANGE GANDHINAGAR & ./ ./ PAN/GIR NO. : AAACT 1681 R ( &) / APPELLANT ) .. ( *+&) / RESPONDENT ) &), / APPELLANT BY : SHRI SANJAY R.SHAH, AR *+&)-, / RESPONDENT BY : SHRI V.K. SINGH, SR.DR .-/ / DATE OF HEARING 24/04/2018 0123-/ / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT 06/06/2018 / O R D E R PER MS. MADHUMITA ROY JM: BEING AGGRIEVED BY AND/OR DISSATISFIED WITH THE OR DER DATED 30.06.2014 PASSED BY THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS)- GANDHINAGAR, AHMEDABAD [CIT(A) IN SHORT] FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR ITA NO.2585/AHD /2014 TUDOR INDIA PVT.LTD. VS. JT.CIT ASST.YEAR 2009-10 - 2 - (AY) 2009-10, THE INSTANT APPEAL HAS BEEN FILED BY THE ASSESSEE BEFORE US WITH THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS: 1. THE ORDER PASSED BY THE LEARNED COMMISSIONE R IS ERRONEOUS AND CONTRARY TO THE PROVISIONS OF LAW AND FACTS AND THE REFORE REQUIRES TO BE SUITABLY MODIFIED. 2. THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER ERRED IN UPHOLDING A N UPWARD ADJUSTMENT IN RELATION TO PAYMENT MADE ON ACCOUNT O F ALLOCATION OF MANAGEMENT FEE BY AN ASSOCIATED ENTERPRISE AMOUNTIN G TO RS.1,53,00,168/-. IN THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE WHERE APPELLANT RECEIVED CERTAIN SERVICES WHICH HELPED IT IN ITS OPERATIONS, THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OUGHT TO HAVE ACCEPTED THE ARM 'S LENGTH PRICE DECLARED BY THE APPELLANT. IT IS SUBMITTED IT BE SO HELD NOW. 3. THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER ERRED IN UPHOLDIN G THAT THE SERVICES PROVIDED TO THE APPELLANT, TOWARDS THE EFFICIENT RU NNING AND MANAGEMENT OF THE BUSINESS, WAS A SHAREHOLDER ACTIVITY WHEREAS IN ACTUAL, THE SERVICES WERE FOR THE BENEFIT OF APPELLANT'S BUSINESS AS DEM ONSTRATED BY THE APPELLANT. 4. THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER ERRED IN UPHOLDING THAT THE COMMON COSTS HAVE NOT BEEN ALLOCATED BASED ON THE ALLOCATI ON KEYS. ITA NO.2585/AHD /2014 TUDOR INDIA PVT.LTD. VS. JT.CIT ASST.YEAR 2009-10 - 3 - 5. THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER ERRED IN CONCLUDI NG THAT THE APPELLANT FAILED TO ESTABLISH 'BENEFIT TEST' FOR ALLOCATION O F MANAGEMENT FEE IN IGNORANCE OF DUE FACTUAL EVIDENCES SUBMITTED BY THE APPELLANT IN THIS REGARD. 6. THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER HAS ERRED IN DISA LLOWING THE WHOLE OF THE AMOUNT OF MANAGEMENT FEES ' ON A GROSS BASIS WI THOUT DEPLOYING ANY BASIS FOR CONSIDERING THE ARM'S LENGTH PRICE TO BE NIL FOR THE CONCERNED TRANSACTION. 7. WITHOUT PREJUDICE TO ABOVE, THE LEARNED COMMIS SIONER ERRED IN HOLDING, WITHOUT GIVING ANY OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HE ARD IN THIS REGARD, THAT THE EXPENSES ON ACCOUNT OF ALLOCATION OF MANAG EMENT FEE WERE CAPITAL IN NATURE AND HENCE NOT ALLOWABLE AS DEDUCT ION. 7.1. WITHOUT PREJUDICE TO ABOVE, THE LEARNED COMM ISSIONER HAS ERRED IN NOT ALLOWING DEPRECIATION ON THE AMOUNT OF MANAGEME NT FEES CONSIDERED TO BE AN EXPENDITURE OF CAPITAL IN NATURE. 2. THE BRIEF FACTS RELATING TO THE GROUNDS IS THIS THAT THE ASSESSEE ENTERED INTO COST-SHARING AGREEMENT WITH SEVEN OTHE R COMPANIES OF EXIDE GROUP IN THE ASIA PACIFIC REGION TO HAVE A COMMON S ET UP ON REGIONAL ITA NO.2585/AHD /2014 TUDOR INDIA PVT.LTD. VS. JT.CIT ASST.YEAR 2009-10 - 4 - LEVEL WHICH WOULD MONITOR, MANAGE AND ADMINISTER TH E BUSINESS AND OPERATIONS OF VARIOUS ENTITIES THAT HAVE ENTERED IN TO AGREEMENT. THE REGIONAL LEVEL HEADQUARTERS ARE LOCATED AT EXIDE TE CHNOLOGIES (SHANGHAI) CO. LTD. AND AS PER THE AGREEMENT THE PRESIDENT OF ASIA-PACIFIC, MR.LUKE LU, VISITED VARIOUS BUSINESS UNITS, PROVIDED GUIDAN CE, MEETING WITH CUSTOMERS, ASSISTANCE IN PREPARATION OF BUDGETS ETC . THE COMMON EXPENSES ARE SHARED BETWEEN THE BENEFICIAL ASIA-PAC IFIC ENTITIES BASIS ON THE ESTIMATE OF TIME SPENT BY THE REGIONAL OFFICE. DURING THE YEAR UNDER APPEAL, ASSESSEE DEBITED RS.1,53,00,168/- AS A COMM ON COST IN RELATION TO THE ALLOCATION OF MANAGEMENT FEES. DURING THE ASSES SMENT PROCEEDINGS WHEN THE MATTER WAS REFERRED TO THE TRANSFER PRICIN G OFFICER, THE ARMS LENGTH PRICE OF THE MANAGEMENT FEES WAS TAKEN AS NI L SINCE THE ASSESSEE FAILED TO SUBSTANTIATE THE REQUIREMENT OF SUCH PAYM ENT AND THE BENEFIT ARISING OUT OF SUCH PAYMENT. THE ASSESSEE WAS INTIM ATED REGARDING THE ORDER PASSED BY THE TRANSFER PRICING OFFICER DATED 18.11.2012 MAKING TOTAL UPWARD ADJUSTMENT OF RS.1,58,07,704/- AND PROPOSED ADDITION BY THE NOTICE ISSUED UNDER SECTION 142(1) DATED 21.12.2012 AND THE ASSESSING OFFICER (AO) ADDED AN AMOUNT OF RS.1,58,07,764/- IN THE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE ON THE BASIS OF THE ORDER PASSED BY THE TP O. 3. THE LEARNED CITA CONFIRMED THE ORDER PASSED BY T HE AO ON THE APPEAL PREFERRED BY THE ASSESSEE BEFORE HIM. ITA NO.2585/AHD /2014 TUDOR INDIA PVT.LTD. VS. JT.CIT ASST.YEAR 2009-10 - 5 - 4. THE ASSESSEE HAS NOW PREFERRED THE INSTANT APPEA L BEFORE US CHALLENGING THE SAID ORDER DATED 30.06.2014 PASSED BY THE LEARNED CITA. 5. THE ISSUE INVOLVED IN THIS MATTER IS RELATING TO THE ALLOCATION OF MANAGEMENT FEES BEING THE SHARE OF THE ASSESSEE OF THE TOTAL COMMON COST INCURRED BY THE ASSOCIATE CONCERNS RELATING TO THE SERVICES PROVIDED BY THE ASIA-PACIFIC HEAD. 6. THE LEARNED ADVOCATE APPEARING FOR THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED BEFORE US THAT THE SAID ISSUE HAS BEEN DECIDED BY THE CO-O RDINATE BENCH OF THIS LEARNED TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF SABIK INNOVATIVE PL ASTIC, ITA NO. 1125/AHD/2014 AND SCHNEIDER ELECTRIC INDIA PVT. LTD ., ITA NO. 209/AHD/2015 WHEREIN IT WAS HELD THAT IN THE CASE O F COMMON COST MANAGEMENT, ARMS LENGTH PRICE CANNOT BE DETERMINED AT NIL AND SUCH ADDITIONS CONFIRMED BY THE LEARNED TRANSFER PRICING OFFICER IS LIABLE TO BE DELETED. HE HAS FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT THE ISSUE I S COVERED BY THE CO- ORDINATE BENCH OF THIS LEARNED TRIBUNAL IN ASSESSEE S OWN CASE IN ITA NO.329/AHD/2014 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2008-09 A C OPY WHEREOF WAS ALSO FILED BEFORE THE LEARNED TRIBUNAL. ON THE OTHE R HAND, THE LEARNED DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE VEHEMENTLY OBJECTED TO THE ARGUMENTS MADE BY THE AR AND SUPPORTED THE ORDER PASSED BY THE LOW ER AUTHORITIES. ITA NO.2585/AHD /2014 TUDOR INDIA PVT.LTD. VS. JT.CIT ASST.YEAR 2009-10 - 6 - 7. WE HAVE HEARD THE LEARNED REPRESENTATIVES AP PEARING FOR THE PARTIES AND PERUSED THE RELEVANT MATERIALS AVAILABLE ON REC ORD. WE FIND THAT THE ISSUE HAS ALREADY BEEN EXAMINED BY DIFFERENT CO-ORD INATE BENCHES OF THE LD.TRIBUNAL. WE ALSO FIND THAT THE MATTER IS COVERE D BY THE JUDGMENT PASSED BY COORDINATE BENCH OF THE LD.TRIBUNAL ON 28 .12.2017 IN ASSESSEES OWN CASE IN ITA NO.329/AHD/2014 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2008-09. THE RELEVANT PORTION OF THE SAID JUDGMENT IS REPRODUCED HEREIN BELOW: WE ARE IN CONSIDERED AGREEMENT WITH THE VIEWS SO E XPRESSED BY THE CO-ORDINATE BENCH AND THE IMPUGNED ADDITION MUS T STAND DELETED FOR THIS SHORT REASON ALONE. IN OUR CONSIDE RED VIEW, THE FACTS OF THE CASE BEFORE US ARE MATERIALLY SIMILAR INASMUCH AS THE SERVICES ARE INDEED RENDERED BY THE SEI-F, AS EVIDE NT FROM THE DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCES ON RECORD AND YET ITS ARM'S L ENGTH VALUE IS HELD TO BE NIL ONLY BECAUSE, ACCORDING TO THE AUTHO RITIES BELOW, THESE SERVICES WERE WORTHLESS, THESE SERVICES WERE NOT REQUIRED BY THE ASSESSEE, THE ASSESSEE COULD HAVE PERFORMED THE SE SERVICES ON ITS OWN AND THE SERVICES WERE NOT RENDERED BY THE G ROUP ENTITY. THE TPO HAS REJECTED THE DETERMINATION OF ARM'S LENGTH PRICE ON THE BASIS OF TNMM, AT ENTITY LEVEL, BUT THEN HE HAS NOT ADOPTED ANY OTHER PERMISSIBLE METHOD FOR DETERMINATION OF ARM'S LENGTH PRICE. SUCH A COURSE OF ACTION, AS NOTED ABOVE, IS NOT PER MISSIBLE IN LAW. ITA NO.2585/AHD /2014 TUDOR INDIA PVT.LTD. VS. JT.CIT ASST.YEAR 2009-10 - 7 - JUST BECAUSE THESE SERVICES ARE WORTHLESS IN THE EY ES OF THE REVENUE AUTHORITIES, THE ARM'S LENGTH PRICE OF THESE SERVIC ES CANNOT BE HELD TO BE NIL. SIMILARLY, THE FINDINGS THAT NO SERVICES WERE RENDERED AND THAT THE ASSESSEE COULD HAVE PERFORMED THESE SE RVICES ON ITS OWN ARE CONTRADICTORY. IF NO SERVICES WERE RENDERED , WHICH SERVICES THE AUTHORITIES BELOW HOLD THAT THE ASSESS EE COULD HAVE PERFORMED ON ITS OWN. THERE IS ALSO EVIDENCE FOR VI SITS BY THE REPRESENTATIVES OF THE GROUP ENTITY, I.E SEI-F, FOR RENDITION OF THESE SERVICES. THE COST ALLOCATION AGREEMENT AND DETAILE D DOCUMENTATION SUPPORT FOR THE SERVICES AVAILED UNDE R THE COST CONTRIBUTION ARRANGEMENT WERE PLACED BEFORE US AT P AGES 106 TO 258, AND, UPON PERUSAL OF THE SAME, WE HAVE NO DOUB TS ABOUT THE ACTUAL RENDITION OF SERVICES AND BONAFIDES OF ARRAN GEMENT. AS FOR THE TPO'S OBSERVATION THAT ''IF THE SERVICES ARE IN THE NATURE OF STEWARDSHIP ACTIVITIES OR SHAREHOLDER ACTIVITIES, T HE SAME NEED NOT BE CHARGED BY THE AES OF THE ASSESSEE', OECD TRANSF ER PRICING GUIDELINES INDEED STATE THAT 'STEWARDSHIP ACTIVITIE S COVERED A RANGE OF ACTIVITIES BY A SHAREHOLDER THAT MAY INCLU DE PROVISION FOR SERVICES TO OTHER GROUP MEMBERS, FOR EXAMPLE SERVIC ES THAT WOULD BE PROVIDED BY A COORDINATING CENTRE', THAT 'THESE LATTER TYPE OF NON-SHAREHOLDER ACTIVITIES COULD INCLUDE DETAILED P LANNING SERVICES FOR PARTICULAR OPERATIONS, MANAGEMENT OR TECHNICAL ADVICE (TROUBLE SHOOTING) OR IN SOME CASES ASSISTANCE IN DAY TO DAY MANAGEMENT' ITA NO.2585/AHD /2014 TUDOR INDIA PVT.LTD. VS. JT.CIT ASST.YEAR 2009-10 - 8 - BUT MAKE IT CLEAR THAT WHILE SHAREHOLDER ACTIVITIES , I.E. THE ACTIVITIES WHICH ARE PERFORMED SOLELY ON ACCOUNT OF OWNERSHIP INTERESTS, 'WOULD NOT JUSTIFY A CHARGE TO THE RECIPIENT ENTITI ES'. IN OTHER WORDS, CONSIDERATION IS NOT REQUIRED TO BE CHARGED FOR THE SHAREHOLDER ACTIVITIES, WHILE OTHER STEWARDSHIP ACT IVITIES CAN, AND MUST, BE COMPENSATED. NOTHING, THEREFORE, TURNS IN FAVOUR OF THE REVENUE ON ACCOUNT OF THE SERVICES RENDERED BY THE SEI-F BEING IN THE NATURE OF STEWARDSHIP ACTIVITIES WHICH IS A TER M OF MUCH BROADER CONNOTATION THAN SHAREHOLDER ACTIVITIES. NO T CHARGING FOR THE RENDITION OF SHAREHOLDER ACTIVITIES CAN BE JUST IFIED BUT NOT FOR ALF THE STEWARDSHIP ACTIVITIES. COMING TO THE QUEST ION OF BUSINESS EXPEDIENCY, WHICH HAS BEEN QUESTIONED BY THE AUTHOR ITIES BELOW, IN OUR CONSIDERED VIEW IT WAS ALSO NOT FOR THE TPO TO BOTHER ABOUT BUSINESS EXPEDIENCY OF THESE SERVICES; ALL HE WAS T O SEE WAS WHAT WOULD BE ARM'S LENGTH SERVICES OF THESE SERVICES IN AN UNCONTROLLED SITUATION. THAT HAS TO BE DONE ON THE BASIS OF A PE RMISSIBLE METHOD OF ASCERTAINING THE ARM'S LENGTH PRICE. IT CANNOT B E OPEN TO THE TPO TO REJECT A METHOD OF ASCERTAINING THE ARM'S LENGTH PRICE WITHOUT FINING A LEGALLY PERMISSIBLE METHOD TO SUBSTITUTE F OR THE METHOD OF ASCERTAINING ALP AS ADOPTED BY THE ASSESSEE. TO HOL D THAT THE ARM'S LENGTH PRICE OF THESE SERVICES WAS NIL UNDER THE CUP METHOD, THE TPO HAD TO NECESSARILY TO DEMONSTRATE T HAT THE SAME SERVICES, WHATEVER BE ITS INTRINSIC WORTH, WERE AVA ILABLE FOR NIL ITA NO.2585/AHD /2014 TUDOR INDIA PVT.LTD. VS. JT.CIT ASST.YEAR 2009-10 - 9 - CONSIDERATION IN AN UNCONTROLLED SITUATION; THAT IS NOT, AND THAT CANNOT BE, THE CASE. IT IS ALSO NOT THE CASE OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW THAT THE ARM'S LENGTH PRICE OF THESE SERVICES, UNDE R ANY OTHER LEGALLY PERMISSIBLE METHOD IS, NIL. THERE IS THUS NO LEGALL Y SUSTAINABLE FOUNDATION FOR THE IMPUGNED ALP ADJUSTMENT. 10. WE HAVE ALSO NOTED THAT THE MANAGERIAL SERVICES , AVAILED BY THE ASSESSEE UNDER THE SAME COST CONTRIBUTION ARRANGEMENT, HAVE BEEN ALLOWED ALL THESE YEARS AND HAVE BEEN ACCEPTED TO BE AT AN ARM'S LENGTH TRANSACTION. WHILE THERE IS INDEED NO RES JUDICATA IN TAX PROCEEDINGS, ITS IMPORTANT TO BEAR IN MIND THE OBSERVATIONS OF HON'B LE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF RADHASOAMI SATSANG VS CIT [(1992) 193 ITR 321 (SC)], TO THE EFFECT THAT 'WHER E A FUNDAMENTAL ASPECT PERMEATING THROUGH THE DIFFERENT ASSESSMENT YEARS HAS BEEN FOUND AS A FACT ONE WAY O R THE OTHER AND PARTIES HAVE ALLOWED THAT POSITION TO BE SUSTAINED BY NOT CHALLENGING THE ORDER, IT WOULD NOT BE AT AL L APPROPRIATE TO ALLOW THE POSITION TO BE CHANGED IN A SUBSEQUENT YEAR'. FOR THIS REASON ALSO, THE STAND O F THE AUTHORITIES BELOW IS UNSUSTAINABLE IN LAW. IN THE L IGHT OF THESE DISCUSSIONS, AS ALSO BEARING IN MIND ENTIRETY OF THE CASE, WE UPHOLD THE PLEA OF THE ASSESSEE AND DIRECT THE ITA NO.2585/AHD /2014 TUDOR INDIA PVT.LTD. VS. JT.CIT ASST.YEAR 2009-10 - 10 - ASSESSING OFFICER TO DELETE THE IMPUGNED ALP ADJUST MENT OF RS 1,51,83,140. THE ASSESSEE GETS THE RELIEF ACCORD INGLY. WE OBSERVE THAT THE ISSUE RAISED IN THIS GROUND IS COVERED TO A WIDE EXTENT BY THIS DECISION OF TRIBUNAL AS THE FACTS BE FORE US ARE QUITE SIMILAR TO THE FACTS ADJUDICATED IN THE ABOVE DECISION OF T HE TRIBUNAL. HOWEVER ON EXAMINING THE FACTS OF THE INSTANT APPEAL IN THE LIGHT OF THE DECISION OF TRIBUNAL QUOTED ABOVE WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT IN TH E INSTANT APPEAL THE ALLEGED ALLOCATION OF MANAGERIAL FEES WAS BOTH IN T HE NATURE OF REVENUE AND CAPITAL EXPENDITURE BECAUSE THE TIME AND SUGGES TIONS GIVEN BY THE PRESIDENT ASIA PACIFIC MR. LUKE LU WAS HELPFUL TO T HE ASSESSEE TO DAY TO DAY BUSINESS ACTIVITY AS WELL AS EXPANSION AND INCR EASE IN THE INSTALLED CAPACITY. THEREFORE, AS FAR AS THE VIEW TAKEN BY BO TH THE LOWER AUTHORITIES OF CALCULATING OF MANAGERIAL FEES AT NIL DOES NOT S EEMS TO BE ON SOUND FOOTING AND IT WOULD BE FAIR ENOUGH IF THE ALLEGED MANAGERIAL FEES IS DIVIDED INTO CAPITAL AND RECEIPT NATURE OF EXPENSES IN THE RATIO OF 60:40. WE ACCORDINGLY ALLOW THE CLAIM OF ALLOCATION OF MAN AGERIAL EXPENSES AT RS.7,11,638/- AND CONFIRM THE REMAINING DISALLOWANC E OF RS.10,67,457/-. ACCORDINGLY APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS PARTLY ALLOWE D. IN THE RESULT REVENUES APPEAL IS DISMISSED AND AS SESSEES APPEAL IS PARTLY ALLOWED. ITA NO.2585/AHD /2014 TUDOR INDIA PVT.LTD. VS. JT.CIT ASST.YEAR 2009-10 - 11 - 7.1. WE, THEREFORE, TAKING INTO CONSIDERATION THE ENTIRE ASPECT OF THE MATTER INCLUDING THE ORDER PASSED IN THE IDENTICAL CASE AS MENTIONED HEREINABOVE IS OF THE CONSIDERED OPINION THAT THE I SSUE IS SQUARELY COVERED BY THE JUDGMENT DISCUSSED ABOVE AND WE THIN K IT FIT TO DIVIDE THE ALLEGED MANAGERIAL FEES INTO CAPITAL AND RECEIPT NA TURE OF EXPENSES IN THE RATIO OF 60 : 40. 7.2. WE ACCORDINGLY ALLOW THE 40% CLAIM OF ALLOCA TION OF MANAGERIAL EXPENSES AND CONFIRM THE REMAINING 60% DISALLOWANCE MADE BY THE LEARNED CIT(A). IN THAT VIEW OF THE MATTER, WE ARE INCLINED TO REMIT THE MATTER TO THE FILE OF THE LEARNED AO TO VERIFY THE CALCULATION OF THE TECHNICAL PART IN TERMS OF THE ABOVE OBSERVATION. 8. IN THE RESULT, THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL STANDS PA RTLY ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. THIS ORDER PRONOUNCED IN OPEN COURT ON 06/06/2018 SD/- SD/- ( .. ) ( ) ( N.K. BILLAIYA ) (MS.MAD HUMITA ROY ) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER DATED / 05 /2018 PRONOUNCED ON 6/6/18 SD/- SD/- (AS) (MR) AM JM ITA NO.2585/AHD /2014 TUDOR INDIA PVT.LTD. VS. JT.CIT ASST.YEAR 2009-10 - 12 - 5/..,. ../ T.C. NAIR, SR. PS !'#$%$' / COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. &) / THE APPELLANT 2. *+&) / THE RESPONDENT. 3. 6 7 / CONCERNED CIT 4. 7 ( ) / THE CIT(A)-GANDHINAGAR, AHMEDABAD 5. :;<* 6 , /63 , / DR, ITAT, AHMEDABAD 6. <>?@. / GUARD FILE. / BY ORDER, +:* //TRUE COPY// / ( DY./ASSTT.REGISTRAR) , / ITAT, AHMEDABAD 1. DATE OF DICTATION .. 28.4.2018(DICTATION-PAD 8- PAGES ATTACHED AT THE END OF THIS APPEAL-FILE) 2. DATE ON WHICH THE TYPED DRAFT IS PLACED BEFORE THE DICTATING MEMBER 28.4.2018 3. OTHER MEMBER 4. DATE ON WHICH THE APPROVED DRAFT COMES TO THE SR.P. S./P.S.. 5. DATE ON WHICH THE FAIR ORDER IS PLACED BEFORE THE D ICTATING MEMBER FOR PRONOUNCEMENT 6. DATE ON WHICH THE FAIR ORDER COMES BACK TO THE SR.P .S./P.S.6.6.18 7. DATE ON WHICH THE FILE GOES TO THE BENCH CLERK 6.6.18 8. DATE ON WHICH THE FILE GOES TO THE HEAD CLERK ... 9. THE DATE ON WHICH THE FILE GOES TO THE ASSISTANT RE GISTRAR FOR SIGNATURE ON THE ORDER.. 10. DATE OF DESPATCH OF THE ORDER