Appeal details
Counselvise Citation
[2019] 118 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 6751 (ITAT-PUNE)
Assessee PAN
Bench
Appeal Number
Duration Of Justice
2 year(s) 1 month(s) 23 day(s)
Appellant
Respondent
Appeal Type
Income Tax Appeal
Pronouncement Date
21-01-2019
Appeal Filed By
Assessee
Order Result
Allowed
Bench Allotted
B
Assessment Year
2012-2013
Appeal Filed On
28-11-2016
Judgement Text
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL B BENCH, PUN E BEFORE SHRI ANIL CHATURVEDI, AM AND SHRI PARTHA SARATHI CHAUDHURY, JM / ITA NO.2669/PUN/2016 / ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2012-13 M/S. OCWEN FINANCIAL SOLUTIONS PRIVATE LIMITED. PRITECH PARK, BLOCK 12, UNIT-2, 5B & 6A FLOORS, BELLANDUR VILLAGE, SARJAPUR, MARATHAHALLI RING ROAD, BANGALORE-560 103 PAN : AAACO3764E .... / APPELLANT / V/S. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-11, PUNE. / RESPONDENT ASSESSEE BY : SHRI NIKHIL PATHAK REVENUE BY : SMT. NANDITA KANCHAN / DATE OF HEARING : 08.01.2019 / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 21.01.2019 / ORDER PER PARTHA SARATHI CHAUDHURY, JM : THIS APPEAL PREFERRED BY THE ASSESSEE EMANATES FROM TH E ORDER OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER/DRP PASSED U/S.143(3) R.W.S.144C(13) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 (HEREINAFTER REFERRED TO AS THE ACT) AS PER G ROUNDS OF APPEAL ON RECORD. 2 ITA NO. 2669/PUN/2016 A.Y.2012-13 2. AT THE TIME OF HEARING, THE LD. AR OF THE ASSESSEE SU BMITTED THAT IF THE GROUND NOS. 4, 6 AND 8 ARE ADJUDICATED THEN OTHER GROU NDS BECOMES ACADEMIC IN NATURE. 3. THE BRIEF FACTS IN THIS CASE ARE THAT THE ASSESSEE-CO MPANY, M/S. HOMEWARD RESIDENTIAL CORPORATION INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED, PUNE E-FILED ITS RETURN OF INCOME FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2012-13 ON 26.10.20 12 DECLARING TOTAL INCOME AT RS.15,15,19,230/-. THE CASE WAS SELECTED FOR SCRU TINY THROUGH CASS. ACCORDINGLY, STATUTORY NOTICE U/S. 143(2) OF THE ACT WAS ISSUED AND SERVED ON THE ASSESSEE ALONG WITH QUESTIONNAIRE FOR COM PLIANCE. SIMULTANEOUSLY, THE CASE WAS REFERRED TO THE TRANSFER PR ICING OFFICER FOR DETERMINING ARM LENGTH PRICE (ALP) AFTER OBTAINING THE APPR OVAL OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-1, PUNE. 4. DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, IT WAS E XPLAINED BY THE LD. AR OF THE ASSESSEE THAT THE ASSESSEE-COMPANY IS EN GAGED IN PROVIDING INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY ENABLED SERVICES (ITES), WEB ENABLED SERVICES AND BUSINESS PROCESS OUTSOURCING SERVICES TO ITS GROUP COMP ANY IN NATURE OF CALL CENTRE AND BACK OFFICE SUPPORT (BPO) SERVICES. IT ALSO P ROVIDES IN-HOUSE SOFTWARE SUPPORT SERVICES AND KNOWLEDGE PROCESS OUTSOU RCING SERVICES TO ITS GROUP COMPANY. THE ASSESSEE COMPANY IS A CAPTIVE UNIT R EMUNERATED AT COST PLUS MARK UP TO 15% BY ITS GROUP COMPANY. THE ASSESSE E-COMPANY HAD MAINTAINED BOOKS OF ACCOUNT FOR ITS BUSINESS ACTIVITIES RE LEVANT TO ASSESSMENT YEAR 2012-13 AND THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT WERE DULY AUDIT ED. THE ASSESSEE FURNISHED THE COPY OF AUDIT REPORT IN FORM NO. 3CA/3CD AS PER PROVISIONS OF SECTION 44AB OF THE ACT ALONG WITH PROFIT & LOSS ACCOUNT, BALANCE SHEET AND ALL ANNEXURE THERETO. FURTHER, THE REPORT RELATING TO INTE RNATIONAL TRANSACTION(S) WAS ALSO FURNISHED AS REQUIRED U/S.92E OF THE ACT IN FORM 3 ITA NO. 2669/PUN/2016 A.Y.2012-13 NO.3CEB, STATEMENT OF TOTAL INCOME AND OTHER ENCLOSURES W ERE ALSO FILED DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS. THE ASSESS MENT WAS FINALLY COMPLETED U/S.143(3) R.W.S. 144C(13) OF THE ACT WITH ASSESSED INCOME AT RS.25,48,22,860/- WITH BOOK PROFIT/LOSS AFTER ADJUSTMENT AT RS.14,55,74,030/- AND COMPUTED RETURNED INCOME AT RS.15,15,19,236 /-. 5. THEREAFTER, THE MATTER WAS CARRIED BEFORE THE DRP. W ITH REGARD TO GROUND NO.4, IT IS THE INAPPROPRIATE ACCEPTANCE OF CERTAIN NON-COMPARABLE COMPANIES AS COMPARABLE TO THE ASSESSEE FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2012-13. THE GRIEVANCE OF THE ASSESSEE AS PER PARA 5.2.2 OF DRPS OR DER AT PAGE 48 TO 49 OF APPEAL MEMO/INTERNAL PAGE 31 TO 32 OF DRP DIRECTIONS THAT : (I) THE DRP ACCEPTED UNIVERSAL PRINT SYSTEMS LIMITED CITING THAT THE COMPANY IS FUNCTIONALLY COMPARABLE TO THE ASSESSEE SINCE THE NOMENCLATURE OF THE SEGMENT PREPRESS BPO INDICATES TH AT IT DEALS WITH BPO ACTIVITIES IN RELATION TO PRE-PRESS COMPONENT OF THE BROAD ACTIVITY OR PRINTING AND PUBLISHING. (II) THE ENTIRE EXPORT EARNINGS ARE SOLELY RELATED TO THE PREPRESS BPO ACTIVITY. (III) THE LD. TPO HAS NOT APPLIED THE EMPLOYEE COST FILTER. FURT HER, IN ABSENCE OF EMPLOYEE COST DATA PERTAINING TO THE PREPRES S BPO SEGMENT, THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE OF LOW EMPLOYEE COST RATIO CANNO T BE SUBSTANTIATED. MAJORITY OF THE COMPANYS TOTAL EMPLOYEE COST WILL BE ATTRIBUTABLE TO THE ITES/BPO INDUSTRY SINCE THE SAME IS A WORKFORCE- INTENSIVE INDUSTRY. 6. THE CONTENTION OF THE LD. AR OF THE ASSESSEE AT THE TIME OF HEARING BEFORE US WAS THAT UNIVERSAL PRINT SYSTEMS LIMITED SHOULD BE EXCLUDED AS COMPARABLE WITH THE ASSESSEE-COMPANY SINCE THE FUNCTION IS ABSOLUTELY DIFFERENT. AS EVIDENT FROM THE WEB-SITE DESCRIPTION, UNIVERSA L IS ENGAGED IN 4 ITA NO. 2669/PUN/2016 A.Y.2012-13 PRINT INDUSTRY/SECTOR AND DOES NOT HAVE ANY RELATION W ITH THE ITES SECTOR. IN SUPPORT OF THIS, PAGE 144 OF THE PAPER BOOK FOR THE WEB- SITE DESCRIPTION OF UNIVERSAL PRINT SYSTEMS LIMITED HAS BEEN PROVIDED BEFORE U S. PREPRESS BPO SEGMENT OF THIS COMPANY IS CONSIDERED AS COMPARABLE TO THE ITES-BPO SERVICES PROVIDED BY THE ASSESSEE. THIS IS DUE TO MERE USAGE OF THE TERM BPO IN THE NOMENCLATURE OF THIS SEGMENT. THE TERM PREP RESS IS USED IN THE PRINTING AND PUBLISHING INDUSTRIES FOR THE PROCESSES THAT O CCUR BETWEEN THE CREATION OF A PRINT LAYOUT AND THE FINAL PRINTING. HENCE, THE PREPRESS SEGMENT IS BY NO WAY FUNCTIONALLY COMPARABLE TO THE ITES-BPO BUS INESS OF THE ASSESSEE. THIS CONTENTION IS DULY SUPPORTED BY THE DECIS ION OF CO-ORDINATE BENCH OF THE TRIBUNAL, BANGALORE IN THE CASE OF XL HEALTH C ORPORATION INDIA PVT. LTD. VS. ACIT, IN ITA NO.2311/BANG/2016 DATED 09.02.20 18 WHICH ALSO PERTAINS TO ASSESSMENT YEAR 2012-13. FURTHER, CONTENTIO N WITH REGARD TO THE UNIVERSAL PRINT SYSTEMS LIMITED BY THE LD. AR WAS THAT TH E ENTITY LEVEL EMPLOYEE COST TO TURNOVER RATIO OF UNIVERSAL IS 18.56% VIS- -VIS 56.59% IN CASE OF THE ASSESSEE. THE SEGMENT LEVEL EMPLOYEE COST R ELATING TO PREPRESS BPO SEGMENT IS NOT AVAILABLE AND HENCE, THE ASSESSEE WITH OUT PREJUDICE TO THE ABOVE CONTENTION RELYING ON THE ENTITY LEVEL STATIST ICS CONTENTED THAT SINCE THE RATIO IS LOWER THAN 25%, UNIVERSAL PRINT SYSTEMS LIMITE D CANNOT BE CONSIDERED AS A COMPARABLE COMPANY. THIS CONTENTION IS SU PPORTED BY THE DECISION OF CO-ORDINATE BENCH OF TRIBUNAL, PUNE IN THE CASE OF EMERSON CLIMATE TECHNOLOGIES (INDIA) PVT. LTD. VS. DCIT, IN ITA NO.359 AND 2847/PN/2016 DATED 25 TH APRIL,2018 WHICH PERTAINS TO THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2012-13 AND IS PLACED IN PARA 19 AT PAGE 405 OF PAPER BOOK. 7. WITH REGARD TO EXCEL INFOWAYS LIMITED, REFERENCE IS MAD E PARA 5.2.1 OF DRP DIRECTIONS AT PAGE 45 TO 47 OF APPEAL MEMO/ INTERNAL PAGE 28-30 OF DRP DIRECTIONS. THE DRP ACCEPTED EXCEL INFOWAYS LIMITED CITING THAT: 5 ITA NO. 2669/PUN/2016 A.Y.2012-13 (I) THE COMPANY IS FUNCTIONALLY COMPARABLE TO THE ASSESSEE SINCE IT IS A BPO/ITES PROVIDER AND SEGMENTAL INFORMATION OF BPO/ITES S EGMENT HAS BEEN PROVIDED. (II) SUPER NORMAL PROFIT EARNING COMPANIES OR COMPANIES HAVING STEEP FALL IN PROFITS CANNOT BE EXCLUDED. (III) ACCOUNTS OF THE COMPANY ARE FOUND RELIABLE. (IV) THE ENTIRE EXPORT EARNINGS ARE SOLELY RELATED TO THE ITES/BPO ACTIVITY. (V) THE TPO HAS NOT APPLIED THE EMPLOYEE COST FILTER. FURTHE R, IN ABSENCE OF EMPLOYEE COST DATA PERTAINING TO THE IT/BPO SEGMENT, THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE OF LOW EMPLOYEE COST RATIO CANNOT BE SUBSTANTIATED. MAJORITY OF THE COMPANYS TOTAL EMPLOYEE COST WILL BE ATTRIBUTABLE TO THE ITES/BPO INDUSTRY SINCE THE SAME IS A WORKFORCE- INTENSIVE INDUSTRY. 8. TO THIS COUNT, THE LD. AR OF THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED T HAT EXCEL INFOWAYS LIMITED CANNOT BE A COMPARABLE COMPANY SINCE THE EXCEL INFOWAYS LIMITED SHOWS WIDE ABNORMALITY IN PROFIT AND THEREFORE, IT CANNOT BE CONSIDERED AS COMPARABLE COMPANY. THE ABNORMAL TREND OF PROFITABILITY OF EX CEL INFOWAYS LIMITED IS AS UNDER: ASSESSMENT YEAR 2010-11 2011-12 2012-13 2013-14 2014-15 2015-16 OPERATING MARGIN 364.14% 301.13% 41.27 60.07% 22.65% 0.43% ADDITIONALLY, EXCEL INFOWAYS LIMITED HAD SHUT DOWN ITS BPO OPERATIONS DURING FINANCIAL YEAR 2011-12 BEING UNDER CONSIDERATION. T HIS FACT IS REFERRED IN ITEM NO.6, PAGE 311 OF THE PAPER BOOK FILED. TH IS CONTENTION IS DULY SUPPORTED AND COVERED BY THE DECISION OF CO-ORDINA TE BENCH OF THE TRIBUNAL, PUNE IN THE CASE OF EMERSON CLIMATE TECHNOLOGIES (I NDIA) PVT. LTD. 6 ITA NO. 2669/PUN/2016 A.Y.2012-13 VS. DCIT, IN ITA NO. 359 AND 2847/PN/2016 DATED 25 TH APRIL,2018 WHICH PERTAINS TO THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2012-13 AND ALSO EMER SON CLIMATE TECHNOLOGIES (INDIA ) PVT. LTD. VS. DCIT, IN ITA NO.2432/PN/2 010 DATED 6 TH JUNE, 2018 ( REFER PARA 18-19 OF THE ORDER PAGE 415 TO 416 OF THE PAPER BOOK. 9. THE LD. AR OF THE ASSESSEE FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT E XCEL INFOWAYS LIMITED FAILS THE DIMINISHING REVENUE FILTER AS APPLIED BY THE LD. TPO AND DRP FOR DIMINISHING REVENUE FILTER TO EXCLUDE THE COMPANIES FR OM THE COMPARABLE SET. REFERENCE IS BEING MADE IN PARA 3.2.4 AT P AGE 29 TO 30 OF APPEAL MEMO FOR DRP DIRECTIONS. THE REVENUE OF EXCEL INFOW AYS LIMITED DEMONSTRATED DIMINISHING REVENUE TREND AS UNDER: ASSESSMENT YEAR 2010-11 2011-12 2012-13 2013-14 2014-15 2015-16 REVENUE (IN CRORES) 20.42 CRORE 20.35 CRORE 7.91 CRORE 7.61 CRORE 5.28 CRORE 2.30 CRORE THIS CONTENTION IS DULY SUPPORTED BY THE DECISION OF CO- ORDINATE BENCH OF TRIBUNAL, DELHI IN THE CASE OF BAXTER INDIA PVT. LTD. VS. A CIT, IN ITA NO.6158/DELHI/2016 DATED 6 TH AUGUST 2017. REFERENCE IS BEING MADE IN PARA 24 OF THE ORDER AT PAGE 435 TO 436 OF THE PAPER BOOK. 10. WE HAVE PERUSED THE CASE RECORD AND HEARD THE R IVAL CONTENTIONS AND ANALYZED THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES IN THIS CASE. THAT UNIVERSAL PRINT SYSTEMS LIMITED BEING NON-COMPARABLE COMPANY AS POINTED OUT BY THE ASSESSEE, THE ISSUE CAME UP BEFORE THE CO-ORDINATE BENC H OF THE TRIBUNAL, BANGALORE IN THE CASE OF XL HEALTH CORPORATION INDIA PVT. LTD. VS. ACIT (SUPRA.). THE QUESTION CAME UP BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL WAS TH AT UNIVERSAL PRINT SYSTEMS LIMITED WAS OBJECTED BY THE ASSESSEE COMPANY BEFORE TH E TPO ON THE GROUNDS OF FUNCTIONAL DIFFERENCE AS IT IS ENGAGED IN THE BUS INESS ACTIVITIES 7 ITA NO. 2669/PUN/2016 A.Y.2012-13 SUCH AS PRINTING AND ALLIED ACTIVITIES, HIGH PROFIT MAKING COMP ANY AND ALSO FAILS THE EMPLOYEES COST FILTER. THE TRIBUNAL HAS TAKEN FOLLOWING VIEW: III) WE HEARD THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND PERUSED TH E MATERIAL ON RECORD. WE HAVE PERUSED THE ANNUAL REPORT OF THIS COMPANY P LACED AT PAGES 352 TO 463 OF PAPER BOOK. FROM THE PAGE NO. 354 IT IS STATED AS UNDER. 'IN 2011-12, YOUR COMPANY FACED MANY CHALLENGES RAN GING FROM HISTORICALLY STEEP FUEL PRICE INCREASES, NON-AVAILA BILITY OF POWER THROUGHOUT THE YEAR AND HIGH RAW MATERIAL COSTS. THE LABELS AND OFFSET DIVISIONS IN PARTICULAR WERE NEGATIVELY IMPACTED DUE TO NON-AVAILABILITY OF POWER. TAMIL NA DU ON THE WHOLE, FACED DRASTIC POWER OUTAGES AND RESTRICTIONS , WHICH WERE MAINLY DIRECTED AT INDUSTRIES IN ORDER TO KEEP THE VOTE BANKS HAPPY. THE TWO DIVISIONS SAW AS MUCH AS 6 HOURS OF POWER CUTS IN A DAY IN ADDITION TO TWO DAYS OF 'POWER HOLIDAYS ' IN A WEEK. ALTHOUGH THIS SITUATION IS EXPECTED TO EASE IN THE COMING MONTHS, IT HAS HAD AN ADVERSE IMPACT ON OPERATIONS IN 2011- 12. THE PERIODIC FUEL PRICE INCREASES THROUGH OUR 2011- 12 NOT JUST ENSURED HIGH INFLATION CUTTING ACROSS EVERY INPUT E LEMENT, BUT ALSO ADVERSELY AFFECTED OUR COST OF CAPTIVE POWER GENERA TION WHICH BECAME THE ONLY SOURCE OF POWER DURING CERTAIN PERI ODS IN 2011- 12. IN ADDITION, PROCUREMENT COST OF RAW MATERIALS SUCH AS PAPER, FILM AND INK ROSE IT(TP)A NO. 2311/BANG/2016 SUBSTA NTIALLY ALONG WITH MARKET EXPECTATION REGARDING PRICE REDUC TION OF PRINTED PRODUCTS.' FROM THIS IT IS VERY CLEAR THAT THIS COMPANY IS INT O THE BUSINESS OF PRINTERS WHEREAS THE ASSESSEE-COMPANY IS INTO THE B USINESS PROCESS OUTSOURCING. THEREFORE BY NO STRUCTURE OF IMAGINATI ON THESE TWO COMPANIES CAN BE CONSIDERED TO BE FUNCTIONALLY SIMI LAR AND THEREFORE WE DIRECT THE AO / TPO TO EXCLUDE THIS COMPANY FROM TH E LIST OF COMPARABLES. 11. THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES IN THIS CASE ARE ALSO SIM ILAR AND THE COMPANY AS NON COMPARABLE IN QUESTION IS UNIVERSAL PRINT S YSTEMS LIMITED. THEREFORE, FOLLOWING THE DECISION OF CO-ORDINATE BENCH OF THE TRIBUNAL, THIS COMPANY CANNOT BE CONSIDERED TO BE FUNCTIONALLY SIMILAR AN D THEREFORE, ASSESSING OFFICER/ TPO IS DIRECTED TO EXCLUDE THIS COMPANY FROM THE LIST OF COMPARABLES. 12. WITH REGARD TO EXCEL INFOWAYS LIMITED, WE FIND THAT TH E CO-ORDINATE BENCH OF THE TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF EMERSON CLIMATE TECHN OLOGIES (INDIA) 8 ITA NO. 2669/PUN/2016 A.Y.2012-13 PVT. LTD. VS. DCIT (SUPRA.) HAS DECIDED WHETHER EXCEL INFOW AYS LIMITED CAN BE COMPARABLE COMPANY OR NOT BY OBSERVING AS UNDER: 18. WE HAVE HEARD RIVAL CONTENTIONS AND PERUSED THE RECORD. THE LIMITED ISSUE WHICH ARISES IS AGAINST BENCHMARKING OF ALP O F THE INTERNATIONAL TRANSACTIONS ON ACCOUNT OF PROVISIONS OF ORACLE SUP PORT SERVICES (IT- ENABLES SERVICES) BY ASSESSEE TO ITS ASSOCIATED ENT ERPRISE AND FOR BENCHMARKING OF ALP OF THE INTERNATIONAL TRANSACTIO NS TO THE SAID CONCERN I.E. EXCEL INFOWAYS LTD. WHICH HAS BEEN FINALLY SEL ECTED BY THE DRP, IS TO BE EXCLUDED SINCE IT IS SHOWING FLUCTUATING MARGINS . IT IS FURTHER OBSERVED THAT THE OPERATING MARGIN OF THE COMPANY HAD SHOWN DRASTIC FLUCTUATIONS RANGING FROM 247.74% IN F.Y. 2008-09 TO 2% IN FY 20 14-15. THE ASSESSEE HAS POINTED OUT THE MARGINS SHOWN BY THE S AID CONCERN WERE AS UNDER: FINANCIAL YEAR OP/TC MARGIN 2008-09 247.74% 2009-10 267.31% 2010-11 238.71% 2011-12 41.48% 2012-13 75.70% 2013-14 30% 2014-14 2% 19. WE FIND THAT THE TRIBUNAL IN ASSESSEES OWN CAS E IN ASSESSMENT YEARS 2011-12 & 2012-13 VIDE PARA 16 & 17 OF THE OR DER OF TRIBUNAL HAS EXCLUDED EXCEL INFOWAYS LTD. BECAUSE OF ITS FLUCTUA TING MARGINS SHOWN BY THE SAID CONCERN. THE TRIBUNAL HELD THAT THE SAI D CONCERN I.E. EXCEL INFOWAYS LIMITED WHICH IS IN THE PROCESS OF CLOSING DOWN ITS ITES SEGMENT AND ALSO BECAUSE OF THE FACTUM OF FLUCTUATI NG MARGINS, COULD NOT BE SELECTED AS FUNCTIONALLY COMPARABLE TO THE ASSES SEE. FOLLOWING THE SAME PARITY OF THE REASONS, WE HOLD THAT THE SAID C ONCERN I.E. EXCEL INFOWAYS LIMITED, BECAUSE OF DIFFERENT FACTORS AND ALSO FLUCTUATING MARGINS IS TO BE EXCLUDED FROM FINAL SET OF COMPARA BLES. ACCORDINGLY, WE HOLD SO. THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS DIRECTED TO RECOM PUTE MEAN MARGIN OF THE COMPARABLES AND DETERMINE ALP OF THE INTERNATIO NAL TRANSACTIONS OF PROVISION OF ORACLE SUPPORT SERVICES (ITES) BY THE ASSESSEE TO ITS AES AFTER AFFORDING REASONABLE OPPORTUNITY OF HEARING T O THE ASSESSEE. THUS, GROUND NO. 3 RAISED IN APPEAL BY ASSESSEE IS ALLOWE D. IN THE CASE OF EXCEL INFOWAYS LIMITED, A CHART PROVIDED B EFORE US WHEREIN WE HAVE SEEN THAT THERE IS FLUCTUATING PROFIT MARG INS AND FOLLOWING THE SAME PARITY OF REASONING, EXCEL INFOWAYS LIMITED BECAUS E OF FLUCTUATING PROFIT MARGIN, IS TO BE EXCLUDED FROM THE FINAL SET OF COMPARABLES. 13. FURTHER, THE TPO HAS APPLIED DIMINISHING REVENUE FILTER T O EXCLUDE THE COMPANIES FROM THE COMPARABLE SET WHEREAS, THE REVENUE OF EXCEL INFOWAYS 9 ITA NO. 2669/PUN/2016 A.Y.2012-13 LIMITED ALSO CLEARLY DEMONSTRATED DIMINISHING REVENUE TREND . IN SUCH SITUATION, WE REFER TO THE DECISION OF CO-ORDINATE BENCH O F THE TRIBUNAL, DELHI IN THE CASE OF BAXTER INDIA PVT. LTD. VS. ACIT (SUPRA.) WH ERE THE TRIBUNAL HAS HELD AS FOLLOWS: 24. SO FAR AS EXCLUSION OF EXCEL INFOWAYS LTD. IS C ONCERNED, WE ALSO FIND MERIT IN THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE THAT THE ABOVE COMPANY SHOULD BE EXCLUDED FROM THE LIST OF C OMPARABLES. THIS COMPANY FAILS TPO'S OWN FILTER OF DIMINISHING REVEN UE AND ABNORMAL VOLATILITY IN REVENUE AND MARGINS. WE FIND FROM THE ORDER OF THE TPO AT PARA 7.5 (PAGE 24 - 25 OF THE TPO ORDER) WHERE THE TPO HAS OBSERVED THAT THE DEPARTMENT HAS APPLIED CONSISTENT DIMINISHI NG REVENUE/ LOSS MAKING FILTER WHEREIN THE COMPANIES WITH LOSSES/ DI MINISHING REVENUE FOR THE LAST THREE YEARS UPTO AND INCLUDING THE FIN ANCIAL YEAR 2010-11 WERE REJECTED AS COMPARABLES. THE DEPARTMENT HAS EX CLUDED SUCH COMPANIES WITH CONSISTENT LOSSES/ DIMINISHING REVEN UE IN AN ENVIRONMENT WHERE INDIAN ECONOMY IS GROWING AT CONS ISTENT RATE. HAVING HELD SO, THE ASSESSING OFFICER INCLUDED EXCEL INFOW AYS LTD. AS A COMPARABLE WITHOUT CONSIDERING THE FACT THAT THE SA ID COMPANY DOES NOT PASS THE DIMINISHING ITA NO.6158/DEL/2016 REVENUE F ILTER. FROM THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE ASSESSEE BEFORE THE TPO (AT PAGE 232 OF VOLUME - I OF THE PAPER BOOK) WE FIND THE DETAILS OF THE OPERATIN G MARGIN OF THE COMPANY FROM FINANCIAL YEARS 2009-10 TO 201-15 ARE AS UNDER :- PARTICULARS FINANCIAL YEAR 2009 - 10 (INR 000) 2010 - 11 (INR000) 2011 - 12 (INR000) 2012 - 13 (INR000) 2013 - 14 (INR000 ) 2014 - 15 (INR00 0) REVENUE 204,161. 34 203,526. 39 76,096.9 5 76,098. 54 53,792. 12 22,994. 38 OPERATING COST 43,986.9 9 50,751.2 4 55,991.5 7 47,539. 99 41,355. 78 22,895. 57 OPERATING PROFIT 160,174. 35 152,775. 14 23,105.3 8 28,558. 55 11,436. 34 98.81 OP/OC (%) 364.14% 301.30% 41.27% 60.07% 22.65% 0.43% 25. FROM THE ABOVE, IT IS CLEAR THAT ABOVE COMPANY DOES NOT PASS THE DIMINISHING REVENUE FILTER AS ADOPTED BY THE TPO HIM SELF SINCE ITS REVENUE HAS DECREASED CONSISTENTLY FROM FINANCIAL Y EARS 2009-10 TO 2011-12 I.E. INCLUDING THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION . FURTHER, THE ABOVE COMPANY HAS SUPER NORMAL PROFITS. WE FURTHER FIND T HE SUBMISSIONS OF THE ASSESSEE THAT EXCEL INFOWAYS LTD. HAS SUPER NOR MAL PROFITS DURING THE CURRENT YEAR HAS NOT BEEN CONTROVERTED BY THE R EVENUE. WE FIND THE MUMBAI BENCH OF THE TRIBUNAL THE CASE OF DCIT VS. W ILLIS PROCESSING SERVICES (INDIA) PVT. LTD. VIDE ITA NO.2152/MUM/201 4 HAS UPHELD THE ORDER OF THE DRP REJECTING EXCEL INFOWAYS LTD. AS C OMPARABLE COMPANY ON THE GROUND THAT THE COMPANY HAS A SUPER NORMAL P ROFIT OF 203.80% AND LOW EMPLOYEE COST 10.02%. WE, THEREFORE, FIND M ERIT IN THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE THA T EXCEL INFOWAYS LTD. SHOULD BE EXCLUDED FROM THE LIST OF COMPARABLE ON A CCOUNT OF SUPER NORMAL PROFIT OF THE SAID COMPANY IN THE PRECEDING YEAR. 10 ITA NO. 2669/PUN/2016 A.Y.2012-13 25.1 FURTHER, FROM THE ORDER OF THE TPO WE FIND HE HAS OBTAINED THE EMPLOYEE COST AND THE SALE FOR THE ITES SEGMENT BY EXERCISE OF HIS POWERS U/S.133(6), WHEREIN THE SAID COMPANY HAS ALL OCATED ENTIRE EMPLOYEE COST TO IT - BPO SEGMENT WITH NO ALLOCATIO N TO INFRA ACTIVITY SEGMENT WHICH ACCOUNTS TO 49% OF EXCEL'S TOTAL REVE NUE. IN OUR OPINION, IT IS HIGHLY IMPRACTICAL THAT NO EMPLOYEE HAS BEEN HIR ED BY EXCEL FOR INFRA ACTIVITY SEGMENT. WE, THEREFORE, FIND MERIT IN THE ARGUMENT OF THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE THAT THE INFORMATION PROVI DED AS PER SECTION 133(6) BY EXCEL INFOWAYS LTD. IS UNRELIABLE AND SHO ULD NOT BE USED TO COMPUTE EMPLOYEE COST FOR ITES SEGMENT. THE DELHI B ENCH OF THE TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF MOTOROLA SOLUTIONS INDIA PRIVATE LIMI TED VIDE ITA NO.5637/DEL/2011 HAS HELD THAT A COMPANY SHOULD BE REJECTED AS COMPARABLE IN CASE THERE IS CONTRADICTION IN THE FA CTS OR DATA SOURCED FROM ANNUAL REPORT AND AS PER THE INFORMATION GATHE RED U/S.133(6). IN VIEW OF ABOVE DISCUSSION, WE HOLD THAT EXCEL INFOWA YS LTD. CANNOT BE CONSIDERED AS COMPARABLE AND SHOULD BE EXCLUDED FRO M THE LIST OF COMPARABLES. WE HOLD AND DIRECT ACCORDINGLY. THEREFORE, IT IS EXAMINED THAT BOTH, UNIVERSAL PRINT SYSTEM S LIMITED AND EXCEL INFOWAYS LIMITED CANNOT BE CONSIDERED AS COMPA RABLE COMPANIES WITH THAT OF THE ASSESSEE COMPANY. HENCE, GROUND NO.4 IS, THUS, ALLOWED . 14. GROUND NO.6 REFERS THAT THE TPO/DRP ERRED IN CONSID ERING FOREIGN EXCHANGE FLUCTUATIONS AS NON OPERATING ITEM WHILE COMPUTIN G OPERATING MARGINS TESTED PARTY AS WELL AS FOR COMPARABLE COMPANIES THEREBY CHARGING THE OPERATING PROFIT MARGIN OF TESTED PARTY FROM 15.16% TO 13.91%. THE DRP DIRECTED TO CONSIDER FOREIGN EXCHANGE GAIN/LOSS AS NON OP ERATING BY RELYING ON RULE 10TA OF SAFE HARBOUR RULES. 15. AT THE TIME OF HEARING, THE LD. AR SUBMITTED THAT THE FOREIGN EXCHANGE GAIN/LOSS IS ARISING OUT OF NORMAL BUSINESS OPERATION OF THE ASSESSEE AND HENCE, IT NEEDS TO BE CONSIDERED FOR COMPUTATION OF OPERA TING MARGINS OF THE ASSESSEE. SAFE HARBOUR RULES, RELIED UPON BY THE DRP WERE INTRODUCED ON 18 TH SEPTEMBER, 2013 AND ARE PROSPECTIVE IN NATURE ( I.E. APP LICABLE FROM ASSESSMENT YEAR 2014-15) AND DOES NOT APPLY TO THE A SSESSMENT YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION I.E. 2012-13. THE LD. AR HAS PLACED RELIANCE ON THE DECISION OF 11 ITA NO. 2669/PUN/2016 A.Y.2012-13 THE CO-ORDINATE BENCH OF TRIBUNAL, PUNE IN THE CASE OF IME RYS NEWQUEST (INDIA) PVT. LTD. VS. DCIT, IN ITA NO. 590/PUN/2015 DATED 23 RD MAY, 2018. 16. WE HAVE PERUSED THE CASE RECORD AND CONSIDERED T HE JUDICIAL PRONOUNCEMENT PLACED BEFORE US. THE SIMILAR ISSUE HAD COME UP FOR CONSIDERATION BEFORE THE PUNE BENCH OF THE TRIBUNAL IN ITA NO. 590/PUN/2015 (SUPRA.). THE RELEVANT PART OF THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL IS AS UNDER: 14. IN GROUND NO. 4 OF THE APPEAL, ASSESSEE HAS ASS AILED ASSESSMENT ORDER IN TREATING FOREIGN EXCHANGE GAIN/LOSS AS NON-OPERA TING IN NATURE. THE DRP HAS FORMED SUCH OPINION ON THE BASIS OF SECTION 10TA OF SAFE HARBOUR RULES. AS HAS BEEN POINTED EARLIER, SAFE HARBOUR RULES CAME INT O EXISTENCE FROM SEPTEMBER, 2013. THEY DO NOT APPLY RETROSPECTIVELY AND HENCE, HAVE NO APPLICATION IN THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2010-11. IN THE CASE OF APPROVA SY STEM PVT. LTD VS. CIT(A)- IT/TP (SUPRA.), THE CO-ORDINATE BENCH OF TRIBUNAL H AS HELD THAT FOREIGN EXCHANGE GAIN/LOSS IS PART OF OPERATING INCOME. TH E RELEVANT EXTRACT OF FINDINGS OF THE TRIBUNAL ON THIS ISSUE IS AS UNDER: 22. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL ARGUMENTS MADE BY BOTH THE SIDES. AS REPRODUCED ABOVE IN PARA 20 IN THE ARGUMENTS ADV ANCED BY THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE, WE FIND THE DELHI BENCH O F THE TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF WESTFALIA SEPARTATOR INDIA PVT. LTD., (SUPR A) FOLLOWING VARIOUS DECISIONS HAS HELD THAT FOREIGN EXCHANGE LOSS/GAIN IS A PART OF THE OPERATING REVENUE/COST. IN THE FOLLOWING DECISIONS ALSO (FILED IN THE PAPER BOOK BY THE ASSESSEE), IT HAS BEEN HELD THAT FOREIG N EXCHANGE FLUCTUATION CANNOT BE EXCLUDED FROM THE COMPUTATION OF THE OPER ATING MARGIN OF THE ASSESSEE COMPANY: 1. SAP LABS INDIA P. LTD. VS. ACIT 44 SOT 156 (BA NG) 2. PRAKASH I SHAH REPORTED IN (2008) 115 ITD 167 ( MUM) (SB) 3. SMT. SUJATA GROVER VS. DY.CIT (2002) 74 TTJ (DE L) 347 4. M/S. S. NARENDRA VS. ADDL.CIT ITA NO.6839/MUM/ 2012 MUMBAI TRIBUNAL 5. M/S. MERCEDES BENZ RESEARCH & DEVELOPMENT INDIA PVT. LTD. VS. DCIT (IT/TP A.NO.1222/BANG/2011 BANGALORE TRIBUNAL 6. M/S. TRILOGY E-BUSINESS SOFTWARE INDIA PRIVATE L TD., VS. DCIT, ITA NO.1054/BANG/2011 BANGALORE TRIBUNAL 7. SUMIT DIAMOND (INDIA) PVT. LTD. VS. ACIT ITA NO.7148/MUM/2012 MUMBAI TRIBUNAL 8. M/S. FOURSOFT LTD. VS. THE DY.CIT ITA NO.1495/HYD/2010 9. TECHBOOKS INTERNATIONAL PVT. LTD. VS. ACIT ITA NO.722 DELHI TRIBUNAL 10. M/S. CISCO SYSTEMS (INDIA) PRIVATE LTD. VS. THE DY.CIT- IT/TP A.NO.271/BANG/2014 BANGALORE TRIBUNAL 11. M/S. MIDTECK (INDIA) LTD. VS. THE DY.CIT-IT(TP) A.NO.70/BANG/2014 BANGALORE TRIBUNAL 12 ITA NO. 2669/PUN/2016 A.Y.2012-13 12. M/S. PETRO ARALDITE PVT. LTD. THE DY.CIT ITA NO.1538/MUM/2014 MUMBAI TRIBUNAL 13. ACIT VS. NGC NETWORK INDIA PVT. LTD. ITA NO.5307/M/2008 22.1 RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING THE DECISIONS OF THE DI FFERENT BENCHES OF THE TRIBUNAL, WE SET ASIDE THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A) ON T HIS ISSUE AND DIRECT THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO CONSIDER FOREIGN EXCHANGE FLUC TUATION GAIN AS PART OF THE OPERATING INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE . RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING THE SAME, WE DIRECT THE ASSE SSING OFFICER TO TREAT FOREIGN EXCHANGE GAIN/LOSS AS PART OF OPERATING INCOME OF T HE ASSESSEE. ACCORDINGLY, GROUND NO. 4 RAISED IN APPEAL BY ASSESSEE IS ALLOWE D . RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING THE SAME, WE DIRECT THE TPO/ ASSESSI NG OFFICER TO TREAT THE FOREIGN EXCHANGE GAIN/LOSS AS PART OF OPERATING INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE. THUS, GROUND NO.6 RAISED IN APPEAL BY ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED . 17. GROUND NO.8 REFERS TO THE LD. TPO/DRP ERRED BY COM PARING FULL- FLEDGED RISK BEARING ENTITIES WITH THE ASSESSEES CAPTIVE OPERATIONS WITHOUT MAKING ANY RISK ADJUSTMENT ON ACCOUNT OF DIFFERENCES BETW EEN THE FUNCTIONAL AND RISK PROFILE OF COMPARABLE COMPANIES VIS--VIS THE RISK P ROFILE OF THE ASSESSEE. IN PARA 10.2 OF DRP DIRECTIONS, THE DRP DENIED R ISK ADJUSTMENT STATING THAT THE ASSESSEE IS NOT A RISK FREE ENTITY AND THE DRP HAS RELIED ON THE VARIOUS JUDGMENTS AS APPEARING IN ITS ORDER. 18. THE ARGUMENTS OF THE LD. AR OF THE ASSESSEE BEFORE US WAS THAT THE ASSESSEE FUNCTIONS UNDER LIMITED RISK ENVIRONMENT VIS--VIS ENTREPRENEURIAL RISK BORNE BY COMPARABLE COMPANIES WHO ARE INDEPENDENT SERVICE PROVIDERS. ACCORDINGLY, FINANCIAL DATA NEEDS TO BE ADJUSTED TO ACCOU NT FOR FUNCTIONAL AND RISK LEVEL DIFFERENCES IN ORDER TO IMPROVE THE RELIABILITY OF ANA LYSIS. THE FACT THAT THE ASSESSEE IS RISK MITIGATED ENTITY IS DULY NOTICED AND APPRECIATED BY THE LEARNED TPO IN HIS ORDER AT PAGE 84 OF THE APPEAL ME MO. THE LD. AR FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT RISK ADJUSTMENT SHOULD BE ALLOWED. THE LD. AR HAS 13 ITA NO. 2669/PUN/2016 A.Y.2012-13 PLACED RELIANCE ON THE DECISION OF PUNE BENCH OF THE TRIBUN AL IN THE CASE OF STARNET NETWORKS (INDIA) PVT. LTD. VS. ACIT, IN ITA NO.164 /PUN/2013 DATED 09.02.2018. 19. WE HAVE PERUSED THE CASE RECORD AND CONSIDERED T HE JUDICIAL PRONOUNCEMENTS PLACED BEFORE US. IN ITA NO. 164/PUN/201 3 (SUPRA.), THE TRIBUNAL HAS OBSERVED ON THIS ISSUE AS FOLLOWS: 34. NOW, COMING TO THE LAST ISSUE IN RESPECT OF ECO NOMIC ADJUSTMENT ON ACCOUNT OF RISK DIFFERENCES. THE CASE OF THE ASSESS EE IS THAT THE ASSESSEE BEING REMUNERATED ON COST PLUS BASIS WHERE IT IS PR OVIDING SERVICES TO ITS ASSOCIATED ENTERPRISES, IT IS RISK FREE AND ADJUSTM ENT FOR DIFFERENCES BETWEEN FUNCTIONAL AND RISK PROFILE OF THE COMPARAB LE COMPANIES IS TO BE ALLOWED IN THE HANDS OF ASSESSEE. 35. WE FIND THAT SIMILAR ISSUE HAS BEEN RAISED IN DC IT VS. APPLIED MICRO CIRCUITS INDIA PVT. LTD. (SUPRA), WHEREIN IT WAS HE LD AS UNDER:- 18. THE NEXT ISSUE RAISED VIDE GROUND OF OBJECTIO N NO.2.2 IS AGAINST THE CLAIM OF RISK ADJUSTMENT. THE PLEA OF A SSESSEE THAT RISK ADJUSTMENT SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED TO THE ASS ESSEE FOR DIFFERENCES BETWEEN FUNCTIONAL AND RISK PROFILE OF COMPARABLE COMPANIES VIS--VIS ASSESSEE. THE LEARNED AUTHORIZE D REPRESENTATIVE FOR THE ASSESSEE IN THIS REGARD POIN TED OUT THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS RISK MITIGATED ENTITY, WHEREAS THE COM PARABLES WERE RISK BEARING. HE FURTHER STATED THAT THE ASSES SEE HAD FURNISHED THE WORKING AS PER THE DECISION OF BANGAL ORE BENCH OF TRIBUNAL IN PHILIPS SOFTWARE CENTRE PVT. LTD. VS. A CIT REPORTED IN 26 SOT 226 AND THE DELHI BENCH OF TRIBUNAL IN THE C ASE OF SONY INDIA PVT. LTD. REPORTED IN 114 ITD 448. THE LEARNE D AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE FOR THE ASSESSEE IN THIS REGARD PLAC ED RELIANCE ON THE RATIO LAID DOWN BY THE PUNE BENCH OF TRIBUNAL I N MSC SOFTWARE CORPORATION INDIA PVT. LTD. VS. ACIT IN IT A NO.46/PUN/2013, RELATING TO ASSESSMENT YEAR 2008-09 , ORDER DATED 22.03.2017. 19. WE FIND THAT THE ISSUE IS SQUARELY COVERED BY E ARLIER DECISIONS OF THE PUNE BENCH OF TRIBUNAL IN MSC SOFTWARE CORPO RATION INDIA PVT. LTD. VS. ACIT (SUPRA), WHEREIN THE SAID CONCER N WAS ALSO CAPTIVE SERVICE PROVIDER TO ITS ASSOCIATED ENTERPRI SES AND HAD CLAIMED TO BE RISK FREE. IT HAD ASKED FOR RISK ADJU STMENT IN THE MARGINS OF FINALLY SELECTED COMPARABLES AND THE TRI BUNAL VIDE ORDER DATED 22.03.2017 HELD AS UNDER:- 34. FOLLOWING THE SAID RATIO, WE DIRECT THE ASSESS ING OFFICER TO ALLOW THE RISK ADJUSTMENT AND RE-COMPUTE THE MARGINS OF COMPARABLES BY APPLYING THE RATIO LAID D OWN BY DELHI BENCH OF TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF SONY INDIA P VT. LTD. (SUPRA) AND COMPUTE THE TP ADJUSTMENT, IF ANY, IN T HE HANDS OF ASSESSEE. 35. THE GROUND OF APPEAL NO.10 RAISED BY THE ASSESS EE IS AGAINST APPLICABILITY OF +/- 5% AND THE BENEFIT CAN BE ALLOWED IF THE ADJUSTMENT IS WITHIN SUCH RANGE AND H ENCE, 14 ITA NO. 2669/PUN/2016 A.Y.2012-13 NO ADJUSTMENT IS TO BE MADE IN CASE IT IS NOT MORE THAN 5% FROM THE ARM'S LENGTH PRICE. WE HOLD SO. 20. THE ISSUE ARISING BEFORE US IS SIMILAR AND FOLLO WING THE SAME PARITY OF REASONING, WE DIRECT THE ASSESSING OFFICE R TO ALLOW RISK ADJUSTMENT AND RE-WORK THE MARGINS OF COMPARABLES, IN TURN, RELYING ON THE RATIO LAID DOWN BY THE DELHI BENCH O F TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF SONY INDIA PVT. LTD. (SUPRA) AND COMPUT E THE TP ADJUSTMENT, IF ANY, IN THE HANDS OF ASSESSEE. THE G ROUND OF OBJECTION NO.2.2 IS THUS, ALLOWED. 36. FOLLOWING THE SAME PARITY OF REASONING, WE DIRE CT THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO ALLOW RISK ADJUSTMENT IN TURN RELYING ON THE PROPOSITION LAID DOWN BY THE DELHI BENCH OF TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF SONY INDIA PVT. LTD. (SUPRA), WHEREIN IT WAS ALLOWED @ 20%, AND COMPUTE THE TP ADJUSTMENT, IF ANY, IN THE HANDS OF ASSESSEE. THE GROUND OF APP EAL NOS.3 TO 8 ARE THUS, ALLOWED. THAT BASICALLY, THE PROPOSITION LAID DOWN BY THE DELHI BE NCH OF THE TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF SONY INDIA PVT. LTD. REPORTED IN 1 14 ITD 448 WHEREIN IT WAS ALLOWED @20% AND THEREAFTER, THE ASSESSING OFFICER WA S DIRECTED TO COMPUTE TP ADJUSTMENT IN THE HANDS OF THE ASSESSEE, IF A NY. RESPECTFULLY, FOLLOWING THE DECISION OF OUR OWN CO-ORDINATE BENCH, WE ALLOW THIS GROUND OF APPEAL. HENCE, GROUND NO. 8 RAISED IN APPEAL BY ASSESSEE IS, THUS, ALLOWED . 20. THAT AS SUBMITTED BY THE LD. AR OF THE ASSESSEE T HAT IN THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL, IF GROUND NOS. 4, 6 AND 8 ARE ADJUDICATED, REST G ROUNDS BECOME ACADEMIC IN NATURE. THEREFORE, AFTER ADJUDICATION OF THE SA ID GROUNDS I.E. GROUND NOS. 4, 6 AND 8, THE REMAINING GROUNDS HEREIN BECOMES ACADEMIC . 21. IN THE COMBINED RESULT, APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED. ORDER PRONOUNCED ON 21 ST DAY OF JANUARY, 2019. SD/- SD/- ANIL CHATURVEDI PARTHA SAR ATHI CHAUDHURY ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER / PUNE; / DATED : 21 ST JANUARY, 2019. SB 15 ITA NO. 2669/PUN/2016 A.Y.2012-13 !'#$%&%# / COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. / THE APPELLANT. 2. / THE RESPONDENT. 3. THE CIT(APPEALS)-13, PUNE. 4. THE PR. CIT-5, PUNE. 5. '#$ %%&' , ( &' , )*+ , / DR, ITAT, B BENCH, PUNE. 6. $,- ./ / GUARD FILE. // TRUE COPY // (0 / BY ORDER, %1 &+ / PRIVATE SECRETARY ( &' , / ITAT, PUNE. 16 ITA NO. 2669/PUN/2016 A.Y.2012-13 DATE 1 DRAFT DICTATED ON 09 .01.2019 SR.PS/PS 2 DRAFT PLACED BEFORE AUTHOR 10 .01 .201 9 SR.PS/PS 3 DRAFT PROPOSED AND PLACED BEFORE THE SECOND MEMBER JM/AM 4 DRAFT DISCUSSED/APPROVED BY SECOND MEMBER AM/JM 5 APPROVED DRAFT COMES TO THE SR. PS/PS SR.PS/PS 6 KEPT FOR PRONOUNCEMENT ON SR.PS/PS 7 DATE OF UPLOADING OF ORDER SR.PS/PS 8 FILE SENT TO BENCH CLERK SR.PS/PS 9 DATE ON WHICH THE FILE GOES TO THE HEAD CLERK 10 DATE ON WHICH FILE GOES TO THE A.R 11 DATE OF DISPATCH OF ORDER
