The DCIT, Circle-4(1)(1), , Ahmedabad V. M/s. Schutz Dishman Biotech Ltd., Ahmedabad

ITA 2686/AHD/2017

• Counselvise Citation: [2019] 117 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 1882 (ITAT-AHMEDABAD)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 6 month(s) 25 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 26-06-2019
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Assessment Year: 2011-2012
• Appeal Filed On: 01-12-2017
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Assessee Lawyers: T P HEMANI
• Keywords: Related party transaction; Business income; Depreciation; Transfer pricing; International transaction

Judgement Text

, IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL D BENCH, AHMEDABAD BEFORE SHRI RAJPAL YADAV, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI S. RIFAUR RAHMAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ./ ITA NO. 2686/AHD/2017 / ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2011-12 THE DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE 4(1)(1), AHMEDABAD VS. M/S. SCHUTZ DISHMAN BIOTECH LTD BHADRARAJ CHAMBERS, NR. SWASTIK CROSS ROAD, NAVRANGPURA, AHMEDABAD-380009 PAN : AACCS 0988 C / (APPELLANT) / (RESPONDENT) REVENUE BY : SHRI VINOD TANWANI, SR DR ASSESSEE BY : SHRI TP HEMANI, AR / DATE OF HEARING : 20/06/2019 / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT: 26/06/2019 / O R D E R PER RAJPAL YADAV, JUDICIAL MEMBER: THE REVENUE IS IN APPEAL BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL AGAIN ST THE ORDER OF THE LEARNED CIT(A)-8, AHMEDABAD DATED 1 ST SEPTEMBER 2017 PASSED FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2011-12. 2. THE SOLITARY GRIEVANCE OF THE REVENUE IS THAT LE ARNED CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN DELETING THE ADDITION OF RS.3,89,36,781/- WHICH WAS MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER ON THE RECOMMENDATION OF TRANSFER PRICING O FFICER (TPO) IN THE VALUE OF INTERNATIONAL TRANSACTIONS OF THE ASSESSEE WITH ITS ASSOCIATED ENTERPRISES (AE). 3. THE BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT THE ASSESSE E COMPANY HAS FILED ITS RETURN OF INCOME ON 29.09.2012 DECLARING TOTAL INCO ME AT RS. NIL. AT THE RELEVANT TIME, THE ASSESSEE COMPANY WAS ENGAGED IN THE BUSIN ESS OF MANUFACTURING OF PHARMACEUTICALS AND FINE CHEMICALS. IN OTHER WORDS , ASSESSEE WAS BULK DRUG MANUFACTURER. THE LEARNED ASSESSING OFFICER NOTICE D INTERNATIONAL TRANSACTIONS OF THE ASSESSEE WITH ITS AES AND, THEREFORE, HE MAD E A REFERENCE UNDER SECTION ITA NO. 2686/AHD/2017 DCIT VS SCHUTZ DISHMAN BIOTECH LTD FOR AY: 2011-12 2 92CA(1) OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT, 1961 TO THE TPO FOR DETERMINING THE ARMS LENGTH PRICE OF INTERNATIONAL TRANSACTIONS. THE LE ARNED TPO HAS ISSUED NOTICE UNDER SECTION 92CA(2) OF THE ACT AND A QUESTIONNAIR E TO THE ASSESSEE. ON THE SCRUTINY OF THE TP STUDY REPORT AND OTHER DOCUMENTS , HE FOUND THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS TWO INTERNATIONAL TRANSACTIONS WITH IT S AES NAMELY:- S NO. DESCRIPTION METHOD USED BY THE ASSESSEE AMOUNT IN RS. 1. PURCHASE OF RAW MATERIAL TNMM 4,73,63,171 2. SALE OF VARIOUS PRODUCTS TNMM 10,22,42,056 4. THE ASSESSING OFFICER THEREAFTER OBSERVED THAT T HE ASSESSEE HAS ADOPTED TRANSACTIONAL NET MARGIN METHOD (TNMM) FOR DETERMIN ING THE ALP OF ITS INTERNATIONAL TRANSACTIONS. IT HAS ADOPTED PROFIT BEFORE DEPRECIATION, INTEREST AND TAX (PBDIT) AS PROFIT LEVEL INDICATOR (PLI). I T HAS DETERMINED ITS PLI AT 10.26%, WHICH WAS COMPARED WITH OTHER COMPARABLE CO MPANIES SELECTED BY THE ASSESSEE. IT WAS FOUND OUT THAT THE ASSESSEES PLI AT 10.26% WAS HIGHER THAN THE MARGIN OF COMPARABLE COMPANIES, I.E. 9.85%. THUS, A CCORDING TO THE ASSESSEE, NO ADJUSTMENT IS REQUIRED IN THE VALUE OF THE INTER NATIONAL TRANSACTIONS BECAUSE IT WAS AT ARMS LENGTH. THE TPO DID NOT ACCEPT THIS CONTENTION OF THE ASSESSEE. HE REJECTED THE COMPARABLES SELECTED BY THE ASSESSE E. HE ALSO REJECTED THE METHOD OF DETERMINING PLI. IN HIS OPINION, THE PLI OUGHT TO BE ADOPTED BY DIVIDING THE OPERATING PROFIT BY OPERATING COST, I. E. OPERATING PROFIT/OPERATING COST. THE TPO THEREAFTER SELECTED THE COMPARABLES W HOSE PLI HAS BEEN COMPUTED AT 16.01%. HE WORKED OUT THE OPERATING RE VENUE BY APPLYING THIS PLI ON THE OPERATING COST. THE OPERATING COST SHOWN BY THE ASSESSEE WAS RS.13,04,45,157/- BY USING THE PLI OF 16.01%. HE W ORKED OUT THE OPERATING REVENUE AT RS.15,13,29,427/-. THE DIFFERENCE BETW EEN THE OPERATING REVENUE SHOWN BY THE ASSESSEE IN THE BOOKS VIS--VIS DETERM INED WITH THE ABOVE FORMULA HAS BEEN WORKED OUT AT RS.3,89,36,781/- AND THIS WAS RECOMMENDED FOR MAKING AN ADJUSTMENT IN THE VALUE OF THE INTERN ATIONAL TRANSACTIONS ITA NO. 2686/AHD/2017 DCIT VS SCHUTZ DISHMAN BIOTECH LTD FOR AY: 2011-12 3 UNDERTAKEN BY THE ASSESSEE WITH ITS AES. THE WORKI NG DONE BY THE TPO IS REFLECTED ON PAGE NO. 57 OF HIS ORDER, WHICH READS AS UNDER:- 8. THUS AFTER DULY CONSIDERING THE CONTENTIO NS OF THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED ITS REPLY TO SHOW CAUSE NOTICE THE FINAL AVERAGE COMPARABLES PLI IS CALCULATED AS FOLLOWS: S N COMPANY OPERATING REVENUES IN RS. CR. OPERATING COST IN RS. CR. OPERATING PROFIT IN RS. CR. OP/COST IN% 1 PURE PHARMA LTD 16.93 15.98 0.95 5.94% 2 TONIRA PHARMA LTD [MERGED]0 31.2 31.32 - 0.12 - 0.38% 3 HARMAN FINOCHEM LTD 138.23 103 35.23 34.20% 4 FLAMINGO PHARMACEUTICALS LTD 209.18 187.52 21.66 11.55% 5 SHILPA MEDICARE LTD 263.37 204.57 58.8 28.74% AVERAGE MARGIN 16.01% NOW THE COMPUTATION OF THE ADJUSTMENT IN THE CASE O F THE ASSESSEE IS AS FOLLOWS: DESCRIPTION AMOUNT IN RS. OPERATING COST AS PER BOOKS (COMPUTED IN PARA 5.1 O F SHOW CAUSE NOTICED) 13,04,45,157 PROFIT AT ARMS LENGTH PRICE (ALP) @ 16.01% OF OPERATING COST 2,08,84,270 OPERATING REVENUE (AT ALP) (A) 15,13,29,427 OPERATING REVENUE (PRICE) RECEIVED AS PER BOOKS (COMPUTED IN PARA 5.1 OF SHOW CAUSE NOTICE) (B) 11,23,92,646 SHORTFALL BEING ADJUSTMENT U/S 92CA (C=A-B) 3,89,36 ,781 5% OF THE PRICE SHOWN IN THE BOOKS (I.E. INTERNATIO NAL TRANSACTION IN COST AMOUNTING TO RS.14,96,05,227/- (SALE AND PURCHASES) 74,80,261 9. SINCE THE ADJUSTMENT IS MORE THAN 5% LIMIT, I N VIEW OF THE FACTS OF THE CASE, ACCORDINGLY, AS DISCUSSED ABOVE AND CALCULATE D IN ABOVE PARA AN UPWARD ADJUSTMENT AMOUNTING TO RS. 3,89,36,781/- (ROUNDED) IS CONSIDERED NECESSARY TO THE TOTAL INCOME OF THE COMPANY IN ORDER THAT THE I NTERNATIONAL TRANSACTION UNDERTAKEN BY THE COMPANY ARE AT ARM'S LENGTH. CONS EQUENCE TO THIS ADJUSTMENT, THE TOTAL INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE IS REV ISED UPWARDS BY RS.3,89,36,781/-. (TOTAL UPWARD ADJUSTMENT : RS.3,89,36,781/-) 5. ON THE BASIS OF THE RECOMMENDATION MADE BY THE T PO, THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS MADE ADJUSTMENT IN THE VALUE OF INTERNA TIONAL TRANSACTIONS, AND ACCORDINGLY MADE ADDITION IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER. ITA NO. 2686/AHD/2017 DCIT VS SCHUTZ DISHMAN BIOTECH LTD FOR AY: 2011-12 4 6. DISSATISFIED WITH THE ADDITION, THE ASSESSEE CAR RIED THE MATTER IN APPEAL BEFORE THE LEARNED CIT(A). THE ASSESSEE CONTENDED THAT QUA THE COMPARABLES SELECTED BY THE TPO IT TOOK AN OBJECTION THAT IF TH E TURNOVER FILTER IS BEING APPLIED, THEN THEY WILL BE EXCLUDED. IN OTHER WORD S, CASE OF THE ASSESSEE IS THAT TURNOVER OF 50% OUGHT TO BE APPLIED ON THE HIGHER S IDE AS WELL AS ON THE LOWER SIDE. FOR EXAMPLE, IF THE TOTAL SALES OF THE ASSES SEE IS OF RS.14.80 CRORES, THEN THE COMPARABLE COMPANIES WHOSE SALES ARE IN THE RANGE O F RS.7 CRORES ON THE LOWER SIDE AND BEYOND RS.22 CRORES ON THE HIGHER SIDE DES ERVES TO BE EXCLUDED. SINCE IN THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE, ITS TURNOVER WAS RS.11 .23 CRORES, THEN 50% OF THIS I.E. RS.5.6 CRORES AND RS.16.5 CRORES SALES SHOWN BY THE COMPANIES ENGAGED IN THE SIMILAR LINE OF BUSINESS DESERVES TO BE TAKEN AS CO MPARABLES. IF ANY COMPANY HAS LESSER SALES THAN RS.5.6 CRORES, THEN IT WILL N OT BE CONSIDERED AS COMPARABLE ON ACCOUNT OF TURNOVER FILTER. SIMILARLY, IF A COMP ANY HAS SALES MORE THAN RS.16.5 CRORES, THEN AGAIN IT WILL LOSE ITS COMPARA BLE STATUS WITH THE ASSESSEE. IN SUPPORT OF THIS CONTENTION, ASSESSEE RELIED UPON TH E ORDER OF THE ITAT IN ASSESSEES OWN CASE IN EARLIER YEARS. LEARNED FIRS T APPELLATE AUTHORITY HAS ACCEPTED THIS CONTENTION AND DELETED THE ADDITION. THE RELEVANT FINDINGS OF THE LEARNED CIT(A) READ AS UNDER:- 7.1 THE SUBMISSIONS ARE CONSIDERED. I AGREE WITH T HE APPELLANT THAT SINCE THE ISSUE IS ALREADY COVERED BY THE ORDER OF THE HON'BL E ITAT FOR A.Y.2006-07, THE ISSUE BEING SAME, IT HAS TO BE FOLLOWED. THUS, THE TURNOVER FILTER OF 50 PERCENT IS REQUIRED TO BE APPLIED. IN VIEW OF THIS, THE RANGE OF TURNOVER FOR THE COMPARABLE COMES TO RS.5,61,96,323 -RS.16,85,88,969/-. HOWEVER , I DO NOT AGREE WITH THE APPELLANT THAT ALL THE COMPARABLES CHOSEN BY THE AS SESSING OFFICER ARE REQUIRED TO BE REJECTED. THE APPEAL OF 50 PERCENT CANNOT BE SO SACROSANCT THAT A MINOR VARIATION IN IT WILL NOT BE ALLOWED. IT IS SEEN THA T ONE OF THE COMPARABLE COMPANY, (AS SELECTED BY THE TPO) HAVING NEAREST TU RNOVER WITH THE TURNOVER OF THE APPELLANT COMPANY IS PURE PHARMA LTD. HAVING TU RNOVER OF RS.16.93CRORES. IT IS ALSO SEEN THAT THE CIT(A) IN A.Y.2007-08 HAS HELD THAT EVEN IF THERE IS ONLY ONE GOOD COMPARABLE CASE, THE SAME CAN BE TAKEN AS SUITABLE COMPARABLE AND ALP CAN BE DETERMINED ON THAT BASIS. EXCERPT FROM CIT(A) ORDER FOR A.Y. 2007-08 (P.232 O F P/B): 'IT HAS ALSO BEEN HELD BY HON'BLE ITAT DELHI BENCH IN THE CASE OF HAWORTH (INDIA) (P.) LTD. V. DCIT (OSD) IN ITA NO. 5341/DELHI/2010 REPORTED IN 11 TAXMANN.COM 76 (2011) THAT EVEN IF T HERE IS ONLY ONE ITA NO. 2686/AHD/2017 DCIT VS SCHUTZ DISHMAN BIOTECH LTD FOR AY: 2011-12 5 GOOD COMPARABLE CASE, THE SAME CAN BE TAKEN AS SUIT ABLE COMPARABLE AND ARMS-LENGTH PRICE CAN BE DETERMINED ON THAT BASIS.' 7.2. BASED ON THIS REVISED COMPARABLE, THE POSI TION CAN BE TABULATED AS UNDER: DESCRIPTION AMOUNT IN RS OPERATING REVENUE AS PER BOOKS (COMPUTED IN PARA 5. 1 OF SHOW CAUSE NOTICE) 11,23,92,646 PROFIT AT ARMS LENGTH PRICE (ALP) @ 10.26 % OF OPERATING REVENUE (A) 1,15,31,485 PROFIT AT ARMS LENGTH PRICE (ALP)@ 5.94% OF OPERATI NG REVENUE (B) 66,76,123 EXCESS PROFIT (C=A-B) 48,55,362 THE ABOVE GIVEN TABLE SHOWS THAT AS A MATTER OF FAC T THE APPELLANT HAS SHOWN BETTER PLI THAN ITS PEERS AND THEREFORE NO ADJUSTME NT IN THE ALP IS CALLED FOR. 7.3. IT IS ALSO NOTICED THAT EVEN IF THE RANGE IS EXTENDED TO 300% +/- OF THE TURNOVER OF THE APPELLANT, ONLY TWO COMPANIES WOULD BE LEFT FOR COMPARISON WHICH CAN BE TABULATED AS UNDER: S.NO. COMPANY OP/COST IN % 1. PURE PHARMA LTD. 5.94% 2. TONIRAPHARMA LTD. [MERGED] -0.38% AVERAGE OP/COST IN % 2.78% THE APPELLANT HAS A BETTER OP/COST @ 10.26% COMPARE D TO 2.78% AS STATED ABOVE. HENCE, NO ADJUSTMENT IN ALP ON THIS GROUND C OULD BE MADE. 7.4. IN VIEW OF THE DISCUSSION ABOVE, AS THE ISSU E IS COVERED BY THE ORDER OF THE HON'BLE ITAT FOR A.Y.2006-07 IN OWN CASE OF THE APP ELLANT, THE IMPUGNED ADDITION MADE BY THE TPO IS DELETED. 7. BEFORE US, LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE PLAC ED ON RECORD THE COPIES OF THE TRIBUNAL ORDERS IN EARLIER ASSESSMENT YEARS WHICH HAS BEEN FOLLOWED BY THE CIT(A). HE ALSO PLACED ON RECORD THAT EVEN IN OTHER ASSESSMENT YEARS, I.E. AYS 2007-08, 2008-09, 2009-10 AND 2010-11, SIMILAR ISSUE HAS BEEN CONSIDERED AND CONSISTENT APPROACH HAS BEEN ADOPTED. HE MADE R EFERENCE TO THE ORDER OF THE ITAT PASSED IN ITA NOS. 954 & 1229/AHD/2012 FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2007- 08. THESE APPEALS HAVE BEEN DECIDED BY THE TRIBUNA L AFTER THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A) ON 05.06.2018. THE TRIBUNAL HAS FOLLOWED TH E ORDERS IN EARLIER YEARS ITA NO. 2686/AHD/2017 DCIT VS SCHUTZ DISHMAN BIOTECH LTD FOR AY: 2011-12 6 AND UPHELD THE APPLICATION OF TURNOVER FILTER. CONS EQUENTLY, THE TRIBUNAL HAS REJECTED THE APPEAL OF THE REVENUE ON THIS ISSUE. LEARNED DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE, ON THE OTHER HAND, WAS UNABLE TO CO NTROVERT THIS CONTENTION OF THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE. 8. WE HAVE DULY CONSIDERED RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND GO NE THROUGH THE RECORDS CAREFULLY. IDENTICAL ISSUE WAS CONSIDERED BY THE TRIBUNAL IN ASSESSEES OWN CASE FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2007-08 VIDE ORDER DAT ED 05.06.2018. THE FINDINGS OF THE TRIBUNAL ON THIS ISSUE READ AS UNDE R:- 8. WE HAVE DULY CONSIDERED RIVAL CONTENTIONS AND G ONE THROUGH THE RECORD. AS OBSERVED EARLIER, THE REVENUE AND THE ASSESSEE HAVE NOT DISPUTED SELECTION OF APPROPRIATE METHOD I.E. TNMM; SELECTION OF TESTED P ARTY I.E. ASSESSEE; SELECTION OF PROFIT LEVEL INDICATOR I.E. OPERATIVE PROFIT/OPE RATIVE COST. THEY ARE ONLY DISPUTING ON SELECTION OF COMPARABLES. THE ASSESSEE HAS SELECTED FOUR COMPARABLES VIZ. ADVIK LABORATORIES LTD., GUJARAT T ERCE LABORATORIES LTD., ZYDEN GENTC LD., AND WELCURE DRUG & PHARMACEUTICALS LTD. ALL THESE COMPARABLES WERE NOT ACCEPTED BY THE TPO BECAUSE AC CORDING TO HIM, THEY WERE NOT ENGAGED IN MANUFACTURING BULK DRUG, RATHER THEY ARE MANUFACTURING FORMULATIONS I.E. TABLETS, CAPSULES, SYRUPS ETC. TH US, THE LD.TPO SELECTED COMPARABLES WHICH WERE ENGAGED IN MANUFACTURING OF BULK DRUGS. THE COMPARABLES SELECTED BY THE TPO AND WORKING OF THEI R PLI READS AS UNDER: NAME OF COMPANY ECONOMIC ACTIVITY SALES CR. EXPORT CR. EXPORT % OF THE TOTAL SALES ADVIK LABORATORIES LTD DRUG FORMULATIONS 9.74 0.0 0% GUJARAT TERCE LABORATORIES LTD DRUG FORMULATIONS 11.22 0.04 0.36% ZYDEN GENTEC LTD DRUG FORMULATIONS 7.12 1.2 16.85% WELCURE DRUG & PHARMACEUTICALS LTD DRUG FORMULATIONS 18.79 0.07 0.37% 9. ON THE BASIS OF ABOVE PLI, THE LD.TPO HAS WORKED OUT ADJUSTMENT REQUIRED TO BE MADE IN THE VALUE OF INTERNATIONAL TRANSACTIONS ENTERED BY THE ASSESSEE WITH ITS AE. THE FIRST QUESTION FOR OUR DETERMINATION IS WHETHER TURNOVER FILTER IS TO BE APPLIED OR NOT. ACCORDING TO THE LD.DR, THIS FIL TER OUGHT NOT TO BE APPLIED. SHE MADE REFERENCE TO THE DECISION OF ITAT, MUMBAI. HOW EVER, WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT IN LARGE NUMBER OF DECISIONS, IT HAS BEEN HELD THAT TURNOVER FILTER IS ONE OF THE ESSENTIAL FILTER IN ORDER TO SELECT COMPARABLES WHEN ACTED IN SAME ATMOSPHERE. IT IS PERTINENT TO OBSERVE THAT WHILE C ONDUCTING TRANSFER PRICE ANALYSIS AN EFFORT IS BEING MADE TO COMPARE RELATED PARTY TRANSACTIONS UNDERTAKEN BY THE ASSESSEE WITH THE UNCONTROLLED TR ANSACTIONS UNDERTAKEN BY THE COMPARABLE, AND THUS ARRIVE AT A CONCLUSION AS TO WHETHER TRANSACTION BENCH ITA NO. 2686/AHD/2017 DCIT VS SCHUTZ DISHMAN BIOTECH LTD FOR AY: 2011-12 7 MARK IS AT ARM'S LENGTH OR NOT. FOR EXAMPLE, A CHOS EN COMPANY, THOUGH FUNCTIONALLY COMPARABLE HAS ENTERED INTERNATIONAL T RANSACTIONS BEYOND A PERCENTAGE WITH RELATED PARTIES, IT IS QUITE POSSIB LE THAT ITS OVERALL PROFIT MAY HAVE DISTORTED DUE TO SUCH TRANSACTION RENDERING IT AS UN- COMPARABLE. THERE ARE SO MANY OTHER CIRCUMSTANCES WHICH ARE REQUIRED TO B E EXAMINED UNDER FAR ANALYSIS, AND DUE TO THIS, ADJUDICATOR IS REQUIRED TO APPLY APPROPRIATE FILTER IN ORDER TO WORK OUT COMPARABLES WHICH HAVE NOT UNDER ANY INFLUENCE OF THE RELATED PARTY TRANSACTIONS. HON'BLE BOMBAY HIGH COURT IN TH E CASE OF CIT VS. PENTAIR WATER INDIA (P.) LTD., 381 ITR 216 CONCLUDED THAT T URNOVER IS OBVIOUSLY A RELEVANT FACTOR TO BE CONSIDERED FOR COMPARABILITY. HON'BLE HIGH COURT HAS RELIED UPON THE DECISION OF HON'BLE DELHI HIGH COUR T IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. AGNITY INDIA TECHNOLOGIES (P.) LTD., (2013) 36 TAXM ANN.COM 289. THUS, THERE ARE CONFLICTING DECISIONS IN FAVOUR OR AGAINST THE APPLICATION OF TURNOVER FILTER. HOWEVER, THE LD.REVENUE AUTHORITIES HAVE NOT BROUGH T TO OUR NOTICE OF ANY JUDGMENT OF THE HON'BLE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT W HICH PROHIBITS APPLICATION OF TURNOVER FILTER. THEREFORE, WE ARE OF THE VIEW T HAT THE LD.CIT(A) HAS RIGHTLY MADE AN ANALYSIS THAT SMALLER COMPANIES HAVING TURN OVER OF RS.3 CRORES COULD NOT BE CONSIDERED AS COMPARABLE WITH THE ASSESSEE W HO HAS TURNOVER OF RS.15.84 CRORES. SIMILARLY, THE COMPANY WHO HAS TURNOVER OF MORE THAN RS.30 CRORES COULD NOT BE COMPARED WITH THE ASSESSEE. THUS, WE D O NOT FIND ANY ERROR IN THE ORDER OF THE LD.CIT(A) ON THIS ASPECT, AND IF WE UP HOLD THE TURNOVER FILTER THEN THE GROUND OF APPEAL RAISED BY THE REVENUE IS REQUI RED TO BE REJECTED. ACCORDINGLY, WE REJECT THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL RAISED BY THE REVENUE. 9. SINCE THERE IS NO DISPARITY ON THE FACTS AND ON THE PRINCIPLE OF APPLICABILITY OF TURNOVER FILTER, LEARNED CIT(A) HA S FOLLOWED THE ORDERS OF ITAT IN EARLIER YEARS AND ITS VIEW IS IN CONSENSUS WITH THE VIEW OF THE ITAT IN ASSESSMENT YEAR 2007-08 ALSO. IF TURNOVER FILTER I S BEING APPLIED ON THE COMPARABLES, THEN THEY WILL BE EXCLUDED AND NO ADJU STMENT WILL BE MADE. LEARNED CIT(A) HAS RIGHTLY DELETED THE ADDITION. W E, THEREFORE, DO NOT FIND ANY MERIT IN THIS APPEAL OF THE REVENUE, WHICH IS R EJECTED. 10. IN THE RESULT, APPEAL IS DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE COURT ON 26 TH JUNE, 2019 AT AHMEDABAD. SD/- SD/- (S. RIFAUR RAHMAN) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER (RAJPAL YADAV) JUDICIAL MEMBER AHMEDABAD; DATED 26/06/2019 **BT ITA NO. 2686/AHD/2017 DCIT VS SCHUTZ DISHMAN BIOTECH LTD FOR AY: 2011-12 8 ! / COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. / THE APPELLANT 2. / THE RESPONDENT. 3. ! # / CONCERNED CIT 4. # ( ) / THE CIT(A) 5. & ! , ! , / DR, ITAT, AHMEDABAD 6. / GUARD FILE . / BY ORDER, TRUE COPY / ( DY./ASSTT.REGISTRAR) ', / ITAT, AHMEDABAD 1. DATE OF DICTATION- 26.06.2019 2. DATE ON WHICH THE TYPED DRAFT IS PLACED BEFORE THE DICTATING MEMBER 26.06.2019 OTHER MEMBER 26.06.2019. 3. DATE ON WHICH THE APPROVED DRAFT COMES TO THE SR.P. S./P.S. - 26.06.2019. 4. DATE ON WHICH THE FAIR ORDER IS PLACED BEFORE THE D ICTATING MEMBER FOR PRONOUNCEMENT 26.06.2019.. 5. DATE ON WHICH THE FILE GOES TO THE BENCH CLERK26.0 6.2019 6. DATE ON WHICH THE FILE GOES TO THE HEAD CLERK . 7. THE DATE ON WHICH THE FILE GOES TO THE ASSISTANT RE GISTRAR FOR SIGNATURE ON THE ORDER.. 8. DATE OF DESPATCH OF THE ORDER