M/s EF Information Systems Private Limited, Bangalore V. DCIT, Bangalore

ITA 270/BANG/2016

• Counselvise Citation: [2020] 110 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 9278 (ITAT-BANGALORE)
• Duration Of Justice: 4 year(s) 5 month(s) 18 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 14-08-2020
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Next Hearing Date: 11-08-2020
• Assessment Year: 2011-2012
• Appeal Filed On: 26-02-2016
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: MUZAFFAR HUSSAIN BENGALURU
• Keywords: Transfer pricing; Opportunity of being heard; International transaction; Set aside
• Section: 143(3); 133(6); 144C; 43; 13; 92CA

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL B BENCH : BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI N.V. VASUDEVAN, VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI B R BASKARAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER IT(TP)A NO.270/BANG/2016 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2011-12 M/S. EF INFORMATION SYSTEMS PRIVATE LIMITED, NO.9, 3 RD FLOOR, SALARPURIA CAMBRIDGE MALL, CAMBRIDGE LAYOUT, BANGALORE 560 008. PAN: AACCE 0126G VS. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 2(1)(2), BANGALORE. APPELLANT RESPONDENT APPELLANT BY : SHRI ALIASGAR RAMPURAWALA, CA RESPONDENT BY : SHRI MUZAFFAR HUSSAIN, CIT(DR)(ITAT), BENGALURU. DATE OF HEARING : 11.08.2020 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 14 .0 8 .2020 O R D E R PER N.V. VASUDEVAN, VICE PRESIDENT THIS APPEAL BY THE ASSESSEE IS AGAINST THE FINAL ORDER OF ASSESSMENT DATED 30.12.2005 PASSED BY THE DCIT, CIRCLE 2(1)(2) , BANGALORE U/S. 143(3) R.W.S. 144C (5) & (13) OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT , 1961 [THE ACT] IN RELATION TO AY 2011-12. 2. THE ONLY DISPUTE RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE IN THIS APPEAL IS WITH REGARD TO CORRECTNESS OF DETERMINATION OF ARMS LEN GTH PRICE (ALP) IN RESPECT OF INTERNATIONAL TRANSACTION ENTERED INTO B Y THE ASSESSEE WITH ITS IT(TP)A NO.270/BANG/2016 PAGE 2 OF 9 ASSOCIATED ENTERPRISE [AE]. THE ASSESSEE IS A SUB SIDIARY OF EF EDUCATION B.V. NETHERLAND. THE ASSESSEE PROVIDES SOFTWARE DE VELOPMENT SERVICES (SWD SERVICES) TO ITS AE WITHIN THE EF GROUP. THE T RANSACTION OF PROVIDING SWD SERVICES BETWEEN THE ASSESSEE AND ITS AE WAS AN INTERNATIONAL TRANSACTION AND INCOME ARISING FROM THE INTERNATION AL TRANSACTION HAS TO BE COMPUTED HAVING REGARD TO THE ARMS LENGTH PRICE [A LP] AS PROVIDED U/S. 92(1) OF THE ACT. IN SUPPORT OF ITS CLAIM THAT THE PRICE RECEIVED FROM THE AE FOR PROVIDING SOFTWARE DEVELOPMENT SERVICES IS AT A RMS LENGTH, THE ASSESSEE FILED TRANSFER PRICING ANALYSIS (TP ANALYS IS) ADOPTING THE TRANSACTIONAL NET MARGIN METHOD [TNMM] AS THE MOST APPROPRIATE METHOD FOR DETERMINING THE ALP. THE PROFIT LEVEL INDICATO R [PLI] CHOSEN FOR THE PURPOSE OF COMPARING THE ASSESSEES MARGIN WITH THE MARGIN OF THE COMPARABLES WAS OPERATING PROFIT TO OPERATING COST [OP/OC]. THE OP/OC OF THE ASSESSEE AND THE OPERATING REVENUE / OPERATI NG COST [OC] RECEIVED IN THE INTERNATIONAL TRANSACTION FOR RENDE RING SOFTWARE DEVELOPMENT SERVICES WAS AS FOLLOWS:- DESCRIPTION AMOUNT (IN INR) OPERATING REVENUE (IT) 20,45,27,878 OPERATING COST (IT) 18,72,75,673 OPERATING PROFIT (PBIT) 1,72,52,205 OPERATING PROFIT TO COST RATIO 9.21% 3. THE ASSESSEE IN ITS TP ANALYSIS SELECTED 9 COMPA RABLES THE ARITHMETIC MEAN PROFIT MARGIN OF WHICH WAS 11.78%. SINCE THE OP/OC OF THE ASSESSEE WAS WITHIN THE PERMITTED +/- RANGE OF PROFIT MARGIN UNDER THE SECOND PROVISO TO SECTION 92C(2) OF THE ACT, THE AS SESSEE CLAIMED THAT THE PRICE RECEIVED IN THE INTERNATIONAL TRANSACTION WAS AT ARMS LENGTH. 4. THE TRANSFER PRICING OFFICER (TPO) TO WHOM THE Q UESTION OF DETERMINATION OF ALP WAS REFERRED TO BY THE ASSESSE E ACCEPTED 2 OUT OF 9 COMPARABLES CHOSEN BY THE ASSESSEE IN ITS TP ANALYS IS VIZ., PERSISTENT IT(TP)A NO.270/BANG/2016 PAGE 3 OF 9 SYSTEMS & SOLUTIONS LTD. AND R.S. SOFTWARE LTD (IND IA) LTD. AND REJECTED THE OTHER COMPARABLES FOR THE FOLLOWING REASONS:- SL. NO. NAME OF THE COMPARABLE TPOS REMARKS 1. BLUE STAR INFOTECH LTD. FAILS FOREX EARNINGS FI LTER. REJECTED. 2. BRISTLECONE INDIA LTD. FAILS FOREX EARNINGS FILT ER. REJECTED. 3. CAMBRIDGE TECHNOLOGY ENTERPRISES LTD. FAILS RPT FILTER. RE JE CTED. 4. LOGIX MICROSYSTEMS LTD. FAILS FOREX EARNINGS FIL TER. REJECTED. 5. MINDTECK (INDIA) LTD. FAILS RPT FILTER. REJECT ED. 6. PERSISTENT SYSTEMS & SOLUTIONS LTD. PASSES ALL FILTERS. ACCEPTED. 7. R S SOFTWARE INDIA LTD. PASSES ALL FILTERS. ACCE PTED. 8. SAVEN TECHNOLOGIES LTD. FAILS RPT FILTER. REJECT ED. 9. TECHNOSOFT INFORMATION TECHNOLOGIES (I) LTD. FA ILS FOREX EARNINGS FILTER. REJECTED. 5. THE TPO ON HIS OWN SELECTED 11 OTHER COMPARABLE COMPANIES AND ARRIVED AT A SET OF 13 COMPARABLE COMPANIES WHOSE A VERAGE ARITHMETIC MEAN WAS 24.82% AS PER THE FOLLOWING CHART:- S L .NO NAME SALES COST PLI 1 ACROPETAL TECHNOLOGIES LTD.(SEG) 814,016,893 616,754,876 31.98% 2 E ZEST SOLUTIONS (FROM CAPITALINE) 112866098 93255341 21.03% 3 E-INFOCHIPS LTD 260384251 166447527 56.44% 4 EVOKE (FROM CAPITALINE) 144869912 133996568 8.11% 5 I C R A TECHNO ANALYTICS LTD. (IN 000) 158401000 126894000 24.83% 6 INFOSYS LTD 253850000000 177,030,000,000 43.39% 7 LARSEN & TOUBRO INFO TECH LTD. 23318122096 19,764,861,289 19. 83 % 8 MINDTREE LTD.(SEG) 8,783,000,000 7,937,143,242 10.66% 9 PERSISTENT SYSTEMS & SOLUTIONS LTD. 189,490,457 155,172,089 22.12% 10 PERSISTENT SYSTEMS LTD. 6,101,270,000 4,971,860,000 22.84% 11 R S SOFTWARE (INDIA) LTD. 1,882,638,471 1,617,804,170 16.37% 12 SASKEN COMMUNICATION TECHNOLOGIES LTD 3,941,962,000 3,175,616,000 24.13% 13 TATA ELXSI LTD (SEG) 3,581,985,000 2,962,533,352 20.91% AVERAGE MARGIN 1____, 24.82% IT(TP)A NO.270/BANG/2016 PAGE 4 OF 9 6. THE TPO THEREAFTER DETERMINED THE ALP OF INTERN ATIONAL TRANSACTION AS FOLLOWS:- AR M'S LENGTH MEAN MARGIN ON COST 24.82% LESS: WORKING CAPITAL ADJUSTMENT 1.63% (AS PER ANNEX. C) ADJUSTED MARGIN 23.19% OPERATING COST 18,72,75,673 ARMS LENGTH PRICE(ALP) 23,07,04,902 123.19% OF OPERATING COST) PRICE RECEIVED 20,45,27,878 SHORTFALL BEING ADJUSTMENT U/S 92CA: 2,61,77,024, THE ABOVE SHORTFALL OF RS.2,61,77,024 /- (RUPEES TWO CRORES SIXTY ONE LAKHS SEVENTY SEVEN THOUSAND AND T WENTY FOUR ONLY) IS TREATED AS TRANSFER PRICING ADJUSTMEN T U/S 92CA IN RESPECT OF SOFTWARE DEVELOPMENT SEGMENT OF THE TAXP AYER'S INTERNATIONAL TRANSACTIONS. 7. THE ADDITION SUGGESTED BY THE TPO WAS INCORPORAT ED BY THE AO IN HIS DRAFT ORDER OF ASSESSMENT. AGAINST THE DRAFT A SSESSMENT ORDER, THE ASSESSEE FILED OBJECTIONS BEFORE THE DISPUTES RESOL UTION PANEL (DRP) U/S 144C OF THE ACT. THE DRP EXCLUDED 9 OUT OF 13 COMP ARABLES CHOSEN BY THE TPO. CONSEQUENT TO THE DIRECTIONS OF THE DRP, THE ADDITION ON ACCOUNT OF DETERMINATION OF ALP STOOD REDUCED TO RS.1,75,99 ,797. AGGRIEVED BY THE ORDER OF AO INCORPORATING THE DIRECTIONS OF THE DRP, I.E., FINAL ORDER OF ASSESSMENT, THE ASSESSEE HAS PREFERRED THE PRESENT APPEAL BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL. 8. IN THE ORIGINAL GROUNDS OF APPEAL, THE ASSESSEE HAD CHALLENGED THE ORDER OF ASSESSMENT IN RETAINING THE COMPARABLE COM PANIES CHOSEN BY THE TPO AND IN NOT EXCLUDING SOME OF THE COMPANIES WHIC H THE ASSESSEE SOUGHT FOR EXCLUSION BEFORE THE DRP. AT THE TIME O F HEARING, THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT THEY HAVE FILED ADD ITIONAL GROUNDS ELABORATING THE MAIN GROUND ALREADY FILED IN THE OR IGINAL GROUNDS OF APPEAL. THE ASSESSEE NOW SEEKS EXCLUSION OF TWO COMPARABLE COMPANIES WHICH IT(TP)A NO.270/BANG/2016 PAGE 5 OF 9 WAS RETAINED BY THE DRP VIZ., PERSISTENT SYSTEMS & SOLUTIONS LTD. AND SASKEN COMMUNICATION TECHNOLOGIES LTD. THE ASSESSEE IS ALSO SEEKING INCLUSION OF 3 COMPANIES VIZ., (1) EVOKE TECHNOLOGI ES LTD. (2) THINKSOFT GLOBAL SERVICES LTD., & (3) LGS GLOBAL LTD. ALL OT HER GROUNDS RELATING TO TP ADJUSTMENT WERE NOT PRESSED. 9. WE SHALL FIRST TAKE UP FOR CONSIDERATION THE PLE A OF THE ASSESSEE FOR EXCLUSION OF PERSISTENT SYSTEMS & SOLUTIONS LTD. AND SASKEN COMMUNICATION TECHNOLOGIES LTD . THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE DREW OUR ATTENTION TO A DECISION OF THE ITAT BANGALORE B ENCHES IN THE CASE OF CYPRESS SEMICONDCUTOR TECHNOLOGY INDIA PVT. LTD. V. DCIT, IT(TP)A NO. 356/BANG/2016 FOR AY 2011-12 RENDERED IN THE CASE OF SOFTWARE DEVELOPMENT SERVICES PROVIDER SUCH AS THE ASSESSEE UNDER CONSIDERATION, WHEREIN THE VERY SAME 13 COMPARABLE COMPANIES CHOSE N IN THE CASE OF ASSESSEE IN THIS APPEAL WAS ALSO CHOSEN AS COMPARAB LE COMPANIES. IN THE AFORESAID DECISION, THE TRIBUNAL VIDE PARA 7 EXCLUD ED PERSISTENT SYSTEMS & SOLUTIONS LTD. ON THE GROUND THAT IT HAD HUGE DIVERSIFIED ACTIVIT IES AND EARNING REVENUE FROM LICENSING OF PRODUCTS, ROYALTY AS WELL AS INCOME FROM SALE OF PRODUCTS AND MAINTENANCE OF PRODUCTS AND TH EREFORE CANNOT BE CONSIDERED AS FUNCTIONALLY COMPARABLE WITH THE ASSE SSEE. ALL OTHER GROUNDS RELATING TO TP ADJUSTMENT WERE NOT PRESSED. IN THE VERY SAME PARA 7 OF THE AFORESAID ORDER, SASKEN COMMUNICATION TECHNOLOGIES LTD. WAS ALSO EXCLUDED FOR THE REASON THAT IT HAD INCOME FROM SOFTWARE PRODUCTS AND OTHER SERVICES, BESIDES SOFTWARE DEVELOPMENT SE RVICES AND SEGMENTAL OPERATING MARGINS OF 3 SEGMENTS WERE NOT AVAILABLE. 10. THE ABOVE OBJECTIONS RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE BEF ORE THE DRP WERE NOT CONSIDERED BY THE DRP AND THE DRP WENT BY FUNCT IONAL SIMILARITY WITHOUT NOTICING THE DIVERSIFIED STREAMS OF REVENUE AND ABSENCE OF SEGMENTAL DETAILS. THE LD. DRS RELIANCE ON THE OR DER OF DRP IS THEREFORE IT(TP)A NO.270/BANG/2016 PAGE 6 OF 9 NOT ACCEPTED. THE AFORESAID TWO COMPANIES ARE ACCOR DINGLY DIRECTED TO BE EXCLUDED FROM THE LIST OF COMPARABLE COMPANIES. 11. WE SHALL NOT TAKE UP THE GRIEVANCE OF THE ASSES SEE FOR INCLUSION OF 3 COMPARABLE COMPANIES. AS FAR AS EVOKE TECHNOLOGIES LTD. IS CONCERNED, WE FIND THAT THIS COMPANY WAS CHOSEN AS A COMPARABL E COMPANY BY THE TPO. THE ASSESSEE DID NOT RAISE ANY OBJECTIONS BEF ORE THE DRP ON INCLUSION OF THIS COMPANY. THE DRP ON ITS OWN EXCL UDED THIS COMPANY ON THE GROUND THAT THE PROFITS WERE ABNORMALLY VERY LO W DUE TO PECULIAR ECONOMIC CIRCUMSTANCES. THE ASSESSEE HAS RAISED GR OUND NO.3(E) BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL SEEKING ITS INCLUSION ON THE GROUND TH AT THIS COMPANY WAS CONSIDERED AS A COMPARABLE COMPANY FOR INCLUSION IN THE CASE OF CYPRESS SEMICONDCUTOR TECHNOLOGY INDIA PVT. LTD. (SUPRA) . 12. WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT INCLUSION OF EVOKE TECH NOLOGIES LTD. WAS NOT CHALLENGED BY THE ASSESSEE BEFORE THE DRP AND S INCE THE ASSESSEE DID NOT HAVE OPPORTUNITY BEFORE THE DRP TO PUT FORT H ITS PLEA RELATING TO INCLUSION OF THIS COMPANY, WE DEEM IT FIT AND PROPE R TO RESTORE THE ISSUE OF COMPARABILITY OF EVOKE TECHNOLOGIES LTD. TO THE TPO/AO FOR FRESH CONSIDERATION AFTER AFFORDING ASSESSEE OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD. 13. THE NEXT COMPANY WHICH THE ASSESSEE SEEKS INCLU SION IS THINKSOFT GLOBAL SERVICES LTD. THE FIRST ASPECT WHICH WE NOTICE IS THAT THE ASSE SSEE SOUGHT INCLUSION OF THIS COMPANY BEFORE THE TPO AS AN ADDITIONAL COMPARABLE COMPANY. BUT THE TPO DID NOT ACCEPT IT FOR THE REASON THAT THIS COMPANY WAS INTO SOFTWARE VERIFICATION AND VALIDATI ON SERVICES AND HAS EXPENSES IN THE FORM OF SALES COMMISSION, HENCE NOT COMPARABLE. 14. IN THE SUBMISSION BEFORE THE DRP, THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT THIS COMPANY WAS INTO SOFTWARE DEVELOPMENT SERVICES AND PASSES ALL FILTERS. IT IS THE PLEA OF THE ASSESSEE THAT ONSITE REVENUE HAS BEEN WORKED OUT ON THE IT(TP)A NO.270/BANG/2016 PAGE 7 OF 9 BASIS OF WHOLE GROUP AND NOT ON A STANDALONE BASIS OF THE SWD SERVICES SEGMENT. 15. THE DRP REJECTED THE PLEA OF THE ASSESSEE ON TH E FOLLOWING REASONS:- 4. THINKSOFT GLOBAL SERVICES LTD. ('THINKSOFT') THE ASSESSEE HAVE PROVIDED BELOW A SNAPSHOT OF THE SEARCH PROCESS CARRIED OUT BY LEARNED TPO, WHERE IT IS MEN TIONED THAT THINKSOFT HAS FAILED THE FOREX EARNINGS TO SALES FI LTER APPLIED BY THE LEARNED TPO. ON PERUSAL OF THE DIRECTORS REPORT, FROM PAGE 5, IT IS NOTICED BY US THAT THE ON-SITE REVENUE ARE TO THE EXTENT OF 43 .35%, FURTHER, IN THE PROFIT AND LOSS ACCOUNT, THE REVENUE HAS BEEN S HOWN FROM 'SOFTWARE SERVICES' HOWEVER, IT IS NOTICED FROM PAG E 42 (PARA F) THAT THE COMPANY IS ENGAGED IN SOFTWARE TESTING AND NOT IN SOFTWARE DEVELOPMENT AND THEREFORE, THE COMPANY IS NOT FUNCTIONALLY WITH THE ASSESSEE. ACCORDINGLY, DUE TO ON-SITE REVENUE AND THE FUNCTIONAL DIFFERENCE THE COMPANY C ANNOT BE INCLUDED IN THE COMPARABLES. 16. IN THE SUBMISSIONS BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL, THERE I S NO SPECIFIC ARGUMENT AS TO HOW THIS COMPANY IS NOT INTO SOFTWARE VERIFIC ATION AND TESTING SERVICES. THE LEARNED AR HOWEVER RELIED ON A DECIS ION OF THE ITAT BANGALORE IN THE CASE OF MARVELL INDIA PVT. LTD. IT (TP) A.NO.384/BANG/2016 FOR AY 2011-12 ORDER DATED 28.6. 2017 WHEREIN AT PARAGRAPH-17 THE TRIBUNAL INCLUDED THIS COMPANY AS A COMPARABLE COMPANY ON THE BASIS OF VERY SAME ALLEGATION OF THE TPO THAT THAT COMPANY WAS INTO SOFTWARE VERIFICATION AND VALIDATI ON SERVICES AND HAD INCOME IN THE FORM OF SALES COMMISSION. RESPECTFUL LY FOLLOWING THE DECISION OF THE TRIBUNAL WE DIRECT INCLUSION OF THI NKSOFT GLOBAL SERVICES LTD. IT(TP)A NO.270/BANG/2016 PAGE 8 OF 9 17. THE THIRD COMPANY WHICH THE ASSESSEE SEEKS INCL USION IS LGS GLOBAL LTD. THE TPO EXCLUDED THIS COMPANY FROM THE LIST OF CO MPARABLE COMPANIES ON THE GROUND THAT PURCHASE AND PERSONNEL COST IS GIVEN BUT THERE IS NO BREAKUP FOR THE EMPLOYEE COST AND HENCE IT IS NOT POSSIBLE TO VERIFY WHETHER THE EMPLOYEE COST IS MORE THAN 75% O F THE SALES REVENUE OF THIS COMPANY. BEFORE DRP THE ASSESSEE REITERATED T HAT THE EMPLOYEE COST TO SALES PERCENTAGE WAS 83.69% AND IT WAS INTO SOFT WARE DEVELOPMENT SERVICES. THE DRP ON THE PLEA OF THE ASSESSEE FOR INCLUSION OF THIS COMPANY AS A COMPARABLE COMPANY REJECTED THE PLEA O F THE ASSESSEE AND HELD AS FOLLOWS:- 1. LGS GLOBAL LTD. ('LGS GLOBAL'); IT IS SUBMITTED THAT THE LEARNED TPO HAS WRONGLY RE JECTED LGS GLOBAL ON THE BASIS THAT THE COMPANY FAILS THE EMPL OYEE COST TO SALES FILTER APPLIED BY THE LEARNED TPO. HAVING CONSIDERED THE SUBMISSIONS, ON EXAMINATION O F ANNUAL REPORT, IT IS NOTICED BY US THAT DETAILS OF EMPLOYE ES COST ARE NOT AVAILABLE, ENTIRE EXPENSES OF RS. 249.97 CRORES HAV E BEEN DEBITED UNDER HEAD PURCHASE & PERSONNEL COST' (PAGE 12 OF A NNUAL REPORT). IN ABSENCE OF EMPLOYEES COST, IT IS NOT PO SSIBLE TO ASCERTAIN AS TO WHETHER THE COMPANY PASSES THE EMPL OYEES COST FILTER APPLIED BY THE TPO AND AS TO WHETHER THE BUS INESS MODEL OF THE COMPANY IS SUB CONTRACTING OF DEVELOPMENT OF TH E SOFTWARE. FURTHER, AS AGAINST THE EXPORT OF RS. 230.06 CRORE REPORTED, FOREIGN CURRENCY INFLOW HAS BEEN SHOWN ONLY OF RS.6 7.07 CRORES, THERE IS NO EXPLANATION AS TO WHY THE EXPORT PROCEE DS HAVE NOT BEEN RECEIVED IN FOREIGN CURRENCY IN INDIA, THIS IN DICATES PECULIAR CIRCUMSTANCES EXISTING WITH THE COMPANY. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE REASONS, WE DO NOT FIND ANY INFIRMITY IN EXCLUSION OF THE ABOVE COMPANY FROM THE COMPARABLES. 18. THE ASSESSEE BEFORE US HAS SUBMITTED THAT EMPLO YEE COST TO SALES WAS 83.69% AND IN THE EVENT OF ANY DOUBT, THE AO SH OULD HAVE INVOKED HIS POWERS U/S. 133(6) OF THE ACT. HE FURTHER PLACED RE LIANCE ON DECISION OF ITAT BANGALORE BENCH IN THE CASE OF APPLIED MATERIALS INDIA PVT. LTD., IT(TP)A NO.270/BANG/2016 PAGE 9 OF 9 IT(TP) A.NO.17/BANG/2016 (AY 2011-12) ORDER DATED 2 1.9.2017 WHEREIN AT PARAGRAPH 13.3 & 13.4 THE TRIBUNAL SET ASIDE THE IS SUE TO THE TPO/AO FOR ASCERTAINING CORRECT FACTS BY EXERCISE OF POWERS U/ S.133(6) OF THE ACT. RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING THE AFORESAID DECISION, WE S ET ASIDE THE ORDER OF THE AO IN THIS REGARD AND DIRECT THE TPO/AO TO CONSIDER THE SPECIFIC ARGUMENT RAISED IN THIS REGARD WHICH HAS NOT BEEN DEALT WITH BY THE DRP. THE TPO/AO WILL DECIDE THE ISSUE AFRESH IN ACCORDANCE W ITH LAW AFTER OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD TO THE ASSESSEE. 19. THE TPO/AO IS DIRECTED TO COMPUTE THE ALP IN AC CORDANCE WITH THE DIRECTIONS CONTAINED IN THIS ORDER, AFTER AFFORDING THE ASSESSEE OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD. 20. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE ACCOR DINGLY PARTLY ALLOWED. PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON THIS 14 TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2020. SD/- SD/- ( B R BASKARAN ) ( N V VASUDEVAN ) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER VICE PRE SIDENT BANGALORE, DATED, THE 14 TH AUGUST, 2020. / DESAI S MURTHY / COPY TO: 1. APPELLANT 2. RESPONDENT 3. CIT 4. CIT(A) 5. DR, ITAT, BANGALORE. BY ORDER ASSISTANT REGISTRAR ITAT, BANGALORE.