DCIT, Bangalore V. M/s Cisco Development (I) Pvt. Ltd., Bangalore

ITA 308/BANG/2016

• Counselvise Citation: [2019] 117 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 9414 (ITAT-BANGALORE)
• Duration Of Justice: 3 year(s) 1 month(s) 4 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 05-04-2019
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Assessment Year: 2011-2012
• Appeal Filed On: 01-03-2016
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Keywords: Opportunity of being heard; Set aside

Judgement Text

IT(TP)A.308/BANG/2016 & CO.09/BANG/2017 PAGE - 1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL BENGALURU BENCH 'B', BENGALURU BEFORE SHRI. A. K. GARODIA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI. LALIET KUMAR, JUDICIAL MEMBER 1. I.T(TP).A NO.308/BANG/2016 (ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2011-12) DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE 2(1)(1), BENGALURU .. APPELLANT V. M/S. CISCO DEVELOPMENT (INDIA) P. LTD, SEZ UNIT, CESSNA BUSINESS PARK, SARJAPUR MARATHAHALLI, OUTER RING ROAD, BENGALURU 560 101 .. RESPONDENT PAN : AADCC1360P 2. CROSS OBJECTION NO.09/BANG/2017 (IN I.T.(TP)A.NO.308/BANG/2016) (ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2011-12) (BY THE ASSESSEE) ASSESSEE BY : SHRI. RAJAN VORA, CA REVENUE BY : SMT. NEERA MALHOTRA, CIT-DR HEARD ON : 27.03.2019 PRONOUNCED ON : 05.04.2019 O R D E R PER LALIET KUMAR, JUDICIAL MEMBER : THESE ARE APPEAL AND CROSS OBJECTION FILED BY THE R EVENUE AND THE ASSESSEE AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE DCIT, PASSED U/S.143(3) IT(TP)A.308/BANG/2016 & CO.09/BANG/2017 PAGE - 2 R.W,S.144C(13) OF THE IT ACT, DT.30.12.2015, IN PUR SUANCE TO THE DIRECTIONS OF THE DRP, FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2011 -12. IT(TP)A.308/BANG/2016 A. Y. 2011-12 BY THE REVE NUE : 02. THE REVENUE IN THIS APPEAL HAS RAISED THE FOLLO WING GROUNDS OF APPEAL : 03. THE LD. DR HAD DRAWN OUR ATTENTION TO THE ORDER PASSED BY THE DRP, MORE PARTICULARLY TO PARA 6.1.4 WITH RESPE CT TO THE WORKING CAPITAL ADJUSTMENT AND GROUND 2.3 OF THE DRP ORDER WHERE THE DRP DIRECTED THE AO TO CONSIDER THE FOREIGN EXCHANGE FL UCTUATION IN RESPECT OF THE ASSESSEE COMPANY AS WELL AS THE COMP ARABLE COMPANY AS OPERATING IN NATURE, WHEREIN THE DRP HAS OBSERVE D AS UNDER : FROM THE ABOVE, IT IS CLEAR THAT THE TPO HAVING EXA MINED THE RECORDS AND THE ANNUAL REPORTS OF THE COMPARABL ES, IS OF THE OPINION THAT IT IS NOT PRACTICALLY POSSIBLE TO GIVE WORKING CAPITAL CALCULATION IN RESPECT OF ALL THE COMPARABLES DUE TO THE INADEQUATE INFORMATION OF SEGMENTAL ACCOUNTING AND NO UNIFORM ACCOUNTING HEADS FOLLOWED BY VARIOUS COMPARABLES ETC, LEST IT LEADS TO FACTUALLY INCORRECT RESULTS. ASSESSEE HAD NEITHE R REQUESTED FOR A WORKING CAPITAL ADJUSTMENT NOR SUBMITTED ANY CALCULATION OF THE ADJUSTMENT. HOWEVE R, IT(TP)A.308/BANG/2016 & CO.09/BANG/2017 PAGE - 3 AFTER GIVING EFFECT TO THE DIRECTIONS IN RESPECT OF COMPARABLES GIVEN ABOVE, IN RESPECT OF THE COMPARAB LES RETAINED BY THIS ORDER, THE MEAN MARGIN WORKS OUT T O 19.36% AS UNDER : SI.NO. NAME OF THE COMPANY OP/OC % - 01 CRISIL RISK & INFRASTRUCTURE SOLUTIONS LTD16.86% 02 ICRA MANAGEMENT CONSULTING SERVICES LTD15.71% 03 KITCO LTD 27.48% 04 WAPCOS LTD 17.40% MEAN MARGIN (77.45 I 4) 19.36% THE MEAN MARGIN COMPUTED ABOVE, IS MORE BY 1.30% OF THE MEAN MARGIN OF LIO18,06% COMPUTED BY THE TPO, W E ARE OF THE VIEW THAT RETAINING THE MEAN MARGIN OF 1 8.06% TAKE CARE OF THE ADJUSTMENT IF ANY, REQUIRED TO BE MADE IN REGARD TO DIFFERENCE IN WORKING CAPITAL, RISK ETC., ACCORDINGLY, WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT THERE IS NO NE ED OF ALLOWING THE WORKING CAPITAL ADJUSTMENT AND ACCORDINGLY, WE UPHELD THE ADJUSTMENT OF RS.4,72,20 ,039/- MADE BY THE TPO. THE LD. DR RELIES UPON THE ORDER PASSED BY THE TRIB UNAL IN THE MATTER OF MERCEDEZ BENZ R & D INDIA P. LTD. V. ACIT [90 TAXMANN.COM 300] AND ALSO HAS DRAWN OUR ATTENTION T O PARA 6.1, 6.2.1 TO THE FOLLOWING EFFECT : 6. GROUND NOS.2 & 3 - TREATMENT OF FOREIGN EXCHANGE GAIN / LOSS. 6.1 IN THESE GROUNDS, THE REVENUE CONTENDS THAT THE DR P HAS ERRONEOUSLY CONSIDERED FOREIGN EXCHANGE GAIN / LOSS AS PART OF OPERATING INCOME WHEN THE TPO HAS EXCLUDED THIS ITE M WHILE COMPUTING THE OPERATING MARGINS OF THE ASSESSEE. ON THE CONTRARY, THE ASSESSEE CONTENDS THAT THE FOREIGN EX CHANGE LOSS / GAIN ARE CLOSELY LINKED TO ITS BUSINESS OPERATIONS AND THEREFORE SHOULD BE CONSIDERED AS OPERATIONAL IN NATURE AS HA S BEEN HELD BY THE DRP. IT(TP)A.308/BANG/2016 & CO.09/BANG/2017 PAGE - 4 6.2.1 WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS, PERUSED AND C AREFULLY CONSIDERED THE MATERIAL ON RECORD. IN THE CASE ON H AND, THE DRP HAS ACCEPTED THE ASSESSEE'S CONTENTION THAT FOREIGN EXCHANGE LOSS / GAIN IS OPERATIONAL IN NATURE, BY FOLLOWING THE D ECISION OF THE CO-ORDINATE BENCH OF THIS TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF S AP LABS LTD. V. ASSTT. CIT [2012] 134 ITD 253/17 TAXMANN.COM 16 (BANG.) AND OF ANOTHER CO-ORDINATE BENCH OF THIS TRIBUNAL IN THE ASSESSEE'S OWN CASE FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2007-08. WE FIND THAT ANOTHER CO-ORDINATE BENCH OF THIS TRIBUNAL IN THE A SSESSEE'S OWN CASE FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2010-11 IN ITS ORDER IN IT (TP)A NOS.291 & 427/BANG/2015 DT.24.6.2016 HAS HELD THAT IF FOREIGN EXCHANGE GAIN / LOSS IS OPERATIONAL IN NATURE IF IT IS LINKED TO THE EXPORTS / IMPORTS RELATED TO THE PARTICULAR YEAR. T O THIS EXTENT, WE FIND NO INFIRMITY IN THE ORDER OF THE DRP. HOWEVER, THE FACTS RELATED TO THE FOREIGN EXCHANGE GAIN IN THIS YEAR, I.E. AS TO WHETHER IT IS RELATED TO THE BUSINESS OPERATIONS AN D WHETHER THEY ARE IN THE CAPITAL OR REVENUE FIELD IS NOT CLEAR FR OM THE ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW. THE TPO HAS ALSO NOT RENDERE D ANY FINDING IN THIS REGARD. IN THIS FACTUAL MATRIX OF THE CASE, THE FINDING OF THE DRP IS BEING SET ASIDE AND THE MATTER IS REMANDED T O THE FILE OF THE TPO FOR THE LIMITED EXTENT OF FACTUAL VERIFICAT ION IN THIS REGARD AS OBSERVED ABOVE, BEFORE ALLOWING IT AS OPE RATIONAL IN NATURE IN KEEPING WITH THE ORDERS OF THE CO-ORDINAT E BENCH IN THE ASSESSEE'S OWN CASE FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2010-11 (SU PRA). CONSEQUENTLY, REVENUE'S GROUNDS AT S.NOS.2 & 3 ARE PARTLY ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. 04. THE LD. AR IN RESPECT OF GROUND.1 RELIED ON PAG E 94 OF THE PAPER BOOK TO SUBMIT THAT THIS YEAR IS THE FIRST YE AR OF BUSINESS AND THERE WAS NO TRANSACTION FOR THE PREVIOUS YEAR AND HENCE FOREX GAIN/ LOSS AROSE TO THE ASSESSEE WAS FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION. 06. WITH RESPECT TO GROUND.2, IT WAS SUBMITTED THAT THE TPO HAS WORKED OUT THE WORKING CAPITAL ADJUSTMENT AFTER TAK ING THE MEAN OF SIX COMPARABLES AS PER THE TP ORDER PARA 7, WHEREIN THE WORKING IT(TP)A.308/BANG/2016 & CO.09/BANG/2017 PAGE - 5 CAPITAL ADJUSTMENT WAS WORKED OUT AT 18.06%. IT WA S THE CASE OF THE LD. AR THAT THE DETAILS OF THE WORKING CAPITAL ADJU STMENT WERE GIVEN AND BASED ON SAID DETAILS WORKING CAPITAL AD JUSTMENT WAS WORKED OUT BY THE ASSESSEE IN RESPECT OF THE COMPAN IES, NAMELY CRISIL RISK & INFRASTRUCTURE SOLUTIONS LTD, ICRA MA NAGEMENT CONSULTING SERVICES LTD, KITCO LTD, WAPCOS LTD, IT WAS SUBMITTED THAT THE CONTENTION OF THE LD. DR THAT TH E DETAILS OF WORKING CAPITAL ADJUSTMENT WERE NOT GIVEN , WAS FAC TUALLY INCORRECT. IN THE LIGHT OF THE ABOVE IT WAS SUBMITTED THAT THE MATTER MAY BE REMANDED BACK TO THE DRP WITH A DIRECTION TO WORK O UT THE WORKING CAPITAL ADJUSTMENT ON THE BASIS OF GROUND 6 IN APPE AL BEFORE THE DRP. 07. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS AND PERUSED THE MATERIAL ON RECORD. FIRSTLY WE WILL DEAL WITH FOREX FLUCTUA TION. IN THIS REGARD, RELIANCE OF LD. DR ON MERCEDEZ BENZ R & D I NDIA P. LTD (SUPRA), WHEREIN AT PARA 6.2.1 HAD RECORDED THE FIN DING THAT IF THE FOREX GAIN / LOSS IS OPERATIONAL IN NATURE AS LONG AS IT PERTAINS TO ASSESSMENT YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION AND IS HAVING N EXUS WITH EXPORT / IMPORT OF THE PARTICULAR YEAR THAN THE SAM E IS REQUIRED TO BE TREATED AS OPERATIVE IN NATURE. IN OUR VIEW THIS P ROPOSITION OF LAW HELD BY THE COORDINATE BENCH, THOUGH CORRECT, WILL NOT BE APPLICABLE IN THE FACTS OF THE PRESENT CASE AS THE ASSESSMENT YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION WAS THE FIRST YEAR OF OPERATION AND T HEREFORE THERE CANNOT BE ANY QUESTION OF CARRY FORWARD OF FOREX G AIN / LOSS OF THE PREVIOUS YEAR TO THE AY UNDER CONSIDERATION . ACCO RDINGLY THE FINDING RECORDED BY THE AO, ON ACCOUNT OF PECULIARI TY OF THE PRESENT IT(TP)A.308/BANG/2016 & CO.09/BANG/2017 PAGE - 6 CASE, IS INCORRECT. HOWEVER AS NOTED BY THE TRIBUN AL IN THE MATTER OF MERCEDES BENZ (SUPRA), ONLY THE FOREX GAIN / LOS S WHICH ARE RELEVANT TO THE ASSESSMENT YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION AND ARE HAVING NEXUS BETWEEN EXPORT / IMPORT IN THE ASSESSMENT YEA R ARE REQUIRED TO BE TAKEN INTO ACCOUNT. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE, GR OUND.1 OF THE REVENUE IS DISMISSED. 08. GROUND NO.2 OF REVENUE APPEAL AND GROUND NO.6 OF TH E CROSS OBJECTION DEALS WITH WORKING CAPITAL ADJUSTMENT. IF WE LOOK INTO THE ORDER OF THE DRP, IT IS CLEAR THAT THE DRP HAD CALCULATED THE WORKING CAPITAL ADJUSTMENT BY TAKING THE OP /OC ME AN AT 19.6%. HOWEVER IT WAS DIRECTED TO TAKE AT 18.06% ON THE A SSUMPTION THAT IT WILL TAKE CARE OF THE WORKING CAPITAL ADJUSTMENT. WE ARE AT A LOSS TO UNDERSTAND AS TO HOW, ONCE THE WORKING CAPITAL ADJU STMENT DETAILS ARE GIVEN IN THE ANNEXURE-6 OF THE GROUNDS OF APPEA L OF DRP HOW THE DRP CAN PASS ORDER IN ADHOC/ LUMP SUM MANNER. I T IS THE DUTY OF THE LOWER AUTHORITIES TO ARRIVE AT ACTUAL CALCU LATION OF WORKING CAPITAL ADJUSTMENT AND THEN GRANT WORKING CAPITAL ADJUSTMENT , WHEN DETAILED WORKING IS GIVEN BY THE ASSESSEE, AND LUMP SUM OR EXGATIA GRANT OF WORKING CAPITAL ADJUSTMENT IS NOT EXPECTED FROM A SPECIALISED AUTHORITY, VIZ., DRP. IN VIEW OF THE A BOVE, THIS GROUND OF WORKING CAPITAL IS REMANDED BACK TO THE FILE OF DRP WITH A DIRECTION TO RECOMPUTE THE WORKING CAPITAL ADJUSTME NT BASED ON THE DETAILS FURNISHED BY THE ASSESSEE IN ANNEXURE -6 TO GROUNDS OF APPEAL. NEEDLESS TO SAY THAT DRP WHILE DOING SO SH ALL GIVE OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD TO THE ASSESSEE AND PAS S A DETAILED ORDER. IT(TP)A.308/BANG/2016 & CO.09/BANG/2017 PAGE - 7 CROSS OBJECTION NO.09/BANG/2017 BY THE ASSESSEE : THE GROUNDS RAISED BY THE REVENUE IN THE CROSS OBJE CTION ARE AS UNDER : IT(TP)A.308/BANG/2016 & CO.09/BANG/2017 PAGE - 8 09. THE GROUND NOS.1 AND 2 ARE NOT PRESSED BEING GE NERAL IN NATURE. 10. GROUND NO.3 IS IN SUPPORT OF THE ORDER OF THE D RP WHICH WE HAVE ALREADY DECIDED IN GROUND NO.1 OF THE REVENUE APPEAL IN IT(TP)A.308/BANG/2016, THEREFORE, NO SEPARATE ADJUD ICATION IS REQUIRED. 11. GROUND NO.4 PERTAINS TO EXCLUSION OF KITCO LTD AND WAPCOS LTD, AS COMPARABLES BASED ON UNREASONABLE COMPARABL E CRITERIA., WHILE GROUND NO.5 PERTAINS TO INCLUSION OF TATA SER VICES LTD AND TELECOMMUNICATION CONSULTANTS INDIA LTD. IN THIS R EGARD, THE LD. AR HAD SUBMITTED THAT THERE WAS MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD OF THE LOWER AUTHORITIES HOWEVER , AT THE TIME OF THE PROC EEDINGS BEFORE THE LOWER AUTHORITIES, THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT RAISED GROU ND PERTAINING TO EXCLUSION / INCLUSION OF THESE COMPARABLES. IT WAS SUBMITTED THAT IN THE CROSS OBJECTION THE ASSESSEE MAY BE PERMITTED TO TAKE ALL THESE OBJECTIONS. 12. IN RESPONSE THE LD. DR AS SUBMITTED THAT IT IS THE DUTY OF THE ASSESSEE TO TAKE THE OBJECTION AT THE APPROPRIATE S TAGE AND THE ASSESSEE SHOULD NOT BE PERMITTED TO RAISE THESE OBJ ECTIONS BEFORE THE ITAT. 13. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND PERUSED THE MATERIAL ON RECORD. UNDOUBTEDLY THE MATERIAL PERTAINING TO ALL THESE FOUR COMPARABLES ARE AVAILABLE WITH THE LOWER AUTHORITIE S AND NO FRESH MATERIAL IS REQUIRED TO BE FURNISHED BY THE ASSESSE E. IN VIEW OF THE IT(TP)A.308/BANG/2016 & CO.09/BANG/2017 PAGE - 9 ABOVE, ADMIT THE GROUND NOS.4 AND 5 OF CROSS OBJECT ION AND REMAND THESE GROUNDS TO THE FILE OF DRP FOR DENOVO EXAMINA TION TAKING INTO CONSIDERATION THE FAR ANALYSIS AND TAKING INTO ACCO UNT VARIOUS FILTERS AS APPLIED BY THE TPO. NEEDLESS TO SAY WHI LE DECIDING AFRESH THE DRP SHALL GRANT OPPORTUNITY OF HEARING TO THE A SSESSEE AND SHALL ALSO CONSIDER THE MATERIAL AND SUBMISSIONS, IF ANY, MADE BY THE ASSESSEE IN THIS REGARD. IN THE RESULT THE GROUND NOS.4 AND 5 OF CROSS OBJECTION ARE ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOS ES. 14. GROUND NO.6 OF THE CROSS OBJECTION HAD ALREADY BEEN CONSIDERED BY THE TRIBUNAL WHILE DECIDING THE GROUN D NO.2 OF THE REVENUES APPEAL. 15. GROUND NO.10 OF THE CROSS OBJECTION DEALS WITH RISK ADJUSTMENT ON ACCOUNT OF THE DIFFERENCE IN RISK PRO FILE OF THE ASSESSEE AND THE COMPARABLES. THE LD. AR HAD DRAWN OUR ATTENTION TO PARA 2.6, AT PAGE 8 OF THE DRP. OUR ATTENTION W AS DRAWN TO ANNEXURE 5B TO THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL RAISED BEFORE THE DRP AND IT WAS SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD PROVIDED THE WO RKING OF THE RISK MANAGEMENT AND THE ORDER PASSED BY THE DRP. T HE ASSESSEE HAS NOT BROUGHT ON RECORD HOW THE DIFFERENCE IN FUN CTIONAL PROFILE AND RISK AS ANNEXED, THE RESULT IS WHOLLY INCORRECT . HE HAS DRAWN OUR ATTENTION TO ANNEXURE 9 AT PAGE 38 OF THE PAPER BOOK, WHERE THE DETAILS AS A RISK ASSUMED BY THE ASSESSEE VIS-A-VIS COMPARABLES WERE GIVEN. THE ASSESSEE HAD ALSO RELIED ON VARIOUS DEC ISION MENTIONED IN ANNEXURE 9. IT(TP)A.308/BANG/2016 & CO.09/BANG/2017 PAGE - 10 17. ON THE OTHER HAND THE LD. DR RELIED UPON THE DE CISION OF MERCEDEZ BENZ (SUPRA) FOR THE PURPOSE OF RISK ADJUS TMENT. 18. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS AND PERUSED THE MATERIAL ON RECORD. UNDOUBTEDLY THE FINDING RECORDED BY THE DRP AT PARA 2.6 AT PAGE 8 IS FACTUALLY IN CONTRADICTIONS WITH T HE GROUNDS AND ANNEXURE 9 FILED BEFORE THE DRP WHERE ELABORATE DET AILS WERE GIVEN BY THE ASSESSEE FOR CLAIMING THE RISK ADJUSTMENT. FURTHER THE DRP FOR THE REASONS BEST KNOWN HAD NOT CONSIDERED THE S AME AND HELD THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD NOT BROUGHT IN ANY DETAILS EN TITLING IT FOR RISK ADJUSTMENT. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE AND IN VIEW OF TH E FINDING RECORDED BY THE TRIBUNAL IN MERCEDEZ BENZ (SUPRA) I N PARA 7.3.2, TO THE FOLLOWING EFFECT : 7.3.2 THE BANGALORE BENCHES OF THE TRIBUNAL, WHILE ALLOW ING RISK ADJUSTMENT TO CAPTIVE SERVICE PROVIDERS, AS A MATTER OF PRINCIPLE HAS HELD IN MANY CASES, ;INCLUDING THE ON E CITED (SUPRA), THAT RISK ADJUSTMENT CANNOT BE GRANTED UNL ESS THE ASSESSEE HAS SUBMITTED COMPUTATION OF THE SAME BEFO RE THE AUTHORITIES BELOW. IN THE CASE ON HAND, WE FIND THA T THOUGH THE ASSESSEE IN FORM 35A SUBMITTED BEFORE THE DRP, AT ANNEXURE/OBJECTION 13 THEREOF, MENTIONED RISK ADJUS TMENT AT 4.92%, NO SCIENTIFIC BASIS OR WORKING IN RESPECT OF THE ASSESSEE'S CLAIM VIS--VIS THE COMPARABLE COMPANIES HAD BEEN PROVIDED. EVEN ON PAGES 890 & 891 OF PAPER BOO K (ANNEXURE 9-B), NO WORKING HAS BEEN GIVEN IN RESPEC T OF RISK ADJUSTMENT CLAIMED AT 6.26% VIS--VIS THE COMPARABL E COMPANIES. SINCE THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT GIVEN THE COM PUTATION OF RISK ADJUSTMENT OF THE ASSESSEE VIS--VIS THE CO MPARABLE COMPANIES, WE HOLD THAT THE ASSESSEE SHALL NOT BE E NTITLED TO ANY RISK ADJUSTMENT AND ACCORDINGLY REVERSE THE DRP 'S DECISION GRANTING THE ASSESSEE RISK ADJUSTMENT. IN COMING TO THIS VIEW, WE PLACE RELIANCE ON THE DECISION OF THE CO-ORDINATE BENCH OF THIS TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF SYNIVERSE TEL EDATA SYSTEMS (P.) LTD. (SUPRA) WHICH COVERS THE ISSUE SQ UARELY IN FAVOUR OF THE REVENUE IN THE LIGHT OF THE FACTUAL M ATRIX OF THE IT(TP)A.308/BANG/2016 & CO.09/BANG/2017 PAGE - 11 CASE. CONSEQUENTLY, GROUND NO.4 OF REVENUE'S APPEAL FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2011-12 IS ALLOWED. SINCE SUFFICIENT DETAILS ARE PROVIDED BY THE ASSESS EE BEFORE THE DRP, AND DRP HAD NOT EXAMINED IT, THEREFORE WE REMA ND THE MATTER BACK TO THE FILE OF THE DRP, IN ACCORDANCE W ITH THE PRINCIPAL OF LAW AND ALSO IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE DECISION OF THE TRIBUNAL IN THE MATTER OF MERCEDEZ BENZ. 19. IN THE RESULT, CROSS OBJECTION FILED BY THE ASS ESSEE IS PARTLY ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES AND THE APPEAL FIL ED BY THE REVENUE IS PARTLY ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSE. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 5 TH DAY OF APRIL, 2019. SD/- S D/- (A. K. GARODIA) (LALIET KUMAR) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBE R BENGALURU DATED :05.04.2019 MCN* COPY TO: 1. THE ASSESSEE 2. THE ASSESSING OFFICER 3. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX 4. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX(A) 5. DR 6. GF, ITAT, BANGALORE BY ORDER ASSISTANT REGISTRAR, INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, BANGALORE .