M/s Microsoft Research Lab India Private Limited , Bangalore V. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-4(1)(2), Bangalore

ITA 3131/BANG/2018

• Counselvise Citation: [2020] 111 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 6942 (ITAT-BANGALORE)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 2 month(s) 13 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 05-02-2020
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Bench Allotted: C
• Next Hearing Date: 09-12-2019
• Assessment Year: 2014-2015
• Appeal Filed On: 22-11-2018
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: PRADEEP KUMARCIT
• Keywords: Business income; Transfer pricing; Rectification of order; International transaction; Initiation of penalty proceedings; Wholly owned subsidiary; Capital expenditure
• Section: 271(1)(c); 143(3); 142(1); 234B; 144C; 274; 143(2); 13; 22

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL BANGALORE BENCHES C BENCH: BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI B.R. BASKARAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI PAVAN KUMAR GADALE, JUDICIAL MEMBER IT (TP)A NO. 3131 /BANG/2018 (ASSESSMENT YEAR: 20 14 - 15 ) M/S. MICROSOFT RESEARCH LAB INDIA PVT. LTD., VIGYAN, NO.9, LAVELLE ROAD, BANGALORE. .APPELLANT PAN AAECM 2252R VS. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 4(1)(2), BANGALORE. RESPONDENT. ASSESSEE BY: SHRI NAGESWAR RAO, ADVOCATE. REVENUE BY: SHRI PRADEEP KUMAR,CIT (D.R) DATE OF HEARING : 09.12 .2019 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 05 .02 .20 20 O R D E R PER SHRI PAVAN KUMAR GADALE, JM : THE ASSESSEE HAS FILED AN APPEAL AGAINST THE ORDER PAS SED UNDER SECTION 143(3) R.W.S. 144C OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 ('THE ACT') IN PURSUANCE TO THE DIRECTIONS OF DISPUTE RESOLUTION PANEL (DRP) DT.21.08.2018. 2. THE ASSESSEE HAS RAI SED THE FOLL OWING GROUNDS OF APPEAL : 2 IT(TP)A NO.3131/BANG/2018 3 IT(TP)A NO.3131/BANG/2018 4 IT(TP)A NO.3131/BANG/2018 3. AT THE TIME OF HEARING, THE LEARNED AUTHORIZED REPRESENTAT IVE HAS NOT PRESSED GROUND OF APPEAL NOS.11 TO 14 AND MADE ENDO RSEMENT, HENCE THEY ARE TREATED AS WITHDRAWN AND DISMISSED; THE ASSESSEE RAISED ADDITIONAL GROUND OF APPEAL O N THE TURNOVER CRITERIA AND IS ADM ITTED AND READ AS UNDER : 4. THE BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS INCORPORATED IN JANUARY, 2005 AS A WHOLLY OWNED SUBSIDIARY OF MICROSOFT CORPORATION, US (M S CORP.) . T HE ASSSESSE COMPANY IS ENGAGED PRIMARILY IN RENDERING SOFTWARE DEVELOPMENT RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT SERVICES TO ITS ASSOC IATED ENTERPRISE (AE) M.S.CORP. THE ASSESSEE COMPANY FILED THE O RIGINAL RETURN OF INCOME ON 28.11.2014 WITH TOTAL INCOM E OF RS.18 , 21,06,039 AND FILED THE R EVISED RETURN OF 5 IT(TP)A NO.3131/BANG/2018 INCOME ON 30.03.2016 WITH TOTAL INC OME OF RS.17,22,00,910. SUBSEQUENTLY, THE CASE WAS SELECTED FOR SCRUTINY UNDER CASS AND NOTICE UNDER SECTION 143(2) & 142(1) OF THE ACT WERE ISSUED. IN COMPLIANCE THE LEARNED AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE APPEARED FROM TIME TO TIME AND SUBMITTED THE DETAIL S. THE ASSESSING OFFICER FIND THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS INTERNATIONAL TRANSACTIONS AND THE MATTER WAS REFERRED WITH PRIOR APPROVAL OF PRCIT TO THE TRANSFER PRICING OFFICER ( TPO). T HE ASSESSEE IS ENGAGED IN SOFTWARE DEVELOPMENT SEGMENT (SDS) AND THE FINANCIALS ARE REFERRED AT PA RA 2.3 AND 2.4 OF T.P. ORDER WHICH IS AS UNDER : 6 IT(TP)A NO.3131/BANG/2018 7 IT(TP)A NO.3131/BANG/2018 5. THE ASSESSEE FILED THE TP STUDY REPORT IN SOFTWARE DEVELOPMENT SERVICES AND ADOPTE D 22 COMPARABLES FOR ANALYSIS AND PLI OF OP/OC IS 12.64% . WHEREAS THE TPO HAS REJECTED THE TP STUDY AND APPLIED FILTERS AND DEALT ON THE FUNCTIONALITY OF COMPARABLES AND ADOPTION OF FI LTERS AT PARA 4.2 TO 7.3 OF TPO ORDER . FURTHER TPO ISSUED SHOW CAUSE NOTICE AND THE ASSESSEE FILED OBJECTIONS ON TPOS REMARK. FINALLY THE TPO CONSIDERED T HE FUNCTIONALITY AN D WORKING CRITERIA AND HAS SELECTED 8 COMPARABLES AT PAGE 33 PARA 14 OF THE ORDER WHICH ARE AS UNDER : 6. THE TPO DETERMINED THE ARMS LENGTH PRICE (ALP) AT PARA 15.4 WHICH IS AS UNDER: 8 IT(TP)A NO.3131/BANG/2018 7. THE TPO HAS PASSED THE ORDER UNDER SECTION 92CA OF THE ACT DT.30.10.2015. SUBSEQUENTLY RECTIFICATION ORDER UNDER SECTIO N 92CA R.W.S.154 OF THE ACT WAS PASSED ON 31.10.2017 WITH ALP ADJUSTMENT S OF RS.12,51,62,123. THE A.O. HAS PASSED DRAFT ASSESSMEN T ORDER UNDER SECTION 143(3) R.W.S. 1 44C OF THE ACT DT.30.10.2017. AGAINST THE DRAFT ASSESSM ENT ORDER DT.30.11.2017, THE ASSESSEE HAS FILED OBJECTIONS WITH DRP IN FORM 35A , WHEREAS THE DRP HAS PASSED THE ORDER UNDER SECTION 144C(5) DT.21.8.2018. SUBSEQUENT TO THE DRP DIRECTION S OF INCLUSION OF TWO COMPARABLES , F INAL ASSESSMENT ORDER DT24.09.2018 UNDER SECTION 143(3) R.W. S.144C OF THE ACT WAS PASSED. AGGRIEVED BY THE ORDER, THE ASSESSEE HAS FILED AN APPEAL WITH THE TRIBUNAL. 9. AT THE TIME OF HEARING, THE LEARNED AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE ARGUED AND SUBMITTED ON THE GROUND OF APPEAL NO.3 IN RESPECT OF ISSUE OF NOTICE OF DEMAND UNDER SECTION 156 OF THE ACT DT.31.11.2017 AND NOTICE OF INITIATION OF PENALTY PROCEEDINGS UNDER SECTION 274 R.W.S. 271(1)(C) OF THE ACT W ERE ISSUED ALONG WITH DRAFT ASSESSMENT ORDER ARE NOT IN A CCORDANCE WITH LAW AN D INVALID. FURTHER THE 9 IT(TP)A NO.3131/BANG/2018 LDA R , SUBMITTED THAT 6 COMPARABLES ARE TO BE EXCLUDED AND 5 COMPARA BLES ARE TO BE INCLUDED AND WORKING CAPITAL AND RISK A DJUSTMENT HAS TO BE GRANTED AND SUPPORTED WITH THE VOLUMINOUS PAPER BOOK AND CHART AND P RAYED FOR ALLOWING T HE APPEAL. CONTRA, THE LEARNED DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE RELIED ON THE ORDERS OF THE LOWER AUTHORITIES AND FILED WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS. 10. WE HEARD THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS AND PERUSED THE MATERIAL ON RECORD. PRIMA FACIE, THE LEARNED AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE HAS MADE SUBMISSIONS ON EXCLUSION OF COMPARABLES RELYING ON TH E ADDITIONAL GROUND OF APPEAL OF TURNOVER C RITERIA. FIRST WE SHALL DEAL WITH THE EXCLUSIO N OF COMPARABLES AS UNDER: (I) INFOSYS LIMITED : THE TURNOVER BEING R S.44,341 CRORES AND IT IS FUNCTIONALLY NOT COMPARABLE AS THE TURNOVER IS MORE THAN 500 TIMES OF THE ASSESSEE TURNOVER OF RS.84.09 CRORE S. THE COMPANY IS ENGAGED IN DEVELOPING SOFTWARE PRODUCTS PINNACLE AND WAS REJECTED BY THE DRP IN ASSESSEE OWN CASE FOR THE ASSESSMEN T YEAR 2011 - 12 . FURTHER HAS HIGH BRAND VALUE AND INCURRED HUGE EXPENDITURE IN R & D WITH EXCEPTIONAL AREA S OF OPERATION AND EARNED SUPER NATURAL PROFITS AND IS ENGAGED IN DIVERSIFIED ACT IVITIES. WE FOUND THAT THE COMPARABLE WAS EXCLUDED BY THE CO - ORDINATE BENCH DECISION OF THE TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF M/S. MARWELL INDIA P. LTD. VS. DCIT IN IT(TP)A NO.3082/BANG/2018 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2014 - 15 DT.23.10.2019 AT PAGE 20 PARA 4.2 (B) WHICH READ AS UNDER : 4.2 ( B ) . INFOSYS LTD: 10 IT(TP)A NO.3131/BANG/2018 I T HAS BEEN SUBMITTED BY LD. C OUNSEL THAT THIS COMPARABLE HAS BEEN INCLUDED BY LD. TPO IN FINALIST. IT HAS BEEN SUBMITTED THAT THIS COMPARABLE IS NOT COMPARABLE DUE TO HIGH TURNOVER AND INTANGIBLES OWNED BY THIS COMPANY. IT HAS BEEN SUBMITTED THAT HONBLE DEL HI HIGH COURT IN CASE OF CIT VS AGNITY INDIA TECHNOLOGIES REPORTED IN (2013) 36 TAXMANN.COM 289 HAS HELD THIS COMPANY TO BE BAD COMPARABLE TO A COMPANY WHICH IS CAPTIVE SERVICE PROVIDER UNDER THE SEGMENT. IT HAS BEEN SUBMITTED THAT THIS COMPANY PROVIDES EN D TO END BUSINESS SOLUTIONS THAT LEVERAGE TECHNOLOGY TO ENABLE CLIENTS TO ENHANCE BUSINESS PERFORMANCE. LD. CIT DR PLACED RELIANCE UPON THE ORDER PASSED BY AUTHORITIES BELOW. WE HAVE PERUSED SUBMISSIONS ADVANCED BY BOTH SIDES IN THE LIGHT OF THE RECORDS PL ACED BEFORE US. ADMITTEDLY THIS COMPANY OWNS HUGE INTANGIBLES AND IS AN ENTREPRENEUR IN THE FIELD OF SOFTWARE SERVICE DEVELOPMENT SERVICE SEGMENT . AT PAGE - 1100 OF PAPER BOOK, VOL.III IT IS OBSERVED THAT THIS COMPANY PRIMARILY DERIVES REVENUE FROM SOFTWAR E DEVELOPMENT AND RELATED SERVICES AND FROM LICENSING OF PRODUCTS. IN SEGMENTAL DETAILS AT PAGE - 1110, IT IS OBSERVED THAT REVENUE GENERATED FROM SOFTWARE SERVICES IS RS.4253/ - CRORES WHICH IS MUCH HIGH AND HENCE CANNOT BE COMPARED TO A CAPTIVE SERVICE PRO VIDER LIKE THAT OF ASSESSEE. RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING DECISION OF ORDERABLE DELHI HIGH COURT (SUPRA) WE DIRECT LD. AO/TPO TO EXCLUDE THIS COMPARABLE FROM THE FINAL LIST. WE CONSIDERING THE FACTS, FUNCTIONAL PROFILE AND THE DECISION OF THE CO - OR DINATE BENCH, DIRECT THE TPO TO EXCLUDE THE COMPARABLE FROM THE FINAL LIST OF COMPARABLES FOR DETERMINATION OF ALP. (II) . SIMILARLY , THIRD WARE SOLUTIONS LIMITED , WHOSE TURNOVER IS RS.206.76 CRORES IN COMPARISON TO RS.84.09 CRORES OF THE ASSESSEE , AND IT IS FUNC TIONALLY DIFFERENT AND EARNS R EVENUE FROM SALE OF PRODUCTS. THE COMPANY ENGAGED IN BUSINESS OF SALE 11 IT(TP)A NO.3131/BANG/2018 OF USER LICENSES IN SOFTWARE DEVELOPM ENT WITH INSU FFICIENT SEGMENTAL DATA AND EARNS S UPER NATURAL PROFITS. WE FI ND THE COMPARABLE WAS EXCLUDED BY THE CO - ORDINATE BENCH OF THE TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF MARWELL INDIA PVT. LTD. VS. DCIT (SUPRA) AT PAGE 22 PARA 4 .2(D) OF THE ORDER AS UNDER : 4.2 ( D ) . THIRDWARE SOLUTIONS LTD IT HAS BEEN SUBMITTED THAT THIS COMPANY HAS BEEN INCLUDED BY LD.TPO IN FINAL LIST OF COMPARABLES EVEN THOUGH TEST FUNCTIONALLY NOT SIMILAR WITH THAT OF ASSESSEE. LD.COUNSEL SUBMITTED THAT THIS COMPANY CARRIES OUT DIVERSE SET OF ACTIVITIES SUCH AS PLANNING AN D BUDGETING, MIAS REPORTING, ANALYTICS, ROLLOUTS, DUE DILIGENCE, UPGRADE AND MIGRATION, DATA CENTRE MIGRATION INFRASTRUCTURE ARCHITECTURE ETC. HE SUBMITTED THAT THE ENTIRE OPERATING INCOME IS DERIVED FROM SALE OF PRODUCT IT IS ALSO BEEN SUBMITTED THAT THIS COMPANY FAILS RPT FILTER OF 15% AS APPLIED BY LD.TPO. LD.COUNSEL SUBMITTED THAT DURING THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION THIS COMPANY HAD EXTRAORDINARY GROWTH 45.34% BE NEXT SECLUDED BY VARIOUS DECISIONS OF COORDINATE BENCH OF THIS TRIBUNAL. LD. CIT DR ON THE CONTRARY PLACED RELIANCE UPON ORDERS PASSED BY AUTHORITIES BELOW. WE HAVE PERUSED SUBMISSIONS ADVANCED BY BOTH SIDES IN THE LIGHT OF THE RECORDS PLACED BEFORE US. ON PERUSAL OF THE ANNUAL REPORTS PLACED AT PAGE 573 OF PAPER BOOK VOLUME 2, IT IS OBSERVED THAT THIS COMPANY HAS DEVELOPED ITS OWN PRODUCT BY THE NAME PAPA. IT IS OBSERVED THAT THIS COMPANY HAS INCURRED HUGE EXPENSES TOWARDS IMPORT OF SOFTWARE SERVICES E VIDENCING OUTSOURCING OF SOFTWARE SERVICES UNLIKE THAT OF ASSESSEE. IT IS ALSO OBSERVED THAT THIS COMPANY IS INTO PRODUCTION OF SOFTWARE PRODUCT AND THEREFORE CANNOT BE FUNCTIONALLY IS HELD SIMILAR TO A CONTRACT SERVICE PROVIDER UNDER THIS SEGMENT LIKE THA T OF ASSESSEE. LD.COUNSEL PLACED RELIANCE UPON DECISION OF COORDINATE BENCH OF THIS TRIBUNAL IN CASE OF NOMURA RESEARCH INSTITUTE FINANCIAL TECH (INDIA) PVT. LTD., VS DCIT IN ITA NO. 284/KOL /2016 VIDE ORDER DATED 26/10/2018 . RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING THE SAME WE DIRECT LD. AO/TPO TO EXCLUDE THIS COMPARABLE FROM THE FINALIST. 12 IT(TP)A NO.3131/BANG/2018 ACCORDINGLY, WE RELY ON THE TRIBUNAL AND DIRECT THE TPO TO EXCLUDE THIS COMPARABLE FROM THE FINAL LIST SELECTED IN DETERMINING THE ALP. . (III) PERSISTENT SYSTEMS LIMITED : THE COMPANY HAS A TURNOVER OF RS.1184.12 CRORES AND FUNCTIONALLY DIFFE RENT WITH INSUFFICIENT SEGMENTAL INFORMATION . FURTHER HAS SIGNIFICANTLY LARGE SCALE OF OPERATION S AND SPECIALIZED IN SOFTWARE PRODUCT SERVICES AND TECHNOLOGY INNOVATION REFERRED AT PAGE 1495 OF PAPER BOOK AND IS ENGAGED IN PROVISION OF DIVERSIFIED SERVICES AND PRODUCT SOLUTIONS OF THE ENTIRE PRODUCT CYCLE. FURTHER INCURRED HIGH R & D AND HAS GENERATED REVENUE FROM LICENSING AND SUPPORT PRODUCTS AND ALSO EARNS SUPER NATURAL PROFIT A ND IS ENGAGED IN OPERATIN G DIFFERENT MODULE OF BUSINESS. THE COMPARABLE WAS EXCLUDED BY THE CO - ORDINATE BENCH OF THE TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF MAR WELL INDIA PVT. LTD. VS. DCIT (SUPRA) AT PAGE 21 PARA 4 .2 (C) OF THE ORDER WHICH IS READ AS UNDER : 4.2 ( C ) . PERSISTENT SYSTEMS LTD : THIS COMPANY HAS BEEN INCLUDED BY LD.TPO AND ASSESSEE DISPUTES IT TO BE FUNCTIONALLY NOT SIMILAR. IT HAS BEEN SUBMITTED THAT THIS COMPANY DURING THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION DERIVED INCOME FROM LICENSING OF PRODUCTS, ROYALTY AND SALE OF PRODUCTS, MAINTENANCE CONTRACT, OUTSOURCED PRODUCT DEVELOPMENT ETC AND NO SEGMENTAL DETAILS ARE AVAILABLE IN REGARDS TO THE SAME. LD. CIT DR PLACED RELIANCE UPON THE ORDERS PASSED BY AUTHORITIES BELOW AND INSISTED ON THE INCLUSION OF THIS COMPANY . WE HAVE PERUSED SUBMISSIONS ADVANCED BY BOTH SIDES IN THE LIGHT OF THE RECORDS PLACED BEFORE US. AT PAGE - 1432, IT IS OBSERVED THAT COMPANIES OPERATIONS PREDOMINANTLY RELATES TO PROVIDING SOFTWARE PRODUCTS SERVICES AND TECHNOLOGY, INNOVATION COVERING FULL LIFE CYCLE OF PRODUCT TO ITS CUSTOMERS. 13 IT(TP)A NO.3131/BANG/2018 IT IS OBSERVED THAT DELHI ITAT IN CASE OF AGINITY INDIA TECHNOLOGIES INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED (SUPRA) HAS HELD AS FOLLOWS: PERSISTENT SYSTEMS LTD WAS EXCLUDED FROM THE LIST OF COMPARABLE COMPANIES ON THE GROUND THAT THIS COMPANY WAS A SOFTWARE PRODUCT COMPANY AND SEGMENTAL INFORMATION ON SWD SERVICES WAS NOT AVAILABLE. THE TRIBUNAL IN COMING TO THE ABOVE CONCLUSION REFERRED TO THE DECISIONS RENDERED BY ITAT DELHI BENCHES IN CASE OF CASH EDGE INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED VS ITU IN ITA NO. 64/DEL/2015 VIDE ORDER DATED 23/09/15 AND THE DETAILS OF ORDERABLE DELHI HIGH COURT IN CASE OF SEXUAL INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED (SUPRA). THE FINDINGS IN THIS REGARD ARE CONTAINED IN PARAGRAPH 4.14 TO 4.16 OF ITS ORDER. RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING THE SAME WE ARE OF CONSIDERED OPINION THAT THIS COMPANY DESERVES TO BE EXCLUDED FROM THE FINAL LIST. WE, RESPECTFULLY FOLLOW THE COORDINATE BENCH DECISION, AND DIR ECT THE TP O TO EXCLUDE THE COMPARABLE FROM THE FINAL LIST OF COMPARABLE FOR DETERMINATION OF ALP . (IV) L & T INFOTECH LIMITED, TURNOVER IS RS.4643.94 CRORES , AND DURING THE YEAR HAS UNDERTAKEN CAPITAL EXPENDITURE OF RS.12348 LAKHS WHICH WORKS OUT TO AP PROXIMATELY 1.5 TIMES OF TURNOVER OF THE ASSESSEE BEING RS.84 CRORES .T HE COMPARABLE IS ENGAGED IN PROVISION OF SOFTWARE SALES OF PRODUCTS AND NO SEGMENTAL INFORMATI ON IS AVAILABLE AND IS ENGAGED IN RESALE OF PRODUCTS AND PACKAGES AND HAS HIGH BRAND VALUE WITH EXTRAORDINARY EVENTS AND OPERATES IN DIFFERENT MODELOF BUSINESS . WE SUPPORT OUR VIEW RELYING ON THE DECISION OF THE CO - ORDINATE BENCH OF THE TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF MARWELL INDIA PVT. LTD. VS. DC IT (SUPRA) AT PAGE 23 PARA 4 .2 (E) OF THE ORDER WHICH READ AS UNDER : 4.2 ( E ) . LARSEN AND TOUBRO INFOTECH LTD : 14 IT(TP)A NO.3131/BANG/2018 IT HAS BEEN SUBMITTED BY LD.COUNSEL THAT THIS COMPANY HAS BEEN INCLUDED BY LD.TPO, THOUGH IT IS NOT COMPARABLE WITH THAT OF ASSESSEE AS IT I S A HUGE COMPANY OWNING LARGE INTANGIBLES. IT HAS BEEN SUBMITTED THAT IS TO BE EXCLUDED FOR FOLLOWING REASONS: (I) THIS COMPANY IS FUNCTIONALLY DISSIMILAR TO THAT OF SWD SERVICE PROVIDER AND THAT IT DEVELOPS SOFTWARE PRODUCTS ; (II) SEGMENTAL INFORMATION OF VARIOUS SEGMENTS ARE NOT AVAILABLE; (III) SCALE OF OPERATION AND PRESENCE OF INTANGIBLES, BRAND ETC. IT HAS BEEN SUBMITTED THAT DELHI ITAT IN CASE OF AGILIS INFORMATION TECHNOLOGIES INDIA PVT. LTD., VS ACIT REPORTED IN (2018) 89 TAXMAN.COM 440 HAS EXCLUDED THIS COMPANY AND THE SAME HAS BEEN UPHELD BY HONABLE DELHI HIGH COURT . LD.CIT DR PLACED RELIANCE UPON THE ORDERS PASSED BY AUTHORITIES BELOW AND INSISTED ON THE INCLUSION OF THIS COMPANY. WE HAVE PERUSED SUBMISSIONS ADVANCED BY BOTH SIDES IN THE LIGHT OF THE RECORDS PLACED BEFORE US. IT IS OBSERVED THAT DELHI ITAT IN CASE OF AGINITY INDIA TECHNOLOGIES INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED (SUPRA) HAS HELD AS FOLLOWS: LARSEN AND TOUBRO INFOTECH LTD WAS EXCLUDED FROM THE LIST OF COMPARABLE COMPANIES BY RELYIN G ON THE DECISION OF THE DELHI BENCH ITAT IN CASE OF SAXO INDIA D VS ACIT. THE DISCUSSION IS CONTAINED AT PARA 4 .8 TO 4.10 OF TRIBUNALS ORDER. THE TRIBUNAL HELD THAT LMT INFOTECH LTD WAS SOFTWARE PRODUCT COMPANY AND SEGMENTAL INFORMATION ON SWT SERVICES WAS NOT AVAILABLE. THE TRIBUNAL ALSO NOTICED THAT APPEAL FILED BY REVENUE AGAINST RIVALS ORDER WAS DISMISSED BY ORDERABLE DELHI HIGH COURT IN ITA NO. 682/2016. RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING THE SAME WE ARE OF CONSIDERED OPINION THAT THIS COMPANY DESERVES TO BE E XCLUDED FROM THE FINAL LIST. WE RELY ON THE COORDINATE BENCH DECISION AND DIRECT THE TPO/A.O. TO EXCLUDE THE COMPARABLE FROM THE FINAL LIST FOR DETERMINATION OF ALP. (V) M INDTREE LIMITED: THE COMPANY TURNOVER IS RS. 3,031.06 CRORES AS AGAINST THE ASSESSEE TURNOVER OF RS.84 CRORES . FURTHER IT IS DIS SIMILAR TO THE ASSESSEE BUSINESS MODEL WITH NO SEG MENTAL DATA IS AVAILABLE AND BRAND VALUE WITH HUGE INTANGIBLES. 15 IT(TP)A NO.3131/BANG/2018 WE FOUND FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2014 - 15, THE COMPANY WAS EXCLUDED BY THE CO - ORDINATE BE NCH DECISION IN THE CASE OF MARWELL INDIA PVT. LTD. VS. DCIT (SUPRA) AT PAGE 24 PARA 4 .2 (F) OF THE ORDER AS UNDER : 4.2 ( F ) . MINDTREE LTD THIS COMPARABLE HAS BEEN INCLUDED BY LD.TPO THE FINAL LIST. LD. COUNSEL SUBMITTED THAT IT IS FUNCTIONALLY NOT SIMILAR WITH THAT OF ASSESSEE. IT IS SUBMITTED THAT ASSESSEE ENGAGED IN PROVIDING SERVICES SUCH AS AGILE, ANALYTICS AND INFORMATION MANAGEMENT, APPLICATION DEVELOPMENT AND MAINTENANCE, BUSINESS PROCESS MANAGEMENT, BUSINESS TECHNOLOGY CONSULTING, CLOUD, D IGITAL BUSINESS, INDEPENDENT TESTING, INFRASTRUCTURE MANAGEMENT SERVICES, MOBILITY, PRODUCT ENGINEERING AND SAP SERVICES. LD.AR REFERRED TO PAGE 1088 IN SUPPORT. IT IS FURTHER BEEN SUBMITTED THAT THIS COMPANY DOES NOT HAVE SEGMENTAL INFORMATION ON THE BAS IS OF WHICH REVENUE EARNED FROM DIFFERENT VERTICALS COULD BE IDENTIFIED. THIS COMPANY ALSO OWNS HUGE INTANGIBLES AND THEREFORE DESERVES TO BE EXCLUDED. ON THE CONTRARY LD. CIT DR PLACED RELIANCE UPON ORDERS PASSED BY AUTHORITIES BELOW. WE HAVE EXAMINED THE ANNUAL REPORTS OF THIS COMPANY AND IT IS OBSERVED THAT THIS COMPANY CARRIES OUT RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT ACTIVITIES AND HAS CREATED LARGE INTANGIBLES. UNDER SUCH CIRCUMSTANCES WE DO NOT FIND THIS COMPANY TO BE COMPARABLE WITH THAT OF A CAPTIVE SERVICE PRO VIDER LIKE ASSESSEE. WE THEREFORE DIRECT THE LD. AO/TPO TO EXCLUDE THIS COMPARABLE FROM THE FINAL LIST. CONSIDERING TH E FUNCTIONAL DISSIMILARITY AND H IGH TURNOVER CRITERIA AND JUDICIAL DECISION , WE DIRECT THE TPO/A.O. TO EXCLUDE THE COMPARABLE FROM THE FINAL LIST OF COMPARABLES FOR DETERMINATION OF ALP. (VI) CIGNITY TECHNOLOGIES LIMITED , THE COMPARABLE IS ENGAGED IN SOFTWARE DEVELOPMENT SERVICES AND IS A CAPTIVE SERVICE PROVIDER TO ITS AES ON COST PLUS 16 IT(TP)A NO.3131/BANG/2018 BASIS . FURTHER COMPANY HAS APPLIED FOR GLOBAL PATE NTS FOR ITS I GENERATE TEST , SCENARIOS TOOL PART WHICH IS A PART OF SMART TOOLS PORTFOLIO AND HAS SPECIALIZED SERVICES IN THE FIELD OF SOFTWARE TESTING. WE FOUND THIS COMPARABLE WAS EXCLUDED BY THE CO - ORDINATE BENCH OF THE TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF MARWELL INDIA PVT. LTD. VS. DCIT (SUPRA) AT PAGE 18 PARA 4 .2 (A) OF THE ORDER AS UNDER : 4.2 ( A ) . C IGNITY TECHNOLOGIES LTD: LD.TPO HELD THIS COMPANY TO BE COMPARABLE AS IT IS ENGAGED IN SOFTWARE DEVELOPMENT SERVICES. LD.C OUNSEL SUBMITTED THAT LD. TPO TREATED THIS COMPANY TO BE COMPARABLE ASSESSEE, IRRESPECTIVE OF DIFFERENT VERTICALS OF SWD . HE SUBMITTED THAT ASSESSEE BEFORE US WAS A CAPTIVE SERVICE PROVIDER RENDERING EXCLUSIVE SERVICES TO ITS AE AND WORKS ON A COST PLUS MARKUP BASIS. HE SUBMITTED THAT ASSESSEE RENDERS SERVICES UNDER SWD SEGMENT ON THE BASIS OF SPECIFICATIONS PROVIDED BY THE AE. WHEREAS THIS COMPARABLE FOR THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION HAS LD. COUNSEL PLACED BEFORE US THE ANNUAL REPORT OF THIS COMPANY IN SUPPORT OF HIS SUBMISSIONS TO ESTA BLISH THAT THIS COMPANY HAS OUTGROWN INDEPENDENTLY IN SOFTWARE TESTING AND HAS BEEN AWARDED AUTOMATED SOFTWARE TESTING SERVICES BY FROST & SULLIVAN. HE ALSO SUBMITTED THAT THIS COMPANY HAS APPLIED GLOBAL/U.S. PATENTS FOR ITS IGENERATE TESTSCENARIOS TOOL PART WHICH IS A PART OF SMART TOOLS PORTFOLIO. WHEREAS ASSESSEE BEFORE US HAS BEEN SUBMITTED TO BE PROVIDING VARIOUS SERVICES IN WHICH TESTING OF INTEGRATED CIRCUIT IS ONE OF THE SMALL ACTIVITY CARRIED OUT BY ASSESSEE FOR ITS AE. LD. COUNSEL SUBMITTED THAT FROM THE PROFILE OF THE COMPARABLE IN THE ANNUAL REPORT ONE CAN HOLD THIS COMPANY TO BE A PIONEER IN SOFTWARE TESTING MARKET CATERING TO CLIENTS ALL OVER THE WORLD IN DIFFERENT GEOGRAPHIES. ON THE CONTRARY, LD.CIT DR SUBMITTED THAT THIS IS NO DIFFERENT FU NCTION THAN WHAT ASSESSEE HAS BEEN CARRYING OUT FOR ITS AE AND THEREFORE IS A PERFECT COMPARABLE. WE HAVE PERUSED SUBMISSIONS ADVANCED BY BOTH SIDES IN THE LIGHT OF THE RECORDS PLACED BEFORE US. WE HAVE ALSO PERUSED THE ANNUAL REPORT VERY CAREFULLY AND IS OBSERVED THAT THIS COMPANY IS INVOLVED EXCLUSIVELY INTO SOFTWARE 17 IT(TP)A NO.3131/BANG/2018 TESTING AND HAS CREATED INNOVATIONS IN THE SOFTWARE TESTING. IT IS ALSO OBSERVED THAT THIS COMPANY IS ACQUIRED HUNDRED PERCENT SHARES IN A U.S. - BASED SOFTWARE TESTING SERVICE COMPANY CALLED G ALLOP SOLUTIONS INC BASED IN TEXAS USA. IT IS ALSO OBSERVED THAT THIS COMPANY HAS BEEN LISTED ON BOMBAY STOCK EXCHANGE, BANGALORE STOCK EXCHANGE AND MAYBE MADRAS STOCK EXCHANGE WITH A PAID - UP CAPITAL OF RS. 22.92 CRORES. IT IS AN UNDISPUTED FACT THAT ENTIR E REVENUE HAS BEEN GENERATED BY THIS COMPANY FROM SOFTWARE TESTING SERVICES RENDERED TO ITS INDEPENDENT CLIENTS AS AGAINST SIMPLE TESTING CARRIED OUT BY ASSESSEE OF INTEGRATED CIRCUITS ALONG WITH DESIGNING, CUSTOMER SUPPORT OF INTEGRATED CIRCUITS RELATED A NCILLARY SERVICES PROVIDED BY ASSESSEE ONLY TO ITS AE. CONSIDERING THE HOLISTIC APPROACH HAVING REGARDS TO THE ANNUAL REPORTS OF THIS COMPANY AND THE SPECIALISED SERVICES PROVIDED BY THIS COMPANY TO ITS OWN CLIENTS IN THE FIELD OF SOFTWARE TESTING AS AGAIN ST CAPTIVE SERVICE PROVIDED BY ASSESSEE EXCLUSIVELY TO ITS AE, WE ARE OF CONSIDERED OPINION THAT THIS COMPANY CANNOT BE HELD AS A GOOD COMPARABLE WITH THAT OF ASSESSEE. THEREFORE WE DIRECT LD. AO/TPO TO EXCLUDE THIS COMPANY FROM THE FINAL LIST OF COMPARABLES. FOLLOWING THE JUDICIAL PREC EDENCE, WE FOUND THE COMPANY IS IN SPECIALIZED AREA AND HAS TO BE EXCLUDED . A CCORDINGLY , WE DIRECT THE TPO/A.O. TO EXCLUDE FROM THE FINAL LIST OF COMPA RABLES . 12. NOW WE SHALL TAKE UP THE COMPARABLES FOR INCLUSION. T HE LEARNED AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE IN GROUND OF APPEAL NO.8 ( B) HAS PRAYED FOR INCLUSION OF 15 C OMPARABLES BUT AT THE TIME OF HEARING HAS RESTRICTED HIS ARGUMENTS FOR INCLUSION OF ONLY 5 COMPARABLES AND MADE ENDORS EMENT. AND RELIED ON VOLUMINOUS MATERIAL AND FILED CHART. (I) AKSHAY SOFTWARE TECHNOLOGIES LTD., THE COMPANYS MARGIN IS 1 .81% AND WAS REJECTED BY THE DRP AS A FOREIGN BRAND EXPENDITURE IS 85% OF TOTAL COST . WHEREAS 18 IT(TP)A NO.3131/BANG/2018 RP T IS 3.49% OF TOTAL SALES AND LDAR REFERRED TO PAGE 1705 AND 1714 OF PAPER BOOK . FURTHER THE COMPA NY WAS REJECTED BY THE TPO ON THE RPT FILTER AND THE OBSERVATION S ARE INCORRECT, THE COMPANY IS FUNCTIONALLY SIMILAR AND IS ENGAGED IN PROVIDING SOFTWARE DEV ELOPMENT SERVICES INCLUDING PROCUREMENT, IMPLEMENTATION AND MAINTENANCE OF ERP PRODUCTS AND ALSO SERVICES IN INDIA AND OVERSEAS WHICH DOES NOT HAVE IM PACT ON FUNCTIONAL OPERATIONS. WHEREAS IN ASSESSEE OWN CASE FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2016 - 17 IT WAS ACCEPTED AS COMPARABLE. ACCORDINGLY, CONSIDERING THE FUNCTIONAL PROFILE, AND IT WAS ACCEPTED BY THE REVENUE IN SUBSEQUENT ASST YEARS, WE DIRECT THE TPO TO INCLUDE THE COMPARABLE COMPANY IN THE FINAL LIST FOR DETERMINATION OF ALP. (II) SAGARSO FT INDIA LIMITED : THIS COMPARABLE COMPANY TURNOVER IS RS.11.29 CRORES AND WAS REJECTED BY THE DRP AS ANNUAL REPORT AND FINANCIAL DETAILS ARE NOT AVAILABLE IN PUBLIC DOMAIN AND WAS NOT INCLUDED BY THE ASSESSEE . IT IS ENGAGED IN SOFTWARE DEVELOPMENT SER VICES AND PASSES THE FILTERS APPLIED BY THE TPO. NOW, ANNUAL REPORT OF THE COMPARABLE COMPANY IS AVAILABLE IN PUBLIC DOMAIN . THE LDAR FILED THE ANNUAL REPORT IN THE PAPER BOOK AND FURTHER WAS ACCEPTED BY THE TPO IN ASSESSEE OWN CASE FOR THE ASSESSMENT YE AR 2016 - 17. WE FOUND THAT THIS COMPARABLE COMPANY ANNUAL REPORT WAS AVAILABLE DURING T HE TP STUDY AND THE A NOT INCLUDED . ACCORDINGLY, WE RESTORE THIS COMPARABLE TO THE FILE OF TPO TO EXAM INE AND VERIFY THE FUNCTIONALITY OF THE COMPANY. 19 IT(TP)A NO.3131/BANG/2018 (III) PURE S OFT PRIVATE LIMITED, THE COMPARABLE MARGIN IS 13.72% AND THE COMPANY WAS NOT INCLUDED IN THE TP STUDY BY THE ASSESSEE AND W A S REJECTED BY TPO. THE LEARNED AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE SUBMITTED THAT IT IS FUNCTIONALLY SIMILAR AND IS ENGAGED IN DESIGN AND DEVELOPMENT SERVICES OF SOFTWARE APPLICATIONS INCLUDING CUSTOMIZED AND PACKAGED SOFTWARE AND ALSO PRO VIDING SERVICES TESTING AND PASSES THE FILTERS APPLIED BY THE TPO AND SELECTED FOR COMPARABLE. WE FOUND THE COMPARABLE WAS NOT PART OF THE TP STUDY O F THE ASSESSEE AND HAS TO BE VERIFIED. ACCORDING L Y, WE RESTORE THIS ISSUE TO THE FILE OF TPO TO VERI FY AND EXAMINE THE COMPARABLE FOR DETERMINATION OF ALP. (IV) SY BRANT TECHNOLOGIES PRIVATE LIMITED, IT HAS MARGIN OF 15.25% AND TURNOVER OF RS.3.52 C RORES AND WAS REJECTED ON THE GROUND THAT IT WAS NOT CONSIDERED BY THE ASSESSEE IN TP STUDY. THE LEARNED AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE SUBMITTED THAT IT IS ENGAGED IN DEVELOPMENT OF EMBEDDED SOFTWARE AND PROJECT MANAGEMENT IN THE FIELD OF INFORMA TION TECHNOLO GY . WE FOUND THAT THIS COMPARABLE WAS NOT PART OF THE TP STUDY OF THE ASSESSEE, HENCE HAS TO BE TESTED ON FUNCTIONAL PROFILE. AC CORDINGLY, WE RESTORE THIS COMPARABLE TO THE FILE OF TPO TO EXAMINE AND VERIFY FUNCTIONALITY FOR DETERMINATION OF ALP. (V) LUCID SO FTWARE LIMITED, HAS A MARGIN OF ( - ) 0.57% AND THE TURNOVER IS RS.3.60 CRORES . IT WAS REJECTED ON THE GROUND THAT IT IS ENGAGED IN THE BUSINESS OF SOFTWARE DEVELOPMENT AND RENDERING SOFTWARE SERVICES TO THE GLOBAL NON - DESTRUCTIVE TESTING 20 IT(TP)A NO.3131/BANG/2018 AND MATERIAL SCIENCE S INDUSTRY AND FURTHER THE COMPANY HAS INCURRED LOSSES FOR THE PREVIOUS YEAR ENDING M ARCH, 2013 AND MARCH, 2014. THE LDAR SUBMIT THAT THE COMPARABLE IS FUNCTIONALLY SIMILAR AND IS ENGAGED IN THE BUSINESS OF SOFTWARE DEVELOPMENT AND PASSE S ALL THE FILTERS , AND WHEREAS PERSISTENT LOSS FILTERS HAS BEEN INCORRECTLY APPLIED. THE LEARNED AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE RELIE D ON THE DECISION OF PUNE BENCH TRIBUNAL YAZAKI INDIA PVT LTD VS DCIT IN ITA NO.621/PUNE/2014 DT.11.7.2019 AT PARAS 21 TO 23 WHICH IS READ AS UNDER : 21. THE HONBLE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT IN CIT VS. GOLDMAN SACHS (INDIA) SECURITIES (P) LTD. (2016) 290 CTR 236 (BOM.) CONSIDERED A SIMILAR ISSUE OF PERSISTENT LOSS MAKING COMPANIES. IN THAT CASE, THE TPO EXCLUDED CAPITAL T RUST LTD. ON THE GROUND OF PERSISTENT LOSS MAKING COMPANY. THE TRIBUNAL INCLUDED THIS COMPANY BY NOTICING THAT IT WAS NOT A PERSISTENT LOSS MAKING COMPANY AS FOR THE A.Y. 2005 - 06 IT MADE PROFIT ALTHOUGH IT WAS LOSS FOR SUBSEQUENT TWO YEARS, NAMELY, A.Y. 20 06 - 07 AND 2007 - 08. CONSIDERING THE FACTUAL POSITION OBTAINING IN THE INSTANT CASE, IT IS SEEN THAT THOUGH FCI TECHNOLOGY SERVICES LTD. SUFFERED LOSS FOR THE A.Y. 2008 - 09 AND THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION BUT, IN FACT, THERE WAS PROFIT FOR THE A.Y. 2007 - 08 AT 5.08%. AS THIS COMPANY EARNED PROFIT OF 5.08% FOR THE A.Y. 2007 - 08, IT CEASES TO BE A PERSISTENT LOSS MAKING COMPANY IN SO FAR AS THE A.Y. 2009 - 10 IS CONCERNED, SINCE ONE OF THE THREE YEARS IS IN PROFIT THOUGH THE OTHER TWO YEARS ARE IN LOSS. 22. THE LD. DR INVITED OUR ATTENTION TOWARDS THE DIRECTION GIVEN BY THE DRP ON PAGE 12 IN WHICH IT HAS RETURNED A CATEGORICAL FINDING THAT FCI TECHNOLOGY SERVICES LTD. STARTED MANUFACTURING CONNECTORS DURING THE A.Y. 2008 - 09 AND THERE WAS NO MANUFACTURING OF CONNE CTORS DURING THE A.Y. 2007 - 08, FOR WHICH THE ASSESSEE IS CLAIMING THAT THIS COMPANY HAS POSITIVE PLI. 23. WE HAVE GONE THROUGH THE ANNUAL REPORT OF THIS COMPANY RELEVANT FOR THE A.YRS. 2009 - 10 AND 2008 - 09. PAGE 467 OF THE PAPER BOOK FOR THE ASSESSMENT YE AR UNDER CONSIDERATION GIVES DETAILS OF STOCK, PRODUCTION AND SALES FOR THE YEAR ENDING 31 - 12 - 2007 WHICH HAS OPENING STOCK OF CONNECTORS AS WELL. SIMILAR IS THE POSITION FOR THE PRECEDING YEAR AS WELL, WHICH DEPICTS THAT THERE WAS OPENING STOCK OF CONNECTO RS. IN THAT VIEW OF THE MATTER, IT BECOMES EVIDENT THAT THIS COMPANY WAS ALREADY INTO MANUFACTURING OF CONNECTORS, WHICH PRODUCT HAS BEEN CONSIDERED AS SIMILAR BY THE DRP. EX CONSEQUENTI, THE RELEVANT CONTRARY FINDING RECORDED BY THE DRP ABOUT THAT COMPAN Y NOT ENGAGED IN MANUFACTURING OF CONNECTORS DURING THE A.Y. 2007 - 08 IS, THEREFORE, NOT CORRECT. AS FCI TECHNOLOGY SERVICES LTD. IS NOT A PERSISTENT LOSS MAKING COMPANY AND FURTHER THE FUNCTIONAL SIMILARITY HAS NOT BEEN DISPUTED BY THE TPO, WE ORDER TO INC LUDE THIS COMPANY IN THE LIST OF COMPARABLES. WE FOUND THIS COMPARABLE WAS INCLUD ED BY THE PUNE BENCH OF THE TRIBUNAL FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2009 - 10 . WHEREAS IN THE PRESENT CASE, THE ASSESSMENT YEAR IS 21 IT(TP)A NO.3131/BANG/2018 2014 - 15 AND ALSO THE OBSERVATIONS OF THE TPO TH AT IT IS A LOSS MAKING COMPANY FOR THE YEAR EN DING MARCH, 2013 AND MARCH, 2014. CONSIDERING THE FUNCTIONALITY AND PRECEDENT LOSS ES AND THE DECISION OF THE CO - ORDINATE BENCH OF THE TRIBUNAL, WE RESTORE TH IS COMPARABLE TO THE FILE OF TPO TO EXAMINE AND VE RIFY THE FUNCTIONAL PROFILE FOR INCLUSION IN DETERMINATION OF ALP. 13. ON THE WORKING CAPITAL ADJUSTMENT, THE LEARNED AUTHORISED REPRESENTATIVE SUBMITTED THAT THE DRP HAS NOT GRANTED THE WORKING CAPITAL ADJUSTMENT AS NO DETAILS ARE FILED. WHEREAS THE LEARNED AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE SUBMITTED T HAT THE DETAILS WERE FILED BEFORE THE TPO AND REFERRED TO PAPER BOOK - 2 PAGE 887 & 889 IN PARTICULAR A T PAGE 3431 PARAS 16 & 17. FURTHER , THE TPO HAS ERRED IN IGNORING THE WORKING CAPITAL ANALYSIS OF C OMPAR ABLES AND ALSO OVERLOOKED THE ADJUSTMENTS OF RISK PROFILE OF COMPARABLE S. WE CONSIDERING THE SUBMISSIONS AND SUPPORTING MATERIAL ENVISAGED IN THE COURSE OF HEARING, DIRECT THE TPO TO GRANT THE WORKING CAPITAL AND RISK PROFILE ADJUSTMENT AFTER EXAMINING THE FACTS AND PROFILES OF COMPARABLES. 14. I NTEREST UNDER SECTION 234A & 234B OF THE ACT ARE CONSEQUENTIAL IN NATURE AND HAS TO CALCULATED IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW. T HE LEARNE D AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE MA DE SUBMISSIONS ON LEGAL ISSUE IN G ROUND OF APP EAL NO.3 REFERRING TO NOTICE OF DEMAND UNDER SECTION 156 OF THE ACT AND NOTICE OF INITIATION OF PENALTY PROCEEDINGS UNDER SECTION 274 R.W.S 271(1) (C) OF THE ACT . 22 IT(TP)A NO.3131/BANG/2018 SINCE WE HAVE DECIDED THE ASSESSEE APPEAL ON MERITS, WE HAVE LEFT OPEN THE LEGAL ISSUE OF THE ASSESSEE AND PARTLY ALLOWED GROUNDS OF APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSE . 15. IN THE RESULT, THE ASSESSEE APPEAL IS PARTLY ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 5 T H FEB ., 2020 . S D / - S D / - ( B.R. B ASKARAN ) (PAVAN KUMAR GADALE) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER DATED: 0 5 . 0 2 .2020. *REDDY GP COPY TO 1. THE APPELLANT 2. THE RESPONDENT 3. CIT (A) 4. PR. CIT 5. DR, ITAT, BANGALORE. 6. GUARD FILE BY ORDER ASSISTANT REGISTRAR INCOME - TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL BANGALORE