Citrix Systens India Private Limited, Bangalore V. DCIT, Bangalore

ITA 318/BANG/2016

• Counselvise Citation: [2018] 118 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 8223 (ITAT-BANGALORE)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 year(s) 9 month(s) 29 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 31-12-2018
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Assessment Year: 2011-2012
• Appeal Filed On: 02-03-2016
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: C H SUNDAR RAO C IT DR I
• Assessee Lawyers: UMASHANKAR GAUTAM
• Keywords: Transfer pricing
• Section: 143(3)

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL A BENCH : BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI ARUN KUMAR GARODIA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER A ND SHRI LALIET KUMAR, JUDICIAL MEMBER IT (TP) A NO . 318 /BANG/201 6 ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2011 - 12 M/S. CITRIX SYSTEMS INDIA PVT. LTD., PRESTIGE DYNASTY, GROUND FLOOR, 33/2, ULSOOR ROAD, BANGALORE 560 042. PAN: AAACP9889R VS. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE 2 (1) (1), BANGALORE. APPELLANT RESPONDENT APPELLANT BY : SHRI UMA SHANKAR GAUTAM, ADVOCATE RESPONDENT BY : SHRI C.H. SUNDAR RAO, CIT (DR - I) DATE OF HEARING : 06 . 1 2 .2018 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 31. 1 2 .2018 O R D E R PER SHRI A.K. GARODIA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER THIS APPEAL IS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AND THE SAME I S DIRECTED AGAINST THE ASSESSMENT ORDER DATED 31.12.2015 PASSED BY THE AO U/S. 143(3) R.W.S. 144C (1) OF IT ACT AS PER THE DIRECTIONS OF DRP FOR ASSE SSMENT YEAR 2011-12. 2. THE REVISED GROUNDS RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE ARE A S UNDER. THE GROUNDS MENTIONED HEREIN BY THE APPELLANT ARE W ITHOUT PREJUDICE TO ONE ANOTHER. 1. THAT THE LEARNED AO AND THE LEARNED PANEL ERRED IN UPHOLDING THE REJECTION OF TRANSFER PRICING ('TP') DOCUMENTATION BY THE LEARNED DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, TRANSFER PRICING - RANGE 1(1)(2) (LEARNED TPO') AND IN UPHOLDING THE ADJUSTMENT TO T HE TRANSFER PRICE OF THE APPELLANT IN RESPECT OF MARKETING SUPPORT SE RVICES. [CORRESPONDING TO GROUND NO. 2] 2. THAT ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, THE LEARNED AO/LEARNED PANEL ERRED IN UPHOLDING THE REJECTION O F COMPARABILITY ANALYSIS OF THE APPELLANT IN THE TP AND ACCEPTING T HE FRESH COMPARABILITY ANALYSIS PERFORMED BY THE LEARNED TPO DOCUMENTATION OF COMPARABLE COMPANIES VIZ. ASIAN BUSINESS EXHIBIT ION &CONFRENCES IT(TP)A NO. 318/BANG/2016 PAGE 2 OF 7 LTD. [CORRESPONDING TO GROUND NO. 3(A)] 3. THAT ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, THE LEARNED AO/LEARNED PANEL ERRED IN DISREGARDING APPLICATION OF MULTIPLE YEAR/PRIOR YEAR DATA AS USED BY THE APPELLANT IN TH E TP DOCUMENTATION AND HOLDING THAT CURRENT YEAR (I.E. FINANCIAL YEAR 2010-11) DATA FOR COMPANIES SHOULD BE USED FOR COMPARABILITY. [CORRES PONDING TO GROUND NO. 3(B)] 4. THAT ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, THE LEARNED AO/LEARNED PANEL ERRED IN UPHOLDING THE LEARNED TPO 'S APPROACH OF USING DATA AS AT THE TIME OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS , INSTEAD OF THAT AVAILABLE AS ON THE DATE OF PREPARING THE TP DOCUME NTATION FOR COMPARABLE COMPANIES WHILE DETERMINING THE ARM'S LE NGTH PRICE. [CORRESPONDING TO GROUND NO. 3(C)] 5. THAT ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, THE LEARNED AO/LEARNED PANEL ERRED IN ARBITRARILY ARRIVING AT A SET OF COMPANIES AS COMPARABLE FOR THE SERVICES RENDERED BY THE APPE LLANT, ON EXCLUDING/NOT CONSIDERING E D C I L (INDIA) LTD. (S EGMENTAL) THAT IS OTHERWISE FUNCTIONALLY COMPARABLE TO THE APPELLANT. [CORRESPONDING TO GROUND NO. 3(D)] 6. THAT ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, THE LEARNED AO/LEARNED PANEL ERRED IN ARBITRARILY ARRIVING AT A SET OF COMPANIES AS COMPARABLE FOR THE SERVICES RENDERED BY THE APPE LLANT, ON EXCLUDING/NOT CONSIDERING INDIA TOURISM DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LTD (SEGMENTAL) THAT IS OTHERWISE FUNCTIONALLY COMP ARABLE TO THE APPELLANT. [CORRESPONDING TO GROUND NO. 3(D)] 7. THAT ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, THE LEARNED AO/LEARNED PANEL ERRED IN ARBITRARILY ARRIVING AT A SET OF COMPANIES AS COMPARABLE FOR THE SERVICES RENDERED BY THE APPE LLANT, ON EXCLUDING/NOT CONSIDERING I C R A MANAGEMENT CONSUL TING SERVICES LTD. THAT IS OTHERWISE FUNCTIONALLY COMPARABLE TO T HE APPELLANT. [CORRESPONDING TO GROUND NO. 3(D)] 8. THAT ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, THE LEARNED AO/LEARNED PANEL ERRED IN ARBITRARILY-ARRIVING AT A SET OF COMPANIES AS COMPARABLE FOR THE SERVICES RENDERED BY THE APPE LLANT, ON EXCLUDING/NOT CONSIDERING INDUS TECHNICAL AND FINAN CIAL CONSULTANT THAT IS OTHERWISE FUNCTIONALLY COMPARABLE TO THE AP PELLANT. [CORRESPONDING TO GROUND NO. 3(D)] 9. THAT ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, THE LEARNED AO/LEARNED PANEL ERRED IN ARBITRARILY ARRIVING AT A SET OF COMPANIES AS COMPARABLE FOR THE SERVICES RENDERED BY THE APPE LLANT, ON EXCLUDING/NOT CONSIDERING INHOUSE PRODUCTIONS LTD ( SEGMENTAL) THAT IS OTHERWISE FUNCTIONALLY COMPARABLE TO THE APPELLA NT. [CORRESPONDING TO GROUND NO. 3(D)] IT(TP)A NO. 318/BANG/2016 PAGE 3 OF 7 10. THAT ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE , THE LEARNED AO/LEARNED PANEL ERRED IN UPHOLDING THE TPO'S APPRO ACH OF NOT PROVIDING RISK ADJUSTMENT AND THUS IGNORED THE LIMI TED RISK NATURE OF THE SERVICES PROVIDED BY THE APPELLANT AND IN NOT P ROVIDING AN APPROPRIATE ADJUSTMENT TOWARDS THE RISK DIFFERENTIA L, EVEN WHEN FULL- FLEDGED ENTREPRENEURIAL COMPANIES ARE SELECTED AS C OMPARABLES. [CORRESPONDING TO GROUND NO. 3(E)] 11. THE LEARNED AO)/ TPO/ LEARNED PANEL ERRED IN LA W AND ON FACTS IN CONSIDERING ICC INTERNATIONAL AGENCIES LTD (SEGMENT AL) AS COMPARABLE COMPANY EVEN THOUGH IT DOES NOT PASS THE TEST OF FUNCTIONAL COMPARABILITY VIS--VIS THE FUNCTIONS PE RFORMED BY THE APPELLANT. [CORRESPONDING TO THE ADDITIONAL GROUNDS (GROUND NO. 4)] 3. THE ASSESSEE HAS ALSO RAISED AN ADDITIONAL GROUN D WHICH READS AS UNDER. 4. THE LEARNED ASSESSING OFFICER (AO)/ TRANSFER PRI CING OFFICER (TPO)/ DISPUTE RESOLUTION PANEL (DRP) ERRED IN LA W AND ON FACTS IN CONSIDERING ICC INTERNATIONAL AGENCIES LTD (SEGM ENTAL) AS COMPARABLE COMPANY EVEN THOUGH IT DOES NOT PASS THE TEST OF FUNCTIONAL COMPARABILITY VIS--VIS THE FUNCTIONS PE RFORMED BY THE APPELLANT. 4. REGARDING THE ADMISSION OF ADDITIONAL GROUND, IT HAS BEEN SUBMITTED BY ASSESSEE IN PARAS 8 AND 9 OF THE PETITION FOR ADMIS SION OF ADDITIONAL GROUND THAT THIS ISSUE WAS NOT RAISED BY ASSESSEE BEFORE T HE TPO OR DRP BECAUSE OF INADVERTENT OMISSION. AS PER PARA 10 OF THIS PE TITION, IT IS SUBMITTED THAT BECAUSE OF FRESHLY AVAILABLE CASE LAWS, CHANGE OF C IRCUMSTANCE AS WELL AS LAW NECESSITATING FILING OF ADDITIONAL GROUND, IT S HOULD BE ADMITTED. HE SUBMITTED THAT ADDITIONAL GROUND MAY BE ADMITTED AN D THE MATTER MAY BE RESTORED BACK TO THE FILE OF TPO FOR DECISION ON TH IS ASPECT. THE LD. DR OF REVENUE OBJECTED TO THE ADMISSION OF ADDITIONAL GRO UND. BUT WE FIND THAT IN PARA 4 OF THIS PETITION, THE ASSESSEE HAS POINTED O UT VARIOUS CASE LAWS FOR THE SAME ASSESSMENT YEAR IN WHICH IT WAS HELD BY TH E TRIBUNAL THAT A COMPANY WITH UNALLOCABLE EXPENSES AND IN THE ABSE NCE OF AVAILABILITY OF NATURE OF EXPENSES AND PROPER ALLOCATION KEYS, IT C ANNOT BE CONSIDERED AS A PROPER COMPARABLE AND THE TRIBUNAL HELD IN VARIOUS CASES THAT THIS COMPANY ICC INTERNATIONAL AGENCIES LTD. IS FUNCTIONALLY DIS SIMILAR. CONSIDERING ALL THESE FACTS, WE ADMIT THE ADDITIONAL GROUND RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE. 5. THE LD. AR OF ASSESSEE SUBMITTED A LETTER DATED 28.08.2018 IN WHICH IT IS SUBMITTED THAT GROUND NOS. 1 AND 3 TO 10 ARE NOT PR ESSED AND EFFECTIVELY THE IT(TP)A NO. 318/BANG/2016 PAGE 4 OF 7 TRIBUNAL HAS TO DECIDE GROUND NOS. 2 AND 11 AS APPE ARING IN REVISED GROUNDS OF APPEAL DATED 24.08.2017 FILED ON 30.08.2 017 AND OUT OF THESE TWO GROUNDS, GROUND NO. 11 IS ADDITIONAL GROUND ADM ITTED BY US AND IT IS SUBMITTED BY LD. AR OF ASSESSEE THAT THIS ISSUE HAS TO BE RESTORED BACK TO THE FILE OF TPO AND WE AGREE WITH THIS SUBMISSION. THEREFORE, WE HAVE TO DECIDE ONLY GROUND NO. 2 OF THE ASSESSEE. GROUND N O. 2 IS REGARDING ASSESSEES REQUEST FOR EXCLUSION OF ONE COMPARABLE I.E. ASIAN BUSINESS EXHIBITION & CONFERENCES LTD. AS PER THE CHART SUB MITTED BY THE ASSESSEE, THE ASSESSEE HAS PLACED RELIANCE ON TRIBUNAL ORDER RENDERED IN THE CASE OF DCIT VS. ELECTRONIC IMAGING INDIA PVT. LTD. IN IT(T P)A NO. 16/BANG/2016 DATED 14.07.2017 COPY SUBMITTED. IT WAS ALSO SUBMI TTED THAT PARA 13 OF THIS TRIBUNAL ORDER IS RELEVANT. THE LD. DR OF REVENUE SUPPORTED THE ORDER OF DRP. 6. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS. AS PE R THE TRIBUNAL ORDER IN THE CASE OF DCIT VS. ELECTRONIC IMAGING INDIA PVT. LTD. (SUPRA), THAT COMPANY IS ENGAGED IN TWO SEGMENTS I.E. SOFTWARE DEVELOPMENT S ERVICES AND SALES & MARKETING SUPPORT SERVICES AND THIS COMPANY IS RELE VANT IN RESPECT OF SALES & MARKETING SUPPORT SERVICES SEGMENT. IN THE PRESEN T CASE IT IS NOTED BY THE TPO IN PARA 2.1 OF ITS ORDER THAT THE PRESENT ASSES SEE IS PRIMARILY ENGAGED IN PROVIDING MARKETING SERVICES TO ITS AES. HENCE, IT IS SEEN THAT THE PROFILE OF THE PRESENT ASSESSEE AND THE ELECTRONIC IMAGING INDIA PVT. LTD. ARE SIMILAR IF NOT IDENTICAL AND HENCE, THIS TRIBUNAL O RDER IS RELEVANT IN THE PRESENT CASE. WE THEREFORE REPRODUCE PARA NO. 13 F ROM PAGE NO. 23 OF THIS TRIBUNAL ORDER RENDERED IN THE CASE OF DCIT VS. ELE CTRONIC IMAGING INDIA PVT. LTD. (SUPRA) FOR THE SAME ASSESSMENT YEAR I.E. ASSESSMENT YEAR 2011- 12. THIS PARA READS AS UNDER. 13. WE HAVE HEARD THE LEARNED AUTHORISED REPRESENTA TIVE AS WELL AS LEARNED DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE AND CONSIDERED THE RELEVANT MATERIAL ON RECORD. AT THE OUTSET WE NOTE THAT THE FUNCTIONAL COMPARABILITY OF ASIAN BUSINESS EXHIBITION & CONFER ENCES LIMITED HAS BEEN EXAMINED BY THIS TRIBUNAL IN ASSESSEE'S OW N CASE FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2010-11 VIDE ORDER DT.24.2.2016 REP ORTED IN 70 TAXMAN.COM 299 IN PARAS 53 & 54 AS UNDER : ' 53. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND CONSIDERED THE RELEVANT MATERIAL ON RECORD. AS IT IS CLEAR THAT TH E ASSESSEE IS PROVIDING SALES AND MARKETING SERVICES TO ITS AE WH ICH INCLUDES IDENTIFYING POTENTIAL CUSTOMERS BY CONDUCTING ROAD SHOWS, IT(TP)A NO. 318/BANG/2016 PAGE 5 OF 7 PRESENTATION AND THE LIKE, THE WORKING ALSO INCLUDE S EDUCATING POTENTIAL USERS OF THE BENEFIT AND FEATURES OF THE AES RANGE OF PRODUCTS. HOWEVER, PRODUCTS FOR WHICH THE ASSESSEE IS PROVIDING SALES AND MARKETING SERVICES IS ONLY SOFTWARE/INFOR MATION TECHNOLOGY PRODUCTS. THEREFORE, ASIAN BUSINESS EXHI BITION & CONFERENCE LTD. WHICH IS MAINLY ENGAGED IN THE ORGA NIZATION OF EXHIBITIONS AND EVENTS AS WELL AS CONDUCTING CONFER ENCES ON BEHALF OF THE VARIOUS CLIENTS FOR THEIR VARIOUS PRODUCTS A ND BUSINESSES. THE FUNCTIONS OF THIS COMPANY ARE ENTIRELY DIFFEREN T FROM THE ASSESSEE WHO IS PROVIDING SALES AND MARKETING SUPPO RT SERVICES TO ITS AE FOR SOFTWARE/IT PRODUCTS. THE MUMBAI BENCH O F THE TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF RGA SERVICES INDIA (P.) LTD. (SUPRA) WHILE CONSIDERING THE FUNCTIONAL COMPARABILITY OF THIS CO MPANY HAS HELD AT PARAS 11 AND 12 AS UNDER:- '11. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE SUBMISSION OF THE PARTI ES AND PERUSED THE RELEVANT MATERIAL ON RECORD. ON PERUSAL OF THE ORDER PASSED BY THE TPO IT IS NOTICED THAT THE TPO WHILE DEALING WITH ASSESSEE'S OBJECTION WITH REGARD TO SE LECTION OF ASIAN BUSINESS EXHIBITION AND CONFERENCES LIMITED A S A COMPARABLE HAS ADMITTED THAT THE NATURE OF FUNCTION PERFORMED BY THIS COMPANY IS EVENT MANAGEMENT. IT IS FURTHER RELEVANT TO OBSERVE, ON PERUSAL OF ANNUAL REPORT OF THIS COMPAN Y IT IS SEEN THAT AS PER DIRECTORS REPORT, THE MAIN OPERATION IS ORGANIZING EXHIBITION AND EVENTS. FURTHER, SCHEDULE 12 OF THE PROFIT AND LOSS ACCOUNT AS WELL AS NOTES TO THE ACCOUNTS REVEA LS, REVENUE EARNED BY THE COMPANY IS FROM SPONSORSHIP, DELEGATE S ATTENDING CONFERENCES, EVENTS AND ENTRY FEES CHARGE D FROM VISITORS FOR VISITING EXHIBITION, SALE OF STALL PLA CE ETC. 12. THUS, ON OVERALL ANALYSIS OF FACTS AND MATERIAL S PLACED ON RECORD IT IS VERY MUCH CLEAR THAT THE BUSINESS MODE L OF THE ASSESSEE AND ASIAN BUSINESS EXHIBITION AND CONFEREN CES LIMITED ARE TOTALLY DIFFERENT. WHILE ASSESSEE UNDOU BTEDLY IS PROVIDING SUPPORT SERVICES TO ITS OVERSEAS AE'S, AS IAN BUSINESS EXHIBITION AND CONFERENCES LIMITED IS PRIMARILY AND FUNDAMENTALLY ENGAGED IN EVENT MANAGEMENT. THUS, UN DER NO CIRCUMSTANCES IT CAN BE CONSIDERED AS A COMPARABLE TO THE ASSESSEE. THEREFORE, FOR THE AFORESTATED REASONS TH E DRP, IN OUR VIEW, WAS JUSTIFIED IN EXCLUDING THIS COMPANY A S A COMPARABLE. AS FAR AS THE CONTENTION OF LEARNED DR THAT REASONS ON WHICH THIS COMPANY WAS EXCLUDED EQUALLY APPLIES TO OTHER COMPARABLES RETAINED BY. THE' DRP, WE MAY OBSERVE, SUCH ARGUMENT OF LEARNED DR IS NOT AT ALL RELEVANT AS THE ISSUE RAISED BY THE DEPARTMENT IN THE PRESENT APPEAL IS C ONFINED TO EXCLUSION OF ASIAN BUSINESS EXHIBITION AND CONFEREN CES LIMITED AS A COMPARABLE. AS FAR AS OBJECTION OF LEA RNED DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE THAT ASSESSEE ITSELF HA S SELECTED THIS COMPANY AS A COMPARABLE, WE MAY OBSERVE, THAT CANNOT BE THE SOLE CRITERIA TO REJECT ASSESSEE'S OBJECTION WI TH REGARD TO SELECTION OF A COMPARABLE. AT THE TIME OF PREPARING T.P. STUDY IT(TP)A NO. 318/BANG/2016 PAGE 6 OF 7 REPORT ASSESSEE HAD SELECTED SOME COMPARABLES BY CO NSIDERING MULTIPLE YEAR DATA AND INFORMATION AVAILABLE AT THE RELEVANT TIME. HOWEVER, IF SUBSEQUENTLY ON THE BASIS OF INFO RMATION AVAILABLE IN PUBLIC DOMAIN IT IS FOUND ON THE BASIS OF FUNCTIONALITY OR SOME OTHER REASON A COMPANY IS NOT AT ALL COMPARABLE, ASSESSEE CANNOT BE PRECLUDED FROM OBJEC TING TO SELECTION OF THE COMPANY AS A COMPARABLE. THIS LEGA L PROPOSITION IS FAIRLY WELL SETTLED BY THE DECISION IN CASE OF DC/T V. QUARK SYSTEMS (P.) LTD. (2010) 132 TTJ (CHD ) (SB) 1 AS WELL AS DECISIONS RELIED UPON BY THE COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE. IN VIEW OF THE AFORESAID, WE DO NOT FIND ANY INFIRMITY IN THE DIRECTIONS OF DRP IN EXCLUDING ASIAN BUSINES S EXHIBITION AND CONFERENCES LIMITED AS A COMPARABLE. THE GROUND RAISED IS THEREFORE DISMISSED.' 54. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE FACTS AS WELL AS DECISION OF THE MUMBAI BENCH OF THE TRIBUNAL, THIS COMPANY CANNOT BE CONSI DERED AS A GOOD COMPARABLE WITH THE ASSESSEE.' THUS WHEN THERE IS NO CHANGE IN THE BUSINESS ACTIVI TY OF ASSESSEE FOR THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION AS WELL AS IN THE FUNC TIONS OF THE SAID COMPANY THEN IN VIEW OF THE EARLIER ORDER OF THIS T RIBUNAL IN ASSESSEE'S OWN CASE WE HOLD THAT THIS COMPANY CANNO T BE CONSIDERED AS A GOOD COMPARABLE OF THE ASSESSEE AND ACCORDINGL Y, THE TPO/A.O. IS DIRECTED TO EXCLUDE THE SAME FROM THE SET OF COM PARABLES. 7. WE FIND THAT IN THAT CASE, THE TRIBUNAL HAS FOLL OWED AN EARLIER TRIBUNAL ORDER IN THE CASE OF SAME ASSESSEE FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 20 10-11 AND DECIDED THE ISSUE IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE ON THIS BASIS T HAT THERE IS NO CHANGE IN THE BUSINESS ACTIVITY OF THE ASSESSEE FOR THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION AS WELL AS FUNCTION OF THE SAID COMPANY I.E. ASIAN BUS INESS EXHIBITION & CONFERENCES LTD. RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING THIS TRIBU NAL ORDER, WE HOLD THAT IN THE PRESENT CASE ALSO, THIS COMPANY IS NOT A GOOD C OMPARABLE I.E. ASIAN BUSINESS EXHIBITION & CONFERENCES LTD. WE DIRECT T HE AO/TPO TO EXCLUDE THIS COMPANY FROM THE FINAL LIST OF COMPARABLES. G ROUND NO. 2 IS ALLOWED. 8. REGARDING GROUND NO. 11 I.E. REGARDING ASSESSEE S CLAIM FOR EXCLUSION OF ICC INTERNATIONAL AGENCIES LTD. (SEGMENTAL), WE FIN D THAT REGARDING EXCLUSION OF THIS COMPANY ALSO I.E. ICC INTERNATION AL AGENCIES LTD. (SEGMENTAL) ALSO, IN THE SAME CASE I.E. IN THE CASE OF DCIT VS. ELECTRONIC IMAGING INDIA PVT. LTD. (SUPRA) IN PARA NO. 16 OF T HIS TRIBUNAL ORDER, IT WAS HELD THAT THIS COMPANY IS NOT A GOOD COMPARABLE BUT STILL WE FEEL IT PROPER TO RESTORE THIS MATTER BACK TO THE FILE OF TPO FOR FRE SH DECISION AFTER EXAMINING THE COMPLETE FACTS IN THIS REGARD BECAUSE THIS IS A NEW GROUND RAISED BEFORE IT(TP)A NO. 318/BANG/2016 PAGE 7 OF 7 US AND THIS CLAIM WAS NEVER RAISED BY ASSESSEE BEFO RE TPO OR DRP. GROUND NO. 11 IS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. 9. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS PARTLY ALLOWED IN THE TERMS INDICATED ABOVE. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON THE DATE MENT IONED ON THE CAPTION PAGE. SD/- SD/- (LALIET KUMAR) (ARUN KUMAR GARODIA) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER BANGALORE, DATED, THE 31 ST DECEMBER, 2018. /MS/ COPY TO: 1. APPELLANT 4. CIT(A) 2. RESPONDENT 5. DR, ITAT, BANGALORE 3. CIT 6. GUARD FILE BY ORDER ASSISTANT REGISTRAR, INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, BANGA LORE.