Appeal Details
Counselvise Citation
[2022] 105 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 8662 (ITAT-PUNE)
Assessee PAN
Bench
Appeal Number
Duration Of Justice
5 year(s) 7 day(s)
Appellant
Respondent
Appeal Type
Income Tax Appeal
Pronouncement Date
17-02-2022
Appeal Filed By
Assessee
Order Result
PartlyAllowed
Bench Allotted
C
Assessment Year
2012-2013
Appeal Filed On
09-02-2017
Judgement Text
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PUNE BENCH “C”, PUNE BEFORE SHRI R.S. SYAL, VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI PARTHA SARATHI CHAUDHURY, JUDICIAL MEMBER आयकर अपील सं. / ITA No.302/PUN/2017 नधा रण वष / Assessment Year : 2012-13 DCIT, Circle-8, Pune (Appellant) Vs. Atlas Copco (India) Limited, Mumbai-Pune Road, Dapodi, Pune – 411 012 PAN : AAACA4074D (Respondent) आयकर अपील सं. / ITA No.345/PUN/2017 नधा रण वष / Assessment Year : 2012-13 Atlas Copco (India) Limited, Mumbai-Pune Road, Dapodi, Pune – 411 012 PAN : AAACA4074D (Appellant) Vs. DCIT, Circle-8, Pune (Respondent) आदेश / ORDER PER R.S.SYAL, VP : These two cross appeals – one by the Revenue and the other by the assessee - arise out of the order passed by the CIT(A)-13, Pune on 16-11-2016 in relation to the assessment year 2012-13. Assessee by Shri R. Muralidhar Revenue by Shri Shivraj B. More Date of hearing 17-02-2022 Date of pronouncement 18-02-2022 Atlas Copco (India) Limited Asst. Year 2012-13 2 2. The Revenue has filed revised grounds, which have not been objected to by the assessee. The only issue raised in the revised grounds is against the deletion of transfer pricing adjustment amounting to Rs.8.52 crore made by the Assessing Officer (AO) in the international transaction of “Receipt of Commission”. 3. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that the assessee is engaged in manufacturing of compressors and mining & production tools. The return of income was filed accompanied by Form No. 3CEB containing details of the international transactions. The Assessing Officer (AO) made a reference to the Transfer Pricing Officer (TPO) for determining the arm’s length price (ALP) of the international transactions. The controversy concerning the Departmental appeal is qua the ‘Receipt of Commission’ amounting to Rs.44,29,79,820/-. The assessee applied the Transactional Net Margin (TNMM) method for demonstrating the international transaction at ALP. The TPO noticed that the amount of commission charged by the assessee varied between 3-20% of the sale value of the products of the Associated Enterprises sold through the assessee. Taking cognizance of the fact that the assessee was also engaged in sale of its own manufactured goods, the TPO proceeded to determine the Atlas Copco (India) Limited Asst. Year 2012-13 3 ALP of the Commission income w.r.t. the compensation for marketing effort in the sale of the assessee’s own manufactured goods. Rejecting the TNMM, he resorted to ‘other method’ as per Rule 10AB of the Income-tax Rules, 1962. In the hue of this method, he considered the figure of the assessee’s total cost under the Manufacturing function at Rs.1841.00 crore with corresponding revenue of Rs.2075.81 crore. He considered the individual items of Marketing and Manufacturing expenses and found out their percentage to Total costs at 4.77% and 18.45% respectively. The overall profit from the Manufacturing activity at Rs.257.41 crore was thus allocated in the above ratio for deducing the figure of profit from Marketing effort at Rs.52.90 crore and the consequential percentage of Marketing profit to sales at 2.55%. Applying such percentage to the value of goods of the AEs sold at Rs.532.78 crore, the TPO computed net marketing profit that should have been earned from the sale of the AEs’ products at Rs.13.58 crore. Such amount was increased by the expenses actually incurred by the assesssee on making the sale of the AEs’ products at Rs.39.24 crore. In this manner, he determined the Arm’s Length commission revenue at Rs.52.82 crore. Since the assessee received commission of Rs.44.30 crore, the TPO Atlas Copco (India) Limited Asst. Year 2012-13 4 proposed transfer pricing adjustment of Rs.8.52 crore. The AO made such an addition in the assessment order. The ld. CIT(A) deleted the addition by relying on earlier years’ orders without discussing any merits. Aggrieved thereby, the Revenue has come up in appeal before the Tribunal. 4. We have heard the rival submissions and gone through the relevant material on record. The international transaction under consideration is ‘Receipt of commission’ by the assessee from sale of products of its AEs in India. The TPO adopted ‘other method’ under Rule 10AB for determining the ALP of this international transaction. This method, in turn, provides that: `For the purposes of clause (f) of sub-section (1) of section 92C, the other method for determination of the arms’ length price in relation to an international transaction or a specified domestic transaction shall be any method which takes into account the price which has been charged or paid, or would have been charged or paid, for the same or similar uncontrolled transaction, with or between non- associated enterprises, under similar circumstances, considering all the relevant facts.’ The invocation of `other method’ as the most appropriate method by the TPO for determining the ALP of the international transaction as against the TNMM applied by the Atlas Copco (India) Limited Asst. Year 2012-13 5 assessee, has not been disputed on behalf of the assessee. Even otherwise also, this method talks of any method which takes into account the price which has been charged or paid, or would have been charged or paid. 5. The TPO worked out the amount of transfer pricing adjustment at Rs.8.52 crore with the help of the following table given at pages 12 and 13 of his order: Total costs as above 1,841.00 Marketing expenses related to sale of product 87.84 Marketing Expenses as % of Total Costs 4.77% Manufacturing expenses 339.59 Manufacturing expenses as % of total cost 18.45% Overall profit of the company 257.41 Profit attributable to marketing and manufacturing function is in the ratio of 20.55 to 79.45 Portion of profit attributable to marketing function (20.55% of 257.41) 52.90 % Marketing profit to sales (Rs.52.90 crores/2075.81 crores) 2.55% Sales value of product sold by AE in India 532.78 Marketing profit to be earned from sale of AE’s product (2.55% of 532.78 crores) 13.58 Add : Expenditure incurred by the company on sale of AE’s products 39.24 Amount of commission to be received 52.82 Amount of commission actually received 44.30 Amount of commission less received 8.52 6. The basic figures of this Table were picked up by the TPO from those supplied by the assessee, at his instance, for finding out the amount of profit attributable to marketing effort in the overall manufacturing segment of the assessee, whose relevant part has Atlas Copco (India) Limited Asst. Year 2012-13 6 been given at pages 566 and 567 of the paper book, reading as under: Refer- ence Particulars Working of profit Attribution (Company’s approach) Working of profit Attribution of (Your goodself’s approach) A Sales 2075.81 2075.81 B Total cost incurred by ACIL 1,841 1,841 B1 Material Consumption 1370.81 1370.81 B2 Manufacturing Expenses 339.59 339.59 B3 Administrative, Selling & Distribution Expenses 87.84 87.84 B4 Depreciation 42.77 42.77 C Profit Before Interest and Tax (PBIT) 257.41 257.41 D Total Costs contributing to profits (B) 1,841 427.42 E Marketing Expenses relating to sale of products (B.3) 87.84 87.84 F Marketing Expenses as % of Total Costs contributing to profits (E)/ (D) 4.77% 20.55% G Profit as above (C) 257.41 257.41 H Portion of Profit attributable to the Marketing function (G)*(F) 12.28 52.90 I % of Marketing Profit to Sales (H)/(A) 0.59% 2.55% J Sale Value of products sold by the AEs in India 532.78 532.78 K Marketing Profits to be earned from sale of AEs’ products (J)*(I) 3.14 13.58 L Add: Expenditure incurred by the Company on sale of AEs’ products 39.24 39.24 M Amount of commission should have received (K)+(L) 42.38 52.82 N Amount of commission actually received 44.30 44.30 O Adjustment proposed - (M)-(N) 8.52* Atlas Copco (India) Limited Asst. Year 2012-13 7 7. On a comparative analysis of the manner in which the TPO determined the amount of profit attributable to the marketing effort in the overall manufacturing segment of the assessee vis-à-vis that computed by the assessee, it is overt that there are four types of costs incurred by the assessee, as given under Points B1, B2, B3 and B4, namely, Material Consumption at Rs.1370.81 crore; Manufacturing expenses at Rs.339.59 crore; Administrative Selling and Distribution expenses of Rs.87.84 corre; and Depreciation at Rs.42.77 crore. Total of these four items is Rs.1841 crore, which is the opening figure in the table drawn by the TPO for determining the ALP. Out of such four costs aggregating to Rs.1841 crore, the TPO considered only Marketing expenses at Rs.87.84 crore and Manufacturing expenses at Rs.339.59 crore in his computation of profit and thus ignored the other two expenses, namely, Material Consumption cost of Rs.1370.81 crore and Depreciation of Rs.42.77 crore. In this manner, the TPO computed operating profit relatable to Manufacturing and Marketing costs in the ratio of 4.77% : 18.45% as extrapolated to 20.55 : 79.45. That is how, he ascribed the share of profit from the Marketing expenses in the overall kitty of Atlas Copco (India) Limited Asst. Year 2012-13 8 profit from the Manufacturing segment of the assessee at Rs.52.90 crore in quantitative terms and 2.55 in percentage terms. It is here that he went off the track. While attributing profit to Marketing function from the assessee’s own manufacturing activity, the TPO considered only two expenses, namely, Manufacturing and Marketing and proceeded with the presumption that only these two constituents of the total costs contributed to the earning of profits; and the Material Cost and Depreciation did not play any role in earning the profit from the manufacturing activity. In our considered opinion, this approach adopted by the TPO is flawed. One cannot conceive carrying out manufacturing activity without incurring material cost or not employing any assets resulting into depreciation cost. It is the aggregate of all the costs incurred which produce the overall profit from manufacturing activity. Material costs and also depreciation in the value of assets help in generating profit from manufacturing activity in the same way as do the Manufacturing and Marketing costs. In our considered opinion, the TPO ought to have considered Material cost and Depreciation contributing to the generation of income from manufacturing activity in the same way as he considered the Manufacturing and Marketing costs. If all the four costs are considered as generating Atlas Copco (India) Limited Asst. Year 2012-13 9 the overall profit from the Manufacturing segment of the assessee, then the percentage of Marketing profit to sales comes to 0.59% as against 2.55% computed by the TPO, as has been depicted on the same page no. 567 of the paper book. When such percentage of Marketing profit to sales is applied to the sale value of the products of the AEs sold in India through the assessee’s endeavour, then the amount of profit pertaining to Marketing effort comes to Rs.3.14 crore. If the expenses incurred by the assessee on sale of the AEs products at Rs.39.24 crore are added, the resultant gross amount which should have been received by the assessee as commission comes to Rs.42.38 crore. As against that, the assessee actually received Commission income of Rs. 44.30 crore, which is explicitly at ALP. We, therefore, approve the conclusion of the ld. CIT(A) in deleting the addition. 8. However, it is seen that the ld. CIT(A) has not discussed the merits of the addition and simply relied on earlier years for deleting the addition. At this juncture, it is pertinent to mention that the facts and circumstances of this year have some differences vis-a-vis those of the earlier years. Firstly, the TPO applied `other method’ as the most appropriate method for determining the ALP of the international transaction, which method came into vogue, as Atlas Copco (India) Limited Asst. Year 2012-13 10 per Rule 10AB, only from the A.Y. 2012-13 under consideration and the assessee has not objected to the application of this method. This method obviously could not have been nor has actually been applied by the assessee or the TPO in any of the earlier years. There can be no denial that different amounts of the ALP emerge under different methods. Secondly, for the earlier years, the amount of Sale considered by the Revenue for determining the ALP consisted of sale of manufactured goods; sale of traded goods and commission. Au contraire, the amount of sale at Rs.2075.81 crore considered in the entire exercise for the year under consideration is only of manufactured goods and has no components of traded goods or commission. In that view of the matter, the findings given by the Tribunal for such earlier years do not per se apply to the year under consideration. However, in view of our discussion made above pointing out infirmities in the TPO’s ALP determination, we hold that the transfer pricing addition under `other method’ as per rule 10AB was not justified, which has been rightly deleted in the first appeal. 9. Now we espouse the appeal of the assessee in which the following three additional grounds have been taken: “Claim for Education Cess Atlas Copco (India) Limited Asst. Year 2012-13 11 1. The Appellant prays that the liability for education cess on income tax paid for the year ought to be allowed as tax deductible expenses while computing the taxable income. Consequential claim of Depreciation on the Expenditure of Premises 2. Consequent to the decision of Hon'ble ITAT for the AY 2004-05 to 2007-08, in relation to disallowance of expenditure on premises to the extent of 40% of such expenses, being held to be capital in nature for the respective years under consideration, the Appellant prays for allowance of the consequential depreciation on the same, in the subsequent years, including AY 2012-13. Consequential claim of Depreciation on the Expenditure of Software 3. Consequent to the decision of Hon'ble ITAT in the AY 2007-08, in relation to disallowance of expenditure of software amounting to Rs.15,60,198 incurred during the year were held to be capital in nature, the Appellant prays for allowance of the consequential depreciation on the same, in the subsequent years, including AY 2012-13.” 10. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in National Thermal Power Company Ltd. Vs. CIT (1998) 229 ITR 383 (SC) has observed that “the purpose of the assessment proceedings before the taxing authorities is to assess correctly the tax liability of an assessee in accordance with law. If, for example, as a result of a judicial decision given while the appeal is pending before the Tribunal, it is found that a non-taxable item is taxed or a permissible deduction is denied, we do not see any reason why the assessee should be prevented from raising that question before the Tribunal for the Atlas Copco (India) Limited Asst. Year 2012-13 12 first time, so long as the relevant facts are on record in respect of that item”. Answering the question posed before it in affirmative, their Lordships held that on the facts found by the authorities below, if a question of law arises (though not raised before the authorities) which has bearing on the tax liability of the assessee, the Tribunal has jurisdiction to examine the same. Having gone through the subject matter of the additional grounds espoused by the assessee, it is apparent that the same raises a pure question of law. We, therefore, admit the additional grounds taken by the assessee. 11. The first additional ground is for allowing deduction towards Education Cess. Relying on the judgment rendered by the Hon’ble jurisdictional High Court in Sesa Goa Lt. Vs. JCIT (2020) 423 ITR 426 (Bom.), the ld. AR submitted that the claim for Education Cess cannot be disallowed in terms of section 40(a)(ii) of the Act. It was further submitted that the Tribunal in earlier years has also allowed the assessee’s similar additional ground. 12. Having heard both the sides and gone through the relevant material on record, it is seen as an admitted position that the Tribunal in the assessee’s own case for earlier years has allowed such additional ground by relying on the judgment of Hon’ble Atlas Copco (India) Limited Asst. Year 2012-13 13 jurisdictional High Court in Sesa Goa Ltd. Vs. JCIT as well as the judgment of Hon’ble Rajasthan High Court in Chambal Fertilisers and Chemicals Ltd. and Another Vs. JCIT (2018) 102 CCH 0202 (Raj-HC). However, it is pertinent to note that the Finance Bill, 2022 has proposed an amendment to section 40(a)(ii) by insertion of Explanation 3 w.e.f. 01-04-2005, reading as under : “Explanation 3 – For the removal of doubts, it is hereby clarified that for the purposes of this sub-clause, the term ‘tax’’ shall include and shall be deemed to have always included any surcharge or cess, by whatever name called, on such tax.” 13. In view of the above proposed amendment, it is manifest that the legislature has proposed to neutralize the effect of the above referred judgments granting deducting towards Education Cess. As the proposal mooted through the Finance Bill, 2022 is likely to be passed shortly, the deduction which was otherwise eligible and granted in earlier years, would become non-eligible retrospectively with effect from the assessment year 2005-06. Technically, the amendment proposed in the Finance Bill, 2022 is yet to take the shape of an enactment, but practically it will become operative very shortly on the Hon’ble President of India granting assent to the Finance Bill. Allowing such deduction now and then shortly thereafter recalling the order in the light of the Finance Act, 2022 Atlas Copco (India) Limited Asst. Year 2012-13 14 will be an exercise in futility. We are thus not inclined to grant such deduction. The ld. AR fairly accepted the position. However, a liberty is given to the assessee to move rectification application in case the proposed amendment in the Finance Bill is either not enacted or enacted prospectively so as to align our decision with the resultant modification. This additional ground is, therefore, not allowed in the above terms. 14. The second additional ground is against the consequential claim of depreciation on the expenditure of premises. The ld. AR submitted that consequent to the decision of the Tribunal for the assessment year 2004-05 in relation to disallowance of expenditure on premises to the extent of 40% of such expenses being held as capital in nature, the assessee deserves to get the consequential depreciation on the same. 15. The facts of this issue are that the assessee purchased a second hand bungalow for its Managing Director during the previous year relevant to the assessment year 2004-05. Substantial repair work was carried out, whose cost was claimed as revenue expenditure. The AO directed that 80% of such expenditure should be capitalized. He, therefore, treated 20% of such expenditure as revenue and capitalized the remaining 80% on which depreciation Atlas Copco (India) Limited Asst. Year 2012-13 15 was also granted. The assessee challenged the action of the AO before the ld. CIT(A), who reduced the capitalized component to 40%, which got echoed by the Tribunal in the appeal. The net effect of the above discussion is that the AO capitalized 80% of the expenditure and granted depreciation thereon, which was reduced by the ld. CIT(A) to 40%. The ld. AR contended that the AO, after capitalizing 80% of the amount of repairs for the assessment year 2004-05 and granting depreciation thereon, did not increase the corresponding value of block of assets for the next year onwards. Ordinarily, if a particular amount is capitalized by the AO and depreciation is granted in that year, the value of block of assets is accordingly increased for subsequent years as well and depreciation at the enhanced value is granted. If the action of the AO of capitalization is partly modified and the extent of capitalization is reduced, then amount of depreciation granted on the higher value of block of assets by considering the original amount disallowed by the AO, requires corresponding reduction in the claim of depreciation. If such is the position, then the amount of depreciation for the subsequent years should be rather reduced. 16. Adverting to the facts, when the ld. CIT(A) reduced capitalization of building block from 80% to 40% which got Atlas Copco (India) Limited Asst. Year 2012-13 16 echoed by the Tribunal, then the depreciation in the subsequent years should be allowed only on the reduced value of block of assets at 40% rather than 80% made by the AO. However, the ld. AR stated that the AO did not give effect to his action of capitalizing 80% of repairs to the block of building in subsequent years. Under such circumstances, we deem it proper to remit the matter to the file of the AO for carrying out necessary verification in this regard and then decide the issue accordingly. To clarify, if the AO, after capitalizing 80% of repairs cost for the assessment year 2004-05, continued with the enhanced value of block in the subsequent years as well, then the amount of depreciation on the excess 40%, [as the capitalization reduced by the CIT(A)], should be disallowed. If, on the other hand, the AO had not increased the value of block of assets in succeeding years by 80% of capitalization done by him for the assessment year 2004-05, then further depreciation should be allowed on 40% of the capitalization as upheld by the Tribunal in its order for the assessment year 2004- 05. Needless to say, the assessee will be allowed reasonable opportunity of hearing to the assessee. 17. The last additional ground is on the consequential claim of depreciation on the expenditure of software. The ld. AR submitted Atlas Copco (India) Limited Asst. Year 2012-13 17 that the Tribunal sustained the disallowance of expenditure on software amounting to Rs.15,60,198/- for the assessment year 2007-08 by holding it to be capital in nature. It was prayed that consequential depreciation on the same should be given in the subsequent year including the assessment year under consideration. 18. Here again, we find that the additional ground of the assessee cannot survive if the AO, after capitalizing the software expenditure amounting to Rs.15,60,198/- for the assessment year 2007-08, continued with the enhanced value of block of assets for the purpose of depreciation in succeeding years. It is only if the enhancement in the value of block of such assets made for the assessment year 2007-08 was not carried out in the later assessment years that the additional ground of the assessee would get accepted. The AO is directed to carry out necessary verification of this issue in the same way as directed for the second additional ground and then pass the order. 19. The first ground in the memorandum of appeal is against the confirmation of transfer pricing adjustment of Rs.71.00 lakh on account of difference in price of the products sold to AEs as well as non-AEs by applying the CUP method. Atlas Copco (India) Limited Asst. Year 2012-13 18 20. The facts of this ground are that the assessee declared an international transaction of ‘Export of Manufactured goods’ amounting to Rs.266,75,78,996/-. The AO accepted the ALP of the international transaction to the extent of exports amounting to Rs.263.91 crore. For the remaining amount, the TPO observed that the price charged by the assessee from its AEs was inadequate vis- à-vis that charged for similar goods from non-AEs. Applying the CUP method to that extent, he proposed transfer pricing adjustment of Rs.71.00 lakh, which was made by the AO and thereafter confirmed in the first appeal. 21. Having heard both the sides and gone through the relevant material on record, it is seen that similar point came up for consideration before the Tribunal in earlier years and for the first time in relation to the assessment year 2005-06. The Tribunal discussed this issue in para Nos. 5 to 10 of its order, a copy placed at page 159 onwards of the paper book, and in the final analysis sent the matter to the AO/TPO for fresh determination in accordance with certain direction contained therein. This view has been followed in succeeding years as well. Both the sides are consensus ad idem that the facts and circumstances of the ground under consideration are mutatis mutandis similar to those of earlier Atlas Copco (India) Limited Asst. Year 2012-13 19 years. Respectfully following the view taken for the earlier years, we set-aside the impugned order to this extent and remit the matter to the file of AO/TPO for re-deciding this issue in line with the directions contained in the Tribunal order for the assessment year 2005-06. 22. Ground No.2 about the confirmation of Miscellaneous expenses amounting to Rs.8,395/- was not pressed by the ld.AR. The same is, therefore, dismissed. 23. The last effective ground is against the confirmation of disallowance of Rs.15,04,169/- made by the AO u/s.14A of the Act. The facts of this ground are that the assessee earned dividend income amounting to Rs.15,04,169/-. On being called upon to explain as to why disallowance u/s.14A should not be made, the assessee submitted that dividend was earned from investment of the liquid mutual funds which was made out of surplus fund available with the assessee company. Not convinced, the AO computed the disallowance u/s.14A of the Act at Rs.16,71,647/- comprising of two elements under rule 8D(2), namely, interest of Rs.8,61,647/- and 0.50% of investments towards expenses at Rs.8.00 lakh. The ld. CIT(A) sustained the disallowance. Atlas Copco (India) Limited Asst. Year 2012-13 20 24. Having heard both the sides and gone through the relevant material on record, it is seen that the first component of disallowance is of interest expenditure treated as relatable to investments which yielded exempt income. Our attention has been drawn towards the fact that as against such investments amounting to Rs.32.00 crore, the assessee had share capital of Rs.22.56 crore and Reserves and Surplus at Rs.802.78 crore. Thus, it can be seen that the shareholders fund of the company is far in excess of the investment yielding exempt income. 25. The Hon'ble Bombay High Court in CIT vs. Reliance Utilities and Power Ltd. (2009) 313 ITR 340 (Bom), has held that where an assessee possessed sufficient interest free funds of its own which were generated in the course of relevant financial year, apart from substantial shareholders’ funds, presumption gets established that the investments in sister concerns were made by the assessee out of interest free funds and, therefore, no part of interest on borrowings can be disallowed on the basis that the investments were made out of interest bearing funds. In reaching this conclusion, the Hon’ble High Court relied on the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of East India Pharmaceutical Works Ltd. Vs. CIT (1997) 224 ITR 627 (SC). Similar view has been taken by the Atlas Copco (India) Limited Asst. Year 2012-13 21 Hon'ble Dehi High Court in CIT vs. Tin Box Company (2003) 260 ITR 637 (Del), holding that when the capital and interest free unsecured loan with the assessee far exceeded the interest free loan advanced to the sister concern, disallowance of part of interest out of total interest paid by the assessee to the bank was not justified. More recently, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in CIT(LTU) VS. Reliance Industries Ltd. (2019) 410 ITR 466 (SC) has reiterated the same view. When we examine the amount of Investments at Rs.32.00 crore as against the availability of Share Capital and Reserves at Rs.802.78 crore, it becomes evident that the amount of such Investments is much less than the amount of Shareholders’ fund. We, therefore, order to delete the first component of disallowance on account of interest amounting to Rs.8,61,647/-. 26. The second component of disallowance is Rs.8.00 lakh towards administrative expenses, which was computed by applying 0.50% of the average value of the investments in terms of Rule 8D(2)(iii). Such disallowance made and sustained in the first appeal is strictly in conformity with the said rule and, therefore, does not require any interference. We, therefore, sustain the addition at Rs.8.00 lakh as against Rs.16.71 lakh made by the AO and approved in the first appeal. Atlas Copco (India) Limited Asst. Year 2012-13 22 27. In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed and that of the assessee is partly allowed. Order pronounced in the Open Court on 18 th February, 2022. Sd/- Sd/- (PARTHA SARATHI CHAUDHURY) (R.S.SYAL) JUDICIAL MEMBER VICE PRESIDENT प ु णे Pune; दनांक Dated : 18 th February, 2022 सतीश आदेश क त ल प अ े षत/Copy of the Order is forwarded to : 1. अपीलाथ / The Appellant; 2. यथ / The Respondent; 3. The CIT(A)-13 Pune 4. 5. 6. The Pr.CIT-V, Pune िवभागीय ितिनिध, आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, पुणे “सी” / DR ‘C’, ITAT, Pune; गाड फाईल / Guard file. आदेशान ु सार/ BY ORDER, // True Copy // Senior Private Secretary आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण ,पुणे / ITAT, Pune Atlas Copco (India) Limited Asst. Year 2012-13 23 Date 1. Draft dictated on 17-02-2022 Sr.PS 2. Draft placed before author 18-02-2022 Sr.PS 3. Draft proposed & placed before the second member JM 4. Draft discussed/approved by Second Member. JM 5. Approved Draft comes to the Sr.PS/PS Sr.PS 6. Kept for pronouncement on Sr.PS 7. Date of uploading order Sr.PS 8. File sent to the Bench Clerk Sr.PS 9. Date on which file goes to the Head Clerk 10. Date on which file goes to the A.R. 11. Date of dispatch of Order. *
Mehul