Kusum Healthcare Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi V. Addl. CIT, New Delhi

ITA 3717/DEL/2017

• Counselvise Citation: [2020] 110 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 7513 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 3 year(s) 2 month(s) 23 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 01-09-2020
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: I
• Assessment Year: 2013-2014
• Appeal Filed On: 08-06-2017
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Assessee Lawyers: AGAINST DATED PASSED
• Keywords: Business income; Transfer pricing; International transaction; Rule of consistency; Notional interest
• Section: 143(3); 144C; 13; 92CA

Judgement Text

1 ITA NO. 3717/DEL/2017 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH: I-1 NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI N. K. BILLAIYA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND MS SUCHITRA KAMBLE, JUDI CIAL MEMBER I.T.A. NO. 3717/DEL/20 17 (A.Y 2013-14) (THROUGH VIDEO CO NFERENCING) KUSUM HEALTHCARE PVT. LTD. D-158A, OKHLA INDUSTRIAL AREA, PHASE-1 NEW DELHI AABCK7043B (APPELLANT) VS ADDL. CIT SPECIAL RANGE-5 NEW DELHI (RESPONDENT) ORDER PER SUCHITRA KAMBLE, JM THIS APPEAL IS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AGAINST THE OR DER DATED 30/05/2017 PASSED BY ADDL. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, SPECIAL RANGE-5, NEW DELHI UNDER SECTION 143(3) READ WITH SECTION 144C (13) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2013-14. 2. THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL ARE AS UNDER:- 1. THAT ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF T HE CASE AND IN LAW, THE ORDER PASSED BY THE LEARNED ASSESSING OFFICER ('AO' ) / TRANSFER PRICING OFFICER ('TPO') IS BAD IN LAW AND VOID. APPELLANT BY SH. VISHAL KALRA & SH. S. S. TOMAR, ADVS & MS. REEMA MALIK, ADV RESPONDENT BY SH. M. BARNWAL, SR. DR DATE OF HEARING 06.08.2020 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT 01.09.2020 2 ITA NO. 3717/DEL/2017 2. THE LD. AO/ TRANSFER PRICING OFFICER ('LD. TPO') , ERRED BOTH ON FACTS AND IN LAW IN ENHANCING THE INCOME OF THE APPELLANT BY INR 19,221,882 ON ACCOUNT OF INTEREST CHARGEABLE ON RECEIVABLES OUTSTANDING D URING THE YEAR AND IN DOING SO HAVE GROSSLY ERRED BY: 2.1. NOT APPRECIATING THE OVERALL ARRANGEMENT/COMMERCIAL CONSIDERATIONS OF THE ASSESSEE WITH ITS ASSOCIATED ENTERPRISES ('A ES') AND RE- CHARACTERIZING THE OUTSTANDING RECEIVABLES FROM OVE RSEAS AES AS UNSECURED LOANS ADVANCED TO THE AES AND IMPUTING IN TEREST AT THE RATE EQUAL TO LIBOR PLUS 400 BASIS POINTS; 2.2. DISREGARDING THE INTERCOMPANY PRICING ARRANGEMENT AND NOT APPRECIATING THE FACT THAT UNLIKE A LOAN OR BORROWI NG, OUTSTANDING RECEIVABLE IS NOT AN INDEPENDENT TRANSACTION WHICH CAN BE VIEWED ON STANDALONE BASIS AND NEEDS TO BE EXAMINED WITH THE COMMERCIAL TRANSACTION AS A RESULT OF WHICH THE DEBIT BALANCE HAS COME INTO EXISTENCE; 2.3. IGNORING THE FACT THAT WORKING CAPITAL ADJUSTMENT TAKES INTO ACCOUNT THE IMPACT OF OUTSTANDING RECEIVABLES ON PROFITABIL ITY AND THEREFORE, NO FURTHER IMPUTATION OF INTEREST IS WARRANTED; 2.4. REJECTING THE ASSESSEE'S CONTENTION THAT NO INTERE ST IS CHARGED TO THIRD PARTIES AS WELL AND THEREFORE, NO ADJUSTMENT IS WARRANTED CONSIDERING THE COMPARABLE UNCONTROLLED PRICE METHO D AS THE 'MOST APPROPRIATE METHOD' FOR DETERMINING THE ARM'S LENGT H PRICE ('ALP') OF THE ALLEGED LOAN PROVIDED BY THE ASSESSEE TO THE AES; 2.5. DISREGARDING THE FACT THAT THE ASSESSEE IS A LOW DE BT COMPANY AND ACCORDINGLY, IT IS NOT JUSTIFIABLE TO PRESUME THAT BORROWED FUNDS HAVE BEEN UTILIZED TO PASS ON THE CREDIT FACILITY TO THE AE; 2.6. IGNORING THE ASSESSEE'S CONTENTION, WITHOUT PREJUDI CE TO OTHER CONTENTIONS, THAT IF AT ALL INTEREST IS TO BE IMPUT ED, INSTEAD OF AN AD-HOC RATE OF LIBOR PLUS 400 BASIS POINTS, THE LIBOR RATE ALONE FOR THE FY 2012- 13 SHOULD BE APPLIED FOR IMPUTING INTEREST; 3. THE LD. AO/ LD. TPO HAS GROSSLY ERRED ON FACTS AND IN LAW BY DISREGARDING JUDICIAL PRONOUNCEMENTS IN INDIA (INCL UDING THE ONE PASSED BY THE HON'BLE DELHI BENCH IN APPELLANT'S OWN CASE FOR THE AY 2010-11 WHICH IS UPHELD BY THE HON'BLE DELHI HIGH COURT) IN UNDERTAK ING THE TP ADJUSTMENT. 4. THAT ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AN D IN LAW, THE LD. AO HAS ERRED IN PROPOSING TO INITIATE PENALTY PROCEEDI NGS UNDER SECTION 271(L)(C) OF THE ACT MECHANICALLY AND WITHOUT RECORDING ANY ADEQ UATE REASONS FOR SUCH INITIATION. THAT THE ABOVE GROUNDS AND SUB GROUNDS OF OBJECTION S ARE WITHOUT PREJUDICE TO EACH OTHER. 3 ITA NO. 3717/DEL/2017 3. THE ASSESSEE IS ENGAGED IN MANUFACTURING AND SAL E OF PHARMACEUTICAL GOODS / MEDICINES AND CONSISTS OF MAJOR REVENUES ON ACCOUNT OF EXPORT OF SUCH PHARMACEUTICAL GOODS / MEDICINES. THE ASSESSEE FIL ED RETURN OF INCOME ON 10/02/2015 DECLARING INCOME AT RS. 45,01,13,530/-. THE ASSESSEE HAD ENTERED INTO INTERNATIONAL TRANSACTIONS WITH THE AS SOCIATE ENTERPRISES (A.ES). A REFERENCE WAS MADE U/S 92CA (3) OF THE INCOME TAX A CT, 1961 TO THE TRANSFER PRICING OFFICER (TPO) IN VIW OF INTERNATIONAL TRANS ACTIONS OF RS.116,38,13,687/-. THE TPO VIDE ORDER DATED 06/10/2016 HAS MADE AN ADJ USTMENT OF RS. 1,89,33,756/- TOWARDS ARMS LENGTH PRICE (ALP) ON A CCOUNT OF INTEREST CHARGEABLE ON DELAYED RECEIVABLE. THE DRAFT ASSESSM ENT ORDER WAS PASSED U/S 144C(1) READ WITH SECTION 92CA (3) ON 21/12/2016 CO MPUTING ASSESSED INCOME AT RS.46,90,47,286/-. THE ASSESSEE COMPANY FILED OBJECTIONS AGAINST DRAFT ASSESSMENT ORDER, BEFORE DISPUTE RESOLUTION P ANEL (DRP). THE DRP VIDE ORDER DATED 10/04/2017 ISSUED CERTAIN DIRECTIONS TO THE TPO. THE TPO PASSED ORDER U/S 144C (5) ON 18/5/2017 IN PURSUANCE OF DIR ECTIONS DATED 10/4/2017 OF THE DRP AND COMPUTED ALP ADJUSTMENT AT RS.1,92,2 1,882/- AS AGAINST EARLIER ALP ADJUSTMENT OF RS.1,89,33,756/- PROPOSED TO THE ASSESSING OFFICER. ACCORDINGLY, THE ASSESSING OFFICER ASSESSED THE INC OME AT RS.46,93,35,412/-. 4. BEING AGGRIEVED BY THE ASSESSMENT ORDER, THE ASS ESSEE FILED APPEAL BEFORE US. 5. THE LD. AR SUBMITTED THAT THE ISSUES CONTESTED HERE IN ARE ALREADY DECIDED BY THE TRIBUNAL FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2010-11 WHICH WAS CONFIRMED BY THE HON'BLE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT. THE LD. AR SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE MANUFACTURES AND MARKETS PHARMACEUTICAL PRODUCTS. I T IS ENGAGED IN EXPORT OF PHARMACEUTICAL PRODUCTS TO ITS OVERSEAS ASSOCIATED ENTERPRISE (AE) AS WELL AS NON-GROUP COMPANIES. DURING THE RELEVANT ASSESSMENT YEAR, THE ASSESSEE HAD UNDERTAKEN THE INTERNATIONAL TRANSACTION PERTAINING TO EXPORT OF PHARMACEUTICAL PRODUCTS. THE SAID INTERNATIONAL TRA NSACTION HAS BEEN DULY ACCEPTED BY THE TOI TO BE AT ARMS LENGTH. HOWEVER, THE TPO RE-CHARACTERIZED 4 ITA NO. 3717/DEL/2017 RECEIVABLES OUTSTANDING FROM AE AS UNSECURED LOANS ADVANCED BY THE ASSESSEE TO ITS AE AND IMPUTED A NOTIONAL INTEREST BASED ON LIBOR + 400 BASIS POINTS (RESULTING IN INTEREST RATE OF 5.013%). AN ADJUSTME NT OF RS. 1,89,33,756/- WAS MADE BY THE TPO IN THE TRANSFER PRICING ORDER. THE DRP CONCURRED WITH THE TPO AND UPHELD THE APPROACH AND ADJUSTMENT MADE BY THE TPO. HOWEVER, THE DRP HELD THAT NO ADJUSTMENT ON ACCOUNT OF INTEREST ON RECEIVABLES OUTSTANDING BEYOND 180 DAYS COULD HAVE BEEN MADE BEYOND MARCH 3 1, 2013. THEREAFTER, THE ASSESSING OFFICER PASSED THE FINAL ASSESSMENT O RDER AFTER GIVING EFFECT TO THE DIRECTIONS ISSUED BY THE DRP IN RESPECT OF PERIOD O F INTEREST TO BE APPLIED, AND MADE AN ADJUSTMENT OF RS. 1,92,21,882/- TO THE INCO ME OF THE ASSESSEE. THE LD. AR SUBMITTED THAT GROUND NO. 1 IS GENERAL IN NA TURE. AS REGARDS TO GROUND NOS. 2.1, 2.2, 2.5, 2.6 ARE ACADEMIC IN NATURE AS P ER THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE LD. AR. THE LD. AR FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT GROUND NO. 4 IS CONSEQUENTIAL. 6. AS REGARDS TO GROUND NOS. 2, 2.3, 2.4 AND 3 RELA TING TO NON CONSIDERATION OF WORKING CAPITAL ADJUSTMENT ANALYSIS, THE LD. AR SUBMITTED THAT THE WORKING CAPITAL ADJUSTMENT TAKES INTO ACCOUNT THE IMPACT OF OUTSTANDING RECEIVABLES ON THE PROFITABILITY OF THE TESTED PARTY VIS--VIS THE COMPARABLE COMPANIES, SO AS TO BRING PARITY IN THE WORKING CAPITAL INVESTMENT OF T HE TESTED PARTY AND THE COMPARABLE COMPANIES RATHER THAN LOOKING AT THE REC EIVABLES INDEPENDENTLY. DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, AN ANA LYSIS OF WORKING CAPITAL ADJUSTMENT WAS UNDERTAKEN BY THE ASSESSEE FOR THE C OMPARABLE COMPANIES SELECTED IN THE TP REPORT. THE LD. AR RELIED UPON T HE DECISION OF THE HONBLE DELHI HIGH COURT IN ASSESSEES OWN CASE FOR A.Y. 20 10-11 BEING ITA NO. 765/2016. WITHOUT PREJUDICE TO THE ABOVE SUBMISSION S, THE LD. AR FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT IN RESPECT OF THE OBSERVATIONS OF TP O/DRP/AO IN TREATING OUTSTANDING RECEIVABLES FROM AE AS LOAN ADVANCED, T HE NON-CHARGING OF INTEREST ON OVERDUE BALANCES OF AE SHOULD BE COMPARED WITH O THER CASES IN WHICH THE ASSESSEE HAS EXTENDED THE CREDIT PERIOD TO NON-GROU P COMPANIES I.E., WHICH WOULD SERVE AS AN INTERNAL CUP. IN THIS RESPECT, TH E LD. AR SUBMITTED THAT NO INTEREST HAS BEEN CHARGED ON THE OVERDUE BALANCES F ROM UNRELATED THIRD PARTIES 5 ITA NO. 3717/DEL/2017 AS IS THE CASE FOR OUTSTANDING RECEIVABLES FROM AE. THE LD. AR FURTHER POINTED OUT THAT AE IS THE KEY CUSTOMER OF THE ASSESSEE AND THE SALES MADE BY THE ASSESSEE TO ITS AE AMOUNTS TO 82% OF THE TOTAL TURN OVER OF THE ASSESSEE. IN TRANSACTIONS WITH NON-AES, THE MAJOR SALES WERE TO KELDOW ENTERPRISES, IN WHICH CASE AS WELL, SIMILAR DELAY WAS THERE IN PAYM ENT OF INVOICES. IN SUPPORT OF THIS CONTENTION, THE LD. AR RELIED UPON THE FOLL OWING DECISIONS WHEREIN IT HAS BEEN HELD THAT WHEN NO INTEREST IS CHARGED FROM BOT H AES AND NON AES, THE TRANSACTION WITH NON-AES SERVES AS AN INTERNAL CUP AND THEREBY, NO NOTIONAL INTEREST CAN BE CHARGED ON RECEIVABLES FROM AES: I) KUSUM HEALTHCARE PVT. LTD. VS. ADDL. CIT (ITA NO . 84/DEL/2017) II) LIVINGSTONES VS. CIT [TS-962-HC-2016 (BOM)-TP] III) INDO-AMERICAN JEWELLERY LTD. VS. CIT [TS-3-HC- 2013(BOM)] IV) BAUSCH & LOMB EYECARE (INDIA) PVT. LTD. VS. ADC IT [TS-152-ITAT- 2014(DEL)] V) AXIS RISK CONSULTING SERVICES (P.) LTD. VS. DCIT [2018] 92 TAXMANN.COM 103(DEL. TRI.) VI) SOPHOS TECHNOLOGIES (P.) LTD. VS. DCIT [2018] 1 00 TAXMANN.COM 374 (AHD. TRI.) IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE, WHERE THERE IS A UNIFORM AND CONSISTENT POLICY/PRACTICE FOLLOWED BY THE ASSESSEE PERTAINING TO OUTSTANDING RECEIVABLES IN RESPECT OF AES AND NON-AES, NO ADJUSTMENT IN RES PECT OF NOTIONAL INTEREST ON OUTSTANDING RECEIVABLES IS WARRANTED. 7. THE LD. DR SUBMITTED THAT ALL THE GROUNDS OF APP EAL, TAKEN BY THE ASSESSEE IN ITS APPEAL, EMERGE FROM ONE FUNDAMENTAL ISSUE AS TO JUSTIFICATION OF TP ADJUSTMENT ON ACCOUNT OF DELAYED REALIZATION OF RECEIVABLES FROM AE. THE ASSESSEE HAS RELIED UPON THE CASE-LAWS IN ITS OWN C ASE [BOTH TRIBUNAL AND HONBLE DELHI HIGH COURT] AND HAS URGED THAT THE IS SUE IS COVERED. HOWEVER, THE FACTS IN THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE ARE ANALYZED TO DISCERN A PATTERN THAT WOULD SUBSTANTIATE THAT THE DELAYED REALIZATION OF OUTSTANDING RECEIVABLES BEYOND 180 DAYS, FOR THE SUPPLIES MADE TO THE AE, I S NOT IN ACCORDANCE WITH 6 ITA NO. 3717/DEL/2017 NORMAL TRADE PRACTICES AND REFLECTS AN ARRANGEMENT OF INTERNATIONAL TRANSACTIONS WHICH ARE INTENDED TO BENEFIT THE AE. THE ANALYSIS OF THE FACTS & FIGURES CLEARLY NEGATES THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE T HAT THE WORKING CAPITAL ADJUSTMENT TAKES INTO ACCOUNT THE IMPACT OF SUCH DE LAYED REALIZATION OF OUTSTANDING RECEIVABLES FROM AE. FURTHER THE CASE O F THE ASSESSEE IS SQUARELY COVERED BY A RECENT DECISION OF ITAT, DELHI IN THE CASE OF TECHBOOKS INTERNATIONAL PVT. LTD., ITA NO.6102/DEL/2016, ORDE R DT.06.07.2020 WHEREIN THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE (I.E. KUSUM HEALTHCARE) WA S ALSO CONSIDERED IN ADDITION TO SOME OTHER CASE-LAWS. WHETHER THE WORKI NG CAPITAL ADJUSTMENT FACTORS IN THE IMPACT OF SUCH DELAYED REALIZATION O F RECEIVABLES, HAS ALSO BEEN ANALYZED BY TRIBUNAL IN VIEW OF THE FACTS OF THE CA SE WHICH ARE IDENTICAL TO THE CASE OF THE APPELLANT AND DECIDED AGAINST THE ASSES SEE. IT IS ALSO URGED BEFORE THE BENCH THAT RES-JUDICATA IS NOT APPLICABLE IN IN COME-TAX PROCEEDINGS AND RELIANCE IN THIS REGARD IS PLACED ON THE DECISION O F JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF KRISHAK BHARATI COOPERATIVE LTD VS. DCI T [2012] 23 TAXMANN.COM 265 (DELHI) WHEREIN HONBLE DELHI HIGH COURT HAS HE LD THAT THE RULE OF CONSISTENCY SHOULD NOT CREATE ANOMALY. AS REGARDS TO GROUND NOS. 2.1 & 2.6 RELATING TO APPLICATION OF INTEREST RATE @ LIBOR PL US 400 BPS APPLIED BY THE TPO/AO AND UPHELD BY LD. DRP, THE LD. DR SUBMITTED THAT NECESSARY DISCUSSIONS HAVE BEEN RECORDED BY THE TPO IN PARA-2 0 AT P/13 OF HIS ORDER. THE TPO HAS CONSIDERED THE REPLY OF THE APPELLANT A ND APPLIED THE INTEREST RATE OF LIBOR PLUS 400 BPS KEEPING IN VIEW THE CURRENCY OF PAYMENTS RECEIVED, OPPORTUNITY COST AND THE DISCUSSIONS & FINDINGS OF LD. DRP IN AY 2011-12 IN THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE ITSELF. THE DISCUSSIONS IN THE TPO ORDER MAY KINDLY BE REFERRED TO. THE DRP HAVE DISCUSSED THE ISSUE IN DE TAIL VIZ. VARIOUS FACTORS, CREDIT SPREAD DEMANDED BY THE LENDERS IN SIMILAR SI TUATIONS, RISKS BORNE BY THE APPELLANT, OPPORTUNITY COST, DECISION OF JURISDICTI ONAL HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF COTTON NATURALS INDIA PVT. LTD., ITA NO.233/2014 AN D THEN HAVE GIVEN ITS FINDINGS AT P/18-23 OF ITS ORDER UPHOLDING THE CRED IT SPREAD OF 400 BPS OVER LIBOR RATE. AS REGARDS TO GOA 2.2 TO 2.5 ARE INTER LINKED AND THE LD. DR SUBMITTED THAT THE TPO ISSUED A SHOW-CAUSE DT.05.09.2016, EXAMINED THE 7 ITA NO. 3717/DEL/2017 REPLY OF THE ASSESSEE VIS-A-VIS THE RELEVANT FACTS AND HAS RECORDED HIS ELABORATE DISCUSSIONS IN HIS ORDER. THE TPO HAS RECORDED HIS DISCUSSIONS W.R. TO FAR ANALYSIS OF THE ASSESSEE AT P/2 TO 8. THE TPO HAS D ISCUSSED RELEVANT PROVISIONS OF SEC. 92CA(2A), 92CA(2B), EXPLANATION (1)(C) TO S EC.92B, SEC. 92F(V) AND SEC. 92B(1) AND AMENDMENTS BROUGHT BY FINANCE ACT, 2012. THEREAFTER THE TPO HAS MADE ELABORATE DISCUSSIONS ON THE ISSUES INVOLVED I N PARA-15 TO 20. THE TPO HAS ALSO DISCUSSED VARIOUS CASE-LAWS IN HIS ORDER. THE TPO HAS ADOPTED THE SEGREGATED APPROACH FOR BENCHMARKING OF OUTSTANDING RECEIVABLES FROM AE ON ACCOUNT OF ITS DELAYED REALISATION FOR THE DELAY BE YOND THE PERIOD OF 180 DAYS AS THE ASSESSEE ITSELF ADMITTED TO HAVE ALLOWED A PERI OD OF 180 DAYS FOR REALISATION OF SUCH RECEIVABLES. THUS IT MAY BE NOTED THAT FOR THE DELAY UPTO THE PERIOD OF 180 DAYS NO INTEREST HAS BEEN IMPUTED BY THE TPO. THE DRP HAS GIVEN ITS FINDINGS AT P/ 5-6 ON CHARACTERIZATION OF SUCH RECE IVABLES & SEGREGATED APPROACH BY THE TPO TO ARRIVE AT THE ALP OF SUCH RE CEIVABLES LYING UNRECOVERED BEYOND A PERIOD OF 180 DAYS AND HAVE UPHELD THE ACT ION OF THE TPO. THE DRP HAS CONSIDERED THE ISSUE IN DETAIL WHETHER THE WORK ING CAPITAL ADJUSTMENT TAKES INTO ACCOUNT THE IMPACT OF OUTSTANDING RECEIV ABLES IN VIEW OF THE FACTS OF THE CASE, TIME VALUE OF MONEY AT P/6-12 AND HAVE UP HELD THE ACTION OF THE TPO IN ITS FINDINGS. THE DRP HAVE ALSO CONSIDERED THE A RGUMENTS OF THE ASSESSEE THAT SINCE NO INTEREST HAS BEEN CHARGED FROM NON-A E FOR DELAYED REALISATION, NO ADJUSTMENT IS WARRANTED FOR DETERMINING THE ALP OF RECEIVABLES FROM AE. THE DRP HAVE DISCUSSED THE ISSUE IN GREATER DETAIL AT P/12-18 OF ITS ORDER. THE LD. DR SPECIFICALLY MADE REFERENCE WHERE THE DISCUS SION OF THE DRP ON THIS ISSUE WAS AT P/16-17. THE DRP HAVE NOTED THAT THERE WAS CATEGORICAL MENTION OF CHARGING INTEREST ON DELAYED PAYMENTS AGAINST SA LE BEYOND A PERIOD STIPULATED IN THE AGREEMENT WITH THE NON-AE AND THE AE. THE ASSESSEE TOOK THE ARGUMENT THAT IT DID NOT RECOVER ANY INTEREST FROM EITHER PARTIES. THE DRP HAVE GIVEN ITS FINDINGS THAT THE MATERIAL FACTOR FOR SCR UTINY FROM TRANSFER PRICING ANGLE WAS NOT WHETHER THE ASSESSEE IS CHARGING ANY INTEREST ON THE OVERDUE OUTSTANDING RECEIVABLES FROM ITS AES OR NON-AES OR NOT BUT ACTUALLY WHAT SHOULD HAVE BEEN TIME VALUE OF MONEY AND WHAT PRICE WAS IMPUTABLE TO THE 8 ITA NO. 3717/DEL/2017 TIME VALUE OF MONEY. THE DRP HAVE ALSO DISCUSSED RE LEVANT CASE-LAWS, OECD DEFINITIONS / GUIDELINES AND FINALLY UPHELD THE ACT ION OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER. AS REGARDS TO GROUND NO. 2.5, THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTE D THAT IT IS A LOW DEBT COMPANY AND NO BORROWED FUNDS HAVE BEEN UTILIZED TO PASS ON THE CREDIT FACILITY. THIS ISSUE HAS ALSO BEEN CONSIDERED BY TH E DRP AT P/18 AND HAVE GIVEN ITS FINDINGS THAT IN VIEW OF THEIR DETAILED D ISCUSSIONS & DECISIONS W.R. TO SUBSTANTIVE GROUNDS 2.3 & 2.4, THE SAME IS ONLY ACA DEMIC AND HENCE INFRUCTUOUS. THE FACTS SHOW THAT THE PERIOD OF DEL AY OF REALISATION OF SUCH OUTSTANDING RECEIVABLES VARIED FROM 181 DAYS TO 430 DAYS IN THE CASE OF AE [ AT P/14-28 OF ORDER OF TPO WHICH CONTAINS COMPUTATION OF INTEREST ]. THE PERIOD OF DELAYED REALIZATION OF RECEVABLES AND THE PATTERN I S IN TOTAL VARIANCE FROM THOSE IN THE CASE OF NON-AE. IT MAY BE NOTED THAT A MARGI N PERIOD OF 180 DAYS, AS PER AGREEMENT AND AS STATED BY THE ASSESSEE, HAVE BEEN CONSIDERED BY THE TPO AND TO BE REASONABLE & FAIR TO THE ASSESSEE, THE INTERE ST HAVE BEEN COMPUTED FOR THE PERIOD BEYOND 180 DAYS ONLY. FURTHER AS DIRECTED BY THE DRP, THE INTEREST HAVE BEEN COMPUTED IN RESPECT OF OVERDUE RECEIVABLES UPT O 31 ST MARCH OF THE FY UNDER CONSIDERATION. IN ADDITION TO THE DISCUSSIONS BY THE TPO AND THE DRP IT WOULD BE INTERESTING TO CONSIDER CERTAIN CRUCIAL FA CTS & FIGURES OF THE YEAR AS WELL AS THAT OF LAST FY AS REFLECTED IN THE FINANCI AL STATEMENTS OF THE ASSESSEE & THE ANNEXURE FILED BEFORE TRIBUNAL. THE SAME ARE REPRODUCED AS UNDER:- PARTICULARS FIGURES AS ON 31.03.2013 FIGURES AS ON 31.03.2012 REMARKS SHARE - CAPITAL 7.99 CR. 7.99CR. RESERVE &SURPLUS 147.43 CR. 119.20 CR. TOTAL FUNDS 155.42 CR. 127.19 CR. P/62 OF PB SALES OF PRODUCT 141.13 CR. 104.95 CR. P/63 OF PB AE NON AE AE NON AE ANNEXURE - I. SALES TO AE FOR FY 98.23 CR. NA NA 9 ITA NO. 3717/DEL/2017 42.90CR . 2012 - 13 COMES TO 69.6% OF TOTAL SALES &IN THE CASE OF NON AE IT IS 30.4%.BIFURCATED FIGURES FOR FY 2011- 12 IS NOT AVAILABLE IN PB. TRADE RECEIVABLES (I.E OUTSTANDING WITH BOTH AE & NON-AE) 119.57 CR. 97.06 CR. P/62 OF PB AE NON AE AE NON AE ANNEXURE - I. BIFURCATED FIGURES FOR FY 2011- 12 IS NOT AVAILABLE IN PB. THE APPELLANT HAS CLAIMED THAT IT IS A LOW DEBT CO. IT IS SEEN THAT THE TRADE RECEIVABLES ACCOUNT FOR 67.9% OF TOTAL FUNDS IN FY 2012- 13 IN THE CASE OF AE AND 9.03% IN THE CASE OF NON AE. FURTHER, IF COMPARED WITH THE 105.53 CR 14.04 CR. NA NA 10 ITA NO. 3717/DEL/2017 SALES OF THE YEAR THE TRADE RECEIVABLES COMES TO 121.72% OF TOTAL SALES TO AE WHEREAS IT IS 32.7% IN THE CASE OF NON AE. COMMENTS IN BELOW MENTIONED PARA 4.2.10 MAY KINDLY BE REFER TO. THE ASSESSEE IS ENGAGED IN SALES OF VARIOUS PHARMAC EUTICALS PRODUCTS TO BOTH AE & NON AE. THE APPELLANT HAS CLAIMED THAT IT IS A LOW DEBT CO. WHICH IS A MATTER OF FACT BUT HAS NO RELEVANCE TO THE ISSUE. F ROM THE FIGURES REPRODUCED ABOVE IN PARA 4.2.9, IT IS ABUNDANTLY CLEAR THAT TH E TRADE RECEIVABLES ACCOUNT FOR 67.9% OF TOTAL FUNDS IN FY 2012-13 IN THE CASE OF AE AND IT IS 9.03% IN THE CASE OF NON-AE. FURTHER, IF COMPARED WITH THE SALES OF THE YEAR THE TRADE RECEIVABLES COMES TO 121.72% OF TOTAL SALES TO AE W HEREAS IT IS 32.7% IN THE CASE OF NON-AE. THE BIFURCATED FIGURES FOR FY 2011 -12 IS NOT AVAILABLE IN PB. IT IS REQUESTED THAT IF NEED BE, THE ASSESSEE MAY BE A SKED TO PROVIDE THE SAME WHICH CAN BE ANALYSED THEREUPON. THE RATIO OF TRAD E RECEIVABLES TO TOTAL FUNDS AS WELL AS TOTAL SALES IN THE CASE OF AE VIS--VIS THOSE IN THE CASE OF NON-AE ARE NOT COMPARABLE AT ALL. IN FACT THE OVER-DUE OUTSTAN DINGS WITH THE AE AT THE END OF THE YEAR EXCEEDS THE TOTAL SALES TO THE AE DURIN G THE YEAR WHICH ONLY INDICATE THAT THE FUNDS IN THE FORM OF OVERDUE TRADE RECEIVA BLES ARE ENJOYED BY THE AE OF THE ASSESSEE OVER THE YEARS WITHOUT ANY INTEREST. T HIS KIND OF ARRANGEMENT ALSO INDICATE THAT THE PRACTICE/ARRANGEMENT BEING FOLLOW ED BY THE APPELLANT IN THE CASE OF THE AE IS THAT WHEN NEXT PAYMENT AGAINST TH E SUPPLY BECOMES DUE, ONLY THEN THE EARLIER TRADE OUTSTANDINGS OR A PART THEREOF IS RELEASED WHICH IN FACT AMOUNTS TO PERPETUAL RETENTION OF THE FUNDS BY THE AE WITHOUT ANY VISIBLE 11 ITA NO. 3717/DEL/2017 COMMITMENT TO PAYBACK IN TIME AS PER THE AGREEMENT WHICH IS ENTIRELY AGAINST THE NORMAL TRADE PRACTICES. BY FOLLOWING THIS PRACT ICE/ARRANGEMENT THE AE IS ENJOYING 68% (APPROX) FUNDS OF THE ASSSESSEE IN THE FORM OF OUTSTANDING RECEIVABLES WITHOUT ANY INTEREST AND ONLY A PORTION OF THE FUNDS IS ALLOWED, THAT TO WHEN ANOTHER PAYMENT BECOMES DUE, WHICH ARE NECE SSARY FOR LOGISTICS SUPPORT AND TO MEET THE VARIOUS EXPENSES TO KEEP TH E ASSESSEE AFLOAT. THESE VITAL FACTS & RATIOS SUBSTANTIATE THAT THE ARRANGEM ENTS BETWEEN THE ASSESSEE AND THE AE ARE INTENDED TO BENEFIT THE AE. IN VIEW OF THESE CRUCIAL FACTS, THE BENCHMARKING TO ACCOUNT FOR THE OPPORTUNITY COST AN D TIME VALUE OF MONEY IN THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE IS WARRANTED. UNDER THESE FACTS & CIRCUMSTANCES, SEPARATE BENCHMARKING OF INTEREST ON OVER DELAYED R EALISATION OF SUCH OUTSTANDING RECEIVABLES IS QUITE JUSTIFIED. THE ARG UMENTS/OBJECTIONS OF THE APPELLANT ARE ACCORDINGLY TOTALLY MISPLACED. THE AS SESSEE HAS RELIED UPON THE DECISION OF THE ITAT IN ITS OWN CASE FOR AY 2010-11 AND THE ORDER OF HONBLE DELHI HIGH COURT WHEREIN THE SAID ORDER OF THE ITAT FOR AY 2010-11 HAS BEEN UPHELD AND THE DEPARTMENTAL APPEAL HAS BEEN DISMISS ED. HOWEVER, THE FACTS, RATIOS AND ANALYSIS OF FACTS FOR THE YEAR IN THE CA SE OF THE ASSESSEE ITSELF, WHICH INDICATE A DEFINITE PATTERN INTENDED TO BENEFIT THE AE, NEED TO BE CONSIDERED AFRESH IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE OBSERVATIONS OF HONB LE DELHI HIGH COURT. ON METICULOUS INTERPRETATION OF THE OBSERVATIONS OF HO NBLE DELHI HIGH COURT, IT IS ABUNDANTLY CLEAR THAT HONBLE COURT HAS NOT CATEGOR ICALLY STATED THAT NO ADJUSTMENT FOR OVERDUE TRADING RECEIVABLES CAN BE M ADE. THE HONBLE HIGH COURT HAS IN FACT GIVEN A CLEAR FINDING THAT A PROP ER INQUIRY MAY BE MADE BY ANALYSING THE STATISTICS OVER A PERIOD OF TIME TO DISCERN A PATTERN WHICH WOULD INDICATE THAT VIS--VIS THE RECEIVABLES FOR THE SUP PLIES MADE TO AN AE, THE ARRANGEMENT REFLECTS AN INTERNATIONAL TRANSACTION I NTENDED TO BENEFIT THE AE IN SOME WAY. THE FACTS, STATISTICS, RATIOS & ANALYSIS OF SUCH FACTS/STATISTICS AS DISCUSSED IN PARA 4.2.9 & 4.2.10 CLEARLY MAKE OUT T HE PATTERN WHICH INDICATE SUCH ARRANGEMENT BETWEEN THE ASSESSEE AND THE AE WH ICH ARE INTENDED TO BENEFIT THE AE IN SOME WAY. THE LD. DR RELIED UPON THE DECISION OF THE ITAT IN THE CASE OF TECHBOOKS INTERNATIONAL PVT. LTD., ITA NO. 6102/DEL/2016, ORDER DT. 12 ITA NO. 3717/DEL/2017 06.07.2020. PARAS RELEVANT TO THE ISSUES ARE 16 TO 23 AT P/8-14 OF THE ORDER. THE FACTS IN THE CASE OF TECHBOOKS INTERNATIONAL AR E IDENTICAL TO THOSE IN THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE. THE ISSUE IN THE CASE OF TH E ASSESSEE AND ALL THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE INCLUDING TREATMENT OF SU CH OUTSTANDING RECEIVABLES AS LOANS, DENIAL TO AGGREGATED BENCHMARKING OF PRIN CIPLE TRANSACTIONS & OUTSTANDING RECEIVABLES, PLEA OF WORKING CAPITAL AD JUSTMENT AND THE PAYMENT PATTERN SHOWING THE TRANSFER OF PROFITS BY WAY OF A BNORMALLY DELAYING REALISATION OF OUTSTANDING RECEIVABLES ARE SQUARELY COVERED IN THE DECISION IN THE CASE OF TECHBOOKS INTERNATIONAL. THE CASE-LAW I N ASSESSEES OWN CASE (I.E. KUSUM HEALTHCARE PVT. LTD), RELIED ON BY THE ASSESS EE, HAS ALSO BEEN CONSIDERED/ANALYSED IN THE CASE OF TECHBOOKS INTERN ATIONAL AND IN ADDITION OTHER CASE-LAWS HAVE ALSO BEEN CONSIDERED/DISCUSSED BY THE ITAT. THE SAME MAY KINDLY BE REFERRED TO AND IT IS REQUESTED TO KI NDLY CONSIDER THE SAME TO HAVE A HOLISTIC VIEW ON THE ISSUE. IT IS ALSO URGED BEFORE THE BENCH THAT RES- JUDICATA IS NOT APPLICABLE IN INCOME-TAX PROCEEDING S AND RELIANCE IN THIS REGARD IS PLACED ON THE DECISION OF JURISDICTIONAL HIGH CO URT IN THE CASE OF KRISHAK BHARATI COOPERATIVE LTD VS DCIT [2012] 23 TAXMANN.C OM 265 (DELHI) WHEREIN HONBLE DELHI HC CONSIDERED THE DECISION OF HONBLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF RADHASOAMI SATSANG VS CIT {1992] 60 TAXMAN 248(S C) AND HAS HELD THAT THE RULE OF CONSISTENCY SHOULD NOT CREATE ANOMALY. IN V IEW OF THE ABOVE FACTS & SUBMISSIONS, THE LD. DR REQUESTED THAT THE DECISION OF THE HONBLE COURTS IN EARLIER YEARS IN THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE MAY NOT B E BLINDLY FOLLOWED IN THE NAME OF RULE OF CONSISTENCY AND THE ISSUE MAY BE CO NSIDERED AFRESH IN VIEW OF THE GLARING FACTS, RATIOS, ANALYSIS OF FACTS IN THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE AND RELEVANT CASE LAWS. 7. IN REJOINDER THE LD. AR SUBMITTED THAT THE FACTUAL ASPECTS IN TECH BOOK INDIA & THE CIRCUMSTANCES ARISES IN THAT CASE ARE TOTALLY DIFFERENT IN PRESENT ASSESSEES CASE. THEREFORE, THE SAID DECIS ION WILL NOT BE APPLICABLE IN THE PRESENT CASE. THE FACTUAL ASPECT HAS REMAINED S IMILAR FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2010-11, 2011-12, 2012-13 & IN THE PRESENT ASSESSME NT YEAR. THE ASSESSEE 13 ITA NO. 3717/DEL/2017 IN THE PRESENT CASE IN ALL THE PREVIOUS YEARS HAS G IVEN THE DETAILS OF OUTSTANDING RECEIVABLES AND ITS INTEREST AS WELL A S IN THE PRESENT ASSESSMENT YEAR ALSO ALL THE OUTSTANDING RECEIVABLES WITH THE CALCULATION WAS GIVEN BY THE ASSESSEE BEFORE ALL THE REVENUE AUTHORITIES ( AO/ T PO/ DRP). 8. WE HAVE HEARD BOTH THE PARTIES AND PERUSED THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD. AS REGARDS TO GROUND NOS. 1, 2.1, 2.2, 2.5, 2.6 ARE EITHER GENERAL OR ACADEMIC. HENCE GROUND NOS. 1, 2.1, 2.2, 2.5 AND 2. 6 ARE DISMISSED. AS REGARDS TO GROUND NOS. 2, 2.3, 2.4 AND 3, THE ASSES SEE HAS GIVEN A CALCULATION OF INTEREST AN OUTSTANDING RECEIVABLES FOR BILLS RA ISED DURING THE FINANCIAL YEAR 2012-13 & GIVEN AN OUTSTANDING RECEIVABLES ALONG WI TH DETAILS OF INVOICE NUMBER, SHIPMENT DATE, PARTY NAME, CIF VALUE IN RUP EES, EXCHANGE RATE, CALCULATION AMOUNT IN FOREIGN CURRENCY AND INDIAN R UPEES, COLLECTION DATE AND THEREAFTER THE ASSESSEE HAS ALSO CALCULATED THE PER IOD OF REALIZATION IN CASES WHERE THE COLLECTION DATE IS RESTRICTED UP TO MARCH 31 ST , 2013. THE TRANSFER PRICING OFFICER RE-CHARACTERIZED OUTSTANDING RECEIV ABLES FOR THE PERIOD EXCEEDING 180 DAYS AS UNSECURED LOANS ADVANCED BY T HE ASSESSEE WHO IS ITS AES AND IMPUTED INTEREST PROFIT CALL TO LIBOR PLU S 400 BASIS POINTS (RESULTING IN INTEREST RATE OF 5.013%). THE INVOICES ARE RAIS ED AND PAYMENT IS RECEIVED IN FOREIGN CURRENCY. THE PROFIT LOSS INDEX OUTSTANDIN G RECEIVABLES AS UNSECURED LOANS ON ACCOUNT OF DELAY IN RECEIPT OF PAYMENT ARE MERELY RE-CHARACTERIZATION OF OUTSTANDING RECEIVABLE AND NOT AN ACTUAL INTERNA TIONAL TRANSACTION. THE LAW ONLY REQUIRES ACTUAL TRANSACTIONS TO BE AT ARMS LE NGTH AND DOES NOT PERMIT COMPUTATION OF ARMS LENGTH PRICE BASED ON FURTHER NOTIONAL TRANSACTIONS. WORKING CAPITAL ADJUSTMENT NEEDS TO BE DONE TO THE IMPACT OF OUTSTANDING RECEIVABLES ON PROFIT ABILITY. WORKING CAPITAL YIE LDS A RETURN RESULTING FROM HIGHER SALES PRICE OR LOWER COST OF GOODS SOLD WHIC H WOULD HAVE A POSITIVE IMPACT ON THE OPERATIONAL RESULT. ASSESSEE HAD EAR NED SIGNIFICANTLY HIGHER MARGIN THAN THE COMPARABLE COMPANIES WHICH HAVE BEE N ACCEPTED BY THE TPO WHICH MORE THAN COMPENSATES FOR THE CREDIT PERIOD E XTENDED TO THE AES. 14 ITA NO. 3717/DEL/2017 THUS, THE APPROACH OF AGGREGATING THE INTERNATIONAL TRANSACTIONS PERTAINING TO SALE OF GOODS OF AES AND RECEIVABLES ARISING FROM SUCH TRANSACTIONS WHICH IS UNDOUBTEDLY INEXTRICABLE AND CONNECTED IS IN ACCORD ANCE WITH ESTABLISH TRANSFER PRICING PRINCIPALS. IN 2010-11, THE TRIBU NAL CONSIDERED THIS ASPECT AND HELD THAT THE WORKING CAPITAL ADJUSTMENT BEFORE LEVYING NOTIONAL INTEREST ON THE OUTSTANDING RECEIVABLE AND CONCLUDED THAT SI NCE THE SALE PRICE OF THE GOODS ALREADY FACTOR IN THE LONG CREDIT PERIOD NO A DJUSTMENT ON ACCOUNT OF NOTIONAL INTEREST ON OUTSTANDING RECEIVABLES IS WAR RANTED. AS PER WITHOUT PREJUDICE ARGUMENT OF THE LD. AR AND FROM THE RECOR DS IT EMERGES THAT NO INTEREST WAS CHARGED ON THE DELAY IN RECEIPT OF REC EIVABLE IN RESPECT OF THE DELAY IN RECEIPT OF RECEIVABLES IN THE NATURE OF UNSECURE D LOAN. THE INTEREST SHALL BE CHARGED AT LIBOR PLUS RATE AND NOT AT THE PREVAILIN G SBI BASE RATE AS PER HELD BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. IN 2011-12, THE DRP CONC LUDED THAT SINCE THE RECEIVABLES FROM AE ARE IN US DOLLARS, LIBOR PLUS R ATE SHOULD BE APPLICABLE IN CASE OF THE ASSESSEE. AFTER CONSIDERING FOR ALL IN COST SELLING, CREDIT RATING, SECURITY AND TRANSACTIONS COST, 400 BASIS POINTS SH OULD BE ADDED TO LIBOR PLUS RATE OF THE YEAR. THUS, AVERAGE 12 MONTHS USD LABOR FOR 2012 WAS 1.013%. THUS, THE APPLICABLE RATE FOR COMPUTING IN TEREST ON OUTSTANDING RECEIVABLES SHOULD BE 5.013%. REGARDING DETAILS OF OUTSTANDING RECEIVABLES OF AE AS ON 1/4/2012 ALONG WITH REALIZATION DATED FOR EACH INVOICE. THUS, OPENING OUTSTANDING RECEIVABLES WERE RAISED IN PREV IOUS FINANCIAL YEARS. THE NOTIONAL INTEREST ON THE SAME, HAVE ALREADY BEEN AD DED BY RESPECTIVE TRANSFER PRICING OFFICERS, IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDERS OF RELEV ANT PREVIOUS YEARS IN WHICH SUCH INVOICES WERE RAISED. FURTHER, SUCH INTEREST WAS COMPUTED TILL THE ACTUAL PERIOD OF REALIZATION OF THOSE INVOICES, WHICH EVEN EXTENDED BEYOND THE RESPECTIVE FINANCIAL YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION. WE H AVE OBSERVED THAT THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE LD. DR AND THE CALCULATIONS GIVE N DURING THE HEARING ARE NOT TENABLE AS IT HAS NOT CONSIDERED THE CALCULATIO NS GIVEN BY THE ASSESSEE BEFORE THE TPO/ASSESSING OFFICER/DRP. THUS, THE CA LCULATIONS GIVEN BY THE LD. DR AT THIS JUNCTURE WILL NOT APPROPRIATE AS THE CAS E OF THE ASSESSEE IS REGARDING OUTSTANDING RECEIVABLES AND THE PRINCIPAL OF TECHBO OKS INTERNATIONAL (SUPRA) 15 ITA NO. 3717/DEL/2017 WILL NOT APPLY IN THE PRESENT CASE. IN THIS PRESENT ASSESSMENT, THE ASSESSEE HAS GIVEN ALL THE DETAILS WHICH WAS REPRODUCED BY THE T RANSFER PRICING OFFICER (TPO) IT ITS ORDER AND WITHOUT DISCUSSING CALCULATIONS AN D THE EVIDENCES PRODUCED BY THE ASSESSEE, SIMPLICITOR MADE ADJUSTMENT. THERE W AS NO CONTRARY FACTS GIVEN BY THE TPO IN CONSONANCE WITH THE EVIDENCE PRODUCED BY THE ASSESSEE BEFORE THE TPO. THE FACTS OF TECHBOOKS INTERNATIONAL (SUP RA) ARE TOTALLY DIFFERENCE WHICH CAN BE EMERGED FROM THE PARA OF THE SAID DECI SION WHERE THE ASSESSEES CASE FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2010-11 HAS BEEN TAKEN INT O ACCOUNT. THUS, THE CALCULATION GIVEN BY THE DR IN HIS SUBMISSIONS IS N OT INCONSONANCE WITH THE ACTUAL FIGURES AND THE CALCULATIONS CONSIDERED BY T HE TPO AS WELL AS THE DRP AT THE TIME OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS. THE FACTS OF T HE ASSESSEES CASE ARE IDENTICAL IN THE PRESENT YEAR TO THAT OF A.Y. 2010- 11 WHICH IS ALREADY DECIDED BY THE HONBLE DELHI HIGH COURT IN ASSESSEES FAVOU R. NO DISTINGUISHING FACTS WERE POINTED OUT BY THE LD. DR. HENCE, GROUND NOS. 2, 2.3, 2.4 AND 3 ARE ALLOWED. AS REGARDS GROUND NO. 4, THE SAME IS CONSE QUENTIAL IN NATURE. THUS, APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS PARTLY ALLOWED. 9. IN RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS PARTLY ALLOWED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON THIS 01ST DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2020 SD/- SD/- (N. K. BILLAIYA) (SUCHITRA KAMBLE) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEM BER DATED: 01/09/2020 R. NAHEED * 16 ITA NO. 3717/DEL/2017 COPY FORWARDED TO: 1. APPELLANT 2. RESPONDENT 3. CIT 4. CIT(APPEALS) 5. DR: ITAT ASSISTANT REGISTRAR ITAT NEW DELHI DATE OF DICTATION DATE ON WHICH THE TYPED DRAFT IS PLACED BEFORE THE DICTATING MEMBER DATE ON WHICH THE TYPED DRAFT IS PLACED BEFORE THE OTHER MEMBER DATE ON WHICH THE APPROVED DRAFT COMES TO THE SR. PS/PS DATE ON WHICH THE FAIR ORDER IS PLACED BEFORE THE DICTATING MEMBER FOR PRONOUNCEMENT DATE ON WHICH THE FAIR ORDER COMES BACK TO THE SR. PS/PS DATE ON WHICH THE FINAL ORDER IS UPLOADED ON THE WEBSITE OF ITAT DATE ON WHICH THE FILE GOES TO THE BENCH CLERK DATE ON WHICH THE FILE GOES TO THE HEAD CLERK 17 ITA NO. 3717/DEL/2017