Samsung Heavy Industries India Pvt. Ltd., Noida V. DCIT, Noida

ITA 436/DEL/2016

• Counselvise Citation: [2017] 127 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 4784 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 6 month(s) 24 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 22-08-2017
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: I2
• Next Hearing Date: 18-07-2017
• Assessment Year: 2011-2012
• Appeal Filed On: 28-01-2016
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: H S CHOUDHARY
• Keywords: Transfer pricing; Opportunity of being heard; International transaction
• Section: 143(3); 2

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCHES : I-2 : NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI R.S. SYAL, VICE PRESIDENT AND MS SUCHITRA KAMBLE, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA NO.436/DEL/2016 ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2011-12 SAMSUNG HEAVY INDUSTRIES INDIA PVT. LTD., LOGIX CYBER PARK, WING-B, 1 ST FLOOR, C-28&29, SECTOR-62, NOIDA. PAN: AAKCS9098M VS. DCIT, CIRCLE-3, NOIDA. (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) ASSESSEE BY : SHRI ANUBHAV RASTOGI, ADVOCATE DEPARTMENT BY : SHRI H.S. CHOUDHARY, CIT, DR DATE OF HEARING : 21.08.2017 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 22.08.2017 ORDER PER R.S. SYAL, VP: THIS APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS DIRECTED AGAI NST THE FINAL ASSESSMENT ORDER DATED 23.12.2015 PASSED BY THE A SSESSING OFFICER ITA NO.436/DEL/2016 2 (AO) U/S 143(3) READ WITH SECTION 144C OF THE INCOM E-TAX ACT, 1961 (HEREINAFTER ALSO CALLED THE ACT) IN RELATION TO THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2011-12. 2. THE ONLY ISSUE RAISED IN THIS APPEAL IS AGAINST THE ADDITION ON ACCOUNT OF TRANSFER PRICING ADJUSTMENT AMOUNTING TO RS.4,01,72,876/-. 3. BRIEFLY STATED, THE FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT T HE ASSESSEE COMPANY WAS INCORPORATED IN INDIA IN 2007 AND IS A WHOLLY O WNED SUBSIDIARY OF SHI KOREA. IT PROVIDES ENGINEERING, DESIGN AND RELA TED SERVICES FOR THE OFFSHORE FLOATERS/PLATFORM BUSINESS OF SHI KOREA. THE ASSESSEE HAS A POOL OF QUALIFIED MANPOWER. IT EMPLOYS ENGINEERS H AVING A BACKGROUND AND EXPERIENCE IN LAY OUT DESIGN, ELECTRICAL DESIGN , INSTRUMENTATION DESIGN, PIPING DESIGN AND MECHANICAL DESIGN, ETC. THE ASSESSEE FILED RETURN AND REPORTED TWO INTERNATIONAL TRANSACTIONS IN FORM NO.3CEB. THE DISPUTE IN THE PRESENT APPEAL IS ON THE FIRST INTERNATIONAL TRANSACTION OF PROVISION OF ENGINEERING, DESIGN AND RELATED SE RVICES WITH TRANSACTED VALUE OF RS.27,11,16,647/-. THE AO MADE REFERENCE TO THE TRANSFER PRICING OFFICER (TPO) FOR DETERMINING THE ARMS LEN GTH PRICE (ALP) OF ITA NO.436/DEL/2016 3 THE INTERNATIONAL TRANSACTIONS. THE ASSESSEE APPLI ED TRANSACTIONAL NET MARGIN METHOD (TNMM) WITH PROFIT LEVEL INDICATOR OF OPERATING PROFIT/TOTAL COST (OP/TC). THE ASSESSEE COMPUTED ITS OWN PLI AT 15.16%. NINE COMPANIES WERE CHOSEN BY THE ASSESSEE AS COMPARABLE. ON THE BASIS OF THEIR PLI, THE ASSESSEE CLAIMED THA T ITS INTERNATIONAL TRANSACTION WAS AT ALP. 4. AS AGAINST NINE COMPANIES CHOSEN BY THE ASSESSEE AS COMPARABLE, THE TPO INTRODUCED NEW SEVEN COMPANIES IN THE FINAL TALLY OF EIGHT COMPARABLES. AFTER RETAINING ONE COMPARABLES CHOSEN BY THE ASSESSEE, NAMELY, TATA ELXSI LTD., THE TPO WORKED OUT THE MEA N OP/OC OF THE COMPARABLES AT 31.73%, AS UNDER:- S.NO. COMPANY NAME CORRECTED OP/OC (%) WORKING CAPITAL ADJUSTED OP/OC (%) I. ACCENTIA TECHNOLOGIES LTD. 29.18% 24.71% II. TATA ELXSI LTD. 7.54% 6.91% III. ECLERX SERVICES LTD. 56.83% 54.16% IV. ICRA TECHNO ANALYTICS LIMITED 25.32% 21.61% V. INFOSYS BPO LTD. 17.86% 17.16% VI. TCS E-SERVE LTD. 69.31% 67.59% VII. TCS E-SERVE INTERNATIONAL LTD. 53.89% 52.09% VIII. ACROPETAL TECHNOLOGIES LTD. (SEG.) 14.35% 9.61% AVERAGE 34.28% 31.73% ITA NO.436/DEL/2016 4 5. BY APPLYING SUCH ADJUSTED OP/OC OF COMPARABLES A T 31.73%, THE TPO WORKED OUT TRANSFER PRICING ADJUSTMENT AMOUNTIN G TO RS.4,01,72,876/-. THE ASSESSEE REMAINED UNSUCCESSF UL BEFORE THE DISPUTE RESOLUTION PANEL (DRP). THAT IS HOW, THE ASSESSING OFFICER MADE AN ADDITION OF RS.4.01 CRORE IN HIS FINAL ORDE R ON ACCOUNT OF TRANSFER PRICING ADJUSTMENT IN THE INTERNATIONAL TR ANSACTION OF PROVISION OF ENGINEERING, DESIGN AND RELATED SERVICES. THE A SSESSEE IS AGGRIEVED AGAINST THE ADDITION MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. 6. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND PERUSED THE RELEVANT MATERIAL ON RECORD. THE LD. AR SUBMITTED THAT THE S HORT CONTROVERSY IN THE INSTANT APPEAL IS AGAINST THE INCLUSION OF FOUR COMPANIES IN THE LIST OF COMPARABLES. THUS, IT IS APPARENT THAT THERE IS NO QUARREL ON ANY ASPECT INCLUDING THE APPLICATION OF TNMM AS THE MOST APPRO PRIATE METHOD WITH THE PLI OF OP/OC. 7. BEFORE PROCEEDING TO DISCUSS THE COMPARABILIT Y OR OTHERWISE OF THE COMPANIES ASSAILED BEFORE US, IT IS NECESSARY TO HA VE A LOOK AT THE NATURE OF FUNCTIONS CARRIED OUT BY THE ASSESSEE UNDER THIS SEGMENT. THE ITA NO.436/DEL/2016 5 NOMENCLATURE OF THE INTERNATIONAL TRANSACTION, BEIN G, PROVISION OF ENGINEERING, DESIGN AND RELATED SERVICES, INDICATE S THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS RENDERING ENGINEERING AND DESIGN SERVICES. IT IS M ANIFEST FROM THE SHOW CAUSE NOTICE, WHOSE RELEVANT PART IS REPRODUCED O N PAGE 5 OF THE TPOS ORDER, THAT THE ASSESSEE PROVIDED GAMUT OF SERVICES TO ITS AE RANGING FROM FEASIBLE STUDY, PRE-DESIGN SERVICES, BASIC DES IGN, FRONT END ENGINEERING DESIGN, LAY OUT DESIGN, DETAILED ENGINE ERING AND COMMISSIONING ASSISTANCE ETC. THE ASSESSEE CLAIMED THAT ITS SERVICES ARE MAINLY IN THE NATURE OF I.T. ENABLED ENGINEERING SE RVICES AND KNOWLEDGE PROCESS OUTSOURCING. THE TPO ON PAGE 8 OF HIS ORDE R DID NOT ACCEPT THE ASSESSEES CONTENTION OF PROVIDING ENGINEERING SUPP ORT SERVICES. HE CAME TO HOLD THAT: THE ASSESSEE IS RENDERING SERVI CES TO ITS AE WHICH CAN BE CLASSIFIED AS IT ENABLED SERVICES FOR THE REASO NS GIVEN IN THE ORDER. THAT IS HOW, THE TPO PROCEEDED WITH THE ASSESSEES NATURE OF ACTIVITY AS THAT OF PROVIDING `IT ENABLED SERVICES. THE COMPA NIES SO CHOSEN BY THE TPO ARE BY AND LARGE RENDERING SERVICES IN THE BROA DER SPECTRUM OF I.T. ENABLED SERVICES. ITA NO.436/DEL/2016 6 8. AT THIS STAGE, WE CONSIDER IT EXPEDIENT TO NOTE THE CONTENTION OF THE LD. DR THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS NOT RENDERING ONLY `I. T. ENABLED SERVICES, BUT `ENGINEERING SERVICES AS WELL. IT WAS SUBMITT ED THAT TATA ELXSI LTD., A COMPANY INCLUDED BY THE TPO IN THE FINAL SET OF C OMPARABLES, WAS NOT RENDERING IT ENABLED SERVICES. THE LD. DR VEHEMENT LY ARGUED THAT THE SELECTION OF COMPARABLE COMPANIES SHOULD BE BASED B Y CONSIDERING THE ASSESEES FUNCTIONAL PROFILE AS THAT OF ENGINEERING SERVICES ALSO. 9. WE ARE DISINCLINED TO ACCEPT THIS CONTENTIO N ADVANCED BY THE LD. DR FOR THE OBVIOUS REASON THAT THE TPO HIMSELF DECL INED TO ACCEPT THIS CONTENTION AND CLASSIFIED THE ASSESSEES SERVICES A S IT ENABLED SERVICES. ONCE THE TPO HAS TREATED THE NATURE OF SERVICES REN DERED BY THE ASSESSEE AS `I.T. ENABLED AND THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT OBJECTED TO THE SAME IN THE APPEAL BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL, THE LD. DR CANNOT BE AL LOWED TO SET UP A NEW CASE CONTRARY TO WHAT WAS DONE BY THE TPO BY CLAIMI NG THAT THE NATURE OF SERVICES SHOULD BE ALTERED AT THIS STAGE FOR EVA LUATION OF COMPARABLE COMPANIES IN DISPUTE. WE WILL, THEREFORE, CONFINE OURSELVES IN CONSIDERING THE COMPARABILITY OR OTHERWISE OF THE C OMPANIES IN ITA NO.436/DEL/2016 7 CHALLENGE BEFORE US BY TREATING THE ASSESSEE AS REN DERING `I.T. ENABLED SERVICES, AS WAS DONE BY THE TPO. 10. NOW, WE WILL TAKE UP FOUR COMPANIES, ONE BY ONE , TO SEE WHETHER OR NOT THESE ARE COMPARABLE. AT THIS JUNCTURE, IT IS RELEVANT TO MENTION THAT THE NATURE OF ACTIVITY CARRIED OUT BY THE ASSE SSEE DURING THE YEAR IS ADMITTEDLY SIMILAR TO THAT CARRIED ON IN THE PRECED ING YEAR. THE ASSESSEE HAS RENDERED SERVICES EMANATING FROM AN AGREEMENT E NTERED INTO WITH SHI KOREA DATED 1 ST FEBRUARY, 2009. THUS, IT IS OSTENSIBLE THAT THE NA TURE OF SERVICES RENDERED BY THE ASSESSEE DURING THE YEA R ARE SIMILAR TO THOSE RENDERED IN THE PRECEDING ASSESSMENT YEAR I.E. 2010 -11. THE TPO IN THE PRECEDING YEAR, PROCEEDED IN ALMOST THE SAME MANNER , AND CONSIDERED ALL THE FOUR COMPANIES CURRENTLY UNDER CHALLENGE BE FORE US, AS COMPARABLE. THE MATTER TRAVELLED TO THE TRIBUNAL A ND THE SAME HAS BEEN DECIDED VIDE ORDER DATED 13.07.2017 IN ITA NO.576/D EL/2015. A COPY OF SUCH ORDER HAS BEEN PLACED ON RECORD. ITA NO.436/DEL/2016 8 (I) ACCENTIA TECHNOLOGIES LTD . 11. THE TPO TREATED THIS COMPANY AS COMPARABLE IN T HE SAME WAY IT WAS DONE IN THE PRECEDING YEAR. THE TRIBUNAL IN IT S ORDER FOR THE IMMEDIATELY PRECEDING ASSESSMENT YEAR HAS DISCUSSED THE COMPARABILITY OR OTHERWISE OF THIS COMPANY ON PAGE 21 ONWARDS OF ITS ORDER. AFTER RELYING ON CERTAIN DECISIONS, THE TRIBUNAL DIRECTED TO EXCLUDE IT FROM THE LIST OF COMPARABLES ON ACCOUNT OF FUNCTIONAL DISSIM ILARITY AND OUTSOURCING OF SUBSTANTIAL AMOUNT OF WORK. WE HAVE GONE THROUGH A COPY OF THE ANNUAL REPORT OF THIS COMPANY FOR THE Y EAR UNDER CONSIDERATION, WHOSE COPY HAS BEEN PLACED ON PAGES 500 ONWARDS OF THE PAPER BOOK. THE PROFIT & LOSS ACCOUNT OF THIS COMP ANY IS AVAILABLE AT PAGE 542 FROM WHICH IT CAN BE SEEN THAT THERE IS IN COME FROM SALES AND SERVICES TO THE TUNE OF RS.108.31 CRORE. SCHEDULE 8 GIVES A BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF SUCH `INCOME AS INCLUDING MEDICAL TRANSCRIPTION, BILLING AND COLLECTIONS, INCOME FROM CODING, INTEREST ON FD AND INCOME FROM EXCHANGE FLUCTUATION. THUS, INCOME HAS ARISEN IN I NDIA NOT ONLY FROM `SERVICES, BUT FROM SALES AS WELL. PAGE 552 OF TH E PAPER BOOK INDICATES ITA NO.436/DEL/2016 9 THAT: THIS COMPANY HAS ONLY ONE SEGMENT OF ACTIVIT Y, NAMELY, HEALTHCARE MANAGEMENT. PAGE 530 DISCLOSES THAT APART FROM SE RVICES, THIS COMPANY IS EARNING INCOME FROM PRODUCTS AS WELL. S INCE THIS COMPANY IS ENGAGED IN SALE OF PRODUCTS APART FROM RENDERING IT ENABLED SERVICES AND BOTH THESE COMPONENTS OF INCOME LIE IN ONE SEGM ENT, IT IS NOT POSSIBLE TO BIFURCATE INCOME FROM IT ENABLED SERVIC ES FROM THE COMMON POOL OF PRODUCTS AND SERVICES, SO AS TO MAKE COMPAR ISON WITH THE ASSESSEES INCOME. RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING THE TRI BUNAL ORDER PASSED FOR THE IMMEDIATELY PRECEDING YEAR, WE ORDER FOR TH E EXCLUSION OF THIS COMPANY FROM THE LIST OF COMPARABLES. (II) ECLERX SERVICES LTD . 12. THE TPO INCLUDED THIS COMPANY IN THE LIST OF CO MPARABLES ON THE SAME BASIS AS WAS DONE FOR THE PRECEDING YEAR. THE TRIBUNAL ORDER FOR THE IMMEDIATELY PRECEDING ASSESSMENT YEAR HAS DISCU SSED THE FUNCTIONAL PROFILE OF THIS COMPANY. AFTER DISCUSSION, THE TRI BUNAL HAS COME TO HOLD THAT THIS COMPANY IS FUNCTIONALLY DIFFERENT. ITA NO.436/DEL/2016 10 13. WE HAVE GONE THROUGH THE ANNUAL REPORT OF THIS COMPANY, A COPY OF WHICH HAS BEEN PLACED ON RECORD. PROFIT & LOSS ACCOUNT OF THIS COMPANY SHOWS INCOME FROM OPERATIONS AT RS.3419.1 1 MILLION. THE DIRECTORS REPORT INDICATES THAT THIS COMPANY IS RE NDERING FINANCIAL AS WELL AS SALES & MARKETING SERVICES. INCOME FROM BO TH THESE SERVICES HAS BEEN CLUBBED. SUCH SERVICES INCLUDE TRADE PROC ESSING SUPPORT, REFERENCE DATA MAINTENANCE, CONTRACT RISK REVIEW, R ECONCILIATION AND CONTROLS, MARGIN AND EXPOSURE MANAGEMENT, METRICS A ND REPORTING, EXPENSES MANAGEMENT, ACCOUNTING AND FINANCE, CONSUL TING SERVICES, ONLINE OPERATIONS & WEB ANALYTICS, CRM & BUSINESS I NTELLIGENCE, DATA MANAGEMENT & REPORTING, COMPETITOR BENCHMARKING & P RICING, QUALITY & COMPLIANCE AND BUSINESS PROCESS CONSULTIN G. THIS COMPANY HAS A SINGLE PRIMARY SEGMENT I.E., DATA ANALYTICS AND PROCESS OUTSOURCING SERVICES. A PLAIN READING OF THE NATU RE OF SERVICES CARRIED ON BY THIS COMPANY ABUNDANTLY SHOWS THAT THERE IS A VAST DIFFERENCE WITH THE ACTIVITY CARRIED ON BY THE ASSESSEE. RELYING O N THE VIEW TAKEN BY THE CO-ORDINATE BENCH FOR THE IMMEDIATELY PRECEDING ASS ESSMENT YEAR, WE DIRECT TO EXCLUDE THIS COMPANY FROM THE LIST OF COM PARABLES. ITA NO.436/DEL/2016 11 (III) TCS E-SERVE LTD . 14. THIS COMPANY WAS ALSO CONSIDERED BY THE TPO AS COMPARABLE IN THE PRECEDING YEAR. THE TRIBUNAL DIRECTED TO EXCLU DE THIS COMPANY, INTER ALIA , ON ACCOUNT OF DIFFERENCE IN FUNCTIONAL PROFILE. 15. WE HAVE GONE THROUGH THE PRINCIPAL ACTIVITIES D ONE BY THIS COMPANY IN THE YEAR IN QUESTION WHICH HAVE BEEN SET OUT ON PAGE 88 OF ITS ANNUAL REPORT AS UNDER:- 1. BACKGROUND AND PRINCIPAL ACTIVITIES TCS E-SERVE LIMITED IS ENGAGED IN THE BUSINESS OF P ROVIDING INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY-ENABLED SERVICES (ITES)/BUSI NESS PROCESS OUTSOURCING (BPO) SERVICES, PRIMARILY TO CITIGROUP ENTITIES GLOBALLY. THE COMPANYS OPERATIONS BROADLY COMPRISE OF TRANSA CTION PROCESSING AND TECHNICAL SERVICES. TRANSACTION PROCESSING INC LUDES THE BROAD SPECTRUM OF ACTIVITIES INVOLVING THE PROCESSING, CO LLECTIONS, CUSTOMER CARE AND PAYMENTS IN RELATION TO THE SERVICES OFFER ED BY CITIGROUP TO ITS CORPORATE AND RETAIL CLIENTS. TECHNICAL SERVICE S INVOLVE SOFTWARE TESTING, VERIFICATION AND VALIDATION OF SOFTWARE AT THE TIME OF IMPLEMENTATION AND DATA CENTRE MANAGEMENT ACTIVITIE S. 16. THE ASSESSEE HAS ALSO MADE AVAILABLE ANNUAL REP ORT OF THIS COMPANY FOR THE IMMEDIATELY PRECEDING ASSESSMENT YE AR. THE PRINCIPAL ACTIVITIES OF THE COMPANY HAVE BEEN SET OUT AT PAGE 105 OF THE ANNUAL REPORT FOR THE PRECEDING YEAR, WHICH ARE IDENTICAL TO THOSE FOR THE INSTANT ITA NO.436/DEL/2016 12 YEAR. SINCE THE TRIBUNAL, FOR THE IMMEDIATELY PREC EDING YEAR, HAS HELD THIS COMPANY TO BE FUNCTIONALLY DIFFERENT FROM THAT OF THE ASSESSEE, RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING THE PRECEDENT, WE DIRECT THE EXCLUSION OF THIS COMPANY ON ACCOUNT OF FUNCTIONAL DISSIMILARITY AS T HE NATURE OF ACTIVITY CARRIED ON BY THE ASSESSEE DURING THE YEAR ALSO REM AINS SIMILAR TO THAT DONE FOR THE PRECEDING YEAR. (IV) TCS E-SERVE INTERNATIONAL LTD . 17. THE TPO INCLUDED THIS COMPANY IN THE FINAL ROLL OF COMPARABLES. SIMILAR VIEW WAS TAKEN BY HIM FOR THE IMMEDIATELY P RECEDING ASSESSMENT YEAR. THE TRIBUNAL, IN AN APPEAL BY THE ASSESSEE, HAS DIRECTED TO EXCLUDE THIS COMPANY IN ITS ORDER FOR T HE IMMEDIATELY PRECEDING YEAR. THE PRINCIPAL ACTIVITIES OF THIS C OMPANY HAVE BEEN SET OUT ON PAGE 25 OF ITS ANNUAL REPORT FOR THE YEAR, WHICH ARE AS UNDER:- 1. BACKGROUND AND PRINCIPAL ACTIVITIES TCS E-SERVE INTERNATIONAL LIMITED IS ENGAGED IN THE BUSINESS OF PROVIDING INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY-ENABLED SERVICES ( ITES)/BUSINESS PROCESS OUTSOURCING (BPO) SERVICES, PRIMARILY TO CI TIGROUP ENTITIES GLOBALLY. THE COMPANYS OPERATIONS BROADLY COMPRISE OF TRANSA CTION PROCESSING AND TECHNICAL SERVICES. TRANSACTION PROCESSING INC LUDES THE BROAD ITA NO.436/DEL/2016 13 SPECTRUM OF ACTIVITIES INVOLVING THE PROCESSING, CO LLECTIONS, CUSTOMER CARE AND PAYMENTS IN RELATION TO THE SERVICES OFFER ED BY CITIGROUP TO ITS CORPORATE AND RETAIL CLIENTS. TECHNICAL SERVICE S INVOLVE SOFTWARE TESTING, VERIFICATION AND VALIDATION OF SOFTWARE AT THE TIME OF IMPLEMENTATION AND DATA CENTRE MANAGEMENT ACTIVITIE S. 18. IT CAN BE SEEN THAT SIMILAR ACTIVITIES WERE DON E BY THIS COMPANY IN THE PRECEDING YEAR AS WELL. SINCE THE NATURE OF AC TIVITIES CARRIED OUT BY THIS COMPANY FOR BOTH THE YEARS ARE SIMILAR AND THE TRIBUNAL, FOR THE IMMEDIATELY PRECEDING YEAR, HAS HELD THIS COMPANY T O BE FUNCTIONALLY DISSIMILAR, WE, THEREFORE, DIRECT TO EXCLUDE THIS C OMPANY FROM THE LIST OF COMPARABLES. 19. TO SUM UP, WE SET ASIDE THE IMPUGNED ORDER ON T HE ISSUE OF ADDITION TOWARDS TRANSFER PRICING ADJUSTMENT AND RE MIT THE MATTER TO THE FILE OF AO/TPO FOR FRESH DETERMINATION OF THE ALP O F THE INTERNATIONAL TRANSACTION OF PROVISION OF ENGINEERING, DESIGN AN D RELATED SERVICES IN CONSONANCE WITH OUR ABOVE DIRECTIONS. NEEDLESS TO SAY, THE ASSESSEE WILL BE ALLOWED A REASONABLE OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD IN SUCH FRESH PROCEEDINGS. ITA NO.436/DEL/2016 14 20. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL IS ALLOWED FOR STATIS TICAL PURPOSES. THE ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 22.08.201 7. SD/- SD/- [SUCHITRA KAMBLE] [R.S. SYAL] JUDICIAL MEMBER VICE PRESIDENT DATED, 22 ND AUGUST, 2017. DK COPY FORWARDED TO: 1. APPELLANT 2. RESPONDENT 3. CIT 4. CIT (A) 5. DR, ITAT AR, ITAT, NEW DELHI.