Corporate Executive Board India Private Limited, Gurgaon V. ITO, New Delhi

ITA 4986/DEL/2010

• Counselvise Citation: [2015] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 97343 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 4 year(s) 9 month(s) 29 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 11-09-2015
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Bench Allotted: I1
• Next Hearing Date: 10-09-2015
• Assessment Year: 2006-2007
• Appeal Filed On: 12-11-2010
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: AMRENDRA KUMAR CIR
• Assessee Lawyers: ANKIT ARORA; SOUMYA SETH CAS
• Keywords: Related party transaction; Depreciation; Transfer pricing; Opportunity of being heard; International transaction; Wholly owned subsidiary; Revenue expenditure
• Section: 2

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCHES : I-1 : NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI R.S. SYAL, AM AND SHRI A.T. VARKEY, JM ITA NO.4986/DEL/2010 ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2006-07 CORPORATE EXECUTIVE BOARD INDIA PVT. LTD., 6 TH FLOOR, BUILDING 10B, DLF CYBER CITY, DLF PHASE II, GURGAON. PAN: AACCC3453C VS. ITO, WARD 3(4), NEW DELHI. (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) ASSESSEE BY : SHRI ANKIT ARORA & MS SOUMYA SETH, CAS DEPARTMENT BY : SHRI AMRENDRA KUMAR, CIR, DR DATE OF HEARING : 10.09.2015 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 11.09.2015 ORDER PER R.S. SYAL, AM: THIS APPEAL BY THE ASSESSEE IS DIRECTED AGAINST TH E FINAL ASSESSMENT ORDER PASSED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER (AO) UNDER SE CTION 143 (3) READ ITA NO.4986/DEL/2010 2 WITH SECTION 144C OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT, 1961 (HERE INAFTER ALSO CALLED THE ACT) IN RELATION TO THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2006- 07. 2. CONCISE GROUNDS HAVE BEEN FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IN SUPERSESSION OF THE GROUNDS TAKEN IN APPEAL MEMO. APART FROM THAT, THE ASSESSEE HAS ALSO FILED CERTAIN ADDITIONAL GROUNDS. SOME OF THE GROUNDS WERE NOT PRESSED. WE WILL DEAL WITH THE SURVIVING ISSUES ONE BY ONE. 3. THE FIRST ISSUE PRESSED BY THE LD. AR IS AGAINST THE ALLEGED CALCULATION MISTAKE COMMITTED BY THE TRANSFER PRICI NG OFFICER (TPO) IN COMPUTING THE PROFIT MARGIN OF TWO COMPARABLE COMPA NIES, NAMELY, M/S EDUCATIONAL CONSULTANTS (INDIA) LTD. (TECHNICAL ASS ISTANCE SEGMENT) AND M/S AGRICULTURAL FINANCE CORPORATION LTD. 4. BRIEFLY STATED, THE FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT T HE ASSESSEE, A WHOLLY OWNED SUBSIDIARY OF THE CORPORATE EXECUTIVE BOARD C OMPANY, USA, WAS INCORPORATED IN INDIA ON 4.3.2004. THE ASSESSE E IS ENGAGED IN PROVIDING INFORMATION RESEARCH AND RELATED SUPPORT SERVICES TO ITS ASSOCIATED ENTERPRISES (AE). IT UNDERTAKES BACK OF FICE SUPPORT FOR SOME RESEARCH ACTIVITIES. THE AO MADE A REFERENCE TO THE TRANSFER PRICING ITA NO.4986/DEL/2010 3 OFFICER (TPO) FOR DETERMINING THE ARMS LENGTH PRIC E (ALP) OF THE INTERNATIONAL TRANSACTIONS REPORTED BY THE ASSESSEE . APART FROM ONE INTERNATIONAL TRANSACTION OF `REIMBURSEMENT OF EXPE NSES, ON WHICH THERE IS NO DISPUTE, THE ASSESSEE REPORTED ANOTHER INTERNATIONAL TRANSACTION OF PROVISION OF SERVICES WITH THE TRA NSACTED VALUE OF RS.5,36,12,646/-. THE ASSESSEE APPLIED TRANSACTIONA L NET MARGIN METHOD (TNMM) AS THE MOST APPROPRIATE METHOD WITH T HE PROFIT LEVEL INDICATOR (PLI) OF OPERATING PROFIT/TOTAL COST (OP/ TC). THERE IS NO DISPUTE ON THE APPLICATION OF TNMM AS THE MOST APPR OPRIATE METHOD OR THE PLI. THE TPO FINALLY SHORTLISTED FIVE COMPANIES AS COMPARABLE WHICH HAVE BEEN LISTED ON PAGE 9 OF HIS ORDER. AVER AGE OP/TC OF THESE COMPANIES WAS DETERMINED AT 19.37% AS AGAINST THE A SSESSEES OP/TC COMPUTED BY THE TPO AT 7.84%. THAT IS HOW, A TRANS FER PRICING ADJUSTMENT OF RS.57,33,902/- WAS PROPOSED, WHICH WA S EVENTUALLY MADE BY THE AO IN THE FINAL ASSESSMENT ORDER. 5. THE DISPUTE IS ABOUT THE CALCULATION OF THE OPER ATING PROFIT MARGIN OF M/S EDUCATIONAL CONSULTANTS (INDIA) LTD. (TECHNI CAL ASSISTANCE ITA NO.4986/DEL/2010 4 SEGMENT) DETERMINED BY THE TPO AT 26.45%. THE LD. AR SUBMITTED THAT THIS CALCULATION DONE BY THE TPO IS INCORRECT INASM UCH AS THIS PERCENTAGE OF PROFIT DOES NOT EMANATE FROM THE FIGU RES TAKEN FROM THE ANNUAL ACCOUNTS OF THIS COMPANY. ON BEING CALLED UP ON TO INVITE OUR ATTENTION TOWARDS CALCULATION OF SUCH PERCENTAGE OF PROFIT RATE BY THE TPO WITH REFERENCE TO THE RELEVANT FIGURES FROM THE ANNUAL ACCOUNTS OF M/S EDUCATIONAL CONSULTANTS (INDIA) LTD. (TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE SEGMENT), THE LD. AR PUT FORTH THAT NO SUCH FIGURES ARE AVAILABLE IN THE TPOS ORDER. THE LD. DR ALSO FAILED TO DRAW OUR AT TENTION TOWARDS THE FIGURES OF THIS COMPANY IN THE ORDER OF THE TPO RES ULTING INTO THE DETERMINATION OF OP/TC AT 26.45%. WHEN THERE IS A SPECIFIC CHALLENGE TO THE CALCULATION OF OP/TC OF THE RELEVANT SEGMENT OF THIS COMPANY AND THE TPO HAS NOT MENTIONED HOW HE DETERMINED THIS PE RCENTAGE OF PROFIT, WE ARE HELPLESS TO EVALUATE THE CONTENTION OF THE L D. AR. UNDER SUCH CIRCUMSTANCES, WE ARE OF THE CONSIDERED OPINION THA T THE ENDS OF JUSTICE WOULD MEET ADEQUATELY IF THE IMPUGNED ORDER ON THIS SCORE IS SET ASIDE AND THE MATTER IS SENT BACK TO THE FILE OF AO/TPO. WE ORDER ACCORDINGLY AND DIRECT THE TPO TO INCORPORATE IN HIS ORDER THE RELEVANT FIGURES ITA NO.4986/DEL/2010 5 LEADING TO THE DETERMINATION OF THE COMPUTATION OF OP/TC AT 26.45%. NEEDLESS TO SAY, THE ASSESSEE WILL BE ALLOWED A REA SONABLE OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD. IF, AFTER CONSIDERING THE OBJECTIO NS OF THE ASSESSEE, THE TPO FINDS THAT THIS CALCULATION OF PROFIT RATE OF 2 6.45% IS INCORRECT AS HAS BEEN CONTENDED BEFORE US, THEN THE TPO/AO SHOUL D CONSIDER THE CORRECT PERCENTAGE AND, CONSEQUENTLY RE-DETERMINE T HE ARMS LENGTH PRICE (ALP) OF THE INTERNATIONAL TRANSACTION. 6. SIMILAR IS THE POSITION REGARDING WORKING OF OP/ TC OF M/S AGRICULTURAL FINANCE CORPORATION LTD. THE TPO COMP UTED PLI OF THIS COMPANY AT 7.43%. THE LD. AR CONTENDS THAT THIS FI GURE IS INCORRECT. NO RELEVANT DETAILS LEADING TO THE COMPUTATION OF T HIS PROFIT RATE ARE AVAILABLE IN THE TPOS ORDER, WHICH POSITION HAS BE EN ADMITTED BY THE LD. DR AS WELL. FOLLOWING THE VIEW TAKEN HEREINABOV E, WE SET ASIDE THE IMPUGNED ORDER TO THIS EXTENT ALSO AND REMIT THE MA TTER TO THE FILE OF AO/TPO FOR INCORPORATION OF CORRECT OP/TC OF THIS C OMPANY IN THE PROFIT RATES OF COMPARABLES, AFTER ALLOWING A REASO NABLE OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD TO THE ASSESSEE. ITA NO.4986/DEL/2010 6 7. SECOND ISSUE RAISED IN THIS APPEAL IS AGAINST CONSIDERATION BY THE TPO OF DEFERRED REVENUE EXPENDITURE AS OPERATING EX PENSE IN THE COMPUTATION OF THE ASSESSEES OWN OPERATING PROFIT RATE. THE LD. AR CONTENDED THAT THE ASSESSEE INCURRED A SUM OF RS.71 .89 LAC IN THE PRECEDING YEAR BEFORE THE START OF ACTUAL BUSINESS ACTIVITY, WHICH AMOUNT WAS CAPITALIZED AS DEFERRED REVENUE EXPENDITURE, TO BE WRITTEN OFF IN FIVE YEARS. HE SUBMITTED THAT 20% OF SUCH EXPENDITURE WA S WRITTEN OFF IN THE PRECEDING YEAR BY WAY OF A DEBIT TO THE PROFIT & LO SS ACCOUNT AND EQUAL AMOUNT OF RS.14.37 LAC WAS DEBITED TO THE PROFIT & LOSS ACCOUNT FOR THE CURRENT YEAR. THE LD. AR POINTED OUT THAT THE TPO, WHILE COMPUTING OPERATING PROFIT MARGIN OF THE ASSESSEE FOR THE YEA R IN QUESTION, TREATED THIS SUM OF RS.14.37 LAC WRITTEN OFF IN THE ACCOUNT S, AS AN ITEM OF OPERATING EXPENSE AND COMPUTED THE ASSESSEES OPERA TING PROFIT MARGIN ACCORDINGLY. HE ARGUED THAT THE AMOUNT SO WRITTEN O FF OUGHT NOT TO HAVE BEEN CONSIDERED AS OPERATING EXPENSE. THIS WAS COUN TERED BY THE LD. DR BY STATING THAT THE DESCRIPTION OF SUCH EXPENSES I NDICATES THAT ALL OF THEM ARE OF OPERATING NATURE. ITA NO.4986/DEL/2010 7 8. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND PERUSED THE RELEVANT MATERIAL ON RECORD. IT IS NOTICED THAT THE ASSESSE E COMPANY WAS INCORPORATED ON 4.3.2004. THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE IS THAT ALBEIT IT ENTERED INTO AN AGREEMENT WITH ITS AE FOR RENDERING OF SERVICES ON 10 TH MARCH, 2005, BUT, IT ACTUALLY STARTED PROVIDING SER VICES FROM 1 ST JANUARY, 2005. A COPY OF THE `INTER COMPANY SERVICE AGREEME NT HAS BEEN PLACED ON RECORD, WHICH PROVIDES THAT: CEB INDIA, HAS, SI NCE JANUARY 1, 2005, ASSISTED .. IN PROVIDING SUCH SERVICES TO CEB IT, THEREFORE, TRANSPIRES THAT THE ASSESSEE STARTED REN DERING SERVICES TO ITS AE FROM JANUARY 1, 2005 AND THE PERIOD OF THREE MONTHS FROM JANUARY 1 TO 31 ST MARCH, 2005 FALLS IN THE PRECEDING YEAR. NOW THE P OINT OF VIEW OF THE ASSESSEE IS THAT THE DEFERRED REVENUE EXPENSES INCURRED IN THE EARLIER YEAR, A PART OF WHICH HAS BEEN WRITTEN OFF IN THE CURRENT YEAR TO THE EXTENT OF 20%, SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN TREATED AS OPE RATING EXPENSES. 9. WE HAVE GONE THROUGH THE DETAIL OF EXPENSES WITH THE HEADS GIVEN BEFORE US WHICH, INTER ALIA , INCLUDES SALARY OF RS.24.76 LAC, RENT OF RS.10.78 LAC, DEPRECIATION OF RS.2.41 LAC. ALL TH E EXPENSES IN THIS LIST ITA NO.4986/DEL/2010 8 ARE OTHERWISE OF OPERATING NATURE, EXCEPT PRELIMINA RY EXPENSES AMOUNTING TO RS.25,498/-, WHICH FULL AMOUNT HAS BE EN TREATED BY THE TPO HIMSELF AS NON-OPERATING. THE LD. AR ARGUED TH AT SUCH EXPENSES WERE INCURRED PRIOR TO THE RENDERING OF SERVICES TO THE AE AND HENCE SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN CONSIDERED AS OPERATING EXPENS ES IN THE COMPUTATION OF OPERATING PROFIT MARGIN OF THE CURRE NT YEAR. ON A SPECIFIC QUERY FROM THE BENCH, IT WAS ADMITTED THAT THE ASSE SSEE WAS ENGAGED IN RENDERING SERVICES ONLY TO ITS AE AND NONE ELSE. I T IS ALSO AN ADMITTED POSITION THAT THE ASSESSEE STARTED RENDERING SERVIC ES TO ITS AE FROM 1 ST JANUARY, 2005. THE RELEVANT CRITERIA IN THIS REGAR D IS THE NATURE OF EXPENSES INCURRED BY THE ASSESSEE AFTER SETTING UP OF BUSINESS, WHETHER OR NOT CAPITALIZED AND EVEN IF CAPITALIZED, THEN TH E NOMENCLATURE IS ALSO IRRELEVANT. TURNING TO THE FACTS OF THE CASE, WE FI ND THAT SUCH EXPENSES CAPITALIZED BY THE ASSESSEE AS DEFERRED REVENUE EXP ENSES, EXCEPT PRELIMINARY EXPENSES, ARE IN THE NATURE OF OPERATIN G EXPENSES. AS SUCH, IT BECOMES CRUCIAL TO FIND OUT THE DATES ON WHICH S UCH EXPENSES WERE INCURRED, SO AS TO FIND OUT IF THESE WERE INCURRED BEFORE OR AFTER THE DATE OF START OF RENDERING THE SERVICES TO ITS AES. IF SUCH DATE IS PRIOR TO THE ITA NO.4986/DEL/2010 9 START DATE OF RENDERING SERVICES TO THE AE, THEN IT NEEDS TO BE FOUND OUT WHETHER THE INCURRING OF SUCH EXPENSES HAS ANY RELA TION WITH THE RENDERING OF SERVICES. SOMETIMES IT MAY HAPPEN THAT CERTAIN EXPENSES HAVE TO BE NECESSARILY INCURRED IN ADVANCE TOWARDS THE PREPARATION OF RENDERING OF SERVICES. IF THE OTHERWISE OPERATING EXPENSES INCURRED IN THE PRECEDING YEAR THOUGH CAPITALIZED ARE BEFORE TH E STARTING POINT OF RENDERING SERVICES TO THE AE AND BEAR NO RELATION W ITH SUCH SERVICES, THEN THE PART AMOUNT OF SUCH EXPENSES CLAIMED AS DE DUCTION DURING THE YEAR, CANNOT BE TREATED AS OPERATING EXPENSE. IF O N THE OTHER HAND, SUCH EXPENSES ARE INCURRED EITHER AFTER THE START OF REN DERING SERVICES TO THE AE OR BEFORE THAT BUT ARE IN RELATION TO SUCH SERVI CES, THEN THEY BECOME OPERATING EXPENSES. THE MOST VITAL POINT IN SUCH A LATTER SCENARIO WHICH ASSUMES SIGNIFICANCE IS TO FIND OUT THE RELATION OF SUCH EXPENSES WITH THE YEAR IN WHICH CORRESPONDING REVENUE IS RECEIVED FRO M THE AE. IF THE REVENUE ARISING FROM INCURRING OF SUCH EXPENSES IS LINKED WITH THE PRECEDING YEAR, THEN THE CLAIM OF SUCH EXPENSES BY WAY OF WRITE OFF MADE DURING THE YEAR, CANNOT BE CONSIDERED AS OPERA TING COST OF THE CURRENT YEAR. IF ON THE OTHER HAND, THE REVENUE FRO M INCURRING OF SUCH ITA NO.4986/DEL/2010 10 EXPENSES IS LINKED WITH AND ACCOUNTED FOR IN THE IN STANT YEAR, THEN THE CORRESPONDING AMOUNT OF EXPENSES, IRRESPECTIVE OF T HE AMOUNT OF DEDUCTION CLAIMED BY THE ASSESSEE AT 20%, WILL HAV E TO BE TREATED AS OPERATING EXPENSE. COMING BACK TO THE FACTS OF THE INSTANT CASE, WE FIND THAT NEITHER THE DATES OF INCURRING SUCH REVENUE EX PENSES, THOUGH CAPITALIZED AS DEFERRED REVENUE EXPENDITURE, ARE AV AILABLE ON RECORD NOR THERE IS ANY RECORD TO LINK THESE EXPENSES WITH THE EARNING OF REVENUE FROM THE AE. IN THE ABSENCE OF THE NECESSARY DETAIL S OF THESE TWO FACTORS RELEVANT FOR DECIDING THE QUESTION AS TO WHETHER OR NOT THESE SHOULD BE TREATED AS OPERATING COST OF THE YEAR AND THEN THEI R EXTENT, WE CONSIDER IT APPROPRIATE TO SEND THE MATTER BACK TO THE FILE OF THE AO/TPO. WE ORDER ACCORDINGLY AND DIRECT HIM TO MAKE NECESSARY VERIFI CATION ON THE ABOVE ASPECTS AND THEN DECIDE THE ISSUE IN CONFORMITY WIT H OUR ABOVE DISCUSSION. 10. IT IS FURTHER NOTICED THAT THE ASSESSEE INCU RRED TOTAL PRELIMINARY EXPENSES AMOUNTING TO RS.25,498/- IN THE PRECEDING YEAR AND ONLY 20% OF SUCH EXPENSES WAS WRITTEN OFF IN THIS YEAR. HOW EVER, THE TPO INSTEAD ITA NO.4986/DEL/2010 11 OF ADDING BACK SUCH 20% TO THE OVERALL NET PROFIT B Y TREATING IT AS NON- OPERATING, BY MISTAKE ADDED BACK THE FULL AMOUNT OF RS.25,498. THE EFFECT OF THIS EXERCISE DONE BY THE TPO IS THAT 80% OF RS.25,498 WHICH WAS NOT DEBITED TO THE PROFIT AND LOSS ACCOUNT ALSO GOT TREATED AS NON- OPERATING EXPENSE, WHICH POSITION IS NOT CORRECT. I N THE FRESH EXERCISE OF FINDING OUT THE AMOUNT TO BE TREATED AS OPERATING O R NON-OPERATING OUT OF TOTAL DEFERRED REVENUE EXPENSES, THE TPO WILL ALSO TAKE THE ASPECT OF PRELIMINARY EXPENSES INTO CONSIDERATION. 11. EX CONSEQUENTI , THE IMPUGNED ORDER IS SET ASIDE ON THIS SCORE AND THE MATTER IS SENT BACK TO THE FILE OF THE AO/TPO F OR A FRESH DETERMINATION IN ACCORDANCE WITH OUR ABOVE OBSERVAT IONS. 12. THE ONLY OTHER ISSUE WHICH SURVIVES IN THIS APP EAL IS AGAINST THE TREATMENT OF M/S ARTEFACTS SOFTWARE AND FINANCE LTD . AS A COMPARABLE COMPANY. THE FACTS OF THIS ISSUE ARE THAT THIS COM PANY WAS INCLUDED BY THE ASSESSEE IN ITS LIST OF COMPARABLES, WHICH WAS ACCEPTED BY THE TPO. THE LD. AR NOW CONTENDS THAT THE RELATED PARTY TRAN SACTIONS OF THIS COMPANY ARE MORE THAN 50% AND, HENCE, IT CEASES TO BE COMPARABLE. IN ITA NO.4986/DEL/2010 12 THE OPPOSITION, THE LD. DR RAISED AN OBJECTION TO T HIS ARGUMENT BY CONTENDING THAT SINCE THE ASSESSEE ITSELF HAD CHOSE N THIS COMPANY AS COMPARABLE, NOW IT CANNOT RESILE FROM ITS ORIGINAL STAND. 13. HAVING HEARD THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND PERUSED THE RELEVANT MATERIAL ON RECORD, WE ARE UNABLE TO COUNTENANCE TH E PRELIMINARY OBJECTION RAISED BY THE LD. DR. IN OUR CONSIDERED O PINION, THERE CAN BE NO EMBARGO ON THE ASSESSEE IN ADVANCING A CLAIM FOR TREATING A PARTICULAR COMPANY AS INCOMPARABLE, WHICH WAS INADVERTENTLY C ONSIDERED BY IT AS COMPARABLE IN THE TRANSFER PRICING ANALYSIS. AS THE TPO HAS THE LIBERTY TO EXAMINE THE COMPANIES CHOSEN BY THE ASSESSEE AND EXCLUDE SUCH COMPANIES AS ARE NOT COMPARABLE FROM THIS LIST AND FURTHER FIND OUT NEW COMPANIES WHICH HE CONSIDERS AS COMPARABLE BUT WERE NOT INCLUDED BY THE ASSESSEE IN ITS LIST OF COMPARABLES, LIKEWISE, THE ASSESSEE HAS ALSO EQUAL RIGHT TO ARGUE BEFORE THE TPO THAT A PARTICUL AR COMPANY WAS WRONGLY CHOSEN AND THE SAME SHOULD BE EXCLUDED. TH E MERE MAKING OF A CLAIM DOES NOT MAKE A COMPARABLE COMPANY INCOMPAR ABLE OR VICE VERSA . SIMPLY, THE BALL IS SENT TO THE COURT OF THE TPO FOR VETTING SUCH A ITA NO.4986/DEL/2010 13 CLAIM MADE BY THE ASSESSEE AND THEN DECIDE WHETHER IT IS REALLY COMPARABLE OR NOT. THROWING OUT A CASE AT THE VERY THRESHOLD WITHOUT ANY EXAMINATION, CANNOT BE CONSTRUED AS PROPER. THE SPECIAL BENCH OF THE TRIBUNAL IN DCIT VS. QUARK SYSTEMS (P) LTD. (2010) 132 TTJ (CHD ) (SB) 1 , HAS HELD THAT THE ASSESSEE CAN RIGHTLY CLAIM THAT IT WRONGLY CHOSE A COMPANY AS COMPARABLE WHICH IS ACTUALLY NOT COMPA RABLE. UNDER THE GIVEN CIRCUMSTANCES, WE SET ASIDE THE IMPUGNED ORDE R ON THIS SCORE AND REMIT THE MATTER TO THE FILE OF AO/TPO FOR EXAMININ G THE ASSESSEES CONTENTION ABOUT THE NON-COMPARABILITY OF THIS COMP ANY. IF THE RELATED PARTY TRANSACTIONS OF THIS COMPANY TURN OUT TO BE W HAT HAS BEEN CONTENDED BY THE LD. AR, THEN IT WOULD MAKE THE TRA NSACTION AS CONTROLLED. THERE IS HARDLY ANY NEED TO ACCENTUATE THAT ONLY UNCONTROLLED TRANSACTIONS CAN BE CONSIDERED FOR BENCHMARKING. IF ON THE OTHER HAND, THE TPO FINDS THE CONTENTION OF THE ASSESSEE AS INC ORRECT, HE WILL CONTINUE TO TREAT THIS COMPANY AS COMPARABLE. ITA NO.4986/DEL/2010 14 14. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL IS ALLOWED FOR STATIS TICAL PURPOSES. THE ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 11.09.201 5. SD/- SD/- [A.T. VARKEY] [R.S. SYAL] JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER DATED, 11 TH SEPTEMBER, 2015. DK COPY FORWARDED TO: 1. APPELLANT 2. RESPONDENT 3. CIT 4. CIT (A) 5. DR, ITAT AR, ITAT, NEW DELHI.