ITO, New Delhi V. M/s Evalueserve.com Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

ITA 5270/DEL/2012

• Counselvise Citation: [2016] 121 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 4302 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 4 year(s) 2 month(s) 1 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 13-12-2016
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: I1
• Next Hearing Date: 19-10-2016
• Assessment Year: 2007-2008
• Appeal Filed On: 12-10-2012
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Keywords: Transfer pricing; International transaction
• Section: 69; 10

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH I, NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI N. K. SAINI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SMT. BEENA A. PILLAI, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND CO NO. 462/DEL/2012 (IN ITA NO. 5270/DEL/2012) ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2006-07 EVALUESSERVE.COM PVT. LTD. 701, GURU APARTMENTS, SECTOR-14, ROHINI, NEW DELHI GIR/PAN:AACE8014F (APPELLANT) VS. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-11(2), NEW DELHI (RESPONDENT) REVENUE BY : MR. NEERAJ KUMAR, SR. DR. ASSESSEE BY : MR. SALIL KAPOOR, ADV. MS. ANANYA KAPOOR, ADV. DATE OF HEARING : 19.10.2016 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT: 13.12.2016 ORDER PER BEENA A. PILLAI, JM: 1. THE PRESENT APPEAL BY THE REVENUE AND CROSS OBJE CTION BY THE ASSESSEE AGAINST ORDER DATED 31/07/2012 PASSED BY L D.CIT (A)-20, NEW DELHI FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2007-08. IN THE DEPAR TMENT APPEAL FOLLOWING GROUNDS HAVE BEEN RAISED. I.T.A. NO. 5270/DEL/2012 (ASSESSMENT YEAR 2007-08) INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-11(2),ROOM NO. 321, C. R. BUILDING, NEW DELHI (APPELLANT) VS. EVALUESSERVE.COM PVT. LTD. 701, GURU APARTMENTS, SECTOR-14, ROHINI, NEW DELHI GIR / PAN : AACE8014F (RESPONDENT) 1. THE LEARNED CIT(A) ;HAS ERRED ON FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN LAW IN DELETING TH E ADDITION OF RS. 7,76,09,600/- BY IGNORING THE COMPUTATION OF MA RGINS (PLI)- ITES ADOPTED BY TPO VIDE ORDER DATED 25.10.2010. TH E LD. CIT(A) HAS FURTHER EARED IN BELIEVING THE VERSION O F THE ASSESSEE AND HOLDING THE INTERNATIONAL TRANSACTION TO BE AT ARMS LENGTH AS CLAIMED IN THE RETURN OF INCOME. 2. THE LEARNED CIT(A) HAS ERRED ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN LAW BY HOLDING THA T THE AO SHOULD ALLOW DEDUCTION U/S 10A FIRST AND ONLY AFTER THAT THE CARRY FORWARD OF LOSSES SHOULD BE SET OFF FROM THE BALANCE INCOME. 3. THE APPELLANT CRAVES LEAVE TO ADD, ALTER OR AME ND ANY GROUND OF APPEAL RAISED ABOVE AT THE TIME OF HE ARING. 2. BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE EMANATING FROM THE RECO RDS ARE AS UNDER: 2.1. AS PER THE TP REPORT FILED BY THE ASSESSEE FOR THE RELEVANT ASSESSMENT YEAR, ASSESSEE HAS BEEN ENGAGED IN PROVI DING IT ENABLED SERVICES TO ITS AES. ASSESSEE IS REGISTERE D WITH SOFTWARE TECHNOLOGY PARKS OF INDIA (STPI). DURING THE YEAR U NDER CONSIDERATION ASSESSEE ENTERED INTO THE FOLLOWING I NTERNATIONAL TRANSACTIONS WITH ITS AE: PROVISION OF IT ENABLED SERVICES RS.93,22,63,907 /- REIMBURSEMENT OF EXPENSES RS. 3,17,38,766 / 2.2. IT IS OBSERVED BY LD.TPO THAT ASSESSEE HAS SEL ECTED ITSELF AS THE TESTED PARTY AND TRANSACTIONAL NET MARGIN METHOD (T NMM) HAS BEEN USED AS THE MOST APPROPRIATE METHOD TO ARRIVE AT AR MS LENGTH PRICE (ALP). ASSESSEE CALCULATED ITS MARGIN USING PROFIT LEVEL INDICATOR (PLI) AS OPERATING PROFIT BY OPERATING COST (OP/OCW HICH HAS NOT BEEN DISPUTED BY LD.TPO. 2.3. IT HAS BEEN OBSERVED BY LD.TPO THAT ASSESSEE D ERIVES 100% REVENUE FROM EXPORT OF CALL CENTRE SERVICES TO ITS AE. ASSESSEE SELECTED COMPARABLES HAVING AGGREGATE MEAN MARGIN O F 9.11% AS AGAINST 17.63% IN CASE OF ASSESSEE. LD.TPO REJECTED TP STUDY OF ASSESSEE OF IT ENABLED SERVICES SEGMENT AND CONDUCT ED INDEPENDENT SEARCH OF COMPARABLES, BASED ON INDUSTRY ANALYSIS A ND UNDERSTANDING OF THE FUNCTIONS ASSETS AND RISK PROF ILE OF THE ASSESSEE. HE ARRIVED AT 26 COMPARABLES WITH A MEAN MARGIN OF 29.42%. LD.TPO REJECTED THE COMPARABLES SELECTED BY THE ASSESSEE AS ACCORDING TO HIM, THE COMPARABLES DID NOT PASS T HROUGH QUANTITATIVE FILTERS AND FUNCTIONS WERE DIFFERENT F ROM THAT OF THE ASSESSEE. LD.TPO REJECTED THE TP STUDY SUBMITTED BY THE ASSESSEE. 3. ON AN APPEAL BEFORE THE LD.CIT (A), THE ORDER OF LD.TPO WAS UPHELD IN RESPECT OF THE COMPARABLES SELECTED BY HI M, THOUGH ASSESSEE HAD OBJECTED FOR INCLUSION OF COMPARABLES, EXCEPT ADITYA BIRLA MINACS WORLDWIDE LTD, COSMIC GLOBAL LTD, DATA METRICS FINANCIAL SERVICES LTD, GENESIS INTERNATIONAL CORPO RATION LTD, I SERVICE INDIA PVT. LIMITED, TRITON CORPORATION LTD AND NITANY OUTSOURCING PRIVATE LTD. LD.CIT (A) UPHELD THE COMP ARABLES SELECTED BY LD.TPO EXCEPT A COMPANY CALLED MOLD- TE CH TECHNOLOGIES LTD. IT HAS BEEN OBSERVED BY LD.CIT(A) THAT LD.TPO HAS ACCEPTED TNMM AS THE MOST APPROPRIATE METHOD AND UN DER SUCH CIRCUMSTANCES EXACTLY SIMILAR COMPARABLE COMPANIES WOULD NOT BE IN EXISTENCE AS TNMM AS A METHOD TOLERATES CERTAIN LEVEL OF DIFFERENCE IN FUNCTION AS WELL AS EMPLOYMENT OF ASS ETS AND RISK. ANOTHER ISSUE THAT WAS RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE BEFOR E LD.CIT(A) WAS IN RESPECT OF DEDUCTION CLAIMED UNDER SECTION 10 A OF THE ACT. LD.AO REDUCED THE AMOUNT OF ALLOWABLE DEDUCTION BY SETTING OFF CARRY FORWARD LOSSES BEFORE ALLOWING SUCH DEDUCTION FOLLOWING DECISIONS OF HONBLE SUPREME COURT, HIGH COURTS AND THIS TRIBUNAL. THE LD.CIT(A) DIRECTED THE LD.AO TO CALCULATE THE D EDUCTION UNDER SECTION 10 A AFTER SETTING OFF THE CARRY FORWARD OF LOSS. AGGRIEVED BY THE ORDER OF LD.CIT(A), REVENUE AS WEL L AS ASSESSEE ARE IN CROSS APPEALS BEFORE US NOW. ITA NO. 5270/DEL/2012 (REVENUES APPEAL) 4. GROUND NO. 1 : THIS ISSUE RAISED IS IN RESPECT OF THE EXCLUSION OF M/S MOULD TECH TECHNOLOGIES LTD. 4.1. LD. DR SUBMITTED THAT FINDINGS OF LD.CIT(A) IN RESPECT OF THIS COMPARABLE ARE IRRATIONAL AND WITHOUT ANY SUBSTANCE , IT HAS BEEN HELD BY LD. CIT (A) THAT THIS COMPARABLE COMPANY IS INDULGING IN EVASION OF TAX BY OVERSTATING PROFIT IN 100% EXEMPT ITES DIVISION AND UNDERSTATING THE PROFIT IN THE PLASTIC DIVISION WITHOUT HAVING ANY SHRED OF EVIDENCE. 4.2. LD. DR SUBMITTED THAT LD.CIT (A) HAS SELECTIVE LY APPLIED EMPLOYEE COST FILTER TO THIS COMPANY AS THERE ARE O THER COMPARABLES WHO IS EMPLOYEE COST/SALES RATIO ARE EVEN LOWER THA N 7.6%. HE FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS CATEGORISED ITSELF TO BE PROVIDING KPO SERVICES AND THIS COMPARABLE ALSO DEA LS IN ENGINEERING DESIGN, WEBSITE DESIGNING ETC WHICH IS ALSO CHARACTERISED AS A KPO SERVICE. HE HAS PLACED HIS R ELIANCE UPON THE ORDER OF THIS TRIBUNAL IN ASSESSEES OWN CASE FOR A SSESSMENT YEAR 2005-06 FOR THE FUNCTIONAL PROFILE OF THE ASSESSEE. HE THUS SUBMITTED THAT THIS COMPARABLE SHOULD BE CONSIDERED . THE LD. DR SUBMITTED THAT IN CASE THIS COMPANY IS EXCLUDED BY APPLYING EMPLOYEE COST FILTER, THEN ALL THE OTHER COMPARABLE S MUST BE SUBJECTED TO THE SAME FILTER. 4.4. ON THE CONTRARY THE LD. COUNSEL FOR ASSESSEE S UBMITTED THAT THIS COMPANY OPERATES IN TWO SEGMENTS, BEING PLASTI C DIVISION AND IT DIVISION. IT DIVISION OF THIS COMPARABLE SPECIAL ISES IN PROVIDING STRUCTURAL DESIGNS AND DETAILING SERVICES WHICH ARE CATEGORISED AS STRUCTURAL ENGINEERING SERVICES. THE LD. COUNSEL FO R ASSESSEE EMPHASISED THAT EMPLOYEE COST OF THIS COMPANY IS ON LY 7.6% WHEREAS THAT OF ASSESSEES 54%. HE SUBMITTED THAT E MPLOYEE COST INDICATES THAT ASSESSEE IS AN EMPLOYEE DOMINATED CO MPANY. IN ADDITION LD. COUNSEL FOR ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT HE HAS NO OBJECTION IN APPLYING THE EMPLOYEE COST FILTER TO A LL OTHER COMPARABLES, AS ACCORDING TO HIM MANY MORE COMPARAB LES SELECTED BY LD.TPO WILL AUTOMATICALLY BE EXCLUDED. LD.COUNSE L FOR ASSESSEE PLACED RELIANCE UPON A SET OF JUDGMENTS WHEREIN THI S COMPANY HAS BEEN EXCLUDED FOR THE VERY SAME REASON FOR THE SAME ASSESSMENT YEAR WHICH IS UNDER CONSIDERATION BEFORE US. THE LD . COUNSEL FOR ASSESSEE HAS NOT OBJECTED FOR EXCLUSION OF ANY OTHE R COMPARABLES, AS ACCORDING TO HIM, EXCLUSION OF M/S MOULD-TECH TE CHNOLOGIES LTD. IS UPHELD, WOULD BE SUFFICIENT. 5. WE HAVE PERUSED THE SUBMISSIONS ADVANCED BY BOTH THE SIDES IN THE LIGHT OF THE RECORDS PLACED BEFORE US. ON PERUS AL OF THE ORDER OF THIS TRIBUNAL IN ASSESSEES OWN CASE FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2005-06 IN ITA NO. 393/DEL/2010, WE OBSERVE THAT ASSESSEE H AS BEEN TREATED AS A LOW END ITES SERVICE PROVIDER, RENDERI NG DATA PROCESSING OR AN IT ENABLED SERVICES, WHO IS NOT IN VOLVED IN DOMAIN KNOWLEDGE, SO AS TO INCLUDE ANY KPO SERVICE PROVIDE R AS A COMPARABLE (REFER PARAGRAPH 38-39 OF THE DECISION). 5.1. IN RESPECT OF COMPARABLE M/S MOULD-TECH TECHNO LOGIES LTD., IT IS OBSERVED FROM REASONING GIVEN BY LD.CIT(A) THAT, THIS COMPARABLE IS HAVING AN EXTRAORDINARY PROFITS IN ITES SEGMENT, REACHING UP TO 213% FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION. I T IS ALSO BEEN RECORDED BY LD.CIT(A), THAT THIS COMPANY IS NOT FUN CTIONALLY SIMILAR WITH THAT OF ASSESSEE AS ASSESSEE IS IN BACK-OFFICE RESEARCH SERVICE AREA, WHEREAS THE COMPARABLE IS DEALING IN ENGINEER ING DESIGN AND DETAILING SERVICES, WEBSITE THE DESIGN SERVICES ETC . IT IS ALSO BEEN OBSERVED THAT ITES SEGMENT OF THIS COMPARABLE IS HA VING 100% EXEMPTION. 5.2. LD. AR HAS RELIED UPON VARIOUS DECISIONS OF TH IS TRIBUNAL WHEREIN IT HAS BEEN RECORDED THAT THIS COMPANY CANN OT BE COMPARED WITH ANY OTHER COMPANY, WHICH WAS ENGAGED IN PROVIDING LOW END ITES ENABLED CALL CENTRE SERVICES. HE HAS P LACED RELIANCE UPON THE DECISION OF COORDINATE BENCH OF THIS TRIBU NAL IN IQUR INDIA SERVICES PVT. LTD., VS. ITO, REPORTED IN (2015) 69 SO T 37, COWI INDIA PVT. LTD., VS. ACIT, REPORTED IN (2016) 69 TA XMANN.COM 427, WHEREIN IT HAS BEEN HELD AS UNDER: 18. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND PERUSE D THE RELEVANT MATERIAL ON RECORD. DURING THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERA TION, FINANCIAL RESULTS OF MOULD-TECH TECHNOLOGIES AS AVAILABLE ARE AFTER THE ACQUISITION OF CROSSROAD DETAILING INC., AN ENGINEE RING SERVICE KPO. FURTHER AS EVIDENCED FROM THE ANNUAL REPORT OF THE COMPANY FOR FY 2007-08, THE COMPANY GAVE EFFECT TO THE ABOVE SCHEM E OF AMALGAMATION AND DEMERGER W.E.F. OCTOBER 2006 AND T HE ENTIRE ACCOUNTS OF THE COMPANY FOR FY 2006-07 WERE ALSO RE VISED. IN THE CASE OF TALLULAH INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED VERSUS ACIT (2014) 50 TAXMANN.COM 24/151 ITD 177 (DELHI), IT WAS HELD THA T A COMPANY CANNOT BE CONSIDERED AS COMPARABLE BECAUSE OF EXCEP TIONAL FINANCIAL RESULTS DUE TO MERGERS/DEMERGERS. 5.3. RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING THE AFFORESTED RATIO LA ID, WE DO NOT FIND ANY INFIRMITY WITH THE DECISION OF LD.CIT (A) IN EX CLUDING THIS COMPANY FROM THE LIST OF COMPARABLES. ACCORDINGLY THIS GROUND RAISED BY THE REVENUE STAND S DISMISSED. GROUND NO. 2 6. THIS ISSUE HAS BEEN RAISED BY THE REVENUE AGAINS T THE DEDUCTION UNDER SECTION 10A BEING GRANTED ON THE GROSS TOTAL INCOME. 6.1. LD. AO IN HIS ORDER HAD LIMITED THE DEDUCTION UNDER 10A BY REDUCING THE AMOUNT OF ALLOWABLE DEDUCTION AFTER SE TTING OFF CARRY FORWARD LOSSES. ON AN APPEAL BEFORE LD. CIT(A), THE DEDUCTION UNDER SECTION 10A WAS ALLOWED BEFORE THE CARRY FORWARD OF THE LOSSES THAT SHOULD BE SET OFF ON THE BALANCE INCOME. AGAINST THE ORDER OF LD. CIT(A), THE REVENUE IS IN APPEAL BEFORE US NOW. 6.2. LD. DR PLACED RELIANCE UPON THE ORDERS PASSED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER AS ALLEGED DECISION OF THIS TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF HONEYWELL INTERNATIONAL INDIA PVT. LTD., VS. DCIT REPORTED IN (2008) 26 SO T503. 6.3. ON THE CONTRARY LD.AR SUBMITTED THAT TERM TOT AL INCOME USED UNDER SECTION 10 A (1) OF THE ACT HAS TO BE UNDERST OOD AS THE TOTAL INCOME OF STPI UNIT. HE SUBMITTED THAT THE RELIEF U NDER THIS SECTION IS IN THE NATURE OF EXEMPTION, ALTHOUGH TERMED AS D EDUCTION AND THE SAID RELIEF IS IN RESPECT OF THE PROFITS EARNED FROM SUCH ELIGIBLE UNIT OR UNDERTAKING. HE SUBMITTED THAT BROUGHT FORW ARD BUSINESS LOSS IS TO BE SET OFF UNDER SECTION 72 OF THE ACT, AGAINST PROFIT EARNED BY ASSESSEE. HE PLACED RELIANCE UPON VARIOUS DECISI ONS OF HONBLE HIGH COURTS. 7. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE CONTENTIONS RAISED BY THE PARTIES BEFORE US IN THE LIGHT OF THE RECORDS PLACED. 7.1. ASSESSEE HAD CLAIMED DEDUCTION UNDER 10A AND T HEREAFTER SET OF THE BROUGHT FORWARD LOSSES OF ASSESSMENT YEAR 20 01-02 AND 2002-03 AGAINST THE BALANCE PROFIT UNDER THE HEAD. THIS TREATMENT ADOPTED BY THE ASSESSEE WAS REJECTED BY THE ASSESSI NG OFFICER, WHO MADE AN ADDITION OF RS.16,78,71,339/-. SECTION 10 A IS A PROVISION WHICH IS IN THE NATURE OF A DEDUCTION AND NOT AN EX EMPTION, AS EMPHASISED BY HONBLE BOMBAY HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF HINDUSTAN UNILEVER LTD VS. DCIT REPORTED IN (2010) 325 ITR 102, WHILE DEALING WITH PROVISIONS OF SECTION 10 B OF TH E ACT. HONBLE BOMBAY HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. BLACK & VE ATCH CONSULTING PVT. LTD., REPORTED IN (2012) 348 ITR 72 HAS HELD AS UNDER: THE SUBMISSION OF THE REVENUE PLACED ITS RELIANCE ON THE LITERAL READING OF SECTION 10 A UNDER WHICH A DEDUCTION OF SUCH PROFIT AND GAINS AS ARE DERIVED BY AN UNDERTAKING FROM THE EXP ORT OF ARTICLES OR THINGS OR COMPUTER SOFTWARE FOR A PERIOD OF 10 CONS ECUTIVE ASSESSMENT YEARS IS TO BE ALLOWED FROM THE TOTAL IN COME OF THE ASSESSEE. THE DEDUCTION UNDER SECTION 10 A, IN OUR VIEW, HAS TO BE GIVEN EFFECT TO AT THIS STAGE OF COMPUTING THE PROF ITS AND GAINS OF THE BUSINESS. THIS IS ANTERIOR TO THE APPLICATION OF TH E PROVISIONS OF SECTION 72 WHICH DEALS WITH THE CARRY FORWARD AND S ET OFF OF BUSINESS LOSSES. A DISTINCTION HAS BEEN MADE BY THE LEGISLAT URE WHILE INCORPORATING THE PROVISIONS OF CHAPTER VI-A. SECTI ON 80 A (1) STIPULATES THAT IN COMPUTING THE TOTAL INCOME OF AN ASSESSEE, THERE SHALL BE ALLOWED FROM HIS GROSS TOTAL INCOME IN ACC ORDANCE WITH AN SUBJECT TO THE PROVISIONS OF THIS CHAPTER, THE DEDU CTION SPECIFIED IN SECTION 80 C TO 80 U. SECTION 80 P (5) DEFINES FOR THE PURPOSES OF CHAPTER VI-A GROSS TOTAL INCOME TO MEAN THE TOTAL INCOME COMPUTED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE PROVISIONS OF THE ACT, BEFOR E MAKING ANY DEDUCTION UNDER THAT CHAPTER. WHAT THE REVENUE IN E SSENCE SEEKS TO ATTAIN IS TO TELESCOPE THE PROVISIONS OF CHAPTER VI -A IN THE CONTEXT OF DEDUCTION WHICH IS ALLOWABLE UNDER SECTION 10 A, WH ICH WOULD NOT BE PERMISSIBLE UNLESS A SPECIFIC STATUTORY PROVISION T O THAT EFFECT WERE TO BE MADE. IN THE ABSENCE THEREOF, SUCH AN APPROACH C ANNOT BE ACCEPTED. IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES, THE DECISION OF THE TRIBUNAL WOULD HAVE TO BE AFFIRMED SINCE IT IS PLAIN AND EVIDENT T HAT THE DEDUCTION UNDER SECTION 10 A HAS TO BE GIVEN AT THIS STAGE WH EN THE PROFITS AND GAINS OF BUSINESS ARE COMPUTED IN THE 1 ST INSTANCE. 7.2.RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING THE SAME WE DO NOT FIND ANY INFIRMITY IN THE DIRECTIONS GIVEN BY LD.CIT(A), IN COMPUTING DED UCTION UNDER SECTION 10 A BEFORE CARRY FORWARD OF LOSSES. ACCORDINGLY THIS GROUND RAISED BY REVENUE STANDS DI SMISSED IN THE RESULT APPEAL FILED BY THE REVENUE STANDS DI SMISSED CO NO. 462/DEL/2012 (CROSS OBJECTION BY ASSESSEE) 8. ASSESSEE HAS RAISED THE ABOVE CROSS OBJECTION IN CONTEXT OF THE APPEAL FILED BY THE REVENUE GROUND NO. 1 IS IN SUPPORT OF THE ORDER PASSED BY LD.CIT (A). 8.1. THE LD.COUNSEL FOR ASSESSEE SUBMITS THAT IN TH E EVENT EXCLUSION OF MOLD-TECH TECHNOLOGIES LTD IS UPHELD I T WOULD NOT BE REQUIRED TO DEAL WITH THE OTHER OBJECTIONS OF THE C OMPARABLES FINALIZED BY LD. TPO. 8.2. IN THE LIGHT OF THE ABOVE SUBMISSION, AS WE HA VE UPHELD THE EXCLUSION OF MOLD-TECH TECHNOLOGIES LTD., THE REMAI NING GROUNDS RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE IN THE CROSS OBJECTIONS STAN DS DISMISSED NOT PRESSED. ACCORDINGLY THE CROSS OBJECTION FILED BY THE ASSESS EE BECOMES INFRUCTUOUS. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 13 TH DECEMBER, 2016. (N. K. SAINI) (BEENA A. PI LLAI) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER DATE: 13.12.2016 @M!T COPY FORWARDED TO:- 1. THE APPELLANT 2. THE RESPONDENT 3. THE CIT 4. THE CIT (A)-, NEW DELHI. 5. THE DR, ITAT, LOKNAYAK BHAWAN, KHAN MARKET, NEW DEL HI. TRUE COPY. BY ORDER (ITAT, NEW DELHI)