M/s. Jindal Dyechem Industries Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi V. DCIT, New Delhi

ITA 5413/DEL/2010

• Counselvise Citation: [2019] 115 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 6851 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 8 year(s) 10 month(s) 30 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 31-10-2019
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: I2
• Next Hearing Date: 17-11-2015
• Assessment Year: 2006-2007
• Appeal Filed On: 01-12-2010
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Keywords: Transfer pricing; Opportunity of being heard; Maximum Marginal Rate; International transaction; Wholly owned subsidiary
• Section: 92C; 92

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH I-2, NEW DELHI BEFORE SH. R. K. PANDA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND. MS. SUCHITRA KAMBLE, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA NO.5413/DEL/2010 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2006-07 M/S. JINDAL DYECHEM INDUSTRIES PVT. LTD. 110, BABAR ROAD, NEW DELHI PAN NO. AAACJ0719Q VS. DCIT CIRCLE 4 (1) NEW DELHI (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY SH. SALIL AGGARWAL, ADVOCATE SH. SHAILESH GUPTA, ADVOCATE RESPONDENT BY SH. H. K. CHOUDHARY, CIT DR DATE OF HEARING: 24/09/2019 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT: 31/10/2019 ORDER PER R.K PANDA, AM: THIS APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS DIRECTED AGAI NST THE ORDER DATED 06.10.2010 PASSED U/S. 143 (3) R.W.S. 144 C O F THE IT ACT, 1961 FOR A.Y. 2006-07. 2. FACTS OF THE CASE, IN BRIEF, ARE THAT THE ASSESS EE IS A COMPANY ENGAGED IN THE BUSINESS OF IMPORT AND EXPORT OF PRE CIOUS METALS, TOYS, STATIONERY ITEMS ETC. IT FILED ITS RETURN OF INCOME ON 30.11.2006 DECLARING TOTAL INCOME OF RS. 5,46,75,382/-. SINCE THE ASSESSEE HAS ENTERED INTO CERTAIN INTERNATIONAL TRANSACTIONS WIT H ITS AE, THE AO REFERRED THE MATTER TO THE TPO FOR DETERMINATION OF THE ALP OF THE INTERNATIONAL TRANSACTION. THE TPO DURING THE COURS E TP ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS NOTED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS UNDERTAKEN THE FOLLOWING INTERNATIONAL TRANSACTIONS 1. EXPORT OF PLATINUM OF RS.213.60 CRORES. 2. EXPORT OF GOLD RS. 17.95 CORES HE NOTED THAT THE AE NAMELY PRUDENTIAL PRECIOUS MET ALS, FZE IS A WHOLLY OWNED SUBSIDIARY COMPANY AND IS LOCATED IN S HARJAH, UAE. THE ASSESSEE DURING THE IMPUGNED ASSESSMENT YEAR HA S ENTERED INTO THE INTERNATIONAL TRANSACTION RELATED TO SALE OF 20 58.34 KILOGRAMS OF PLATINUM TO ITS OVERSEAS SUBSIDIARY WORTH RS.240.72 CRORES. THE ASSESSEE HAS APPLIED CUP METHOD FOR BENCHMARKING TH E INTERNATIONAL TRANSACTION. HE NOTED THAT THE COMPAN Y SOURCES PLATINUM FROM THE THIRD PARTIES AND SELLS THEM TO I TS SUBSIDIARY. THE SALE PRICE IS FIXED ON THE LONDON BULLION MARKET AS SOCIATES RATES (LBMA). THE ASSESSEE HAS CHARGED A PREMIUM OF USD 2 PER OUNCE OVER THE RATES FIXED BY LBMA. HE NOTED THAT THE ASS ESSEE HAD PURCHASED PLATINUM BY OPENING LETTER OF CREDIT. ASS ESSEE HAD SOLD THE GOODS PURCHASED TO ITS AE ON THE BASIS OF SPOT RATE. FROM THE VARIOUS DETAILS FURNISHED BY THE ASSESSEE THE TPO N OTED THAT FOR COMPARING THE RATE, THE ASSESSEE HAD USED DATE OF F IXING AS THE DATE FOR COMPARING THE PRICES WITH LONDON BULLION MARKET ASSOCIATION RATES. THE TPO NOTED THAT THE DATE OF INVOICE AND D ATE OF SHIPMENT ARE SAME WHEREAS THE DATE OF FIXING IS DIFFERENT TH AN THESE TWO DATES. HE OBSERVED THAT THE DATE OF INVOICE AND DATE OF SH IPMENT ARE VERIFIABLE PIECE OF INFORMATION WHEREAS THE DATE OF FIXING CANNOT BE VERIFIED. ACCORDING TO THE TPO ALTHOUGH THE ASSESS EE HAD USED THE DATE OF FIXING AS THE DATE ON WHICH THE SALE PRICE WAS TO BE BENCHMARKED, HOWEVER, ASSESSEE HAD NOT FURNISHED AN Y CREDIBLE EVIDENCES TO SUGGEST HOW THE DATE OF FIXING WAS ARR IVED. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE THE TPO REJECTED THE TP ANALYSIS DONE BY THE ASSESSEE AND USED THE DATE OF INVOICE BEING THE DATE ON WHICH TH E GOODS WERE SOLD TO THE AE AND USED THE SAME FOR BENCHMARKING THE IN TERNATIONAL TRANSACTION. ACCORDINGLY THE TPO USED THE EXTERNAL CUP AS AVAILABLE ON DATE OF SALE INVOICE FOR COMPARABILITY ANALYSIS AND FOR BENCHMARKING OF THE INTERNATIONAL TRANSACTIONS AND REJECTED THE T. P. ANALYSIS OF THE ASSESSEE PERTAINING TO AN IMAGIN ARY DATE OF FIXING. ACCORDINGLY, THE TPO MADE AN UPWARD ADJUSTMENT OF RS.48,33,697/-. THE ASSESSEE APPROACHED THE DRP AN D THE DRP UPHELD THE ACTION OF THE TPO. THE AO IN THE ORDER PASSED U/S. 143 (3) R.W.S144 C OF THE ACT MADE ADDITION OF THE SAME TO THE TOTAL INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE. 3. AGGRIEVED WITH SUCH ORDER OF THE CIT(A), THE ASS ESSEE IS IN APPEAL BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL BY RAISING THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS OF APPEAL :- 1. THAT THE LEARNED DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-4(1), NEW DELHI HAS GROSSLY ERRED BOTH IN LAW AND ON FACTS IN DETERMINING THE I NCOME OF THE APPELLANT COMPANY AT RS. 5,96,09,634/- AS AGAINST DECLARED INCOME OF RS. 5,4 6,75,382/- IN AN ORDER OF ASSESSMENT UNDER SECTION 143(3)/144C OF THE ACT DATED 6.10.201 0. 2. THAT THE LEARNED DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX HAS FURTHER ERRED BOTH IN LAW AND ON FACTS IN MAKING AN ADDITION OF RS. 48,33,697/- ON A CCOUNT OF ALLEGED UNDERSTATEMENT OF ARMS LENGTH PRICE IN RESPECT OF TRANSACTIONS BETWEEN THE ASSESSEE COMPANY AND, ITS WHOLLY OWNED SUBSIDIARY COMPANY M/S PRUDENTIAL PRECIOUS METALS P VT. LTD. UNDER SECTION 92CA(3) OF THE ACT 2.1 THAT IN MAKING THE AFORESAID ADDITION, THE LEAR NED DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX HAS ERRED IN REFERRING THE MATTER TO THE ADDITIONAL COM MISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (TRANSFER PRICING OFFICER-I (3), NEW DELHI (HEREINAFTER REFERRED TO A S TPO) U/S 92CA OF THE ACT ON THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS: A) AS NONE OF THE CONDITIONS PRECEDENT LAID DOWN UNDER SECTION 92C(3) OF THE ACT WERE SATISFIED, THERE WAS NO OCCASION FOR DETERMINATION OF ARMS LENGTH PRICE BY THE AO AND THE VALUE OF THE INTERNATIONAL TRANSACTIONS OUGHT T O HAVE BEEN ACCEPTED; B) AS THE REFERENCE MADE BY THE LEARNED AO TO THE LEAR NED TPO IS NOT IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 92CA(1) O F THE ACT; C) AS NO OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD WAS GRANTED AT ANY STAGE OF THE PROCEEDINGS FOR THIS PURPOSE, WHETHER AT THE PROPOSAL OR THE APPROVAL ST AGE; D) AS NO INITIAL OPINION WAS FORMED U/S 92C(3) OF THE ACT WHICH IS A JURISDICTIONAL PRECONDITION ; E) BY NOT FURNISHING THE LETTER OF REFERENCE (LOR) TO APPELLANT. THAT SINCE THE REFERENCE BY THE LEARNED AO WAS BAD IN LAW AND VOID-AB-INITIO, CONSEQUENTIALLY THE ENTIRE PROCEEDINGS BY THE LEARNED TPO, ORDER OF LEARNED TPO DATED OCTOBER 23, 2009 ORDER OF DISPUTE RESOLUTION PANEL DATED 08.09.2010 AND, ALSO THE IMPUGNED ADDITION OF RS.48,33,697/- WERE VITIATED, INVALID, ILLEGAL AND HENCE, A NULLIF Y. 2.2 THAT THE LEARNED DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX HAS EVEN OTHER-WISE FAILED TO APPRECIATE THAT PROVISION OF SECTION 92CA OF THE ACT WERE WHOLLY INAPPLICABLE TO THE TRANSACTIONS OF THE APPELLANT COMPANY WITH M/S PRUD ENTIAL PRECIOUS METALS LTD. (HEREINAFTER REFERRED TO AS PPML) 2.3 THAT THE LEARNED DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX HAS FURTHER MECHANICALLY AND ON COMPLETE MISCONSTRUCTION OF PROVISIONS CONTA INED IN SECTION 92CA(4) OF THE ACT MADE THE IMPUGNED ADDITION WITHOUT APPRECIATING THA T ARMS LENGTH PRICE DETERMINED BY THE LEARNED TRANSFER PRICING OFFICER IN AN ORDER UN DER SECTION 92CA(3) OF THE ACT AND, AFFIRMED BY DISPUTE RESOLUTION PANEL WAS BASED ON C OMPLETE DISREGARD OF THE FACTS OF THE CASE OF THE APPELLANT AND THE STATUTORY PROVISIONS OF LAW. INFACT, THE ENTIRE APPROACH OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW FOR MAKING THE AFORESAID ADDI TION IS BASED UPON INHERENT CONTRADICTIONS AND FACTUAL MISASSUMPTIONS AS IS EVI DENT FROM THE FOLLOWING: A) THAT FINDING OF THE LEARNED TPO THAT DATE OF FIXING IS NOT SUPPORTED BY ANY EVIDENCE IS FACTUALLY INCORRECT AND, IS IN DISREGAR D OF THE DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE MAINTAINED BY THE APPELLANT COMPANY; B) THAT FURTHER EVEN GOING BY THE BASIS ADOPTED BY THE AUTHORITIES BELOW THOUGH THE SAME IS DISPUTED, THEY HAVE CONSIDERED T RANSACTIONS WHICH RESULT INTO POSITIVE VARIANCE ONLY BUT IGNORED WHERE THERE WAS A NEGATIVE VARIANCE AND AS SUCH, APPARENTLY TOO ADDITION MADE ON PICK AND CHOO SE POLICY IS ENTIRELY UNTENABLE; C) THAT SINCE M/S PPML HAD BEEN WOUND UP IN THE INSTAN T YEAR AND AS A RESULT ALL THE SUMS WERE REMITTED TO THE APPELLANT COMPANY AND, ENTIRE DIVIDEND WAS OFFERED FOR TAX AT THE MAXIMUM MARGINAL RATE, T HERE WAS NO LOSS OF REVENUE AND AS SUCH, THE ADDITION MADE IS PERSE ILLEGAL AND , NOT SUSTAINABLE; AND D) THAT NO VALID AND PROPER OPPORTUNITY WAS GRANTED BY THE DRP BEFORE DISPOSING OF THE OBJECTIONS OF THE APPELLANT AGAINS T THE DRAFT ORDER. 3. THAT THE LEARNED DCIT HAS FURTHER ERRED BOTH IN LAW AND, ON FACTS IN FRAMING THE ORDER OF ASSESSMENT WITHOUT GRANTING ANY OPPORTUNIT Y MUCH LESS AND, VALID PROPER OPPORTUNITY AND, THEREFORE, THE ORDER SO MADE IS VI TIATED AND, UNSUSTAINABLE. 4. THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE STRONGLY OBJECT ED TO THE ADDITION MADE BY THE AO. REFERRING TO THE NOTICE I SSUED U/S. 92 CA (2) AND 92 D(3) VIDE LETTER DATED 10.12.2008, COPY OF WHICH IS PLACED AT PAPER BOOK PAGES 49 AND 50, THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE DREW THE ATTENTION OF THE BENCH TO CLAUSE NO.-L WHE REIN THE TPO HAD ASKED THE ASSESSEE TO FURNISH THE DETAILS OF ALL IN TERNATIONAL TRANSACTION ALOGNWITH SEGMENT WISE BREAK UP OF SUCH TRANSACTIONS. REFERRING TO THE REPLY GIVEN BY THE ASSESSEE VIDE L ETTER DATED 12.01.2009 COPY OF WHICH IS PLACED AT PAPER BOOK PA GE 51 TO 53, THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE DREW THE ATTENTION OF THE BENCH TO CLAUSE NO. 2 (L) AND 2 (M) WHEREIN HE HAD FILED THE DETAILS OF INTERNATIONAL TRANSACTIONS ALONGWITH COPY OF CORRES PONDENCE OF ONE OF SALE MADE BY THE ASSESSEE COMPANY IN RESPECT OF SUCH INTERNAL TRANSACTION. REFERRING TO PAGE 91 TO 94 OF THE PAP ER BOOK THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE DREW THE ATTENTION OF THE BENCH TO THE VARIOUS E-MAILS RECEIVED FROM ITS AE AND THE REPLY GIVEN BY THE ASSESSEE TO SUCH E-MAILS. REFERRING TO PAGES 95 TO 98 OF THE PAPER BOOK THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE DREW THE ATTE NTION OF THE BENCH TO THE REPLY GIVEN BY THE ASSESSEE TO THE AO ON VARIOUS ISSUES RAISED BY HIM. HE SUBMITTED THAT THEREAFTER THE AS SESSEE WAS NEVER CALLED UPON TO EXPLAIN ANYTHING ABOUT THE ISSUE REL ATING TO THE PRICE. REFERRING TO PAGES 158 TO 159 OF THE PAPER BOOK THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE DREW THE ATTENTION OF THE BENCH TO THE REPLY GIVEN BY THE ASSESSEE AT PARA 4 WHICH READS AS UNDER :- 3. IT MAY BE PERTINENT TO STATE HERE AND, AS SUBMITTE D IN THE LAST HEARING THAT, M/S PPML IS WHOLLY OWNED SUBSIDIARY COMPANY O F THE ASSESSEE COMPANY AND, THE ENTIRE PROFITS OF M/S PPML ARE TAX ABLE ONLY IN INDIA. IT IS SUBMITTED THAT, THERE IS NO TAX LIABILITY OF M/S PP ML OUTSIDE INDIA. THE DETAIL OF DIVIDEND RECEIVED AND PROFIT REPATRIATED IN INDI A IS ENCLOSED HEREWITH AS PER ANNEXURE -I. IN THIS REGARD, IT IS REITERATED AT THE RISK OF REP ITITION THAT, ENTIRE DIVIDEND AND PROFITS REPATRIATED IN INDIA WAS OFFER ED FOR TAX AT MAXIMUM MARGINAL RATE. IT IS THUS SUBMITTED THAT, THERE IS NO EROSION OF TAX BASE, WHICH IS IN CONSONANCE WITH INTENTION BEHIND THE TRANSFER PRICING PROVISIONS CONTAINED IN THE ACT. 5. REFERRING TO THE ORDER OF THE TPO WHEREIN HE HAS ADOPTED THE RATES OF SALE PRICE AS PER LBMA HE SUBMITTED THAT T HE DIFFERENCE IS ONLY IN RESPECT OF FOUR TRANSACTIONS. HE SUBMITTED THAT THE TPO HAS ACCEPTED THE RATES WHEREVER THEY ARE HIGHER WHEREAS HE HAS REJECTED THE TP ANALYSIS OF THE ASSESSEE WHEN THE RATE IS LE SS. HE SUBMITTED THAT THE APPROACH ADOPTED BY THE AO/TPO IS PURELY O N THE BASIS OF SUMMARIZES AND CONJECTURES. HE SUBMITTED THAT THE T PO CANNOT ADOPT A PICK AND CHOOSE METHOD. FURTHER IF THE SAM E METHOD IS ADOPTED THEN THERE WILL STILL BE POSITIVE INCOME AN D NO ADDITION CAN BE MADE. RELYING ON VARIOUS DECISIONS HE SUBMITTED THAT THE DEPARTMENT CANNOT DIRECT THE ASSESSEE AS TO HOW TO CONDUCT ITS BUSINESS. HE ALSO RELIED UPON VARIOUS DECISIONS ES PECIALLY DECISIONS REPORTED IN 1. 176 ITR 169 2. 358 ITR 295 3. 73 ITD 125 4. 230 CTR 601 5. 254 ITR 377 6. 280 RR 1 7. 371 ITR 118 8. 184 TAXMANN.COM 352 7. THE LD. DR ON THE OTHER HAND HEAVILY RELIED ON THE ORDER OF THE AO, TPO AND DRP. HE SUBMITTED THAT THE DATE OF FIX ING CANNOT BE TAKEN AS THE DATE OF TRANSFER OF RIGHT IN THE PROPE RTY. ONLY THE DATE ON WHICH THE PROPERTY IS TRANSFERRED HAS TO BE TAKE N. HE ACCORDINGLY SUBMITTED THAT THE ORDER OF THE AO/TPO/DRP BEING IN CONSONANCE WITH LAW SHOULD BE UPHELD. IN HIS ALTERNATE CONTENT ION HE SUBMITTED THAT THE MATTER MAY BE RESTORED TO THE FILE OF AO/ TPO/ DRP FOR VERIFICATION AND DIRECTION TO THE ASSESSEE TO SUBST ANTIATE ITS CASE. 8. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL ARGUMENTS MADE BY B OTH THE SIDES, PERUSED THE ORDERS OF THE AO/TPO/DRP AND THE PAPER BOOK FILED ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE. WE HAVE ALSO CONSI DERED THE VARIOUS DECISIONS CITED BEFORE US. WE FIND THE AO IN THE IN STANT CASE HAS MADE ADDITION OF RS.48,33,697/- ON THE GROUND THAT THE ASSESSEE FOR BENCHMARKING THE TRANSACTIONS HAS USED THE DATE OF FIXING AS THE DATE FOR COMPARING THE PRICES WITH LBMA AND USED DA TE OF FIXING AS THE DATE ON WHICH THE SALE PRICE IS TO BE BENCHMARK ED. ACCORDING TO THE TPO ALTHOUGH THE DATE OF INVOICE AND DATE OF SH IPMENT ARE VERIFIABLE PIECE OF INFORMATION, HOWEVER, THE DATE OF FIXING IS DIFFERENT FROM THESE TWO DATES AND IS NOT VERIFIABLE. THE AO/ TPO ACCORDINGLY USED THE EXTERNAL CUP AS AVAILABLE ON THE DATE OF S ALE FOR COMPARABILITY ANALYSIS AND FOR BENCHMARKING OF THE INTERNATIONAL TRANSACTION AND ACCORDINGLY MADE ADDITION OF RS.48, 33,697/-. IT IS THE SUBMISSION OF THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE THAT OUT OF THE TOTAL 11 TRANSACTIONS THERE IS PROFIT IN 7 TRANSACT IONS AND LOSS IN 4 TRANSACTIONS AND THE NET RESULT IS POSITIVE AND THE AO CANNOT PICK AND CHOOSE THE METHOD THAT SUITS HIM AND CANNOT COM PEL THE ASSESSEE TO DO ITS BUSINESS IN A PARTICULAR MANNER. 9. WE FIND SOME FORCE IN THE ABOVE ARGUMENTS OF THE LD . COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE. FROM THE VARIOUS DETAILS FURNISHE D BY THE ASSESSEE IN THE PAPER BOOK AS WELL AS THE ORDER OF THE TPO/AO WE FIND WHILE THE AO HAS ACCEPTED THE RATES APPLIED AS PER INVOIC E VALUE WHICH IS MORE THAN THE LBMA, HOWEVER, HE DID NOT ACCEPT THE INVOICE VALUE WHERE THE RATE APPLIED IS LESS THAN THE LBMA. IN OU R OPINION THE APPROACH SHOULD BE CONSISTENT AND THE AO CANNOT PIC K AND CHOOSE. WE FIND THE ASSESSEE BEFORE THE DRP HAD GIVEN THE F OLLOWING SUBMISSIONS :- IT IS FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT, EVEN IF THE METHOD I S ADOPTED AS A BASIS, THOUGH THE SAME IS SERIOUSLY DISPUTED THEN TOO, THERE IS NO UNDERSTATE MENT OF SALE PRICE AS WOULD BE EVIDENT FROM THE CHART EXTRACTED ABOVE. THE PERUSAL OF THE CHART WOULD SHOW THAT, IF THE AFORESAID METHOD IS ADOPTED THEN THERE IS A POSITIVE DIFFEREN CE OF RS. 48,33,697/-AND NEGATIVE DIFFERENCE OF RS. 55,99,923/- AND THEREBY, THERE IS NEGATIVE DIFFERENCE OF RS. 7,66,226/- IS ENCLOSED AT PAGE 18 OF ANNEXURE A TO THIS OBJECT ION AND HENCE, APPARENTLY EVEN GOING BY THE METHOD ADOPTED BY THE LEARNED TRANSFER PRICING OFFICER THERE IS NO BASIS TO WARRANT ADJUSTMENT UNDER SECTION 92C OF THE ACT. 10. FROM THE VARIOUS DETAILS FURNISHED BY THE ASSESSEE WE FIND MERIT IN THE ARGUMENTS OF THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE A SSESSEE THAT THE OBSERVATION OF THE TPO AND THE DRP THAT ASSESSEE HA S NOT FILED ANY CREDIBLE EVIDENCE TO SUGGEST HOW THE DATE OF FIXING WAS ARRIVED AT IS FACTUALLY INCORRECT. 11. THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. EX CEL INDUSTRIES LIMITED REPORTED IN 358 ITR 295 HAS HELD THAT INCOME TAX CANNOT BE LEVIED ON HYPOTHETICAL INCOME. INCOME ACCRUES WHEN IT BECOMES DUE BUT IT MUST ALSO BE ACCOMPANIED BY A CORRESPONDING LIABILITY OF THE OTHER PARTY TO PAY THE AMOUNT. ONL Y THEN IT CAN BE SAID THAT FOR THE PURPOSE OF TAXABILITY THAT THE IN COME IS NOT HYPOTHETICAL AND IT HAS REALLY ACCRUED TO THE ASSES SEE. 12. CONSIDERING THE TOTALITY OF THE FACTS OF THE CASE A ND CONSIDERING THE FACT THAT ASSESSEE HAS FILED THE RE QUISITE DETAILS AND THE TPO/AO/DRP CANNOT PICK AND CHOOSE A PART OF THE METHOD WHICH IS ACCEPTABLE TO THEM AND REJECT A PART OF TH E SAME METHOD WHICH IS NOT ACCEPTABLE TO THEM AND THAT THERE SHOU LD BE CONSISTENCY IN THE APPROACH, WE ARE OF THE OPINION THAT NO ADDITION, IS WARRANTED ON ACCOUNT OF THE ALP OF THE INTERNATI ONAL TRANSACTION IN THE INSTANT CASE. THE GROUNDS RAISED BY THE ASSE SSEE ARE ACCORDINGLY ALLOWED. 13. IN THE RESULT THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS A LLOWED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 31.10.2019. SD/- SD/- (SUCHITRA KAMBLE) (R.K PANDA) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER *NEHA* DATE:- 31.10.2019 COPY FORWARDED TO: 1. APPELLANT 2. RESPONDENT 3. CIT 4. CIT(APPEALS) 5. DR: ITAT ASSISTANT REGISTRAR ITAT NEW DELHI DATE OF DICTATION 22.10.2019 DATE ON WHICH THE TYPED DRAFT IS PLACED BEFORE THE DICTATING MEMBER 31.10.19 DATE ON WHICH THE APPROVED DRAFT COMES TO THE SR.PS /PS DATE ON WHICH THE FAIR ORDER IS PLACED BEFORE THE D ICTATING MEMBER FOR PRONOUNCEMENT 31.10.19 DATE ON WHICH THE FAIR ORDER COMES BACK TO THE SR. PS/ PS 31.10.19 DATE ON WHICH THE FINAL ORDER IS UPLOADED ON THE WE BSITE OF ITAT 31.10.19 DATE ON WHICH THE FILE GOES TO THE BENCH CLERK 31.10.19 DATE ON WHICH FILE GOES TO THE HEAD CLERK. THE DATE ON WHICH FILE GOES TO THE ASSISTANT REGIST RAR FOR SIGNATURE ON THE ORDER DATE OF DISPATCH OF THE ORDER SUCHITRA