Lummus Technology Heat Transfer BV, Gurgaon V. DCIT, New Delhi

ITA 6227/DEL/2012

• Counselvise Citation: [2014] 120 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 5425 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 2 month(s) 7 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 21-02-2014
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: I
• Next Hearing Date: 26-12-2013
• Assessment Year: 2008-2009
• Appeal Filed On: 14-12-2012
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: PEEYUSH JAIN; Y K VERMA
• Keywords: Transfer pricing; International transaction; Permanent establishment
• Section: 92C; 143(3)

Judgement Text

I.T.A. NO.: 6227/DEL/2012 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2008-09 PAGE 1 OF 7 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, DELHI I BENCH, NEW DELHI [CORAM : PRAMOD KUMAR AM AND C M GARG JM] I.T.A. NO.: 6227/DEL/2012 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2008-09 LUMMUS TECHNOLOGY HEAT TRANSFER BV .APPELLANT 2 ND FLOOR, INFINITY TOWER B, DLF CYBER CITY, GURGAON 1 22 002 [PAN: AABCA9045K] VS. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE 3(2), NEW DELHI .RESPONDENT APPEARANCES BY: RAHUL YADAV AND VISHAL KALRA, FOR THE APPELLANT Y K VERMA AND PEEYUSH JAIN, FOR THE RESPONDENT DATE OF CONCLUDING THE HEARING : DECEMBER 26, 201 3 DATE OF PRONOUNCING THE ORDER : FEBRUARY 21, 2014 O R D E R PER PRAMOD KUMAR: 1. BY WAY OF THIS APPEAL, THE ASSESSEE APPELLANT HA S CHALLENGED THE CORRECTNESS OF THE ASSESSING OFFICERS DATED 10 TH OCTOBER 2012, IN THE MATTER OF ASSESSMENT UNDER SECTION 143(3) R.W.S. 144 C (13) O F THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 ( HEREINAFTER REFERRED TO AS THE ACT) FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2008-09. 2. THE FIRST EFFECTIVE GROUND, I.E. GROUND NO. 2, T HE ASSESSE APPELLANT RAISES THE FOLLOWING GRIEVANCES: 2. TRANSFER PRICING ADJUSTMENT OF INR 2,72,42,940 IN RESPECT OF PROVISION OF SERVICES TO ASSOCIATED ENTERPRISE 2.1 THAT ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN LAW, THE LEARNED AO / DRP / TPO ERRED IN REJECTING THE ECONOMIC ANALYSIS U NDERTAKEN BY THE ASSESSEE FOR DETERMINATION OF THE ARM'S LENGTH PRICE OF INTERNATIONAL TRANSACTION ENTERED INTO BY THE APPELLANT WITH ITS ASSOCIATED ENTERPRISES ('AES') 2.2 THAT ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN LAW, THE LEARNED AO / DRP / TPO, ERRED IN REJECTING THE SEGMENTAL PROFIT AND L OSS I.T.A. NO.: 6227/DEL/2012 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2008-09 PAGE 2 OF 7 ACCOUNTS FOR AE AND NON AE SEGMENT, RELYING ON THE TAX AUDIT REPORT TO CONCLUDE THAT THE APPELLANT IS NOT MAINTAINING SEPARATE AUDITED FINA NCIALS FOR THESE SEGMENTS. IN DOING SO, THE LEARNED AO / DRP / TPO ERRED IN STATING THAT THE SEGMENTAL INFORMATION AS DISCLOSED IN THE TRANSFER PRICING REPORT HAD BEEN CREATED TO ARTIFICIALLY ALLOCATE THE COSTS AND THEREBY REDUCE LOSSES. 2.3 THAT ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN LAW, THE LEARNED AO / DRP / TPO, ERRED IN REJECTING THE INTERNAL TNMM AS THE MOST APPROPRIATE METHOD AND BENCHMARKED THE INTERNATIONAL TRANSACTION OF THE APPELLANT WITH ITS AES AT ENTITY LEVEL BY USING EXTERNAL COMPARABLES. 2.4 THAT ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN LAW, THE LEARNED AO / DRP / TPO, ERRED IN APPLYING CERTAIN FILTERS IN ITS SEARCH FOR COMPARABLES AND FURTHER ERRED IN ITS CHOICE OF COMPARABLES BASED ON SUCH SEARCH, WHICH WERE NOT FUNCTIONALLY COMPARABLE WITH THE APPELLANT, HAVING REGARD TO THEIR RISK AND FUNCTIONAL PROFILE. 2.5 THAT ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN LAW, THE LEARNED AO / DRP / TPO, ERRED BY NOT ALLOWING THE APPELLANT THE BENE FIT OF 5 PERCENT RANGE AS PROVIDED BY THE PROVISO OF SECTION 92C (2) OF THE ACT. 3. THE ASSESSE BEFORE US, LUMMUS TECHNOLOGY HEAT TR ANSFER BV, IS A DUTCH COMPANY (L-GE, IN SHORT) SPECIALIZING IN HEAT TREAT MENT EQUIPMENT, AND IT HAS A PERMANENT ESTABLISHMENT, BY WAY OF A BRANCH, IN IND IA (L-PE, IN SHORT). L-PE IS ENGAGED IN PROVIDING CERTAIN ENGINEERING SERVICES T O L- GE AND ANOTHER ASSOCIATED ENTERPRISES BY THE NAME OF ABB LUMMUS GL OBAL INC. USA (L-US, IN SHORT). THESE ENGINEERING SERVICES ARE FOR PROJECTS , UNDERTAKEN BY THE ASSOCIATED ENTERPRISES, IN OIL AND GAS, FERTILIZERS AND PETROCHEMICAL INDUSTRIES. THE ASSESSEE HAS ALSO RENDERED THESE SERVICES TO TH E INDEPENDENT ENTERPRISES, I.E. NON AES, AS WELL. IN THE RELEVANT PREVIOUS YEA R, THE ASSESSEES TURNOVER WITH THE AES WAS RS 1,424.93 LAKHS, WHEREAS ITS TURNOVER WITH THE NON AES WAS RS 13.52 LAKHS. THE ASSESSEE HAD USED TRANSACTIONAL NE T MARGIN METHOD (TNMM) FOR DETERMINING THE ARMS LENGTH PRICE OF ITS TRANS ACTIONS WITH THE AES, AND HAD BENCHMARKED THEIR PROFITABILITY ON THE BASIS OF PRO FITABILITY OF ITS TRANSACTIONS WITH NON AES, I.E. INDEPENDENT ENTERPRISES. THE ASS ESSEE HAD PRODUCED SEGMENTAL ACCOUNTS SEPARATELY REFLECTING THREE SEGM ENTS, I.E. (A) BUSINESS WITH AES; (B) BUSINESS WITH NON AES; AND (C) IDLE CAPACI TY. THE ASSESSEES CLAIM WAS THAT SINCE ITS MARGIN ON THE BUSINESS WITH AES WAS BETTER THAN MARGIN ON NON AES, THE TRANSACTIONS WITH THE AES ARE TO BE ACCEPT ED AS ON ARMS LENGTH PRICE UNDER THE TNMM. WHILE ASSESSEES OPERATING PROFIT O VER OPERATING REVENUE WAS I.T.A. NO.: 6227/DEL/2012 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2008-09 PAGE 3 OF 7 40.68%, SO FAR AS BUSINESS WITH AES WAS CONCERNED, THE ASSESSEES NET OPERATING PROFIT OVER OPERATING REVENUE WAS 29.02% FOR NON AE BUSINESS. THIS APPROACH FOR DETERMINATION OF ALP, HOWEVER, DID NOT SATISFY THE TRANSFER PRICING OFFICER. THE TPO WAS OF THE VIEW THAT THE SEGMENTAL ACCOUNTS OF THE ASSESSEE WERE NOT SUBJECTED TO THE TAX AUDIT, AS EVIDENT FROM THE FAC T THAT THE SEGMENTAL ACCOUNTS WERE NOT REFERRED TO IN THE TAX AUDIT REPORT. THE TPO NOTED THAT, IT IS EVIDENT FROM SEGMENTAL INFORMATION, AS DISCLOSED IN THE TRA NSFER PRICING REPORT, THAT THE SEGMENTAL INFORMATION HAS BEEN CREATED TO ARBITRARILY ALLOCATE THE COSTS WITH DESIGN TO SHOW HIGHER PROFITABILITY IN A E TRANSACTIONS AND THAT THE TAX AUDITOR HAS NOT BEEN ABLE TO ASCERTAIN THE PROPRIETY OF SUCH SEGMENTAL ACCOUNTS. THE TPO FURTHER OPINED THAT SIN CE THESE SEGMENTAL ACCOUNTS HAVE NOT BEEN SUBJECTED TO TAX AUDIT, THE ALLOCATION OF EXPENDITURE CANNOT BE RELIED UPON TO DETERMINE SEGMENTAL RESULT S. ON THIS BASIS, THE TPO FORMED THE OPINION THAT THE SEGMENTAL RESULTS PREPA RED BY THE ASSESSEE CANNOT BE RELIED UPON TO BENCHMARK INTERNATIONAL TRANSACTI ON, AND OBSERVED THAT THE PERTINENT NEED OF THE ASSESSEE TO DRAW SEGMENTAL AC COUNTS FOR THE SOLE PURPOSE OF TRANSFER PRICING WHEN THERE WAS ALREADY A SET OF AUDITED ACCOUNTS HAS A STARK REASONING THAT, BY DRAWING MAN IPULATED SEGMENTAL ACCOUNTS, THE ASSESSEE HAS CAMOUFLAGED THE ACTUAL P ROFITABILITY . HE FURTHER ADDED THAT THESE (SEGMENTS) ARE HOMOGENOUS SEGMENTS AND CANNOT BE DIFFERENTIATED ON ANY ANALYSIS . THE TRANSFER PRICING OFFICER ALSO REJECTED THE COMPARABILITY OF AE TRANSACTIONS WITH NON AE TRANSA CTIONS ON THE GROUND THAT THE SIZE OF NON AE BUSINESS WAS VERY SMALL AND YET COSTS WERE EQUALLY DIVIDED, AS EVIDENT F ROM THE OBSERVATION THAT, IT IS SEEN THAT THE QUANTUM ON NON AE ( I.E. INDEPENDENT THIRD PARTY TRANSACTION) IS ONLY ABOUT 0.94% OF THE TOTAL REVENUE AND THAT, IT DEFIES LOGIC TO COMPREHEND THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS, WITH UNCARED IMPUNITY ALLOCATED THE DESIGNATED OPERATING COSTS ALMOST EQUALLY IN BOTH THESE SEGMENTS, THOUGH THE REVENUE IN NON- AE SEGMENT IS MEAGRE RS 13,52,440 . IT WAS IN THIS BACKDROP THAT THE INTERNAL TNMM G IVEN BY THE ASSESSEE WAS REJECTED BY THE TPO. THE TPO THE PROCE EDED TO TAKE UP EXTERNAL COMPARABLES, BUT, FOR THE REASONS WE WILL SET OUT I N A SHORT WHILE, IT IS NOT NECESSARY TO DEAL WITH THAT ASPECT OF THE MATTER. SUFFICE TO SAY THAT OBJECTING TO THE STAND OF THE TRANSFER PRICING OFFICER, ASSESSEE RAISED OBJECTIONS, TO THE DRAFT I.T.A. NO.: 6227/DEL/2012 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2008-09 PAGE 4 OF 7 ASSESSMENT ORDER, BEFORE THE DISPUTE RESOLUTION PAN EL, BUT WITHOUT ANY SUCCESS. IN ITS BRIEF OPERATIVE PORTION OF THE ORDER, THE DR P HELD THAT, IN OUR VIEW, THE ACCOUNTS OF THE ASSESSEE WERE BIFURCATED FOR TP PUR POSES ONLY AND THE AUDITED ACCOUNTS DO NOT SHOW DIFFERENT SEGMENTS. HE NCE, DRP CONCURS WITH THE TPOS ACTION IN NOT GIVING CREDENCE TO THIS SEGMENTATION . ACCORDINGLY, IN THE FINAL ASSESSMENT ORDER PASSED BY THE ASSESSI NG OFFICER, AN ADDITION OF RS 2,72,42,901 WAS MADE AS AN ALP ADJUSTMENT OF INVOIC E VALUE OF SERVICES RENDERED BY THE ASSESSEE TO ITS AES, NAMELY L-GE AN D L-US. THE ASSESSEE IS AGGRIEVED AND IS IN APPEAL BEFORE US. 4. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS, PERUSED THE MATERIAL ON RECORD AND DULY CONSIDERED FACTUAL MATRIX OF THE CASE IN THE L IGHT OF THE APPLICABLE LEGAL POSITION. 5. RULE 10B(1)(E) OF THE INCOME TAX RULES, WHICH DE ALS WITH THE TRANSACTIONAL NET MARGIN METHOD, PROVIDES REQUIRES THAT THE NET PROFIT MARGIN REALISED BY THE ENTERPRISE (I.E. THE ASSESSEE) FROM AN INTERNATIONAL TRANSACTION ENTERED INTO WITH AN ASSOCIATED ENTERPR ISE IS COMPUTED IN RELATION TO COSTS INCURRED OR SALES EFFECTED OR ASS ETS EMPLOYED OR TO BE EMPLOYED BY THE ENTERPRISE OR HAVING REGARD TO ANY OTHER RELEVANT BASE IS COMPARED WITH THE NET PROFIT MARGIN REALISED BY THE ENTERPRISE ( I.E. THE ASSESSEE) OR BY AN UNRELATED ENTERPRISE FROM A COMPARABLE UN CONTROLLED TRANSACTION OR A NUMBER OF SUCH TRANSACTIONS IS COM PUTED HAVING REGARD TO THE SAME BASE OF COURSE, SUBJECT TO COMPARABILITY ADJUSTMENTS WH ICH COULD AFFECT THE AMOUNT OF NET PROFIT MARGIN IN UNCONTROL LED CONDITIONS. IT IS NOT AT ALL NECESSARY, AS THE AUTHORITIES BELOW SEEM TO SUGGEST , THAT SUCH NET PROFIT COMPUTATIONS, IN THE CASE OF INTERNAL COMPARABLES ( I.E. ASSESSEES TRANSACTIONS WITH INDEPENDENT ENTERPRISE), ARE BASED ON THE AUDI TED BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS OR THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS REGULARLY MAINTAINED BY THE ASSES SEE. IN OUR CONSIDERED VIEW, ALL THAT IS NECESSARY FOR THE PURPOSE OF COMPUTING ARMS LENGTH PRICE, UNDER TNMM ON THE BASIS OF INTERNAL COMPARABLES, IS COMPU TATION OF NET PROFIT MARGIN, SUBJECT TO COMPARABILITY ADJUSTMENTS AFFECTING NET PROFIT MARGIN OF UNCONTROLLED TRANSACTIONS, ON THE SAME PARAMETERS FOR THE TRANSA CTIONS WITH AES AS WELL AS I.T.A. NO.: 6227/DEL/2012 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2008-09 PAGE 5 OF 7 NON AES, I.E. INDEPENDENT ENTERPRISES, AND AS LONG AS THE NET PROFITS EARNED FROM THE CONTROLLED TRANSACTIONS ARE THE SAME OR HIGHER THAN THE NET PROFITS EARNED ON UNCONTROLLED TRANSACTIONS, NO ALP ADJUSTMENTS AR E WARRANTED. IT IS NOT AT ALL NECESSARY THAT SUCH A COMPUTATION SHOULD BE BASED O N SEGMENTAL ACCOUNTS IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS REGULARLY MAINTAINED BY THE A SSESSEE AND SUBJECTED TO AUDIT. WE ARE, THEREFORE, OF THE VIEW THAT THE AUTH ORITIES BELOW WERE IN ERROR IN REJECTING THE SEGMENTAL RESULTS ON THE GROUND THAT THE SEGMENTAL ACCOUNTS WERE NOT AUDITED AND THAT THESE SEGMENTAL ACCOUNTS WERE NOT MAINTAINED IN THE NORMAL COURSE OF BUSINESS. AS REGARDS VAGUE GENERA LIZATIONS BY THE TPO TO THE EFFECT THAT THESE ACCOUNTS ARE MANIPULATED, THAT AL LOCATION BASIS OF EXPENSES IS UNFAIR AND THAT THESE ACCOUNTS CONCEAL TRUE PROFITA BILITY, WE FIND THAT THESE OBSERVATIONS ARE TOO SWEEPING AND GENERALIZED THE O BSERVATIONS TO HAVE ANY MERITS. IN ANY EVENT, LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSES SEE HAS PAINSTAKINGLY TAKEN US THROUGH THE SEGMENTAL ACCOUNTS, POINTED OUT THE BAS IS OF ALLOCATION OF THE EXPENSES. WE HAVE NOTED THAT THE ALLOCATION OF EXPE NSE IS ON THE MAN HOUR BASIS, WHICH IS QUITE FAIR AND REASONABLE, AND THAT EVERY PERSON HAS TO PUNCH IN HOURS ON A SPECIFIC PROJECT. WE HAVE ALSO NOTED THAT ALL THESE DETAILS AND EXPENSE ALLOCATION BASIS WERE ALSO BEFORE THE TPO AND EVEN THEN, NO SPECIFIC DEFECTS WERE POINTED OUT BY THE TPO. TAKING INTO ACCOUNT AL L THESE FACTORS, AS ALSO ENTIRETY OF THE CASE, WE ARE OF THE CONSIDERED VIEW THAT THE TPO INDEED ERRED IN REJECTING THE SEGMENTAL ACCOUNTS AND THUS DECLINING TO ACCEPT THE INTERNAL COMPARABLE. WE ARE ALSO OF THE VIEW THAT THE SIZE OF THE UNCONTROLLED TRANSACTION OR TRANSACTIONS BEING SMALLER, BY ITSEL F, DOES NOT MAKE THESE TRANSACTIONS INCOMPARABLE WITH THE TRANSACTIONS IN CONTROLLED CONDITIONS. SIZE OF THE COMPARABLE DOES MATTER IN ENTITY LEVEL COMPA RISON BECAUSE SCALE OF OPERATIONS SUBSTANTIALLY VARY AND SO DOES THE UNDER LYING PROFITABILITY FACTOR, BUT IN A TRANSACTION LEVEL COMPARISON WITHIN THE SAME E NTITY, MERE DIFFERENCE IN SIZE OF THE UNCONTROLLED TRANSACTIONS DOES NOT RENDER TH E TRANSACTION INCOMPARABLE. IF THE SIZE OF UNCONTROLLED TRANSACTION IS TOO BIG, IT MAY CALL FOR AN ADJUSTMENT FOR VOLUME BUSINESS. IF THE SIZE OF THE UNCONTROLLE D TRANSACTION IS TOO SMALL, IT MAY PROVOKE AN INQUIRY BY THE TPO TO ENSURE THAT IT IS NOT A CONTRIVED TRANSACTION OUTSIDE THE NORMAL COURSE OF BUSINESS O R WITH REGARD TO OTHER SIGNIFICANT FACTORS SURROUNDING SMALLNESS OF SUCH T RANSACTION. HOWEVER, IN OUR I.T.A. NO.: 6227/DEL/2012 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2008-09 PAGE 6 OF 7 CONSIDERED VIEW, IN NONE OF THESE CASES, A COMPARAB LE CAN BE REJECTED ON THE BASIS OF ITS SIZE PER SE . IN THIS VIEW OF THE MATTER, THE AUTHORITIES BELOW WERE CLEARLY IN ERROR IN REJECTING THE INTERNAL COMPARAB LE, I.E. PROFITABILITY OF ASSESSEES TRANSACTIONS WITH NON AES, ON THE GROUND THAT THE VOLUME OF BUSINESS WITH NON AES WAS TOO SMALL VIS--VIS BUSINESS WITH AES. IN VIEW OF THESE DISCUSSIONS, AS ALSO BEARING IN MIND ENTIRETY OF TH E CASE, THE ASSESSEE WAS QUITE JUSTIFIED IN ADOPTING INTERNAL TNMM AND COMPARING T HE PROFIT EARNED ON ITS TRANSACTIONS WITH AES WITH PROFIT EARNED WITH NON-A ES. ACCORDINGLY, THE ALP ADJUSTMENT OF RS 2,72,42,940 DESERVES TO BE DELETED . WE ORDER SO. THE ASSESSEE GETS THE RELIEF ACCORDINGLY. 6. GROUND NO. 2 IS THUS ALLOWED. 7. IN GROUND NO. 3, THE ASSESSEE HAS RAISED THE FOL LOWING GRIEVANCE: 3 ADDITION ON ACCOUNT OF SALES/SERVICES RENDERED BY HEAD OFFICE AMOUNTING TO INR 86,571,076 3.1. THAT ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN LAW, THE LEARNED AO PURSUANT TO THE DIRECTIONS OF HON'BLE DRP ERRED IN MAKING ADDITION OF INR 86,571,076, BEING 50 PERCENT OF THE RECEIPTS ON ACCOUNT OF SALES / SERVICES RENDERED BY HEAD OFFICE, AS ARISING IN INDIA ON THE PREMISE THAT THE SAID SERVICES ARE PROVIDED BY THE BRANCH OFFICE IN INDIA, IGNORING THE EVIDENCE/SUBMISSIONS FURNISHED BY THE APPELLANT IN THIS REGARD. 3.2 THAT ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN LAW, THE LEARNED AO / DRP, ERRED IN ADOPTING AN AD-HOC AND ARBITRARY RATE O F 25 PERCENT TO DETERMINE GROSS PROFIT FROM THE SALES/SERVICES IN INDIA BY HEAD OFFICE AND FURTHER ERRED IN ESTIMATING, ON AN AD HOC BASIS, 50 PERCENT THEREOF, AS ATTRIBUTABLE TO THE PERMANENT ESTABLISHMENT (PE) OF THE APPELLANT, BEING THE BRANCH OFFICE IN INDIA, WITHOUT ANY BASIS/MATERIAL ON RECORD 3.3 THAT ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN LAW, WI THOUT PREJUDICE TO ANYTHING IN THIS SUBMISSION, THE LEARNED AO / DRP OUGHT TO HAVE FOLLOWED THE PRINCIPLE THAT ONCE THE PE WAS REMUNERATED AT AR M'S LENGTH, WHICH WAS THE SUBJECT MATTER OF ADJUSTMENT BY THE LEARNED TPO, N O FURTHER INCOME COULD HAVE BEEN ATTRIBUTED TO THE PE AND HENCE NO FUR THER ADDITION OVER AND ABOVE THE TRANSFER PRICING ADJUSTMENT OF INR 27,242,940 WAS CALLED FOR. I.T.A. NO.: 6227/DEL/2012 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2008-09 PAGE 7 OF 7 8. EVEN AS LEARNED DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE VEHE MENTLY SUBMITS THAT, IN THE ABSENCE OF ASSESSEES COOPERA TION BY SUBMISSION OF REQUISITE INFORMATION, THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAD NO OPTION EXCEPT TO RESOR T TO THIS ADDITION, ON ESTIMATE BASIS, LEARNED REPRESENTATIVES FAIRLY AGREE THAT TH E ISSUE IS COVERED, IN FAVOUR OF TH E ASSESSEE, BY THE TRIBUNALS ORDER DATED 31 ST OCTOBER 2013 IN ASSESSEES OWN CASE FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2006-07. WE SEE NO REA SONS TO TAKE ANY OTHER VIEW OF THE MATTER THAN THE VIEW SO TAKEN BY THE COORDIN ATE BENCH. IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER AND DRPS ORDER ALSO, THE STAND TAKEN IN THE EARLIER YE ARS IS REITERATED. RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING VIEWS OF THE COORDINATE BENC H ON THIS ISSUE IN RESPECT OF AN EARLIER ASSESSMENT YEAR, WE DELETE THE IMPUGNED ADDITION OF RS 86,571,076. THE ASSESSEE GETS THE RELIEF ACCORDINGLY. 9. GROUND NO 3 IS ALSO ALLOWED. 10. GROUND NOS. 1, 4 AND 5 ARE EITHER GENERAL IN NA TURE OR DONOT REQUIRE ANY SPECIFIC ADJUDICATION ON THE FACTS OF THIS CASE. 11. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL IS ALLOWED IN THE TER MS INDICATED ABOVE. PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT TODAY ON 21 ST DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2014. SD/XX SD/XX C M GARG PRAMOD KUMAR (JUDICIAL MEMBER) (ACCOUNTANT MEMBER) NEW DELHI, THE 21 ST DAY OF FEBRUARY 2014 COPIES TO : (1) THE APPELLANT (2) THE RESPONDENT (3) D R P (4) DRP (5) DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE (6) GUARD FILE BY ORDER ETC ASSISTANT REGISTRAR INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCHES, NEW DELHI