M/s UL India Pvt Ltd, Bangalore V. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Bangalore

ITA 651/BANG/2017

• Counselvise Citation: [2021] 109 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 1900 (ITAT-BANGALORE)
• Duration Of Justice: 3 year(s) 11 month(s) 19 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 11-03-2021
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Bench Allotted: C
• Next Hearing Date: 09-03-2021
• Assessment Year: 2012-2013
• Appeal Filed On: 21-03-2017
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Assessee Lawyers: K R VASUDEVAN
• Keywords: Depreciation; Transfer pricing; Rectification of order; Opportunity of being heard; International transaction; TDS; Set aside
• Section: 92C; 133(6); 10B; 13; 12; 154; 92

Judgement Text

IT(TP)A NO.651/BANG/2017 M/S. UL INDIA PVT. LTD., BANGALORE IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL CBENCH: BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI N.V. VASUDEVAN, VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI B.R. BASKARAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER IT(TP)A NOS.627 & 651/BANG/2017 ASSESSMENT YEARS:2012-13 UL INDIA PVT. LTD. KALYANI PLATINA, 3 RD FLOOR BLOCK NO.1, N.24, EPIP ZONE, PHASE-II, WHITEFIELD BANGALORE PAN NO :AAACU2468F VS. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX CIRCLE 7(1)(1) BENGALURU APPELLANT RESPONDENT APPELLANT BY : SHRI K.R. VASUDEVAN, A.R. RESPONDENT BY : SHRI PRADEEP KUMAR, D.R. DATE OF HEARING : 09.03.2021 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 11.03.2021 O R D E R PER B.R. BASKARAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER: BOTH THE APPEALS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE ARE RELATED TO ASSESSMENT YEAR 2012-13. 2. AT THE TIME OF HEARING, THE LD. A.R. SUBMITT ED THAT THE A.O. HAD PASSED A RECTIFICATION ORDER U/S 154 OF THE INC OME-TAX ACT,1961 ['THE ACT' FOR SHORT] AFTER PASSING OF THE FINAL AS SESSMENT ORDER FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2012-13. IN THE ORIGINAL ASSESSMEN T ORDER, THE AO DID NOT GIVE EFFECT TO THE DIRECTIONS GIVEN BY LD D ISPUTE RESOLUTION PANEL (DRP) AND THE SAME WAS GIVEN EFFECT TO IN THE RECTIFICATION ORDER PASSED U/S 154 OF THE ACT. HENCE, OUT OF ABA NDONED CAUTION, IT(TP)A NO.651/BANG/2017 M/S. UL INDIA PVT. LTD., BANGALORE PAGE 2 OF 19 THE ASSESSEE HAS PREFERRED APPEALS AGAINST BOTH THE ORDERS. THE APPEAL FILED AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 31.1.2017 PASS ED U/S 154 OF THE ACT IS NUMBERED AS IT(TP)A NO.651/BANG/2017. TH E APPEAL NUMBERED AS IT(TP)A NO.627/BANG/2017 IS DIRECTED AG AINST THE FINAL ASSESSMENT ORDER DATED 31.1.2017 PASSED BY TH E A.O. HE SUBMITTED THAT THE ISSUES CONTESTED BY THE ASSESSEE IN BOTH THE APPEALS ARE IDENTICAL IN NATURE. 3. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE DISCUSSED FACTS, ONE OF THE APPEALS SHALL BECOME INFRUCTUOUS. SINCE THE DEMAND HAS BEEN ENHAN CED IN THE ORDER PASSED U/S 154 OF THE ACT, WE ADJUDICATE THE GROUNDS URGED THEREIN AND ACCORDINGLY DISMISS THE APPEAL NUMBERED AS IT(TP)A NO.627/BANG/2017 AS INFRUCTUOUS. 4. THE LD. A.R. HAS FURNISHED NOTES TO ARGUMENTS. ACCORDING TO THE SAME, ALL THE GROUNDS URGED BY THE ASSESSEE REL ATE TO THE FOLLOWING ISSUES:- A) TRANSFER PRICING ADJUSTMENT UNDER CERTIFICATION SE RVICE SEGMENT. B) TRANSFER PRICING ADJUSTMENT UNDER ITES SEGMENT. C) ADDITION ON ACCOUNT OF CHANGE IN THE METHOD OF REVE NUE RECOGNITION D) DENIAL OF TDS CREDIT. E) NON-GRANTING OF DEPRECIATION ON FOREIGN EXCHANGE LO SS. 5. THE ASSESSEE IS AN INDIAN COMPANY AND IS A SUBSI DIARY OF M/S. UNDERWRITERS LABORATORIES INC., U.S.A. THE AS SESSEE HEREIN PROVIDES PRODUCT SAFETY TESTING AND CERTIFICATION S ERVICES. THE ABOVE SAID SERVICES HAVE BEEN TITLED AS CONFORMITY ASSES SMENT SERVICES. THE FUNCTIONS PERFORMED BY THE ASSESSEE HAVE BEEN D ESCRIBED AS UNDER BY TPO:- IT(TP)A NO.651/BANG/2017 M/S. UL INDIA PVT. LTD., BANGALORE PAGE 3 OF 19 CERTIFICATION SERVICES: THE CONFORMITY ASSESSMENT SERVICES (CAS) UNIT IN UL INDIA PROVIDES THE PRODUCT TESTI NG AND QUALITY AND SAFETY CERTIFICATION SERVICES TO THE MANUFACTUR ERS AS AN INDEPENDENT SERVICE PROVIDER. THE CONTRACTS TO PRO VIDE SERVICES TO INDIAN CLIENTS ARE ENTERED INTO BY UL INDIA WITH TH E CLIENTS. IN CASE, UL INDIA DOES NOT HAVE THE REQUISITE EQUIPMENT AND TECHNICAL EXPERTISE, IT SUBCONTRACTS THE FUNCTIONS OF TESTING OF PRODUCT SAMPLES AND UNDERTAKING AUDITS ACCORDING TO PRESCRIBED GUID ELINES AND STANDARDS SET BY UL INC., TO ANOTHER ENTITY IN UL G ROUP, WHICH HAS THE NECESSARY CAPABILITY AS WELL AS CAPACITY TO CON DUCT THE TESTING AND ENGINEERING REVIEW ACTIVITY. UL INDIA PAYS SUB CONTRACTING CHARGES TO THE RESPECTIVE UL ENTITY AT COST PLUS A MARK-UP OF 5%. ON SUCCESSFUL COMPLETION OF THE TESTING SERVICES, U L INDIA ISSUES THE CERTIFICATION TO THE CLIENT. UL INDIA PAYS ROYALTY AT 5% OF THE REVENUE TO UL INC FOR THE USE OF UL MARK FOR CERTIF ICATION PURPOSES. HOWEVER, BASED ON THE CAPABILITY AND CAPACITY OF UL INDIA OR OTHER UL GROUP ENTITIES ALSO SUBCONTRACT THE TESTING AND CERTIFICATION WORK TO UL INDIA. IN SUCH CASES, UL INDIA GETS COM PENSATED T COST PLUS A MARK-UP OF 15%. 6. BESIDES THE ABOVE, THE ASSESSEE HAS ALSO PROVIDE D IT ENABLED SERVICES TO ITS ASSOCIATED ENTERPRISES. THE A.O. M ADE TRANSFER PRICING ADJUSTMENT OF RS.17.40 CRORES IN RESPECT OF CERTIFICATION SERVICE SEGMENT AND RS.26.14 LAKHS IN RESPECT OF IT ES SEGMENT AGGREGATING TO RS.17.66 LAKHS. AFTER THE DRPS DIR ECTION, THE AGGREGATE AMOUNT OF TRANSFER PRICING ADJUSTMENT CAM E TO BE ENHANCED TO RS.25.46 CRORES. THE ASSESSEE IS CHALL ENGING ABOVE SAID TP ADJUSTMENTS MADE IN BOTH THE SEGMENTS. 7. WITH REGARD TO TRANSFER PRICING ADJUSTMENT MADE IN RESPECT OF CERTIFICATION SERVICE SEGMENT, THE LD A.R SUBMITTED THAT AN IDENTICAL ISSUE WAS EXAMINED BY THE CO-ORDINATE BEN CH IN THE ASSESSEES OWN CASE IN AY 2009-10 IN IT(TP)A NO.291 /BANG/2014 DATED 20-09-2019 AND THE MATTER WAS RESTORED BACK T O THE FILE OF AO/TPO WITH A SET OF DIRECTIONS FOR EXAMINING IS AF RESH. 8. WE HEARD LD D.R ON THIS ISSUE AND PERUSED T HE RECORD. WE NOTICE THAT THE CO-ORDINATE BENCH HAS RESTORED AN I DENTICAL ISSUE IN AY 2009-10 TO THE FILE OF AO/TPO WITH FOLLOWING OBS ERVATIONS:- IT(TP)A NO.651/BANG/2017 M/S. UL INDIA PVT. LTD., BANGALORE PAGE 4 OF 19 14 WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS. THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT THE LAW WITH REGARD TO TREA TING FOREIGN EXCHANGE LOSS/GAIN AS PART OF OPERATING PROFIT/LOSS HAS BEEN WELL SETTLED IN SEVERAL DECISIONS AND IN THIS REGARD REL IED ON THE DECISION OF ITAT BANGALORE BENCH IN THE CASE OF SAP LABS INDIA (P) LTD. (SUPRA). HE SUBMITTED THAT THE TPO WHILE COMPUTING PROFIT LE VEL INDICATOR (PLI) OF THE ASSESSEE IN THE CERTIFICATIO N SERVICES SEGMENT, HAS INCLUDED CERTAIN ITEMS OF EXPENSES, WHEREAS THE ASSESSEE HAS EXCLUDED THOSE EXPENSES AS BEING EXTRA-ORDINARY IN NATURE AND NOT HAVING IMPACT ON THE OPERATING MARGIN OF THE ASSESS EE. THESE OBJECTIONS, HOWEVER, WERE NOT MET BY THE DRP, DESPI TE SUBMISSIONS MADE BY THE ASSESSEE BEFORE THE DRP. THIRDLY, IT W AS SUBMITTED THAT AS FAR AS BANGALORE BENCHES OF THE TRIBUNAL AR E CONCERNED, THE THRESHOLD LIMIT FOR APPLICATION OF RPT FILTER FOR E XCLUDING COMPARABLE COMPANIES, SHOULD BE 15% OF THE TOTAL REVENUE BEING WITH RELATED PARTIES AND IN THIS REGARD PLACED RELIANCE ON THE D ECISION RENDERED IN 24/7 CUSTOMER PVT. LTD. (ITA NO.227/BANG/2010), SON Y INDIA PRIVATE LTD. REPORTED IN (2009) 315 ITR (80) 150 (DEL.) WHE REIN IT HAS BEEN HELD THAT COMPARABLES HAVING RPT OF UP TO 15% OF TO TAL REVENUES CAN BE CONSIDERED AS COMPARABLE COMPANY. FOURTHL Y, IT WAS SUBMITTED THAT THE ADJUSTMENT AND ADDITION TO THE T OTAL INCOME SHOULD BE MADE U/S. 92 OF THE ACT ONLY IN RESPECT O F INTERNATIONAL TRANSACTION AND NOT IN RESPECT OF TRANSACTIONS WITH NON-AE. IN THIS REGARD, THE LD. COUNSEL POINTED OUT THAT OUT OF THE TOTAL REVENUE FROM CERTIFICATION SERVICES OF RS.30.57 CRORES, ONLY 10. 19 CRORES WAS TRANSACTIONS WITH AE AND THEREFORE THE ADJUSTMENT S HOULD BE REFLECTED ONLY TO THE TRANSACTIONS OF AE AND NOT TH E ENTIRE TRANSACTION. LASTLY, IT WAS SUBMITTED THAT FOREIGN EXCHANGE LOSS/GAIN TO THE EXTENT IT RELATES TO THE CAPITAL ACCOUNT, SH OULD NOT BE INCLUDED AS PART OF THE OPERATING PROFIT/LOSS. 15 THE LD. DR SUBMITTED THAT NO DETAILS OF FOREI GN EXCHANGE LOSS ON ACCOUNT OF CAPITAL OR REVENUE ITEMS IS AVAILABLE NOR HAS THE LD. IT(TP)A NO.651/BANG/2017 M/S. UL INDIA PVT. LTD., BANGALORE PAGE 5 OF 19 COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE POINTED OUT ANY INSTANCE O F FOREIGN EXCHANGE LOSS/GAIN ON ACCOUNT OF CAPITAL TRANSACTIO NS WHICH WAS CONSIDERED AS OPERATING EXPENSE. WITH REGARD TO T HE RPT FILTER, THE LD. DR SUBMITTED THAT THE RPT FILTER HAS TO BE APPL IED TO ALL THE COMPARABLE COMPANIES CHOSEN ULTIMATELY AND NOT ONL Y TO THE COMPARABLE COMPANIES THE INCLUSION OF WHICH THE ASS ESSEE OBJECTS. AS FAR AS THE PLEA OF THE ASSESSEE TO RESTRICT DETE RMINATION OF ALP ONLY TO THE COMPARABLES, THE LD. DR POINTED OUT THA T IN CARRYING OUT THE CERTIFICATION SERVICES THE ASSESSEE HAD SUB-CON TRACTED PART OF THE WORK TO THE AE AND PAID RS.3,60,48,227. IT HAS TO BE EXAMINED AS TO WHETHER SUCH A PAYMENT WILL HAVE ANY IMPACT O N THE PAYMENTS RECEIVED BY THE ASSESSEE FROM AE FOR RENDERING CERT IFICATION SERVICES. 16 WE HAVE GIVEN A CAREFUL CONSIDERATION TO THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND ARE OF THE VIEW THAT THE ISSUE WITH REGARD TO D ETERMINATION OF ALP IN THE CERTIFICATION SERVICES SEGMENT SHOULD BE REMITTED BACK TO THE TPO. ACCORDINGLY, THE ISSUE IS RESTORED BACK T O THE TPO FOR FRESH CONSIDERATION WITH THE FOLLOWING DIRECTIONS:- (1) THE FOREIGN EXCHANGE LOSS/GAIN TO THE EXTENT IT RELATES O REVENUE ITEMS AND ARE DIRECTLY RELATED TO CERTIFICATION SERVICES RENDERED BY THE ASSESSEE SHOULD BE CONSIDERED AS PART OF THE OPERAT ING PROFIT OR LOSS, AS THE CASE MAY BE. THE LAW IN THIS REGARD IS WELL SETTLED BY THE DECISION RENDERED BY THE ITAT BANGALORE BENCH IN TH E CASE OF SAP LABS (SUPRA) AND AUTO DESK INDIA PVT. LTD. VS. DCIT IT(TP)A.NO. 540 & 541/BANG/2013. (2) THE TPO SHOULD RESTRICT THE ADDITION ONLY IN RE SPECT OF INTERNATIONAL TRANSACTIONS WITH THE AE. HOWEVER, THE SUBMISSION MADE BY THE LD. DR WITH REGARD TO A PART OF THE CERTIFICATION SERVICES HAVING BEEN SUB- CONTRACTED TO THE AE AND RECEIPT OF SUB-CONTRACTING CHARGES FROM THE AE TO THE EXTENT THE SAME WILL HAVE IMPACT ON THE C ONSIDERATION RECEIVED FROM THE AE FOR RENDERING THE CERTIFICATIO N SERVICES SHOULD ALSO BE EXAMINED BY THE TPO. IT(TP)A NO.651/BANG/2017 M/S. UL INDIA PVT. LTD., BANGALORE PAGE 6 OF 19 (3) ERRORS, IF ANY, IN THE COMPUTATION OF MARGINS O F COMPARABLES SHOULD BE LOOKED INTO BY THE TPO IN THE SET ASIDE PROCEEDINGS . (4) THRESHOLD LIMIT FOR APPLYING RPT FILTER SHOULD BE 15% OR 25% OF SALES DEPENDING UPON THE AVAILABILITY OF COMPARABLE COMPA NIES AFTER ALL EXCLUSIONS AS HELD BY THE TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF A UTO DESK INDIA PVT. LTD. VS. DCIT [2018] 96 TAXMANN.COM 263 (BANG.TRIB. ) [PARA 24 TO 25]. 17 THE ABOVE DIRECTIONS WILL BE SUFFICIENT TO T AKE CARE OF THE GRIEVANCES PROJECTED BY THE ASSESSEE IN GROUND NOS. 5 & 6 AND ADDITIONAL GROUNDS NO.6 (D), 26 & 27. THE TPO WI LL AFFORD OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD TO THE ASSESSEE BEFORE DECIDING THE ISSUE. 9. WE ALSO NOTICE THAT THE DECISION RENDERED B Y THE CO-ORDINATE BENCH IN AY 2009-10 HAS BEEN FOLLOWED BY ANOTHER CO -ORDINATE BENCH IN THE ASSESSEES OWN CASE IN AY 2013-14 IN I T(TP)A NO.2/BANG/2018 DATED 25.02.2021. ACCORDINGLY, FOLL OWING THE DECISIONS RENDERED BY THE CO-ORDINATE BENCHES, WE R ESTORE THIS ISSUE TO THE FILE OF AO/TPO WITH SIMILAR DIRECTIONS . 10. THE NEXT ISSUE CONTESTED BY THE ASSESSEE RE LATES TO THE TRANSFER PRICING ADJUSTMENT MADE IN RESPECT OF ITES SEGMENT. REJECTING THE TP STUDY OF THE ASSESSEE, THE TPO SEL ECTED FOLLOWING TEN COMPARABLE COMPANIES:- SL.NO. NAME OF THE CASE OPERATING INCOME OPERATING COST OP/OC 1 ACCENTIA TECHNOLOGIES LTD. 126,38,02,000 112,89,16,000 11.75 2 UNIVERSAL PRINT SYSTEMS LTD. (SEG)(BPO) 6,17,67,000 3,87,49,000 52.46 3 INFORMED TECHNOLOGIES INDIA LTD. 1,96,36,431 1,82,45,770 6.08 4 INFOSYS BPO LTD. 1316,75,11,974 962,91,06,964 36.30 5 JINDAL INTELLICOM LTD. 30,27,51,875 30,29,02,990 - 0.05 6 MICROGENETIC SYSTEMS LTD. 1,29,93,217 1,08,63,390 19.61 7 TCS E - SERVE LTD. 15,78,44,000 9,64,28,000 63.69 8 B N R UDYOG LTD. (SEG)(MEDICAL TRANSCRIPTION) 1,47,04,000 97,87,000 41.58 9 EXCEL INFOWAYS LTD. (SEG)(IT/BVPO) 790,96,95,000 559,06,04,000 29.79 10 E4E HEALTHCARE SERVICES PVT. LTD. 89,50,04,209 74,59,23,078 19.85 AVERAGE PLI 28.11% IT(TP)A NO.651/BANG/2017 M/S. UL INDIA PVT. LTD., BANGALORE PAGE 7 OF 19 11. BEFORE LD DRP, THE ASSESSEE SOUGHT EXCLUSIO N OF FOLLOWING FIVE COMPARABLE COMPANIES:- (A) UNIVERSAL PRINT SYSTEMS LTD (B) INFOSYS BPO LTD (C) BNR UDYOG LTD (D) EXCEL INFOWAY LTD (E) TCS E-SERVE LTD THE LD DRP DID NOT ACCEPT THE CONTENTIONS OF THE AS SESSEE WITH REGARD TO ABOVE SAID FIVE COMPARABLE COMPANIES . HENCE, THE ASSESSEE SEEKS EXCLUSION OF ABOVE COMPANIES. THE L D A.R PLACED HIS RELIANCE ON THE DECISION RENDERED BY CO-ORDINAT E BENCH IN THE CASE OF KENNAMETAL SHARED SERVICES P LTD (IT(TP)A NO.185/BANG/2017 DATED 14.08.2019) AND SUBMITTED TH AT THE CO- ORDINATE BENCH HAS HELD THAT THE ABOVE SAID FIVE CO MPARABLE COMPANIES ARE NOT GOOD COMPARABLES FOR A CAPTIVE SO FTWARE DEVELOPMENT SERVICE PROVIDER. 12. WE HEARD LD D.R AND PERUSED THE RECORD. WE NOTICE THAT THE CO-ORDINATE BENCH, IN THE CASE OF KENNAMETAL SHARED SERVICES P LTD (SUPRA) HAS FOLLOWED THE DECISION RENDERED BY BANGA LORE BENCH OF TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF MOBILITY INFOTECH INDIA PVT LTD (IT(TP)A NO.2055/BANG/2016 DATED 08-08-2018). FOR THE SAKE OF CONVENIENCE, WE EXTRACT BELOW THE DECISION RENDERED BY THE CO- ORDINATE BENCH IN THE CASE OF MOBILITY INFOTECH IND IA P LTD (SUPRA) IN RESPECT OF ABOVE SAID FIVE COMPARABLE COMPANIES: - 6. UNIVERSAL PRINT SYSTEMS LTD ., (SEG: BPO) 6.1 THE LD AR FOR THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT THIS COMPANY SHOULD BE REJECTED AS A COMPARABLE FOR THE FOLLOWING REASONS. (I) FAILS THE EMPLOYEES COST FILTER IT(TP)A NO.2055 /B/16 ACCORDING TO THE LD AR, THIS COMPANY FAILS THE EMPLOYEE FILTER OF RS.25 % APPLIED AT THE ENTITY LEVEL. THE EMPLOYEE COST FILTER OF THE ASSESSEE WORKS OUT TO 18.56% (VIZ. EMPLOYEE COST OF RS.5,27,11,884/- / BY TOTAL OPERATING REVEN UE OF RS.28,40,79,094/-). IT IS IT(TP)A NO.651/BANG/2017 M/S. UL INDIA PVT. LTD., BANGALORE PAGE 8 OF 19 SUBMITTED THAT SINCE DETAILS RELATING TO EMPLOYEE C OST ALLOWABLE TO SPECIFIC SEGMENTS IS NOT AVAILABLE, THE SAME IS TAKEN AT ENT ITY LEVEL. (II) FUNCTIONALLY DIFFERENT THE LD AR SUBMITS THAT AS PER PAGE 69 OF ITS ANNUAL REPORT, THIS COMPANY IS ENGAGED IN PRE-PRESS SERVIC ES AND AS PRE-PRESS ACTIVITY IS CONNECTED TO THE PRINTING INDUSTRY/PROCESS, IT I S NOT COMPARABLE TO CALL ENTIRE SERVICES RENDERED BY THE ASSESSEE. THEREFORE, IT RE QUIRES TO BE REJECTED AS A COMPARABLE TO THE ASSESSEE SINCE IT IS FUNCTIONALLY DIFFERENT FROM COMPANIES PROVIDING ITES. IN SUPPORT OF THIS PROPOSITION, THE LD AR PLACED RELIANCE ON THE DECISION OF THE CO-ORDINATE BENCH OF THIS TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF M/S XL HEALTH CORPORATION INDIA PVT. LTD., IN IT(TP)A NO.2311/BAN G/2016 FOR ASST. YEAR 2012-13. 6.2 THE LD DR FOR REVENUE SUPPORTED THE ORDERS OF T HE AUTHORITIES BELOW. ACCORDING TO THE LD DR, IN SIMILAR FACTS AND CIRCUM STANCES A CO-ORDINATE BENCH IN THE CASE OF CGI INFORMATION SYSTEMS & MANAGEMENT CONSULTATION PVT. LTD., IN IT(TP)A NO.183/BANG/2017 DATED 11/4/2018 FOR ASS T. YEAR 2012-13, AT PARA 47 TO 52 THEREOF HAS REMANDED BACK THE ISSUE OF COM PARABILITY ANALYSIS AT THE SEGMENTAL LEVEL TO THE FILE OF THE TPO FOR EXAMINAT ION AND VERIFICATION OF THE ASSESSEE'S CLAIM. IT IS PRAYED THAT THE SAME BE FOL LOWED IN THIS CASE ALSO. 6.3.1 WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS AND PERUS ED AND CAREFULLY CONSIDERED THE FACTUAL MATERIAL ON RECORD; INCLUDIN G THE JUDICIAL PRONOUNCEMENTS CITED. IN THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCE S OF THE CASE, AS NARRATED ABOVE, WE ARE OF THE CONSIDERED VIEW THAT ON SIMILA R FACTS, AS IN THE CASE ON HAND A CO-ORDINATE BENCH OF THIS TRIBUNAL IN THE CA SE OF CGI INFORMATION SYSTEMS AND MANAGEMENT CONSULTATION PVT. LTD., ALSO FOR ASST. YEAR 2012-13 (SUPRA), HAS REMANDED THE ISSUE OF COMPARABILITY AN ALYSIS AT THE SEGMENTAL LEVEL TO THE FILE OF THE TPO FOR EXAMINATION AND VE RIFICATION, BY HOLDING AS UNDER AT PARAS 47 TO 52 AS THEREOF:- 47. THE NEXT SUBMISSION OF THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE WAS WITH REGARD TO EXCLUSION OF 2 COMPARABLE COMPANIES FROM THE LIST OF 7 COMPARABLE COMPANIES THAT REMAIN AFTER THE ORDER OF THE DRP. T HE FIRST COMPARABLE COMPANY SOUGHT TO BE EXCLUDED IS UNIVERSAL PRINT SY STEMS LTD. THIS COMPANY WAS CHOSEN AS A COMPARABLE COMPANY BY THE TPO. IN R EPLY TO THE PROPOSAL OF THE TPO TO INCLUDE THIS COMPANY AS A COMPARABLE COM PANY, THE ASSESSEE VIDE ITS LETTER DATED 22.12.2015 HAD POINTED OUT ITS OBJ ECTIONS TO INCLUDING THIS COMPANY AS A COMPARABLE COMPANY. A COPY OF THE SAID OBJECTION IS AT PAGE- 785 OF THE ASSESSEE'S PAPER BOOK. THE ASSESSEE POIN TED OUT THAT THE OP/TC OF THIS COMPANY AS WORKED OUT BY THE TPO AT 59.40% WAS WRONG AND UNALLOCATED COSTS AS PER THE ANNUAL REPORT SHOULD BE IT(TP)A NO .2055/B/16 ALLOCATED TO BPO SEGMENT AND IF THAT IS DONE THEN THE OP/TC OF T HIS COMPANY WILL BE ONLY 51.80%. THE ASSESSEE FURTHER POINTED OUT (PAGE764 O F PAPER BOOK) THAT THE TPO HAD APPLIED REVENUE FILTER OF MORE THAN 75% BEI NG FROM NON-FINANCIAL SERVICE INCOME. THE ASSESSEE POINTED OUT THAT THE P ERCENTAGE OF INCOME FROM ITES WAS ONLY 21.63% OF THE TOTAL REVENUE FROM OPER ATIONS OF THIS COMPANY AS PER ITS ANNUAL REPORT. THE ASSESSEE ALSO POINTED OU T THAT IN THE PRE-PRESS BPO SEGMENT THIS COMPANY WAS PROVIDING INTEGRATED PRINT SOLUTIONS TO ITS IT(TP)A NO.651/BANG/2017 M/S. UL INDIA PVT. LTD., BANGALORE PAGE 9 OF 19 CUSTOMERS, WHICH INCLUDES SCANNING, DESIGN/LAYOUT, TRAPPING, HAND-OUTLINED CLIPPING PATH AND IMAGE MASKING AND MAGAZINE AND CA TALOGUE PUBLISHING. THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT THE AFORESAID SERVICES ARE NOT IN THE NATURE OF ITES. THE ASSESSEE POINTED OUT THAT AS PER THE SAFE HARBO R RULES INTRODUCED BY THE CBDT ITES HAS BEEN DEFINED AS BUSINESS PROCESS OUTS OURCING SERVICES PROVIDED MAINLY WITH THE ASSISTANCE OR USE OF INFOR MATION TECHNOLOGY. IT WAS ALSO SUBMITTED THAT THIS COMPANY DOES NOT SATISFY T HE DEFINITION OF ITES AS CONTAINED IN RULE 10TA(E ) OF THE RULES. SINCE USE OF INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY IS ABSENT IN THE VARIOUS SERVICES PROVIDED BY THIS COM PANY, IT CANNOT BE REGARDED AS ITES COMPANY. THE ASSESSEE ALSO SUBMITTED THAT T HIS COMPANY FAILS THE EMPLOYEE COST FILTER. THE EMPLOYEE COST FILTER REQU IRES THAT THE EMPLOYEES COST INCURRED BY THE COMPANY MUST BE MORE THAN 25% OF IT S REVENUE. 48. THE TPO AT PAGE-20 OF HIS ORDER HAS DEALT WITH THE ABOVE OBJECTIONS BY OBSERVING AS FOLLOWS: (A) PRE-PRESS BPO UNIT PROVIDES BACK OFFICE SUPPOR T SERVICES. (B) THIS COMPANY HAS FOUR MAJOR SEGMENTS VIZ., REPR O, LABEL PRINTING, OFFSET PRINTING AND PRE PRESS BPO. THE EMPLOYEE COST OF PR E PRESS BPO WAS MORE THAN 25% OF THE REVENUE FROM PRE PRESS BPO AND THER EFORE THE EMPLOYEE COST FILTER IS SATISFIED IN THE CASE OF THIS COMPANY. (C ) ON THE SERVICE REVENUE FILTER VIZ., THE REQUIREMENT THAT A COMPARABLE COMPANY MUS T HAVE REVENUE FROM RENDERING SERVICES OF MORE THAN 75% OF ITS TOTAL RE VENUE, THE TPO AGAIN HELD THAT THE PRE-PRESS BPO SEGMENT'S ENTIRE INCOME IS F ROM SERVICES AND THEREFORE THIS OBJECTION IS NOT TO BE ACCEPTED. 49. ON OBJECTIONS BY THE ASSESSEE BEFORE THE DRP, T HE DRP CONFIRMED THE ACTION OF THE TPO. ONE OF THE OBJECTION BEFORE THE DRP WAS THAT THIS COMPANY DID NOT FIGURE IN THE LIST OF COMPANIES ENGAGED IN ITES. ON THIS OBJECTION THE DRP HELD THAT THOUGH THIS COMPANY DID NOT FIGURE IN THE LIST OF COMPANIES IN ITES IN THE MAIN SEARCH OF CAPITAL LINE AND PROWESS DATABASE BUT ON A SEGMENTAL SEARCH THESE TWO COMPANIES SATISFIED THE REQUIREMENT OF BEING CONSIDERED AS COMPANIES ENGAGED IN PROVIDING ITES. 50. AGGRIEVED BY THE DIRECTIONS OF THE DRP, THE ASS ESSEE IS IN APPEAL BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL. THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE REITERATED SUBMISSIONS THAT WERE MADE BEFORE THE TPO/DRP. IN PARTICULAR IT WAS SUBMITTED THAT THE SERVICE REVENUE FILTER WAS APPLIED BY THE TPO HIMSELF AT TH E ENTITY LEVEL AND ON SUCH SEARCH THIS COMPANY WAS NOT REGARDED AS ENGAGED IN PROVIDING ITES. AT THIS STAGE THE TPO OUGHT TO IT(TP)A NO.2055/B/16 HAVE DR OPPED THIS COMPANY AS A COMPARABLE COMPANY BECAUSE THIS FILTER HAS TO BE AP PLIED AT THE ENTITY LEVEL AND NOT AT THE SEGMENTAL LEVEL. THE LEARNED DR SUBM ITTED THAT IF THE SERVICE REVENUE FILTER IS APPLIED AT THE SEGMENTAL LEVEL TH ERE CAN BE NO OBJECTION BY THE ASSESSEE. SHE RELIED ON THE ORDER OF THE DRP/TPO. 51. THE REQUIREMENTS OF RULE 10B (1) (2) & (3) OF T HE RULES IN THE MATTER OF COMPARABILITY OF COMPANIES UNDER TNMM NEEDS TO BE S EEN. THE SAME READS AS FOLLOWS: '10B. (1) FOR THE PURPOSES OF SUB-SECTION (2) OF SECTION 92C , THE ARM'S IT(TP)A NO.651/BANG/2017 M/S. UL INDIA PVT. LTD., BANGALORE PAGE 10 OF 19 LENGTH PRICE IN RELATION TO AN INTERNATIONAL TRANSA CTION SHALL BE DETERMINED BY ANY OF THE FOLLOWING METHODS, BEING THE MOST APPROP RIATE METHOD, IN THE FOLLOWING MANNER, NAMELY :-- (A) TO ( D) ....... (E) TRANSACTIONAL NET MARGIN METHOD, BY WHICH,-- (I)THE NET PROFIT MARGIN REALISED BY THE ENTERPRISE FROM AN INTERNATIONAL TRANSACTION ENTERED INTO WITH AN ASSOCIATED ENTERPR ISE IS COMPUTED IN RELATION TO COSTS INCURRED OR SALES EFFECTED OR ASSETS EMPLO YED OR TO BE EMPLOYED BY THE ENTERPRISE OR HAVING REGARD TO ANY OTHER RELEVANT B ASE; (II)THE NET PROFIT MARGIN REALISED BY THE ENTERPRIS E OR BY AN UNRELATED ENTERPRISE FROM A COMPARABLE UNCONTROLLED TRANSACTI ON OR A NUMBER OF SUCH TRANSACTIONS IS COMPUTED HAVING REGARD TO THE SAME BASE; (III)THE NET PROFIT MARGIN REFERRED TO IN SUB-CLAUS E (II) ARISING IN COMPARABLE UNCONTROLLED TRANSACTIONS IS ADJUSTED TO TAKE INTO ACCOUNT THE DIFFERENCES, IF ANY, BETWEEN THE IT(TP)A NO.2055/B/16 INTERNATIONAL TRANSACTION AND THE COMPARABLE UNCONTROLLED TRANSACTIONS, OR BETWEEN TH E ENTERPRISES ENTERING INTO SUCH TRANSACTIONS, WHICH COULD MATERIALLY AFFECT TH E AMOUNT OF NET PROFIT MARGIN IN THE OPEN MARKET; (IV)THE NET PROFIT MARGIN REALISED BY THE ENTERPRIS E AND REFERRED TO IN SUB- CLAUSE (I) IS ESTABLISHED TO BE THE SAME AS THE NET PROFIT MARGIN REFERRED TO IN SUB-CLAUSE (III); (V)THE NET PROFIT MARGIN THUS ESTABLISHED IS THEN T AKEN INTO ACCOUNT TO ARRIVE AT AN ARM'S LENGTH PRICE IN RELATION TO THE INTERNATIO NAL TRANSACTION. (2) FOR THE PURPOSES OF SUB-RULE (1), THE COMPARABI LITY OF AN INTERNATIONAL TRANSACTION WITH AN UNCONTROLLED TRANSACTION SHALL BE JUDGED WITH REFERENCE TO THE FOLLOWING, NAMELY:-- (A)THE SPECIFIC CHARACTERISTICS OF THE PROPERTY TRA NSFERRED OR SERVICES PROVIDED IN EITHER TRANSACTION; (B)THE FUNCTIONS PERFORMED, TAKING INTO ACCOUNT ASS ETS EMPLOYED OR TO BE EMPLOYED AND THE RISKS ASSUMED, BY THE RESPECTIVE P ARTIES TO THE TRANSACTIONS; (C)THE CONTRACTUAL TERMS (WHETHER OR NOT SUCH TERMS ARE FORMAL OR IN WRITING) OF THE TRANSACTIONS WHICH LAY DOWN EXPLICITLY OR IMPLI CITLY HOW THE RESPONSIBILITIES, RISKS AND BENEFITS ARE TO BE DIVI DED BETWEEN THE RESPECTIVE PARTIES TO THE TRANSACTIONS; (D)CONDITIONS PREVAILING IN THE MARKETS IN WHICH TH E RESPECTIVE PARTIES TO THE TRANSACTIONS OPERATE, INCLUDING THE GEOGRAPHICAL LO CATION AND SIZE OF THE IT(TP)A NO.651/BANG/2017 M/S. UL INDIA PVT. LTD., BANGALORE PAGE 11 OF 19 MARKETS, THE LAWS AND GOVERNMENT ORDERS IN FORCE, C OSTS OF LABOUR AND CAPITAL IN THE MARKETS, OVERALL ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT AND LE VEL OF IT(TP)A NO.2055/B/16 COMPETITION AND WHETHER THE MARKETS AR E WHOLESALE OR RETAIL. (3) AN UNCONTROLLED TRANSACTION SHALL BE COMPARABLE TO AN INTERNATIONAL TRANSACTION IF-- (I) NONE OF THE DIFFERENCES, IF ANY, BETWEEN THE TR ANSACTIONS BEING COMPARED, OR BETWEEN THE ENTERPRISES ENTERING INTO SUCH TRANSACT IONS ARE LIKELY TO MATERIALLY AFFECT THE PRICE OR COST CHARGED OR PAID IN, OR THE PROFIT ARISING FROM, SUCH TRANSACTIONS IN THE OPEN MARKET; OR (II)REASONABLY ACCURATE ADJUSTMENTS CAN BE MADE TO ELIMINATE THE MATERIAL EFFECTS OF SUCH DIFFERENCES.' 52. THERE APPEARS TO BE NO BAR IN THE RULES REFERRE D TO ABOVE TO CONSIDERING SEGMENTAL DATA UNDER TNMM BECAUSE THE COMPARISON IS OF 'NET PROFIT MARGIN REALIZED BY THE ENTERPRISE FROM AN INTERNATIONAL TR ANSACTION' WITH THE 'NET PROFIT REALIZED FROM A COMPARABLE UNCONTROLLED TRAN SACTION'. THEREFORE COMPARISON IS OF SIMILAR TRANSACTION. WHEN SEGMENTA L INFORMATION IS AVAILABLE AND IS NOT DISPUTED, IT CANNOT BE ARGUED THAT FILTE RS HAVE TO BE APPLIED AT ENTITY LEVEL. IT CANNOT BE ARGUED THAT WHEN THE TPO HIMSEL F APPLIED THE FILTERS AT THE ENTITY LEVEL HE WAS NOT ENTITLED TO APPLY THE FILTE RS AT SEGMENTAL LEVEL. AS WE HAVE ALREADY STATED IF CLEAR SEGMENTAL INFORMATION IS AVAILABLE THE FILTERS CAN BE APPLIED AT THE SEGMENTAL LEVEL IN TNMM. THEREFOR E THE OBJECTION WITH REGARD TO THIS COMPANY FAILING THE EMPLOYEE COST FI LTER AND SERVICE REVENUE FILTER IN OUR VIEW WAS RIGHTLY REJECTED BY THE TPO AND DRP. IT IS HOWEVER SEEN THAT THIS COMPANY HAS FOUR SEGMENTS VIZ., REPRO, LA BEL PRINTING, OFFSET PRINTING AND PRE PRESS BPO. WHETHER THE LABEL PRINTING AND OFFSET PRINTING SEGM ENTS SUPPLEMENT THE FUNCTIONS PERFORMED IN THE PRE-PRESS BPO SEGMENT HA S TO BE SEEN. WE THEREFORE SET ASIDE THE ORDER OF THE DRP IN THIS RE GARD AND REMAND FOR FRESH CONSIDERATION BY THE TPO THE COMPARABILITY OF THIS COMPANY. IN TERMS OF RULE 10B(3) OF THE RULES THE PROFIT MARGINS OF PRE-PRESS BPO HAVE TO BE ADJUSTED TAKING INTO ACCOUNT THE FACT THAT TWO OTHER SEGMENT S SUPPLEMENT THE PRE-PRESS BPO SEGMENT. IF SUCH ADJUSTMENT CANNOT BE REASONABL Y OR ACCURATELY MADE THEN THIS COMPANY HAS TO BE EXCLUDED FROM THE LIST OF COMPARABLE COMPANIES. THE TPO FOR THIS PURPOSE CAN USE HIS POWERS U/S.133 (6) OF THE ACT TO GET REQUIRED DETAILS FROM THIS COMPANY. AS FAR AS THE A RGUMENT THAT THIS COMPANY FAILS FUNCTIONAL COMPARABILITY, WE FIND THAT NONE O F THE OBJECTIONS RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE IN THIS REGARD ABOUT LACK OF INFORMATION A BOUT ALLIED SERVICES PERFORMED BY THE PRE- PRESS BPO SEGMENT OF THIS COM PANY AND THE BREAK-UP OF THE REVENUE FROM SUCH ALLIED SERVICES HAVE BEEN DEA LT WITH SPECIFICALLY BY THE TPO OR DRP. SINCE THE COMPARABILITY OF THIS COMPANY IS BEING REMANDED TO BE TPO FOR CONSIDERATION OF ADJUSTMENTS AS MENTIONED A BOVE, THE OBJECTION WITH REGARDED TO FUNCTIONAL COMPARABILITY SHOULD ALSO BE LOOKED INTO BY THE TPO IN THE REMAND PROCEEDINGS ON THE BASIS OF MATERIALS WH ICH HE MAY GATHER IT(TP)A NO.651/BANG/2017 M/S. UL INDIA PVT. LTD., BANGALORE PAGE 12 OF 19 U/S.133(6) OF THE ACT. THE ASSESSEE SHOULD BE GIVEN OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD BY THE TPO BEFORE THE ISSUE IS DECIDED BY THE TPO.' 6.3.2 RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING THE DECISION OF THE CO -ORDINATE BENCH IN THE CASE OF CGI INFORMATION SYSTEMS AND MANAGEMENT CONSULTANTS PVT. LTD., ALSO FOR ASST. YEAR 2012-13, TO WHICH ONE OF IT(TP)A NO.2055/B/16 US IS PARTY, WE REMAND THE ISSUE OF THE COMPARABILITY OF THIS COMPANY; UNI VERSAL PRINT SYSTEMS LTD., BACK TO THE FILE OF THE TPO FOR EXAMINATION AND VER IFICATION OF ISSUES RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE OF FUNCTIONAL COMPARABILITY AND EMPLOY EES COST FILTER OF 25% AT SEGMENTAL LEVEL, WHICH THE AO MAY GATHER INFORMATIO N U/S 133(6) OF THE ACT. NEEDLESS TO ADD THE ASSESSEE SHALL BE AFFORDED ADEQ UATE OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD AND TO FILE DETAILS/SUBMISSIONS REQUIRED, WHI CH SHALL BE DULY CONSIDERED BY TPO BEFORE DECIDING THE ISSUE. 7. INFOSYS BPO LTD ., 7.1 THE LD AR FOR THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT THIS COMPANY, INFOSYS, BPO LTD., SHOULD BE REJECTED/EXCLUDED FROM THE LIST OF COMPAR ABLES FOR THE FOLLOWING REASONS:- (I) BRAND VALUE, INTANGIBLES, FUNCTIONALLY DIFFEREN T ACCORDING TO THE LD AR, THIS COMPANY HAS ITS DELIVERY CENTRES AROUND THE GLOBE, WHEREAS THE ASSESSEE RENDERS SERVICES ONLY FROM INDIA. IT IS SUBMITTED T HAT WHILE THE ASSESSEE ONLY PROVIDES CALL CENTRE SERVICES, INFOSYS BPO LTD., HA S MULTIPLE LINES OF BUSINESS AND RENDERS HIGH END SERVICES IN THE NATURE OF KPO SERVICES. IT IS ALSO SUBMITTED THAT INFOSYS BPO LTD., HAS HUGE INTANGIBL E AMOUNTS AND HIGH BRAND VALUE. AS PER THE FAR ANALYSIS, INFOSYS BPO LTD., B EARS FULL FLEDGED RISK, WHEREAS THE ASSESSEE OPERATES AT MINIMAL RISK. IT I S SUBMITTED THAT ON THE BASIS OF THE ABOVE FACTS, INFOSYS BPO LTD., IS FUNCTIONAL LY DIFFERENT AND NOT COMPARABLE TO THE ASSESSEE AND THEREFORE SHOULD BE REJECTED AS A COMPARABLE. (II) EXTRAORDINARY EVENT DURING THE YEAR THE AR SUB MITTED THAT DURING THE YEAR, INFOSYS BPO LTD., ACQUIRED THE PORTLAND GROUP PTY L TD., WHICH IS AN EXTRAORDINARY EVENT AND COULD AFFECT ITS COMPARABIL ITY. IN SUPPORT OF ASSESSEE'S CLAIM FOR REJECTION/EXCLUS ION OF M/S INFOSYS BPO LTD., FROM THE LIST OF COMPARABLES, THE LD AR PLACED RELI ANCE ON, INTER ALIA, THE DECISION OF THE CO-ORDINATE BENCH IN THE CASE OF (I ) CGI INFORMATION SYSTEMS & MANAGEMENT CONSULTATION PVT. LTD., IN ITA NO.183/BA NG/2017 DATED 11/4/2018 FOR ASST. YEAR 2012-13. 7.2 PER CONTRA, THE LD DR FOR REVENUE SUPPORTED THE ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW IN INCLUDING THIS COMPANY IN THE FINAL SET OF COMPARABLES. 7.3 WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL CONTENTION AND PERUSED AND CAREFULLY CONSIDERED THE MATERIAL ON RECORD; INCLUDING JUDICIAL PRONOUNC EMENT CITED. WE FIND THAT ON SIMILAR FACTS, A CO-ORDINATE BENCH OF THIS TRIBU NAL IN THE CASE OF CGI INFORMATION SYSTEMS & MANAGEMENT CONTROLS PVT. LTD. , FOR ASST. YEAR 2012-13 (SUPRA) DIRECTED THAT INFOSYS BPO LTD., BE EXCLUDED FROM THE FINAL LIST OF IT(TP)A NO.651/BANG/2017 M/S. UL INDIA PVT. LTD., BANGALORE PAGE 13 OF 19 COMPARABLES AS IT IS NOT COMPARABLE WITH A COMPANY MERELY PROVIDING ITES, BECAUSE OF ITS BRAND VALUE AND EXTRAORDINARY EVENTS IN THE PREVIOUS YEARS RELEVANT TO ASST. YEAR 2012-13 VIZ., THE ACQUISITIO N OF AN AUSTRALIA BASED COMPANY WHICH HAD EFFECT ON ITS PROFITS. FOLLOWING THE AFORESAID DECISION OF THE CO-ORDINATE BENCH IN THE CASE OF CGI INFORMATIO N SYSTEMS & MANAGEMENT CONSULTANTS PVT. LTD., FOR ASST. YEAR 2012-13, WE H OLD AND DIRECT THAT M/S INFOSYS BPO LTD., BE EXCLUDED FROM THE FINAL SET OF COMPARABLES. 8. BNR UDYOG LTD ., (SEG- MEDICAL TRANSCRIPTION) 8.1 THE LD AR FOR THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT BNR U DYOG LTD., (SEG - MEDICAL TRANSCRIPTION) ('BNR') SHOULD BE REJECTED AND EXCLU DED FROM THE FINAL SET OF COMPARABLES FOR THE FOLLOWING REASONS:- (I) FUNCTIONALLY DIFFERENT ACCORDING TO THE LD AR F OR THE ASSESSEE, THIS COMPANY 'BNR' IS FUNCTIONALLY DIFFERENT AS IT IS EN GAGED IN MULTIPLE BUSINESS LINES, I.E IT & ITES, E-GOVERNANCE AND CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITIES. (II) FAILS THE RPT FILTER OF 25% ON ENTITY BASIS AS SEGMENTAL TRANSACTION DETAILS OF MEDICAL TRANSCRIPTION ARE NOT AVAILABLE. (III) INCORRECT MARGIN COMPUTATION WITHOUT PREJUDIC E, THE LD AR SUBMITS THAT AS PER SEGMENTAL INFORMATION THE MEDICAL TRANSCRIPT ION SEGMENT HAS EARNED REVENUES OF RS.147.40 LAKHS WHEREAS IN NOTES 2-19, SUB SCHEDULE TO THE PROFIT AND LOSS ACCOUNT, REVENUE FROM MEDICAL TRANSCRIPTIO N SERVICES IS SHOWN AT RS.138.55 LAKHS THE MARGINS THEREFORE NEED TO BE CO RRECTED. 8.2 THE LD DR FOR REVENUE SUPPORTED THE ORDERS OF T HE AUTHORITIES BELOW AND SUBMITTED THAT IN SIMILAR FACT SITUATION AND ON SIM ILAR CONTENTIONS BY THE ASSESSEE, A CO-ORDINATE BENCH OF THIS TRIBUNAL IN T HE CASE OF INDEGENE PVT. LTD., IN ITS ORDER IN IT(TP)A NO.591/BANG/2017 FOR ASST. YEAR 2012-13 DATED 2/8/2017 HAD REMANDED THE ISSUE OF COMPARABILITY OF THIS COMPANY 'BNR' TO THE FILE OF THE TPO FOR FRESH EXAMINATION. 8.3.1 WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS AND PERUS ED AND CAREFULLY CONSIDERED THE MATERIAL ON RECORD; INCLUDING THE JU DICIAL PRONOUNCEMENTS CITED. FROM THE DETAILS ON RECORD, IT IS SEEN THAT THE CONTENTIONS OF THE ASSESSEE THAT THE COMPANY U/S BNR UDYOG LTD., IS FUNCTIONALL Y DIFFERENT AND FAILS THE RPT FILTER AT THE ENTITY LEVEL. WE FIND FROM THE RE CORD THAT THE BENCH MARKING OF 'BNR' HAS BEEN DONE ONLY AT THE MEDICAL TRANSCRIPTI ON SEGMENT AND ISSUE OF RPT HAS NOT BEEN URGED BEFORE THE AO/DRP. FROM A PE RUSAL OF THE DECISION OF THE CO-ORDINATE BENCH OF THIS TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF INDEGENE PVT. LTD., IN IT(TP)A NO.591/BANG/2017 FOR ASST. YEAR 2012-13, WE FIND THAT THE ISSUE OF COMPARABILITY OF 'BNR' HAS BEEN REMANDED TO THE FIL E FOR THE TPO FOR FRESH CONSIDERATION IN TUNE WITH ITS OBSERVATIONS AT PARA 10.3.2 THEREOF, THE RELEVANT PORTION OF WHICH ARE EXTRACTED HEREUNDER:- 'SINCE IN THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION, THERE ARE 3 SEGMENTS, HOW MUCH OF THE RPT EXPENSES PERTAIN TO EACH OF THE SEGMENTS REQUIR ES EXAMINATION AND WE IT(TP)A NO.651/BANG/2017 M/S. UL INDIA PVT. LTD., BANGALORE PAGE 14 OF 19 FIND THAT THIS ASPECT HAS NOT BEEN ANALYZED BY EITH ER THE TPO OR THE ASSESSEE. WHILE IT IS CLEAR FROM THE TPO'S ORDER THAT IF THE BENCHMARKING IS DONE ONLY FOR THE MEDICAL TRANSCRIPTION SEGMENT, THEN THE RPT PER TAINING TO THAT SEGMENT ONLY SHOULD BE CONSIDERED. HOWEVER, SINCE HOW MUCH OF THE RPT PERTAIN TO THE MEDICAL TRANSCRIPTION SEGMENT HAS NOT BEEN DETERMIN ED BY EITHER THE TPO OR THE ASSESSEE, WE DEEM IT APPROPRIATE AND PROPER TO REMAND THE MATTER OF COMPARABILITY OF THIS COMPANY MIS BNR UDYOG LTD., T O THE FILE OF THE TPO FOR DETERMINATION OF THE ISSUE AFRESH IN LINE WITH OUR OBSERVATION ABOVE. NEEDLESS TO ADD, THE ASSESSEE SHALL BE AFFORDED ADEQUATE OPP ORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD IN THE MATTER AND TO FILE SUBMISSIONS/DETAILS IN THIS REGARD WHICH SHALL BE DULY CONSIDERED BY THE TPO BEFORE DECIDING THE ISSUE WE HOLD AND DIRECT ACCORDINGLY.' 8.3.2 FOLLOWING THE ABOVE DECISION OF THE COORDINAT E BENCH IN THE CASE OF INDEGENE PVT. LTD., FOR A.Y. 2012-13 (SUPRA) TO WHI CH ONE OF US IS PARTY, AND CONSIDERING THE FACTUAL MATRIX INVOLVED, THAT HOW M UCH RPT PERTAINS TO THE MEDICAL TRANSCRIPTION HAS NOT BEEN DETERMINED BY EI THER THE TPO OR THE ASSESSEE, WE DEEM IT APPROPRIATE AND PROPER TO REMA ND THE ISSUE OF COMPARABILITY OF THIS COMPANY, M/S BNR UDYOG LTD., TO THE FILE OF THE TPO FOR DETERMINATION AFRESH IN LINE WITH THE OBSERVATIONS ABOVE. NEEDLESS TO ADD, THE ASSESSEE SHALL BE AFFORDED ADEQUATE OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD IN THE MATTER AND TO FILE DETAILS/SUBMISSIONS IN THIS REGARD, WHI CH SHALL BE DULY CONSIDERED BY THE TPO BEFORE DECIDING THE ISSUE. THE TPO IS ACCOR DINGLY DIRECTED. 9. TCS E-SERVE LTD ., ('TCS') 9.1 BEFORE US, THE LD AR FOR THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT THIS COMPANY TCS E- SERVE LTD ('TCS') SHOULD BE REJECTED AND EXCLUDED F ROM THE FINAL LIST OF COMPARABLES FOR THE FOLLOWING REASONS:- (1) FUNCTIONALLY DIFFERENT THE ASSESSEE CONTENDS TH AT THIS COMPANY DEALS WITH VARIOUS VERTICALS OF BUSINESS, IE., IT RENDERS BPO SERVICES TO CUSTOMERS IN THE BANKING, FINANCIAL SERVICES AND INSURANCE DOMAIN, A ND ALSO PROVIDES HIGH END KPO SERVICES AND THEREFORE IT IS FUNCTIONALLY DIFFE RENT FROM THE ASSESSEE IN THE CASE ON HAND. IT IS ALSO CONTENDED THAT TCS BEARS F ULL FLEDGED RISK, WHEREAS THE ASSESSEE BEARS ONLY MINIMUM RISK. IN SUPPORT OF THE CONTENTION THAT THIS COMPANY IS FUNCTIONALLY DIFFERENT AND THEREFORE OUG HT TO BE REJECTED AS A COMPARABLE, THE ASSESSEE, INTER ALIA, PLACED RELIAN CE ON THE FOLLOWING ITAT DECISIONS :- (I) BAXTER INDIA PVT. LTD [TS-694-ITAT-2017(DEL)-T P] AND (II) XL HEALTH CORPORATION INDIA P LTD IN IT(TP)A N O.2311/BANG/2016. 9.2 THE LD DR FOR REVENUE PLACED RELIANCE ON THE OR DERS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW. THE LD DR SUBMITTED THAT, IN ALL FAIRNESS IN THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, THE MATTER OUGHT TO BE REMANDED TO THE FILE OF THE TPO FOR FRESH COORDINATION, AS WAS HELD IN THE DECISION OF THE CO -ORDINATE BENCH IN THE CASE IT(TP)A NO.651/BANG/2017 M/S. UL INDIA PVT. LTD., BANGALORE PAGE 15 OF 19 OF INDEGENE PVT. LTD., IN IT(TP)A NO: 591/BANG/2013 DATED 2/8/2017 FOR AY 2012-13. 9.3.1 WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS AND PERUS ED AND CAREFULLY CONSIDERED THE MATERIAL ON RECORD, INCLUDING THE JU DICIAL PRONOUNCEMENTS CITED. FROM THE DETAILS ON RECORD WE OBSERVE THAT W HILE THE ASSESSEE HAS CONTENDED THAT THE SERVICES RENDERED BY THIS COMPAN Y, M/S TCS E-SERVE LTD, ARE HIGH END KPO SERVICES, IT HAS NOT BROUGHT OUT A S TO WHICH OF THESE ARE THE SERVICES THAT WOULD COME UNDER TECHNICAL SERVICES. ON THE OTHER HAND, WE ALSO NOTICE THAT THE TPO HAS HELD ALL THE SERVICES RENDE RED BY THE ASSESSEE TO BE BPO SERVICES WITH ANY PROPER ANALYSIS. IN THIS FACT UAL MATRIX OF THE CASE, WE FIND THAT ON SIMILAR FACTS, THE CO-ORDINATE BENCH O F ITAT-BANGALORE IN THE CASE OF INDEGENE PVT LTD FOR A.Y. 2012-13 (SUPRA) HAS RE MANDED THE MATTER OF COMPARABILITY OF THIS COMPANY TO THE FILE OF THE TP O FOR FRESH CONSIDERATION. IN VIEW OF THE FACTUAL MATRIX OF THE CASE ON HAND, AS LAID OUT ABOVE AND FOLLOWING THE DECISION OF THE CO-ORDINATE BENCH IN THE CASE O F M/S INDEGENE PVT LTD., (SUPRA) WHICH IS ALSO RENDERED ON SIMILAR FACTS, WE DEEM IT APPROPRIATE TO REMAND THE MATTER OF THE COMPARABILITY OF THIS COMP ANY, TCS E-SERVE LTD., TO THE FILE OF THE TPO FOR FRESH CONSIDERATION IN THE LIGHT OF OUR ABOVE OBSERVATIONS. NEEDLESS TO ADD, THE TPO SHALL AFFORD THE ASSESSEE ADEQUATE OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD AND TO FILE DETAILS/SUBM ISSIONS IN THIS REGARD. 10. EXCEL INFOWAYS LTD (SEG-IT/BPO) ('EXCEL') 10.1 THE LD AR FOR THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT THIS COMPANY, M/S EXCEL INFOWAYS LTD., ('EXCEL') SHOULD BE REJECTED AND EXC LUDED FROM THE LIST OF COMPARABLES FOR THE FOLLOWING REASONS:- (I) FAILS EMPLOYEE COST FILTER OF 25% THE LD AR SUB MITTED THAT IN THE SEGMENTAL REPORT, THE DETAILS RELATING TO EMPLOYEE COST ALLOW ABLE TO EACH SEGMENT IS NOT AVAILABLE AND THEREFORE THE FILTER IS TO BE APPLIED AT THE ENTITY LEVEL, WHERE IT FAILS THE EMPLOYEE COST FILTER OF 25% SINCE ITS EMP LOYEE COST/OPERATING REVENUE IS APPROX 13.05%. (III) PECULIAR ECONOMIC CIRCUMSTANCES IT IS SUBMITT ED THAT AS PER THE ANNUAL REPORT OF THIS COMPANY, 'EXCEL', IT HAS PECULIAR EC ONOMIC CONDITIONS IMPACTING THE EARNINGS OF THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION AND CO NSEQUENT ABNORMAL VOLATILITY IN PROFITS. IN SUPPORT OF THE ASSESSEE'S CONTENTIONS FOR EXCLUS ION OF THIS COMPANY FROM THE LIST OF COMPARABLES, THE LD AR PLACED RELIANCE, INT ER ALIA, ON THE DECISIONS OF CO-ORDINATE BENCH OF THE TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF CG I INFORMATION SYSTEMS & MANAGEMENT CONSULTATIONS P LTD., FOR AY 2012-13 (SU PRA) AND OF ITAT DELHI IN THE CASE OF M/S BAXTER INDIA P LTD V ACIT IN ITA NO. 6158/DEL/2016 FOR A.Y. 2012-13. 10.2 PER CONTRA, THE LD DR FOR REVENUE SUPPORTED TH E ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW. RELIANCE WAS PLACED ON THE DECISION OF THE C O-ORDINATE BENCH IN THE IT(TP)A NO.651/BANG/2017 M/S. UL INDIA PVT. LTD., BANGALORE PAGE 16 OF 19 CASE OF XL HEALTH CORPORATION INDIA P LTD., IN IT(T P)A NO. 2311/BANG/2016 DT 9/2/2018 FOR A.Y. 2012-13. 10.3.1 WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS AND PERU SED AND CAREFULLY CONSIDERED THE MATERIAL ON RECORD; INCLUDING THE JU DICIAL DECISIONS CITED. THE ASSESSEE SEEKS EXCLUSION OF THIS COMPANY M/S EXCEL INFOWAYS LTD., ON GROUNDS OF FAILING THE EMPLOYEE FILTER COST FILTER OF 25% A T THE ENTITY LEVEL IN THE ABSENCE OF DETAILS OF SUCH TRANSACTIONS AT THE SEGMENTAL LE VEL AND ALSO FOR THE REASON THAT THERE WERE ABNORMALLY HIGH PROFIT MARGINS OVER THE YEARS. IN THE CASE OF CGI INFORMATION SYSTEMS & MANAGEMENT CONSULTANTS PV T. LTD., FOR 2012-13 (SUPRA), CITED BY THE ASSESSEE, THIS COMPANY WAS RE JECTED AS A COMPARABLE ON THE GROUNDS OF CONSISTENT DIMINISHING REVENUE AND I T WAS ALSO ENGAGED IN THE BUSINESS OF SOFTWARE TESTING, VERIFICATION AND VALI DATION OF SOFTWARE AT THE TIME OF IMPLEMENTATION AND DATA CENTRE MANAGEMENT ACTIVI TIES. IN THE CASE OF XL HEALTH CORPORATION INDIA P LTD., ALSO FOR A.Y. 2012 - 13(SUPRA), RELIED ON BY THE LD DR, THIS COMPANY WAS RETAINED AS A COMPARABL E SINCE THE COORDINATE BENCH OBSERVED THAT THE ASSESSEE IN THAT CASE HAD N OT LED OR FILED ANY EVIDENCE TO SUPPORT ITS CONTENTION THAT THIS COMPANY 'EXCEL' HAD FAILED THE EMPLOYEE COST FILTER. THESE TWO DECISIONS (SUPRA), IN OUR VIEW, W OULD NOT APPLY TO THE FACT SITUATION PREVAILING IN THE CASE ON HAND. 10.3.2 IN THE CASE ON HAND, FROM A CAREFUL PERUSAL OF THE FACTUAL MATERIAL BEFORE US, WE FIND THAT THE ASSESSEE'S CONTENTIONS THAT THIS COMPANY, 'EXCEL' HAD FAILED THE EMPLOYEE COST FILTER OF 25% HAS NOT BEEN EXAMINED, EITHER BY THE TPO OR ADMITTEDLY BY THE ASSESSEE, AT THE SEGMENTAL LEVEL. SIMILAR IS THE POSITION WITH REGARD TO VOLATILITY OF PROFITS/PECUL IARITY OF ECONOMIC CIRCUMSTANCES. IN THIS VIEW OF THE MATTER, WE DEEM IT APPROPRIATE TO REMAND THE ISSUE OF COMPARABILITY OF THIS COMPANY, M/S EXCEL I NFOWAYS BACK TO THE FILE OF THE TPO FOR EXAMINATION AND VERIFICATION OF THE ASS ESSEE'S CONTENTIONS ON THE ISSUE OF ABNORMALITY OF PROFITS AND OF FAILING OF T HE EMPLOYEES COST FILTER OF 25% AT SEGMENTAL LEVEL, FOR WHICH THE AO MAY GATHER INF ORMATION U/S 133(6) OF THE ACT. NEEDLESS TO ADD, THE ASSESSEE SHALL BE AFFORDE D ADEQUATE OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD AND TO FILE DETAILS/SUBMISSIONS REQUIRE D, WHICH SHALL BE DULY CONSIDERED BY THE TPO BEFORE DECIDING THE ISSUE. WE NOTICE THAT THE CO-ORDINATE BENCH HAS DIRECTED E XCLUSION OF M/S INFOSYS BPO LTD AND REMANDED THE REMAINING FOUR COM PARABLE COMPANIES TO THE FILE OF AO/TPO. CONSISTENT WITH T HE VIEW TAKEN IN THE ABOVE SAID CASE, WE DIRECT EXCLUSION OF M/S INF OSYS BPO LTD AND REMAND THE REMAINING FOUR COMPARABLE COMPANIES TO T HE FILE OF AO/TPO WITH SIMILAR DIRECTIONS. 13. BEFORE LD DRP, THE ASSESSEE SOUGHT INCLUSIO N OF SIX COMPANIES AND SAID PLEA WAS REJECTED BY LD DRP. TH OUGH THE IT(TP)A NO.651/BANG/2017 M/S. UL INDIA PVT. LTD., BANGALORE PAGE 17 OF 19 ASSESSEE HAS RAISED A GROUND SEEKING INCLUSION OF S IX COMPANIES IN GROUND NO.21, THE LD AR SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE WOULD SEEK INCLUSION OF ONLY ONE COMPANY, VIZ., M/S CRYSTAL VO XX LTD. HE SUBMITTED THAT THIS COMPANY HAS BEEN HELD TO BE A G OOD COMPARABLE IN THE CASE OF KENNAMETAL SHARED SERVICE S P LTD (SUPRA). 14. WE HEARD LD D.R ON THIS ISSUE AND PERUSED T HE RECORD. THE CO-ORDINATE BENCH, IN THE CASE OF KENNAMETAL SHARED SERVICES P LTD (SUPRA) HAS DIRECTED INCLUSION OF M/S CRYSTAL VOXX LTD AS A COMPARABLE COMPANY. WE NOTICE THAT THE CO-ORDINATE BENCH IN THE ABOVE SAID CASE HAS FOLLOWED THE DECISION RENDERED IN THE CASE OF FNF INDIA P LTD VS. ACIT (IT(TP)A NO.459/BANG/2017 DATED 03-07- 2019), WHEREIN IT WAS DISCUSSED AS UNDER IN RESPECT OF THIS COMPANY:- 24. IN GROUND NO.13, THE ASSESSEE HAS PRAYED FOR I NCLUSION OF CRYSTAL VOXX LTD. AS A COMPARABLE COMPANY. THIS COMPANY WAS NOT REGARDED AS COMPARABLE COMPANY WITH THE ASSESSEE BY THE DRP FOR THE REASONS GIVEN IN PARA 2.15 OF ITS ORDER I.E., FOR THE REASON THAT IN THE FINANCIAL RESULTS, THE AUDITORS HAVE MENTIONED THAT THIS COMPANY WAS PREDO MINANTLY A BUSINESS PROCESS OUTSOURCING (BPO) COMPANY AND THEREFORE THI S COMPANY CANNOT BE SAID TO BE AN ITES COMPANY. THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE BROUGHT TO OUR NOTICE THAT IN THE VERY SAME NOTE, T HE AUDITORS HAVE ALSO MENTIONED THAT THE ONLY REPORTABLE SEGMENT WAS BPO. THEREFORE THIS COMPANY WAS A BPO COMPANY AND THE RESULTS OF THE BP O WHICH IS THE ONLY SEGMENT OUGHT TO HAVE WEIGHED IN THE MIND OF THE TP O TO INCLUDE THIS COMPANY AS A COMPARABLE COMPANY. 25. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE SUBMISSION OF THE LEARNE D COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE AND ARE OF THE VIEW THAT THE PLEA RAISED B Y THE ASSESSEE IS CORRECT AND THE TPO OUGHT TO HAVE REGARDED THIS COMPANY AS COMPARABLE IT(TP)A NO. 195/BANG/2016 & 459/BANG/2017 COMPANY BECAUSE T HE ONLY REPORTABLE SEGMENT OF THIS COMPANY WAS BPO. WE DIRE CT THE TPO TO INCLUDE THIS COMPANY AS A COMPARABLE COMPANY. FOLLOWING ABOVE SAID DECISIONS OF CO-ORDINATE BENCH , WE DIRECT INCLUSION OF M/S CRYSTAL VOXX LTD AS A COMPARABLE COMPANY. IT(TP)A NO.651/BANG/2017 M/S. UL INDIA PVT. LTD., BANGALORE PAGE 18 OF 19 15. THE NEXT ISSUE RELATES TO THE ADDITION MADE REJECTING THE CLAIM OF CHANGE IN METHOD OF REVENUE RECOGNITION. THE LD A.R FAIRLY ADMITTED THAT THIS ISSUE HAS BEEN DECIDED AGAINST T HE ASSESSEE BY THE CO-ORDINATE BENCH IN AY 2009-10 (REFERRED SUPRA ). WE NOTICE THAT THIS ISSUE HAS BEEN DECIDED AGAINST THE ASSESS EE BY THE CO- ORDINATE BENCH IN AY 2009-10 WITH THE FOLLOWING OBS ERVATIONS:- 36. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND ARE OF THE VIEW THAT THE CONCLUSION OF THE DRP IN THIS REGARD DESERVES TO BE UPHELD. IT IS NO DOUBT TRUE THAT THE ASSESSEE IS AT LIBERTY TO CHANGE THE METHOD OF ACCOUNTING PROVIDED THE CHANGE IN THE METHOD OF ACCOUNTING IS BONAFIDE AND IS BEING CONSISTENTLY FOLLOWED SUBSEQUENTLY. BUT THE METHOD FOLLOWED BY THE ASSESSEE IN THE PRESENT CASE OF POSTPONING REVENUE RECOGNITION WITHOUT POSTPONING THE COST INCURRED FOR EARNING THE REVENU E CANNOT BE SAID TO BE PROPER. THERE IS NO VALID EXPLANATION FOR CLAIMING EXPENSES RELATED TO THE CAS SERVICES RENDERED BY THE ASSESSEE WHEN RECOGNIT ION OF INCOME THERE FROM IS POSTPONED. THE CHANGE IN THE METHOD OF ACC OUNTING WAS THEREFORE NOT BONAFIDE AND WAS RIGHTLY REJECTED BY THE REVENU E AUTHORITIES. WE FIND NO MERIT IN THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE IN THIS REGAR D. THE CASES CITED BY THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE ARE WITH REGARD TO THE RIGHT OF AN ASSESSEE TO CHANGE THE METHOD OF ACCOUNTING PROVIDED IT IS B ONAFIDE AND IS FOLLOWED SUBSEQUENTLY. THEREFORE THE CASE LAWS CITED ARE NO T DISCUSSED. SUFFICE IT TO SAY THAT THE PRINCIPLE LAID DOWN IN THOSE CASES ARE NOT APPLICABLE TO THE PRESENT CASE IN VIEW OF THE FINDING THAT THE CHANGE IN THE METHOD OF ACCOUNTING WAS NOT BONAFIDE AND PROPER. GR.NO. 15 T O 18 ARE THEREFORE DISMISSED. AS FAR AS GR.NO.19 RAISED BY THE ASSESSE E WHICH IS TO THE EFFECT THAT IF THE INCOME RECOGNITION WHICH IS POSTPONED I N THIS YEAR IS CONSIDERED AS REVENUE FOR THE CURRENT YEAR, THEN THE AO SHOULD ALLOW CONSEQUENTIAL BENEFIT IN THE SUBSEQUENT YEAR IN WHICH THE SAME IN COME HAS BEEN OFFERED TO TAX, WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT THE ASSESSEE IS AT LIB ERTY TO PURSUE REMEDIES AVAILABLE TO IT IN LAW AND THE AO SHALL CONSIDER TH E SAME IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW AND IN THE LIGHT OF THE FINDINGS AS ABOVE. FOLLOWING THE ABOVE SAID ORDER OF THE CO-ORDINATE B ENCH, WE DECIDE THIS ISSUE AGAINST THE ASSESSEE. ACCORDINGLY, THE ADDITION MADE BY THE AO IS CONFIRMED. 16. THE NEXT ISSUE RELATES TO THE NON-GRANTING OF TDS CREDIT. SINCE THIS ISSUE REQUIRES FACTUAL VERIFICATION, WE RESTOR E THE SAME TO THE FILE OF AO FOR EXAMINING THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW. IT(TP)A NO.651/BANG/2017 M/S. UL INDIA PVT. LTD., BANGALORE PAGE 19 OF 19 17. THE NEXT ISSUE RELATES TO NON-GRANTING OF DEP RECIATION ON FOREIGN EXCHANGE LOSS DISALLOWED IN 2009-10. THE L D A.R SUBMITTED THAT AN IDENTICAL ISSUE WAS URGED BY THE ASSESSEE IN AY 2013-14 AND THE CO-ORDINATE BENCH, VIDE ITS ORDER D ATED 25.2.2021 PASSED IN IT(TP)A NO.2/BANG/2018 IN THE ASSESSEES OWN CASE, HAS RESTORED THIS ISSUE TO THE FILE OF THE AO FOR EXAMI NING IT AFRESH. ACCORDINGLY, FOLLOWING THE ABOVE SAID DECISION OF T HE CO-ORDINATE BENCH, WE RESTORE THIS ISSUE TO THE FILE OF THE AO FOR EXAMINING IT AFRESH IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW. 18. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS TREATED AS PARTLY ALLOWED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 11 TH MAR, 2021. SD/- (N.V. VASUDEVAN) VICE PRESIDENT SD/- (B.R. BASKARAN) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER BANGALORE, DATED 11 TH MAR, 2021. VG/SPS COPY TO: 1. THE APPLICANT 2. THE RESPONDENT 3. THE CIT 4. THE CIT(A) 5. THE DR, ITAT, BANGALORE. 6. GUARD FILE BY ORDER ASST. REGISTRAR, ITAT, BANGALORE.