SAS INSITUTE (I) P. LTD, MUMBAI V. ASST CIT CIR 3(3), MUMBAI

ITA 6842/MUM/2012

• Counselvise Citation: [2016] 133 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 3785 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 3 year(s) 3 month(s) 15 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 24-02-2016
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Bench Allotted: K
• Next Hearing Date: 29-09-2014
• Assessment Year: 2008-2009
• Appeal Filed On: 08-11-2012
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: N K CHAND; MAHESH SHETH
• Keywords: Transfer pricing; Rectification of order; Opportunity of being heard; International transaction; Question of law
• Section: 154

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL K BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI D. KARUNAKARA RAO, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI SANJAY GARG, JUDICIAL MEMBER I.T.A. NO.6842/M/2012 (ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2008 - 2009 ) SAS INSTITUTE (INDIA) PVT LTD., APEEJAY HOUSE, 4 TH FLOOR, DINSHAW WACCHA ROAD, CHURCHGATE, MUMBAI - 400020. / VS. ACIT, CIRCLE 3(3), R.NO.609/668, AAYAKAR BHAVAN, M.K. ROAD, MUMBAI - 400 020. ./ PAN : AAECS3149K ( / APPELLANT) .. ( / RESPONDENT ) / APPELLANT BY : SHRI M.P. LOHIA & MR. HEMEN CHANDARIYA / RESPONDENT BY : SHRI MAHESH SHETH, CIT - DR AND SHRI N.K. CHAND, CIT - DR / DATE OF HEARING : 10.02.2016 / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 24 .02.2016 / O R D E R PER D. KARUNAKARA RAO, AM: THIS APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE ON 8.11.2012 IS AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE AP / TPO / DRP FOR THE A FOR THE AY 2008 - 2009. 2. IN THIS APPEAL, ASSESSEE RAISED 16 GROUNDS IN TOTO. AT THE OUTSET, SHRI M.P. LOHIA, LD COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE BROUGHT OUR ATTENTION TO THE GROUNDS RAISED IN THIS APPEAL AND SUBMITTED THAT GROUND NOS. 1 TO 7, 11, 12 AND 15 ARE NOT PRESSED. AFTER HEARING BOTH THE PARTIES, THE SAID GROUNDS ARE DIS MISSED AS NOT PRESSED AND GROUND NO.16, BEING CONSEQUENTIAL, THE SAME IS REQUIRED TO BE DISMISSED AS CONSEQUENTIAL. THAT LEAVES, GROUND NOS. 8, 9, 10, 13 AND 14 FOR OUR ADJUDICATION AND THE SAID GROUNDS READ AS UNDER: - 8. THE DRP AND THE AO ERRED IN APPLYING THE TNMM METHOD FOR DETERMINATION OF ARMS LENGTH PRICE (ALP) IN RESPECT OF THE SOFTWARE LICENSING SEGMENT. 9. THE DRP AND THE AO FAILED TO APPRECIATE THAT THE SOFTWARE LICENSING SEGMENT HAD RESULTED IN A LOSS FOR THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDE RATION ON A CCOUNT OF EXTRA - ORDINARY FACTORS VIZ REDUCTION IN TURNOVER AND OTHER INCOME AND INCREASE IN 2 SALARY AND OTHER EMPLOYEE COST AND LEASE RENT. NO TRANSFER PRICING ADJUSTMENT COULD BE MADE IN THE APPELLANTS CASE BECAUSE THESE EXTRAORDINARY FACTORS HAD NOTHING TO DO WITH THE INTERNATIONAL TRANSACTIONS ENTERED INTO BY THE APPELLANT WITH ITS ASSOCIATED ENTERPRISES. 10. THE DRP AND THE AO ERRED IN UPHOLDING USE OF THREE COMPARABLES BY THE TPO FOR BENCHMARKING THE SOFTWARE LICENSING SEGMENT WITHOUT APPRECIATING THA T THE SAID COMPARABLES WERE OUT OF SIX COMPARABLES ENGAGED IN PROVIDING TECHNICAL AND CONSULTANCY SERVICES TAKEN BY THE APPELLANT FOR BENCHMARKING COMPENSATORY RECEIPTS AND PAYMENTS WHICH HAD NO FUNCTIONAL SIMILARITY WITH THE APPELLANTS BUSINESS OF MARKET ING AND DISTRIBUTION OF SOFTWARE. 13. THE DRP AND THE AO OUGHT TO HAVE HELD THAT THE TRANSFER PRICING ADJUSTMENT MADE BY THE TPO SHOULD BE RESTRICTED TO THE TRANSACTIONS WITH THE AES ONLY. 14. THE DRP AND THE AO OUGHT TO HAVE HELD THAT THE TRANSFER PRICING ADJUSTMENT UNDER CHAPTER X O F THE ACT CANNOT EXCEED THE NET VALUE OF THE INTERNATIONAL TRANSACTION. 3. REFERRING TO THE ABOVE GROUNDS, LD COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT THESE GROUNDS REVOLVE AROUND THE FOLLOWING ISSUES VIZ (I) EITHER THE LOWER AUTHORITIES ARE JUSTIFIED IN THRUSTING ON THE ASSESSEE THE TNMM METHOD WITHOUT REJECTING THE ASSESSEES MOST APPROPRIATE METHOD OF CUP MET HOD; (II) IF THE LOWER AUTHORITIES ARE JUSTIFIED IN PICKING UP THE COMPARABLES, WHICH ARE PRIM FACIE FUNCTIONALLY DISTINCT AND DIFFERENT; (III) WHETHER THE OFFICERS ARE JUSTIFIED IN NOT RESTRICTING THE TP ADJUSTMENTS TO THE TRANSACTIONS WITH THE ASSOCIATED ENTERPRISES (AES) ONLY. 4. BRIEFLY STATED RELEVANT FACTS NECESSARY FOR ADJUDICATING THE ISSUES ARE THAT THE ASSESSEE IS PRIMARILY ENGAGED IN THE BUSINESS OF DISTRIBUTION OF SOFTWARE AND CONSULTANCY. ASSESSEE ENTERED INTO INTERNATIONAL TRANSACTIONS WITH T HE AES INVOLVING BOTH THE RECEIPTS AND EXPENDITURE. THE SAME ARE EXTRACTED AS UNDER: - S.NO. NATURE OF INTERNATIONAL TRANSACTION VALUE (RS.) METHOD 1. PURCHASE OF MANUALS 6,04,672/ - CUP 2. ROYALTY PAID @ 50% OF LICENSE 16,57,93,146/ - CUP 3. SOFTWARE LICENSING EXPENSE UNDER 37,06,293/ - TNMM 4. SOFTWARE LICENSE REVENUE RECEIVED FROM GLOBAL CONTRACT 7,18,50,060/ - TNMM 5. INTERNATIONAL EXPENSES FEES RECEIVED 1,16,25,556/ - CPM 5. ASSESSEE PROVIDED SEGMENTAL RESULTS INVOLVING (I) CONSULTANCY AND TRAINING; (II) SOFTWARE LICENSING REVENUE SEGMENT. THERE IS NO DISPUTE SO FAR AS THE SEGMENTAL RESULTS OF CONSULTANCY AND TRAINING. THE DISPUTE IS ONLY WITH REFERENCE TO THE SOFTWARE LICENSING REVENUE SEGMENT. ASSESSEE FOUND CUP METHOD IS MOST APPROPRIA TE ONE FOR THE ABOVE INTERNATIONAL TRANSACTIONS AT SL. NOS. 1 & 2 OF THE ABOVE TABLE. FOR SL. NOS. 3 & 4, ASSESSEE APPLIED TNMM METHOD IN BENCHMARKING THE TRANSACTIONS. FINALLY, WITH REFERENCE TO THE INTERNATIONAL EXPENSES FEES , WHICH IS AT SL.NO. 5 OF T HE ABOVE TABLE, CPM (COST PLUS METHOD) WAS APPLIED. 3 6. DURING THE PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE TPO, ASSESSEE HEAVILY RELIED ON THE TP STUDIES OF THE ASSESSEE. HOWEVER, TPO REJECTED THE SAME WITHOUT GIVING ANY JUSTIFICATION AS TO WHY CUP METHOD IS NOT MOST APP ROPRIATE. CONSEQUENTLY, OUT OF THE COMPARABLES PROVIDED IN THE TP STUDIES, THE TPO SHORTLISTED 3 OUT OF THE 6 COMPARABLES AND QUANTIFIED THE ADJUSTMENTS AS UNDER: - COMPARABLES MARGIN OP / NS 26.72% COMPARABLES MARGIN OP / OC - 31.80% OP - 117,821,893 AE SALES 83,475,616 PAYMENTS TO AE 170,104,111 ALP SALE PRICE 99,005,296 VARIATION (SHORTFALL) 216,827,189 ALP RATE OF PAYMENTS TO AE 67,523,286/ - 7. ASSESSEE REFLECTED LOSS OF RS. 47% IN SOFTWARE LICENSING DIVISION. IN THE TP STUDIES, RELYING ON 6 COMPARABLES DATA, ASSESSEE HELD THAT THE SAME IS AT ARMS LENGTH. HOWEVER, TPO NOTICED THAT IN ONLY 3 OF THE SAID 6 COMPARABLES, THE CONTEMPORANEOUS DATA W AS VERIFIED. HE, ACCORDINGLY, SHORTLISTED THE 3 COMPARABLES FOR TP STUDIES AND FOUND A WEIGHTED AVERAGE COMES TO 26.72%. ACCORDINGLY, THE ADJUSTMENTS WERE INITIALLY WORKED OUT TO RS. 21,68,27,189/ - . CONSIDERING THE MISTAKES IN THE SAID CALCULATIONS QUO THE OP / NS, THE SAME WAS RECTIFIED AND ENHANCED THE ADJUSTMENT TO RS. 25,34,35,434/ - . SUBSEQUENTLY, THE SAID CALCULATIONS WERE RECTIFIED VIDE THE ORDER DATED 9.11.2011 U/S 154 READ WITH SECTION 92CA(3) OF THE ACT. PARA 7 OF THE RECTIFICATION ORDER IS RE LEVANT IN THIS REGARD AND THE SAME READS AS UNDER: - 7. THUS, OVERALL ADJUSTMENT IN THIS CASE IS ENHANCED FROM PREVIOUS FIGURE OF RS. 21,68,27,189/ - TO RS. 25,34,35,434/ - THROUGH THIS RECTIFICATION. 8. DURING THE PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE DRP, ASSESSEE RAISED THE ISSUES SHORTLISTED ABOVE. REGARDING THE METHOD OF ACCOUNTING, DRP GAVE A FINDING THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS AGREED IN FAVOUR OF THE TNMM METHOD IN PLACE OF CUP METHOD ADOPTED BY THE ASSESSEE. CONTENTS OF PARA 7.3 OF THE DRPS ORDER ARE RELEVANT IN THIS REGARD AND THE SAME READ AS UNDER: 7.3. AS ALREADY NOTED, BOTH THE ASSESSEE AND THE TPO / ASSESSING OFFICER AGREED THAT THE ARMS LENGTH PRICE IN RESPECT OF THE SOFTWARE DISTRIBUTION AND LICENSING SEGME NT IS TO BE COMPUTED THROUGH TNMM. 4 9. EVENTUALLY, DRP ISSUED GUIDELINES U/S 144C(5) OF THE ACT CONFIRMING THE ADJUSTMENTS MADE BY THE TPO / AO VIDE ORDER DATED 22.8.2012. AGGRIEVED WITH THE ABOVE ORDER OF THE AO / TPO / DRP, ASSESSEE FILED THE APPEAL BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL WITH THE ABOVE EXTRACTED GROUNDS. 10. DURING THE PROCEEDINGS BEFORE US, SHRI M.P. LOHIA, LD COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE BROUGHT OUR ATTENTION TO THE ABOVE INTERNATIONAL TRANSACTIONS AND SUBMITTED THAT THE INTERNATIONAL TRANSACTIONS AT SL. NO.1 BEING PURCHASE OF MANUALS, THE VALUE IS VERY SMALL AND THE SAME IS NOT VERY SIGNIFICANT. HOWEVER, REFERRING TO THE INTERNATIONAL TRANSACTION AT SL. NO. 2, BEING ROYALTY PAID AT 50% OF THE LICENSE, LD COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT THE ASS ESSEE IS A DISTRIBUTOR OF LICENSED SOFTWARE AND THE SAME IS SOLE TO THE THIRD PARTIES FOR CONSIDERATION. 50% OF THE SAID CONSIDERATION BEING LICENSE FEES IS REMITTED TO THE AE ABROAD WHEN ASSESSEE BENCHMARKED THE SAID TRANSACTION BEING INTANGIBLES IN NA TURE APPLYING THE CUP (COMPARABLE UNCONTROLLED PRICE) METHOD. IN THIS REGARD, LD COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE BROUGHT OUR ATTENTION TO OECD INSTRUCTION IN SUPPORT OF THE ABOVE. THE CONTENTS OF PAGE 67 OF THE PAPER BOOK ARE RELEVANT IN THIS REGARD AND THE REL EVANT LINES ARE EXTRACTED AS UNDER: - .........AS PER THE GUIDANCE NOTICE ISSUED BY THE INSTITUTE OF CHARTERED ACCOUNTANTS OF INDIA, CUP METHOD CAN BE ADOPTED IN CASE OF INTANGIBLES AND THE SAME IS BASED ON THE OECD GUIDELINES ON THE INTANGIBLES VIDE PARA 6.23 OF THE SAID GUIDELINES. 11. FURTHER, LD COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE DEMONSTRATED THAT THE SAID ORDERS ARE DEFICIENT ON WHY THE CUP METHOD IS INAPPLICABLE TO SUCH INTANGIBLE BASED INTERNATIONAL TRANSACTIONS. DIGGING THE MISTAKES IN THE ORDERS OF THE T PO, LD COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEES DEMONSTRATED THAT THE TPO BENCHMARKED WHOLE OF THE INCOME RECEIPTS WITHOUT RESTRICTING TO THE INTERNATIONAL TRANSACTIONS ONLY. IN THIS REGARD, LD COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE BROUGHT OUR ATTENTION TO THE JUDGMENT OF THE JURISD ICTIONAL HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF THYSSEN KRUPP INDUSTRIES INDIA PVT LTD VS. CIT (ITA NO.2201/2013), DATED 2.12.2015 [PAGE 660 OF THE PAPER BOOK IS RELEVANT], AND SUBMITTED THAT THE FOLLOWING QUESTION WAS ANSWERED IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE. (A) WHETHER ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND LAW, THE TRIBUNAL WAS JUSTIFIED IN LAW IN RESTRICTING THE TRANSFER PRICING (TP) ADJUSTMENT ONLY TO THE TRANSACTION BETWEEN THE ASSOCIATED ENTERPRISES (AES). 5 12. THE ANSWER TO THE ABOVE QUESTION S GIVE N IN PARA 5 OF THE SAID JUDGMENT AND THE SAID PARA READS AS UNDER: 5. IN THE ABOVE VIEW, AS PER THE PROVISIONS OF THE ACT IN RESPECT OF TRANSFER PRICING ARE SELF EVIDENT, QUESTION NO.(A) AS PROPOSED DOES NOT GIVE RISE TO ANY SUBSTANTIAL QUESTION OF LAW. THUS, NOT ENTERTAINED. 13. THIS IS RELEVANT WITH REFERENCE TO GROUND NOS. 13 AND 14 OF THE APPEAL. IT IS THE ARGUMENT OF THE LD COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE THAT THESE GROUND NOS. 13 AND 14 HAVE TO BE ALLOWED IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE J UDGMENT OF THE HONBLE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF THYSSEN KRUPP INDUSTRIES INDIA PVT LTD (SUPRA). FURTHER, LD COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT THE REJECTION OF THE ASSESSEES CUP METHOD AND RPM METHOD WITHOUT GIVING REASONS BY THE TPO / AP IS IMPROPER AND NOT IN THE INTEREST OF THE JUSTICE. EXPLAINING THE LOGIC, LD COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE ARGUED THAT REJECTION OF THE ASSESSEES COMPARABLES ON THE BASIS OF ABSENCE OF CONTEMPORANEOUS DATA WITHOUT GIVING REASONS IS ALSO UNSUSTAINABLE. HE ARGUED VEHEMENTLY STATING THAT THE COMPARABLES SUCH AS (I) ALPHAGEO (INDIA) LTD; (II) MAHINDRA CONSULTING ENGINEERS LTD; (III) N T P C ELECTRIC SUPPLY CO. LTD, WHICH WERE EVENTUALLY CONSIDERED FOR BENCHMARKING THE TRANSACTIONS WITH AE IS AGAIN APPROPRIA TE AS THESE COMPARABLES ARE EVENTUALLY DIFFERENCE QUA THE ROYALTY PAYMENT TO THE AES AND OTHERS. LD COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE ARGUED STATING THAT THE FINDING OF THE DRP GIVEN IN PARA 7.3 EXTRACTED ABOVE PRIMA FACIE IS WRONG. HE ALSO MENTIONED THAT THE TPO ERRONEOUSLY HELD THAT THE ASSESSEE APPLIED TNMM METHOD TO ALL THE TRANSACTIONS, WHICH IS PRIMA FACIE WRONG. IN THIS REGARD, LD COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE BROUGHT OUR ATTENTION TO THE CONTENTS OF PARA 6 OF THE TPOS ORDER AND THE SAME ARE RELEVANT HERE. 14. ON THE OTHER HAND , LD DR S FOR THE REVENUE RELIED ON THE ORDERS OF THE AO / TPO / DRP. ON THE ISSUE OF TPOS FAILURE TO PROVIDE REASONS IN THE TPOS ORDER WHILE REJECTING THE CUP METHOD, THEY ACCEPTED TO THE ABSENCE OF RELEVANT DISCUSSION ON THE ISSUE. THEY, HOWEVER, CRITICISED THE APPLICABILITY OF THE CUP METHOD / RPA METHOD TO THE ROYALTY AND OTHER TRANSACTIONS. LD DRS FURTHER ARGUED AND REASONED THAT THE ASSESSEE IN INDIA CANNOT BE COMPARED WITH THE OTHERS LOCATED IN THE REST OF THE WORLD AS THE PRE SENT ASSESSEE DOES NOT HAVE AUTHORITY TO GRANT SUB - DISTRIBUTION UNLIKE THE OTHER AES. HOWEVER, THEY ARE OF THE OPINION IN VIEW OF THE DEFICIENCY IN THE TPO / AO, THE MATTER HAS TO BE SET ASIDE TO THE FILE OF THE AO / TPO. REGARDING 6 THE COMMENTS OF THE DR P IN VIDE PARA 7.3 OF THEIR ORDER (SUPRA), THEY ARE SILENT ON THE ISSUE. DURING THE REBUTTAL TIME, LD DR SUBMITTED THAT THE MATTER CAN BE SET ASIDE IF THE BENCH SO DESIRES. 15. WE HAVE HEARD BOTH THE PARTIES AND PERUSED THE ORDERS OF THE REVENUE AUTHORITI ES AS WELL AS THE RELEVANT PAPER BOOKS FILED BEFORE US. THE UNDISPUTED FACTS ARE THAT THE TPO HAS NOT GIVEN ANY REASONS FOR REJECTING THE CUP / RPA METHODS ADOPTED BY THE ASSESSEE IN RESPECT OF ROYALTY AND OTHER INTERNATIONAL TRANSACTIONS. IT IS ALSO A FACT THAT THE TPO TRAVELLED IN THE WRONG PRESUMPTION THAT THE ASSESSEE USED TNMM METHOD FOR BENCHMARKING THE TRANSACTIONS AS EVIDENT FROM THE LANGUAGE USED IN THE ORDER OF THE TPO. IT IS UNDISPUTEDLY WRONG AS THE TP STUDY INDICATES THE APPLICATION OF DIF FERENT METHODS FOR DIFFERENT TRANSACTIONS BY THE ASSESSEE, WHICH ARE ALREADY EXTRACTED AND PLACED IN THE ABOVE PARAS OF THIS ORDER. THE AGGREGATION APPROACH OF BENCHMARKING THE INTERNATIONAL TRANSACTIONS BY THE TPO IS NOT SUSTAINABLE AS PER THE TODAYS LE GAL POSITION. IT IS A TRAIT LAW THAT THE TRANSACTIONS HAVE TO BE INDEPENDENTLY BENCHMARKED APPLYING THE APPROPRIATE METHOD IN BENCHMARKING OF THE TRANSACTIONS. WE ALSO PERUSED THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE ASSESSEE BEFORE THE TPO WHEREIN IT WAS CATEGORICALLY SU BMITTED BY THE ASSESSEE THAT THE REASONS FOR REJECTION OF THE CUP AND RPA METHODS SHOULD BE GIVEN TO THE ASSESSEE AND THE SAME IS PART OF THE SUBMISSIONS. BUT, EITHER THE AO OR THE TPO / DRP IS BOTHERED TO FURNISH THE SAME. IN FACT, AS SEEN FROM PARA 7.3 OF THE DRP ORDER, THE ONUS IS KEPT ON THE ASSESSEE BY MENTIONING THAT THE ASSESSEE AGREED FOR SUBSTITUTING THE TNMM METHOD AS AN APPROPRIATE METHOD, WHICH IS NOT PROPER. CONSIDERING THE ABOVE DEFICIENCIES, INACCURACIES AND INCOMPLETENESS, WE ARE OF THE O PINION THE MATTER SHOULD BE SET ASIDE TO THE FILE OF THE TPO / AO FOR FRESH ADJUDICATION OF THE ABOVE REFERRED GROUND NOS. 8, 9 AND 10. AO / TPO SHALL GRANT A REASONABLE OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD TO THE ASSESSEE AS PER THE SET PRINCIPLES OF NATURAL JUSTI CE. IN THE SET ASIDE PROCEEDINGS, AO / TPO IS DIRECTED NOT TO RESORT REPEATING OF THE SAME ADDITIONS WITHOUT PASSING A SPEAKING ORDER ON THE FOLLOWING ISSUES WHICH ARE CONNECTED TO THE GROUNDS RAISED ABOVE. 1. WHETHER THE CUP METHOD , USED BY THE ASSESSEE , IS MOST APPROPRIATE ONE IN RESPECT OF THE ASSESSEES INTERNATIONAL TRANSACTIONS? IF NOT, REASONS FOR REJECTING THE SAME. 7 2. WHETHER THE TNMM METHOD, WHICH IS CONSIDERED BY THE TPO, IS THE MOST APPROPRIATE METHOD FOR BENCHMARKING THE SOFTWARE LICENSING R EVENUE SEGMENT ? IF YES, REASONS FOR CONSIDERING THE SAME? 3. WHETHER THE TRANSFER PRICING ADJUSTMENT SHOULD BE MADE ONLY TO THE VALUE OF THE ASSESSEES INTERNATIONAL TRANSACTIONS WITH ITS AES OR ON THE TOTAL TURNOVER OF THE SOFTWARE LICENSING REVENUE SEGM ENT? 4 . A N Y O T H E R R E L E V A N T I S S U E , I F A N Y . 16. ACCORDINGLY, THE SAID GROUND NOS. 8, 9 AND 10 ARE ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. 17. REGARDING GROUND NOS. 13 AND 14 , WHICH RAISE THE ISSUE OF RESTRICTING THE TP ADJUSTMENT TO THE TRANSACTIONS WITH THE AES ONLY, WE FIND THE SAME ARE ALREADY A NSWERED IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE BY THE SAID JUDGMENT OF THE HONBLE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF THYSSEN KRUPP INDUSTRIES INDIA PVT LTD (SUPRA). ACCORDINGLY, GROUND NOS. 13 AND 14 ARE ALLOWED IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSE. 18. IN THE RESULT, APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS PARTLY ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES . ORDER PRONOUNC ED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 2 4 T H FEBRUARY, 2016. S D / - S D / - ( SANJAY GARG ) (D. KARUNAKARA RAO) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER MUMBAI ; 2 4 .2.2016 . . ./ OKK , SR. PS / COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. / THE APPELLANT 2. / THE RESPONDENT. 3. ( ) / THE CIT(A) - 4. / CIT 5. , , / DR, ITAT, MUMBAI 6. / GUARD FILE . //TRUE COPY// / BY ORDER, / (DY./ASSTT. REGISTRAR) , / ITAT, MUMBAI