FieldCore Service Solutions International India Pvt. Ltd., Gurgaon V. ACIT, Circle- 10(2), New Delhi

ITA 7692/DEL/2017

• Counselvise Citation: [2020] 110 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 2019 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 year(s) 11 month(s) 12 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 04-12-2020
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Bench Allotted: I1
• Assessment Year: 2013-2014
• Appeal Filed On: 22-12-2017
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Keywords: Transfer pricing; Double taxation relief; International transaction; Rule of consistency; Question of law; Notional interest; TDS
• Section: 92D; 92B; 142(1); 234B; 40(a)(ia); 201; 143(2); 192; 13

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, DELHI BENCH: I-1, NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI O.P. KANT, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND MS. SUCHITRA KAMBLE, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA NO.7692/DEL./2017 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2013-14 M/S. FIELDCORE SERVICE SOLUTIONS INTERNATIONAL INDIA PVT. LTD. (ERSTWHILE KNOWN AS GRANITE PVT. LTD.), BUILDING NO. 7A, 5 TH FLOOR, DLF CYBER CITY, PHASE-III, SECTOR-25A, GURGAON VS. ACIT, CIRCLE-10(2), NEW DELHI PAN : (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) ORDER PER O.P. KANT, AM: THIS APPEAL BY THE ASSESSEE IS DIRECTED AGAINST FIN AL ASSESSMENT ORDER DATED 20/10/2017 PASSED BY THE LD. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE-10(2), NEW DELHI , PURSUANT TO THE DIRECTION DATED 27/09/2017 OF THE LD. DISPUT E RESOLUTION PANEL (DRP). THE GROUNDS RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE ARE REPRODUCED AS UNDER: APPELLANT BY SHRI K.M GUPTA, ADV. & MS. SHRUTI KHIMTA, AR RESPONDENT BY SHRI SURENDER PAL, CIT(DR) DATE OF HEARING 01.12.2020 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT 04.12.2020 2 ITA NO.7692/DEL./2017 1. THAT IN THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN LAW, THE ASSESSMENT ORDER PASSED BY THE LD. AO PURSUANT TO T HE DIRECTIONS OF THE HONBLE DISPUTE RESOLUTION PANEL (DRP) IS BA D IN LAW AND INVALID TO THE EXTENT THE ADDITIONS MADE IN THE FIN AL ASSESSMENT ORDER. 2. THAT ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN LAW, THE TRANSFER PRICING ADJUSTMENT UNDERTAKEN BY THE LD. A O / LD. TRANSFER PRICING OFFICER (LD. TPO) IS BAD IN LAW AN D THEREFORE THE ADJUSTMENT SHOULD BE DELETED. 3. THAT ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN LAW, THE LD. AO FOLLOWING THE DIRECTIONS OF THE LD. TPO/ HON BLE DRP ERRED ON FACTS AND IN LAW IN MAKING AN UPWARD ADJUSTMENT TO THE INCOME OF THE APPELLANT BY INR 12,844,201 HOLDING T HAT THE INTERNATIONAL TRANSACTIONS OF THE APPELLANT PERTAIN ING TO PROVISION OF TECHNICAL SERVICES DOES NOT SATISFY THE ARMS LE NGTH PRINCIPLE ENVISAGED UNDER THE ACT AND IN DOING SO, HAVE GROSS LY ERRED IN: 3.1. NOT APPRECIATING THAT NONE OF THE CONDITIONS S ET OUT IN SECTION 920(3) OF THE ACT ARE SATISFIED IN THE PRES ENT CASE; 3.2. DISREGARDING THE ARMS LENGTH PRICE (ALP) AS D ETERMINED BY THE APPELLANT IN THE TRANSFER PRICING (TP) DOCUMENT ATION MAINTAINED BY IT IN TERMS OF SECTION 92D OF THE ACT READ WITH RULE 10D OF THE INCOME-TAX RULES, 1962 (RULES) ; 3.3. ARBITRARILY REJECTING/MODIFYING THE FILTERS AD OPTED BY THE APPELLANT IN THE TP STUDY AND IMPOSING ADDITIONAL F ILTERS FOR THE SELECTION OF COMPARABLES; 3.4. INCORRECTLY SELECTING FUNCTIONALLY DIFFERENT C OMPANIES ENGAGED IN HIGH-END TECHNICAL, ENGINEERING AND COUNSELTANCY SERVICES AS COMPARABLES AND THEREBY RESORTING TO CHERRY PICKING OF COMPARABLES WITH A P REJUDICIAL MIND SET FOR MAKING AN UPWARD ADJUSTMENT TO THE INC OME OF THE APPELLANT; 3.5. INCLUDING COMPANIES HAVING ABNORMAL MARGINS I N THE FINAL COMPARABLES SET FOR BENCHMARKING THE INTERNATIONAL TRANSACTION OF THE APPELLANT; AND 3.6. EXCLUDING CERTAIN COMPANIES ON ARBITRARY / FR IVOLOUS GROUNDS EVEN THOUGH THEY ARE COMPARABLE TO THE APPE LLANT IN TERMS OF FUNCTIONS PERFORMED, ASSETS EMPLOYED AN D RISKS ASSUMED AND CLEARS THE FILTERS AS APPLIED BY THE LD . TPO. 4. THAT ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN LAW, THE LD. AO/LD. TPO ERRED IN NOT APPRECIATING THE FACT T HAT THE MARGIN OF THE COMPARABLE COMPANIES POST WORKING CAPITAL AD JUSTMENT AS GRANTED BY THE HONBLE DRP FALLS WITHIN THE RANGE P RESCRIBED UNDER PROVISO TO SECTION 920(2) OF THE ACT. 5. THAT ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN LAW, THE HONBLE DRP/LD. TPO/LD. AO ERRED IN ENHANCING THE I NCOME OF THE APPELLANT BY INR 1,949,156 BY TREATING THE OUTS TANDING DEBTORS BALANCE AS AT THE YEAR-END AS AN INTERNATI ONAL TRANSACTION AS DEFINED U/S 92B OF THE ACT AND THER EBY COMPUTING 3 ITA NO.7692/DEL./2017 THE ARMS LENGTH PRICE U/S 920(3) BY MAKING ADDITIO N OF NOTIONAL INTEREST. 6. THAT ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN LAW, THE HONBLE DRP/LD. TPO/LD. AO ERRED IN NOT APPRECIATIN G THE FACT THAT THE CONTINUING DEBIT BALANCE WITH AN ASSOCIATE D ENTERPRISE DOES NOT CONSTITUTE AN INTERNATIONAL TRANSACTION AS DEFINED U/S 92B OF THE ACT. 7. WITHOUT PREJUDICE TO THE GROUNDS 5 AND 6, THE HO NBLE DRP/LD. TPO/LD. AO ERRED IN: 7.1. GRANTING A CREDIT PERIOD OF ONLY ONE MONTH AS AGAINST THE NORMAL BUSINESS PRACTICE OF ALLOWING A CREDIT LIMIT OF UPTO 6 MONTHS AND 7.2. BENCHMARKING THE NOTIONAL INTEREST BASIS PLR OF SBI PLUS 300 BPS. THE RECEIVABLES BEING USD TRANSACTIONS, TH E BASIS FOR BENCHMARKING THE NOTIONAL LOAN TRANSACTION SHOU LD BE THE LIBOR RATE WHICH IS RECOMMENDED APPROACH IN CAS E OF FOREIGN CURRENCY LOANS. 8. THAT ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN LAW, THE LD. AO AND THE HONBLE DRP ERRED IN HOLDING THAT TH E TRAVEL AND CONVEYANCE EXPENSES OF INR 14,357,710 WARRANT DISAL LOWANCE UNDER SECTION 4O(A)(I) OF THE ACT. 8.1. THE LD. AO AND THE HONBLE DRP ERRED IN HOLDIN G TRAVEL AND CONVEYANCE EXPENSES TO BE IN THE NATURE OF FEE FOR TECHNICAL SERVICE (FTS) AS PER SECTION 9(I)(VII) OF THE ACT A ND FEE FOR INCLUDED SERVICES (FIS) AS PER ARTICLE 12(4) OF DOUBLE TAXAT ION AVOIDANCE AGREEMENT (DTAA) BETWEEN INDIA AND THE USA. 8.2. THE LD. AO AND THE HONBLE DRP FAILED TO APPR ECIATE THAT THE SAID AMOUNT REPRESENTS MERELY REIMBURSEMENT OF EXPENSES ON A COST-TO-COST BASIS TO THE GROUP COMPA NY. 8.3. WITHOUT PREJUDICE, THAT ON THE FACTS AND CIRC UMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN LAW, THE LD. AO AND THE HONBLE DRP ERRED IN NOT APPRECIATING THAT THE SERVICES PROVIDED BY T HE EMPLOYEES SECONDED TO APPELLANT COMPANY DO NOT MAK E AVAILABLE ANY TECHNICAL KNOW-HOW, SKILLS, ETC., AS PROVIDED UNDER THE DTAA BETWEEN INDIA AND USA. 9. THAT IN THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN LAW, THE LD. AO AND THE HONBLE DRP FAILED TO APPRECIATE THA T THE SUM OF INR 53,241,911 WAS INCURRED ON ACCOUNT OF MERE REIM BURSEMENT OF SALARY AND OTHER ALLOWANCES, PAID TO GROUP COMPA NY FOR SECONDMENT OF EMPLOYEES TO WORK FOR THE APPELLANT D URING THE CONCERNED ASSESSMENT YEAR. 9.1. THAT THE LD. AO AND THE HONBLE DRP ERRED IN HOLDING SUCH PAYMENTS TO BE IN THE NATURE OF FTS AS PER SECTION 9(I)(VII) OF THE ACT AND FIS AS PER ARTICLE 12(4) OF DTAA BETWEE N INDIA AND THE USA. 4 ITA NO.7692/DEL./2017 9.2. THAT THE LD. AO AND HONBLE DRP ERRED IN HOLD ING THAT SUCH PAYMENTS WARRANT DISALLOWANCE UNDER SECTION 4O(A)(I ) OF THE ACT. 9.3. WITHOUT PREJUDICE, THAT ON THE FACTS AND CIRC UMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN LAW, THE LD. AO AND THE HONBLE DRP ERRED IN NOT APPRECIATING THAT THE SERVICES PROVIDED BY T HE EMPLOYEES SECONDED TO APPELLANT COMPANY DO NOT MAK E AVAILABLE ANY TECHNICAL KNOW-HOW, SKILLS, ETC., AS PROVIDED UNDER THE DTAA BETWEEN INDIA AND USA. 10. THAT ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CAS E, THE LD. AO AND THE HONBLE DRP ERRED IN NOT ALLOWING THE CLAIM OF INR 875,000 OF PROFESSIONAL FEES WHICH HAD BEEN INADVERTENTLY MISS ED TO CLAIM BY ASSESSEE IN RETURN OF INCOME FILED FOR THE AY 20 13-14. 11. THAT IN THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CAS E AND IN LAW, THE LD. AO ERRED IN LEVYING INTEREST UNDER SECTION 234B OF THE ACT. 12. THAT IN THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CAS E AND IN LAW, THE LD. AO ERRED IN PROPOSING TO INITIATE THE PENALTY P ROCEEDINGS UNDER SECTION 27I(I)(C) OF THE ACT. THE ABOVE GROUNDS ARE INDEPENDENT AND WITHOUT PREJU DICE TO EACH OTHER. THAT THE APPELLANT PRAYS THAT IT KINDLY MAY BE ALLO WED TO ADD, AMEND, ALTER AND DELETE THE ABOVE GROUNDS OF APPEAL BEFORE OR DURING THE COURSE OF HEARING. 2. BRIEFLY STATED FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT THE ASSE SSEE COMPANY WAS INCORPORATED IN INDIA ON 15/02/2005 AS A WHOLLY- OWNED SUBSIDIARY OF THE GRANITE SERVICES INTERNATI ONAL INC. USA (GRANITE, USA). DURING THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION , THE ASSESSEE WAS PRIMARILY ENGAGED IN PROVIDING TECHNICAL SUPPOR T TO ITS ASSOCIATED ENTERPRISES (AES) INCLUDING PROVISION OF ERECTION, INSTALLATION, COMMISSIONING, WARRANTY ADMINISTRATIO N, OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE, INSPECTION, INNOVATION AND MODERNI ZATION SERVICES FOR POWER PLANT AND TURBINES. FOR THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION, THE ASSESSEE FILED RETURN OF INCOME ON 30/11/2013 DECLARING TOTAL INCOME OF 7,60,54,680/-. THE RETURN OF INCOME FILED BY THE ASSESSEE WAS SELECTED FOR THE SCRUTINY ASSESSMENT AND STATUTORY NOTICES UNDER INCOME-TAX ACT, 1961 (I N SHORT THE ACT) WERE ISSUED AND COMPLIED WITH. IN VIEW OF THE INTERNATIONAL 5 ITA NO.7692/DEL./2017 TRANSACTIONS REPORTED BY THE ASSESSEE, THE MATTER O F DETERMINATION OF ARMS LENGTH PRICE OF THOSE INTERN ATIONAL TRANSACTION WAS REFERRED TO THE LD. TRANSFER PRICIN G OFFICER (TPO). THE LD. TPO PROPOSED ADJUSTMENT OF 1,59,03,863/- TO THE INTERNATIONAL TRANSACTION OF TECHNICAL SERVICES, WH ICH WAS FURTHER RECTIFIED TO 1,38,64,533/-. IN THE DRAFT ASSESSMENT ORDER DATED 29/12/2016, THE ASSESSING OFFICER PROPOSED TRANSFER PRICING ADJUSTMENT AS WELL AS OTHER CORPORATE ADDITIONS/DIS ALLOWANCES. AGGRIEVED, THE ASSESSEE FILED OBJECTION BEFORE THE LD. DRP. THE LD. DRP, ISSUED CERTAIN DIRECTIONS IN THE ORDER DATED 2 7/09/2017 IN RELATION TO THE ADDITIONS PROPOSED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN THE DRAFT ASSESSMENT ORDER. PURSUANT TO THE DIRECTION O F THE LD. DRP, THE ASSESSING OFFICER PASSED THE IMPUGNED FINAL ASS ESSMENT ORDER AFTER MAKING FOLLOWING ADDITIONS: S ERIAL NO. A DDITION A MOUNT 1. TRANSFER PRICING ADJUSTMENT TO TECHNICAL SERVICE SEGMENT RS. 1,28,44, 201 / - 2. TRANSFER PRICING ADJUSTMENT FOR INTEREST ON RECEIVABLE RS.19,49, 156 / - 3. DISALLOWANCE OF EXPENDITURE UNDER SECTION 40(A)(IA) RS.6 ,75, 99, 621/ - 3. BEFORE US, BOTH THE PARTIES APPEARED THROUGH VIDEOCONFERENCING FACILITY. THE LEARNED COUNSEL OF THE ASSESSEE FILED CERTAIN DOCUMENTS AND PAPER-BOOK ELECTRONICAL LY. WE HAVE HEARD RIVAL SUBMISSION OF THE PARTIES AND PERUSED T HE RELEVANT MATERIAL ON RECORD. THE GROUNDS RAISED ARE ADJUDICA TED BELOW. 4. GROUND NOS. 1 & 2 OF THE APPEAL ARE GENERAL IN NAT URE AND THEREFORE, WE ARE NOT REQUIRED TO ADJUDICATE UPON S PECIFICALLY. 6 ITA NO.7692/DEL./2017 5. THE GROUNDS NO. 3 & 4 ARE IN RELATION TO TRANSFER PRICING ADJUSTMENT MADE TO TECHNICAL SERVICES SEGMENT. THE BRIEF FACTS QUA THE ISSUE IN DISPUTE ARE THAT THE ASSESSEE REPO RTED FOLLOWING INTERNATIONAL TRANSACTION IN ITS TRANSFER PRICING S TUDY: S. NO. NATURE OF TRANSACTIONS AMOUNT IN INR 1 PROVISION OF TECHNICAL SERVICES 14,53,14,963 2 PROVISION OF PAYROLL ADMINISTRATION SERVICES 8,55,85,187 3 PURCHASE OF PAYROLL ADMINISTRATION SERVICES 5,78,32,102 4 REIMBURSEMENT OF EXPENSES 1,65, 57,521 5 PAYMENT OF PAYROLL PROCESSING FEES 56,82,284 TOTAL 31,09,72,057 5.1 FOR DETERMINING ARMS-LENGTH PRICE OF THE TRANSACT ION OF THE PROVISION OF THE TECHNICAL SERVICES, THE ASSESSEE A PPLIED TRANSACTIONAL NET MARGIN METHOD (TNMM) USING PROFIT LEVEL INDICATOR (PLI) AS OPERATING PROFIT/TOTAL COST (OP/ TC). THE ASSESSEE WORKED OUT ITS PLI OR MARGIN AS 16.44%. TH E ASSESSEE SELECTED 13 COMPARABLES AND WORKED OUT THEIR MEAN M ARGIN AS 11.60%. IN VIEW OF MARGIN OF THE ASSESSEE BEING HIG HER THAN MEAN MARGIN OF THE COMPARABLES, THE ASSESSEE CONSIDERED THE TRANSACTION OF THE PROVISION OF TECHNICAL SERVICES AT ARMS-LENGTH. THE LEARNED TPO REJECTED THE ECONOMIC ANALYSIS SUBM ITTED BY THE ASSESSEE AND UNDERTOOK A FRESH SEARCH OF COMPARABLE S. THE LEARNED TPO INITIALLY PROPOSED AN ADJUSTMENT OF 1,59,03,863/- IN RESPECT OF THE INTERNATIONAL TRANSACTION OF PROV ISION OF TECHNICAL SUPPORT SERVICES, WHICH WAS FURTHER RECTIFIED TO 1,38,64,533/-. THE LEARNED DRP GRANTED WORKING CAPITAL ADJUSTMENT, HOWEVER NO RELIEF WAS GRANTED WITH RESPECT TO EXCLUSION/INC LUSION OF THE 7 ITA NO.7692/DEL./2017 COMPARABLES. THE FINAL SET OF THE COMPARABLES POST DRP DIRECTION, IS REPRODUCED AS UNDER: S. NO COMPARABLE WC ADJUSTED MARGINS % (POST DRP DIRECTIONS) COMPARABLE SELECTED BY ASSESSEE OR TPO 1 CADES DIGITECH 6.24 2 NEILSOFT LTD 15.62 3 HOLTEC CONSULTING 67 .73 TPO 4 IOT DESIGN AND ENGINEERING -0.07 5 KORUS ENGINEERING SOLUTIONS -365 6 CERTIFICATION ENGINEERING SOLUTIONS LTD 34.77 TPO 7 ACROPETAL TECHNOLOGIES 29.46 8 BGR ENERGY SYSTEMS 12.27 9 ENGINEERS INDIA LTD 35.29 ASSESSEE 10 PETRON ENGINEERING CONSTRUCTION 9.57 11 PROJECTS AND DEVELOPMENT INDIA 1.91 ASSESSEE 12 PUNJ LLOYD 7.34 13 RAUNUQ INTERNATIONAL 6.2 14 TECHNO ELECTRIC AND ENGINEERING 17.55 15 WAPCOS 66.28 ASSESSEE 16 TCE CONSULTING ENGINEERS LTD 12.32 AVERAGE 1993 5.2 BEFORE US, THE LEARNED COUNSEL OF THE ASSESSEE SUB MITTED THAT IF COMPARABLES NAMELY, CERTIFICATION ENGINEER ING SOLUTIONS LTD., ENGINEERS INDIA LTD., PROJECTS AND DEVELO PMENT INDIA AND WAPCOS, ARE EXCLUDED FROM THE SET OF COMPARABLES, THE MARGIN OF THE ASSESSEE WOULD BE IN THE SAFE HARBOUR RANGE AND NO ADJUSTMENT WOULD BE REQUIRED IN THE CASE OF THE ASS ESSEE IN RESPECT OF TECHNICAL SUPPORT SERVICES. THE LEARNED COUNSEL REFERRED TO PAGE 298 AND 300 OF THE PAPER-BOOK AND SUBMITTED 8 ITA NO.7692/DEL./2017 THAT CERTIFICATION ENGINEERING SOLUTIONS LTD (CEIL) , IS A GOVERNMENT OF INDIA ENTERPRISES. HE SUBMITTED THAT SUPPORT AND BACKING OF THE GOVERNMENT MAKES THE COMPANY NOT COM PARABLE WITH THE ASSESSEE. HE SUBMITTED THAT THE MAJOR PROJ ECTS HAVE BEEN AWARDED TO THE CEIL BY GOVERNMENT COMPANIES. H E SUBMITTED THAT IN THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE IN ASSES SMENT YEAR 2010-11, THE TRIBUNAL HAS REJECTED GOVERNMENT COMPA NIES AS COMPARABLE TO THE ASSESSEE. SIMILARLY, TO SUPPORT T HAT ENGINEERS INDIA LTD, PROJECTS AND DEVELOPMENT INDIA AND WAPCO S ARE GOVERNMENT COMPANIES, HE REFERRED TO PAGES 304, 324 , 329 RESPECTIVELY OF THE PAPER-BOOK . 5.3 THE LEARNED DR, ON THE OTHER HAND, SUBMITTED THAT OBJECTION FOR INCLUSION OF ABOVE FOR COMPARABLES ON THE GROUND OF BEING GOVERNMENT COMPANIES, WAS NOT RAISED BEFORE T HE ASSESSING OFFICER AND THEREFORE THIS OBJECTION SHOULD NOT BE ENTERTAINED AT THIS STAGE. THE LEARNED COUNSEL OF THE ASSESSEE IN HIS REJOINDER SUBMITTED THAT OBJECTIONS IN RELATION TO SELECTING GOVERNMENT COMPANIES WERE DULY RAISED BEFORE THE LEARNED DRP. 5.4 WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL SUBMISSION OF THE PARTIES O N THE ISSUE IN DISPUTE AND PERUSED THE RELEVANT MATERIAL ON RECORD. IN THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2010-1 1 IN ITA NO. 1486/DEL/2015, THE TRIBUNAL DIRECTED TO EXCLUDE EN GINEERS INDIA LTD. BEING A PUBLIC SECTOR UNDERTAKING AND NOTCOMP ARABLE WITH THE ASSESSEE. THE RELEVANT FINDING OF THE TRIBUNAL IS REPRODUCED AS UNDER: HAVING HEARD BOTH THE SIDES AND PERUSED THE RELEVA NT MATERIAL ON RECORD, WE FIND IT AS UNDISPUTED FACT THAT ENGINEER S INDIA LIMITED IS A GOVERNMENT COMPANY. IT HAS SEVERAL SEGMENTS WHICH ALSO INCLUDE 'TURNKEY PROJECT. PAGE 1 ONWARDS OF THE PAPER BOOK IS A COPY OF THE 9 ITA NO.7692/DEL./2017 ANNUAL REPORT OF ENGINEERS INDIA LIMITED. IN OUR CO NSIDERED OPINION, THIS COMPANY CANNOT BE INCLUDED IN THE LIST OF FINA L COMPARABLES. THE REASON IS THAT ENGINEERS INDIA LIMITED EARNED INCOM E FROM TURNKEY PROJECTS BY SUCCESSFULLY COMPLETING THE PROJECT OF OTHER PUBLIC SECTOR UNDERTAKINGS. IN THAT SENSE OF THE MATTER, THE RELA TED PARTY TRANSACTIONS ARE MUCH MORE THAN THE FILTER APPLIED BY THE TPO. WE, THEREFORE, ORDER FOR THE EXCLUSION OF THIS COMPANY FROM THE LIST OF COMPARABLES. SIMILAR VIEW HAS BEEN TAKEN BY THE MUM BAI BENCH OF THE TRIBUNAL IN THYSSEN KMPP INDUSTRIES INDIA (P) L TD. VS. ADDL. CIT (2013) 154 TTJ 689 HUM). SUCH TRIBUNAL ORDER HAS BE EN APPROVED BY THE HON'BLE BOMBAY HIGH COURT, A COPY OF WHICH H AS BEEN PLACED ON RECORD. THE DELHI BENCH OF THE TRIBUNAL IN BECHT EL INDIA (P) LTD. VS. DCIT (2016) 66 TAXMANN.COM 6 (DEL.) (TRIB.) HAS ALSO REITERATED SIMILAR VIEW. IN THE LIGHT OF THE FOREGOING PRECEDE NTS, WE ARE OF THE CONSIDERED OPINION THAT THIS COMPANY WAS WRONGLY IN CLUDED BY THE TPO IN THE LIST OF COMPARABLES. THE SAME IS, THEREF ORE, DIRECTED TO BE EXCLUDED. 5.5 AS FAR AS CEIL IS CONCERNED, WE FIND FROM PAGE 29 8 OF THE PAPER-BOOK THAT IT IS A WHOLLY-OWNED SUBSIDIARY OF ENGINEERS INDIA LTD., WHICH IS A GOVERNMENT OF INDIA UNDERTA KING. THE ENGINEER INDIA LTD. HAS ALREADY BEEN HELD BY THE TRIBUNAL AS A GOVERNMENT OF INDIA UNDERTAKING. ON PERUSAL OF THE PAGE 329 OF THE PAPER-BOOK, WE FIND THAT WAPCOS HAS BEEN MENT IONED AS GOVERNMENT OF INDIA UNDERTAKING-MINISTRY OF WATER R ESOURCES. SIMILARLY, PROJECTS AND DEVELOPMENT INDIA LTD. IS A LSO ONE OF THE GOVERNMENT OF INDIA UNDERTAKINGS AS EVIDENT FROM TH E ANNUAL REPORT OF THE COMPANY. THE PROJECTS AND DEVELOPMENT INDIA LTD. IS MINI RATNA COMPANY UNDER THE DEPARTMENT OF FERTI LIZERS, GOVERNMENT OF INDIA. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE FACTUAL P OSITION, RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING THE FINDING OF THE TRIBUNAL (SUPRA) THESE FOUR COMPANIES BEING GOVERNMENT OF INDIA UNDERTAKIN GS, ARE DIRECTED TO BE EXCLUDED FROM THE SET OF THE COMPARA BLES. THE LEARNED AO/TPO IS ACCORDINGLY DIRECTED TO RE-COMPUT E THE TRANSFER PRICING ADJUSTMENT AFTER EXCLUDING ABOVE F OR COMPANIES. 10 ITA NO.7692/DEL./2017 THE GROUNDS NO. 3 & 4 OF THE APPEAL ARE ACCORDINGLY ALLOWED PARTLY. 6. THE GROUNDS NO. 5, 6 AND 7 RELATES TO ADJUSTMENT F OR INTEREST ON RECEIVABLES. THE LEARNED TPO OBSERVED THAT ASSES SEE HAS RECEIVED PAYMENT AGAINST INVOICES RAISED ON ASSOCIA TED ENTERPRISES AFTER DELAY OF SUBSTANTIAL PERIOD, WHIC H IN CASE OF SOME INVOICES HAS BEEN ALLOWED FOR MORE THAN 200 DA YS. ACCORDING TO THE ASSESSING OFFICER, NO INDEPENDENT ENTERPRISES WOULD HAVE ALLOWED THE THIRD PARTIES TO MAKE DELAY PAYMENTS OR ELSE WOULD HAVE CHARGED HIGHER PRICES FOR DELAYED P AYMENTS. IN VIEW OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER DELAY IN RECEIPT OF P AYMENT FOR THE RECEIVABLE NEED TO BE BENCHMARKED SEPARATELY BEING INTERNATIONAL TRANSACTION IN TERMS OF EXPLANATION (1)(C) TO SECTI ON 92B AND SECTION 92F(V) OF THE ACT. THE LEARNED TPO WORKED O UT THE DELAY PERIOD IN EACH INVOICE AND AFTER APPLYING MEAN SBI PRIME LENDING RATE (I.E. 9.86%) COMPUTED THE ADJUSTMENT AT 19,49,156/-. THE LEARNED DRP UPHELD THE FINDING OF THE LEARNED TPO. 6.1 BEFORE US, THE LEARNED COUNSEL OF THE ASSESSEE SUB MITTED THAT ISSUE OF OUTSTANDING RECEIVABLE IS SQUARELY CO VERED BY THE DECISION OF THE HONBLE DELHI HIGH COURT IN THE CAS E OF KUSUM HEALTHCARE PRIVATE LIMITED (ITA NO. 756/2016) WHER EIN IT IS HELD THAT NO SEPARATE ADJUSTMENT IS REQUIRED FOR NOTIONA L INTEREST ON RECEIVABLES WHEREVER WORKING CAPITAL ADJUSTMENT HAS ALREADY BEEN FACTORED FOR BENCHMARKING THE MAIN INTERNATION AL TRANSACTION OF THE SALES OR SERVICES PROVIDED TO AE S. HE SUBMITTED THAT IN THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE LD. DRP HAS ALREAD Y GRANTED WORKING CAPITAL ADJUSTMENT AND THEREFORE NO SEPARAT E ADJUSTMENT IS WARRANTED IN THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE. ALTERNATI VELY, HE ALSO 11 ITA NO.7692/DEL./2017 SUBMITTED THAT IN VIEW OF THE DECISION OF THE HONB LE DELHI HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF COTTON NATURALS (INDIA) PRIVAT E LIMITED VERSUS CIT (ITA NO. 233/2014) THE ARMS-LENGTH INTEREST RA TE FOR LOAN ADVANCED TO FOREIGN SUBSIDIARY BY INDIAN COMPANY SH OULD BE COMPUTED BASED ON MARKET DETERMINED INTEREST RATE A PPLICABLE TO THE CURRENCY IN WHICH LOAN HAS TO BE REPAID. HE SUB MITTED THAT ACCORDINGLY IN THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE LIBOR RATE SHOULD BE APPLIED INSTEAD OF SBI PRIME LENDING RATE. 6.2 THE LEARNED DR, ON THE OTHER HAND, SUPPORTED THE F INDING OF THE LOWER AUTHORITIES AND SUBMITTED THAT IN VIEW OF THE DELAY PERIOD IN CASE OF SOME INVOICES BEING MORE THAN 200 DAYS, THE LEARNED TPO IS JUSTIFIED IN MAKING ADJUSTMENT ON AC COUNT OF INTEREST ON RECEIVABLES. 6.3 WE HAVE HEARD RIVAL SUBMISSION OF THE PARTIES AND PERUSED THE RELEVANT MATERIAL ON RECORD. IN THE CASE OF KUS UM HEALTHCARE PRIVATE LIMITED (SUPRA), HONBLE DELHI HIGH COURT H AS HELD AS UNDER: 10. THE COURT IS UNABLE TO AGREE WITH THE ABOVE SU BMISSIONS. THE INCLUSION IN THE EXPLANATION TO SECTION 92B OF THE ACT OF THE EXPRESSION RECEIVABLES DOES NOT MEAN THAT DE HORS THE CONTEXT EVERY ITEM OF RECEIVABLES APPEARING IN THE ACCOUNTS OF AN ENTITY, WHICH MAY HAVE DEALINGS WITH FOREIGN AES WOULD AUTO MATICALLY BE CHARACTERISED AS AN INTERNATIONAL TRANSACTION. THER E MAY BE A DELAY IN COLLECTION OF MONIES FOR SUPPLIES MADE, EVEN BEY OND THE AGREED LIMIT, DUE TO A VARIETY OF FACTORS WHICH WILL HAVE TO BE INVESTIGATED ON A CASE TO CASE BASIS. IMPORTANTLY, THE IMPACT THIS WOULD HAVE ON THE WORKING CAPITAL OF THE ASSESSEE WILL HAVE TO BE STU DIED. IN OTHER WORDS, THERE HAS TO BE A PROPER INQUIRY BY THE TPO BY ANALYSING THE STATISTICS OVER A PERIOD OF TIME TO DISCERN A PATTE RN WHICH WOULD INDICATE THAT VIS--VIS THE RECEIVABLES FOR THE SUP PLIES MADE TO AN AE, THE ARRANGEMENT REFLECTS AN INTERNATIONAL TRANS ACTION INTENDED TO BENEFIT THE AE IN SOME WAY. 11. THE COURT FINDS THAT THE ENTIRE FOCUS OF THE AO WAS ON JUST ONE AY AND THE FIGURE OF RECEIVABLES IN RELATION TO THA T AY CAN HARDLY 12 ITA NO.7692/DEL./2017 REFLECT A PATTERN THAT WOULD JUSTIFY A TPO CONCLUDI NG THAT THE FIGURE OF RECEIVABLES BEYOND 180 DAYS CONSTITUTES AN INTER NATIONAL TRANSACTION BY ITSELF. WITH THE ASSESSEE HAVING ALR EADY FACTORED IN THE IMPACT OF THE RECEIVABLES ON THE WORKING CAPITA L AND THEREBY ON ITS PRICING/PROFITABILITY VIS--VIS THAT OF ITS COM PARABLES, ANY FURTHER ADJUSTMENT ONLY ON THE BASIS OF THE OUTSTANDING REC EIVABLES WOULD HAVE DISTORTED THE PICTURE AND RE-CHARACTERISED THE TRANSACTION. THIS WAS CLEARLY IMPERMISSIBLE IN LAW AS EXPLAINED BY TH IS COURT IN CIT V. EKL APPLIANCES LTD. (2012) 345 ITR 241 (DELHI). 12. CONSEQUENTLY, THE COURT IS UNABLE TO FIND ANY E RROR IN THE IMPUGNED ORDER OF THE ITAT GIVING RISE TO ANY SUBST ANTIAL QUESTION OF LAW FOR DETERMINATION. THE APPEAL IS, ACCORDINGLY, DISMISSED. 6.4 WE FIND THAT HONBLE HIGH COURT HAS HELD THAT WHER EVER WORKING CAPITAL ADJUSTED MARGIN OF COMPARABLES HAS BEEN TAKEN INTO CONSIDERATION WHILE BENCHMARKING THE MAIN INTE RNATIONAL TRANSACTION OF SALES TO AES, NO SEPARATE ADJUSTMENT ON ACCOUNT OF INTEREST ON RECEIVABLE IS REQUIRED AS SAME GET SUBS UMED IN WORKING CAPITAL ADJUSTMENT. IN THE INSTANT CASE, PU RSUANT TO THE DIRECTION OF THE LEARNED DRP, THE LEARNED TPO HAS C OMPUTED MEAN MARGIN OF THE COMPARABLES AT 19.93 % , WHICH I S AVAILABLE ON PAGE 44 OF THE APPEAL SET. THIS AVERAGE MARGIN H AS BEEN COMPUTED USING WORKING CAPITAL ADJUSTED OP/OC FOR C OMPARABLE COMPANIES. THUS IT IS EVIDENT THAT IN THE INSTANT C ASE WORKING CAPITAL ADJUSTED MARGIN OF THE COMPARABLE COMPANIES HAS BEEN CONSIDERED FOR DETERMINATION OF ARMS-LENGTH PRICE OF THE INTERNATIONAL TRANSACTION AND THEREFORE, FOLLOWING THE DECISION OF THE HONBLE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT (SUPRA), NO S EPARATE ADJUSTMENT FOR INTEREST ON RECEIVABLE IS REQUIRED. ACCORDINGLY, THE GROUND NOS. 5 & 6 OF THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE ARE ALLOWED. AS WE HAVE ALREADY DELETED THE ADJUSTMENT FOR INTEREST ON THE RECEIVABLES, THE ALTERNATIVE GROUND NO. 7 OF THE AP PEAL SEEKING 13 ITA NO.7692/DEL./2017 APPLICATION OF THE LIBOR RATE IS RENDERED ACADEMIC ONLY AND THEREFORE SAME IS DISMISSED AS INFRUCTUOUS. 6.5 GROUNDS NO. 8 & 9 RELATES TO DISALLOWANCE UNDER SE CTION 40(A)(IA) OF THE ACT. THE FACTS IN BRIEF QUA THE IS SUE IN DISPUTE ARE THAT THE ASSESSEE COMPANY REQUESTED FOREIGN ASSOCIA TED ENTERPRISE TO SECOND THEIR EMPLOYEES TO INDIA TO WO RK FOR A LIMITED PERIOD, UNDER SUPERVISION AND CONTROL OF THE ASSESS EE. ACCORDING TO THE ASSESSEE, UNDER AN AGREEMENT THE EMPLOYEES S ECONDED BY THE FOREIGN AE WERE ACTING AS EMPLOYEE OF THE ASSES SEE AND THE ASSESSEE IS RESPONSIBLE TO PAY SALARY OF SUCH EMPLO YEES AS WELL AS THEIR TRAVELLING AND CONVEYANCE COST FOR THE EMPLOY MENT PERIOD. DURING THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION, THE ASSESSEE R EIMBURSED TRAVELLING AND CONVEYANCE COST AND SALARY COST OF S UCH EMPLOYEES TO ASSOCIATED ENTERPRISE. THE ASSESSEE DID NOT DEDU CT TAX ON TRAVELLING AND CONVEYANCE COST ON THE GROUND THAT S AME ARE PURE REIMBURSEMENT OF THE EXPENSES PAID BY THE FOREIGN ASSOCIATED ENTERPRISE IN RESPECT OF SUCH EMPLOYEES, HOWEVER WI TH RESPECT TO THE SALARY COST, THE TAX WAS DEDUCTED UNDER SECTION 192 OF THE ACT. THE LEARNED ASSESSING OFFICER IN DRAFT ASSESSM ENT ORDER, HOWEVER WAS OF THE VIEW THAT SECONDED EMPLOYEES CON TINUED TO REMAIN EMPLOYEES OF THE ASSOCIATED ENTERPRISE AND W ERE NOT EMPLOYEES OF THE ASSESSEE DURING THE PERIOD OF THE SECONDMENT. ACCORDING TO HIM, AMOUNT SHOWN AS REIMBURSEMENT TO ASSOCIATED ENTERPRISES ARE ACTUALLY IN THE NATURE OF FEE FOR T ECHNICAL SERVICES AND SINCE THERE WAS NO EMPLOYER-EMPLOYEE R ELATIONSHIP BETWEEN THE ASSESSEE AND THE SECONDEES, IN VIEW OF NON- DEDUCTION OF THE TAX ON SUCH PAYMENT, SAME WERE LIA BLE FOR DISALLOWANCE. THE LEARNED ASSESSING OFFICER ALSO RE LIED ON THE 14 ITA NO.7692/DEL./2017 DECISION OF THE HONBLE DELHI HIGH COURT IN THE CAS E OF CENTICA INDIA OFFSHORE P LTD. VS CIT REPORTED IN 364 ITR 33 6, WHERE IN THE SLP FILED BY THE ASSESSEE HAS ALSO BEEN DISMISS ED BY THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT AS REPORTED IN 227 TAXMAN 368 . THE LEARNED DRP FOLLOWING ITS EARLIER ORDERS UPHELD THE DISALLOWANCE, OBSERVING AS UNDER: ..THIS PERTAIN TO DISALLOWANCE MADE BY THE AO U/S 40(A)(I) AMOUNTING TO RS. 6,75,99,621/-. AO HAS DISCUSSED IN DETAILS IN PARA 4 OF HIS ORDER. THE ASSESSEES SUBMISSION IS ALSO A VAILABLE ON RECORD. MOST OF THIS DISALLOWANCES ARE THE SAME AS IN THE EARLIER YEARS AND HAVE BEEN UPHELD BY THE DRP IN EARLIER YE ARS AGAINST WHICH THE APPEAL IS THE APPLICANT APPEAL PENDING. DRP DIRECTIONS IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE DRP FULLY UPHOLDS THE DISALLOW ANCE MADE BY THE AO. 6.6 IN THE IMPUGNED ASSESSMENT ORDER, ALSO THE LEARNED ASSESSING OFFICER HAS OBSERVED AS UNDER: .. IT MAY BE PERTINENT TO NOTE THAT THAT THE HONB LE DRP IN THE ASSESSEES OWN CASE FOR AY 2011-12 & 2012-13 HAS HE LD PAYMENTS OF THE ABOVE NATURE UNDER IDENTICAL FACTS TO BE IN THE NATURE OF FTS. RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING THE DIRECTIONS OF THE DRP IN EARLIER YEARS, THE DISALLOWANCE IS PROPOSED TO BE MADE IN CURRENT YEAR ALSO.... 6.7 BEFORE US, THE LEARNED COUNSEL OF THE ASSESSEE SUB MITTED THAT TRIBUNAL IN ASSESSMENT YEAR 2011-12 HAD RESTOR ED THIS ISSUE TO THE FILE OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO ANALYSE THE EVIDENCES FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AND ADJUDICATE ON THE TAXABILITY OF TH OSE PAYMENTS. HE SUBMITTED THAT IN REMAND PROCEEDING THE LEARNED ASSESSING OFFICER HAS ACCEPTED THE CONTENTION OF THE ASSESSEE AND HELD THAT NO DISALLOWANCE UNDER SECTION 40(A)(IA) OF THE ACT IS WARRANTED AND THEREBY HE DELETED THE DISALLOWANCE MADE IN THE ORIGINAL ASSESSMENT ORDER FOR SAID ASSESSMENT YEAR. THE LEAR NED COUNSEL 15 ITA NO.7692/DEL./2017 OF THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT IN VIEW OF THE PRINC IPLE OF THE CONSISTENCY AND IDENTITY OF FACTS, THE DISALLOWANCE SHOULD BE DELETED IN THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION ALSO. IN SU PPORT OF THE RULE OF CONSISTENCY, THE LEARNED COUNSEL RELIED ON THE DECISION OF THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF RADHASOAMI SATSANG VS CIT (1992) 60 TAXMAN 248 (SC). 6.8 ON THE CONTRARY, THE LEARNED DR RELIED ON THE ORDE R OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND DIRECTION OF THE DRP IN THE Y EAR UNDER CONSIDERATION. 6.9 WE HAVE HEARD RIVAL SUBMISSION OF THE PARTIES AND PERUSED THE RELEVANT MATERIAL ON RECORD. THE ISSUE IN DISPU TE BEFORE US IS WHETHER THE TRAVELLING AND CONVEYANCE COST AND SALA RIES PAID TO THE SECONDED EMPLOYEES CONSTITUTE FEE FOR TECHNICAL SERVICES OR NOT. THE LEARNED COUNSEL OF THE ASSESSEE HAS SUBMIT TED BEFORE US THAT ON THE DIRECTION OF THE TRIBUNAL, IN ASSESSMEN T YEAR 2010-11, THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS RE-EXAMINED THE TAXABILIT Y OF TRAVELLING AND CONVEYANCE ON SALARY COST TO THE SECONDED EMPLO YEE IN THE HANDS OF THE ASSESSEE AND FOUND THAT NO ADDITION IS WARRANTED UNDER SECTION 40(A)(IA) OF THE ACT. THE RELEVANT PA RT OF THE ORDER OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS REPRODUCED AS UNDER: 4. DISALLOWANCE U/S 40(A)(I) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 4.1 AS THE MATTER RELATED TO THE ISSUE OF DISALLOWA NCE U/S 40(A)(I) WAS RESTORED BACK TO THE FILE OF AO BY THE HONHLE I TAT, NEW DELHI, HENCE FRESH NOTICE U/S 143(2) OF THE ACT DATED 13/0 2/2018 WAS ISSUED TO THE ASSESSEE. THEREAFTER, NOTICES U/S 142(1) OF THE ACT WERE ISSUED TO THE ASSESSEE COMPANY FROM TI ME TO TIME WHEREIN THE FOLLOWING DETAILS WERE SOUGHT:- ANNEXURE-A FOR FURNISHING INFORMATION IN RESPECT O F AY 2011-12 1. PLEASE FURNISH THE DETAILS OF PAYMENT MADE IN RE SPECT OF TRAVEL AND CONVEYANCE EXPENSES IN THE FOLLOWING FORMAT:- 16 ITA NO.7692/DEL./2017 S. NO. AMOUNT NATURE OF PAYMENT PERSON TO WHOM PAYMENT WAS MADE WHETHER TDS DEDUCTED OR NOT WHETHER DEDUCTED TDS DEPOSITED OR NOT SUBSTANTIATE YOUR CLEAR NECESSARY EVIDENCES SUCH AS TDS CERTIFICATE AND OTHER DOCUMENTS IN SUPPORT OF YOUR CLAIM. 2. PLEASE FURNISH THE DETAILS OF PAYMENT MADE IN RE SPECT OF SALARIES AND ALLOWANCE TO SECONDEES EXPENSES IN THE FOLLOWING FORMAT:- S.NO. AMOUNT NATURE OF PAYMENT PERSON TO WHOM PAYMENT WAS MADE WHETHER TDS DEDUCTED OR NOT WHETHER DEDUCTED TDS DEPOSITED OR NOT SUBSTANTIATE YOUR CLEAR NECESSARY EVIDENCES SUCH AS TDS CERTIFICATE AND OTHER DOCUMENTS IN SUPPORT OF YOUR CLAIM. FURNISH COPIES OF AGREEMENT EXECUTED BETWEEN THE AS SESSEE AND PERSONS REFERRED TO AT POINT NOS. (1) AND (2) ABOVE. 4.2 IN RESPONSE TO THESE NOTICES, THE ASSESSEE COMP ANY SUBMITTED ITS REPLIES DATED 31/10/2018 AND 07/10/2019. THE RE PLIES FURNISHED BY THE ASSESSEE HAVE BEEN EXAMINED AND AF TER VERIFICATION IT IS FOUND THAT NO ADDITION/DISALLOWA NCE IS WARRANTED U/S 40(A)(I) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961. HENCE, TH E DISALLOWANCE OF RS. 11,01,72,196/- MADE IN THE ORIGINAL ASSESSMENT ORDER DATED 31/12/2015 IS REDUCED TO RS. NIL. 6.10 THUS, IT IS EVIDENT THAT IN EARLIER YEAR IDENTICAL EXPENSES INCURRED ON TRAVEL AND CONVEYANCE AND SALARY ON SEC ONDED EMPLOYEES HAS NOT BEEN FOUND IS LIABLE FOR DISALLOW ANCE U/S 40(A)(IA) OF THE ACT. THIS ACTION OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS NOT BEEN FOUND ERRONEOUS OR FRAUD BY THE HIGHER AUTHORI TIES OF THE INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT AND, THEREFORE, ONCE THE ASSE SSING OFFICER HAS ACCEPTED THAT THE PAYMENTS ARE NOT LIABLE FOR D ISALLOWANCE, WE DO NOT FIND ANY REASON FOR AGITATING THOSE VERY PAYMENTS BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATI ON. 17 ITA NO.7692/DEL./2017 ACCORDINGLY, WE DIRECT THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO DEL ETE THE DISALLOWANCE MADE UNDER SECTION 40(A)(IA) OF THE AC T ON PAYMENTS REIMBURSED TO FOREIGN AES TOWARDS TRAVEL AND CONVEY ANCE COST ON SALARY COST OF THE SECONDED EMPLOYEES. THE GROUNDS NO. 8 & 9 OF THE APPEAL ARE ACCORDINGLY ALLOWED. 7. THE GROUND NO. 10 WAS NOT PRESSED BEFORE US BY THE LEARNED COUNSEL OF THE ASSESSEE AND ACCORDINGLY SAME IS DIS MISSED AS INFRUCTUOUS. 8. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOW ED PARTLY. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 4 TH DECEMBER, 2020. SD/- SD/- (SUCHITRA KAMBLE) (O.P. KANT) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER DATED: 4 TH DECEMBER, 2020. RK/- (D.T.D.S.) COPY FORWARDED TO: 1. APPELLANT 2. RESPONDENT 3. CIT 4. CIT(A) 5. DR ASST. REGISTRAR, ITAT, NEW DELHI