Frigoglass India Pvt. Ltd., Gurgaon V. ACIT, New Delhi

ITA 784/DEL/2016

• Counselvise Citation: [2016] 132 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 6759 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 5 month(s) 12 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 25-07-2016
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Bench Allotted: I1
• Next Hearing Date: 27-04-2016
• Assessment Year: 2011-2012
• Appeal Filed On: 12-02-2016
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: AMRENDRA KUMAR
• Keywords: Related party transaction; Transfer pricing; International transaction
• Section: 143(3)

Judgement Text

I.T.A. NO.784/D EL/16 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2011 - 12 PAGE 1 OF 7 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI I - 1 BENCH, NEW DELHI [CORAM: PRAMOD KUMAR AM AND BEENA A PILLAI JM ] I.T.A. NO. 784/DEL/16 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2011 - 12 FRIGOGLASS INDIA PVT LT D ............. .APPELLANT PLOT 26A, SECTOR 3, IMT MANESAR GUR GAON 122 050 [PAN: AAACF6804G] VS. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE 9 ( 2), NEW DELHI .. . . RESPONDENT APPEARANCES BY: DEEPAK CHOPRA , ALONG - WITH HARPREET SINGH AND ROHAN KHARE FOR THE APPELLANT AMRENDRA KUMAR , FOR RESPONDENT DATE OF CONCLUDING THE HEARING : APRIL 27 , 2016 DATE OF PRONOUNC ING THE ORDER : JULY 2 5 , 2016 O R D E R PER PRAMOD KUMAR , AM : 1. BY WAY OF THIS APPEAL, THE ASSESSEE APPELLANT HAS CHALLENGED CORRECTNESS OF THE ORDER DATED 30 TH JANUARY 2016 PASSED BY THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE 9(2) NEW DELHI, UNDER SECTION 143(3) R.W.S 144C OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961, FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2011 - 12/ 2. GRIEVANCES RAISED BY THE APPELLANT , SO FAR AS TRANSFER PRICING ISSUES ARE CONCERNED, ARE AS FOLL OWS: 1. GENERAL 1.1 THE LEARNED ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE - 9(2), NEW DELHI ('THE ASSESSING OFFICER' OR THE LD. AO') AND LEARNED TPO PURSUANT TO DIRECTIONS OF HON'BLE DISPUTE RESOLUTION PANEL ('HON'BLE DRP'), HAS ERRED ON I.T.A. NO.784/D EL/16 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2011 - 12 PAGE 2 OF 7 FACTS AN D CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN LAW IN COMPLETING THE PRESENT ASSESSMENT AT AN INCOME OF RS.1,39,59,460 AS AGAINST THE RETURNED INCOME OF RS.( - ) 4,05,01,773 IS BAD IN LAW. 1 2 THAT, THE LEARNED DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, TRANSFER PRICING OFFIC ER - 1(2)(1 ) (HEREINAFTER REFERRED AS 'LEARNED TPO')/HON'BLE DRP HAS GROSSLY ERRED IN MAKING/UPHOLDING AN ADJUSTMENT OF RS.5,41,00.671 IN RESPECT OF DISALLOWANCE OF CAPACITY ADJUSTMENT AND PAYMENT OF ROYALTY AND MARKUP IN RESPECT OF MANAGEMENT CHARGES TO AE . 2. REJECTION OF THE ECONOMIC ANALYSIS OF THE APPELLANT 2 1 THAT ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN LAW, LD. TPO/ HON'BLE DRP HAVE ERRED IN NOT ACCEPTING THE ECONOMIC ANALYSIS OF THE APPELLANT, FOR DETERMINATION OF THE ARM'S LENGTH PRICE ('ALP') IN CONNECTION WITH THE IMPUGNED INTERNATIONAL TRANSACTIONS AND IN NOT APPRECIATING THAT NONE OF THE CONDITIONS SET OUT IN SECTION 92C(3) OF THE ACT ARE SATISFIED IN THE PRESENT CASE 3. ADOPTION OF COMPARABLE UNCONTROLLED PRICE METHOD AS THE MOST APPROPRIATE METHOD ('MAM') 3.1. THAT THE LD. TPO/ HON'BLE DRP ERRED IN NOT CONDUCTING THE ANALYSIS OF SELECTING THE MOST APPROPRIATE METHOD AS PRESCRIBED UNDER RULE 10C OF THE RULES. 3.2 THE LD. TPO/ HON'BLE DRP ERRED IN LAW BY UPHOLDING THE DETERM INATION OF THE ALP OF THE INTERNATIONAL TRANSACTION USING COMPARABLE UNCONTROLLED PRICE ('CUP') METHOD WITHOUT FOLLOWING THE MANNER OF APPLYING THE CUP METHOD PRESCRIBED UNDER RULE 10B(1)(A) OF THE RULES. 3.3. THE LD. TPO/ HON'BLE DRP HAVE ERRED IN UPH OLDING THE ADOPTION OF CUP METHOD AS THE MOST APPROPRIATE METHOD FOR DETERMINING THE ARM'S LENGTH PRICE IN RESPECT OF THE IMPUGNED INTERNATIONAL TRANSACTION WITHOUT IDENTIFYING ANY COMPARABLE UNCONTROLLED TRANSACTION(S) FOR THE COMPUTATION OF THE ALP AS PR ESCRIBED IN SECTION 92F(II) OF THE ACT. 4. TRANSFER PRICING ADJUSTMENT BASED ON INCORRECT ASSUMPTIONS 41 THE LD. TPO/ HON'BLE DRP ERRED IN PASSING AN ORDER THAT IS PERVERSE IN LAW IGNORING THE RELEVANT SUBMISSIONS, INFORMATION AND DOCUMENTS PRO VIDED BY THE APPELLANT TO SUBSTANTIATE THE SERVICES AND BENEFITS RECEIVED BY THE APPELLANT IN LIEU OF PAYMENT OF ROYALTY, AND BASED ON A PREOCCUPIED MIND REACHED AT AN INAPPROPRIATE CONCLUSION THAT THE ARM'S LENGTH VALUE OF THE TRANSACTION PERTAINING TO PA YMENT OF ROYALTY SHOULD BE NIL. 4.2 THE LD, TPO/ HON'BLE DRP ERRED IN REJECTING THE ADJUSTMENT FOR DIFFERENCE IN THE CAPACITY UTILIZATION OF THE ASSESSEE VIS - A - VIS THE COMPARABLE COMPANIES. I.T.A. NO.784/D EL/16 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2011 - 12 PAGE 3 OF 7 4.3. THE LEARNED AO/HON'BLE DRP ERRED, ON FACTS AND CIRCUM STANCES OF THE CASE AND IN LAW, IN ARBITRARILY REJECTING ONE OF THE COMPARABLE COMPANIES ON THE BASIS OF INSUFFICIENT RELATED PARTY TRANSACTIONS INFORMATION. 4.4 THE LD. TPO/ HON'BLE DRP ERRED IN MISINTERPRETING/ MISCONSTRUED THE FACTS WITH RESPECT TO TH E INTERNATIONAL TRANSACTION RELATING TO PAYMENT OF AND ROYALTY ON THE BASIS OF INCORRECT PRESUMPTIONS AND ACCORDINGLY MADE AN ADJUSTMENT OF INR 30,025,734 TO THE TOTAL INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE. 4.5 THE LD. TPO/ HON'BLE DRP ERRED IN MISINTERPRETING/ MISC ONSTRUED THE FACTS WITH RESPECT TO THE INTERNATIONAL TRANSACTION RELATING TO PAYMENT OF MANAGEMENT FEE ON THE BASIS OF INCORRECT PRESUMPTIONS AND MADE AN ADJUSTMENT OF INR 1,16,186 TO THE TOTAL INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE. 3. AS THE HEARING PROGRESSED AND AS WE NARROWED DOWN TO THE PRECISE ISSUES REQUIRING OUR ADJUDICATION, LEARNED REPRESENTATIVES FAIRLY AGREED THAT THE SHORT ISSUES THAT WE ARE REQUIRED TO DECIDE, HOWEVER, IS (A) WHETHER OR NOT THE ASSESSING OFFICER WAS JUSTIFIED IN DECLINING CAPACITY UTILIZA TION ADJUSTMENT, IN RESPECT OF COMPUTATION OF ARM S LENGTH PRICE ON SALE OF FINISHED GOODS, COMPONENTS AND SPARES ; AND (B) WHETHER OR NOT THE ASSE SSING OFFICER WAS JUSTIFIED IN MAKING AN ARM S LENGTH PRICE ADJUSTMENT OF RS 8,77,31,148 BY REJECTING THE ASSE SSEE S DETERMINATION OF ALP OF THESE SERVICES UNDER THE TNMM, AND BY ADOPTING THE ARM S LENGTH PRICE OF THE SAME SERVICES, UNDER CUP METHOD, AT NIL VALUE. 4. AS FAR AS THE FIRST ISSUE IS CONCERNED, THE RELEVANT MATERIAL FACTS ARE LIKE THIS. THE ASSESSEE B EFORE U S IS A SUBSIDIARY OF NORCOOL DING ASA, NORWAY. THE ASSESSEE IS ENGAGED IN THE BUSINESS OF GLASS DOOR MERCHANDISING. IT HAS A MANUFACTURING PLANT WHICH CATERS TO THE DOMESTIC MARKET AS ALSO TO EXPORTS TO NEIGHBOURING ASIAN COUNTRIES . DURING THE COURSE OF PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE TRANS FER PRICING OFFICER, ONE OF THE ISSUES WHICH CAME UP FOR SCRUTINY WAS CAPACITY UNDERUTILIZATION ADJUSTMENT. THE TPO NOTED THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS INFORMED BY HIS KEY CUSTOMER, I.E. COCA COLA, OF LIKELY PERFORMANCE FAILURE IN S OME OF THE VISICOOLERS SOLD AND INSTALLED BY IT. SUBSEQUENTLY, BECAUSE OF THE FAULT OF THE PRODUCTS ALREADY SOLD, THE ASSESSEE S SALE DWINDLED. AS AGAINST A PRODUCTION OF 1,11,000 VISICOOLERS IN THE IMMEDIATELY PRECEDING YEAR, THE ASSESSEE COULD PRODUCE ON LY 39,500 VISICOOLERS IN THE CURRENT YEAR. AS EVIDENT FROM A READING OF THE TPO S ORDER, THE ASSESSEE EXPLAINED THE DETAILED REASONS OF TECHNICAL FAILURES, ON THE PART OF THE ASSESSEE, LEADING TO THIS I.T.A. NO.784/D EL/16 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2011 - 12 PAGE 4 OF 7 UNDERUTILIZATION OF CAPACITY. THE TPO, HOWEVER, DID N OT ACCEPT THIS ADJUSTMENT. HIS PRIMARY RELIANCE WAS ON THE DECISION OF A COORDINATE BENCH OF THIS TRIBUNAL, IN THE CASE OF DCIT VS EDAG ENGINEERS & DESIGNS INDIA PVT LTD [(2014) 67 SOT 81 (DEL)] AND REFERRED TO ITS OBSERVATIONS TO THE EFFECT THAT . THE VERY CONCEPT OF CAPACITY UNDERUTILIZATION MAY NOT REALLY MAKE ANY SENSE UNLESS THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT BEEN ABLE TO OFFER, FOR REASONS BEYOND ITS CONTROL, THE UNDERUTILIZED CAPACITY TO ITS AE. THERE IS NO FINDING ON THIS ASPECT OF THE MATTER. AS THE ASSESSEE DOES NOT HAVE THE LIBERTY TO WORK FOR ANY OTHER CUSTOMER, AND IS WHOLLY DEPENDENT ON ITS AE FOR PRODUCTIVE USE OF ITS CAPACITY TO WORK, THE AE SHOULD NORMALLY MAKE GOOD ANY LOSSES TO THE CAPTIVE UNIT CAUSED BY ITS NOT BEING ABLE TO MAKE USE OF THE AVAILABL E CAPACITY . THE TPO WAS OF THE VIEW THAT THE REASON THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS PUT FORWARD IN ITS EXPLANATION DOES NOT SEEM TO BE SUCH THAT ARE BEYOND HIS CONTROL . IT WAS NOTED THAT THE ASSESSEE DOES NOT CARRY OUT ANY R&D ACTIVITIES OR PRODUCT DESIGN OF ITS OW N, AND, THEREFORE, THE UNDERUTILIZATION OF CAPACITY IS DUE TO MISTAKES OF THE AES. THE TPO STATED THAT REVENUE (AUTHORITIES) SHOULD NOT BE EXPECTED TO SUBSIDIZE DETERMINATION OF ALP . THE TPO THE OBSERVED THAT IN ANY CASE WHAT COULD BE RELEVANT IN MAKI NG CAPACITY UNDERUTILIZATION ADJUSTMENT IS WHEN ALP IS BEING DETERMINED FOR THE RAW MATERIAL RATHER THAN SALES. IT IS ONLY WHEN PURCHASES ARE BEING MADE FROM THE AES AND THE REVENUES ARE BEING GENERATED FROM THE UNRELATED PARTIES THAT SUCH AN ADJUSTMENT, E VEN THEORETICALLY, CAN COME INTO PLAY. IN VIEW OF THESE DISCUSSIONS, AND NOTING THAT AE SHOULD HAVE PROVIDED SOME PRICE SUPPORT TO THE ASSESSEE , THE TPO REJECTED THE CAPACITY UNDERUTILIZATION ADJUSTMENT. THE ASSESSEE DID RAISE AN OBJECTION BEFORE DRP BUT WITHOUT ANY SUCCESS. THE DRP NOTED THAT THE TPO HAS GIVEN VALID REASONS FOR NOT ACCEPTING THE ASSESSEE S CLAIM AND THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS FAILED TO CONTROVERT THE REASONS GIVEN BY THE TPO FOR REJECTING THE ASSESSEE S CLAIM FOR CAPACITY ADJUSTMENT . IN A NY EVENT, AS THE DRP NOTED, THE ADJUSTMENT IS REQUIRED TO BE MADE IN THE COMPARABLES RATHER THAN THE TESTED PARTY. THE ALP ADJUSTMENTS, ACCORDINGLY, WERE MADE IN RESPECT OF SALE OF FINISHED GOODS FOR RS 1,51,68,845 AND IN RESPECT OF SALE OF COMPONENTS AND SPARES FOR RS 87,90,105 AGGRIEVED BY THE STAND SO TAKEN BY THE DRP, THE ASSESSEE IS IN APPEAL BEFORE US. I.T.A. NO.784/D EL/16 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2011 - 12 PAGE 5 OF 7 5. HAVING HEARD THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS AND HAVING PERUSED THE MATERIAL ON RECORD, WE ARE OF THE CONSIDERED VIEW THAT THE ASSESSEE S GRIEVANCE DOES DESE RVE TO BE UPHELD IN PRINCIPLE, EVEN THOUGH THE COMPUTATIONS OF THE ASSESSEE, WITH RESPECT TO THIS ADJUSTMENT, ARE INCORRECT AND NEED TO BE REVISITED. WE HAVE NOTED THAT THE FUNDAMENTAL REASON FOR THE IMPUGNED REJECTION BY THE TPO IS HIS RELIANCE ON EDAG DE CISION (SUPRA) BY THE COORDINATE BENCH AND HE HAS EXTENSIVELY QUOTED FROM THIS DECISION. HOWEVER, WHAT HAS BEEN MISSED OUT IS THAT EDAG WAS A ONE HUNDRED PERCENT CAPTIVE UNIT AND THE TRIBUNAL HAD SPECIFICALLY GIVEN ITS DECISION IN THIS CONTEXT. WHEN AO QUO TES THE WORDS . THE VERY CONCEPT OF CAPACITY UNDERUTILIZATION MAY NOT REALLY MAKE ANY SENSE UNLESS THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT BEEN ABLE TO OFFER, FOR REASONS BEYOND ITS CONTROL, THE UNDERUTILIZED CAPACITY TO ITS AE , HE MISSES OUT THE OPENING WORDS OF THIS SEN TENCE TO THE EFFECT THAT APART, IN THE CASE OF A ONE HUNDRED PERCENT CAPTIVE SERVICE UNIT, AS IS THE ASSESSEE BEFORE US . THE CORRECT AND COMPLETE SENTENCE WAS THAT APART, IN THE CASE OF A ONE HUNDRED PERCENT CAPTIVE SERVICE UNIT, AS IS THE ASSESSEE BEFO RE US, THE VERY CONCEPT OF CAPACITY UNDERUTILIZATION MAY NOT REALLY MAKE ANY SENSE UNLESS THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT BEEN ABLE TO OFFER, FOR REASONS BEYOND ITS CONTROL, THE U NDERUTILIZED CAPACITY TO ITS AE . IT IS THUS CLEAR THAT THE OBSERVATIONS OF THE COORDINA TE BENCH, WHICH ONE OF US (I.E. THE ACCOUNTANT MEMBER) HAD THE OCCASION TO ARTICULATE, WAS SPECIFICALLY IN THE CONTEXT OF ONE HUNDRED PERCENT CAPTIVE UNITS. THAT IS NOT THE CASE HERE. THERE IS ALSO NO DISPUTE THAT THERE WERE SERIOUS ISSUES WITH RESPECT TO ITS PRODUCTS AND THERE WAS A FALL IN PRODUCTION BY OVER 64% . IN THESE CIRCUMSTANCES, THERE WAS CLEARLY A SUBSTANTIAL UNDERUTILIZATION OF CAPACITY. THE STAND OF THE TPO THAT ANY FALL IN UTILIZATION OF CAPACITY SHOULD HAVE BEEN SUBSIDIZED BY THE AE IS DEVOID OF ANY BASIS IN THE PRESENT CIRCUMSTANCES. THE LAPSES LEADING TO ISSUES WITH THE QUALITY RELATED ISSUES, AS SET OUT IN TPO ORDER ITSELF AT PAGE 9, ARE PURELY PRODUCTION AND OPERATIONAL REASONS AND FOR THESE REASONS THE ASSESSEE, AS A COMMERCIAL UNIT, IS R ESPONSIBLE. OF COURSE, AS THE DRP RIGHTLY OBSERVES, THE ADJUSTMENTS ARE TO BE MADE IN COMPARABLES AND NOT THE TESTED PARTY. LEARNED COUNSEL ALSO DOES NOT DISPUTE THAT. IN VIEW OF THESE DISCUSSIONS, IN OUR CONSIDERED VIEW, THE PLEA OF THE ASSESSEE DESERVE S TO BE UPHELD IN PRINCIPLE TOUGH THE MATTER IS REQUIRED TO BE REMITTED TO THE FILE OF THE AO FOR FRESH QUANTIFICATION OF THE ADJUSTMENT I.T.A. NO.784/D EL/16 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2011 - 12 PAGE 6 OF 7 FIGURE BY MAKING THE NECESSARY CHANGES IN THE FIGURES OF COMPARABLES RATHER THAN THE TESTED PARTY. THE MATTER STANDS RE STORED TO THE ASSESSMENT STAGE, WITH THE ABOVE OBSERVATIONS. 6. AS FOR THE SECOND ISSUE, THAT WAS A MATTER TAKEN UP AT THE DRP ONLY INASMUCH AS AN ENHANCEMENT WAS MADE BY THE DRP IN THIS REGARD. DURING THE COURSE OF THE PROCEEDINGS BEFORE DRP, IT WAS NOTIC ED THAT IN THE IMMEDIATELY PRECEDING ASSESSMENT YEAR, I.E. 2010 - 11, THE TPO HAD MADE AN ALP ADJUSTMENT OF RS 29,65,700 IN RESPECT OF MANAGEMENT FEES AND OF RS 8,47,65,448 IN RESPECT OF ROYALTY AND LICENCE FEES , AND THESE ALPS WERE CONFIRMED BY THE DRP . THE DRP REQUIRED THE ASSESSEE TO SHOW CAUSE AS TO WHY SIMILAR ALP ADJUSTMENT NOT BE MADE FOR THIS ASSESSMENT YEAR AS WELL, AS THE RELEVANT FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES ARE SIMILAR. IT WAS IN THIS BACKDROP, AND AFTER REJECTING THE SUBMISSIONS AGAINST THE ENHANCEMEN T, THAT THE DRP DIRECTED THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO MAKE SIMILAR (ARM S LENGTH PRICE) ADJUSTMENT TOWARDS ROYALTY AND MANAGEMENT FEES AS HAS BEEN UPHELD BY THE DRP IN 2010 - 11 . WHEN THE MATTER THUS TRAVELLED BACK TO THE ASSESSING OFFICER, HE MADE AN ALP ADJ USTMENT OF RS 5,41,00,671 AS AGAINST ALP ADJUSTMENT OF RS 2,39,58,750 AS ORIGINALLY PROPOSED BY THE TPO. THE ASSESSEE IS AGGRIEVED AND IS IN APPEAL BEFORE US. 7. HAVING HEARD THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND HAVING PERUSED THE MATERIAL ON RECORD, WE FIND THAT TH E ISSUE IS COVERED, IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE,THE ORDER DATED 8 TH APRIL 2016 PASSED BY A COORDINATE BENCH, IN ASSESSEE S OWN CASE FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2010 - 11. THERE IS NO OCCASION TO TAKE A DIFFERENT VIEW OF THE MATTER FOR THIS YEAR. IN ANY EVENT, ONE CAN DISCARD THE TNMM AND PROCEED TO ADOPT CUP ONLY WHEN A COMPARABLE PRODUCT OR SERVICE IS AVAILABLE. WHEN NO SUCH COMPARABLE IS AVAILABLE, AS IN THIS CASE, THERE CANNOT BE ANY OCCASION TO RESORT TO CUP, AND, AS SUCH, IN SUCH A SITUATION, CUP CANNOT BE AC CEPTED AS MAM OVER THE TNMM. THE VERY APPROACH UNDERLYING THESE ALP ADJUSTMENTS IS NOT FALLACIOUS AND LEGALLY UNSUSTAINABLE. WE, THEREFORE, DIRECT THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO DELETE ALP IN RESPECT OF ROYALTY AND MANAGEMENT FEES. 8. THE ONLY OTHER GRIEVANCES, WHICH PERTAIN TO NON TP MATTERS AND WHICH REQUIRE OUR ADJUDICATION, ARE IN RESPECT OF DISALLOWANCE OF 5% OF MISCELLANEOUS EXPENSES I.T.A. NO.784/D EL/16 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2011 - 12 PAGE 7 OF 7 AMOUNTING TO INR 315,246 ON AD - HOC AND ARBITRARY BASIS BY STATING THAT THE EXPENDITURE INCURRED BY THE A PPELLANT IS NOT T OTALLY VOUCHED AND IN RESPECT DISALLOWANCE OF RS.45,314 ON ACCOUNT OF NON RECONCILIATION OF THE INFORMATION FILED IN ANNUAL INCOME AND INCOME AS PER PROFIT AND LOSS ACCOUNT. 9. WE HAVE NOTED THAT AS FAR AS THE ADHOC DISALLOWANCE OF 5% IS CONCERNED, THE DRP HAS ALREADY REFERRED THE MATTER TO THE AO, WITH A DIRECTION THAT IN CASE ASSESSEE CAN PRODUCE THE RELATED BILLS AND VOUCHERS, THE SAME SHALL BE DELETED. AS FOR THE SECOND ISSUE OF DISALLOWANCE OF RS 45,314 IN THE ABSENCE OF RECO NCILIATION STATEMENT, T HAT ISSUE HAS NOT EVEN BEEN TAKEN UP BEFORE THE DRP. NO ARGUMENTS WERE ADVANCED ON THESE ISSUES EITHER. 10. NO INTERFERENCE IS THUS CALLED FOR ON THE NON TRANSFER PRICING ISSUES. THESE GRIEVANCES ARE REJECTED. 11. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL IS PARTLY AL LOWED IN THE TERMS INDICATED ABOVE. PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT TO DAY ON 25 TH DAY OF JULY, 2016. SD/ - SD/ - BEENA A PILLAI PRAMOD KUMAR (JUDICIAL MEMBER) (ACCOUNTANT MEMBER) DATED: 25 TH DAY OF J ULY, 2016. C OPIES TO: (1) THE APPELLANT (2) THE RESPONDENT (3) COMMISSIONER (4) CIT(A) (5) DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE (6) GUARD FILE BY ORDER ASSISTANT REGISTRAR INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCHES, NEW DELHI .