T.K.M.Global Logistics Limited, Kolkata V. ACIT, Ward - 15(1), Kolkata, Kolkata

ITA 83/KOL/2018

• Counselvise Citation: [2019] 112 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 1364 (ITAT-KOLKATA)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 10 month(s) 27 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 11-12-2019
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Bench Allotted: C
• Assessment Year: 2013-2014
• Appeal Filed On: 15-01-2018
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: DR P K SRIHARI
• Assessee Lawyers: RACH NA AGARWAL
• Keywords: Transfer pricing; International transaction; Earning of tax free income
• Section: 92C; 143(3); 92D; 92F; 92A; 14A; 201; 144C; 92

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL KOLKATA C BENCH, KOLKATA (BEFORE SRI J. SUDHAKAR REDDY, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER & SRI S.S. GODARA, JUDICIAL MEMBER) ITA NO. 83/KOL/2018 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2013-14 TKM GLOBAL LOGISTICS LIMITED........................................................................APPELLANT ROOM NO. 710 & 711 7 TH FLOOR DIAMOND HERITAGE 16, STRAND ROAD KOLKATA 700 001 [PAN : AABCT 2426 M] VS. ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, WARD-15(1), KOLKATA...................RESPONDENT APPEARANCES BY: MR. AJIT KORDE, ADVOCATE & MS. RACHNA AGARWAL, CA, APPEARED ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE. DR. P.K. SRIHARI, CIT SR. D/R, APPEARING ON BEHALF OF THE REVENUE. DATE OF CONCLUDING THE HEARING : NOVEMBER 26 TH , 2019 DATE OF PRONOUNCING THE ORDER : DECEMBER 11 TH , 2019 ORDER PER J. SUDHAKAR REDDY, AM :- THIS APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS DIRECTED AGAINST THE FINAL ASSESSMENT ORDER PASSED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER U/S 144C(5) R.W.S. 144C R.W.S. 143(3) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 (HEREINAFTER THE ACT) DT. 31/10/2017. 2. THE FACTS ARE BROUGHT OUT IN PARA 2 OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER, WHICH IS EXTRACTED FOR READY REFERENCE:- PARA. 2 THE ASSESSEE IS ENGAGED IN PROVIDING FREIGHT FORWARDING SERVICES LA ITS ASSOCIATED ENTERPRISES (AES) AND TO OTHERS AS WELL. IT WAS ALSO FOUND THAT THE ASSESSEE IS ENGAGED IN INTERNATIONAL TRANSACTIONS WITH IT AES. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE, THE CASE WAS REFERRED TO TRANSFER PRICING OFFICER (TPO) U/S.92CA(I) FOR DETERMINATION OF ACTUAL ANN'S LENGTH PRICE FOR INTERNATIONAL TRANSACTIONS CARRIED ON BY THE ASSESSEE WITH PRIOR APPROVAL OF THE PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-5, KOLKATA. ACCORDINGLY, THE TPO PASSED THE ORDER U/S. 92C(3) ON 28.10.2016 AND A DRAFT ASSESSMENT ORDER WAS PASSED BY THE UNDERSIGNED AND ISSUED TO THE ASSESSEE. ASSESSEE PREFERRED TO APPEAL BEFORE THE DRP-2, NEW DELHI. HOWEVER, LATER ANOTHER ORDER U/S. 154/92CA(3) OF THE I.T. ACT PASSED BY THE ACIT(TPO)-11, KOLKATA REVISED THE QUANTUM OF ADJUSTMENT TO RS. 5,69,32,392/- INSTEAD OF RS. 2,57,27,161. THE SAID ORDER WAS RECEIVED AT THE OFFICE OF THE UNDERSIGNED ON 20.06.20 17 AND THE COPY OF THE SAID ORDER WAS FORWARDED TO THE DRP-II, NEW DELHI ON 22.06.2017. SUBSEQUENTLY, DRP-II, NEW DELHI PASSED ITS ORDER ON 25.08.2017. IN COMPLIANCE TPO-II, KOLKATA PASSED ITS ORDER GIVING EFFECT TO DRP'S DIRECTION ON 23.10.2017. 3. FURTHER DISALLOWANCE WAS MADE U/S 14A OF THE ACT. 4. AGGRIEVED, THE ASSESSEE IS IN APPEAL BEFORE US, DISPUTING THE TRANSFER PRICING ADJUSTMENT, MADE UNDER THE TRANSFER PRICING PROVISIONS AS WELL AS THE DISALLOWANCE MADE U/S 14A OF THE ACT. 5. THE LD. COUNSEL FOR T (TP) ADJUSTMENT AND SUBMITTED THAT THE TRANSFER PRICING OFFICER (TPO) REJECTED THE INTERNAL COMPARABLES USED BY THE COMPANY FOR BENCHMARKING OF THE TRANSACTION, WITHOUT GIVING ANY REASON, WHATSOEVE SECTION 92 (A) TO (D) OF THE ACT. THE ASSESSING OFFICER/TPO HAS NOT FOLLOWED THE BINDING PROVISIONS OF SECTION 92C(3) OF THE ACT BEFORE PROCEEDING TO DETERMINE THE ARMS LENGTH PRICE (ALP) IN RESPE CT OF THE INTERNATIONAL TRANSACTION. HE ALSO RELIED ON THE CBDT CIRCULAR NO. 12/2001 DT. 23/08/2001 SUB ASSESSING OFFICER IN DETERMINING THE ALP IS ILLEGAL. FOR THIS PROPOSITION, HE RELIED ON CERTAIN CASE-LAW WHICH WE WOULD DISCUSS AS AND WHEN THE OCCASION ARISES. 6. THUS, HE SUBMITS THAT THE ORDER OF THE TPO SHOULD BE QUASHED AND THE TP ADJUSTMENT MADE BE DELETED. ON THE ISSUE OF DETERMINATION OF ALP, HE SUBMITTED THAT THE TPO HAS NOT FOLLOWED THE BINDING OF THE COMPARABLES, THEIR PROFILES, THE ARGUMENTS MADE BY THE ASSESSEE FOR INCLUSION OR EXCLUSION OF THE ABOVE COMPARABLE COMPANY AND THE DECISION OF THE DRP ON THIS ISSUE. ON THE ISSUE OF DISALLOWANCE U/ THE DISALLOWANCE CANNOT EXCEED THE AMOUNT OF EXEMPT INCOME OF BY THE HONBLE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF SECURITIES LTD. IN ITAT 100 OF 2014, GA 2 6.1. THE LD. D/R, RELIED HEAVILY ON THE ORDER OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER AS WELL AS THE TPO. HE POINTED OUT THAT THE TPO HAD STATED THAT HE WAS REJECTING THE METHOD ADOPTED BY THE ASSESSEE FOR DETERMINATION OF ALP BY ADOPTING IN ARGUED THAT THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE WAS WRONG IN SUBMITTED THAT THE REQUIREMENTS OF SECTION 92C(3) OF THE ACT, WERE NOT COMPLIED WITH OFFICER/TPO. 6.2. ON THE ISSUE OF COMPARABLES, HE RELIED ON THE OR AND SUBMITTED THAT, THE DIRECTIONS OF THE DRP ARE BINDING ON THE TPO. HE SUBMITTED THAT 2 AGGRIEVED, THE ASSESSEE IS IN APPEAL BEFORE US, DISPUTING THE TRANSFER PRICING ADJUSTMENT, MADE UNDER THE TRANSFER PRICING PROVISIONS AS WELL AS THE DISALLOWANCE THE LD. COUNSEL FOR T HE ASSESSEE SHRI AJIT KORDE, DISPUTED THE TRANSFER PRICING (TP) ADJUSTMENT AND SUBMITTED THAT THE TRANSFER PRICING OFFICER (TPO) REJECTED THE INTERNAL COMPARABLES USED BY THE COMPANY FOR BENCHMARKING OF THE TRANSACTION, WITHOUT GIVING ANY REASON, WHATSOEVE R. THUS, HE SUBMITS THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER/TPO VIOLATED SECTION 92 (A) TO (D) OF THE ACT. THE ASSESSING OFFICER/TPO HAS NOT FOLLOWED THE BINDING PROVISIONS OF SECTION 92C(3) OF THE ACT BEFORE PROCEEDING TO DETERMINE THE ARMS LENGTH CT OF THE INTERNATIONAL TRANSACTION. HE ALSO RELIED ON THE CBDT CIRCULAR NO. 12/2001 DT. 23/08/2001 SUB - CLAUSE (III) AND ARGUED THAT THE ACTION OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN DETERMINING THE ALP IS ILLEGAL. FOR THIS PROPOSITION, HE RELIED ON WHICH WE WOULD DISCUSS AS AND WHEN THE OCCASION ARISES. THUS, HE SUBMITS THAT THE ORDER OF THE TPO SHOULD BE QUASHED AND THE TP ADJUSTMENT MADE BE DELETED. ON THE ISSUE OF DETERMINATION OF ALP, HE SUBMITTED THAT THE TPO HAS NOT FOLLOWED THE BINDING DIRECTIONS OF THE DRP. HE TOOK THIS BENCH THROUGH EACH OF THE COMPARABLES, THEIR PROFILES, THE ARGUMENTS MADE BY THE ASSESSEE FOR INCLUSION OR EXCLUSION OF THE ABOVE COMPARABLE COMPANY AND THE DECISION OF THE DRP ON THIS ISSUE. ON THE ISSUE OF DISALLOWANCE U/ S 14A OF THE ACT, HE VEHEMENTLY SUBMITTED THAT THE DISALLOWANCE CANNOT EXCEED THE AMOUNT OF EXEMPT INCOME OF RS.6,32,816/ BY THE HONBLE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. M/S. ASHIKA GLOBAL SECURITIES LTD. IN ITAT 100 OF 2014, GA 2 122 OF 2014 DATED 11.06.2018 . THE LD. D/R, RELIED HEAVILY ON THE ORDER OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER AS WELL AS THE TPO. HE POINTED OUT THAT THE TPO HAD STATED THAT HE WAS REJECTING THE METHOD ADOPTED BY THE ASSESSEE FOR DETERMINATION OF ALP BY ADOPTING IN TERNAL COMPARABLES. THUS, HE ARGUED THAT THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE WAS WRONG IN SUBMITTED THAT THE REQUIREMENTS OF SECTION 92C(3) OF THE ACT, WERE NOT COMPLIED WITH ON THE ISSUE OF COMPARABLES, HE RELIED ON THE OR DER OF THE TPO AS WELL AS THE DRP AND SUBMITTED THAT, THE DIRECTIONS OF THE DRP ARE BINDING ON THE TPO. HE SUBMITTED THAT ITA NO. 83/KOL/2018 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2013-14 TKM GLOBAL LOGISTICS LIMITED AGGRIEVED, THE ASSESSEE IS IN APPEAL BEFORE US, DISPUTING THE TRANSFER PRICING ADJUSTMENT, MADE UNDER THE TRANSFER PRICING PROVISIONS AS WELL AS THE DISALLOWANCE HE ASSESSEE SHRI AJIT KORDE, DISPUTED THE TRANSFER PRICING (TP) ADJUSTMENT AND SUBMITTED THAT THE TRANSFER PRICING OFFICER (TPO) REJECTED THE INTERNAL COMPARABLES USED BY THE COMPANY FOR BENCHMARKING OF THE TRANSACTION, WITHOUT R. THUS, HE SUBMITS THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER/TPO VIOLATED SECTION 92 (A) TO (D) OF THE ACT. THE ASSESSING OFFICER/TPO HAS NOT FOLLOWED THE BINDING PROVISIONS OF SECTION 92C(3) OF THE ACT BEFORE PROCEEDING TO DETERMINE THE ARMS LENGTH CT OF THE INTERNATIONAL TRANSACTION. HE ALSO RELIED ON THE CBDT CLAUSE (III) AND ARGUED THAT THE ACTION OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN DETERMINING THE ALP IS ILLEGAL. FOR THIS PROPOSITION, HE RELIED ON WHICH WE WOULD DISCUSS AS AND WHEN THE OCCASION ARISES. THUS, HE SUBMITS THAT THE ORDER OF THE TPO SHOULD BE QUASHED AND THE TP ADJUSTMENT MADE BE DELETED. ON THE ISSUE OF DETERMINATION OF ALP, HE SUBMITTED THAT THE OF THE DRP. HE TOOK THIS BENCH THROUGH EACH OF THE COMPARABLES, THEIR PROFILES, THE ARGUMENTS MADE BY THE ASSESSEE FOR INCLUSION OR EXCLUSION OF THE ABOVE COMPARABLE COMPANY AND THE DECISION OF THE DRP ON THIS ISSUE. S 14A OF THE ACT, HE VEHEMENTLY SUBMITTED THAT RS.6,32,816/ - AS HELD CIT VS. M/S. ASHIKA GLOBAL THE LD. D/R, RELIED HEAVILY ON THE ORDER OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER AS WELL AS THE TPO. HE POINTED OUT THAT THE TPO HAD STATED THAT HE WAS REJECTING THE METHOD ADOPTED TERNAL COMPARABLES. THUS, HE ARGUED THAT THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE WAS WRONG IN SUBMITTED THAT THE REQUIREMENTS OF SECTION 92C(3) OF THE ACT, WERE NOT COMPLIED WITH , BY THE ASSESSING DER OF THE TPO AS WELL AS THE DRP AND SUBMITTED THAT, THE DIRECTIONS OF THE DRP ARE BINDING ON THE TPO. HE SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT FURNISHED SEGMENTAL DATA BEFORE THE TPO AND FOR THIS REASON THE DIRECTIONS OF THE DRP COULD NOT BE IMPLEMENTED. O THE ACT, HE RELIED ON THE ORDER OF THE DRP. 7. WE HAVE HEARD RIVAL CONTENTIONS. ON CAREFUL CONSIDERATION OF THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, PERUSAL OF THE PAPERS ON RECORD, ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW AS WELL AS CASE LAW CITED, WE HOLD AS FOLLOWS: 8. THE TPO IN HIS ORDER PASSED U/S 92CA OF THE ACT, ON 20/10/2016, HAS AT PARA 5:00, STATED AS FOLLOWS:- 5:00 VIDE PAGE- 18, THE ASSESSEE ADOPTED INTERNAL TNMM AS THE MOST APPROPRIATE METHOD FOR BENCHMARKING OF TRANSACTION WITH ITS AES. THE OP/TC OF 7.50% EARNED BY THE ASSESSEE FROM TRANSACTION WITH AE HAS BEEN COMPARED WITH OP/TC OF TRANSACTION WITH NON AES FOR RENDERING OF SERVICES VIS ASSESSEE FROM TRANS ACTION WITH AE HAS BEEN COMPARED WITH OP/SALES OF TRANSACTION WITH NON AES FOR RECEIVING OF SERVICES. VIDE PAGE- 19, THE ASSESSEE HAS ADOPTED CUP AND OTHER METHOD AS THE MOST APPROPRIATE METHOD FOR REIMBURSEMENT/RECOVERY OF EXPENSES. ON THE BASIS OF THE ABOVE THE TRANSACTION WAS CONSIDERED TO BE AT ARMS LENGTH. 8.1. THEREAFTER, AT PARA 6:00, HE SIMPLY STATED AS FOLLOWS: 6:00 THE UNDERSIGNED REJECTED THE APPROACH OF THE ASSESSEE FOR COMPARABLE AS CONSIDERED IN THE TP STUDY REPORT AND H ACCORDINGLY UNDERTAKES FRESH TNMM ANALYSIS, TO CREATE A BROADER AND MORE ACCURATE SET OF COMPARABLES. 9. SECTION 92C(3) OF THE ACT, READS AS FOLLOWS: (3) WHERE DURING THE COURSE OF ANY PROCEEDING FOR THE THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS, ON THE BASIS OF MATERIAL OR INFORMATION OR DOCUMENT IN HIS POSSESSION, OF THE OPINION THAT (A) THE PRICE CHARGED OR PAID IN AN INTERNATIONAL TRANSACTION DOMESTIC TRANSACTION] HAS NOT BEEN DETERMINED IN ACCORDANCE WITH SUB SECTIONS (1) AND (2); OR (B) ANY INFORMATION AND DOCUMENT RELATING TO AN INTERNATIONAL TRANSACTION 99 [OR SP ECIFIED DOMESTIC TRANSACTION] HAVE NOT BEEN KEPT AND MAINTAINED BY THE ASSESSEE IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE PROVISIONS CONTAINED IN SUB SECTION 92D AND THE RULES MADE IN THIS BEHALF; OR (C) THE INFORMATION OR DATA USED IN COMPUTATION OF THE ARMS LENGTH PRICE IS NOT RELIABLE OR CORRECT; OR (D) THE ASSESSEE HAS FAILED TO FURNISH, WITHIN THE SPECIFIED TIME, ANY INFORMATION OR DOCUMENT WHICH HE WAS REQUIRED TO F UNDER SUB- SECTION (3) OF 3 THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT FURNISHED SEGMENTAL DATA BEFORE THE TPO AND FOR THIS REASON THE DIRECTIONS OF THE DRP COULD NOT BE IMPLEMENTED. O N THE ISSUE OF DISALLOWANCE U/S 14A OF THE ACT, HE RELIED ON THE ORDER OF THE DRP. WE HAVE HEARD RIVAL CONTENTIONS. ON CAREFUL CONSIDERATION OF THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, PERUSAL OF THE PAPERS ON RECORD, ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITIES WELL AS CASE LAW CITED, WE HOLD AS FOLLOWS: - THE TPO IN HIS ORDER PASSED U/S 92CA OF THE ACT, ON 20/10/2016, HAS AT PARA 18, THE ASSESSEE ADOPTED INTERNAL TNMM AS THE MOST APPROPRIATE METHOD TRANSACTION WITH ITS AES. THE OP/TC OF 7.50% EARNED BY THE ASSESSEE FROM TRANSACTION WITH AE HAS BEEN COMPARED WITH OP/TC OF - 2.66% EARNED FROM TRANSACTION WITH NON AES FOR RENDERING OF SERVICES VIS -A- VIS OP/SALES OF 6.98% EARNED BY THE ACTION WITH AE HAS BEEN COMPARED WITH OP/SALES OF - 2.73% EARNED FROM TRANSACTION WITH NON AES FOR RECEIVING OF SERVICES. 19, THE ASSESSEE HAS ADOPTED CUP AND OTHER METHOD AS THE MOST APPROPRIATE METHOD FOR REIMBURSEMENT/RECOVERY OF EXPENSES. THE BASIS OF THE ABOVE THE TRANSACTION WAS CONSIDERED TO BE AT ARMS LENGTH. THEREAFTER, AT PARA 6:00, HE SIMPLY STATED AS FOLLOWS: - THE UNDERSIGNED REJECTED THE APPROACH OF THE ASSESSEE FOR COMPARABLE AS CONSIDERED IN THE TP STUDY REPORT AND H ENCE LIABLE TO BE REJECTED. THE UNDERSIGNED ACCORDINGLY UNDERTAKES FRESH TNMM ANALYSIS, TO CREATE A BROADER AND MORE ACCURATE SET OF SECTION 92C(3) OF THE ACT, READS AS FOLLOWS: - (3) WHERE DURING THE COURSE OF ANY PROCEEDING FOR THE ASSESSMENT OF INCOME, THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS, ON THE BASIS OF MATERIAL OR INFORMATION OR DOCUMENT IN HIS POSSESSION, OF THE OPINION THAT (A) THE PRICE CHARGED OR PAID IN AN INTERNATIONAL TRANSACTION 99 [OR SPECIFIED DOMESTIC TRANSACTION] HAS NOT BEEN DETERMINED IN ACCORDANCE WITH SUB (B) ANY INFORMATION AND DOCUMENT RELATING TO AN INTERNATIONAL TRANSACTION ECIFIED DOMESTIC TRANSACTION] HAVE NOT BEEN KEPT AND MAINTAINED BY THE ASSESSEE IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE PROVISIONS CONTAINED IN SUB - SECTION (1) OF RULES MADE IN THIS BEHALF; OR (C) THE INFORMATION OR DATA USED IN COMPUTATION OF THE ARMS LENGTH PRICE IS NOT RELIABLE OR CORRECT; OR (D) THE ASSESSEE HAS FAILED TO FURNISH, WITHIN THE SPECIFIED TIME, ANY INFORMATION OR DOCUMENT WHICH HE WAS REQUIRED TO F URNISH BY A NOTICE ISSUED SECTION (3) OF SECTION 92D , ITA NO. 83/KOL/2018 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2013-14 TKM GLOBAL LOGISTICS LIMITED THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT FURNISHED SEGMENTAL DATA BEFORE THE TPO AND FOR THIS REASON THE N THE ISSUE OF DISALLOWANCE U/S 14A OF WE HAVE HEARD RIVAL CONTENTIONS. ON CAREFUL CONSIDERATION OF THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, PERUSAL OF THE PAPERS ON RECORD, ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITIES THE TPO IN HIS ORDER PASSED U/S 92CA OF THE ACT, ON 20/10/2016, HAS AT PARA 18, THE ASSESSEE ADOPTED INTERNAL TNMM AS THE MOST APPROPRIATE METHOD TRANSACTION WITH ITS AES. THE OP/TC OF 7.50% EARNED BY THE ASSESSEE 2.66% EARNED FROM VIS OP/SALES OF 6.98% EARNED BY THE 2.73% EARNED FROM 19, THE ASSESSEE HAS ADOPTED CUP AND OTHER METHOD AS THE MOST APPROPRIATE THE BASIS OF THE ABOVE THE TRANSACTION WAS CONSIDERED TO BE AT ARMS LENGTH. THE UNDERSIGNED REJECTED THE APPROACH OF THE ASSESSEE FOR COMPARABLE AS ENCE LIABLE TO BE REJECTED. THE UNDERSIGNED ACCORDINGLY UNDERTAKES FRESH TNMM ANALYSIS, TO CREATE A BROADER AND MORE ACCURATE SET OF ASSESSMENT OF INCOME, THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS, ON THE BASIS OF MATERIAL OR INFORMATION OR DOCUMENT [OR SPECIFIED DOMESTIC TRANSACTION] HAS NOT BEEN DETERMINED IN ACCORDANCE WITH SUB - (B) ANY INFORMATION AND DOCUMENT RELATING TO AN INTERNATIONAL TRANSACTION ECIFIED DOMESTIC TRANSACTION] HAVE NOT BEEN KEPT AND MAINTAINED BY SECTION (1) OF (C) THE INFORMATION OR DATA USED IN COMPUTATION OF THE ARMS LENGTH PRICE IS (D) THE ASSESSEE HAS FAILED TO FURNISH, WITHIN THE SPECIFIED TIME, ANY URNISH BY A NOTICE ISSUED THE ASSESSING OFFICER MAY PROCEED TO DETERMINE THE ARMS LENGTH PRICE IN RELATION TO THE SAID INTERNAT TRANSACTION] IN ACCORDANCE WITH SUB MATERIAL OR INFORMATION OR DOCUMENT AVAILABLE WITH HI 10. THE CBDT IN ITS CIRCULAR NO. 12/2001, DT. 23/08/2001, HELD AS FOLLOWS: HOWEVER, THIS IS A NEW LEGISLATION. IN THE INITIAL YEARS OF ITS IMPLEMENTATION, THERE MAY BE ROOM FOR DIFFERENT INTERPRETATIONS LEADING TO UNCERTAINTIES WITH REGARD TO DETERMINATION OF ARM'S LENGTH NECESSARY TO PROTECT OUR TAX BASE, THERE IS A NEED TO ENSURE THAT THE TAXPAYERS ARE NOT PUT TO AVOIDABLE HARDSHIP IN THE IMPLEMENTATION OF THESE REGULATIONS. IN THIS BACKGROUND THE BOARD HAVE DECIDED (I) THE ASSESSING OFFICER SHALL NOT MAKE ANY ADJUSTMENT TO THE ARM'S LENGTH PRICE DETERMINED BY THE TAXPAYER, IF SUCH PRICE IS UP TO 5 PER CENT LESS OR UP TO 5 PER CENT MORE THAN THE PRICE DETERMINED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. IN SUCH CAS DECLARED BY THE TAXPAYER MAY BE ACCEPTED. (II) THE PROVISIONS OF SECTIONS 92 AND 92A TO 92F COME INTO FORCE WITH EFFECT FROM 1ST APRIL, 2002, AND ARE ACCORDINGLY APPLICABLE TO THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2002 SUBSEQUENT YEARS. THE LAW DOCUMENTS AND INFORMATION RELATING TO INTERNATIONAL TRANSACTIONS AS MAY BE PRESCRIBED. HOWEVER, THE NECESSARY RULES COULD BE FRAMED BY THE BOARD ONLY AFTER THE FINANCE BILL RECEIVED THE ASSENT OF THE PRE THEREFORE, WHERE AN ASSESSEE HAS FAILED TO MAINTAIN THE PRESCRIBED INFORMATION OR DOCUMENTS IN RESPECT OF TRANSACTIONS ENTERED INTO DURING THE PERIOD 1 8- 2001 THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 92C(3) SHOULD NOT BE I PENALTY PROCEEDINGS UNDER SECTION 271AA OR 271G SHOULD ALSO NOT BE INITIATED FOR SUCH DEFAULT. (III) IT SHOULD BE MADE CLEAR TO THE CONCERNED ASSESSING OFFICER THAT WHERE AN INTERNATIONAL TRANSACTION HAS BEEN PUT TO A SCRUTINY, RECOURSE TO SUB- SECTION (3) OF SECTION 92C ONLY UNDER THE CIRCUMSTANCES ENUMERATED IN CLAUSES (A) TO (D) OF THAT SUB DOCUMENTS IN HIS POSSESSION ON THE BASIS OF WHICH AN OPI ANY SUCH CIRCUMSTANCES EXISTS. IN ALL OTHER CASES, THE VALUE OF THE INTERNATIONAL TRANSACTION SHOULD BE ACCEPTED WITHOUT FURTHER SCRUTINY. 10.1. THE ASSESSEE OB JECTED TO THE REJECTION OF INTERNAL TRANSACTIONAL NET MARGIN METHOD (TNMM) AS THE MOST APPROPRIATE METHOD (MAM) BY THE TPO. THE OBJECTIONS ARE BROUGHT OUT AT LENGTH AT PARA 6.01 OF THE TP REPORT. THIS IS NOT EXTRACTED FOR THE SAKE OF BREVITY. 10.2. AT PARA 6.02, THE TPO REJECTED THE WORDS:- THE SUBMISSION OF THE ASSESSEE HAS BEEN PERUSED. THE CONTENTIONS OF THE ASSESSEE ON THIS ISSUE IS NOT ACCEPTABLE. 4 THE ASSESSING OFFICER MAY PROCEED TO DETERMINE THE ARMS LENGTH PRICE IN RELATION TO THE SAID INTERNAT IONAL TRANSACTION 99 [OR SPECIFIED DOMESTIC TRANSACTION] IN ACCORDANCE WITH SUB - SECTIONS (1) AND (2), ON THE BASIS OF SUCH MATERIAL OR INFORMATION OR DOCUMENT AVAILABLE WITH HI M CIRCULAR NO. 12/2001, DT. 23/08/2001, HELD AS FOLLOWS: HOWEVER, THIS IS A NEW LEGISLATION. IN THE INITIAL YEARS OF ITS IMPLEMENTATION, THERE MAY BE ROOM FOR DIFFERENT INTERPRETATIONS LEADING TO UNCERTAINTIES WITH REGARD TO DETERMINATION OF ARM'S LENGTH PRICE OF AN INTERNATIONAL TRANSACTION. WHILE IT WOULD BE NECESSARY TO PROTECT OUR TAX BASE, THERE IS A NEED TO ENSURE THAT THE TAXPAYERS ARE NOT PUT TO AVOIDABLE HARDSHIP IN THE IMPLEMENTATION OF THESE REGULATIONS. IN THIS BACKGROUND THE BOARD HAVE DECIDED THE FOLLOWING : THE ASSESSING OFFICER SHALL NOT MAKE ANY ADJUSTMENT TO THE ARM'S LENGTH PRICE DETERMINED BY THE TAXPAYER, IF SUCH PRICE IS UP TO 5 PER CENT LESS OR UP TO 5 PER CENT MORE THAN THE PRICE DETERMINED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. IN SUCH CAS DECLARED BY THE TAXPAYER MAY BE ACCEPTED. THE PROVISIONS OF SECTIONS 92 AND 92A TO 92F COME INTO FORCE WITH EFFECT FROM 1ST APRIL, 2002, AND ARE ACCORDINGLY APPLICABLE TO THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2002 SUBSEQUENT YEARS. THE LAW REQUIRES THE ASSOCIATED ENTERPRISES TO MAINTAIN SUCH DOCUMENTS AND INFORMATION RELATING TO INTERNATIONAL TRANSACTIONS AS MAY BE PRESCRIBED. HOWEVER, THE NECESSARY RULES COULD BE FRAMED BY THE BOARD ONLY AFTER THE FINANCE BILL RECEIVED THE ASSENT OF THE PRE SIDENT AND HAVE JUST BEEN NOTIFIED. THEREFORE, WHERE AN ASSESSEE HAS FAILED TO MAINTAIN THE PRESCRIBED INFORMATION OR DOCUMENTS IN RESPECT OF TRANSACTIONS ENTERED INTO DURING THE PERIOD 1 2001 THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 92C(3) SHOULD NOT BE I NVOKED FOR SUCH FAILURE. PENALTY PROCEEDINGS UNDER SECTION 271AA OR 271G SHOULD ALSO NOT BE INITIATED FOR IT SHOULD BE MADE CLEAR TO THE CONCERNED ASSESSING OFFICER THAT WHERE AN INTERNATIONAL TRANSACTION HAS BEEN PUT TO A SCRUTINY, THE ASSESSING OFFICER CAN HAVE SECTION (3) OF SECTION 92C ONLY UNDER THE CIRCUMSTANCES ENUMERATED IN CLAUSES (A) TO (D) OF THAT SUB - SECTION AND IN THE EVENT OF MATERIAL INFORMATION OR DOCUMENTS IN HIS POSSESSION ON THE BASIS OF WHICH AN OPI NION CAN BE FORMED THAT ANY SUCH CIRCUMSTANCES EXISTS. IN ALL OTHER CASES, THE VALUE OF THE INTERNATIONAL TRANSACTION SHOULD BE ACCEPTED WITHOUT FURTHER SCRUTINY. ( EMPHASIS OURS) JECTED TO THE REJECTION OF INTERNAL TRANSACTIONAL NET MARGIN METHOD (TNMM) AS THE MOST APPROPRIATE METHOD (MAM) BY THE TPO. THE OBJECTIONS ARE BROUGHT OUT AT LENGTH AT PARA 6.01 OF THE TP REPORT. THIS IS NOT EXTRACTED FOR THE SAKE OF 6.02, THE TPO REJECTED THE OBJECT IONS OF THE ASSESSEE IN THE FOLLOWING THE SUBMISSION OF THE ASSESSEE HAS BEEN PERUSED. THE CONTENTIONS OF THE ASSESSEE ON THIS ISSUE IS NOT ACCEPTABLE. ITA NO. 83/KOL/2018 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2013-14 TKM GLOBAL LOGISTICS LIMITED THE ASSESSING OFFICER MAY PROCEED TO DETERMINE THE ARMS LENGTH PRICE IN [OR SPECIFIED DOMESTIC SECTIONS (1) AND (2), ON THE BASIS OF SUCH CIRCULAR NO. 12/2001, DT. 23/08/2001, HELD AS FOLLOWS: - HOWEVER, THIS IS A NEW LEGISLATION. IN THE INITIAL YEARS OF ITS IMPLEMENTATION, THERE MAY BE ROOM FOR DIFFERENT INTERPRETATIONS LEADING TO UNCERTAINTIES WITH REGARD TO PRICE OF AN INTERNATIONAL TRANSACTION. WHILE IT WOULD BE NECESSARY TO PROTECT OUR TAX BASE, THERE IS A NEED TO ENSURE THAT THE TAXPAYERS ARE NOT THE ASSESSING OFFICER SHALL NOT MAKE ANY ADJUSTMENT TO THE ARM'S LENGTH PRICE DETERMINED BY THE TAXPAYER, IF SUCH PRICE IS UP TO 5 PER CENT LESS OR UP TO 5 PER CENT MORE THAN THE PRICE DETERMINED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. IN SUCH CAS ES THE PRICE THE PROVISIONS OF SECTIONS 92 AND 92A TO 92F COME INTO FORCE WITH EFFECT FROM 1ST APRIL, 2002, AND ARE ACCORDINGLY APPLICABLE TO THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2002 -03 AND REQUIRES THE ASSOCIATED ENTERPRISES TO MAINTAIN SUCH DOCUMENTS AND INFORMATION RELATING TO INTERNATIONAL TRANSACTIONS AS MAY BE PRESCRIBED. HOWEVER, THE NECESSARY RULES COULD BE FRAMED BY THE BOARD ONLY AFTER SIDENT AND HAVE JUST BEEN NOTIFIED. THEREFORE, WHERE AN ASSESSEE HAS FAILED TO MAINTAIN THE PRESCRIBED INFORMATION OR DOCUMENTS IN RESPECT OF TRANSACTIONS ENTERED INTO DURING THE PERIOD 1 -4-2001 TO 31- NVOKED FOR SUCH FAILURE. PENALTY PROCEEDINGS UNDER SECTION 271AA OR 271G SHOULD ALSO NOT BE INITIATED FOR IT SHOULD BE MADE CLEAR TO THE CONCERNED ASSESSING OFFICER THAT WHERE AN THE ASSESSING OFFICER CAN HAVE SECTION (3) OF SECTION 92C ONLY UNDER THE CIRCUMSTANCES ENUMERATED SECTION AND IN THE EVENT OF MATERIAL INFORMATION OR NION CAN BE FORMED THAT ANY SUCH CIRCUMSTANCES EXISTS. IN ALL OTHER CASES, THE VALUE OF THE INTERNATIONAL EMPHASIS OURS) JECTED TO THE REJECTION OF INTERNAL TRANSACTIONAL NET MARGIN METHOD (TNMM) AS THE MOST APPROPRIATE METHOD (MAM) BY THE TPO. THE OBJECTIONS ARE BROUGHT OUT AT LENGTH AT PARA 6.01 OF THE TP REPORT. THIS IS NOT EXTRACTED FOR THE SAKE OF IONS OF THE ASSESSEE IN THE FOLLOWING THE SUBMISSION OF THE ASSESSEE HAS BEEN PERUSED. THE CONTENTIONS OF THE ASSESSEE ON THIS 11. THE ABOVE ACTION OF THE TPO CLEARLY DEMONSTRATES THAT TH SUB- SECTION (3) OF SECTION 92C OF THE ACT HAVE NOT BEEN COMPLIED WITH. MERE REJECTION OF THE ALP COMPUTED BY THE ASSESSEE IN ITS TP STUDY, IS NOT IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW. 11.1. RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING THE PROPOSITION OF LAW LAID DO APPLYING THE SAME TO THE FACTS OF THE CASE ON HAND, WE HAVE TO NECESSARILY HOLD THAT THE COMPUTATION OF ALP BY THE TPO UNDER THE CIRCUMSTANCES IS BAD IN LAW. THE T.P. ADJUSTMENT IN QUESTION. 12. AS WE HAVE HEARD THE THE ASSESSEE ON THE ISSUE OF ALP. 13. IN THE CASE OF AQUA LOGISTICS LIMITED AND OM LOGISTICS LIMITED, WE FIND THAT THE DRP STATED AS FOLLOWS:- THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS DIRECTED TO EXAMINE THE COMPARABILITY OF THE SEGMENTAL DATA OF FREIGHT FORWARDING SERVICES AND IF IT PASSES THE FILTERS IT SHOULD BE RETAINED OTHERWISE IT SHOULD BE EXCLUDED. THE TPO HAS NOT COMPLIED WITH THESE WHAT IS THE SEGMENTAL DATA AVAILABLE AND HOW IT IS COMPARABLE. SIMPLY STATING ACCORDINGLY VERIFIED AND RETAINED IS NOT SUFFICIENT. A SPEAKING ORDER HAS TO BE PASSED SO AS TO ENABLE THE ASSESSEE TO CHALLENGE THE FINDINGS IN CASE, SAME. AS THIS IS NOT DONE, WE DIRECT THE TPO NOT TO TAKE AQUA LOGISTICS LIMITED AND OM LOGISTICS LIMITED AS COMPARABLES FOR THE PURPOSE OF THE COMPUTATION OF ALP. 14. SICAL LOGISTICS LTD. ALSO CANNOT BE TAKEN AS A COMPARABLE COM THAT THE TPO HAS NOT CARRIED OUT THE DIRECTIONS OF THE DRP. THE DRP DIRECTED THE TPO TO EXAMINE THE COMPARABILITY OF THE SEGMENTAL DATA OF FREIGHT FORWARDING SERVICES AND IF IT PASSES THE FILTERS THEN ONLY IT SHOULD HAVE BEEN RETAINED A ORDER HAS BEEN PASSED, THIS COMPARABLE IS DELETED. 15. IN THE CASE OF HINDUSTAN DIRECTED THE TPO TO INCLUDE THE SAME AS A COMPARABLE. THE TPO HAS IGNORED THESE BINDING DIRE CTIONS. HENCE WE INCLUDE BOTH THESE COMPANIES AS COMPARABLES FOR THE PURPOSE OF COMPUTATION OF ALP. IN THE RESULT, THIS GROUND OF THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED. 5 THE ABOVE ACTION OF THE TPO CLEARLY DEMONSTRATES THAT TH E CONDITIONS SECTION (3) OF SECTION 92C OF THE ACT HAVE NOT BEEN COMPLIED WITH. MERE REJECTION OF THE ALP COMPUTED BY THE ASSESSEE IN ITS TP STUDY, IS NOT IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW. RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING THE PROPOSITION OF LAW LAID DO WN IN THIS CASE LAW AND APPLYING THE SAME TO THE FACTS OF THE CASE ON HAND, WE HAVE TO NECESSARILY HOLD THAT THE COMPUTATION OF ALP BY THE TPO UNDER THE CIRCUMSTANCES IS BAD IN LAW. THE T.P. ADJUSTMENT IN QUESTION. AS WE HAVE HEARD THE MATTER AT LENGTH, WE NOW CONSIDER THE OTHER ARGUMENTS OF THE ASSESSEE ON THE ISSUE OF SELECTION OF COMPARABLE COMPANIES WHILE DETERMINING THE AQUA LOGISTICS LIMITED AND OM LOGISTICS LIMITED, WE FIND THAT THE THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS DIRECTED TO EXAMINE THE COMPARABILITY OF THE SEGMENTAL DATA OF FREIGHT FORWARDING SERVICES AND IF IT PASSES THE FILTERS IT SHOULD BE RETAINED OTHERWISE THE TPO HAS NOT COMPLIED WITH THESE BINDING DIRECTION S. HE HAS NOT BROUGHT OUT WHAT IS THE SEGMENTAL DATA AVAILABLE AND HOW IT IS COMPARABLE. SIMPLY STATING ACCORDINGLY VERIFIED AND RETAINED IS NOT SUFFICIENT. A SPEAKING ORDER HAS TO BE PASSED SO AS TO ENABLE THE ASSESSEE TO CHALLENGE THE FINDINGS IN CASE, IT IS NOT AGREEABLE TO THE SAME. AS THIS IS NOT DONE, WE DIRECT THE TPO NOT TO TAKE AQUA LOGISTICS LIMITED AND OM LOGISTICS LIMITED AS COMPARABLES FOR THE PURPOSE OF THE COMPUTATION OF ALP. SICAL LOGISTICS LTD. ALSO CANNOT BE TAKEN AS A COMPARABLE COM PANY FOR THE REASON THAT THE TPO HAS NOT CARRIED OUT THE DIRECTIONS OF THE DRP. THE DRP DIRECTED THE TPO TO EXAMINE THE COMPARABILITY OF THE SEGMENTAL DATA OF FREIGHT FORWARDING SERVICES AND IF IT PASSES THE FILTERS THEN ONLY IT SHOULD HAVE BEEN RETAINED A S A COMPARABLE. AS NO SPEAKING ORDER HAS BEEN PASSED, THIS COMPARABLE IS DELETED. IN THE CASE OF HINDUSTAN CARGO LTD., TVS DYNAMIC GLOBAL FREIGHT LTD., THE DRP DIRECTED THE TPO TO INCLUDE THE SAME AS A COMPARABLE. THE TPO HAS IGNORED THESE CTIONS. HENCE WE INCLUDE BOTH THESE COMPANIES AS COMPARABLES FOR THE PURPOSE OF COMPUTATION OF ALP. IN THE RESULT, THIS GROUND OF THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED. ITA NO. 83/KOL/2018 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2013-14 TKM GLOBAL LOGISTICS LIMITED E CONDITIONS SPECIFIED IN SECTION (3) OF SECTION 92C OF THE ACT HAVE NOT BEEN COMPLIED WITH. MERE REJECTION OF THE ALP COMPUTED BY THE ASSESSEE IN ITS TP STUDY, IS NOT IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW. WN IN THIS CASE LAW AND APPLYING THE SAME TO THE FACTS OF THE CASE ON HAND, WE HAVE TO NECESSARILY HOLD THAT THE COMPUTATION OF ALP BY THE TPO UNDER THE CIRCUMSTANCES IS BAD IN LAW. HENCE WE DELETE MATTER AT LENGTH, WE NOW CONSIDER THE OTHER ARGUMENTS OF SELECTION OF COMPARABLE COMPANIES WHILE DETERMINING THE AQUA LOGISTICS LIMITED AND OM LOGISTICS LIMITED, WE FIND THAT THE THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS DIRECTED TO EXAMINE THE COMPARABILITY OF THE SEGMENTAL DATA OF FREIGHT FORWARDING SERVICES AND IF IT PASSES THE FILTERS IT SHOULD BE RETAINED OTHERWISE S. HE HAS NOT BROUGHT OUT WHAT IS THE SEGMENTAL DATA AVAILABLE AND HOW IT IS COMPARABLE. SIMPLY STATING ACCORDINGLY VERIFIED AND RETAINED IS NOT SUFFICIENT. A SPEAKING ORDER HAS TO BE PASSED IT IS NOT AGREEABLE TO THE SAME. AS THIS IS NOT DONE, WE DIRECT THE TPO NOT TO TAKE AQUA LOGISTICS LIMITED AND OM LOGISTICS LIMITED AS COMPARABLES FOR THE PURPOSE OF THE COMPUTATION OF ALP. PANY FOR THE REASON THAT THE TPO HAS NOT CARRIED OUT THE DIRECTIONS OF THE DRP. THE DRP DIRECTED THE TPO TO EXAMINE THE COMPARABILITY OF THE SEGMENTAL DATA OF FREIGHT FORWARDING SERVICES AND IF IT S A COMPARABLE. AS NO SPEAKING CARGO LTD., TVS DYNAMIC GLOBAL FREIGHT LTD., THE DRP DIRECTED THE TPO TO INCLUDE THE SAME AS A COMPARABLE. THE TPO HAS IGNORED THESE CTIONS. HENCE WE INCLUDE BOTH THESE COMPANIES AS COMPARABLES FOR THE PURPOSE OF COMPUTATION OF ALP. IN THE RESULT, THIS GROUND OF THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED. 16. THE NEXT ISSUE IS DISALLOWANCE U/S 14A OF THE ACT. THOUGH, A NUMBER OF CONTENTIONS WERE RAISED, T HE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT THE EXEMPT INCOME EARNED BY THE ASSESSEE WAS RS.6,37,816/ RESTRICTED TO THIS FIGURE IN VIEW OF THE JUDGMENT OF THE HONBLE DELHI HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF JOINT INVESTMENT (P) L ASSESSING OFFICER HAS DISALLOWED AN AMOUNT OF RS.13,89,779/ FOLLOWING THE JUDGMENT IN THE CASE OF DISALLOWANCE TO RS.6,37,816/ 17. IN THE RESULT, APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED IN PART. KOLKATA, THE SD/- [S.S. GODARA] JUDICIAL MEMBER DATED : 11.12.2019 {SC SPS} COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO: 1. TKM GLOBAL LOGISTICS LIMITED ROOM NO. 710 & 711 7 TH FLOOR DIAMOND HERITAGE 16, STRAND ROAD KOLKATA 700 001 2. ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, WARD 3. CIT(A)- 4. CIT- , 5. CIT(DR), KOLKATA BENCHES, KOLKATA. 6 THE NEXT ISSUE IS DISALLOWANCE U/S 14A OF THE ACT. THOUGH, A NUMBER OF HE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT THE EXEMPT INCOME EARNED BY THE ASSESSEE WAS RS.6,37,816/ - AND THE DISALLOWANCE SHOULD BE RESTRICTED TO THIS FIGURE IN VIEW OF THE JUDGMENT OF THE HONBLE DELHI HIGH COURT IN THE JOINT INVESTMENT (P) L TD. VS. CIT REPORTED IN [2015] 372 ITR 694 (DELHI) ASSESSING OFFICER HAS DISALLOWED AN AMOUNT OF RS.13,89,779/ - , IN THIS CASE. RESPECTFULLY, FOLLOWING THE JUDGMENT IN THE CASE OF JOINT INVESTMENT (P) LTD. (SUPRA) DISALLOWANCE TO RS.6,37,816/ -. HENCE T HIS GROUND OF THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED IN PART. IN THE RESULT, APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED IN PART. KOLKATA, THE 11 TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 201 9 [ J. SUDHAKAR REDDY ACCOUNTANT MEMBER TKM GLOBAL LOGISTICS LIMITED ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, WARD -15(1), KOLKATA 5. CIT(DR), KOLKATA BENCHES, KOLKATA. ASSISTANT REGISTRAR ITAT, KOLKATA BENCHES ITA NO. 83/KOL/2018 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2013-14 TKM GLOBAL LOGISTICS LIMITED THE NEXT ISSUE IS DISALLOWANCE U/S 14A OF THE ACT. THOUGH, A NUMBER OF HE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT THE EXEMPT AND THE DISALLOWANCE SHOULD BE RESTRICTED TO THIS FIGURE IN VIEW OF THE JUDGMENT OF THE HONBLE DELHI HIGH COURT IN THE [2015] 372 ITR 694 (DELHI) . THE , IN THIS CASE. RESPECTFULLY, JOINT INVESTMENT (P) LTD. (SUPRA) , WE RESTRICT THE HIS GROUND OF THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED IN PART. 9 . SD/- J. SUDHAKAR REDDY ] ACCOUNTANT MEMBER TRUE COPY BY ORDER ASSISTANT REGISTRAR ITAT, KOLKATA BENCHES 7 ITA NO. 83/KOL/2018 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2013-14 TKM GLOBAL LOGISTICS LIMITED