M/s Markit India Services Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi V. DCIT, New Delhi

ITA 84/DEL/2016

• Counselvise Citation: [2018] 119 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 4748 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 year(s) 9 month(s) 23 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 29-10-2018
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Bench Allotted: I
• Assessment Year: 2011-2012
• Appeal Filed On: 05-01-2016
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: A SREENIVASA RAO
• Assessee Lawyers: MANONEET DALAL; VISHU GOEL ADVS; ARVINDER SINGH
• Keywords: Transfer pricing; Principle of natural justice; International transaction
• Section: 143(3); 142(1); 10B; 92

Judgement Text

1 ITA NO. 84/DEL/2016 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLA TE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH: I-1 NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI N. K. BILLAIYA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND MS SUCHITRA KAMBLE, JUDI CIAL MEMBER I.T.A .NO. 84/DEL/201 6 (A.Y 2010-11) MARKIT INDIA SERVICES PVT. LTD. 46, ARADHANA, CHANAKYA PURI, NEW DELHI AAFCM9899R (APPELLANT) VS DCIT CIRCLE 16(1 NEW DELHI (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY SH. MANONEET DALAL & VISHU GOEL, ADVS AND SH. ARVINDER SINGH, CA RESPONDENT BY SH. A. SREENIVASA RAO, SR. DR ORDER PER SUCHITRA KAMBLE, JM THIS APPEAL IS FILED AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 29/10/ 2015 PASSED BY DCIT, TPO-2(2), NEW DELHI U/S 143(3) READ WITH SECTION 14 4C (3) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961, FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2011-12. 2. THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL ARE AS UNDER:- APPEAL AGAINST THE APPELLATE ORDER UNDER SECTION 14 3 (3) READ WITH SECTION 144C OF THE INCOME 'AX ACT, 1961 (THE ACT) DATED OCTOBER 29, 2015 FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2011-12 PASSED BY THE DEPUTY CO MMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 16(1) NEW DELHI (HEREINAFTER REF ERRED TO AS LD. AO'). 1. THAT ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN LAW, THE ORDER PASSED BY THE LD. ASSESSING OFFICER (AO) IS BAD IN LAW. 2. THAT ON FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN LAW, THE REFERENCE DATE OF HEARING 15.10.2018 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT 29.10.2018 2 ITA NO. 84/DEL/2016 MADE BY THE LD. AO SUFFERS FROM JURISDICTIONAL ERRO R AS THE LD. AO DID NOT RECORD ANY REASONS IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER BASED ON WHICH HE REACHED THE CONCLUSION THAT IT WAS EXPEDIENT AND NECESSARY TO REFER THE MATTER TO THE LD. TRANSFER PRICING OFFICER (TPO) FOR COMPUT ATION OF THE ARMS LENGTH PRICE, AS IS REQUIRED UNDER SECTION 92 CA (1) OF TH E ACT. 3. THAT ON FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN LAW, THE LD. AO/ LD. TPO/ LD. DISPUTE RESOLUTION PANEL (DRP) ERRED IN MAKING AN ADJUSTMENT TO THE ARMS LENGTH PRICE (ALP) OF THE APPELLANT S INTERNATIONAL TRANSACTIONS, RELATING TO PROVISION OF BACK OFFICE AND RESEARCH RELATED SERVICES, WITH ASSOCIATED ENTERPRISES (AES) AMOUN TING TO INR 12,283,545 BY: 3.1 MODIFYING THE COMPARABILITY ANALYSIS CONDUCTED IN THE TRANSFER PRICING DOCUMENTATION OF THE APPELLANT ON INAPPROPR IATE AND INADEQUATE GROUNDS; 3.2 REJECTING THE APPLICABILITY OF FUNCTIONAL FILTER A PPLIED IN THE SEARCH PROCESS BY THE APPELLANT; 3.3 REJECTING OMEGA HEALTHCARE MANAGEMENT SERVICES PRI VATE LIMITED AND ZAVATA INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED WHICH WERE COMPARA BLE TO THE APPELLANT, ON GROUND OF UNAVAILABILITY OF RELIABLE FINANCIAL INFORMATION; 3.4 SELECTING ECLERX SERVICES LIMITED, WHICH WAS NOT C OMPARABLE TO THE APPELLANT ON VARIOUS GROUNDS; 3.5 CONFIRMING THE SELECTION OF CURRENT YEAR (I.E. FIN ANCIAL YEAR 2010-11) DATA FOR COMPARABILITY; 3.6 ERRED IN COMPUTING THE MARGINS OF COMPARABLE COMPAN IES SELECTED; 3.7 ERRED IN NOT ALLOWING THE BENEFIT OF WORKING CAPIT AL ADJUSTMENT. 4. THAT ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AN D IN LAW THE LD. AO/ LD. TPO ERRED IN NOT EXAMINING THE VALIDITY OF INIT IATION OF PENALTY PROCEEDINGS U/S 271 (1) (C) OF THE ACT. 5. THAT ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AN D IN LAW, THE LD. AO ERRED IN CHARGING AND COMPUTING INTEREST UNDER SECT ION 234B, 234C AND 234D OF THE ACT. THAT THE APPELLANT CRAVES LEAVE TO ADD, ALTER, AMEN D OR WITHDRAW ANY GROUND OF APPEAL EITHER BEFORE OR AT THE TIME OF HEARING OF T HIS APPEAL AS THEY MAY BE ADVISED. THAT, THE ABOVE GROUNDS ARE INDEPENDENT AN D WITHOUT PREJUDICE TO EACH OTHER. 3 ITA NO. 84/DEL/2016 3. THE ASSESSEE COMPANY IS INCORPORATED UNDER THE C OMPANIES ACT, 1956 IN MARCH 2009 AND IS A WHOLLY-OWNED SUBSIDIARY OF M ARKIT NV, THE NETHERLANDS. THE ASSESSEE COMPANY IS ENGAGED IN TH E BUSINESS OF FINANCIAL DATA PROCESSING AND ANALYSIS INCLUDING ASSIMILATION TO THE OVERSEAS CLIENT. RETURN OF INCOME DECLARING RS. 4,09,11,339/- WAS E- FILED BY THE ASSESSEE COMPANY ON 19/11/2011. THE CASE WAS PROCESSED U/S 143(1) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961. SUBSEQUENTLY, NOTICE U/S 143(2) OF T HE ACT DATED 11/9/2012 WAS ISSUED TO THE ASSESSEE COMPANY AND DULY CERTIFI ED. THEREAFTER, DETAILED QUESTIONNAIRE U/S 142(1) CALLING FOR FURNISHING DET AILS/INFORMATION ON 22/4/2013. AGAIN NOTICE U/S 143(2) AND 142(1) WAS ISSUED ON 17/11/2014 AND DULY SERVED UPON THE ASSESSEE. IN COMPLIANCE T O THE AFORESAID NOTICES, THE CHARTERED ACCOUNTANT AND AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE OF THE ASSESSEE COMPANY APPEARED FROM TIME TO TIME FOR REPRESENTING THE CAS E OF THE ASSESSEE AND FURNISHED THE DETAILS/INFORMATION REQUESTED FROM TH E ASSESSEE WHICH WAS EXAMINED AND PLACE ON RECORD BY THE ASSESSING OFFIC ER. A REFERENCE U/S 92CA OF THE INCOME TAX ACT WAS MADE TO THE TRANSFER PRIC ING OFFICE (TPO). THE TPO VIDE ORDER DATED 16/1/2015 MADE THE FOLLOWING ADJUS TMENTS:- OPERATIONAL COST 17750568 ALP AT A MARGIN OF 31.74% 233845835 PRICE RECEIVED 212722513 105% OF THE PRICE RECEIVED 223358639 ADJUSTMENT U/S 92CA 21123322 THE ABOVE REVISED SHORTFALL OF RS.2,11,23,322/- WAS PROPOSED AS ADJUSTMENT TO THE PRICE SHOWN BY THE TAXPAYER IN ITS BOOKS OF ACC OUNTS BY THE TPO. 4. THUS, THE TPO DIRECTED THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO MAKE AN ADJUSTMENT OF RS.2,11,23,322/- ON ACCOUNT OF INTERNATIONAL TRANSA CTIONS. THEREAFTER, THE DRAFT ASSESSMENT ORDER COMPUTING THE TAXABLE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE COMPANY AT RS.6,20,47,261/- U/S 144C DATED 23/2/201 5 WAS FORWARDED TO 4 ITA NO. 84/DEL/2016 THE ASSESSEE. THE ASSESSEE FILED ITS OBJECTION BEF ORE THE DISPUTE RESOLUTION PANEL (DRP). THE DRP VIDE DIRECTION DATED 8/9/2015 HELD THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER /TPO SHALL VERIFY THE MARGINS IN CASE OF CO MPARABLES DETAILS AND CARRY OUT REQUIRED CORRECTIONS. THE TPO VIDE OFFICE LETT ER DATED 15/9/2015 AND REMINDER LETTER DATED 9/10/2015 WAS REQUESTED TO PA SS AN ORDER GIVING EFFECT TO THE DIRECTIONS OF THE DRR. THE ORDER OF THE TPO DATED 13/10/2015 GIVING EFFECT TO THE DIRECTION OF DRP WAS SENT TO THE OFFI CE OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER ON 14/10/2015 WHEREIN THE FOLLOWING OBSERVATIONS WAS M ADE:- ON THE BASIS OF THE DRP DIRECTIONS, THE ARMS LENG TH PRICE IS RECOMPUTED AS FOLLOWS: OPERATIONAL COST 17,505,568 ALP AT A MARGIN OF 26.76% 225,006,057 PRICE RECEIVED 212,722,513 105% OF THE PRICE RECEIVED 223,358,639 ADJUSTMENT U/S 92CA 1,22,83,545 ON THE BASIS OF THE ABOVE, THE ORIGINAL ADJUSTMENT AMOUNT INR 21,123,322 MADE VIDE ORDER DATED JANUARY, 16, 2015 STANDS REVI SED TO RS.1,22,83,545. THUS, THE ASSESSING OFFICER MADE AN ADDITION OF RS. 1,22,83,545/- VIDE ORDER DATED 29/10/2015 TOWARDS TRANSFER PRICING ISSUES. 5. BEING AGGRIEVED BY THE ASSESSMENT ORDER DATED 29 /10/2015, THE ASSESSEE FILED APPEAL BEFORE US. 6. THE LD. AR SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE IS CHALLE NGING ONE COMPARABLE TO BE EXCLUDED AND THREE COMPARABLES TO BE INCLUDED. AS REGARDS EXCLUSION OF ECLERX SERVICES LTD., THE LD. AR SUBMITTED THAT THI S COMPARABLE IS FUNCTIONALLY DISSIMILAR. THE LD. AR SUBMITTED THAT IT PROVIDES SERVICES THROUGH TWO BUSINESS UNITS I.E. FINANCIAL SERVICES AND SALES AN D MARKETING SERVICES. UNDER THE FINANCIAL SERVICE SEGMENT, ECLERX SERVICES LTD. PROVIDES PROFESSIONAL SERVICES INCLUDING CONSULTING, BUSINESS ANALYSIS AN D SOLUTION TESTING. IT 5 ITA NO. 84/DEL/2016 PROVIDES A BROAD SUITE OF SERVICES THAT ALLOW ITS C LIENTS TO OPERATE ON A DAY-TO- DAY BASIS INCLUDING TRADE PROCESSING, REFERENCE DAT A, ACCOUNTING AND FINANCE, AND EXPENSE MANAGEMENT ACTIVITIES. FURTHER, UNDER SALES AND MARKETING SERVICES, ECLERX SERVICES LTD. PROVIDES WEB CONTENT MANAGEMENT AND MERCHANDISING EXECUTION, WEB ANALYTICS, SOCIAL MEDI A MODERATION AND ANALYTICS, SEARCH ENGINE ANALYTICS & SUPPORT, CRM P LATFORM SUPPORT, LEAD GENERATION, CUSTOMER DATA MANAGEMENT, SUPPLY CHAIN AND CHANNEL ANALYTICS, PRICE & CATALOGUE COMPETITIVE INTELLIGENCE AND BROA DER DATA COLLECTION, CLEANSING, ENRICHING AND REPORTING. THE LD. AR POI NTED OUT THAT THESE SERVICES ARE A MIX OF RESEARCH, ADVICE AND OPERATION MANAGEM ENT. HENCE, IN VIEW OF THE SAME, THE LD. AR SUBMITTED THAT ECLERX REQUIRING SP ECIALIZED KNOWLEDGE AND HAVING ENGAGED IN HIGH-END SERVICES CANNOT BE COMPA RED TO ROUTINE IT ENABLED SERVICES PROVIDED BY THE ASSESSEE WHEREBY IT ASSUME S MINIMAL BUSINESS RISK. THE LD. AR SUBMITTED THAT AS PER ANNUAL REPORT, THE COMP0ANY HAS ACQUIRED IGENTICA TRAVEL SOLUTIONS LTD.. THE SAID ACQUISITI ON HAS PROVIDED THE COMPANY WITH 28 LARGE CUSTOMERS THEREBY INCREASING THE CUST OMERS BASE AND OVERALL REVENUES OF THE COMPANY. THE SAID ACQUISITION HAS ALSO PROVIDED THE COMPANY WITH AN ENTRY PLATFORM IN A NEW VERTICAL-TRAVEL AND HOSPITALITY. FURTHER, THE COMPANY HAS ALSO ACQUIRED ECLERX PVT. LTD, SINGAPOR E. THEREFORE, ECLERX SERVICES LTD. HAS ABNORMAL CIRCUMSTANCES AND ABNORM ALLY HIGH MARGIN DUE TO THE EXTRAORDINARY CIRCUMSTANCES AND CANNOT BE COMPA RED TO THE ASSESSEE. HENCE, THE LD. AR SUBMITTED THAT THIS COMPARABLE SH OULD HAVE BEEN EXCLUDED BY THE TPO. THE LD. AR FURTHER SUBMITS THAT THERE APPEARS TO BE A DISCREPANCY IN THE REVENUE AS PER STANDALONE FINANCIAL STATEMEN TS AND CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS DEPICTING THE FINANCIALS OF EC LERX SERVICES LTD. ALONG WITH ITS SUBSIDIARIES. THE LD. AR RELIED UPON THE FOLLO WING CASE LAWS:- ACTIS GLOBAL SERVICES PVT. LTD. (DELHI HIGH COURT - ITA 417/2016) ACTIS GLOBAL SERVICES PVT. LTD. (DELHI ITAT - ITA N O. 6175/DEL/2015) COPAL RESEARCH INDIA PVT. LTD. - DELHI HIGH COURT D ECISION (ITA 894/2015) 6 ITA NO. 84/DEL/2016 RAMPGREEN SOLUTIONS PVT. LTD. (ITA 102/2015). 7. THE LD. DR RELIED UPON THE ORDER OF THE TPO AND SUBMITTED THAT THE TPO HAS RIGHTLY INCLUDED THIS COMPARABLE. 8. WE HAVE HEARD BOTH THE PARTIES AND PERUSED ALL T HE RELEVANT MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD. FROM THE ANNUAL REPORTS, THE L D. AR RIGHTLY POINTED OUT THAT ECLERX SERVICES LTD. IS FUNCTIONALLY DISSIMILA R TO THAT OF THE ASSESSEE COMPANY. IT PROVIDES SERVICES THROUGH TWO BUSINESS UNITS I.E. FINANCIAL SERVICES AND SALES & MARKETING SERVICES. UNDER THE FINANCIAL SERVICE SEGMENT, ECLERX SERVICES LTD. PROVIDES PROFESSIONAL SERVICES INCLUDING CONSULTING, BUSINESS ANALYSIS AND SOLUTION TESTING. IT PROVIDE S A BROAD SUITE OF SERVICES THAT ALLOW ITS CLIENTS TO OPERATE ON A DAY-TO-DAY B ASIS INCLUDING TRADE PROCESSING, REFERENCE DATA, ACCOUNTING AND FINANCE, AND EXPENSE MANAGEMENT ACTIVITIES. FURTHER, UNDER SALES & MARKETING SERVI CES, ECLERX SERVICES LTD. PROVIDES WEB CONTENT MANAGEMENT AND MERCHANDISING E XECUTION, WEB ANALYTICS, SOCIAL MEDIA MODERATION AND ANALYTICS, S EARCH ENGINE ANALYTICS & SUPPORT, CRM PLATFORM SUPPORT, LEAD GENERATION, CUS TOMER DATA MANAGEMENT, SUPPLY CHAIN AND CHANNEL ANALYTICS, PRICE & CATALOG UE COMPETITIVE INTELLIGENCE AND BROADER DATA COLLECTION, CLEANSING, ENRICHING A ND REPORTING. WHILE THE ASSESSEE COMPANY IS ENGAGED IN THE BUSINESS OF FINA NCIAL DATA PROCESSING AND ANALYSIS INCLUDING ASSIMILATION TO THE OVERSEAS CLI ENT. IN FACT, THE ASSESSEE COMPANY IS PROVIDING SERVICES TO THIS COMPARABLE CO MPANY. THUS, THIS COMPARABLE COMPANY IS FUNCTIONALLY DISSIMILAR TO TH E ASSESSEE COMPANY AND HAS TO BE EXCLUDED. THEREFORE, WE DIRECT THE TPO/AO TO EXCLUDE THIS COMPARABLE. 7. AS REGARDS INCLUSION OF 3 COMPARABLES, THE LD. A R SUBMITTED AS UNDER:- 7 ITA NO. 84/DEL/2016 1) OMEGA HEALTHCARE MANAGEMENT SERVICES PVT. LTD.: THE LD. AR SUBMITTED THAT ANNUAL REPORT OF THE COMPANY IS NOT AVAILABLE IN THE PUBLIC DOMAIN; HOWEVER, THE FINANCIAL DATA OF THE COMPANY IS AVAILABLE IN THE DATABASES. THE LD. AR SUBMITTED THAT WHEN, THE TPO IS RELYING FINANCIAL DATA EXTRACTED FROM DATABASES FOR APPLYING FILTERS AND C OMPUTATION OF MARGIN OF OTHER COMPARABLE COMPANIES, THEN, THERE IS NO REASO N FOR REJECTION OF THIS COMPANY IF ANNUAL REPORT IS NOT AVAILABLE AND DATA IS AVAILABLE ON DATABASE. 2 22 2) )) ) ZAVATA INDIA PVT. LTD. - THE ANNUAL REPORT OF THE COMPANY IS NOT AVAILABLE IN THE PUBLIC DOMAIN; HOWEVER, THE FINANC IAL DATA OF THE COMPANY IS AVAILABLE IN THE DATABASES. THE TPO IS RELYING ON D ATABASES FOR SEARCH AND COMPUTATION OF ARM'S LENGTH MARGIN. 3 33 3) )) ) R SYSTEMS INTERNATIONAL LIMITED- THE LD. AR SUBMITTED THAT THE TPO HAS REJECTED THIS COMPARABLE ON THE GROUND OF DIFFE RENT FINANCIAL YEAR ENDING DECEMBER. HOWEVER, QUARTERLY DATA IS AVAILABLE. THE TPO HAS NOT ACKNOWLEDGED THE OBJECTIONS RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE IN REJECTING THE APPLICABILITY OF THIS FILTER. THE TPO CITING THE PROVISIONS OF RULE 10B (4) PROVIDED THAT THE DATA TO BE USED IN ANALYSING THE COMPARABILITY OF AN UNCONTROLLED TRANSACTION WITH AN INTERNATIONAL TRAN SACTION BE THE DATA RELATING TO THE FY IN WHICH THE INTERNATIONAL TRANSACTION HA S BEEN ENTERED. A DIFFERENT ACCOUNTING YEAR OF A COMPARABLE COMPANY MEANS THAT THE TRANSACTIONS TAKING PLACE IN A DIFFERENT PERIOD ARE BEING COMPARED. IN THIS REGARD, THE LD. AR RELIED UPON THE FOLLOWIN G CASE LAWS: CIT VS. MCKINSEY KNOWLEDGE CENTRE INDIA PVT. LTD. ( ITA 217/2014) CIT VS. MERCER CONSULTING (INDIA) PVT. LTD. (ITA NO . 101 OF 2015) 8 ITA NO. 84/DEL/2016 8. THE LD. DR SUBMITTED THAT THESE COMPARABLE HAVE TO BE VERIFIED BY THE TPO/AO AS THE DATABASE IS AVAILABLE. 9. WE HAVE HEARD BOTH THE PARTIES AND PERUSED ALL T HE RELEVANT MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD. ALL THE THREE COMPARABLES WHIC H THE LD. AR SUBMITTED TO BE INCLUDED AS COMPARABLES REQUIRES A PROPER VERIFI CATION AS THE VERY BASIS OF REJECTING THE COMPARABLES ON THE GROUND THAT THE FI NANCIALS WERE NOT AVAILABLE SEEMS TO BE NOT PROPER AS THERE IS DATABASE AVAILAB LE IN PUBLIC DOMAIN. IN FACT, QUARTERLY DATABASE OF THE COMPARABLE R SYSTEM IS AV AILABLE. THUS, IT WILL BE APPROPRIATE TO REMAND BACK THIS ISSUE FOR VERIFYING THESE THREE COMPARBLES TO BE INCLUDED IN THE FINAL LIST OF COMPARABLES TO THE FILE OF THE TPO/AO. THEREFORE, THE ISSUE IS REMANDED BACK TO THE FILE OF THE TPO/A O AND WE DIRECT THE TPO THAT AFTER VERIFYING THE DATABASE AVAILABLE AND AFT ER APPLYING THE RELEVANT FILTERS, IF THESE THREE COMPARABLES ARE SUITABLE THEN THE SA ME MAY BE INCLUDED IN THE FINAL LIST OF THE COMPARABLES. NEEDLESS TO SAY, TH E ASSESSEE BE GIVEN THE OPPORTUNITY OF THE HEARING BY FOLLOWING PRINCIPLES OF NATURAL JUSTICE. 10. AS REGARDS GROUND RELATING TO WORKING CAPITAL A DJUSTMENT, THE LD. AR RELIED ON THE DECISION OF DEMAG CRANES & COMPONENTS [2013] 30 TAXMANN.COM 364 (PUNE-TRIB.) 11. THE LD. DR RELIED UPON THE ASSESSMENT ORDER AS WELL AS THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL. 12. WE HAVE HEARD BOTH THE PARTIES AND PERUSED THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD. AS REGARDS THE ISSUE OF WORKING CAPITAL ADJ USTMENT THE SAME NEEDS TO BE VERIFIED PROPERLY BY THE TPO/AO. THE APPROPRIATE TRANSFER PRICING ADJUSTMENT CAN ONLY TO BE MADE IN CONSONANCE WITH T HE INTERNATIONAL TRANSACTION UNDERTAKEN BY THE ASSESSEE COMPANY DURI NG THE YEAR UNDER ASSESSMENT ON THE BASIS OF ITS COMPARABILITY VIS-- VIS COMPARABLE COMPANIES, BY PROVIDING WORKING CAPITAL ADJUSTMENT TO THE ASSE SSEE IN VIEW OF THE 9 ITA NO. 84/DEL/2016 PROVISIONS CONTAINED UNDER RULE 10B(1)(E) ALSO. SO, WE ARE OF THE CONSIDERED VIEW THAT THE MATTER IS REQUIRED TO BE RESTORED TO THE TPO TO PROVIDE THE ASSESSEE COMPANY THE BENEFIT OF WORKING CAPITAL ADJ USTMENT FOR TRANSFER PRICING ADJUSTMENT. THEREFORE, WE REMAND BACK THIS ISSUE TO THE FILE OF THE TPO/AO FOR PROPER ADJUDICATION. NEEDLESS TO SAY, THE ASSESSEE BE GIVEN THE OPPORTUNITY OF THE HEARING BY FOLLOWING PRINCIPLES OF NATURAL JUST ICE. 13. IN RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS PARTLY ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSE. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 29TH OCTOBE R, 2018 . SD/- SD/- (N. K. BILLAIYA) (SUCHITRA KAMBLE) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEM BER DATED: 29 /10/2018 R. NAHEED * COPY FORWARDED TO: 1. APPELLANT 2. RESPONDENT 3. CIT 4. CIT(APPEALS) 5. DR: ITAT ASSISTANT REGISTRAR ITAT NEW DELHI 10 ITA NO. 84/DEL/2016 DATE OF DICTATION 16 .10.2018 DATE ON WHICH THE TYPED DRAFT IS PLACED BEFORE THE DICTATING MEMBER 16 .10.2018 DATE ON WHICH THE TYPED DRAFT IS PLACED BEFORE THE OTHER MEMBER DATE ON WHICH THE APPROVED DRAFT COMES TO THE SR. PS/PS DATE ON WHICH THE FAIR ORDER IS PLACED BEFORE THE DICTATING MEMBER FOR PRONOUNCEMENT DATE ON WHICH THE FAIR ORDER COMES BACK TO THE SR. PS/PS 2 9 .10.2018 DATE ON WHICH THE FINAL ORDER IS UPLOADED ON THE WEBSITE OF ITAT 2 9 .10.2018 DATE ON WHICH THE FILE GOES TO THE BENCH CLERK 2 9 .10.2018 DATE ON WHICH THE FILE GOES TO THE HEAD CLERK THE DATE ON WHICH THE FILE GOES TO THE ASSISTANT REGISTRAR FOR SIGNATURE ON THE ORDER DATE OF DISPATCH OF THE ORDER