LINTAS INDIA P. LTD., MUMBAI V. ADDL/JT/DY/CIT/ACIT/ITO- NATIONAL e-ASSESSMENT CENTRE, , DELHI

ITA 939/MUM/2021

• Counselvise Citation: [2022] 105 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 4175 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 10 month(s) 25 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 20-04-2022
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: K
• Assessment Year: 2016-2017
• Appeal Filed On: 26-05-2021
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Keywords: Transfer pricing; International transaction; Question of law; Corroborative evidences
• Section: 92C; 143(3); 10B; 250; 144C; 92CA

Judgement Text

ITA No. 939/Mum/2021 Assessment year: 2016-17 Page 1 of 10 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI K BENCH, MUMBAI [Coram: Pramod Kumar (Vice President), and Pavan Kumar Gadale (Judicial Member)] ITA No. 939/Mum/2021 Assessment year: 2016-17 Lintas India Private Limited .............................................Appellant A Wing, 16 th Floor, Parinee Crescenzo, BKC, Bandra (E), Mumbai 400 051 [PAN: AAACL0124F] Vs. Addl./ Joint/Deputy/Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Delhi ........................................Respondent Appearances by: Ajit Jain alongwith Siddhesh Chaugale for the appellant Dr. Yogesh Kamat for the respondent Date of concluding the hearing : 25/01/2022 Date of pronouncing the order : 21/04/2022 O R D E R Per Pramod Kumar VP 1. By way of this appeal, the assessee appellant has challenged correctness of the order dated 30 th March 2021 passed by the Assessing Officer under section 143(3) r.w.s 144C (13) of the Income Tax Act 1961, for the assessment year 2016-17. 2. Ground no 1 is general in nature and does not call for any specific adjudication. 3. In ground nos 2 to 15, which are directed against the ALP (i) Receipt of Global Information Services-Rs. 5,52,98,437; (ii) Receipt of Management Services Fees-Rs 16,06,22,324; and (iii) Receipt of Multinational Client Co-ordination Services-Rs. 1,62,55,966, following grievances have been raised:- 2. On facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the learned TPO and the learned AO, under the directions of the Hon'ble DRP have erred in not following Hon'ble Tribunal's ruling in Appellant's own case for AY 2010-11 to AY 2013-14 in relation to above international transactions, more so considering that there is no change in facts as compare to the said years. 3. On facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the learned TPO and the learned AO, under the directions of the Hon'ble DRP have erred in not appreciating the factual details, submissions and various documentary evidences which demonstrate receipt of services by the Appellant. ITA No. 939/Mum/2021 Assessment year: 2016-17 Page 2 of 10 4. On facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the learned TPO and the learned AO under the directions of Hon'ble DRP have erred in rejecting the benchmarking analysis undertaken by the Appellant using Other method, as the most appropriate method and computing the transfer pricing addition without undertaking any comparable analysis and applying Other Method (Need Evidence Benefit Test method) which is not a prescribed methods as provided under section 92C (1) of the Act. 5. On facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the learned TPO and the learned AO under the directions of Hon'ble DRP, have erred in computing the Arm's Length Price ('ALP') of the transaction at NIL, and not following one of the prescribed methods under section 92C(1) of the Act, thereby making an ad-hoc disallowance. 6. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the learned TPO and the learned AO under the directions of Hon'ble DRP have erred in questioning the commercial wisdom and expediency of the Appellant for receiving GIS services. 7. On the facts and circumstances of the case in law the learned TPO and the learned AO erred in considering the aforesaid services to be in the nature of shareholder/ stewardship/ duplicative/ incidental/ passive/on-call services without appreciating the underlying nature of the services Receipt of Management Service Fee ('MSF’) Services - INR 16.06,22.324 & Multinational Client Co-ordination ('MNC') Services - INR 1,62,55,966 8. On facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the learned TPO and the learned AO, under the directions of the Hon’ble DRP have erred in not following Hon’ble Tribunal's ruling in Appellant own case for AY 2010-11 to AY 2013-14 in relation to above international transactions, more so considering that there is no change in fact as compared to the said years. 9. On facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the learned TPO and the AO, under the directions of the Hon'ble DRP erred in not following Hon'ble DRP's directions for previous years in relation to above international transactions, in-spite of there being no change in facts. 10. On facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the learned TPO and the AO, under the directions of the Hon'ble DRP have erred in not appreciating the factual details, submissions and various documentary evidences which demonstrate receipt of services by the Appellant. 11. On facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the learned TPO and the AO, under the directions of the Hon'ble DRP have erred in rejecting the Transaction Net Margin Method ('TNMM’) method, as the most appropriate method for benchmarking this transactions and computing the transfer pricing addition without undertaking any comparable analysis and applying Other Method (Need Evidence Benefit Test method) which is not a prescribed methods as provided under section 92C (1) of the Act.. 12. On facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the learned TPO, the AO and the Hon'ble DRP have erred in computing the ALP of these transaction at NIL, and not following one of the prescribed methods under section 92C(1) of the Act, thereby making an ad-hoc disallowance. ITA No. 939/Mum/2021 Assessment year: 2016-17 Page 3 of 10 13. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the learned TPO and the learned AO under the directions of Hon'ble DRP have erred in questioning the commercial wisdom and expediency of the Appellant for receiving MSF and MNC services. 14. On facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the learned TPO and the learned AO under the directions of Hon'ble DRP, erred in rejecting the benchmarking analysis undertaken by the Appellant considering overseas AEs as the tested party, even though the said approach is within the provisions enshrined under Chapter X of the Act. 15. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the learned TPO and the learned AO erred in considering the aforesaid services to be in the nature of shareholder / stewardship / duplicative / incidental / passive / on-call services without appreciating the underlying nature of the services. 4. As a plain look at the DRP order would show, it is an admitted position that the issues in appeal are covered, in favour of the assessee, by co-ordinate bench decisions in the own cases of the assessee. However, these decisions are disregard on two grounds-first, the sixth method, which is now available for bench marking, has not been considered in this case; and-second, that the issue is to be kept alive as decisions of the co-ordinate benches have been challenged in further appeal. The relevant DRP observations are as follows:- (iii) Analysis of the stand of the assessee The stand of the assessee is that the need and benefit is not required to be established. The assessee has not been able to independently substantiate /establish the actual cost of services claimed to have been received, yet the assessee expects that the cost to the AE and markup thereon should be accepted at face value, without any independent verification by the TPO being made possible The said cost has been compared with certain comparables of the world by using TNMM method, however the deficiencies in such selection of comparables and FAR Analysis has been rightly highlighted by the TPO as discussed above. In fact, the assessee has totally ignored the Sixth method in its TPO which is the "other method" which has been introduced for computing ALP in Indian TP regulations and introduced in the Income Tax Act w.e.f. AY 2013-14 and Rule 10AB has accordingly been introduced in the Income Tax Rules in this regard. Hon'ble ITAT Mumbai Bench in the case of Toll Global Forwarding India (P) Ltd. Vs DCIT (ITA Number 3812/Mum/2015) has stressed upon the relevance and importance of this method and treated it at par with the other standard methods for determination of the ALP. In fact, Hon'ble ITAT Mumbai has approved application of this method in its recent decisions in similar circumstances as well viz. in the case of CLSA India (P) Ltd.- ITA -6748/N/17, 7257/M/2018 and 7246/M/2019 dated 20/8/20. We agree with the TPO that in such circumstances when relevant details required for verification are not made available, the TPO cannot be expected to accept the transactions of the assessee at face value. Accordingly we find that the assessee has given cogent reasons for rejecting the benchmarking analysis of assessee using foreign AE as tested party and using of External as MAM by the assessee. We are in agreement with the TPO that treatment of foreign AE as tested party without independently verifiable (not self serving certificates ) supporting evidences with TNMM as MAM by the assessee is not correct benchmarking analysis and accordingly reject the same. Further, ITA No. 939/Mum/2021 Assessment year: 2016-17 Page 4 of 10 we agree with the findings of the TPO in rejecting the Benchmarking analysis regarding GIS Services and proceeding to determine ALP as mentioned above. (iv) We find that the TPO has rightly relied upon the decisions of - Hon'ble ITAT Bangalore in the case of Gemplus India (P) Ltd-(TS-100-ITAT-2010) and Cranes Software International Ltd (ITA no 1594/Bang/2012-AY 2008-09) ; Hon'ble Delhi ITAT in the case of Bombardier Transportation India (P) Ltd. (ITA No. 1626/Del/2015) - where the Hon'ble ITAT has held that the ALP can be determined at NIL if the taxpayer has not proved that it has received any commensurate benefit against the payments of service charges to the AEs. The TPO has also placed rightly reliance on the decision of Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of Cushman and Wakefield in ITA No. 475/2012 dated 23.05.2014, Decision of Hon'ble ITAT Bangalore in the case of Forsoc Chemicals India (P)Ltd. - ITA 148/Bang/2014 dated 10.4.2015. The TPO has also further correctly relied upon the decision of jurisdictional ITAT in the case of Deloitte Consulting India (P) Ltd (22 Taxman 1079-2012) where it has been held that the TPO can arrive at NIL ALP in absence of details from the assessee on the services claimed to be rendered by the AE's. The TPO has not merely quoted the decisions but in great detail discussed and analysed how the facts of the instant case are similar to the decisions being relied upon by the TPO. We find that the reliance placed by the TO on these decisions of Hon'ble ITAT is correct and these decisions are squarely applicable to the facts of the instant case. We have gone through the decisions cited by the assessee in its support but find that the facts of our case are on different footing. The TPO has further relied upon the relevant provisions of the Indian Evidence Act 1872. In view of the above discussion we find that the TPO has rightly concluded that the assessee has failed to prove evidences in respect of- a) The benefits received by the assessee; b) When and how such services were rendered by the AE; c) At what rate these services were available in the open market. Based on the above discussion, we find that the TPO has rightly rejected the benchmarking of the international transactions relating to payments towards Intra Group Services by the assessee. (v) In view of the above, we agree with the TPO on his stand of rejecting the benchmarking analysis carried out by the assessee. We are also in agreement with the stand of the TPO regarding treatment of assessee as a tested party by the TPO. We are also in agreement with the TPO regarding adoption of "Any other method" as Most Appropriate Method and for adopting the "NEED-EVIDENCE-BENEFIT TEST" for benchmarking the Intra Group services availed by the assessee from its A.E's. The TPO has rightly selected the assessee as a tested party and rightly applied "Other Method"- ( Need-Evidence-Benefit Test Method as the MAM. We have already mentioned that the evidences relied upon by the assessee do not fulfill the NEED-EVIDENCE-BENEFIT TEST. Therefore, we find that the ALP of Intra Group Intra-group Transactions mentioned above has been rightly arrived at NIL by the TPO: (vi) The TPO has duly considered the decisions of Hon'ble ITAT of earlier years and has highlighted how the order passed in this year is different from the approach adopted by the TPO in earlier years. We are in agreement with the TPO that the analysis of facts of the relevant financial year and stand adopted by TPO are different from that of earlier orders of TPO and hence the decisions of ITAT being relied upon are not squarely applicable. We are in agreement with the TPO that the facts of the relevant assessment year and the adoption of "Other method" by the TPO duly ITA No. 939/Mum/2021 Assessment year: 2016-17 Page 5 of 10 differentiates the facts of the current year with that of earlier years, whose ITAT orders have been relied upon by the assessee. (vii) The contention raised by the assessee that the TPO has adopted estimation/ad- hoc basis for determining the ALP of international Transactions is not found to be correct. The contention that the TPO has challenged the commercial wisdom of the assessee is not correct. The TPO has the duty to examine the benchmarking exercise and adoption of correct MAM and correct ALP of the international transactions and hence we find that the TPO has not exceeded his jurisdiction in this regard. The lack of opportunity claim has been made, however we find that the assesee has made submissions before the AO, which have been considered. No additional submissions have been made before us. In any case, the assessee has been provided due opportunity to be heard before us and the issue has been discussed in detail. Accordingly we reject the above contentions raised by the assessee. viii) Without prejudice to the above, with respect to the decisions of Hon'ble ITAT in the case of the assessee, which have been relied upon, we find that further appeal has been preferred against the order of Hon'ble ITAT of earlier years. In this regard, we also place reliance on the order of DRP in the case of the assessee for AY 2015-16 and earlier years, where the issue of Intragroup services has been discussed and decided against the assessee. The assessee has raised the principle of consistency in one of its grounds. Dispute Resolution Panel, though a quasi-judicial body, however, does not represent a pure judicial setup. It is a forum constituted for the purpose of resolution of disputes between the Assessing Officer (AO) and the assessee to the extent possible, related to the draft order proposed by the AO, before a final order is passed. It is important to note that the Panel does not deal with the final order and it does not issue an order as such, but only directions are issued to the AO. As per section 144C(4), the directions are issued by the DRP for the guidance of the AO to enable him to complete the assessment. As per section 144C(5), the DRP, while issuing directions, has to rely on the draft order; objections filed by the assessee; evidences furnished by the assessee; report, if any, of the AO, Valuation Officer or TPO or any other authority; records relating to the draft order; evidences collected by, or caused to be collected by, it; and result of any enquiry made by, or caused to be made by it. It can be concluded that as per the provisions of Sec.144C(4) and 144C(5), the directions of the DRP are of the nature of guidance to the AO so as to enable him to complete the assessment. The documents on which reliance is to be placed by the DRP are the factual documents available with the AO, submissions made by the assessee and further inquiries, if any, conducted by the DRP. As mentioned earlier, the functions of the DRP are more in the nature of dispute resolution between the assessee and the AO, for the issues which have not been handled correctly by the AO (whether in favour of the assessee or against the assessee). On the issues which have not been handled correctly by the AO, the DRP issues appropriate directions u/s. 144C(5). As such, the DRP does not deal with an appeal filed by the assessee arising from a final order issued by the AO. It has been held by Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of Vodafone India Service (P.) Ltd.[2013] 37 taxmann.com 250 (Bombay) that any type of objection can be raised before the DRP, jurisdictional or related to international transactions. In light of the above discussion and even otherwise, the DRP is not bound by its own orders for earlier year(s), if there is a variation in the surrounding circumstances or the facts of the case. Further, it is necessary to point out that for the year under consideration, only the assessee has a right to appeal against the final assessment order framed by the AO after incorporating the directions of the DRP and the Department does not have any such right of appeal. Under these circumstances, whereby the decision of the Panel cannot be challenged by the ITA No. 939/Mum/2021 Assessment year: 2016-17 Page 6 of 10 Department, the DRP would not be bound by its decisions given in the earlier year(s), when the decision of the Panel could be challenged by the Department. It is pertinent to point out that if the DRP for the year under consideration arrives at a conclusion, which is against the Department and in favour of the assessee, especially on a legal issue which has not yet attained finality in the Supreme Court, and if the said issue is eventually decided by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in favour of the Department, there will be no recourse available for collecting the revenue attributable to the said issue, since the Department's appeal would not have been pending, as for the year under consideration, DRP orders cannot be appealed against by the Department. As the issues raised in above grounds of objection is pending for decision by higher judicial forums, also relying on the findings of DRP for AY 2015-16, we reject the grounds of objection raised by the assessee. 5. The issues raised in this appeal, as learned Departmental Representative fairly accepts, are covered by the decision of coordinate benches dated 12 th June 2019 & 07 th August 2019, in assessee’s own case in ITA Nos 1156/Mum/2015, ITA No. 1187/Mum/2015 (AY 2010-11) & ITA Nos 2075/Mum/2016, ITA 1762/Mum/2017 & ITA No. 890/Mum/2018 (AY 2011-12 to AY 2013- 14) wherein the coordinate benches have, inter alia, observed as follows: (AY 2010-11) 8. We have heard the rival submissions and perused the materials available on record. It would be pertinent to address the preliminary issue raised by the ld. AR before us that the ld. TPO had failed to apply any method while determining the ALP at nil for GIS services; for determining the ALP of payment made towards MSF services by accepting 20% thereon on adhoc basis and accepting 50% for MNC services on adhoc basis thereon. We find that provisions of Section 92C(1)of the Act mandates adoption of one of the prescribed method mentioned therein for determining the ALP of international transactions. It is not in dispute that the disallowances/adjustments made by the ld. TPO to ALP were made without following any of the prescribed methods as per law. 8.1. We hold that once a reference is received by the ld. TPO u/s.92CA(1) of the Act from the ld. AO, the ld. TPO is required to determine the ALP of the international transaction as per the provisions contained in Section 92C and 92CA of the Act read with relevant rules thereon. From the conjoint reading of the relevant sections and the relevant rules, we find that the duty of the ld. TPO is restricted only to the determination of the arm’s length price of an international transaction between two related parties by applying any of the methods prescribed u/s.92C of the Act read with rule 10B of the rules. Thus, there is no provision made in the statute empowering ld. TPO for determining the ALP on a particular international transaction on an estimation basis / adhoc basis. 8.2. We find that the Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of CIT vs. Johnson & Johnson Limited in ITA No.1030 of 2014 dated 07/03/2017 wherein it was held as under:- “4.Regarding question (D) :- (a)The respondent assessee paid to its Associated Enterprises (AE), technical know how royalty of 2%. The Transfer Pricing Officer (TPO) by order dated 24th March, 2005 restricted the technical know how royalty paid by the respondent assessee to its AE at 1% instead of 2%, as claimed. In terms of the ITA No. 939/Mum/2021 Assessment year: 2016-17 Page 7 of 10 determination dated 24th March, 2005 of the TPO on the above issue amongst others, an assessment order dated 28th March, 2005 for the subject Assessment Year was passed by Assessing Officer under Section 143(3) of the Act. (b)Being aggrieved with the order dated 28th March, 2005 of the Assessing Officer, the respondent assessee preferred an appeal to the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [CIT(A)]. By an order dated 22ndMarch, 2007, the appeal of the respondent assessee on the issue of royalty payable on technical know how, allowed the appeal. It inter alia held that restricting the royalty paid on account of technical know how to 1% was arbitrary and ad-hoc. Inasmuch as, there were no reasons justifying the restriction of the technical know how royalty paid by the respondent assessee to its AE at 1%. Moreover, it also records the fact that the TPO did not determine the ALP of the technical know how royalty by adopting any of the methods prescribed under Section 92C of the Act. (c)Being aggrieved, the Revenue carried the issue in appeal to the Tribunal. By the impugned order dated 20th August, 2013 the Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeal inter alia upholding the order of the CIT(A). (d)We find that the impugned order of the Tribunal upholding the order of the CIT(A) in the present facts cannot be found fault with. The TPO is mandated by law to determine the ALP by following one of the methods prescribed in Section 92C of the Act read with Rule 10B of the Income Tax Rules. However, the aforesaid exercise of determining the ALP in respect of the royalty payable for technical know how has not been carried out as required under the Act. Further, as held by the CIT(A) and upheld by the impugned order of the Tribunal, the TPO has given no reasons justifying the technical know how royalty paid by the Assessing Officer to its Associated Enterprise being restricted to 1% instead of 2%, as claimed by the respondent assessee. This determination of ALP of technical know how royalty by the TPO was ad¬hoc and arbitrary as held by the CIT(A) and the Tribunal. (e)In the above view, the question as proposed does not give rise to any substantial question of law. Thus, not entertained.” 8.3. Respectfully following the aforesaid decision of Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court, we have no hesitation in directing the ld. TPO to delete adjustment made to ALP in respect of aforesaid three services viz., GIS services (Rs.62,95,226/-), MSF Services (Rs.7,88,90,157/-) and MNC Services (Rs.19,29,008/-). Accordingly, grounds raised by the assessee are allowed on this technical aspect and grounds raised by the revenue are dismissed on this technical aspect. (AY 2011-12) 8. We have heard the rival submissions and perused the materials available on record. We find that both the parties before us agreed that the issue in dispute is already addressed by this tribunal in assessee’s own case for the Asst Year 2010-11 in ITA Nos. 1156 & 1187/Mum/2015 dated 12.6.2019 wherein it was held as under:- 8. We have heard the rival submissions and perused the materials available on record. It would be pertinent to address the preliminary issue raised by the ld. AR before us that the ld. TPO had failed to apply any method while determining the ALP at nil for GIS services; for determining the ALP of payment made ITA No. 939/Mum/2021 Assessment year: 2016-17 Page 8 of 10 towards MSF services by accepting 20% thereon on adhoc basis and accepting 50% for MNC services on adhoc basis thereon. We find that provisions of Section 92C(1)of the Act mandates adoption of one of the prescribed method mentioned therein for determining the ALP of international transactions. It is not in dispute that the disallowances/adjustments made by the ld. TPO to ALP were made without following any of the prescribed methods as per law. 8.1. We hold that once a reference is received by the ld. TPO u/s.92CA(1) of the Act from the ld. AO, the ld. TPO is required to determine the ALP of the international transaction as per the provisions contained in Section 92C and 92CA of the Act read with relevant rules thereon. From the conjoint reading of the relevant sections and the relevant rules, we find that the duty of the ld. TPO is restricted only to the determination of the arm’s length price of an international transaction between two related parties by applying any of the methods prescribed u/s.92C of the Act read with rule 10B of the rules. Thus, there is no provision made in the statute empowering ld. TPO for determining the ALP on a particular international transaction on an estimation basis / adhoc basis. 8.2. We find that the Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of CIT vs. Johnson & Johnson Limited in ITA No.1030 of 2014 dated 07/03/2017 wherein it was held as under:- “4.Regarding question (D) :- (a)The respondent assessee paid to its Associated Enterprises (AE), technical know how royalty of 2%. The Transfer Pricing Officer (TPO) by order dated 24th March, 2005 restricted the technical know how royalty paid by the respondent assessee to its AE at 1% instead of 2%, as claimed. In terms of the determination dated 24th March, 2005 of the TPO on the above issue amongst others, an assessment order dated 28th March, 2005 for the subject Assessment Year was passed by Assessing Officer under Section 143(3) of the Act. (b)Being aggrieved with the order dated 28th March, 2005 of the Assessing Officer, the respondent assessee preferred an appeal to the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [CIT(A)]. By an order dated 22ndMarch, 2007, the appeal of the respondent assessee on the issue of royalty payable on technical know how, allowed the appeal. It inter alia held that restricting the royalty paid on account of technical know how to 1% was arbitrary and ad¬hoc. Inasmuch as, there were no reasons justifying the restriction of the technical know how royalty paid by the respondent assessee to its AE at 1%. Moreover, it also records the fact that the TPO did not determine the ALP of the technical know how royalty by adopting any of the methods prescribed under Section 92C of the Act. (c)Being aggrieved, the Revenue carried the issue in appeal to the Tribunal. By the impugned order dated 20th August, 2013 the Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeal inter alia upholding the order of the CIT(A). (d)We find that the impugned order of the Tribunal upholding the order of the CIT(A) in the present facts cannot be found fault with. The TPO is mandated by law to determine the ALP by following one of the methods prescribed in Section 92C of the Act read with Rule 10B of the Income Tax Rules. However, the aforesaid exercise of determining the ALP in respect of the royalty payable for technical know how has not been carried out as required under the Act. Further, ITA No. 939/Mum/2021 Assessment year: 2016-17 Page 9 of 10 as held by the CIT(A) and upheld by the impugned order of the Tribunal, the TPO has given no reasons justifying the technical know how royalty paid by the Assessing Officer to its Associated Enterprise being restricted to 1% instead of 2%, as claimed by the respondent assessee. This determination of ALP of technical know how royalty by the TPO was ad¬hoc and arbitrary as held by the CIT(A) and the Tribunal. (e)In the above view, the question as proposed does not give rise to any substantial question of law. Thus, not entertained.” 8.3. Respectfully following the aforesaid decision of Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court, we have no hesitation in directing the ld. TPO to delete adjustment made to ALP in respect of aforesaid three services viz., GIS services (Rs.62,95,226/-), MSF Services (Rs.7,88,90,157/-) and MNC Services (Rs.19,29,008/-). Accordingly, grounds raised by the assessee are allowed on this technical aspect and grounds raised by the revenue are dismissed on this technical aspect. 8.4. In view of the aforesaid decision rendered on technical aspect, the other elaborate arguments made by both ld. AR and ld. DR before us on merits for justification of their respective actions need not be gone into and becomes academic in nature. We make it clear that no opinion is rendered by us with regard to those elaborate arguments made by both the parties before us. 8.1. Respectfully following the same, we allow the Transfer Pricing Grounds rasied by the assessee and dismiss the Grounds raised by the revenue for the Asst Year 2011-12. (AY 2012-13) 13. The first issue to be decided in this appeal is with regard to the action of the ld. DRP in upholding the action of the ld. TPO by making an adjustment to Arm’s Length Price (ALP) in relation to Intra Group Services from its Associated Enterprises (AE) in the sum of Rs 15,04,01,527/-. We find that the ld DRP had actually deleted the adjustment made in respect of MSF and MNC services upto Asst Year 2011-12. But we find that the ld DRP had reversed its stand for the Asst Year 2012-13 merely on the ground that the revenue cannot prefer further appeal to the tribunal pursuant to the amendment in statute effective from Asst Year 2012-13 onwards. 13.1. We find that this issue was subject matter of adjudication by this tribunal for Asst Year 2010-11 in ITA Nos. 1156 & 1187/Mum/2015 dated 12.6.2019 and for Asst Year 2011-12 hereinabove. The decision rendered thereon would apply with equal force for Asst Year 2012-13 also except with variance in figures. Respectfully following the same, the Transfer Pricing Grounds 2 to 11 raised by the assessee are allowed. (AY 2013-14) 19. The Transfer Pricing Grounds raised vide Grounds 2 to 6 in respect of GIS services, MNC and MSF services were already the subject matter of adjudication in Asst Year 2011-12 and 2012-13 hereinabove and the decision rendered therein would apply with equal force for this Asst Year also except with variance in figures. Accordingly, the Ground No. 2 to 6 raised by the assessee are allowed. ITA No. 939/Mum/2021 Assessment year: 2016-17 Page 10 of 10 6. Having heard the parties and having perused the material on record, we see no reasons to take any other view of the matter then the view so taken by the coordinate benches. Respectfully following the same, we uphold the plea of the assessee in the terms indicated above. 7. In the result, the appeal is allowed in the terms indicated above. Pronounced in the open court today on the 21 st day of April, 2022. Sd/- Sd/- Pavan Kumar Gadale Pramod Kumar (Judicial Member) (Vice President) Mumbai, dated the 21 st day of April, 2022 Copies to: (1) The appellant (2) The respondent (3) CIT (4) CIT(A) (5) DR (6) Guard File By order etc True Copy Assistant Registrar/ Sr PS Income Tax Appellate Tribunal Mumbai benches, Mumbai