GIMPEX PRIVATE LTD., CHENNAI V. ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE 1(2)(i/c), CHENNAI

ITTPA 57/CHNY/2019

• Counselvise Citation: [2020] 109 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 9971 (ITAT-CHENNAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 5 month(s) 12 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax (Transfer Pricing) Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 28-12-2020
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: D
• Assessment Year: 2015-2016
• Appeal Filed On: 16-07-2019
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Keywords: Transfer pricing; International transaction; Notional interest
• Section: 143(3); 92B

Judgement Text

, , IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL , D B ENCH, CHENNAI , . , & BEFORE SHRI MAHAVIR SINGH, VICE-PRESIDENT AND SHRI G.MANJUNATHA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ./ I.T.(TP)A.NO.57/CHNY/2019 ( / ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2015-16) M/S. GIMPEX PVT.LTD., [ FORMERLY KNOWN AS GIMPEX LTD.] 228, OLD NO.181,LINGICHETTY STREET, CHENNAI-600 001. VS THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(2), CHENNAI-600 034. PAN:AAACG2482P ( /APPELLANT) ( /RESPONDENT) / APPELLANT BY : MR. D.ANAND, ADVOCATE /RESPONDENT BY : MR. S.BHARATH, CIT /DATE OF HEARING : 28.10.2020 /DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 28.12.2020 / O R D E R PER G.MANJUNATHA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER: THIS APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS DIRECTED AGAI NST FINAL ASSESSMENT ORDER PASSED UNDER SECTION 143(3) R.W.S 92C(3) R.W.S 144C(13) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 (HEREINAFTER R EFERRED TO AS THE ACT) DATED 26.07.2019, IN TURN WHICH HAS ARI SEN OUT OF DIRECTIONS OF THE DISPUTE RESOLUTION PANEL-2, BENG ALURU ISSUED U/S. 144C(5) OF THE ACT DATED 22.05.2019 AND PERTAINS T O ASSESSMENT YEAR 2015-16. 2. THE ASSESSEE HAS RAISED THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS OF APPEAL:- 2 IT(TP)A NO.57/CHNY/2019 1. THE FINAL ASSESSMENT ORDER PASSED BY THE JURISD ICTIONAL ASSESSING OFFICER PURSUANT TO DIRECTIONS ISSUED BY THE DISPUTE RESOLUTION PANEL IS CONTRARY TO LAW, FACTS AND CIRC UMSTANCES OF THE CASE. 2. THE DIRECTIONS OF THE DISPUTE RESOLUTION PANEL ( DRP, THE CONSEQUENTIAL TRANSFER PRICING ORDER AND THE FINAL ASSESSMENT ORDER IS ERRONEOUS IN SO FAR AS DETERMINING AND QUA NTIFYING DOWNWARD ADJUSTMENT TO THE VALUE OF INTERNATIONAL T RANSACTIONS WITH THE ASSOCIATED ENTERPRISES (AE) OF THE APPELLA NT. ADJUSTMENT TOWARDS INTEREST ON OVERDUE RECEIVABLES 3.1 THE TPO/AO) ERRED IN IMPUTING INTEREST ON OVERD UE RECEIVABLE AND THE DRP ERRED IN SUSTAINING THE SAID ADJUSTMENT. 3.2 THE DRP/TPO/AO FAILED TO APPRECIATE THAT THE OU TSTANDING RECEIVABLES CANNOT BE CONSIDERED AS AN INTERNATIONA L TRANSACTION AND IT DOES NOT RAFT WITHIN THE PURVIEW OF CAPITA! FINANCING AS CONTEMPLATED UNDER SECTION 92B OF THE ACT. 3.3 THE DRP/TPO/AO ERRED IN NOT APPRECIATING THE FA CT THAT THE ACT PROVIDES FAR TAXING ONLY REAL INCOME WHETHE R RECEIVED OR ACCRUED UNDER THE NORMAL PROVISIONS. 3.4 THE DRP/TPO/AO ERRED IN NOT APPRECIATING THE FA CT THAT TRANSFER PRICING ADJUSTMENT CANNOT BE MADE ON HYPOT HETICAL AND NOTIONAL BASIS UNTIL AND UNLESS THERE IS SOME M ATERIAL ON RECORD THAT THERE HAS BEEN UNDER CHARGING OF REAL I NCOME. 3.5 THE TPO/AO ERRED IN IMPUTING INTEREST ON DELAYE D RECEIVABLES DESPITE THE FACT THAT THE PRIMARY TRANS ACTION HAS ALREADY BEEN TESTED AND CONSIDERED TO BE AT ARMS LE NGTH. 3.6 THE DRP/AO/TPO ERRED IN NOT APPRECIATING THE FA CT THAT THE AE HAVE MADE AN INTEREST FREE SECURITY DEPOSIT & RS,16.95 CRORES AND AS SUCH THERE WAS NO NECESSITY TO CHARGE INTEREST IN RELATION TO BELATED COLLECTION OF OUTSTANDING TRADE RECEIVABLES. 3.7 WITHOUT PREJUDICE TO THE LEVY OF NOTIONAL INTER EST, THE DRP OUGHT TO HAVE APPRECIATED THAT WHEN THE TPO SOUGHT TO IMPUTE INTEREST ON BELATED RECEIPT OF TRADE RECEIVABLES, T HE SAME PRINCIPLE SHOULD BE APPLIED FOR EARLY RECEIPT OF TR ADE RECEIVABLE AND THE INTEREST PROPORTIONATE TO EARLY RECEIPT SHO ULD BE NET OFF AGAINST THE LEVY OF BELATED RECEIPT OF INTEREST, 3 IT(TP)A NO.57/CHNY/2019 3.8 WITHOUT PREJUDICE TO LEVY OF NOTIONAL INTEREST, THE DRP/TPO/AO ERRED IN NOT CONSIDERING HIGHER NUMBER O F DAYS AS CREDIT PERIOD INSTEAD OF CONSIDERING 45 DAYS AS NORMAL CREDIT PERIOD WHICH DOES NOT HAVE ANY BASIS. 3.9 WITHOUT PREJUDICE TO GROUND NO.6. THE DRP/TPO/A O ERRED IN NOT CONSIDERING THE FACT THAT THE RBI GUIDELINES PROVIDES FOR A CREDIT PERIOD OF 270 DAYS TO COLLECT THE INVOICES RAISED. 3.10 WITHOUT PREJUDICE TO LEVY OF NOTIONAL INTEREST THE DRP/TPO OUGHT TO HAVE RECKONED THE LIBOR RATE OF INTEREST I NSTEAD CONSIDERING SBI INTEREST RATE AS THE TRADE RECEIVAB LE WERE IN FOREIGN CURRENCY. 3.11 WITHOUT PREJUDICE TO THE ABOVE, THE FOREIGN EX CHANGE GAIN OF ` 7,28,91,706/- SHOULD BE NETTED OFF AGAINST THE NOT IONAL INTEREST CHARGED ON DELAYED RECEIPT OF TRADE RECEIV ABLES. 3.12 WITHOUT PREJUDICE TO THE ABOVE, THE DRP OUGHT TO HAVE APPRECIATED THAT THE TPO HAS NOT ADOPTED ANY OF THE PRESCRIBED METHODS WHILE IMPUTING INTEREST ON TRADE RECEIVABLES. 3.13 WITHOUT PREJUDICE TO THE ABOVE, THE DRP ERRED IN DIRECTING THE TPO TO ADOPT SB INTEREST RATE AT 14.60% WHEREA S THE ACTUAL SBI INTEREST RATE APPLICABLE FOR THE SUBJECT Y IS ONLY 9.80% 3.14 WITHOUT PREJUDICE TO THE ABOVE, THE DRP ERRED IN ENHANCING THE ADJUSTMENT WITHOUT AFFORDING AN OPPOR TUNITY TO THE APPELLANT. 3.15 WITHOUT PREJUDICE TO THE ABOVE, THE LEVY OF IN TEREST IS HIGH AND ARBITRARY. 3. BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT ASSESSEE COMPA NY IS ENGAGED IN THE BUSINESS OF MINERAL MINING, TRADING AND E XPORTS. THE ASSESSEE COMPANY OPERATES IN THE SPHERE OF INDUST RIAL MINERALS INCLUDING METALLIC AND NON-METALLIC MINERALS. THE A SSESSEE 4 IT(TP)A NO.57/CHNY/2019 COMPANY TRADES IN MILLSCALE, BARITES POWDER, YELLOW MAIZE/CORN, BENTONITE POWDER, BARYTES LUMP, COAL AND IRON ORE F INES. THE ASSESSEE COMPANY HAS ENTERED INTO VARIOUS INTERNA TIONAL TRANSACTIONS WITH ITS ASSOCIATED ENTERPRISES (AES) AND BENCHMARK ITS INTERNATIONAL TRANSACTIONS UNDER CUP METHOD AND STATED THAT ITS INTERNATIONAL TRANSACTIONS WITH AES ARE AT ARMS LE NGTH PRICE. THE ASSESSEE HAS FILED ITS RETURN OF INCOME FOR THE A SSESSMENT YEAR 2015-16 ON 24.11.2015, ADMITTING TOTAL INCOME OF ` 19,59,35,990/-. THE CASE WAS SELECTED FOR SCRUTINY AND DURING TH E COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, A REFERENCE WAS MADE TO TR ANSFER PRICING OFFICER (TPO) FOR DETERMINATION OF ARMS LENGTH PR ICE OF INTERNATIONAL TRANSACTIONS WITH ITS AES. DURING TH E COURSE OF TRANSFER PRICING PROCEEDINGS, THE TPO HAS REJECTED CUP ME THOD SELECTED BY THE ASSESSEE AS MOST APPROPRIATE METHOD AND HAS APPLIED TNMM AS MOST APPROPRIATE METHOD TO BENCHMARK INTE RNATIONAL TRANSACTIONS WITH ITS AES. THE TPO AFTER CONSIDE RING RELEVANT FACTS AND HAS SELECTED CERTAIN COMPARABLES IN EACH SEGMENT AND HELD THAT ASSESSEES PLI IS WELL ABOVE THE PLI OF THE COMPARABLES AND HENCE NO UPWARD ADJUSTMENTS IS REQUIRED IN RES PECT OF INTERNATIONAL TRANSACTIONS OF THE ASSESSEE IN TRADI NG IN IRON ORE & 5 IT(TP)A NO.57/CHNY/2019 MILLSCALE SEGMENT, TRADING IN COAL SEGMENT AND TRA DING IN MINERAL SEGMENT . SIMILARLY, IN RESPECT OF CORPORATE GUARA NTEE, THE TPO AFTER TAKING NOTE OF THE FACT THAT ALTHOUGH THE AS SESSEE HAS PROVIDED CORPORATE GUARANTEE TO ITS AES WITHOUT CHARGING ANY FEES, BUT BECAUSE OF INTEREST FREE SECURITY DEPOSITS RECEIV ED FROM AE WHICH IS OVER AND ABOVE THE AMOUNT OF CORPORATE GUARAN TEE, THERE IS NO UPWARD ADJUSTMENT IS REQUIRED FOR PROVIDING CORPOR ATE GUARANTEE. HOWEVER, IN RESPECT OF EXPORT RECEIVABLES, THE TPO NOTED THAT IN VIEW OF AMENDMENT TO SECTION 92B OF THE INCOME TA X ACT, 1961 BY THE FINANCE ACT, 2012 W.E.F. 01.04.2002 RECEIVABLES HAS BEEN INCLUDED IN THE DEFINITION OF INTERNATIONAL TRANSAC TIONS UNDER CLAUSE C OF EXPLANATION TO SECTION 92B AS CAPITAL FINANC ING AND HENCE, EXPORT RECEIVABLES FROM AES FOR BELATED REALIZATIO N NEEDS TO BE BENCHMARKED AND ACCORDINGLY, COMPUTED ARMS LENGT H PRICE BY TAKING INTEREST RATE OF 13% OVER AND ABOVE THE NOR MAL CREDIT PERIOD AND MADE UPWARD ADJUSTMENT OF ` 5,65,32,966/- 4. PURSUANT TO THE TPO ORDER, THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS PASSED DRAFT ASSESSMENT ORDER U/S.143(3) R.W.S 144C(1) OF THE ACT ON 16.11.2018 AND MADE UPWARD ADJUSTMENT OF RS.5,65,32 ,966/- 6 IT(TP)A NO.57/CHNY/2019 TOWARDS INTEREST ON OVERDUE RECEIVABLES. BEING AGG RIEVED BY THE DRAFT ASSESSMENT ORDER , THE ASSESSEE HAS FILED OB JECTIONS BEFORE THE DRP-II, BENGALURU AND CHALLENGED THE UPWARD ADJ USTMENT MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER TOWARDS RECEIVABLES FROM AE ON THE GROUND THAT WHEN THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT CHARGED ANY INTEREST ON RECEIVABLES FROM THE AE AND NON-AE, FOR BELATED R EALIZATION OF EXPORT RECEIVABLES CANNOT BE CONSIDERED AS INTE RNATIONAL TRANSACTIONS FOR THE PURPOSE OF DETERMINATION OF ARMS LENGTH PRICE. THE DRP-II, BENGALURU VIDE ORDER DATED 22.05.2019 , AFTER CONSIDERING RELEVANT SUBMISSIONS OF THE ASSESSEE AND ALSO TAKEN NOTE OF AMENDMENT INSERTED BY FINANCE ACT, 2012 W.E.F 01.04.2002 HELD THAT DEFINITION OF INTERNATIONAL T RANSACTIONS HAS BEEN AMENDED SO AS TO INCLUDE DEFERRED PAYMENT OR RECEIVABLE OR ANY OTHER DEBT ARISING DURING THE COURSE OF B USINESS AND HENCE NON-CHARGING OR UNDERCHARGING OF INTEREST ON THE E XCESS PERIOD OF CREDIT ALLOWED TO AE FOR REALIZATION OF INVOICES WOULD AMOUNT TO INTERNATIONAL TRANSACTIONS. THE DRP HAS DISCUSSED THE ISSUE IN LIGHT OF CERTAIN JUDICIAL PRECEDENTS AND HELD THA T WHEN THE ASSESSEE HAS ALLOWED CREDIT PERIOD OVER AND ABOVE NORMAL CREDIT PERIOD ALLOWED IN BUSINESS, THEN THE SAME NEEDS TO BE B ENCHMARKED, 7 IT(TP)A NO.57/CHNY/2019 MORE PARTICULARLY, IF THE AGREEMENT DOES NOT SPEC IFY THE TERM OF PAYMENT OR PERIOD OF CREDIT. THE DRP HAS ALSO RE JECTED ANOTHER ARGUMENT TAKEN BY THE ASSESSEE IN LIGHT OF INTERE ST FREE SECURITY DEPOSITS RECEIVED FROM AE AND HELD THAT, BECAUSE R ECEIVABLES ARE SEPARATE INTERNATIONAL TRANSACTIONS ON WHICH ARMS LENGTH PRICE IS TO BE COMPUTED WHETHER ASSESSEE HAS RECEIVED INTERES T FREE SECURITY DEPOSITS OR NOT IS NOT RELEVANT TO DECIDE APPLIC ABILITY OF CHAPTER X OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961. THEREFORE, DRP OPINED THAT THERE IS NO ERROR IN COMPUTATION OF ARMS LENGTH PRICE BY T HE TPO BY ALLOWING NORMAL CREDIT PERIOD OF 45 DAYS ON ALL EX PORT RECEIVABLES BY ADOPTING 13% RATE OF INTEREST BY TAKING SBI PRIME LENDING RATE. BEING AGGRIEVED BY THE DRP ORDER, THE ASSESSEE IS IN APPEAL BEFORE US. 5. THE LEARNED AR FOR THE ASSESSE, AT THE TIME O F HEARING, SUBMITTED THAT THIS ISSUE IS SQUARELY COVERED IN F AVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE BY THE DECISION OF ITAT D BENCH, CHENNAI IN ASSESSEES OWN CASE FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2014-15, WHERE UND ER IDENTICAL SET OF FACTS, THE TRIBUNAL DELETED THE UPWARD ADJU STMENT MADE TOWARDS RECEIVABLES ON THE GROUND THAT ONCE TNMM METHOD IS 8 IT(TP)A NO.57/CHNY/2019 CONSIDERED AS MOST APPROPRIATE METHOD NET MARGIN WORKED OUT THEREUNDER COULD TAKE CARE OF ALL SUCH NOTIONAL INT EREST COST WHEREVER IT COULD BE IMPUTED AND THERE COULD BE NO ARMS LENGTH PRICE ADJUSTMENT FOR OVERDUE RECEIVABLES. THE FACTS ARE BEING IDENTICAL FOR THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION, THE AD DITIONS MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER TOWARDS UPWARD ADJUSTMENT ON OVE RDUE RECEIVABLES SHOULD BE DELETED. 6. THE LEARNED DR, ON THE OTHER HAND, SUPPORTING TH E ORDER OF THE TPO AS WELL AS DRP SUBMITTED THAT FROM THE ASSESSME NT YEAR 2002- 03 ONWARDS THE DEFINITION OF INTERNATIONAL TRANSAC TIONS HAS BEEN AMENDED SO AS TO INCLUDE RECEIVABLES, THEREFORE, W HEN THE ASSESSEE HAS ALLOWED EXCESS CREDIT PERIOD OVER AND ABOVE THE NORMAL CREDIT PERIOD OF AE, THEN THE SAME NEEDS T O BE BENCHMARKED AND HENCE THERE IS NO ERROR IN THE FIN DINGS RECORDED BY THE LEARNED TPO AS WELL AS DRP IN COMPUTING ARM S LENGTH PRICE ON EXPORT RECEIVABLE AND HENCE, THEIR ORDERS SHOU LD BE UPHELD. 7. WE HAVE HEARD BOTH THE PARTIES, PERUSED THE MAT ERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD AND GONE THROUGH THE ORDERS OF THE AUTHOR ITIES BELOW. 9 IT(TP)A NO.57/CHNY/2019 THERE IS NO DISPUTE WITH REGARD TO THE FACT THAT RE CEIVABLES IS INCLUDED UNDER THE DEFINITION OF INTERNATIONAL TR ANSACTIONS BY AMENDING SECTION 92B BY THE FINANCE ACT, 2012 W.E.F . 01.04.2002. THEREFORE, WE ARE OF THE CONSIDERED VIEW THAT THER E IS NO MERIT IN THE ARGUMENTS ADVANCED BY THE ASSESSEE THAT RECEIV ABLES IS NOT INTERNATIONAL TRANSACTIONS. AS REGARDS BENCHMARK ING INTERNATIONAL TRANSACTIONS, ONCE THE ASSESSEE HAS ADOPTED TNMM AS MOST APPROPRIATE METHOD , WHETHER SEPARATE ADJUSTMENT I S REQUIRED TO BE MADE IN RESPECT OF RECEIVABLES OR NOT HAS BEEN THE SUBJECT MATTER OF DELIBERATIONS BY THE CO-ORDINATE BENCH OF THE T RIBUNAL IN ASSESSEES OWN CASE FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2014-15 IN IT(TP)NO. 57/CHNY/2018, WHERE THE TRIBUNAL AFTER CONSIDERING RELEVANT FACTS HAS HELD THAT ONCE TNMM METHOD IS CONSIDERED AS T HE MOST APPROPRIATE METHOD, THE NET MARGIN WORKED OUT THER EUNDER COULD TAKE CARE OF ALL SUCH NOTIONAL INTEREST COST, WHERE VER IT COULD BE IMPUTED AND THERE COULD BE NO ARMS LENGTH PRICE A DJUSTMENT FOR ANY OVERDUE RECEIVABLES. THE BENCH HAS ALSO OBSERVE D THAT ONCE THERE IS COMPLETE UNIFORMITY IN NOT CHARGING ANY I NTEREST FROM ANY PARTY, WHETHER ASSOCIATED ENTERPRISES OR NON- ASSOC IATED ENTERPRISES, THERE COULD NOT BE ANY SELECTIVE IMPU TING OF NOTIONAL 10 IT(TP)A NO.57/CHNY/2019 INTEREST ON RECEIVABLE FROM AE FOR BELATED REALIZA TION OF EXPORT BILLS. THE RELEVANT FINDINGS OF THE TRIBUNAL IN IT(TP) NO .57/CHNY/2018 DATED 05.04.2019 ARE AS UNDER:- 23. NOW WE TAKE UP THE DISPUTE REGARDING THE ARMS L ENGTH PRICE ADJUSTMENT IMPUTING INTEREST ON OVERDUE RECEI VABLES. IT IS NOT DISPUTED BY THE REVENUE THAT ASSESSEE HAD NOT C HARGED INTEREST EITHER FROM ITS ASSOCIATED ENTERPRISE OR F ROM NON ASSOCIATED ENTERPRISES, FOR DELAY IN COLLECTION OF RECEIVABLES. IT IS ALSO NOT DISPUTED THAT OUT OF THE TOTAL TRANSACT IONS OF THE ASSESSEE ALMOST 57% WERE WITH ITS NON ASSOCIATED ENTERPRISES. ONCE THERE IS COMPLETE UNIFORMITY FOLL OWED BY ASSESSEE IN NOT CHARGING ANY INTEREST FROM ANY PART Y, WHETHER ASSOCIATED ENTERPRISE OR NON ASSOCIATED ENTERPRISES , IN OUR OPINION THERE COULD NOT BE ANY SELECTIVE IMPUTING O F NOTIONAL INTEREST. SUBMISSION OF THE ASSESSEE THAT OUT OF TO TAL SALES OF ABOUT OF ` 261 CRORES TO ITS ASSOCIATED ENTERPRISE, ` 100 CRORES WAS RECEIVED WELL WITHIN THE DUE DATE AND SM ALL DELAYS WERE ONLY IN THE BALANCE OF ` 161 CRORES HAS NOT BEEN DISPUTED BY THE LD. DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE. ASSESSEE HA D NOT OFFERED ANY DISCOUNT TO ANY PARTY FOR PAYMENT OF BI LLS BEFORE THE EXPIRY OF THE CREDIT PERIOD. HENCE, IT IS ONLY A NA TURAL COROLLARY THAT IT DID NOT CHARGE ANY INTEREST FOR DELAYS ALSO . WHERE A GOOD PART OF THE DUES WERE COLLECTED EARLIER TO THE DUE DATE, IN OUR OPINION THE INSTANCES WHERE THERE WERE DELAYS COULD NOT BE SELECTIVELY ELECTED FOR A LEVY OF CHARGE OF NOTIONA L INTEREST. SUCH AN APPROACH IF ACCEPTED WILL COMPLETELY OVERLOOK CO MMERCIAL REALTIES. THAT APART, ONCE TNMM METHOD IS CONSIDERE D AS THE MOST APPROPRIATE METHOD, AS HELD BY AHMEDABAD BENCH OF THE TRIBUNAL IN THE CASES OF BISAZZA INDIA (P) LTD (SUP RA) AND GEMSTONE GLASS PVT LTD (SUPRA) THE NET MARGIN WORKE D OUT THERE UNDER COULD TAKE CARE OF ALL SUCH NOTIONAL IN TEREST COST, WHEREVER IT COULD BE IMPUTED AND THERE COULD BE NO ARMS LENGTH PRICE ADJUSTMENT FOR ANY OVERDUE RECEIVABLES . WE THEREFORE DELETE ARMS LENGTH PRICE ADJUSTMENT OF ` 6,18,43,887/- MADE ON OVERDUE RECEIVABLES. 11 IT(TP)A NO.57/CHNY/2019 8. IN THIS VIEW OF THE MATTER AND CONSISTENT WITH THE VIEW TAKEN BY THE CO-ORDINATE BENCH OF THIS TRIBUNAL IN ASSESSEE S OWN CASE FOR THE EARLIER ASSESSMENT YEAR, WE ARE OF THE CONSIDER ED VIEW THAT WHEN TNMM METHOD HAS BEEN APPLIED AS MOST APPROP RIATE METHOD IT COULD TAKE CARE OF ALL NOTIONAL INTERES T COSTS WHEREVER IT COULD BE APPLIED AND THERE COULD BE NO SEPARATE UP WARD ADJUSTMENTS ON EXPORT RECEIVABLES FOR BELATED REAL IZATION OF EXPORT BILLS. HENCE, WE DIRECT THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO D ELETE UPWARD ADJUSTMENT MADE TOWARDS OVERDUE RECEIVABLES FROM ASSOCIATED ENTERPRISES. 9. IN THE RESULT, APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS A LLOWED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 28 TH DECEMBER, 2020 SD/- SD/- ( ) ( . ) (MAHAVIR SINGH) (G. MANJUNATHA ) / VICE-PRESIDENT $ / ACCOUNTANT MEMBER & /CHENNAI, ' /DATED 28 TH DECEMBER, 2020 DS )* +* /COPY TO: 1. APPELLANT 2. RESPONDENT 3. , () /CIT(A) 4. , /CIT 5. * 1 /DR 6. /GF .