CMA GM SHARED SERVICE CENTRE (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED, CHENNAI V. DCIT CORPORATE CIRCLE 1(2), CHENNAI

ITTPA 76/CHNY/2018

• Counselvise Citation: [2019] 115 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 6668 (ITAT-CHENNAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 10 month(s) 28 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax (Transfer Pricing) Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 25-10-2019
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Bench Allotted: D
• Assessment Year: 2014-2015
• Appeal Filed On: 27-11-2018
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: DR M SRINIVASA RAO
• Keywords: Transfer pricing; Opportunity of being heard; Working capital adjustments
• Section: 144C

Judgement Text

, , IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL , D BENCH, CHENNAI . , , BEFORE SHRI DUVVURU RL REDDY, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI S. JAYARAMAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ./ I.T.(TP)A.NO.76/CHNY/2018 ( / ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2014-15) M/S. CMA CGM SHARED SERVICE CENTRE (INDIA) PVT. LTD., 32A & B, AMBIT IT PARK, 8 TH FLOOR, AMBATTUR INDL. ESTATE, CHENNAI 600 058. VS THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CORPORATE CIRCLE 1(2), CHENNAI. PAN: AACCC 7454R ( /APPELLANT) ( /RESPONDENT) / APPELLANT BY : SHRI VIKRAM VIJAYARAGHAVAN, ADVOCATE / RESPONDENT BY : DR. M.SRINIVASA RAO, JCIT /DATE OF HEARING : 29.07.2019 /DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 25.10.2019 / O R D E R PER S. JAYARAMAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER: THE ASSESSEE FILED THIS APPEAL AGAINST THE ASSESSMENT ORDER PASSED BY THE ACIT(OSD), CORPORATE CIRCLE -1(2), CHENNAI U/S.143(3) R.W.S. 92CA FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2014-15 IN PURSUANCE OF THE DIRECTIONS ISSUED BY THE DISPUTE RESOLUTION PANEL (HEREINAFTER DRP) IN F.NO.54/DRP-2/BANG/2017-18 DATED 20.09.2018. :-2-: IT(TP)A NO. 76/CHNY/2018 2. M/S. CMA CGM SHARED SERVICE CENTRE, THE ASSESSEE, IS A SUBSIDIARY OF M/S. CMA CGM SA, FRANCE (ITS AE) PROVIDES SHARED SERVICES TO ITS AE. TOWARDS THIS SERVICE, THE ASSESSEE COMPANY HAS RECEIVED RS. 64,81,42,222/- DURING THE PERIOD RELEVANT TO THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2014-15. IN ORDER TO BENCHMARK THIS TRANSACTION, THE ASSESSEE COMPANY ADOPTED TNMM AS THE MOST APPROPRIATE METHOD. IT HAS SHORTLISTED 10 COMPARABLE COMPANIES, 3 YEARS WEIGHTED AVERAGE COST, WORKING CAPITAL ADJUSTED FOR THE COMPARABLE COMPANIES IS 7.78%, AS AGAINST THE ASSESSEES PLI OF 12.04%. ACCORDINGLY, THE ASSESSEE CLAIMED THAT ITS TRANSACTIONS ARE AT ARMS LENGTH. HOWEVER, THE TPO REJECTED CERTAIN COMPARABLE COMPANIES WHICH WAS PART OF THE TP DOCUMENTATION MAINTAINED BY THE ASSESSEE, INTRODUCED CERTAIN ADDITIONAL COMPANIES AS COMPARABLE AND RECOMPUTED THE OPERATIVE MARGINS OF THE COMPARABLES AT 20.5% FOR PROVISION OF ITES. CONSEQUENTLY, THE TPO PROPOSED AN UPWARD TP ADJUSTMENT OF RS.4,89,40,407/- AND THE AO ALSO MADE A DISALLOWANCE OF RS.51,95,729 U/S.80JJAA OF THE ACT. THE ASSESSEE FILED OBJECTION BEFORE THE DRP WHICH LARGELY UPHELD THE APPROACH OF THE TPO. CONSEQUENTLY, THE AO PASSED THE ORDER U/S.143(3) R.W.S. :-3-: IT(TP)A NO. 76/CHNY/2018 144C & 92CA INCORPORATING THE DIRECTIONS OF THE LD.DRP. AGGRIEVED AGAINST THAT ORDER, THE ASSESSEE FILED THIS APPEAL. 3. THOUGH THE ASSESSEE FILED VARIOUS GROUNDS OF APPEAL, THE LD.AR ARGUED ON THE ISSUES VIZ THE EXCLUSION OF INFOSYS BPO LTD FROM THE COMPARABLE LIST, TO CONSIDER THE SEGMENTAL MARGINS FOR MICROLAND LTD, THE EXCLUSION OF INFORMED TECHNOLOGIES INDIA LTD, FOR THE CONSIDERATION OF WORKING CAPITAL ADJUSTMENT MARGINS OF THE COMPARABLE COMPANIES AND ON THE ISSUE OF DISALLOWANCE OF CLAIM U/S.80JJAA ALONE, AS UNDER. 4.1 ON THE ISSUE OF INFOSYS BPO LTD. TO BE EXCLUDED FROM THE COMPARABLE LIST, THE LD.AR SUBMITTED THAT THERE IS SIGNIFICANTLY DIFFERENCE IN TURNOVER, INFOSYS TURNOVER FOR THE SUBJECT ASSESSMENT YEAR IS INR 2323 CRORES AS AGAINST THE ASSESSEES TURNOVER OF INR 64.81 CRORES, SIGNIFICANT BRAND VALUE IN THE MARKET, DIFFERENCE IN NATURE OF SERVICES, VARIED NATURE OF SERVICES ACROSS DIVERSIFIED INDUSTRIES AND SIGNIFICANT ASSET BASE I.E., INFOSYS BPO'S FIXED ASSET IS INR 217 CRORES AS AGAINST ASSESSEES FIXED ASSET OF INR 16.56 CRORES AND HENCE HE PLEADED THAT INFOSYS SHOULD BE EXCLUDED FROM :-4-: IT(TP)A NO. 76/CHNY/2018 COMPARABLE LIST. IN SUPPORT OF HIS CLAIM, THE LD.AR RELIED ON THE FOLLOWING JUDICIAL JUDGMENTS:- BNP PARIBAS GLOBAL SECURITIES (I.T.A.NO.2141/ CHNY/2017) M/S. CAMERON MANUFACTURING INDIA PVT. LTD. VS DCIT, CHENNAI [ITA NO. 336/CHNY/2018]AND INVITED OUR ATTENTION TO THE FOLLOWING PORTION:- 5. GROUND NO.2.1: M/S. INFOSYS BPO LIMITED AS THE COMPARABLE COMPANY: THE LD.AR SUBMITTED BEFORE US THAT THE EXPORT TURNOVER OF M/S. INFOSYS BPO LIMITED IS QUITE HIGH WHICH IS APPROX. RS.1356 CRORES WHILE AS THE EXPORT TURNOVER OF THE ASSESSE COMPANY IS ONLY RS.14.50 CRORES; HENCE M/S. INFOSYS BPO LIMITED CANNOT BE TAKEN AS A COMPARABLE COMPANY WITH THAT OF THE ASSESSEE COMPANY. WE FIND MERIT IN THE SUBMISSION OF THE LD.AR. WHEN THERE IS WIDE GAP BETWEEN THE SIZE AND TURNOVER OF THE COMPANY WHICH IS NOT DISPUTE, THEY CANNOT BE TAKEN AS COMPARABLE COMPANY. HENCE, WE HEREBY DIRECT THE LD.TPO TO EXCLUDE M/S. INFOSYS BPO LIMITED AS COMPARABLE COMPANY WHILE COMPUTING THE ALP IN THE ITES SEGMENT. BOMBAY HIGH COURT IN CASE OF PENTAIR WATER INDIA PVT LTD (ITA NO.6/PNG/2013) AND INVITED OUR ATTENTION TO THE FOLLOWING PORTION:- IN THIS CASE ALSO WE NOTED THE TURNOVER IN RESPECT OF THIS COMPANY IS RS.649.56 CRORES WHILE THE TURNOVER OF THE ASSESSEE COMPANY IS AROUND RS.11 CRORES WHICH IS MUCH MORE THAN 65 TIMES OF THE ASSESSEES TURNOVER. WE, THEREFORE, DO NOT FIND ANY ILLEGALITY OR INFIRMITY IN THE ORDER OF CIT(A) IN EXCLUDING THIS COMPANY OUT OF THE COMPARABLES. ACCORDINGLY, WE CONFIRM THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A). 4.1.1 PER CONTRA, THE LD.DR SUPPORTED THE ORDERS OF THE LOWER AUTHORITIES. :-5-: IT(TP)A NO. 76/CHNY/2018 4.1.2 WE HEARD THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND GONE THROUGH THE RELEVANT MATERIAL. FROM THE ABOVE DECISIONS, IT IS CLEAR THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD MADE OUT A CLEAR CASE IN ITS FAVOUR AND HENCE, THE AO / TPO IS DIRECTED TO EXCLUDE M/S. INFOSYS BPO LIMITED AS COMPARABLE COMPANY WHILE COMPUTING THE ALP FOR THE ITES SERVICES. 4.2 ON THE ISSUE OF SEGMENTAL MARGINS TO BE CONSIDERED FOR MICROLAND LTD., THE LD.AR SUBMITTED THAT THE NATURE OF SERVICES OF M/S MICROLAND IS THAT IT ENGAGED IN ITES AND INFRASTRUCTURE MANAGEMENT. INFRASTRUCTURE MANAGEMENT SERVICES OF MICROLAND INCLUDE CLOUD COMPUTING SOLUTIONS, APPLICATION MANAGEMENT SERVICES, TOOL-BASED DISASTER RECOVERY ENVIRONMENT MANAGEMENT SERVICES. SO, IT IS FUNCTIONALLY DIFFERENT AND HENCE NOT COMPARABLE. INVITING OUR ATTENTION TO THE PAPER BOOK PAGE NO 367, WHEREIN THE FINANCIALS ARE PLACED PARTICULARLY THE SEGMENTATION IN FINANCIAL STATEMENTS AND SUBMITTED THAT THE FINANCIAL STATEMENTS HAS PROVIDED FOR SEGMENTAL ACCOUNTS BIFURCATING ITES (COMPARABLE SERVICE) AND INFRASTRUCTURE MANAGEMENT SERVICES (NON-COMPARABLE SERVICES). THEREFORE, IT WAS PLEADED THAT ITES SEGMENT SHOULD BE CONSIDERED AS COMPARABLE TO :-6-: IT(TP)A NO. 76/CHNY/2018 THE ASSESSEES BUSINESS. IN SUPPORT OF HIS CLAIM, THE LD.AR RELIED ON THE FOLLOWING JUDICIAL JUDGMENTS:- CGI INFORMATION SYSTEMS AND MANAGEMENT CONSULTANTS PRIVATE LIMITED (IT(TP)A NOS. 586/BANG/2015 & 183/BANG/2017) INFOR GLOBAL SOLUTIONS INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED (ITA NO.520/MUM/2012) M/S. INFINERA INDIA PVT. LTD. (IT(TP)A NO.1096/BANG/2011). 4.2.1 PER CONTRA, THE LD DR SUPPORTED THE ORDERS OF THE LOWER AUTHORITIES. 4.2.2 WE HEARD THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND GONE THROUGH RELEVANT MATERIAL. WE FIND MERIT IN THE ASSESSEES ABOVE SUBMISSION. THEREFORE, WE DEEM IT APPROPRIATE TO RESTORE THIS TO THE AO/TPO FOR CONSIDERING THE ITES SEGMENTALS ALONE AFRESH AND REWORK THE ADJUSTMENTS IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW AFTER DUE OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD TO THE ASSESSEE. 4.3 ON THE ISSUE OF INCLUSION OF COMPARABLE COMPANIES M/S. INFORMED TECHNOLOGIES INDIA LTD., THE LD.AR SUBMITTED THAT M/S. INFORMED TECHNOLOGIES INDIA LTD., IS ENGAGED IN RENDERING BUSINESS PROCESS OUTSOURCING (BPO) SERVICES, WHICH IS FUNCTIONALLY COMPARABLE TO ASSESSEES BUSINESS. IT OPERATE UNDER ONLY ONE BUSINESS SEGMENT OF BUSINESS PROCESS OUTSOURCING (BPO) SO IT IS :-7-: IT(TP)A NO. 76/CHNY/2018 FUNCTIONALLY COMPARABLE. THEREFORE, THE TPO/ DRP HAS ERRONEOUSLY REJECTED UNDER SERVICE INCOME LESS THAN 75% FILTER OF THE TPO 100% OF REVENUE FROM BPO SERVICES, WHICH CAN BE CLEARLY EVIDENCED FORM THE FINANCIAL STATEMENTS. FURTHER, IT WAS SUBMITTED THAT THE TPO HAS ERRONEOUSLY CONSIDERED OTHER NON-OPERATING INCOME, WHILE APPLYING SERVICE INCOME FILTER, THEREFORE , M/S INFORMED TECHNOLOGIES INDIA LTD., SHOULD BE INCLUDED IN THE COMPARABLE SET. THE LD.AR ALSO RELIED ON THE DECISION OF THE HYDERABAD BENCH OF THIS TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF M/S. TNS INDIA PVT. LTD., IN ITA NO.1875/HYD/2012 DATED 17.04.2015. THE RELEVANT PORTION OF THE ORDER IS EXTRACTED BELOW: 17. INFORMED TECHNOLOGIES LTD.: LD. AR SUBMITTED, THE ONLY REASON FOR WHICH THE TPO CONSIDERED THIS COMPANY AS UNCOMPARABLE IS BECAUSE THE REVENUE EARNED BY THE COMPANY IS ONLY 66.45% THEREBY IT FAILS MORE THAN 75% ITES REVENUE FILTER APPLIED BY TPO. LD. AR SUBMITTED, THE TPO HAS ARRIVED AT THE BPO ITES SERVICE REVENUE AT 66.45% BY TREATING THE RENTAL INCOME AS OPERATIONAL REVENUE. HOWEVER, THE ENTIRE EXPORT REVENUE OF THIS COMPANY IS EARNED FROM BPO SERVICES ONLY, HENCE, THE RENTAL INCOME CANNOT BE CONSIDERED AS PART OF OPERATIONAL REVENUE. HE FURTHER SUBMITTED, TPO HAS ALSO SELECTED COMPANIES WHOSE EXPORTS SALES ARE MORE THAN 25% OF THE REVENUE. THUS, AS THE REVENUE EARNED BY THIS COMPANY FROM EXPORT IS MORE THAN 25% IT CANNOT BE EXCLUDED AS A COMPARABLE. TO SUBSTANTIATE HIS CLAIM, LD. AR REFERRED TO THE FINANCIALS OF THE COMPANY AS SUBMITTED AT PAGE 470-475 OF THE PAPER BOOK. 17.1 LD. DR, HOWEVER, SUPPORTED THE REASONING OF TPO. :-8-: IT(TP)A NO. 76/CHNY/2018 17.2 WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE PARTIES AND PERUSED THE MATERIALS ON RECORD. IT IS VERY MUCH EVIDENT FROM THE ORDER OF TPO THAT HE HAS REJECTED THIS COMPANY SOLELY FOR THE REASON THAT REVENUE FROM BPO SERVICES IS LESS THAN 75% OF THE TOTAL OPERATIONAL INCOME. HOWEVER, WE FIND MERIT IN THE CONTENTION OF LD. AR THAT ENTIRE EXPORT REVENUE OF THIS COMPANY IS EARNED FROM BPO SERVICES ALONE. HENCE, RENTAL INCOME CANNOT BE TREATED AS PART OF OPERATIONAL INCOME. FURTHER, THERE IS ALSO SUBSTANCE IN THE SUBMISSIONS OF LD. AR THAT THE COMPANY SATISFIES MORE THAN 25% REVENUE EARNED FROM EXPORT FILTER APPLIED BY TPO. AS NEITHER TPO NOR DRP HAVE EXAMINED THE AFORESAID ASPECTS WHILE REJECTING THE AFORESAID COMPANY AS COMPARABLE, WE THINK IT APPROPRIATE TO RESTORE THE ISSUE OF COMPARABILITY OF THIS COMPANY TO AO/TPO FOR CONSIDERING AFRESH AFTER DUE OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD TO ASSESSEE. WE MAKE IT CLEAR, IF ON EXAMINING THE INFORMATION AVAILABLE ON RECORD TPO FINDS THAT THIS COMPANY SATISFIES ALL THE FILTERS APPLIED BY HIM, THEN, HE MAY CONSIDER THIS COMPANY AS A COMPARABLE. 4.3.1 PER CONTRA, THE LD DR SUPPORTED THE ORDERS OF THE LOWER AUTHORITIES. 4.3.2 WE HEARD THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND GONE THROUGH RELEVANT MATERIAL. WE FIND MERIT IN THE ASSESSEES ABOVE SUBMISSION. FOLLOWING THE ABOVE DECISION, WE DEEM IT APPROPRIATE TO RESTORE THE ISSUE OF COMPARABILITY OF THIS COMPANY TO THE AO/TPO FOR CONSIDERING AFRESH AFTER DUE OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD TO ASSESSEE, ON THE SAME LINES, SUPRA. :-9-: IT(TP)A NO. 76/CHNY/2018 4.4 ON THE ISSUE OF WORKING CAPITAL ADJUSTMENT, THE LD.AR SUBMITTED THAT RULE 10B(2)(D) AND RULE 10B(3) OF THE RULES PROVIDE THAT IF THE COMPARABILITY GETS MATERIALLY AFFECTED DUE TO DIFFERENCES IN COST OF CAPITAL, THE SAME NEEDS TO BE ADJUSTED FOR UNDERTAKING RELIABLE ARMS LENGTH ANALYSIS. DIFFERENCE IN WORKING DAYS BETWEEN THE ASSESSEE AND THE COMPARABLE COMPANIES ARE SUBMITTED AS UNDER:- PARTICULARS WC DAYS COMPARABLE COMPANIES (AVERAGE) 58.46 CCSSC 26.84 IT WAS SUBMITTED THAT THE ABOVE DIFFERENCES WOULD NATURALLY HAVE AN IMPACT IN THE PROFITABILITY AND OPERATING MARGINS, THEREBY WARRANTING FOR AN ECONOMIC ADJUSTMENT. WORKING CAPITAL ADJUSTMENTS ARE TO BE UNDERTAKEN IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE OECD PRINCIPLES. IN SUPPORT OF HIS CLAIM, THE LD.AR RELIED ON THE DECISION OF THE CO-ORDINATE BENCH OF THIS TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF M/S. FOXTEQ SERVICES INDIA PVT. LTD., IN ITA NO.174/MDS/2016 DATED 01.09.2016. THE RELEVANT PORTION OF THE ORDER IS EXTRACTED BELOW: 7. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS ON EITHER SIDE AND PERUSED THE RELEVANT MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD. THE ASSESSEE OBJECTED TO THE ADJUSTMENT MADE BY THE TRANSFER PRICING OFFICER. WITH REGARD TO WORKING CAPITAL ADJUSTMENT, THE ASSESSEE CLAIMS THAT THE DIFFERENCE IN WORKING CAPITAL BETWEEN THE ASSESSEE AND THE :-10-: IT(TP)A NO. 76/CHNY/2018 COMPARABLE COMPANIES WOULD MATERIALLY AFFECT THE PROFIT DETERMINED. THEREFORE, CERTAIN ADJUSTMENT NEEDS TO BE MADE TO BRING THEM ON EQUAL FOOTING. THE ASSESSEE ALSO BROUGHT TO THE NOTICE OF THE DRP THAT THE WORKING CAPITAL ADJUSTMENT, WHICH WAS TO ENSURE THE PROFIT DERIVED BY THE COMPARABLE COMPANIES, CAN BE COMPARED WITH THE PROFIT OF THE ASSESSEE. THIS TRIBUNAL IS OF THE CONSIDERED OPINION THAT THE CAPITAL EMPLOYED ON THE ASSESSEE, INCLUDING WORKING CAPITAL, IS ONE OF THE RELEVANT FACTORS FOR THE PURPOSE OF DETERMINING THE ARMS LENGTH PRICE. THEREFORE, THE CAPITAL EMPLOYED BY THE ASSESSEE, INCLUDING THE WORKING CAPITAL, AND THAT OF COMPARABLE COMPANIES NEEDS TO BE TAKEN INTO CONSIDERATION. WITHOUT COMPARING THE WORKING CAPITAL EMPLOYED BY THE COMPARABLE COMPANIES AND THAT OF THE ASSESSEE, THIS TRIBUNAL IS OF THE CONSIDERED OPINION THAT THERE CANNOT BE ANY TRANSFER PRICING ADJUSTMENT. 4.4.1 PER CONTRA, THE LD.DR SUPPORTED THE ORDERS OF THE LOWER AUTHORITIES. 4.4.2 WE HEARD THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND GONE THROUGH RELEVANT MATERIAL. WE FIND MERIT IN THE ASSESSEES ABOVE SUBMISSION. FOLLOWING THE ABOVE DECISION, WE ARE OF THE CONSIDERED OPINION THAT THE CAPITAL EMPLOYED ON THE ASSESSEE, INCLUDING WORKING CAPITAL, IS ONE OF THE RELEVANT FACTORS FOR THE PURPOSE OF DETERMINING THE ARMS LENGTH PRICE. THEREFORE, THE CAPITAL EMPLOYED BY THE ASSESSEE, INCLUDING THE WORKING CAPITAL, AND THAT OF COMPARABLE COMPANIES NEEDS TO BE TAKEN INTO CONSIDERATION. WITHOUT COMPARING THE WORKING CAPITAL EMPLOYED BY THE COMPARABLE COMPANIES AND THAT OF THE :-11-: IT(TP)A NO. 76/CHNY/2018 ASSESSEE, THIS TRIBUNAL IS OF THE CONSIDERED OPINION THAT THERE CANNOT BE ANY TRANSFER PRICING ADJUSTMENT. THEREFORE, WE RESTORE THIS ISSUE TO THE AO/TPO FOR CONSIDERING IT AFRESH AFTER DUE OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD TO ASSESSEE, ON THE SAME LINES, SUPRA. 4.5 ON THE ISSUE OF DISALLOWANCE OF CLAIM U/S.80JJAA, THE LD.AR SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE IS ENGAGED IN EXPORT DOCUMENTATION SERVICES, E-COMMERCE AND DATA MANAGEMENT SERVICES, WEB-BASED SUPPORT SERVICES AND SOFTWARE SERVICES WHEREIN THE RAW DATA RECEIVED ARE CONVERTED INTO A DISTINCT PROCESSED DATA. SECTION 80JJAA IS APPLICABLE TO AN INDUSTRIAL UNDERTAKING ENGAGED IN THE MANUFACTURE OR PRODUCTION OF ARTICLE OR THING. THE TERM PRODUCTION IS A WIDER THAN THE TERM MANUFACTURE AS HELD BY THE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT V SESA GOA LTD [2004] (271 ITR 331) AND CIT V N.C. BUDHARAJA & CO. [1993] (204 ITR 412). THE LD.AR ALSO SUBMITTED THAT THIS ISSUE IS PENDING BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A) FOR HIS DECISION IN THE EARLIER YEAR. 4.5.1 WE HEARD THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS. SINCE, THIS ISSUE IS PENDING BEFORE THE LD.CIT(A) FOR HIS DECISION IN THE EARLIER YEAR, WE DEEM IT :-12-: IT(TP)A NO. 76/CHNY/2018 FIT TO REMIT THIS ISSUE BACK TO THE AO TO DECIDE THE ISSUE IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE DECISION OF THE LD.CIT(A). 5. SINCE THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT ARGUED ON ALL OTHER GROUNDS OF APPEAL FROM ITS GROUNDS OF APPEAL, THEY ARE TREATED AS DISMISSED. 6. IN THE RESULT, THE ASSESSEES APPEAL IS TREATED AS PARTLY ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE COURT ON 25 TH OCTOBER, 2019 AT CHENNAI. SD/- SD/- /CHENNAI, /DATED 25 TH OCTOBER, 2019 RSR /COPY TO: 1. /APPELLANT 2. /RESPONDENT 3. ( )/CIT(A) 4. /CIT 5. /DR 6. [ /GF ( ) (DUVVURU R.L REDDY) /JUDICIAL MEMBER ( ) (S. JAYARAMAN) /ACCOUNTANT MEMBER