POSCO INDIA PROCESSING CENTER PVT. LIMITED,CHENNAI V. ACIT CORPORATE CIRCLE 5(2), CHENNAI

ITTPA 3/CHNY/2019

AI Insights

The case involves M/s. POSCO India Holdings Pvt. Ltd., which appealed against the assessment order passed under sections 143(3), 92CA, and 144C(4) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, concerning the assessment year 2014-15. The primary contention was regarding the treatment of foreign exchange gains/losses arising from finance transactions, specifically whether these should be considered operating or non-operating in nature. The Tribunal found that the foreign exchange fluctuation loss incurred due to buyer's credit facilities was a financial expense and should not be included in the operating costs for transfer pricing purposes.

• Counselvise Citation: [2025] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 472155 (ITAT-CHENNAI)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax (Transfer Pricing) Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 04-04-2025
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Bench Allotted: D
• Assessment Year: 2014-2015
• Other Referred Cases: Nethawk Networks India Private Limited vs ITO [I.T.A. No.7633/M/2012], DCIT vs Hanil Tube India [ITA No.1037/Mds/2014]
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: A. SASIKUMAR
• Assessee Lawyers: VIKRAM VIJAYARAGHAVAN
• Keywords: Transfer pricing; International transaction
• Section: 20

Judgement Text

" आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, ’डी’\u0001यायपीठ, चे ई। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘D’ BENCH: CHENNAI \u0001ी एबी टी. वक , ाियक सद\u0011 एवं एवं एवं एवं \u0001ी अिमताभ शु\u0018ा, लेखा सद क े सम\u001b BEFORE SHRI ABY T. VARKEY, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI AMITABH SHUKLA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER IT (TP) A No.3/Chny/2019 िनधा\u000eरणवष\u000e/Assessment Year: 2014-15 M/s. POSCO India Holdings Pvt. Ltd., Plot No. RNS 9, 12, 13, 14, SIPCOT Industrial Growth Centre, Chennai-603 204. v. The ACIT, Corporate Circle – 5(2), Chennai. [PAN: AAFCP 0211 N] (अपीलाथ\u0016/Appellant) (\u0017\u0018यथ\u0016/Respondent) अपीलाथ\u0016 क\u001a ओर से/ Appellant by : Mr.Vikram Vijayaraghavan, Advocate \u0017\u0018यथ\u0016 क\u001a ओर से /Respondent by : Mr.A. Sasikumar, CIT सुनवाईक\u001aतारीख/Date of Hearing : 13.02.2025 घोषणाक\u001aतारीख /Date of Pronouncement : 04.04.2025 आदेश / O R D E R PER ABY T. VARKEY, JM: This is an appeal preferred by the assessee company against the assessment order passed u/s.143(3) r.w.s.92CA r.w.s.144C(4) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act‘) pursuant to the DRP directions dated 18.09.2018 for AY 2014-15. 2. Though the assessee has raised 14 grounds all in relation to the transfer pricing adjustment made by the TPO, it was submitted before us that first, Ground No.2 may be first considered, and if it is allowed, then the assessee’s grievance against the or addressed and that, the transfer pricing adjustment would stand vacated. 3. Ground No.2 of the assessee is reproduced as under: Erroneous treatment of foreign exchange gains/losses arising from finance transactions The Hon'ble DRP has erred in law and facts in upholding the action of the Ld. AO/Ld. TPO in treating gains/losses arising out of foreign exchange fluctuations as operating in nature, without appreciating the fact that such gains/losses had resulted out of finance tr borrowings from the bank, ECB loan availed etc. 4. Brief facts relating to this issue are that, the assessee is trading in steel coils and it undertakes shearing and slitting activities as per the length and width specifications of the customers. The assessee is noted to importing steel coils from its AE a transactions. The assessee had benchmarked all the international transactions on an aggregate basis, at entity level by applying the Transactional Net Margin Method (‘TNMM’). According to the TPSR, the margin of 2.26% earned margin of 1.78% of comparable companies, the were reported to be at arm’s length disagreed with the economic analysis of the assessee and undertoo segmental analysis and drew up the ‘Import Segment out its profitability, the AO is noted to have treated the foreign exchange fluctuation loss as an operating expense, albeit the TPO treated the foreign exchange gain to be non IT (TP) A No.3/Chny/201 M/s. POSCO India Holdings Pvt. Ltd. :: 2 :: the assessee’s grievance against the order of the TPO/AO would stand addressed and that, the transfer pricing adjustment would stand vacated. Ground No.2 of the assessee is reproduced as under: Erroneous treatment of foreign exchange gains/losses arising from e DRP has erred in law and facts in upholding the action of the Ld. AO/Ld. TPO in treating gains/losses arising out of foreign exchange fluctuations as operating in nature, without appreciating the fact that such gains/losses had resulted out of finance transactions such as short-term buyers credit borrowings from the bank, ECB loan availed etc. Brief facts relating to this issue are that, the assessee is trading in steel coils and it undertakes shearing and slitting activities as per the length and width specifications of the customers. The assessee is noted to importing steel coils from its AE abroad amongst other international transactions. The assessee had benchmarked all the international transactions on an aggregate basis, at entity level by applying the Transactional Net Margin Method (‘TNMM’). According to the TPSR, earned by assessee was higher than the average f comparable companies, the international be at arm’s length. The TPO however is noted to have disagreed with the economic analysis of the assessee and undertoo segmental analysis and drew up the ‘Import Segment – AE’. For working out its profitability, the AO is noted to have treated the foreign exchange fluctuation loss as an operating expense, albeit the TPO treated the foreign exchange gain to be non-operating in nature. The TPO accordingly /Chny/2019 (AY 2014-15) M/s. POSCO India Holdings Pvt. Ltd. AO would stand addressed and that, the transfer pricing adjustment would stand vacated. Ground No.2 of the assessee is reproduced as under: Erroneous treatment of foreign exchange gains/losses arising from e DRP has erred in law and facts in upholding the action of the Ld. AO/Ld. TPO in treating gains/losses arising out of foreign exchange fluctuations as operating in nature, without appreciating the fact that such gains/losses had term buyers credit Brief facts relating to this issue are that, the assessee is trading in steel coils and it undertakes shearing and slitting activities as per the length and width specifications of the customers. The assessee is noted to broad amongst other international transactions. The assessee had benchmarked all the international transactions on an aggregate basis, at entity level by applying the Transactional Net Margin Method (‘TNMM’). According to the TPSR, since was higher than the average international transactions . The TPO however is noted to have disagreed with the economic analysis of the assessee and undertook a AE’. For working out its profitability, the AO is noted to have treated the foreign exchange- fluctuation loss as an operating expense, albeit the TPO treated the ating in nature. The TPO accordingly computed the margin of the ‘Import Segment margin of comparables segment was lower than the pricing adjustment of Rs.15.32 crores. Aggrieved by the draft order of the AO/TPO, the assessee filed objections before the DRP who dismissed the same. Pursuant to it, the AO passed the final assessment order. Aggrieved, the assessee is now in appeal before us. 5. Assailing the action of lower authorities, the Ld. AR for the assessee brought to our notice that both the foreign exchange fluctuation loss was in the nature of finance costs a consequence of financial transact borrowings from banks, ECB loan etc. to manage the working capital of the business and therefore it was non assessee has relied upon a plethora of decisions wherein the foreign exchange fluctuation loss has been consistently held as non item. He also pointed out that, when the TPO himself had treated the foreign exchange gain to be non then according to him, it was unjustified on his treat only the net forex assessment year. He further brought to our attention the relevant safe harbor rules contained in Rule 10TA of the I wherein also the foreign exchange fluctuation loss was stated to be non IT (TP) A No.3/Chny/201 M/s. POSCO India Holdings Pvt. Ltd. :: 3 :: computed the margin of the ‘Import Segment – AE’ at (-) 8.79% and the was worked out to 1.97%. Since the margin of the segment was lower than the comparables, the TPO worked out transfer justment of Rs.15.32 crores. Aggrieved by the draft order of the AO/TPO, the assessee filed objections before the DRP who dismissed the Pursuant to it, the AO passed the final assessment order. Aggrieved, the assessee is now in appeal before us. ssailing the action of lower authorities, the Ld. AR for the assessee brought to our notice that both the foreign exchange fluctuation loss was finance costs viz., bank charges, interest etc financial transactions such as short-term borrowings from banks, ECB loan etc. to manage the working capital of and therefore it was non-operating in nature. In support the assessee has relied upon a plethora of decisions wherein the foreign ange fluctuation loss has been consistently held as non item. He also pointed out that, when the TPO himself had treated the n to be non-operating in nature in subsequent years then according to him, it was unjustified on his part to shift his stand and net forex loss as operating in nature in the relevant . He further brought to our attention the relevant safe harbor rules contained in Rule 10TA of the Income Tax gn exchange fluctuation loss was stated to be non /Chny/2019 (AY 2014-15) M/s. POSCO India Holdings Pvt. Ltd. ) 8.79% and the was worked out to 1.97%. Since the margin of the , the TPO worked out transfer justment of Rs.15.32 crores. Aggrieved by the draft order of the AO/TPO, the assessee filed objections before the DRP who dismissed the Pursuant to it, the AO passed the final assessment order. ssailing the action of lower authorities, the Ld. AR for the assessee brought to our notice that both the foreign exchange fluctuation loss was bank charges, interest etc. incurred as term buyer’s credit borrowings from banks, ECB loan etc. to manage the working capital of operating in nature. In support the assessee has relied upon a plethora of decisions wherein the foreign ange fluctuation loss has been consistently held as non-operating item. He also pointed out that, when the TPO himself had treated the operating in nature in subsequent years part to shift his stand and in the relevant . He further brought to our attention the relevant safe ax Rules, 1962 gn exchange fluctuation loss was stated to be non- operating item. Alternatively, he argued that, between the comparable companies and the Assessee, foreign exchange fluctuation gain/loss should be excluded consistently from the computation and the computation of comparable companies while undertaking the benchmarking analysis of its international transactions with AEs. The Ld. AR for the assessee also furnished written submissions in support of his arguments, which has been taken on record. 6. Per contra, the Ld. CIT, DR appearing for the Revenue supported the order of the lower authorities. According to him, the buye availed by the assessee was inextricably linked with import of materials from AEs and therefore it ought to be treated as an operating item. 7. We have heard both the parties and perused the material placed before us. The issue in dispute in th foreign exchange fluctuation loss debited by the assessee in the books of accounts is to be treated as an operating item or non the purposes of computing operating margin for transfer pricing benchmarking purposes. It is noted from the facts available on record that, the assessee had availed buyer’s credit which is a finance arrangement from banks. In terms of this credit line, a short is available to importers in relation to the goods pro Upon perusal of the terms of the arrangement and the modus operandi, it IT (TP) A No.3/Chny/201 M/s. POSCO India Holdings Pvt. Ltd. :: 4 :: operating item. Alternatively, he argued that, to even out the differences between the comparable companies and the Assessee, foreign exchange fluctuation gain/loss should be excluded consistently from the computation and the computation of comparable companies while undertaking the benchmarking analysis of its international transactions . The Ld. AR for the assessee also furnished written submissions in support of his arguments, which has been taken on record. Per contra, the Ld. CIT, DR appearing for the Revenue supported the order of the lower authorities. According to him, the buye availed by the assessee was inextricably linked with import of materials from AEs and therefore it ought to be treated as an operating item. We have heard both the parties and perused the material placed before us. The issue in dispute in the present ground is that, whether the foreign exchange fluctuation loss debited by the assessee in the books of accounts is to be treated as an operating item or non-operating item for the purposes of computing operating margin for transfer pricing rking purposes. It is noted from the facts available on record that, the assessee had availed buyer’s credit which is a finance arrangement from banks. In terms of this credit line, a short is available to importers in relation to the goods procured from abroad. Upon perusal of the terms of the arrangement and the modus operandi, it /Chny/2019 (AY 2014-15) M/s. POSCO India Holdings Pvt. Ltd. to even out the differences between the comparable companies and the Assessee, foreign exchange fluctuation gain/loss should be excluded consistently from the PLI computation and the computation of comparable companies while undertaking the benchmarking analysis of its international transactions . The Ld. AR for the assessee also furnished written submissions in support of his arguments, which has been taken on record. Per contra, the Ld. CIT, DR appearing for the Revenue supported the order of the lower authorities. According to him, the buyer’s credit availed by the assessee was inextricably linked with import of materials from AEs and therefore it ought to be treated as an operating item. We have heard both the parties and perused the material placed e present ground is that, whether the foreign exchange fluctuation loss debited by the assessee in the books of operating item for the purposes of computing operating margin for transfer pricing rking purposes. It is noted from the facts available on record that, the assessee had availed buyer’s credit which is a finance arrangement from banks. In terms of this credit line, a short-term credit cured from abroad. Upon perusal of the terms of the arrangement and the modus operandi, it is noted that, the assessee first places import order and the amount is invoiced by the supplier in USD. The suppliers usually credit period for discharging the invoice value. Upon expiry of this period, the assessee approaches the bank who sanctions short term credit (denominated in USD) and essentially makes payment to the supplier on behalf of the assessee. At the time of payment of the buyer’s cr expiry of the credit period allowed by the Bank and having regard to the prevailing foreign exchange rates at that material time, the assessee incurs interest cost and foreign exchange los view therefore, such foreign exc borrowings/financing arrangement entered into by the assessee with the Bank. 8. After going through the foreign exchange fluctuation ledger, placed at Pages 458 to 528 of Paper book, it is noted that, the impugned foreign exchange fluctuation loss only related to the loss incurred in relation to this buyer’s credit facility availed from the Bank and therefore for the above reasons, the said loss is found to be financial nature. It is also observed that, th exchange fluctuation gain to be a non the foreign exchange loss to be operating in nature. We are unable to countenance this contrary and shifting stand of the Revenue. The Ld. AR also brought to our notice the opinion of the Institute of Chartered IT (TP) A No.3/Chny/201 M/s. POSCO India Holdings Pvt. Ltd. :: 5 :: is noted that, the assessee first places import order and the amount is invoiced by the supplier in USD. The suppliers usually allow scharging the invoice value. Upon expiry of this period, the assessee approaches the bank who sanctions short term credit (denominated in USD) and essentially makes payment to the supplier on behalf of the assessee. At the time of payment of the buyer’s cr expiry of the credit period allowed by the Bank and having regard to the prevailing foreign exchange rates at that material time, the assessee incurs interest cost and foreign exchange loss/gain. In our considered view therefore, such foreign exchange fluctuation loss relates to financing arrangement entered into by the assessee with the After going through the foreign exchange fluctuation ledger, placed at Pages 458 to 528 of Paper book, it is noted that, the impugned foreign exchange fluctuation loss only related to the loss incurred in relation to this buyer’s credit facility availed from the Bank and therefore for the above reasons, the said loss is found to be financial/non nature. It is also observed that, the TPO himself had treated the foreign exchange fluctuation gain to be a non-operating item but surprisingly held the foreign exchange loss to be operating in nature. We are unable to countenance this contrary and shifting stand of the Revenue. The Ld. AR lso brought to our notice the opinion of the Institute of Chartered /Chny/2019 (AY 2014-15) M/s. POSCO India Holdings Pvt. Ltd. is noted that, the assessee first places import order and the amount is allow a specified scharging the invoice value. Upon expiry of this period, the assessee approaches the bank who sanctions short term credit (denominated in USD) and essentially makes payment to the supplier on behalf of the assessee. At the time of payment of the buyer’s credit upon expiry of the credit period allowed by the Bank and having regard to the prevailing foreign exchange rates at that material time, the assessee gain. In our considered hange fluctuation loss relates to financing arrangement entered into by the assessee with the After going through the foreign exchange fluctuation ledger, placed at Pages 458 to 528 of Paper book, it is noted that, the impugned foreign exchange fluctuation loss only related to the loss incurred in relation to this buyer’s credit facility availed from the Bank and therefore for the non-operating in e TPO himself had treated the foreign operating item but surprisingly held the foreign exchange loss to be operating in nature. We are unable to countenance this contrary and shifting stand of the Revenue. The Ld. AR lso brought to our notice the opinion of the Institute of Chartered Accountants of India, Expert Advisory Committeewho have also that the balances arising on account of buyer’s credit is in the nature of financing arrangement and therefore in terms the assessee had rightly reported the foreign exchange fluctuation loss relating to this financing arrangement under the head ‘Finance Costs’ in the Profit & Loss Account. Having regard our foregoing observations, we thus find merit in the contention of the assessee that, the impugned foreign exchange fluctuation loss related to financing arrangement made with the Bank and not the import of steel coils, as wrongly inferred by the lower authorities, and hence, the impugned loss is operating item, which according to us, is to be excluded from the computation of operating margin of the assessee. Our view finds support from the decision of this Tribunal in the case of India Private Limited vs ITO [I was held as under: - \"40...it is evident that as the non-operating one and however, he considered the related Foreign Exchange Loss as the operating expense Consequently, the iss Revenue on this issue, we are of the opinion that there is merit in the above submissions of the assessee and the TPO is directed to give favourable consideration to the submissions of the assessee, in regard. Accordingly, we direct the AO to exclude the foreign exchange loss pertaining to the interest from the operating cost for working out the operating margins for the purposes of ALP. Accordingly ground no.10 is allowed.\" IT (TP) A No.3/Chny/201 M/s. POSCO India Holdings Pvt. Ltd. :: 6 :: Accountants of India, Expert Advisory Committeewho have also balances arising on account of buyer’s credit is in the nature of and therefore in terms of Accounting Standard the assessee had rightly reported the foreign exchange fluctuation loss relating to this financing arrangement under the head ‘Finance Costs’ in the Profit & Loss Account. Having regard our foregoing observations, we rit in the contention of the assessee that, the impugned foreign exchange fluctuation loss related to financing arrangement made with the Bank and not the import of steel coils, as wrongly inferred by the lower authorities, and hence, the impugned loss is held to be an a non operating item, which according to us, is to be excluded from the computation of operating margin of the assessee. Our view finds support from the decision of this Tribunal in the case of Nethawk Networks India Private Limited vs ITO [I.T.A. No.7633/M/2012] \"40...it is evident that the TPO considered the interest on the loan operating one and however, he considered the related Foreign Exchange Loss as the operating expense Consequently, the issue is raised here for adjudication. After hearing the Revenue on this issue, we are of the opinion that there is merit in the above submissions of the assessee and the TPO is directed to give favourable consideration to the submissions of the assessee, in Accordingly, we direct the AO to exclude the foreign exchange loss pertaining to the interest from the operating cost for working out the operating margins for the purposes of ALP. Accordingly ground no.10 is allowed.\" (emphasis supplied) /Chny/2019 (AY 2014-15) M/s. POSCO India Holdings Pvt. Ltd. Accountants of India, Expert Advisory Committeewho have also opined balances arising on account of buyer’s credit is in the nature of of Accounting Standard-11, the assessee had rightly reported the foreign exchange fluctuation loss relating to this financing arrangement under the head ‘Finance Costs’ in the Profit & Loss Account. Having regard our foregoing observations, we rit in the contention of the assessee that, the impugned foreign exchange fluctuation loss related to financing arrangement made with the Bank and not the import of steel coils, as wrongly inferred by the held to be an a non- operating item, which according to us, is to be excluded from the computation of operating margin of the assessee. Our view finds support Nethawk Networks .T.A. No.7633/M/2012]wherein it the TPO considered the interest on the loan operating one and however, he considered the related Foreign Exchange Loss as the operating expense. ue is raised here for adjudication. After hearing the Revenue on this issue, we are of the opinion that there is merit in the above submissions of the assessee and the TPO is directed to give favourable consideration to the submissions of the assessee, in this Accordingly, we direct the AO to exclude the foreign exchange loss pertaining to the interest from the operating cost for working out the operating margins for the purposes of ALP. (emphasis supplied) 9. It is also observed that even under the Safe contained in Rule 10TA of the Income tax Rules, 1962, the ‘operating expenses’ is defined to exclude foreign exchange fluctuation loss. We are aware that the assessee has not opted for the Safe Har our considered view, the said Rules carry persuasive value as it speaks the mind of the Rule making Authority decision rendered by this Tribunal in the case of India [ITA No.1037/Md Rules, the AO was directed to exclude the foreign exchange fluctuation loss from ‘operating expenses is as follows :- \"10.2 ...Therefore, while computing the PLI, oper purpose of PLI, both foreign exchange loss or gain should be excluded from the operating income. The DRP has allowed loss on Forex to exclude from the operating income, relying on the safe Harbour Rules which provide for exclusion of F Therefore, we do not find any infirmity in the directions given by the DRP to exclude both foreign exchange loss or gain of the tested party as well as comparables from the operating income. This ground of Revenue is dismissed.\" 10. For the above reasons therefore, the AO/TPO is accordingly directed to consider the foreign exchange fluctuation loss to be non expense and accordingly exclude the same, while computing the operating margin of the assessee. The AO/ compute the operating margin of the assessee and pass a speaking order IT (TP) A No.3/Chny/201 M/s. POSCO India Holdings Pvt. Ltd. :: 7 :: It is also observed that even under the Safe contained in Rule 10TA of the Income tax Rules, 1962, the ‘operating expenses’ is defined to exclude foreign exchange fluctuation loss. We are aware that the assessee has not opted for the Safe Harbour Rules, but in our considered view, the said Rules carry persuasive value as it speaks Rule making Authority. For this, we gainfully refer to the decision rendered by this Tribunal in the case of DCIT vs Hanil Tube India [ITA No.1037/Mds/2014]in which referring to the Safe Habour Rules, the AO was directed to exclude the foreign exchange fluctuation expenses. The relevant findings taken note of by us, \"10.2 ...Therefore, while computing the PLI, operating income for the purpose of PLI, both foreign exchange loss or gain should be excluded from the operating income. The DRP has allowed loss on Forex to exclude from the operating income, relying on the safe Harbour Rules which provide for exclusion of Forex loss from operating expenses. Therefore, we do not find any infirmity in the directions given by the DRP to exclude both foreign exchange loss or gain of the tested party as well as comparables from the operating income. This ground of smissed.\" For the above reasons therefore, the AO/TPO is accordingly directed to consider the foreign exchange fluctuation loss to be non expense and accordingly exclude the same, while computing the operating margin of the assessee. The AO/TPO shall accordingly re compute the operating margin of the assessee and pass a speaking order /Chny/2019 (AY 2014-15) M/s. POSCO India Holdings Pvt. Ltd. It is also observed that even under the Safe Harbour Rules contained in Rule 10TA of the Income tax Rules, 1962, the ‘operating expenses’ is defined to exclude foreign exchange fluctuation loss. We are bour Rules, but in our considered view, the said Rules carry persuasive value as it speaks . For this, we gainfully refer to the DCIT vs Hanil Tube in which referring to the Safe Habour Rules, the AO was directed to exclude the foreign exchange fluctuation . The relevant findings taken note of by us, ating income for the purpose of PLI, both foreign exchange loss or gain should be excluded from the operating income. The DRP has allowed loss on Forex to exclude from the operating income, relying on the safe Harbour Rules orex loss from operating expenses. Therefore, we do not find any infirmity in the directions given by the DRP to exclude both foreign exchange loss or gain of the tested party as well as comparables from the operating income. This ground of For the above reasons therefore, the AO/TPO is accordingly directed to consider the foreign exchange fluctuation loss to be non-operating expense and accordingly exclude the same, while computing the TPO shall accordingly re- compute the operating margin of the assessee and pass a speaking order for giving effect to this appellate order. allowed. 11. The Ld. AR had pointed out to us that, once the above Ground no. 2 is allowed, the operating margin of the assessee company shall be higher the margins of the comparables, as computed by the TPO in the impugned order and accordingly the TP adjustment would stand vacated. Having regard to this submission of the Ld. AR, other ground this appeal has become academic in nature and is therefore being dismissed as infructuous. 12. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed. Order pronounced on the Sd/- (अिमताभ शु\u0018ा) (AMITABH SHUKLA लेखासद\u0007य/ACCOUNTANT MEMBER चे\u0003ई/Chennai, \u0005दनांक/Dated: 04th April, 20 TLN आदेशक \u000eितिलिपअ\u0014ेिषत/Copy to 1. अपीलाथ /Appellant 2. \u000e\u000fथ /Respondent 3. आयकरआयु\u0015/CIT, Chennai / Madurai / Salem / Coimbatore. 4. िवभागीय\u000eितिनिध/DR 5. गाड फाईल/GF IT (TP) A No.3/Chny/201 M/s. POSCO India Holdings Pvt. Ltd. :: 8 :: for giving effect to this appellate order. Accordingly, The Ld. AR had pointed out to us that, once the above Ground no. 2 d, the operating margin of the assessee company shall be higher the margins of the comparables, as computed by the TPO in the impugned order and accordingly the TP adjustment would stand vacated. Having regard to this submission of the Ld. AR, other ground this appeal has become academic in nature and is therefore being dismissed as infructuous. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed. Order pronounced on the 04th day of April, 2025, in Chennai. ) AMITABH SHUKLA) /ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Sd/ (एबी टी. (ABY T. VARKEY याियकसद\u0007य/JUDICIAL MEMBER , 2025. Copy to: , Chennai / Madurai / Salem / Coimbatore. /Chny/2019 (AY 2014-15) M/s. POSCO India Holdings Pvt. Ltd. this ground is The Ld. AR had pointed out to us that, once the above Ground no. 2 d, the operating margin of the assessee company shall be higher the margins of the comparables, as computed by the TPO in the impugned order and accordingly the TP adjustment would stand vacated. Having regard to this submission of the Ld. AR, other grounds raised in this appeal has become academic in nature and is therefore being In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed. , in Chennai. Sd/- . वक ) ABY T. VARKEY) /JUDICIAL MEMBER , Chennai / Madurai / Salem / Coimbatore. "