TIMKEN INDIA LIMITED,BANGALORE V. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1, JAMSHEDPUR, JAMSHEDPUR

ITA 92/RAN/2022

AI Insights

Timken India Limited appealed against the order of the Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, which involved issues related to transfer pricing adjustments and disallowances under section 14A read with rule 8D of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The Tribunal examined whether the Resale Price Method (RPM) or the Transactional Net Margin Method (TNMM) should be applied for transfer pricing adjustments. The Tribunal found that the RPM was incorrectly applied as it compared two unrelated products, leading to the adoption of TNMM. Additionally, the Tribunal upheld the disallowances related to expenses incurred in relation to exempt income under section 14A and the computation of book profit under section 115JB.

• Counselvise Citation: [2025] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 633204 (ITAT-RANCHI)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 12-06-2025
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Bench Allotted: DB
• Assessment Year: 2017-2018
• Other Referred Cases: DCIT v. Total Oil India Pvt. Ltd., ACIT vs Vireet Investment (P) Ltd., Bhushan Steel
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: RINKU SINGH
• Assessee Lawyers: PER BENCH; SSHRIK.M.GUPTAKRISHAN SHAW; ARS; IMPORT
• Keywords: Transfer pricing; International transaction; Earning of tax free income; Double taxation relief; Rule 8D; Residential status; Arm length price
• Section: 14A; 115JB

Judgement Text

"IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, BEFORES/ AND RATNESH NANDAN SAHAY, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Timken India Limited, 39 to 42, Electronic City Hosur Road, Bangalore PAN/GIR No. (Appellant Assessee by Per Bench This is an appeal filed by the assessee against the order of the ld dated 25.8.2022 for the assessment year 2017 2. S/ShriM.K.Gupta and Krishan Shaw, Smt. Rinku Singh, Ld CIT DR appeared for the revenue IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, RANCHI BENCH, RANCHI S/SHRI GEORGE MATHAN, JUDICIAL AND RATNESH NANDAN SAHAY, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No.92/RAN/2022 Assessment Year: 2017-18 S.A.No.9/Ran/2025 Timken India Limited, 39 to 42, Electronic City-Phase-1, Hosur Road, Bangalore Vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle Jamshedpur .aabct 0596 j (Appellant) .. ( Respondent Assessee by : S/Shri K.M.Gupta/Krishan Shaw, ARs Revenue by :Smt. Rinku Singh, CIT DR Date of Hearing : 12/06/202 Date of Pronouncement : 12/06/ O R D E R This is an appeal filed by the assessee against the order of the ld 25.8.2022 for the assessment year 2017-18.. M.K.Gupta and Krishan Shaw,ld Ars appeared for the assessee and Smt. Rinku Singh, Ld CIT DR appeared for the revenue. P a g e 1 | 31 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, , JUDICIAL MEMBER AND RATNESH NANDAN SAHAY, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-1, Respondent) K.M.Gupta/Krishan Shaw, ARs CIT DR 2025 /2025 This is an appeal filed by the assessee against the order of the ld TPO ld Ars appeared for the assessee and ITA No.92/Ran/2022 Assessment Year : 2017-18 P a g e 2 | 31 3. At the time of hearing ld AR submitted that the additional ground raised by the assessee in respect of non-mentioning of DIN is being withdrawn and ld AR has signed in the grounds of appeal to this effect. Consequently, additional ground stands dismissed as withdrawn. 4. It was the submission that in the grounds of appeal raised i.e. Ground No.1 to 4 is in regard to the transfer pricing addition. Ground No.5.1 and 5.2 related to the disallowance u/s.14A r.w. Rule 8D of the Act, both under the normal provisions of the Act as well as in respect of book profit computed under section 115JB of the Act. In regard to Ground No.6, it was the submission that this issue related to the incorrect payment of refund issue without issuing the refund per se and the connected issue of the interest u/s.234D has been raised in Ground No.7. At the time of hearing, it was informed to ld AR that said ground Nos. 6 & 7 related to refund is not an issue which could be adjudicated by the Tribunal and same requires administration action for which the assessee has to approach the proper forum. In regard to Ground No.8, same was against the non application of beneficial rate of tax under the India and Singapore Tax treaty in respect of dividend distribution during the year. 5. It was submitted by AR that the tax payable on the dividend should be restricted to the rate prescribed under Article 10 of India Singapore DTAA. At the time of hearing, it was informed to ld AR that this issue stands covered by the decision of Hon’ble Special Bench Mumbai in the case of DCIT v. Total Oil India ITA No.92/Ran/2022 Assessment Year : 2017-18 P a g e 3 | 31 Pvt. Ltd., [2023] 149 taxmann.com 332 (Mumbai – Trib.) (SB). In the said decision, the Special Bench has categorically held in para 79 to 83 as follows: “79. As we have discussed earlier, the purpose of DTAA is to avoid double taxation/allocation of taxing rights between two Sovereign nations. When we hold that DDT is a tax not on the shareholder but on the amount declared, distributed, paid as the case may be, by way of dividend and being a tax on income of the company, there is no double taxation of the same income. DTAAs seek to reduce the impact of double taxation which has harmful effects on the international exchange of goods and services and cross-border movements of capital, technology and persons. Bilateral tax treaties address instances of double taxation by allocating taxing rights to the contracting states. Most existing bilateral tax treaties are concluded on the basis of a model, such as the OECD Model Tax Convention or the United Nations Model, which are direct descendants of the first Model of bilateral tax treaty drafted in 1928 by the League of Nations. As a result, while there can be substantial variations between one tax treaty and another, double tax treaties generally follow a relatively uniform structure, which can be viewed as a list of provisions performing separate and distinct functions: (i) Articles dealing with the scope and application of the tax treaty, (ii) Articles addressing the conflict of taxing jurisdiction, (iii) Articles providing for double taxation relief, (iv) Articles concerned with the prevention of tax avoidance and fiscal evasion, and (v) Articles addressing miscellaneous matters (e.g. administrative assistance). Articles 23A and 23B of the OECD model convention give methods to eliminate double taxation. 80. A reading of Article 10 of the model OECD DTAA shows that Dividends paid by a company which is a resident of a Contracting State, say India to a resident of the other Contracting State (say France) may be taxed in that other State (France). However, if the beneficial owner of the Dividend is a resident in France, the tax so charged shall not exceed specified percent. The first condition is that the non-resident in France should be taxed in India. We have to look at the DTAA from the receipients taxability perspective. DDT is paid by the domestic company resident in India. It is a tax on its income and not tax paid on behalf of the shareholder. In such circumstances, the domestic company u/s.115-O does not enter the domain of DTAA at all. 81. If domestic company has to enter the domain of DTAA, the countries should have agreed specifically in the DTAA to that effect. In the Treaty between India and Hungary, the Contracting States have extended the Treaty protection to the dividend distribution tax. It has ITA No.92/Ran/2022 Assessment Year : 2017-18 P a g e 4 | 31 been specifically provided in the protocol to the Indo Hungarian Tax Treaty that, when the company paying the dividends is a resident of India the tax on distributed profits shall be deemed to be taxed in the hands of the shareholders and it shall not exceed 10 per cent of the gross amount of dividend. While making Reference in the case of TotalOil (supra), the ld. Division Bench has made the following observations on this aspect f) Wherever the Contracting States to a tax treaty intended to extend the treaty protection to the dividend distribution tax, it has been so specifically provided in the tax treaty itself. For example, in India Hungry Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement [(2005) 274 ITR (Stat) 74; Indo Hungarian tax treaty, in short], it is specifically provided, In the protocol to the Indo Hungarian tax treaty it is specifically stated that \"When the company paying the dividends is a resident of India the tax on distributed profits shall be deemed to be taxed in the hands of the shareholders and it shall not exceed 10 per cent of the gross amount of dividend\". That is a provision in the protocol, which is essentially an integral part of the treaty, and the protocol to a treaty is as binding as the provisions in the main treaty itself. In the absence of such a provision in other tax treaties, it cannot be inferred as such because a protocol does not explain, but rather lays down, a treaty provision. No matter how desirable be such provisions in the other tax treaties, these provisions cannot be inferred on the basis of a rather aggressively creative process of interpretation of tax treaties. The tax treaties are agreements between the treaty partner jurisdictions, and agreements are to be interpreted as they exist and not on the basis of what ideally these agreements should have been. (g) A tax treaty protects taxation of income in the hands of residents of the treaty partner jurisdictions in the other treaty partner jurisdiction. Therefore, in order to seek treaty protection of an income in India under the Indo French tax treaty, the person seeking such treaty protection has to be a resident of France. The expression 'resident' is defined, under article 4(1) of the Indo French tax treaty, as \"any person who, under the laws of that Contracting State, is liable to tax therein by reason of his domicile,residence, place of management or any othercriterion of a similar nature\". Obviously, the company incorporated in India, i.e. the assessee before us, cannot seek treaty protection in India- except for the purpose of, in deserving cases, where the cases are covered by the nationality non-discrimination under article 26(1), deductibility non-discrimination under article 26(4), and ownership non- discrimination under article 24(5) as, for example, article 26(5) specifically extends the scope of tax treaty protection to the \"enterprises of one of the Contracting States, the capital of which is wholly or partly owned or ITA No.92/Ran/2022 Assessment Year : 2017-18 P a g e 5 | 31 controlled, directly or indirectly, by one or more residents of the other Contracting State\". The same is the position with respect of the other non- discrimination provisions. No such extension of the scope of treaty protection is envisaged, or demonstrated, in the present case. When the taxes are paid by the resident of India, in respect of its own liability in India, such taxation in India, in our considered view, cannot be protected or influenced by a tax treaty provision, unless a specific provision exists in the related tax treaty enabling extension of the treaty protection. (h) Taxation is a sovereign power of the State- collection and imposition of taxes are sovereign functions. Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement is in the nature of self-imposed limitations of a State's inherent right to tax, and these DTAAs divide tax sources, taxable objects amongst themselves. Inherent in the self-imposed restrictions imposed by the DTAA is the fact that outside of the limitations imposed by the DTAA, the State is free to levy taxes as per its own policy choices. The dividend distribution tax, not being a tax paid by or on behalf of a resident of treaty partner jurisdiction, cannot thus be curtailed by a tax treaty provision.\" 82. We are of the view that the above exposition of law is correct and we agree with the same. Therefore, the DTAA does not get triggered at all when a domestic company pays DDT u/s.115O of the Act. Conclusion: 83. For the reasons give above, we hold that where dividend is declared, distributed or paid by a domestic company to a non-resident shareholder(s), which attracts Additional Income-tax (Tax on Distributed Profits) referred to in sec.115-O of the Act, such additional income tax payable by the domestic company shall be at the rate mentioned in section 115-O of the Act and not at the rate of tax applicable to the non-resident shareholder(s) as specified in the relevant DTAA with reference to such dividend income. Nevertheless, we are conscious of the sovereign's prerogative to extend the treaty protection to domestic companies paying dividend distribution tax through the mechanism of DTAAs. Thus, wherever the Contracting States to a tax treaty intend to extend the treaty protection to the domestic company paying dividend distribution tax, only then, the domestic company can claim benefit of the DTAA, if any. Thus, the question before the Special Bench is answered, accordingly. “ ITA No.92/Ran/2022 Assessment Year : 2017-18 P a g e 6 | 31 6. As this issue is now squarely covered by the Special Bench decision in the case of Total Oil India Pvt. Ltd (supra) this issue is held against the assessee. Consequently, Gound No.8 is dismissed. 7. Ground No.9 is in relation to charging of interest u/s.234B. Same is consequential in nature. 8. Ground No.10 is against initiation of penalty u/s.270A of the Act. This issue is consequential in nature. 9. Coming to issue raised in Ground No.1 to 4, which are transfer pricing addition. It was submitted by ld AR that the assessee is in the business of manufacturing and sale of bearings. It was the submission that the assessee manufactures various types of bearings. It was also the submission that there are some bearings, which the assesse do not manufacture but are required in the industries. Such bearings are manufactured by the AEs of the assessee. The assessee sources the bearings from its AEs on the basis of orders received by the assessee from the end users and sells the same to the end users. It was the further submission that the assessee is also doing the distribution and trading in respect of ancillary products such as grease, seal ware rings, adapters and sleeves. It was the submission that the assessee does not manufacture nor does any of the AEs any of these products being grease, seals, ware rings,adapters, etc. The assessee and its AEs are exclusively in the manufacture and sale of bearings. It was the submission that from the assessment year 2003-04 till the ITA No.92/Ran/2022 Assessment Year : 2017-18 P a g e 7 | 31 impugned assessment years, no specific TP adjustment have ever been made on the assessee. It was the submission that during the relevant impugned assessment year, the AO rejected the TNMM method applied by the assessee and applied the resale price method for benchmarking the international transactions of purchase of finished goods, such as bearings for resale in the distribution segment without appreciating the business models of the assessee. It was the submission that in the distribution of the bearings, which was sourced from the AEs of the assessee, the same was treated as related transaction and the margin was determined at 7.30%. It was the submission that the assessee sourced the grease, seals, ware rings, adapters, etc., from local suppliers an in some cases from imports. The profit margin earned by the assessee on such unrelated products to the manufacturing activity of the assessee, the assesse earned 19.68% profit. The AO compared the profit margin on such unrelated products with that of the related products even though there is variation and accordingly determined shortfall in gross profit margin at 12.38% in respect of sales in regard to related products. It was the submission that for the application of resale price method, the same is normally applicable to distributors who are carrying risk in the market and stock inventory. It was the submission that in respect of related products, the assessee gets the order from end users and on the basis of the requirement of the end users, initiate orders with AEs, who manufacture such specific bearings, imports such bearings and sale it to the end users at the predetermined price. It was the submission that the assessee was ITA No.92/Ran/2022 Assessment Year : 2017-18 P a g e 8 | 31 not holding any closing stock specifically much less any additional stock in relation to any of such bearings, which have been sold by the assessee by import from its AEs. It was the further submission that in relation to the unrelated products being grease, seals, ware rings, adapters, etc, the assessee acts as distributor and holds the stock of such items such items are sourced locally from the local manufactures and some portions are imported as required. It was the submission that these products are used for the installation of the bearings both manufactured by the assessee and such bearings as are imported and supplied to the end users. It was the submission that in relation to bearing which is considered as related segments, the assessee carries no market risk nor any inventory risk but acts only as a supply agent on the basis of the order that it receives from end users. Consequently, its margin is 7.3% and in respect of the unrelated products. It was the submission that the assessee did carry the market risk and the inventory risk insofar as the assessee was stocking such items for the purpose of the distribution and stock did not depend the orders received by the assessee. It was the submission that in regard to such unrelated items, if the items are not manufactured by the assessee nor tis AEs, the assessee derived profit margin at 19.68%. It was the submission that comparing the bearings as related products with the lubricants such as grease, seals, ware rings, adapters, etc, which are not manufactured by the assessee but purchased and sold as distributor by the are un-comparable insofar as the profit margin of the two products are normally different. It is not possible that the ITA No.92/Ran/2022 Assessment Year : 2017-18 P a g e 9 | 31 assessee can at any point of time gets fixed percentage of profit in respect of all products that it sales. Each products would have a different margin. It was the further submission that in the TP study done by the assessee, the assessee had applied TNMM method. Ld AR drew our attention to TP study of the assessee, wherein in page 200 of PB, which is the para- H of TP study, the arithmeticalmeans in respect of comparable in the distribution segment was 3.7% whereas the profit margin of the assessee was 2.54%, which is seen from the segment -H, which reads as follows: ITA No.92/Ran/2022 Assessment Year : 2017-18 P a g e 10 | 31 “ 10. In the further study of overall segment: which is at page 208 as follows: ITA No.92/Ran/2022 Assessment Year : 2017-18 P a g e 11 | 31 ITA No.92/Ran/2022 Assessment Year : 2017-18 P a g e 12 | 31 11. The weighted average of the profit wis 6.42% in respect of comparable whereas the net profit margin of the assessee is shown at 11.97%. It was the submission that even for the assessment year 2012-13, similar study had been done which wasshown at page 392 of PB, which reads as follows ITA No.92/Ran/2022 Assessment Year : 2017-18 P a g e 13 | 31 : ITA No.92/Ran/2022 Assessment Year : 2017-18 P a g e 14 | 31 and the TPO order had been made in the case of the assesee for the assessment yea 2012-13 without making any adjustments. This was shown at page 398 & ITA No.92/Ran/2022 Assessment Year : 2017-18 P a g e 15 | 31 399 of PB. It was the submission that the applicability of the resale price method by considering thetwo totally unrelated products would never give a comparable profit margin as each product gives different profit margin. It was further submitted that the trading activity of the related products being bearings, which were imported by the assessee and supplied to the end users at the demand of the end users was 211crores and trading of unrelated products being grease, seal ware rings, adapters and sleeves was only Rs.71 crores. It was the further submission that as the resale price method has been applied to totally unrelated products more so un-comparable products, theTNMM method which has been applied by the assesseeis liable to be adopted. 12. In reply, ld CIT DR submitted that the assessee in the business of distribution segment which is under dispute. There is no dispute in regard to manufacturing segment of the assessee and nor is there any dispute in regard to commission segment of the assessee. Only in regard to distribution segment, the dispute has arisen because the assessee has shown profit margin from import and sale supply of bearings had only 7.33 as against 19.68% on the purchase and sale of distribution of grease, seal ware rings, adapters and sleeves, which are ancillary to the use of such bearings. It was the submission that the adjustment as done by the TPO has been rightly made and same does not call for any interference. It wasthe submission that the resale price method has rightly been applied as it is the distribution of two connected products which have been compared. ITA No.92/Ran/2022 Assessment Year : 2017-18 P a g e 16 | 31 13. We have considered the rival submissions. A perusal of the facts in the present case clearly shows that the issue under dispute inthe transfer pricing is in regard to whetherthe resale price method is to be applied or TNMM method is to be applied. The resale method admittedly has been applies where the assessee purchase of particular product when sale it. The profit margin should be comparable. Now what the assessee purchases is bearing. These bearings are purchased at the instance of the end-users. The assessee is not a stockist of such bearings. The assessee is facilitating end users in obtaining such bearings. The AO has compared the profitability in respect of such bearings with the profitability from the purchase and sale of grease, seal ware rings, adapters and sleeves. These are ancillary products for the effective installation and functioning of such bearings from the products made of the material used in the manufacture of these bearings either. These are totally unrelated products. Obviously, the profit margin in respect of totally unrelated cannot be compared. It would be like saying that the apple and orange are fruits and , therefore, they should both have same price of purchase and sale should have been provided. It is not possible. As the AO has applied the resale price method in resect of two totally uncomparable products, we are of the view that the method applied by the AO is erroneous. Even in the earlier years i.e. for the assessment year 2012- 13, 2013-14 and 2014-15, similar TP study had been done, similar transaction had been done and they had been accepted. For the assessment year 2015-16 and 2016-17, there is noTP order and TP order has now been done for making ITA No.92/Ran/2022 Assessment Year : 2017-18 P a g e 17 | 31 adjustment in the impugned assessment year 2017-18 for the first time. As mentioned earlier, the TPO has applied the profit margin to incomparable products, therefore, the resale price methos is inapplicable in the case of the assessee. Consequently, the AO is directed adopt TNMM method when computing the arm length price in the case of the assessee. Consequently Ground No. 1to 4 stands allowed. 14. In Ground No.5.1 and 5.2 the assessee has challenged the disallowance u/s.14A r.w.s 8D in regard to both normal provisions as well as book profit computed u/s.115J of the Act. 15. It was submitted by ld AR that under the normal provisions of the Act, regard to computation of the disallowance u/s.14 A of the Act r.w.s 8D Rules, the satisfaction recorded by the AO is not clear. 16. We have considered the rival submissions and we have gone through the assessment order. The AO has given categorical findings that there is variation in respect of disallowance under rule 8D9999 and same requires to be recomputed, we are of the view that the A has recorded the satisfaction and the disallowance made u/s.14A r.w.s 8D stands upheld. 17. In regard to computation u/s.115JB of the Act, it is noticed that this issue is now squarely covered by the decision of the Special Bench of this Tribunal Delhi Tribunal in the case of ACIT vs Vireet Investment (P Ld.,82 taxmann.com ITA No.92/Ran/2022 Assessment Year : 2017-18 P a g e 18 | 31 415 (Del), by following the decision of Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of Bhusan Steel wherein, the Special Bench has held as follows: “6.2 Now the question before us is, whether the amount or amounts of expenditure relatable to exempt income as contemplated in clause (f) to Explanation 1 to section 115JB(2) could be arrived at by resorting to provisions of section 14A or not. The submission of ld Pr. CIT (DR) is that it cannot be disputed that the object of section 14A was only to determine the expenditure in relation to exempt income as noted earlier. His contention, therefore, is that the object of section 14A and clause (f) to Explanation 1 to section 115JB(2) is same and, therefore, it cannot be disputed that section 14A cam be resorted to for finding out the expenditure relatable to any income which is exempt. In this regard, Ld PR CIT (DR) has referred to some of the well settled principles of statutory interpretation which are discussed hereunder. 6.3 When the question arises as to the applicability of similar provisions in different parts of the statute, then it is not only legitimate but proper to read both the provisions in their context. If context is same, different meaning cannot be assigned. It is to be found out that what mischief was intended to be remedied by inserting a particular section. The intention of the legislature once is manifested in a particular section in the statute then said intention cannot be given a different meaning, if a similar provision has been incorporated in a different section in the statute. The intention of the legislature must be found out by reading the statute as a whole. 6.4 Literal meaning cannot always be followed logically, because sometimes it tends to defeat the obvious intention of the legislature and results in producing a wholly unreasonable result. To achieve the obvious intention and to produce a reasonable result. 6.5 The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of N.B.Sanjana vs Elphinstone Spg&Wvg Mills Ltd., AIR 1971 SC examined Rule 10 under the Central Excise Act, 1944 observing, inter alia, as under: ITA No.92/Ran/2022 Assessment Year : 2017-18 P a g e 19 | 31 ITA No.92/Ran/2022 Assessment Year : 2017-18 P a g e 20 | 31 ITA No.92/Ran/2022 Assessment Year : 2017-18 P a g e 21 | 31 ITA No.92/Ran/2022 Assessment Year : 2017-18 P a g e 22 | 31 ITA No.92/Ran/2022 Assessment Year : 2017-18 P a g e 23 | 31 ITA No.92/Ran/2022 Assessment Year : 2017-18 P a g e 24 | 31 ITA No.92/Ran/2022 Assessment Year : 2017-18 P a g e 25 | 31 ITA No.92/Ran/2022 Assessment Year : 2017-18 P a g e 26 | 31 ITA No.92/Ran/2022 Assessment Year : 2017-18 P a g e 27 | 31 ITA No.92/Ran/2022 Assessment Year : 2017-18 P a g e 28 | 31 ITA No.92/Ran/2022 Assessment Year : 2017-18 P a g e 29 | 31 ITA No.92/Ran/2022 Assessment Year : 2017-18 P a g e 30 | 31 18. Consequently, the action of the AO in regard to the addition under Rule 8D in computing the book profit under 115JB stands upheld. Ground No.5.1 and 5.2 stands dismissed. ITA No.92/Ran/2022 Assessment Year : 2017-18 P a g e 31 | 31 19. In the result, appeal of the assessee stands partly allowed. 20. As we have disposed of the appeal, the stay petition has become infructous Order dictated and pronounced in the open court on 12/06/2025. Sd/- Sd/- (RATNESH NANDAN SAHAY) (GEORGE MATHAN) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER Ranchi; Dated 12/06/2025 B.K.Parida, SPS (OS) Copy of the Order forwarded to : By order Sr.Pvt.secretary ITAT, Ranchi 1. Timken India Limited, 39 to 42, Electronic City-Phase-1, Hosur Road, Bangalore 2. The respondent: Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-1, Jamshedpur 3. The CIT(A)- 4. Pr.CIT, 5. DR, ITAT, 6. Guard file. //True Copy// "