Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Pune
Eaton Fluid Power Ltd.,, Pune vs Assessee on 27 February, 2015
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
PUNE BENCH "A", PUNE
BEFORE SHRI G.S. PANNU, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER
AND SHRI R.S. PADVEKAR, JUDICIAL MEMBER
ITA No.1623/PN/2011
(Assessment Year : 2007-08)
Eaton Fluid Power Limited
145, Off Mumbai-Pune Road,
Pimpri, Pune - 411 018
PAN : AAACV8426E .... Appellant
Vs.
Asstt. Commissioner of Income Tax
Circle - 8, Pune .... Respondent
Appellant by : Mr. Percy Pardiwalla
Respondent by : Mrs. M. S. Verma, CIT
ORDER
PER G. S. PANNU, AM
The captioned appeal has been preferred by the assessee pertaining to the assessment year 2007-08, which is directed against the order of the Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle- 8, Pune (in short 'the Assessing Officer') passed u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 144C(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short "the Act") dated 31.12.2010, which is in conformity with the directions given by the Dispute Resolution Panel, Pune (in short 'the DRP') dated 02.08.2011.
2. In this appeal, the Grounds of Appeal raised by the assessee read as under :-
"1. The Learned Assessing Officer ('Ld. AO'), pursuant to the directions of the Learned Dispute Resolution Panel ('Ld. DRP'), erred in rejecting the approach adopted for transfer pricing analysis / contemporaneous documentation maintained by the appellant. The Ld. DRP / AO thereby erroneously made a transfer pricing adjustment of Rs.52,197,453 to the income of the appellant by holding that the international transactions of the appellant do not satisfy the arm's length principle envisaged under the Income-tax Act, 1961 ('the Act').2 ITA No.1623/PN/2011
2. The Ld. DRP / AO erred in determining the arm's length price of the international transactions pertaining to the manufacturing segment of the appellant, by comparing with external comparables when functionally similar internal comparables are available to determine the arm's length price under the internal Transactional Net Margin Method which is more reliable.
3. Without prejudice to Ground 2, the Ld. DRP / AO erred in selecting certain external comparables which were not functionally comparable and in rejecting certain comparables that were functionally comparable, and thereby choosing an incorrect set of comparables.
4. Without prejudice to Ground 2, the Ld. DRP / AO erred in not granting the benefit of +/- 5% range as envisaged by the proviso to Section 92C(2) of the Act.
5. Without prejudice to Ground 2, the Ld. DRP / AO erred in using data which was not available to the appellant at the time of conducting the transfer pricing analysis for computing the transfer pricing adjustment, not allowing the use of multiple year data as prescribed under Rule 10B(4) of the Rules thereby unfairly penalising the appellant for an act that was impossible to perform on the part of the appellant.
6. Without prejudice to Ground 2, the Ld. DRP / AO erred in applying the adjustment made to the import prices pertaining to AEs across the entire raw material consumption rather than applying it proportionately based on the ratio of raw materials consumed from AEs to total raw materials consumed.
7. The Ld. DRP/AO erred in disallowing the expenditure incurred on lease rentals for use of vehicles amounting to Rs.12,14,618 and Rs.3,30,371 on the premise that this expenditure is of capital nature. Without prejudice to Ground No. 7, the Ld. DRP/AO erred in not allowing the depreciation under Section 32 of the Act on such lease rentals paid during the year.
8. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. AO ought to have considered the fact that the appellant provided all the information requested during the assessment proceedings and has not provided inaccurate particulars of its income. Therefore, the Ld. AO has erred in initiating the penalty proceedings under Section 271 (1)(c) of the Act on the premise that the appellant has furnished inaccurate particulars of income."
3. In this appeal, although the assessee has raised multiple Grounds of Appeal but the substantive dispute is with regard to an addition of Rs.5,21,97,453/- made by the Assessing Officer on account of transfer pricing adjustment while computing arm's length price of the international transactions of the assessee. On behalf of the assessee voluminous Paper Books have been filed, which has been referred to during the course of hearing. The Departmental side has also supported the adjustments made by the income- tax authorities and has also furnished written submissions by the Assessing 3 ITA No.1623/PN/2011 Officer, which have also been referred to in the course of hearing before us. The rival submissions have been heard and the relevant record perused.
4. In order to appreciate the controversy and the rival stands it would be appropriate to briefly touch upon the background and the relevant facts. The appellant before us is a company incorporated under the provisions of the Companies Act, 1956 and is inter-alia engaged in the business of manufacturing and distribution of hydraulic components and packaged systems. It manufactures a wide range of 'Vickers' vane and pistons, pumps, power units, cylinders control valves and filters for mobile and industrial applications. The manufacturing facilities of the assessee are located at Pune and at Mumbai. Initially, the company was incorporated in the year 1965 as a joint venture between Mahindra & Mahindra Ltd. and Vickers Inc., but presently it is a wholly owned subsidiary of Eaton Corporation, a foreign based entity.
5. During the year under consideration, Assessing Officer noted that the assessee had entered into certain international transactions with its associated enterprises within the meaning of section 92B of the Act. As the income arising from 'international transactions' is required to be computed having regard to the arm's length price in terms of section 92(1) of the Act, the Assessing Officer referred the matter of computation of arm's length price of the international transactions to the Transfer Pricing Officer (in short 'the TPO') in terms of section 92CA(1) of the Act. The TPO after allowing the assessee requisite opportunity of being heard determined the arm's length price of the international transactions pertaining to the manufacturing activities of the assessee at an amount higher than the stated values by a sum of Rs.5,21,97,453/-. In terms thereof, the Assessing Officer passed a draft assessment order dated 31.12.2010 u/s 144(3) r.w.s. 144C(1) of the Act 4 ITA No.1623/PN/2011 against which assessee preferred objections before the DRP. By way of an order dated 02.08.2011, the DRP rejected the objections raised by the assessee and thereafter the Assessing Officer passed an order u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 144C(13) of the Act dated 30.09.2011 determining the income of the international transactions in conformity with the order of the TPO in terms of Section 92CA(4) of the Act and accordingly, he made an addition of Rs.5,21,97,453/- to the returned income on account of transfer pricing adjustments.
6. By way of present appeal, assessee has challenged the addition of Rs.5,21,97,453/- made to the returned income. Before proceeding to adjudicate the specific grievances raised by the assessee it would be appropriate to refer to the salient features of the dispute. As noted earlier, assessee is a wholly owned subsidiary of Eaton Corporation, a global, diversified manufacturer of fluid power systems, electric power quality, distribution and control, automotive engine air management and fuel economy systems. The appellant-assessee is engaged in the business of manufacturing and trading of fluid power hydraulic equipments and related components and it manufactures gear pumps and cylinders, vane/piston pumps, power units, cylinders control valves and filters for mobile and industrial applications. During the year under consideration, assessee was found to have entered into the following international transactions with its associated enterprises :-
Sl.
Description of International Transaction Amount (Rs.) No.
1. Import of raw materials, trading goods & 31,23,60,854 components
2. Purchase of License for mfgPro software 13,14,598
3. Administrative and related services rendered 1,10,93,981
4. Export of finished goods 2,35,95,314 5 ITA No.1623/PN/2011
7. For the purposes of determining the arm's length price in relation to the aforesaid international transactions, assessee aggregated the same and applied the Transactional Net Margin Method (i.e. TNM Method) as the most appropriate method. The assessee considered Operating profit to Operating revenue as the PLI (i.e. Profit Level Indicator). The PLI of the assessee was worked out at 6.87% and as the average PLI of the external comparables was determined at 9.62%, assessee concluded that the stated value of the international transactions entered with the associated enterprises was at an arm's length price consistent with the requirements of the Indian Transfer Pricing Regulations. In carrying out the aforesaid benchmarking analysis, assessee adopted a set of 14 comparable concerns and the operating margins of such comparable concerns was taken on the basis of three year's financial data and accordingly, the arithmetic mean of the average operating margins was determined at 9.62%. At this point, it may be noticed that the TPO has differed with the assessee on this aspect and while ascertaining the operating margins of the comparable cases he has not considered the multiple year's data and has instead considered the data relating to the financial year in which international transactions have been entered into. The aforesaid point of difference has not been agitated by the assessee before us and is not being dealt with further. Another aspect of the issue relates to the use of data by the TPO, which was not available in public domain at the time assessee conducted its Transfer Pricing Study. The said approach of the TPO has also not been disputed by the assessee and we do not deal with the same any further.
8. The major points of difference between the assessee and the Revenue can be understood as follows. Firstly, the TPO noticed that the principal activity of the assessee was the manufacture and trading of fluid power hydraulic equipments and related components. The Assessing Officer further 6 ITA No.1623/PN/2011 noticed that out of the total turnover of the assessee of Rs.121.69 crores, approximately 40% income has been earned from trading activity and another 40% income from sale of pumps, gear pumps and valves. Thus, as per the TPO, there was a substantial activity of trading undertaken by the assessee. The TPO further noticed that the assessee had aggregated the manufacturing and the trading segments for the purposes of carrying out the comparability analysis to compute the arm's length price. As per the TPO, separate benchmarking was required to be undertaken for Manufacturing as well as Trading segment. On being required by the TPO, assessee provided segmental results and on the basis of the same it was observed that the assessee had earned an operating margin of 1.57% on sales in its Manufacturing segment. The TPO proceeded to compare the operating margins of the manufacturing segment of the assessee with the operating margins of the comparable cases to determine the arm length price of the international transactions following the TNM Method. Ostensibly, the TPO has not differed with the assessee with regard to the adoption of the TNM Method as the most appropriate method for the purposes of computing the arm's length price as per section 92C(1) of the Act. The TPO, after providing assessee an opportunity of being heard, adopted a set of 11 comparable cases whose arithmetic mean of operating margin was determined at 14.57%, as detailed below :-
PLI Sl.
Name of the company (Operating Profit/
No.
Operating Income
1. Bemco Hydraulics Ltd. 9.52
2. Dynamatic Technologies Ltd. (Hydraulics and 11.04
Precision engineering segment)
3. K S B Pumps Ltd. (Pumps segment and Valves 20.57
segment)
4. Mather & Platt Pumps Ltd. 10.53
5. Roto Pumps Ltd. 11.42
6. Schrader Duncan Ltd. (Pneumatic products 10.59
segment)
7. Sulzer Pumps India Ltd. 12.08
7 ITA No.1623/PN/2011
8. Yuken India Ltd. 10.61
9. Asco (India) Ltd. 38.36
10. Beacon Industries & Pumps Ltd. 11.34
11. Johnson Pump (India) Ltd. 14.17
Mean 14.57
9. The arithmetic mean of operating margin of the comparable cases arrived at 14.57% was compared with the operating margin of the assessee in respect of manufacturing segment which was 1.57%. Accordingly, an adjustment of Rs.5,21,97,453/- was computed which was required to be made to the international transactions pertaining to Manufacturing segment of the assessee so as to bring it to the level of arm's length price. Pertinently, bifurcation of assessee's financial results into manufacturing and trading segment was done only in the course of proceedings before the TPO and so far as the segment of Trading activity is concerned the TPO accepted the position that it was at arm's length price and no addition has been proposed.
The addition in question has been made only with regard to the Manufacturing segment.
10. By way of Ground of Appeal No.2, assessee has assailed the approach of the TPO while computing the arm's length price in relation to the Manufacturing segment by applying the external TNM Method. At the outset, the Ld. Representative for the assessee pointed out that the TPO erred in determining the arm's length price of the international transactions pertaining to the Manufacturing segment by ignoring assessee's plea to consider internal TNM Method in preference to the external comparables considered by the TPO. The Ld. Representative pointed out that initially in the Transfer Pricing Study assessee had considered the manufacturing and trading activities as a single segment on the ground that the trading activities was closely interlinked with the manufacturing activity. However, on the asking of the TPO, assessee had furnished the segmental profitability statement showing profitability for the 8 ITA No.1623/PN/2011 manufacturing and trading activities separately. At that stage, assessee had submitted that it would be more appropriate to compare the profitability from the transactions with the associated enterprises with the profitability from transactions with third parties. The aforesaid was justified on the ground that both the segments are functionally comparable in every respect. The Ld. Representative pointed out that in support of the aforesaid, assessee furnished a segmental profitability statement whereby the transactions with the associated enterprises in the Manufacturing segment showed an operating margin of 3.2% and those with the third parties showed an operating margin of 2.80%. The relevant details in this regard have also been furnished in the Paper Book at page 114. The assessee justified its assertion that the international transactions of the assessee with the associated enterprises in the Manufacturing segment are at an arm's length price. We find that the aforesaid plea of the assessee has not been accepted by the TPO as per the discussion contained in paras 6.2.2 to 6.2.6 of his order. The Ld. Representative submitted that the TPO has unjustly rejected the submissions put-forth by the assessee which are otherwise justifiable having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case.
11. On the other hand, the Ld. Departmental Representative appearing for the Revenue submitted that the benchmarking analysis proposed by the assessee based on the internal TNM Method did not give the correct picture of the transactions between the assessee and its associated enterprises. The case made out by the Ld. Departmental Representative is that the transactions with the associated enterprises are not purely identical with the transactions with third parties and in support reference has been made to a Tabulation in para 6.2.3 of the order of the TPO. As per the Ld. Departmental Representative, internal TNM Method canvassed by the assessee was in relation to benchmarking on the basis of sales made, but not that of purchases 9 ITA No.1623/PN/2011 from associated enterprises, which was of a substantive value. The segmental statement between associated enterprises segment and third parties segment was based on sales, and in-fact the purchases are not evaluated separately. It was therefore contended that the approach of the TPO was quite justified.
12. We have carefully considered the rival submissions. The dispute on this aspect relates to a plea put-forth by the assessee during the course of the proceedings before the TPO whereby assessee canvassed that the international transactions in the Manufacturing segment be benchmarked by using internal TNM Method. No doubt, in the Transfer Pricing Study carried out by the assessee initially it had adopted the external comparability on an aggregated segment of Manufacturing plus Trading activities. The TPO had rejected the aggregation of the two activities and benchmarked the Manufacturing segment independent of the Trading segment. At that stage, assessee put-forth a plea that the benchmarking of the Manufacturing segment be carried out by using the internal TNM Method. Before the TPO, assessee pointed out that in the Manufacturing segment, the products manufactured by assessee consumed various raw materials and components, which were procured domestically from third parties as well as imported from associated enterprises and overseas third parties. Assessee segregated the products which did not consume raw material and components procured from associated enterprises from those products which consumed such raw material and components. Similarly, assessee separately identified the sales of these products. Primarily, assessee identified sales of products which neither had any consumption of raw material and components procured from associated enterprises and nor sold to the associated enterprises. This segment comprised of gear pumps and cylinders and it was accordingly considered as Third party segment. The operating margin in the said segment 10 ITA No.1623/PN/2011 was determined at 2.80% in terms of the Tabulation which is placed in the Paper Book at page 114. The balance sales comprising of other products, namely, vane/piston, pumps, power units, cylinders control valves, etc. which entailed consumption of raw material and components purchased from associated enterprises were identified as the associated enterprises segment. This segment also included some gear pumps and cylinders which did not consume raw material and components procured from associated enterprises though the sales were to the associated enterprises. The operating margin in the associated enterprises segment in the Manufacturing segment was thus computed at 3.2% in terms of the Tabulation, a copy of which has been placed in the Paper Book at page 114. The aforesaid profitability statement showed that the profitability from transactions with associated enterprises was higher than the profitability of the transactions with the third parties. We find that assessee also asserted before the TPO that both the segments, namely, the associated enterprises segment and the third parties segment were functionally comparable in every aspect. Therefore, it was canvassed that based on the aforesaid internal TNM analysis, the international transactions of the assessee in the Manufacturing segment were at an arm's length price.
13. In-fact, the internal comparables do have a more direct and closer relationship to the tested transactions rather than the external comparables. In other words, the profitability of an assessee from the controlled transactions can be benchmarked more meaningfully with reference to the assessee's profitability from similar transactions carried out in uncontrolled conditions, i.e. with third parties. In the present case, assessee pointed out that the associated enterprises segment and the third parties segment were functionally comparable and therefore the third parties segment was a good uncontrolled comparable available to benchmark the international transactions entered with the associated enterprises.
11 ITA No.1623/PN/2011
14. Pertinently, assessee also undertook similar analysis with regard to its Trading segment before the TPO. In the Trading segment also, assessee tabulated the associated enterprises segment and the third parties segment and pointed out that the operating margin in the associated enterprises segment was higher than the operating margin in the third parties segment. The said calculation is a part of the Tabulation furnished to the TPO, a copy of which has been placed in the Paper Book at page 114. This approach of the assessee was similar to the approach in relation to the Manufacturing segment as discussed earlier. In so far as the international transactions entered with the associated enterprises in the Trading segment are concerned, the TPO was satisfied that they are at an arm's length price as no adjustment has been proposed by him. However, similar approach taken by the assessee with respect to the Manufacturing segment has not been accepted by the TPO. In our considered opinion, the grounds taken by the TPO to reject the assessee's plea for internal TNM comparable are neither germane and nor justified, apart from being inconsistent with his stand relating to similar situation in the Trading segment. We find from a copy of submissions dated 14.09.2010 addressed to the TPO, a copy of which has been placed in the Paper Book at pages 599 to 603 that assessee had explained the manner in which the bifurcation of Manufacturing segment was done into associated enterprises segment and the non-associated enterprises segment. The following averments made by the assessee are worthy of notice :-
"As explained during the hearing held on August 31, 2010, the Company manufactures certain products which do not entail consumption of any raw material imported from AEs. Thus, further split of manufacturing segment into AE and Non-AEY segment was done on a product basis i.e. products, manufacturing of which requires raw material imported from AE (categorized as 'AE segment1) and products, manufacturing of which does not require raw materials imported from AEs (categorized as 'Non-AE segment'). The Non-AE segment represents the profitability made by the company from manufacture and sale of products which do not entail consumption of any raw material imported from AEs. The AE segment represents the profitability from 12 ITA No.1623/PN/2011 manufacture and sale of products which entail consumption of raw materials from AEs.
While preparing the AE and Non-AE segment, the revenue and costs to the extent identifiable are determined based on actual. The common costs I expenses, being insignificant portion of total operating expenses, as explained above were allocated considering net sales of each segment as the reasonable allocation key.
Your good self would appreciate that Transactional Net Margin Method ('TNMM') requires a functional similarity rather than product similarity. Thus, under both the aforesaid segments, there is a functional similarity viz. manufacturing function though the product may not be identical. In view of the above, the internal comparability of profit from sale of manufactured products under AE and Non-AE segment would be the most appropriate method to benchmark the international transactions pertaining to manufacturing segment."
15. The aforesaid shows that the segmentation of Manufacturing segment into associated enterprises segment and Third parties segment was done by the assessee on product basis, i.e. the associated enterprises segment reflect profitability on products which require consumption of raw material and components from associated enterprises whereas the Third parties segment reflects profitability from products which do not entail purchases of raw materials and components from associated enterprises. The TPO has pointed out that the sale of finished goods in the associated enterprises segment includes a component of sale of Rs.8,37,000/- of products which do not consume any raw material or component purchased from associated enterprises. The assessee had explained that this was a minor transaction involving Gear pumps & Cylinders out of total sales of finished goods to associated enterprises of Rs.2.36 crores (approx). It was explained that profitability of this minor transaction was included in the associated enterprises segment to ensure comprehensive benchmarking of international transaction of sales to the associated enterprises. In our considered opinion, the said minor transaction does not vitiate the segmentation of Manufacturing segment into associated enterprises segment and Third parties segment done by the assessee for the purpose of internal TNM Method.
13 ITA No.1623/PN/2011
16. On the basis of the aforesaid, we find that the bifurcation of Manufacturing segment into associated enterprises and the third parities done by the assessee is fair and apt. The TNM Method does not envisage an absolute product similarity but rather emphasizes on functional similarity. Quite clearly, in the associated enterprises segment as well as the third party segment in the Manufacturing segment there is a functional similarity and therefore the internal TNM Method comparable professed by the assessee was wrongly rejected by the TPO. Before we parting on this issue, we would also refer to the following analysis of the segmentation in Manufacturing segment canvassed by the assessee before the TPO vide communication dated 28.10.2010 :-
• "The profitability of the international transaction pertaining to purchase of raw material and components from AEs (approximate transaction value Rs.8.32 crores) is reflected in the operating margin of the AE segment, since the transaction forms a part of the same. (This includes the profitability of the minor sale transaction of Rs.8.37 lakhs to AEs of products that do not entail consumption of raw material and components purchased from AEs. The balance sales of Rs.2.28 crores entail consumption of raw material and components purchased from AEs and are automatically covered in this segment.) • The profitability of comparable transaction pertaining to purchase of raw material and components purchased from third parties is reflected in the operating margin of the Third party segment. • The operating margin derived from the international transaction pertaining to purchase of raw material and components purchased from AEs (forming a part of in the AE segment) would be benchmarked against the comparable operating margin derived from the third party transactions (covered in the AE segment).
• The operating margin derived from the international transaction pertaining to sale of finished products to AEs (forming a part of in the AE segment) would be benchmarked against the comparable operating margin derived from the third party transactions (covered in the AE segment)."
17. On the basis of the aforesaid fact analysis, which has not been controverted by the TPO, we find that in the present case internal comparison of the operating margins using internal TNM Method is liable to be upheld in order to compute arm's length for the international transactions of purchase of 14 ITA No.1623/PN/2011 raw material and components from associated enterprises as well as sales of finished goods effected to the associated enterprises. On the basis of the aforesaid benchmarking, the profitability of international transactions under the associated enterprises segment computed at 3.25% is higher than the profitability of transactions under the Third parties segment computed at 2.80%. Hence, the international transactions entered with the associated enterprises under the Manufacturing segment on account of purchase of raw material and components and also sales are consistent with the arm's length price and no transfer pricing adjustment is thus required to be made. On this aspect, we uphold the plea of the assessee and accordingly, the Ground of Appeal No.2 raised by the assessee is allowed.
18. Apart from the aforesaid, assessee has also raised other Grounds of Appeal challenging the adjustment made, even as per the methodology of the external TNM Method applied by the TPO. On this aspect, it has been canvassed that the TPO has erred in rejecting certain comparables adopted by the assessee and at the same time he has also erred in selecting certain comparables which were not otherwise functionally comparable with the assessee and thereby incorrect set of comparables has been chosen. Further, without prejudice basis it is contended by the assessee that adjustment, if any, should be limited to the import prices of raw materials consumed which have been imported from associated enterprises alone and it cannot be applied to the entire raw material consumption as the latter contains raw material sourced from non-related parties also. All the above aspects are rendered academic as the assessee has succeeded on Ground of Appeal No.2, and therefore the same are not being adjudicated for the present.
19. In the last Ground, assessee has assailed the action of the income-tax authorities in disallowing the expenditure incurred on lease rentals for use of 15 ITA No.1623/PN/2011 Vehicles and Computers amounting to Rs.12,14,618/- and Rs.3,30,371/- respectively by wrongfully holding that such expenditure is of capital nature. It is further contended, without prejudice to the aforesaid, that if the expenditure on lease rental was to be treated as capital in nature, depreciation under Section 32(1) of the Act ought to have been allowed by the income-tax authorities.
20. On this aspect, brief facts are that in the earlier assessment years starting from assessment year 2003-04, assessee had taken on lease vehicles and computers from M/s Kotak Mahindra Primus Ltd. and First Leasing Co. of India Ltd. respectively. Assessee had capitalized the entire amount in its books of account but no depreciation was claimed, and it claimed deduction for the principal portion of the lease rentals. In the assessment year 2003-04, Assessing Officer observed that since the assets were registered in the name of the assessee thereby giving it ownership, the expenditure towards re- payment of principal values of the assets was to be treated as a capital expenditure and the amount was disallowed. Following the aforesaid, in the present year also the Assessing officer disallowed the claim of the assessee towards re-payment of principal value of lease rentals amounting to Rs.12,14,618/- and Rs.5,30,371/- on account of vehicles and computers respectively.
21. In this background, the learned counsel for the assessee pointed out that the dispute for the assessment year 2003-04 was still not final and therefore the matter may be set-aside to the file of the Assessing Officer with the directions to decide the issue in the light of the ultimate decision with regard to such dispute in the assessment year 2003-04. The learned Departmental Representative appearing for the Revenue has not contested 16 ITA No.1623/PN/2011 the aforesaid factual matrix and has also not opposed the plea of the assessee for remanding the issue back to the file of the Assessing Officer.
22. In view of the aforesaid, we restore the matter back to the file of the Assessing Officer who shall consider the claim of the assessee in conformity with the ultimate decision on this aspect in the assessment year 2003-04. Thus, on this aspect, assessee succeeds for statistical purposes.
23. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed.
Order pronounced on 27 th February, 2015.
Sd/- Sd/-
(R.S. PADVEKAR) (G.S. PANNU)
JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER
Pune, Dated: 27 th February, 2015.
Sujeet
Copy of the order is forwarded to: -
1) The Assessee;
2) The Department;
3) The DRP, Pune;
4) The DIT (International Taxation), Pune;
5) The DR, "A" Bench, I.T.A.T., Pune;
6) Guard File.
By Order
//True Copy//
Assistant Registrar
I.T.A.T., Pune