Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Bangalore
Epson India Private Limited, Bangalore vs The Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, ... on 22 December, 2022
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
BANGALORE BENCHES "B", BANGALORE
Before Shri Chandra Poojari, AM & Shri George George K, JM
IT(TP)A No.821/Bang/2022 : Asst.Year 2017-2018
M/s.Epson India Private Limited The Deputy Commissioner of
12th Floor, The Millenia v. Income-tax, Circle 2(1)(1)
Towar-A, No.1, Murphy Road Bangalore.
Ulsor, Bengaluru - 560 008.
PAN : AAACE7858F.
(Appellant) (Respondent)
Appellant by : Sri.Padam Chand Kincha, CA
Respondent by : Sri.Gopinath C.H., CIT-DR
Date of
Date of Hearing : 22.12.2022 Pronouncement : 22.12.2022
ORDER
Per George George K, JM :
This appeal at the instance of the assessee is directed against final assessment order dated 29.07.2022 passed u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 144C(13) of the I.T.Act. The relevant assessment year is 2017-2018.
2. The brief facts of the case are as follows:
The assessee is a company engaged in the business of trading in input and output imaging devices like inkjet printers, dot matrix printers, lasers, LCD projectors and scanners, etc. The assessee was incorporated on 09.10.2000 and is a subsidiary of Epson Singapore, which is a subsidiary of Seiko Japan. For the assessment year 2017-2018, the return of income was filed on 28.11.2017, declaring total income of Rs.92,74,03,760. The assessment was selected for 2 IT(TP)A No.821/Bang/2022.
M/s.Epson India Private Limited scrutiny and notice u/s 143(2) of the I.T.Act was issued on 20.08.2018. During the course of assessment proceedings, it was noticed that the assessee-company had entered into international transaction with its Associated Enterprises (AEs) and the case was referred to the Transfer Pricing Officer (TPO) to determine the Arm's Length Price (ALP) of the international transaction entered by the assessee with its AEs. The TPO passed order dated 27.01.2021 u/s 92CA of the I.T.Act, wherein he proposed an adjustment of Rs.27,39,63,366 under Advertisement, Marketing and Publicity (AMP) segment and Business Support Services (BSS) segment. Later, the TPO passed order u/s 92CA r.w.s. 154 of the I.T.Act (order dated 06.10.2021), wherein the TP adjustment proposed under the above two segments was enhanced to Rs.27,59,29,649 instead of Rs.27,39,63,366 proposed in the initial order. The draft assessment order was passed incorporating the above TP adjustment proposed by the TPO and also making certain corporate tax disallowances / additions.
3. Aggrieved by the draft assessment order, the assessee filed objections before the Dispute Resolution Panel (DRP). The DRP confirmed the adjustment proposed by the TPO in the AMP segment and gave partial relief to the TP adjustment under the BSS segment. The details of the adjustment made by the TPO in order passed u/s 92CA r.w.s. 154 of the I.T.Act and the relief given by the DRP and the adjustment post DRP directions are detailed below:-
3IT(TP)A No.821/Bang/2022.
M/s.Epson India Private Limited
Sl. Description Adjustment Relief given Adjustment
No. vide TPO by DRP pursuant to
order 92CA DRP order
r.w.s. 154 dated
17/06/2022
1. AMP Segment 27,32,19,909 Nil 27,32,19,909
2. BSS Segment 27,09,740 2,68,093 24,41,647
Total TP 27,56,61,556
Adjustment
4. Pursuant to the DRP's directions, the impugned final assessment order dated 29.07.2022 was passed.
5. Aggrieved by the final assessment order, the assessee has filed the present appeal before the Tribunal, raising the following grounds:-
GENERAL GROUND
1. The Orders passed by Assessment Unit, Income Tax Department (hereinafter referred as "AO" for brevity), learned Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax (TP) - 1(2)(1), Bangalore (hereinafter referred as "TPO" for brevity) and the Honourable DRP-l, Bengaluru ("AO", "TPO" and DRP collectively referred as "lower authorities" for brevity) are bad in law and liable to be quashed.
GROUNDS RELATING TO TRANSFER PRICING (TP) - LEGAL ISSUES
2. The learned AO has erred in:
a) Making a reference for the determination of the Arm's Length Price of the international transactions to the TPO without demonstrating as to why it was necessary and expedient to do so.
b) Passing the order without demonstrating that the Appellant had any motive of tax evasion.
c) Not appreciating that there is no amendment to the definition of "income" and the charging or computation 4 IT(TP)A No.821/Bang/2022.
M/s.Epson India Private Limited provision relating to income under the head "Profits & Gains of Business or Profession" do not refer to or include the amounts computed under Chapter X and therefore addition made under Chapter X is bad in raw.
GROUNDS RELATING TO TP ADJUSTMENT WITH RESPECT TO ADVERTISEMENT, MARKETING, PROMOTION ('AMP') EXPENSES
3. The lower authorities have erred in making transfer pricing adjustment of Rs. 27,32,19,9091- towards AMP expenses.
4. The lower authorities have erred in:
(i) Not appreciating that the Appellant had incurred AMP expenses with third parties and there was no transaction with the Associated Enterprise ("AE") Concluding· that there exists international transaction between the Appellant and its AE. In the facts and circumstances of the case, there exist no international transaction of AMP in the case of the Appellant.
(ii) Selecting inappropriate comparables for computing non-
routine AMP even though they are not comparable in terms of functions performed, assets utilized, risks assumed etc.
(iii) Not appreciating that the alleged transaction of enhancement of marketing intangibles is closely linked to other international transactions in the distribution segment and when done so, it is discernible that an appropriate quantum of profits is offered to tax in India.
(v) Not appreciating that the premium profits in the distribution segment compensates more than for any excess AMP expenses incurred by the Appellant.
(vi) Not appreciating once the net profit margin is tested on the touchstone of arm's length price under TNMM, it pre- supposes that the various components of income and expenditure considered in the process of arriving at the net profit are also at arm's length
5. With respect to direct sales made by the AE to the customers in India, the lower authorities have erred, in law and in facts in not appreciating the business/ commercial expediencies of the arrangement, the minimal quantum of such sales and also the fact that even in respect of such sales the Appellant is adequately compensated.
5IT(TP)A No.821/Bang/2022.
M/s.Epson India Private Limited
6. The lower authorities have erred, in law .and facts, by:
(i) Concluding that marketing network constitutes intangible asset which benefits the AE of the Appellant without appreciating the factual position, business and commercial realities.
(ii) Considering certain pure selling expenses as part of AMP expenses, thereby resulting in adopting incorrect base for computing AMP;
(iii) Adopting other method prescribed under Rule 10AB as the most appropriate method;
(iv) Adopting incorrect AMP ratio of the Comparables;
(v) Selecting the following companies as comparables to compute mark-up, which are not appropriate comparables to benchmark the alleged international transaction of enhancing the marketing intangibles:
• Pressman Advertising Ltd • Majestic Research Services & Solutions Ltd. • Scarecrow Communications Ltd.
(vi) Charging mark-up on excess AMP expenses, which is not supported by any provision under the Act or Rules.
7. Without prejudice to above, the learned TPO has erred in incorrectly computing the operating profit margins in case of the comparables selected by him.
8. The Hon'ble DRP has erred in upholding the action of the TPO / AO of segregating the AMP expenses incurred by the Appellant into routine and non-routine and observing that non-routine AMP expenditure is towards Development, Enhancement, Maintenance, Protection and Exploitation ("DEMPE") functions. requiring compensation from AE without placing any evidence on record to demonstrate that there is a transaction as envisaged in section 92F(v) of the Act.
GROUNDS RELATING TO TP ADJUSTMENT WITH RESPECT TO BUSINESS SUPPORT SERVICES SEGMENT
9. The lower authorities have erred in making transfer pricing adjustment of Rs.24,41,647/- for the business 6 IT(TP)A No.821/Bang/2022.
M/s.Epson India Private Limited support services segment.
10. The lower authorities have erred in:
(i) Adopting inappropriate filters like persistent loss making, RPT filter etc. in the process of selecting comparables.
(ii) Selecting inappropriate comparables and selecting companies as comparables even though they are not comparable in terms of functions performed, assets utilized, risks assumed, size, have unusual business circumstances, high margin, etc. The lower income tax authorities have erred in adopting the following companies as comparables:
• Majestic Research Services & Solutions Ltd.. • Scarecrow Communications Ltd.
• Pressman Advertising Ltd
11. Without prejudice to above, the learned TPO has erred in incorrectly computing the operating profit margins in case of the following comparables selected by him:
• ICRA Management Consulting Services Ltd
12. The lower authorities have erred in:
(i) Not making proper adjustment for enterprise level and transactional level differences between the Appellant and the comparable companies;
(ii) Not providing working capital adjustment while computing the Arm's length price; and
(iii) Not recognizing that the Appellant was insulated from risks, as against comparables, which assume these risks and therefore have to be credited with a risk premium on this account.
OTHER GROUND
13. The lower authorities have erred in levying interest under section 234B & 234C of the Act amounting to Rs.6,73,97,432/- & Rs.27,26,185/-. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, interest under section 234B & 234C are not leviable, being consequential in nature. The 7 IT(TP)A No.821/Bang/2022.
M/s.Epson India Private Limited Appellant denies its liability to pay interest under section 234B & 234C.
The Appellant submits that each of the above grounds / sub- grounds are independent and without prejudice to one another.
The appellant craves leave to add, alter, vary, omit, substitute or amend the above grounds of appeal, at any time before or at the time of hearing, of the appeal so as to enable the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal to decide the appeal according to law.
The appellant prays accordingly."
6. The learned AR submitted that out of the above grounds, grounds 4(v), 4(vi) and 10(ii) alone needs to be adjudicated and the other grounds may be left open. The learned Departmental Representative also does not have any objections to the submissions of the learned AR. Accordingly, we proceed to adjudicate only grounds 4(v), 4(vi) and 10(ii), as under:-
Grounds 4(v) and 4(vi) (TP Adjustment on AMP Segment)
7. The learned AR submitted that when the net profit margin is tested on touchstone of ALP under TNMM, it pre- supposes that the various components of income and expenditure considered in the process of arriving at the net profit are also at arm's length. In support of the above submission, the learned AR relied on the order of the Bangalore Bench of the Tribunal in assessee's own case in IT(TP)A No.205/Bang/ 2021 for assessment year 2015-2016 (order dated 18.04.2022). The learned AR also submitted that the above order of the Tribunal was followed later by the 8 IT(TP)A No.821/Bang/2022.
M/s.Epson India Private Limited Bangalore Bench of the Tribunal in assessee's own case for assessment year 2016-2017 in IT(TP)A No.206./Bang/2021 (order dated 14.07.2022).
8. The learned DR was unable to controvert the submissions of the learned AR.
9. We have heard rival submissions and perused the material on record. We find on identical facts, the Tribunal in assessee's own case for assessment year 2015-2016 and 2016-2017 (supra) had decided the issue raised in grounds 4(v) and 4(vi) in favour of the assessee. The relevant finding of the Tribunal for assessment year 2015-2016, reads as follows:-
"8. We have heard the rival submissions and perused the materials on record. The assessee has chosen RPM as the most appropriate method (MAM) for arriving at ALP. The assessee has chosen 7 comparables based on various filters applied and the median of weighted average of adjusted gross profit on sales % of these comparables was 4.44% (page 189 to 190 of paper book). The gross profit margin of the assessee from undertaking distribution activities during the year under consideration resulted in gross profit of 17.87% on sales (Page 254 of the paper book). Since the assessee's margin is more than the arm's length range, the margin of the assessee from its distribution activities is considered to be at arm's length from TP perspective. In a corroborative analysis done under Transaction Net Margin Method (TNMM) the assessee's margin is taken to be at arm's length as the median of the comparables was 1.08% whereas the operating profit of the assessee from undertaking the distribution activities was 3.12% (Page 255 of the paper book). We notice that the while arriving at the operating profit of the assessee the 'Selling and Marketing expenses' to the tune of Rs.68,16,40,898 has been included. The TPO in the order (Page 13 of TPO order para 4.7.5) has mentioned that TP analysis with respect to AMP and the mark up the methods as used by the assessee like RPM with GPM as the PLI and TNMM with OP/OC as the PLI are not suitable, however he had not rejected the TP analysis of the distribution segment. This issue is particularly dealt with by the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of Sony Ericsson mobile communication India Private Limited (supra) where it is held that -9
IT(TP)A No.821/Bang/2022.
M/s.Epson India Private Limited "101. However, once the Assessing Officer/TPO accepts and adopts TNM Method, but then chooses to treat a particular expenditure like AMP as a separate international transaction without bifurcation/segregation, it would as noticed above, lead to unusual and incongruous results as AMP expenses is the cost or expense and is not diverse. It is factored in the net profit of the inter-linked transaction. This would be also in consonance with Rule 10B(1)(e), which mandates only arriving at the net profit margin by comparing the profits and loss account of the tested party with the comparable. The TNM Method proceeds on the assumption that functions, assets and risk being broadly similar and once suitable adjustments have been made all things get taken into account and stand reconciled when computing the net profit margin. Once the comparables pass the functional analysis test and adjustments have been made, then the profit margin as declared when matches with the comparables would result in affirmation of the transfer price as the arm's length price. Then to make a comparison of a horizontal item without segregation would be impermissible."
9. The coordinate bench of the Tribunal in the case of Himalaya Drug Company (supra) has held that for the AMP expenses to fall under the category of 'international transaction' the revenue should show that there existed an agreement between the assessee and its AE in the matter of incurring AMP expenses. We notice that in assessee's case the revenue has not shown that there is any agreement in place between the assessee and the AE with regard to incurring AMP expenses. The Hon'ble Tribunal has also held that when the MAM for the entire international transaction is accepted by the TPO, no separate adjustment is required to be done for AMP expenses. The Hon'ble Tribunal has held that -
34. We notice that the co-ordinate bench has, following various decisions, held that the revenue has to first show that the AMP expenses would fall under the category of "international transactions". For that purpose, the revenue has to show that there existed an agreement between the assessee and its AE in the matter of incurring of AMP expenses. Admittedly, it is not shown in the instant case that there existed any agreement relating to incurring of AMP expenses. Thus, we notice that there is no change in facts relating to this issue between the current year and the AY 2010- 11/2011-12. It was also held that when TNMM method is applied to benchmark the entire international transactions, then there is no requirement of making separate TP adjustment on account of AMP expenditure. In the earlier paragraphs, we have also held that TNMM as most appropriate method and has also held that the international transaction of Exports to AEs is at arms length. Hence, no separate adjustment is required to be made in respect of AMP expenses on this account also.
10IT(TP)A No.821/Bang/2022.
M/s.Epson India Private Limited
10. We have considered the Ld DR's submission that the coordinate bench of the Tribunal in assessee's own case (supra) has remanded the case back to the TPO. In the said assessment years, the case was remanded back mainly for the purpose of determining whether the AMP expenses in an international transaction or now. The relevant para from the judgment is reproduced here for reference "In the present case also TPO had not brought anything on record to show existence of international transaction whereby the assessee was obliged to incur AMP expenditure for the purpose of promoting brand, intangible to its AE. Similarly the assessee company also has not furnished FAR analysis of AMP functions in its TP study. In our considered opinion, the matter requires remission to the TPO for undertaking fresh analysis to establish existence of international transaction in respect of AMP expenditure and true nature of transaction between the appellant and its AE. After due analysis of FAR of the AMP functions carried out by the appellant and having regard to the actual conduct of the appellant vis-à-vis its AE and economic substance of the transactions between the appellant and its AE if the TPO is of the opinion that there existed an international transaction in the form of AMP function, then to undertake the exercise of determination of ALP by adopting a suitable method of compensation to the appellant for performing the AMP functions of its AE"
11. For the year under consideration, the issue for consideration is treating the AMP expenses as a separate transaction from the distribution segment and making TP adjustment for the same. The Ld AR submitted that whether AMP expenses is a separate international transaction is not contended in the year under consideration and prayed that the decision rendered by the coordinate bench on this specific count need not be applied in the year under consideration.
12. Considering the ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of Sony Ericsson mobile communication India Private Limited (supra) and the other decisions of the coordinate bench of the Tribunal, with respect to treating AMP expenses as a separate transaction when the TPO has not otherwise rejected the gross margin and the net margin of the assessee, we hold that there is no separate adjustment to be made in respect of AMP expenses. The appeal is allowed in favour of the assessee."
10. Since the facts of the instant case are identical to the facts considered by the Tribunal for assessment year 2015- 2016, we hold that when the TPO has not rejected the gross margin and the net margin of the assessee in the trading 11 IT(TP)A No.821/Bang/2022.
M/s.Epson India Private Limited segment, separate TP adjustment on AMP expenses is not called for. Therefore, we delete the TP adjustment proposed by the TPO under the AMP segment. It is ordered accordingly.
11. In the result, grounds 4(v) and 4(vi) are allowed.
Ground 10(ii) (TP adjustment on BSS Segment)
12. The final list of comparables for computation of ALP in BSS segment after the DRP's directions and the median of the comparables vis-à-vis tax payers margin are detailed below:-
Sl. Company name Average
No. OP / OC
1. MCI Management (India) Pvt. Ltd. 2.54%
2. ICC International Agencies Ltd. (segment) 2.70%
3. Goldmine Advertising Ltd. 4.92%
4. Ugam Solutions Pvt. Ltd. 7.74%
5. Icra Management Consulting Services Ltd. 13.41%
6. Keystone Integrated Marketing Services Ltd. 14.31% (Seg.)
7. Pressman Advertising Ltd. 15.98%
8. Scarecrow Communication Ltd. 17.53%
9. Majestic Research Services & Solutions Ltd. 33.23% Particular OP / OC (in %) 35th Percentile 7.74 Median 13.41 65th percentile 14.31 Taxpayer's Margin 5.21
13. The computation of ALP in BSS segment are detailed below:-
Arm's Length Margin of Cost 13.41%
Operating Cost 29788141
Arm's Length Price 33782730
12
IT(TP)A No.821/Bang/2022.
M/s.Epson India Private Limited
113.41% of operating cost
Price received 31341083
Variation in price 2441647
3% of price received 940232.49
Shortfall being adjustment u/s 92CA 2441647
14. In ground 10(ii), the assessee is aggrieved by inclusion of Majestic Research Services & Solutions Limited, Scarecrow Communication Limited and Pressman Advertising Limited, as a comparable and is seeking to exclude the same. We shall adjudicate the contention of the assessee for exclusion of the above three comparables as under:-
Majestic Research Services & Solutions Limited
15. The TPO accepted the above company as a comparable on the ground that it is engaged in the business of advertising activities (refer page 25 and 26 of the TPO's order).
16. The DRP accepted the same as comparable on the ground that the company operates in one segmental business, namely, market area which is similar to that of the assessee (refer page 26 to 28 of the DRP's directions).
17. The learned AR submitted by placing reliance on the annual report of the company for the year ending 31.03.2007 that Majestic Research Services & Solutions Limited is functionally incompatible with that of the assessee, since it is engaged in the business of providing market research services and the company offers wide range of quantitative and qualitative research services. The learned AR relied on the 13 IT(TP)A No.821/Bang/2022.
M/s.Epson India Private Limited order of the Bangalore Bench of the Tribunal in assessee's own case for assessment year 2016-2017 (supra) and contended that the above company has been excluded from the comparable list, and since, the profile for the relevant assessment year 2017-2018 is same, the same needs to be excluded.
18. The learned DR supported the orders of the TPO and the DRP.
19. We have heard rival submissions and perused the material on record. The relevant extract of the annual report of Majestic Research Services & Solutions Limited for the year ending 31.03.2017 are placed in PB-I from pages 1097 onwards. On perusal of the same, we find that the said company is functionally not compatible with that of the assessee as the company is engaged in the business of providing marketing research services and offers wide range of qualitative and quantitative research services. The TPO has taken the data for the assessment years 2015-2016, 2016- 2017 and 2017-2018 for computing the ALP. This is on the basis that all the three years are comparable. The ITAT in assessee's own case for A.Y. 2016-2017 (supra) had excluded this company as comparable. The relevant finding of the ITAT for excluding Majestic Research Services & Solutions Limited, as a comparable reads as follows:-
14IT(TP)A No.821/Bang/2022.
M/s.Epson India Private Limited
"20.3 Majestic Research Services & Solutions Ltd.
It is submitted that this comparable is a market research agency relying exhaustively on usage of technology for data acquisition, it offers a wide range of quantitative and qualitative research both nationally and internationally. The company focuses on market research, advertising research, and brand research, thus making it entirely different from the services provided by Epson India to its associated enterprises.
The Ld.AR submitted that this is functionally different and not be considered a comparable to business support services segment of the assessee.
The Ld.AR also submitted that this company fails RPT filter of 25% of sales adopted by the Ld.TPO. In support he referred to page 309 of Paper Book-I. We are of the view that this company is rendering advertisement functions which are not akin to Business Support Services rendered by the assessee.
Therefore we do not hold this comparable to be included in the final list. Accordingly this comparable is directed to be excluded from the final list."
20. Since the profile of the company for assessment year 2017-2018 remains the same (this has been even accepted by the TPO), we direct the TPO to exclude this company from the comparable list. It is ordered accordingly.
Scarecrow Communications Limited
21. The above company was accepted by the TPO on the ground that it is engaged in the business of advertisement activities, which is similar to the business of the assessee (refer page 25 of the TPO's order). The above company was accepted as a comparable by the DRP for the reason that it is engaged in providing advertisement and promotional 15 IT(TP)A No.821/Bang/2022.
M/s.Epson India Private Limited activities, which is similar to that of the assessee (refer page 28 and 29 of the DRP's directions).
22. The learned AR by placing reliance on the annual report, submitted that the above company is functionally not comparable with the assessee and relied on the ITAT's order in assessee's own case for assessment year 2016-2017 (supra).
23. The learned DR supported the orders of the TPO and the DRP.
24. We have heard rival submissions and perused the material on record. The relevant extracts of the annual report of the company, Scarecros Communications Limited is placed on record at page 1124 and 1131 of the PB-I submitted by the assessee. On perusal of the same, it is clear that the company renders services pertaining to advertisement on radio, television and public relations, which is different from the business of support services rendered by the assessee. The Tribunal in assessee's own case for assessment year 2016- 2017 (supra) had excluded the company from the list of comparables, since it was functionally incompatible with that of the assessee. The relevant finding of the Tribunal for assessment year 2016-2017 (supra), reads as follows:-
"20.4 Scarecrow Communications Ltd.
20.4.1 We have considered the submissions advanced by both sides in the light of records placed before us. This company is rendering service pertaining to advertisement in radio and television and public shows 16 IT(TP)A No.821/Bang/2022.
M/s.Epson India Private Limited which are different from the business support service rendered by the assessee. Pages 315- 316 of Paper Book Vol. I gives the details of revenue generated by this comparable. Further, this comparable is rendering services not on the similar profile as that of assessee. Therefore we do not hold this comparable to be included in the final list. Accordingly this comparable is directed to be excluded from the final list."
25. The TPO has taken data for assessment years 2015- 2016, 2016-2017 and 2017-2018 for computing the ALP. On this basis all the three years has been taken as a comparable. Since the Tribunal has excluded this company as comparable for assessment year 2016-2017 and the profile is same for the relevant assessment year, namely, A.Y. 2017-2018, which has been even accepted by the TPO, the above company needs to be excluded from the comparable list. It is ordered accordingly.
Pressman Advertising Limited
26. The TPO accepted the above company as a comparable on the ground that it is engaged in the business of promoting brands through various medium, which is similar to the assessee (refer page 24 and 25 of the TPO's order). The view taken by the TPO was accepted by the DRP on the ground that the said company is engaged in providing advertisement and promotional activities, which is similar to the assessee.
27. The learned AR submitted that the company provides services pertaining to advertisement on radio, television and public relation, which is different from the business support services rendered by the assessee. Further, the learned AR 17 IT(TP)A No.821/Bang/2022.
M/s.Epson India Private Limited submitted that the said company had earned abnormal profit for the relevant assessment year.
28. The learned DR supported the orders of the TPO and the DRP.
29. We have heard rival submissions and perused the material on record. The relevant extracts of the annual report of the company, namely, Pressman Advertising Limited, is placed on record from pages 1132 to 1148 of the PB-I. We find that the assessee's main stream of revenue is for providing services pertaining to advertisement on radio, television and public relation. The same prima facie cannot be compared with the profile of the assessee's business support services. Since the matter needs fresh examination, we restore the issue to the AO / TPO to consider whether Pressman Advertising Limited's profile is the same as that of the assessee. It is ordered accordingly.
30. In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed.
Order pronounced on this 22nd day of December, 2022.
Sd/- Sd/-
(Chandra Poojari) (George George K)
ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER
Bangalore; Dated : 22nd December, 2022.
Devadas G*
18
IT(TP)A No.821/Bang/2022.
M/s.Epson India Private Limited
Copy to :
1. The Appellant.
2. The Respondent.
3. The DRP-1, Bangalore.
4. The Pr.CIT-2, Bengaluru.
5. The DR, ITAT, Bengaluru.
6. Guard File.
Asst.Registrar/ITAT, Bangalore