Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Pune
Capstone Securities Analysis Pvt. ... vs Deputy Commissioner Of ... on 21 June, 2019
आयकर अपीऱीय अधिकरण पण
ु े न्यायपीठ "बी" पण
ु े में
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
PUNE BENCH "B", PUNE
सुश्री सुषमा चावऱा, न्याययक सदस्य एवं श्री अयिऱ चतुवेदी, ऱेखा सदस्य के समक्ष
BEFORE MS. SUSHMA CHOWLA, JM AND SHRI ANIL CHATURVEDI, AM
MA No.21/PUN/2019
Arising out of ITA No.90/PUN/2016
Assessment Year : 2011-12
Capstone Securities Analysis Pvt. Ltd.,
Commerzone, Building No.1,
Ground Floor, Samrat Ashok Path,
Off Airport Road, Yerwada,
Pune - 411006 .... Applicant
PAN: AABCV9569K
Vs.
The Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax,
Circle 1(1), Pune .... Respondent
Applicant by : Shri Kishore Phadke
Respondent by : Shri Pankaj Garg
सन
ु वाई की तारीख / घोषणा की तारीख /
Date of Hearing : 14.06.2019 Date of Pronouncement: 21.06.2019
आदे श / ORDER
PER SUSHMA CHOWLA, JM:
The present Miscellaneous Application has been filed by the applicant against the order of Tribunal, dated 05.04.2019.
2. The learned Authorized Representative for the applicant pointed out that while arguing the present appeal, limited grounds of appeal were pressed on the premise that once the same are decided, then the margins shown by applicant would be within +/- 5% range of mean margins of comparables mainly selected. In this regard, it was pointed out that though grounds of appeal No.3 and 4 were 2 MA No.21/PUN/2019 pressed but ground of appeal No.5 was not argued by the learned Authorized Representative for the applicant during the course of hearing. However, the Tribunal vide para 14 while deciding the issue raised vide grounds of appeal No.3 and 4 has also given its finding vis-à-vis ground of appeal No.5, which was not warranted.
3. The learned Departmental Representative for the Revenue pointed out that during the course of hearing, written submissions were filed, which may be perused in this regard.
4. After hearing both the parties and after perusing written submissions filed by Revenue, it transpires that applicant had argued some of the issues and not all the grounds of appeal raised. The said fact is also mentioned in para 6 of order of Tribunal. The Tribunal also notes that primary issue was against inclusion of one concern i.e. Accentia Technologies Ltd. and the second issue raised vide grounds of appeal No.3 and 4 i.e. computation of PLI. Then, reference was made to other grounds of appeal pressed by the learned Authorized Representative for the applicant during the course of hearing. The first issue which was taken up by Tribunal was against inclusion of Accentia Technologies Ltd. i.e. primary issue raised which has been decided by Tribunal vide paras 8 to 10 of order dated 05.04.2019. Vide para 11, reference was made to grounds of appeal No.3 and 4 with regard to computation of PLI in the hands of assessee. While deciding the aforesaid issue in paras 14 to 16, the Tribunal has no doubt referred to the issue raised in grounds of appeal No.3 and 4 but has also referred to detailed working filed by assessee and has pointed out that another linked issue was the inclusion of payout income. The learned Authorized Representative for the applicant stresses 3 MA No.21/PUN/2019 that the said issue is raised by way of ground of appeal No.5, which was not argued. The perusal of written submissions filed by Revenue also reflects no arguments being raised in this regard. In paras 15 and 16, the Tribunal has decided the issue raised, which are vide grounds of appeal No.3 and 4. In other words, we find that an error has crept in the order of Tribunal in para 14 in making reference to linked issue of inclusion of payout income and debiting of payout cost, which was not argued before us, on the ground that if the preliminary issue is decided, then margins shown would be within +/- 5% range of mean margins of comparables. Hence, we modify para 14, which would read as under:-
"14. We have heard the rival contentions and perused the record. The issue which arises vide modified ground of appeal No.3 is against computation of PLI of assessee. The first grievance of assessee is that TPO/Assessing Officer/DRP have included items of revenue relating to DTA activity which were excluded while allowing 10A deduction. The second plea raised in this regard is in not including service tax refund as part of revenue item, despite same being operating income and also despite directions of DRP."
5. In the result, Miscellaneous Application of applicant is allowed.
Order pronounced on this 21st day of June, 2019.
Sd/- Sd/-
(ANIL CHATURVEDI) (SUSHMA CHOWLA)
ऱेखा सदस्य / ACCOUNTANT MEMBER न्याययक सदस्य / JUDICIAL MEMBER
पुणे / Pune; दिनाांक Dated : 21st June, 2019.
GCVSR
4
MA No.21/PUN/2019
आदे श की प्रयतलऱपप अग्रेपषत/Copy of the Order is forwarded to :
1. The Applicant;
2. The Respondent;
3. The DRP-3 (WZ), Mumbai;
4. The concerned CIT, Pune;
5. The DR 'B', ITAT, Pune;
6. Guard file.
आदे शािस ु ार/ BY ORDER, सत्यापपत प्रतत //True Copy// वररष्ठ तनजी सचिव / Sr. Private Secretary आयकर अपीऱीय अचिकरण ,पुणे / ITAT, Pune