Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Chennai
Komos Automotive India Pvt. Ltd., ... vs Acit, Corporate Circle-4(2), Chennai on 11 September, 2024
आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण,'डी' यायपीठ,चे ई
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
'D' BENCH, CHENNAI
ी महावीर सह, उपा य एवं ी एस. आर.रघुनाथा, लेखा सद य के सम
BEFORE SHRI MAHAVIR SINGH, HON'BLE VICE PRESIDENT AND
SHRI S. R. RAGHUNATHA, HON'BLE ACCOUNTANT MEMBER
आयकर अपीलसं./IT(TP)A Nos.: 80, 81 & 82/Chny/2023
िनधारणवष / Assessment Years: 2014-15, 2015-16 & 2016-17
Komos Automotive India Pvt Deputy Commissioner of
Ltd., v. Income Tax,
B-10/1, SIPCOT Industrial Corporate Circle 4(2),
Growth Centre, No.121, Mahatma Gandhi Road,
Oragadam, Vaippur - A Village, Nungambakkam, Chennai - 600
SriperumbudurTaluk, 034.
KanchipuramDist - 602 105.
[PAN: AACCK-8859-N]
(अपीलाथ /Appellant) ( यथ /Respondent)
अपीलाथ क ओरसे/Appellant by : Shri. S. Raghunathan, Advocate
यथ क ओरसे/Respondent by : Shri. G. Suresh, JCIT
सुनवाई क तारीख/Date of Hearing : 10.07.2024
घोषणा क तारीख/Date of Pronouncement : 11.09.2024
आदेश /O R D E R
PER S. R. RAGHUNATHA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER:
These appeals filed by the assessee are directed against the common order passed by the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), Chennai-16, for the assessment years 2014-15, 2015-16 & 2016-17dated 18.10.2023.
2. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal:
"1. Assessment order passed by AO/TPO are bad on facts and in law :-2-: IT(TP)A. Nos: 80 to 82/Chny/2023 1.1 The Final Assessment Order passed by the Assessing Officer ['AO"] is bad in law and liable to be quashed.
1.2 The Ld AO has erred in making a reference to the Transfer Pricing Officer ['TPO'], inter alia, since he has not recorded an opinion that any of the conditions in section 92C(3) of the Act, have been satisfied in the instant case. Accordingly, the order passed by the TPO is without jurisdiction.
1.3 The order passed by the AO is without jurisdiction, inter alia, insofar as it purports to give effect to an invalid order of the TPO.
2. Ld Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) ['CIT(A)'] erred in confirming the downward adjustment to the extent of Rs.95,749,732/-, out of the total downward adjustment of Rs.267,359,001/- made in the Transfer Pricing Order, the ground wise objection of the same is detailed below-
3. Without prejudice to ground number 1 above, the TPO/CIT(A) grossly erred by adopting fresh Search Process without providing to the Assessee the search process and without providing Accept/Reject Matrix, in determination of arm's length price by the TPO.
3.1 The TPO erred on facts and in law in conducting a fresh benchmarking analysis using non- contemporaneous data and substituting the Assessee's analysis with fresh benchmarking analysis on his own conjectures and surmises, without properly explaining the search process and without providing Accept/Reject Matrix, thereby TPO could have done cherry picking of companies. 3.2 The TPO/CIT(A) erred on facts in including new comparable companies, without explaining the search process, without giving any accept/reject matrix, thereby made cherry picking of final comparables. 3.3 The TPO/CIT(A) erred in not giving specific reasons/response in the final order for the objections raised in reply to SCN vide para 1.3, 1.4, 1.5,1.6 with regard to 4 new companies included by the TPO. 3.4 The Assessee has been denied the opportunity for questioning the reason for not considering the low margin/during the year loss making companies, since proper search process/ Accept Reject Matrix not provided.
3.5 TPO/CIT(A) erred in considering Sunstar Precision Forge Ltd (Sunstar Precision Forge") as comparable company, which is into different product line and without considering the proper facts about the comparable company.
:-3-: IT(TP)A. Nos: 80 to 82/Chny/2023 3.6 TPO/CIT(A) erred in considering ZF Steering
Gear(India) Ltd ("ZF Steering Gear") as comparable company, which is into different product line and without considering the proper facts about the comparable company.
3. 7 TPO/CIT(A) erred in considering QH Talbros Ltd ("QH Talbros Ltd") as comparable company, which is into different product line and without considering the proper facts about the comparable company.
3.8 TPO/CIT(A) erred in considering Rane (Madras) Ltd (Rane Madras") as comparable company, which is into different product line and without considering the proper facts about the comparable company.
4. TPO/CIT(A) erred in not considering the purchase price adjustment, difference between the Constant Price and Current Price due to exchange fluctuation.
4.1 The Assessee for evaluation of its cost competitiveness, the assessee company adopted constant pricing of all controlled input costs and other fixed and variable costs with a normal variance factor. By this exercise, the exchange rate as prevailing at the time of fixing the selling price and a normal variance thereof, positive and negative was assumed. In other words, any abnormal and uncontrolled variation in exchange rate or other costs is considered as non-operating.
5. Without prejudice to our submission made in ground no.4 above, the TPO/CIT(A) erred in not removing the 'Loss on Forex fluctuation' from the Operating Expenditure, which has arisen due to reinstatement of foreign currency done accordance with the accounting standards. 5.1 TPO/CIT(A) has failed to look into the ONLY statutory definition of 'Operating Expenses' Rule 10TA(j)(iv) in the context of determining arm's length price, which specifically excludes Forex fluctuation loss or gain from operating expenses or operating income. 5.2 Without prejudice to our above submission, the TPO erred in not removing the 'unrealised portion of the forex fluctuation' from the operating expenditure/operating income.
6. The Ld TPO/CIT(A) erred in not allowing the impact of 'working capital adjustment' for determination of arm's length price.
7. Non-allowance of "risk adjustment" to the comparable companies, by the TPO :-4-: IT(TP)A. Nos: 80 to 82/Chny/2023 7.1 The TPO erred in law and on facts in not allowing appropriate adjustments under Rule 1 OB to account for, inter alia, differences in risk profile between the Assessee and the comparable companies.
7.2 The TPO erred in law and on facts in arbitrarily not considering even specific research reports/data from company websites provided to demonstrate difference in risk between assessee and the comparable companies viz (i) presence of comparable companies in to 'replacement market' (ii) the research reports demonstrating additional margin earned in the 'replacement market' by the comparable companies.(iv) research reports regarding additional margin earned by companies catering to 'automobile replacement market'.
8. The Assessee desires leave to add to or alter, by deletion, substitution or otherwise, any or all of the above grounds of objections, at any time before or during the hearing. The Appellant submits that the above grounds are independent and without prejudice to one another."
3. The brief facts of the case are that, the assessee is a company engaged in manufacturing of steering wheel, Horn cover and console parts. The assessee company has filed its return of income for the assessment year 2014-15 on 30.11.2014 electronically admitting a loss of Rs.36,10,45,835/-. The case was selected for scrutiny under CASS. Accordingly, notice u/s. 143(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act") was issued on 31.08.2015. As per the provision of chapter X of the Act, the issue of TP was referred to the TPO U/s.92CA(1) of the Act to determine the arms length price of the international transaction entered into by the :-5-: IT(TP)A. Nos: 80 to 82/Chny/2023 assessee with AE after obtaining prior approval of PCIT-4. The TPO passed an U/s.92CA of the Act dated 28/10/2017 for the A.Y.2014-15 by suggesting a downward adjustment(Entity level) on AE cost of Rs.26,73,59,001/-. The AO passed a draft assessment order U/s.143(3) r.w.s.92CA(3) of the Act dated 29/12/2017 by reducing the loss of the assessee based on the TPO's suggestion as under:
Sl.No Particulars Rs.
1. LOSS returned as per ROI -36,10,45,835/-
2. ADD: TPO Additions as above 26,73,59,001/-
3. LOSS assessed as per this order -9,36,86,834/-
Subsequently the AO passed a final assessment order
u/s.143(3) r.w.s.92CA(3) of the Act on 07/02/2018 by
confirming the proposal made in the draft assessment order by holding as under:
As per the provisions of Chapter X of the Income Tax Act, 1961, the issue of Transfer pricing was referred to the Transfer Pricing Officer .to determine the Arm's Length Price of the International transactions entered into by the assessee company with its Associated Enterprises after obtaining the prior approval of the Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax-4, Chennai. The Transfer Pricing officer vide an order dated 23.10.2017 u/s.92CA(3) in F.No.K550/TPO-2(1)/A.Y.2014-15 has determined and suggested an amount of Rs.26,73,59,001/- as downward adjustment(entity level) on AE cost. Accordingly, the same has been reduced from the loss returned by the assessee company.
(TPO ADDITIONS: Rs.26,73,59,001/-) In response to the notices issued, Shri N. Sukumar, FCA, authorised representative of the assessee company appeared and filed the details called for.
:-6-: IT(TP)A. Nos: 80 to 82/Chny/2023 A Draft Assessment Order dt.27.12.2017 was passed by re- computing the income of the assessee company with the above said disallowances. The assessee company vide its Letter dt.24.01.2018 informed that the company wishes to exercise its option to appeal before the Commissioner of Income tax (Appeals) against all the variations/additions made to its returned income and does not wish to proceed before the Dispute Resolution Panel. The assessee company, in its said letter has further requested to pass the final assessment order. Hence, the assessment is completed with the above findings. The total income of the assessee company is computed as under:
Sl.No Particulars Rs.
1 LOSS returned as per ROI -36,10,45,835/-
2 ADD: TPO Additions as above 26,73,59,001/-
3 LOSS assessed as per this order -9,36,86,834/-
Aggrieved by the order of the AO, the assessee preferred an appeal before the Ld.CIT(A), Chennai - 16.
4. After considering the submissions of the assessee the Ld.CIT(A) has confirmed the order of the AO. Aggrieved by the order of the Ld.CIT(A), assessee is before this tribunal.
5. Before us, the Ld.counsel for the assessee raised first issue that the TPO has erred in treating foreign exchange difference as operating expenditure. The TPO/CIT(A) during the year FY 2013-14 (AY 2014-15), 2014-15 (AY 2015-16) and 2015-16 (AY 2016-17) treated exchange loss due to 'forex fluctuation' as operating while computing the OPM of the Tested :-7-: IT(TP)A. Nos: 80 to 82/Chny/2023 Party in their respective orders. The year wise forex fluctuation treated as operating by the TPO/CIT(A), and the Grounds raised before Hon'ble ITAT is detailed below:
Assessment Amount in INR ITAT Ground
Year -Forex Loss Ref No.
A Y 2014-15 Rs.47,754,111/- 5 & 5.1
AY 2015-16 Rs.75,684,590/- 4 & 4.1
AY2016-17 Rs.85,842,063/- 5 & 5.1
The Ld.Counsel stated that the FOREX FLUCTUATION should not be treated as part of operating expenses/income - in this regard the assessee relied on the following decisions:
1.4.1 Hon'ble Chennai Tribunal decision in DCIT Vs WOOSU AUTOMOTIVE INDIA PVT LTD-2023(11) TMI 25-ITAT CHENNAI- (Refer Para 8 -IN PAGE6 TO 12of written submission) 1.4.2 Hon'ble Chennai Tribunal decision in DCIT Vs HANIL TUBE INDIA PVT LTD-ITA 1037/MDS/2014(Refer Para 10-
Page 11-14 - IN PAGE 13 TO 32 of written submission). 1.4.3 Hon'ble Chennai Tribunal decision in INFAC INDIA PVT LTD Vs DCIT-IT(TP)A NO.27/CHNY/2018 (Refer Para 8 -Page 3 of 6 - PAGE 33 TO 38 of written submission).
1.4.4 Also, (a) we are relying on the OECD Transfer pricing Guidelines for Multinational Enterprises and Tax Administration - (Refer Para 2.88 -IN PAGE 39 TO 40 of written submission).
:-8-: IT(TP)A. Nos: 80 to 82/Chny/2023
(b) We are enclosing the relevant page from the transfer pricing study, wherein the Foreign Exchange Risk is mentioned - (1) Refer Paper Book AY 2014-15-Page 16 (2) Refer Paper Book AY 2015-16- Page 17 and (3) Refer Paper Book A Y 2016-17-Page 17. In light of the above arguments, the ld.Counsel prayed for allowing this ground of the assessee by setting aside the order of the Ld.CIT(A).
6. Per contra, the Ld.DR argued that the very same issue is decided in favour of the revenue in assessee's own case in this Tribunal in ITA No.585/Chny/2017 dated 19/01/2024 and prayed to consider the same and dismiss this ground of the assessee.
7. We have heard the rival contentions and gone through the material on record and the orders of the Tribunal relied by both the parties. The issue of treating 'foreign exchange difference' as operating expenditure or non-operating expenditure has been considered by the TPO in his order as under:
"7.4 While looking at assessee's FAR profile, assessee is the bearer of risk of forex. In such a scenario, keeping the forex loss as non-operating is not correct. In this regard the following a submission is made. The assessee has claimed exchange :-9-: IT(TP)A. Nos: 80 to 82/Chny/2023 fluctuation loss and exchange fluctuation difference in the purchase price as extra ordinary and non-operating. This approach of the assessee is not correct. Rule 10TA(j) is part of Rules framed specifically for safe harbor purpose. On the issue of forex gain/loss, the jurisdictional bench of Honourable ITAT İs in favour of treating expenses as operating in nature. In the case of Petrofac Engineering Services India (P)LtdVs. ITO (2014) 46 Taxmann. com 126 (Chennai Trib), Honourable ITAT held that incase of international Transactions entered into by assessee with its AE, foreign exchange gain loss is a relevant factor in computation of assessee's ALP. The Honourable Madras High Court in the case of CIT VS. Pentasoft Technologies Ltd (2012) 347 ITR 578 (2013) 33Taxmann.com 570 (Mad) held that gains due to fluctuation in foreign exchange is directly related to export sales of the assessee and therefore, it cannot be treated as other than part of profit from export. So corollary of this is that the loss due to fluctuation in foreign exchangeis also directly related to expenses of the assessee and thus forms part of its operating expenses. In the case of SAP labs India (P) Ltd Vs. Asst CIT (2011) 44 SOT 156 (Bang), the Honourable ITAT held that the foreign exchange fluctuation income cannot be excluded from the computation of the operating margin of the assessee company.
Thus, similar loss will have to be considered while determining profit margin and thus is part of operating expenses. Similar view has been taken by Honourable Tribunal in various decisions Cordys R&D India Pvt Ltd Vs. DCIT (2014) (HydTrib). West falia separarator India vs. ACIT (2014) (Delhi Trib). Also, treatment of forex as non-operating is not in line with assessee's FAR as per which it is bearing forex risk. Therefore, the adjustment claimed by the assessee is not acceptable."
8. The Ld.CIT(A) also held that the exchange loss due to 'forex fluctuation' as operating expenditure relying on the decisions of the various tribunals stating that the amount of foreign exchange gain / loss arising out of revenue transactions and arising in normal course of business is required to be considered as an item of operating revenue / cost. Considering :-10-: IT(TP)A. Nos: 80 to 82/Chny/2023 the decision in assessee's own case in ITA No.585/Chny/2017, wherein the Tribunal held as under:
"7. We have heard both the parties, perused materials available on record and gone through orders of the authorities below. Admittedly, the assessee itself has considered forex loss/forex gains as operating in nature while computing operating margin for earlier years. In fact, in assessee's own case, the ITAT Chennai Benches has considered the issue and held that forex loss is operating in nature. To this extent there is no dispute. Further, the ld. Counsel for the assessee is also not disputing this aspect up to assessment year 2008-09. However, the arguments of the ld. Counsel for the assessee in light of certain subsequent decisions of various benches and also Safe Harbor Rules for international transactions as notified by Rule 10TA of Income-tax Rules, 1962, forex loss/gain should be treated as non-operating in nature because as per the definition of operating income or operating expenditure, forex loss/gain has been specifically excluded within the ambit of operating expenditure or operating income. We find that in order to consider any items of expenditure/income as operating or non-operating in nature, mere treatment of the assessee in its books of accounts is not a sufficient reason for treating a particular item of expenditure/income as operating or non-operating in nature. But what is to be seen is, the nature of income or expenditure. Further, forex loss/gain is derived on account of trading account/revenue account, then such forex loss/gain should be treated as revenue in nature and also operating in nature. Further, loss arisen on account of fluctuation in foreign currency for payment made to suppliers of materials or receipts from buyer of assessee product is also arisen out of main business activity of the assessee and thus, same cannot be considered as non- operating in nature. In so far as Safe Harbor Rules is concerned, Rule 10TA has notified Safe Harbor Rules for international transactions and as per said Rules, operating expenses and operating income has been defined, which excludes loss arising on account of foreign currency fluctuations and said Rules has been notified w.e.f. assessment year 2013-14. In the present case, the assessee could not furnish any evidences to prove that it has opted for Safe Harbor Rules for determining ALP of international transactions. Unless, the assessee opts for Safe Harbor Rules for international transactions, the cherry picking of definition provided in Safe Harbor Rules cannot be considered to :-11-: IT(TP)A. Nos: 80 to 82/Chny/2023 determine forex loss/gain as operating in nature or not. Since, the appellant itself has treated forex loss/gain as operating in nature for earlier years and also the Tribunal has considered in assessee's own case and held that forex loss is operating in nature, in our considered view there is no merit in grounds taken by the assessee challenging exclusion of forex loss/gain from operating expenditure or operating income. Further, same issue has been decided by the coordinate bench of ITAT, Chennai in the case of M/s. Hyundai Motor India Ltd vs ACIT in ITA No. 3192/Chny/2017, where one of us is also signatory and held that forex loss/gains is revenue is nature and operating expenditure/income. Therefore, we are of the considered view, that there is no error in the reasons given by the ld. TPO/CIT(A) to include forex loss/forex gains as operating in nature, for the purpose of computing PLI or operating margin of the assessee. Thus, we are inclined to uphold the findings of the ld. CIT(A) and reject ground taken by the assessee's in all cases and also we reject ground taken by the revenue on this issue.
9. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and the principles of judicial consistency by respectfully following the decision of this tribunal in assessee's own case for the A.Y.2013-14, we are of the view that there is no need of interference in the order of the ld.CIT (A) and dismiss the appeals of the assessee for assessment years 2014-15, 2015- 16 & 2016-17.
10. The next ground of appeal raised by the assessee is working capital adjustment :
The working capital adjustment is raised before the tribunal the year wise ground number is given below AY ITAT Ground No AY 2014-15 Ground No. 6 :-12-: IT(TP)A. Nos: 80 to 82/Chny/2023 AY 2015-16 Ground No. 5 AY 2016-17 Ground No. 6 The Ld.AR stated that the Assessee Company claimed working capital adjustment for the comparable companies in the Transfer Pricing Report and also made submission before the TPO justifying the working capital adjustment vide reply to Show Cause Notice, and, also given the computation with regard to working capital adjustment for the comparable companies taken in TP Report and comparable companies selected by TPO in the SCN. Further, the Ld.AR stated that the Assessee Company made submission before the CIT(Appeals) justifying the working capital adjustment in the Written Submission.
11. The Ld.AR of the Assessee Company relied upto OECD comparability adjustments, which justifies why to make working capital adjustment and also gives the practical example of working capital adjustments - Refer Page No. 41 TO 48 of written submission. The Ld.AR rely upon the following jurisdictional tribunal decisions, decided in favour of working capital adjustment for your reference:
:-13-: IT(TP)A. Nos: 80 to 82/Chny/2023
a) Hon'ble Chennai Tribunal decision in DCIT Vs WOOSU AUTOMOTIVE INDIA PVT LTD-2023(11) TMI 25- ITAT CHENNAI- Refer Para I - in page 6 to 12 of this submisison.
b) Doosan Power Systems India Pvt Ltd Vs DCIT- ITA No.581/Mds/2016-Refer Para 11- in page 49 to 57 of this submisison.
c) Hon'ble ITAT Chennai decision in Myunghwa Automotive Limited vs ACIT(ITA No.912/CHNY/2017)-Para 11 TO 13 - refer page 58 to 72 of this submission.
(d) Apigee Technologies(India) P Ltd Vs JCIT-(2015) 63 taxmann.com 129 (Bangalore Trib) - in page 73 to 84 of this submisison.
(e) Hon'ble Mumbai Tribunal decision in Syngenta Biosciences P Ltd Vs DCITITA No.1083/Mum/2015- Refer Para 10 - in page 85 to 101 of this submission
12. The Ld.AR also, rely upon following international commentaries and articles in support of working capital adjustment.
(a) extract from OECD transfer pricing guidelines for multinational enterprises and tax administration - annexure to chapter iii- copy attached in page 102 to 108 of this submission
(b) united nations practical manual on transfer pricing for de eloping nation(2017)- copy attached in page 109 to 113 of this submission
(c) example of a working capital adjustment by price water house coopers - in page 114 to 116 of this submission.
:-14-: IT(TP)A. Nos: 80 to 82/Chny/2023
13. In light of the above arguments, the ld.Counsel prayed for allowing this ground of the assessee by setting aside the order of the Ld.CIT(A).
14. Per contra, the Ld.DR argued that the TPO has considered the complete details filed by the assessee and stated that "No analysis has been made about the comparable companies to demonstrate the impact of the difference in working capital". Therefore, he prayed to confirm the order of the Ld.CIT(A) and dismiss this ground of the assessee.
15. We have heard the rival contentions and gone through the material on record and the orders of the Tribunal relied by both the parties. The issue of treating 'working capital adjustment' for operating margin has been rejected by the TPO in his order as under:
7. TPO's Observations:
7.1 The submissions of the assessee company were studied in detail and the following observations are made:
Adjustments claimed:
Working Capital adjustment:
7.2 The assessee has claimed Working Capital Adjustment of 2.91% in its TP study but there is no basis for the same as differences in intensities of working capital between the assessee and the comparables is not established. No additional material/evidence is brought on record to substantiate this claim. Working capital adjustment :-15-: IT(TP)A. Nos: 80 to 82/Chny/2023 as a general rule cannot be granted. It has to be demonstrated in the facts of the case that because of favourable working capital position or otherwise of the same, the profit of the comparables in the open market were impacted. No such factual details have been provided by the assessee relating to the comparables to make out a case for consideration. Rule 10B of the income Tax Rules, 1962 provides for making reasonably accurate adjustments to the uncontrolled comparables transaction to eliminate the material effects of such differences on the price, cost or profits. If the taxpayer is able to demonstrate that difference in its working capital vis-a-vis the comparable companies had affected it's profit margin, adjustment is warranted provided that such adjustment could be computed in a reasonably accurate manner. The taxpayer has not been able to demonstrate that the working capital differences has impacted its profits.
No analysis of a. Whether the comparable companies have financed their working capital by own funds or borrowed funds. b. Whether any cost has been incurred on the working capital by the comparable companies and if so, c. How the cost of such worming capital has had an impact on the margins of the comparable companies has been made to demonstrate the impact of the difference in working capital. Hence, the claim of the assessee cannot be accepted.
16. We note that the issue of working capital adjustment has been decided in assessee's own case in ITA No.585/Chny/2017, dated 19/01/2024 for the A Y 2013-14, wherein the Tribunal held as under:
10. We have heard both the parties, perused materials available on record and gone through orders of the authorities below. There is no dispute with regard to the fact that working capital adjustment of an entity definitely impacts the pricing pattern and also operating margin. However, it is for the assessee to provide necessary details to prove that its working capital position when compared to comparable companies is either less or more and suitable adjustment is required to be :-16-: IT(TP)A. Nos: 80 to 82/Chny/2023 provided in order to bring on par with comparable companies.
Further, the assessee also needs to provide necessary supporting evidence to prove that it has not factored working capital impact on pricing of products or services. In the present case, the assessee claims that it has filed working explaining working capital position of comparable companies vis-a-vis the working capital position of assessee company and suitable adjustment is required to be provided. But, the TPO and CIT(A) rejected the claim of the assessee. The assessee has filed computation explaining working capital adjustment which needs to be considered by the lower authorities. Therefore, we are of the considered view that this issue needs to go back to the file of the AO/TPO to verify the claim of the assessee with reference to computation, if any, along with other supporting evidences to be filed by the assessee for providing working capital adjustments. Thus, we set aside the order of the ld. CIT(A) on this issue and direct the AO/TPO to re-examine the claim of the assessee with regard to working capital adjustments and decide the issue in accordance with law in all cases".
17. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and respectfully following the decision of this tribunal in assessee's own case for the A.Y.2013-14, we are setting aside the order of the Ld. CIT (A) on this issue and direct the AO / TPO to re- examine the claim of the assessee with regard to working capital adjustments and decide the issue in accordance with law. Hence we allow this ground of the assessee for statistical purpose.
18. Since the facts are identical in assessment year 2015-16 and 2016-17, in respect of this ground the decision held as :-17-: IT(TP)A. Nos: 80 to 82/Chny/2023 above for the A.Y.2014-15 is applicable mutatis mutandis. Hence, this ground of the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose for the A.Y.2014-15, 2015-16 & 2016-17.
19. In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed.
Order pronounced in the Open court on 11th September, 2024 at Chennai.
Sd/- Sd/-
(महावीर िसं ह ) (एस. आर.रघु नाथा)
(MAHAVIR SINGH) (S. R. RAGHUNATHA)
उपा य /Vice President लेखासद य/Accountant Member
चे ई/Chennai,
th
दनांक/Dated, the 11 September, 2024
JPV
आदे शकी ितिलिपअ ेिषत/Copy to:
1. अपीलाथ /Appellant
2. थ /Respondent
3.आयकर आयु /CIT - Chennai
4. िवभागीय ितिनिध/DR
5. गाड फाईल/GF