Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Bangalore
M/S Yokogawa Ia Technologies India Pvt. ... vs Asst.C.I.T., Bangalore on 8 August, 2018
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
"B" BENCH : BANGALORE
BEFORE SHRI N.V. VASUDEVAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER
AND SHRI JASON P. BOAZ, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER
IT(TP)A No.466/Bang/2016
Assessment year : 2011-12
The Assistant Commissioner of Vs. M/s. Yokogawa IA Technologies
Income Tax, India Pvt. Ltd.,
Circle 7(1)(2), Umiya Business Bay,
Bangalore. Tower 1, 6th Floor, Cessna
Business Park,
Sarjapur Outer Ring Road,
Bangalore - 560 037.
PAN: AAACY 2823L
APPELLANT RESPONDENT
IT(TP)A No.606/Bang/2016
Assessment year : 2011-12
M/s. Yokogawa IA Technologies Vs. The Assistant Commissioner of
India Pvt. Ltd., Income Tax,
Bangalore - 560 037. Circle 7(1)(2),
PAN: AAACY 2823L Bangalore.
Revenue by : Ms. Neera Malhotra, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru.
Respondent by : Shri P.C. Khincha, CA
Date of hearing : 27.06.2018
Date of Pronouncement : 08.08.2018
ITA Nos. IT(TP)A Nos.466 & 606/Bang/2016
Page 2 of 16
ORDER
Per N.V. Vasudevan, Judicial Member
IT(TP)A No. 466/Bang/2016 is an appeal by the revenue while IT(TP)A No.606/Bang/2016 is an appeal by the assessee. Both these appeals are directed against the final order of assessment dated 29.11.2016 passed by the ACIT, Circle 7(1)(2), Bangalore u/s. 143(3) r.w.s. 144C(13) of the Income-Tax Act, 1961 ["the Act"].
2. First we shall take up for consideration the appeal by the assessee. In grounds No.1 to 4 raised by the assessee, the assessee has challenged the determination of Arms Length Price (ALP) and consequent addition made to the total income in respect of international transaction entered into by the assessee with its Associated Enterprise (AE). At the time of hearing, the ld. counsel for the assessee submitted that ground No.3 raised by the assessee in its appeal, if adjudicated, would be sufficient and other grounds are not pressed for adjudication. Ground No.3 raised by the assessee in its appeal reads as follows:-
"4. Without prejudice, the lower authorities have erred in:
a. Rejecting the comparables selected and transfer pricing analysis undertaken by the Assessee on unjustifiable grounds.
b. Conducting a fresh transfer pricing analysis despite absence of any defects in the transfer pricing analysis submitted by the Assessee;
c. Adopting inappropriate filters like 25% RPT filter etc. in the process of selecting comparables;
d. Adopting companies as comparables even though they are not comparable in terms of functions performed, risks assumed, assets utilized, despite unusual business circumstances or high margins etc. ITA Nos. IT(TP)A Nos.466 & 606/Bang/2016 Page 3 of 16 e. Ignoring additional comparables proposed during the assessment proceedings.
f. Considering provision for doubtful debts as non-operating in nature while computing operating margins;
g. Not making proper adjustment for enterprise level and transactional level differences between the Assessee and comparable companies;
h. Not recognizing that the Assessee was insulated from risks, as against comparables, who assume these risks and therefore have to be credited with a risk premium on this account; and i. Not appropriately computing the working capital adjustment while computing the ALP."
3. As far as appeal by the revenue is concerned, ground Nos.2 &3 raised by the revenue in its appeal can be conveniently adjudicated along with ground No.3 raised by the assessee, as these grounds relate to determination of ALP in respect of international transaction entered into by the assessee with its AE. Gr.No.2 & 3 raised by the Revenue reads thus:
"2. Whether the DRP has erred to include forex gain/loss as operating in nature without ascertaining the nexus with the business activity of the tax payer.
3. Whether the DRP has erred in granting 1% risk adjustment arbitrarily without appreciating the facts of the case and its comparables."
4. The facts with regard to determination of ALP in respect of international transaction between the assessee and its AE are as follows. The assessee is a company engaged in the business of rendering software development services. The assessee is a 100% EOU set up under the Software Technology Parks of India (STPI) scheme of the Govt. of India. The assessee is a captive software development service provider for the ITA Nos. IT(TP)A Nos.466 & 606/Bang/2016 Page 4 of 16 Yokogawa group. Yokogawa group is engaged in the business of process automation, field instrumentation, analytical equipment, safety systems and production management software. Yokogawa group is a non-resident. The assessee, as we have already seen, provides software development services to the non-resident entities of Yokogawa group. It is not in dispute that the transaction of providing software development (SWD) services by the assessee to the non-resident Yokogawa group entities was an international transaction and therefore the price received by the assessee in such transaction has to pass the arm's length price (ALP) test as laid down in section 92 of the Act.
5. In support of the assessee's claim that the price paid by it in the international transaction was at arm's length, the assessee filed a TP analysis wherein the assessee had chosen 11 companies as comparable companies. The Profit Level Indicator (PLI) chosen for the purpose of comparison of assessee's profit margin with that of the comparable companies was Operating Profit to Operating Cost (OP/OC). The PLI of the assessee was 15.41%. The arithmetic mean of the profit margin of the comparables i.e., PLI of the comparables was 14.12%. Since the profit margin of the assessee was much more than the arithmetic mean of the profit margin of the comparables chosen by the assessee, the assessee claimed that the price received by the assessee in the international transaction has to be considered as at arm's length and no adjustment should be made and consequent addition to be made to the total income on account of determination of ALP.
6. The TPO, to whom the AO made a reference for determination of ALP under the provisions of section 92CA of the Act, did not accept the claim of assessee. The TPO, selected 13 companies as comparables and arrived at the arithmetic mean of the profit margin of these companies ITA Nos. IT(TP)A Nos.466 & 606/Bang/2016 Page 5 of 16 before and after working capital adjustments at 24.82% and 24.43% respectively. The TPO thereafter computed the ALP and the consequent addition to be made to the total income in the following manner:-
Margins as computed by TPO Operating Margin Adjusted Margin Sl.No. Name of the on Cost on Cost Company 1 Acropetal Technologies Ltd (seg) 31.98% 29.12% 2 E-Zest Solutions Ltd 21.03% 19.39% 3 E-Infochips Ltd 56.44% 56.53% 4 Evoke Technologies Pvt Ltd 8.11% 8.42% 5 I C R A Techno Analytics Ltd. 24.83% 23.25% 6 Infosys Technologies Ltd. 43.39% 43.87% 7 Larsen Et Toubro Infotech Ltd. 19.83% 20.29% 8 Mindtree Ltd.(seg) 10.66% 9.67% 9 Persistent Systems Et Solutions Ltd. 22.12% 21.60% 10 Persistent Systems Ltd. 22.84% 22.04% 11 R S Software (India) Ltd. 16.35% 16.64% 12 Sasken Communication Technologies 24.13% 24.93% 13 Tata Elxsi (seg) 20.91% 19.37% Arithmetic Mean 24.82% 24.43% Computation of arm's length price by the AO/TPO and the adjustment made:
Arm's length mean margin 24.82% Less: Working capital adjustment 0.39% Adjusted mean margin after working capital adjustment 24.43% Operating Cost (A)* 12,51,12,940 Arm's length price - 124.43% of operating cost (B) 15,56,78,031 Total operating Revenue (C) 14,01,26,490 Short fall being Adjustment u/s 92CA (B - C) 1,55,51,541 Refer Pg 20 of TP Order ITA Nos. IT(TP)A Nos.466 & 606/Bang/2016 Page 6 of 16
7. The assessee challenged the determination of ALP by filing objections before the DRP. The contentions of the assessee before the DRP were that while determining the operating profits for the purpose of arriving at the profit margin of the company, the AO should include foreign exchange gain/loss as part of the operating income and the action of the TPO in not treating such gain/loss as part of operating profit/loss of the assessee as well as comparable companies was not proper. This argument of the assessee was accepted by the DRP. The DRP at page 10 of its order held as follows:-
"In case forward contract is not present, the decision of Bangalore Bench of ITAT in the case of SAP Lab India Pvt Ltd (2010-TII-44-ITAT-BANG-TP) is applicable. Following the same, objection of the assessee is to be accepted and Assessing Officer/TPO is directed to consider the foreign exchange fluctuation in respect of the assessee as well as the comparables as operating in nature while determining the ALP in the case of the assessee."
8. The assessee had contended before the DRP that proper adjustment on account of assumption of risk by the assessee and the comparable companies should give given. The DRP in its direction held as follows:-
"The objection regarding adjustment on account of economic and risk profile has been considered following the decision of the Hon'ble ITAT Bangalore in Intellinet Technologies India Pvt. Ltd. vs ITO (ITA No.1237/Bang/2010). By means of guidance, it is mentioned that in the case of DCIT vs. Hello Soft Pvt. Ltd. (2013) 32 taxmann.com 101 (ITAT, Hyd) 1% adjustment to the average margin was provided towards risk differential. Since the facts of the case remain the same, the TPO is directed to do the needful as above."
ITA Nos. IT(TP)A Nos.466 & 606/Bang/2016 Page 7 of 16
9. The assessee had objected to inclusion of 6 companies out of 13 companies chosen by the TPO on the ground that their turnover was more than Rs.200 crores, whereas the assessee's turnover was only Rs.14 crores and therefore by applying the turnover filter, these companies should be excluded from the list of comparable companies. This plea of the assessee was accepted by the DRP and accordingly following 6 companies whose turnover was more than Rs.200 crores were excluded from the list of comparable companies viz., Infosys Technologies Ltd., Larsen & Toubro Infotech Ltd., Mindtree Ltd., Persistent Systems Ltd., Sasken Communication Technologies and Tata Elxsi Ltd. The assessee sought to exclude certain other companies chosen as comparable companies by the TPO, but that was not accepted by the DRP.
10. In the revenue's appeal, in ground No.2 the revenue has challenged the direction of DRP in directing the TPO to consider foreign exchange gain/loss as part of operating profit/loss, as the case may be. In ground No.3, the revenue has challenged the order of DRP whereby the DRP granted adjustment of 1% to the profit margin of the assessee and the comparables on account of risks assumed.
11. As far as the assessee's appeal is concerned, the assessee seeks to exclude the following 5 comparables from the list of remaining 7 companies after exclusion of 6 companies from the 13 comparables chosen by the TPO viz., (i) Acropetal Technologies Ltd. (ii) E-Zest Solutions Ltd. (iii) E-Infochips Ltd. (iv) ICRA Techno Analytics Ltd. (v) Persistent Systems & Solutions Ltd.
12. As regards the assessee's appeal, the comparability of 5 companies which the assessee seeks to exclude, these companies were considered and decided by this Tribunal for the very same assessment year i.e. AY ITA Nos. IT(TP)A Nos.466 & 606/Bang/2016 Page 8 of 16 2011-12 in the case of a software service development provider such as the assessee in Electronics for Imaging India Pvt. Ltd. in IT(TP)A No.1506/Bang/2015 & IT(TP)A No.16/Bang/2016 for AY 2011-12, order dated 14.07.2017. In the aforesaid order, the Tribunal held that (i) Acropetal Technologies Ltd. (ii) E-Zest Solutions Ltd. (iii) Larsen & Toubro Infotech Ltd. and (iv) Persistent Systems & Solutions Ltd. are not comparable with the that of assessee in para 8 of its order. The Tribunal came to the conclusion that these companies were also in the business of developing software products and therefore cannot be compared with a computer software developer. As far as E-Infochips Ltd. and ICRA Techno Analytics Ltd. are concerned, in the very same decision, the Tribunal in para 9 & 10 of its order held that these two companies were not functionally comparable with a pure software development service provider such as the assessee and were also in the business of software products. In view of the aforesaid decision of the Tribunal, we are of the view that the aforesaid 5 companies should be excluded from the list of comparable companies.
13. The ld. DR, however, pointed out that Persistent Systems & Solutions Ltd. was a comparable chosen by the assessee itself and the assessee did not object to this company chosen as a comparable company before the DRP. This contention was found to be not correct as in the objection of the assessee before the DRP, a specific objection was raised in this regard in para 5.153 to 5.159 of assessee's objections before the DRP. In view of the above, we do not find the objection raised by the ld. DR before us to be of any significance.
14. As far as appeal of revenue is concerned, the submission of the ld. DR before us was that the foreign exchange gain/loss relating to transactions of the relevant previous year alone should be considered and ITA Nos. IT(TP)A Nos.466 & 606/Bang/2016 Page 9 of 16 in this regard, the ld. DR placed reliance on 3 decisions of ITAT Bangalore Bench as follows:-
(i) Tektronix (India) P. Ltd. v DCIT, IT(TP)A No.293/Bang/2014 dated 27.10.2017.
(ii) M/s. Akamai Technologies India Pvt. Ltd. v. DCIT, IT(TP)A No.1122/Bang/2011 dated 08.09.2017.
(iii) DCIT v. ABB Global Services Pvt. Ltd., IT(TP)A No.97/Bang/2014 dated 5.5.2017.
15. For the sake of ready reference, we may quote the following observations of the Tribunal in the case of Akamai Technologies India Pvt. Ltd. (supra):-
"10. Regarding ground no. 12, the ld. AR of assessee submitted that this issue should be decided in favour of the assessee in line with the Tribunal order on this issue in the Assessment Year 2006-07 in IT (TP) A No. 1227/Bang/2010 dated 11.08.2016 and he filed a copy of this Tribunal order and drawn our attention to Para no. 48 of this Tribunal order. At this juncture, it was pointed out by the bench that it has to be seen as to whether the gain is on the turnover of the present year or an earlier year. In reply, it was submitted that such details are not readily available and therefore, the matter be restored back to the file of AO for fresh decision with suitable directions. The ld. DR of revenue also submitted that the matter may be restored back to the file of AO with suitable directions.
11. We have considered the rival submissions. We find that in Assessment Year 2006-07, the Tribunal order followed the tribunal order rendered in the case of Sap labs India Pvt. Ltd. as reported in ITA Nos. 398 & 418/Bang/2008 dated 30.08.2010 relevant Para of this Tribunal order have been reproduced by Tribunal in that order as per which it was held that foreign exchange gain is nothing but an integral part of the sales proceeds of an assessee carrying on export business. To this extent, there is no quarrel but in our considered opinion, even after holding that ITA Nos. IT(TP)A Nos.466 & 606/Bang/2016 Page 10 of 16 the Foreign Exchange fluctuation gain is operating profit, it has to be seen as to whether the same can be considered for the purpose of computing ALP if the said gain is not in respect of sale of the present year. This is so because for the purpose of ALP under TNMM, what is determined is the percentage of profit by dividing the profit of the year by turnover of the year and such profit percentage of the assessee is compared with the average profit percentage of the comparables. Hence, even after holding that foreign exchange fluctuation gain is operating profit, it has to be seen as to whether the said gain is in respect of turnover of the present year or turnover of the earlier year because if the gain is on account of turnover of the present year than the gain is included in the numerator i.e. profit but the relevant turnover is not included in the denominator and therefore, the result will be absurd. Hence, we restore this matter to the file of the A.O. with the direction that the foreign exchange gain should be considered for computing profit percentage for the purpose of ALP if it is in respect of turnover of the present year. But if it is in respect of turnover of the earlier year then the same should not be considered in the operating profit in the present year for the purpose of computing ALP. This submission was also made by the ld. AR of the assessee that such details regarding the year of sale in respect of foreign exchange gain of the comparable may not be available. We feel it proper that either the foreign exchange gain of comparable should not be considered in that situation or such details should be obtained from the respective comparable companies u/s. 133(6) of the IT Act, 1961. Ground no. 12 is allowed for statistical purposes in the terms indicated above."
16. The ld. counsel for the assessee, however, pointed out that the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of Pr. CIT v. Ameriprise India Pvt. Ltd. in ITA No.206/2016, judgment dated 23.03.2016 has taken the following view:-
"The ITAT has in the impugned order noted the fact that the foreign exchange gain earned by the Assessee is in relation to the trading items emanating from the international transactions.
ITA Nos. IT(TP)A Nos.466 & 606/Bang/2016 Page 11 of 16 Since the foreign exchange loss directly resulted from trading items, it could not be considered as a non-operating loss. Further, it is noted by the Dispute Resolution Panel that the service agreement between the Associated Enterprise (AE) AND THE Assessee stated that for the specified products and services provided by the Assessee, it "shall raise invoices on Ameriprise USA on the basis of a cost plus pricing methodology." The ITAT was therefore right in holding that the AO was not justified in considering the foreign exchange loss as a non-operating cost."
17. In view of the decision of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court (supra), we are of the view that there is no merit in ground No.2 raised by the revenue.
18. As far as ground No.3 raised by the revenue is concerned, the ld. DR submitted before us that there cannot be any fixed or standard allowance of deduction on account of risk as allowed by the DRP in its direction. In this regard, the ld. DR placed reliance on the decision of the Delhi Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Actis Global Services (P) Ltd. v. ITO [2017] 81 taxmann.com 457 (Delhi-Trib.) wherein the Tribunal took the view that the assessee should demonstrate the nature of risk and how the risk has affected the margin. It was also submitted by the ld. DR that even quantification of the risk should be made on some basis and cannot be allowed on an adhoc basis.
19. We have considered the submission of the ld. DR and are of the view that the issue requires re-examination by the TPO/AO. The order of DRP is set aside and the AO/TPO is directed to examine the adjustment on account of risk afresh. The assessee is directed to give the necessary details of the nature of risk and the impact on profit margins and also the basis of quantification of adjustment towards risk. Ground No.3 raised by the revenue is accordingly partly allowed.
ITA Nos. IT(TP)A Nos.466 & 606/Bang/2016 Page 12 of 16
20. The above discussion will conclude the issue of determination of ALP u/s. 92 of the Act.
21. We shall now deal with the other corporate tax issues raised by the assessee in its appeal.
22. Ground Nos. 5 & 6 raised by the assessee reads as follows:-
"5. The lower authorities have erred in a. Disallowing reimbursement of WAN Link charges and Software licenses (totaling to Rs.36,10,836/-) u/s. 40(a)(i) on the ground that the Assessee has not deducted TDS as per provisions of section 195;
b. Stating that Assessee was obligated to file an application u/s. 195(2) for determination of TDS liability in respect of reimbursements paid to non-resident AE;
c. Concluding that the Assessee has no obligation, whatsoever, to reimburse sums to its AEs; and d. Concluding that remittances made by the Assessee cannot be called as "reimbursement" but a "payment" for service rendered.
6. Without prejudice to the above, the lower authorities have erred in not granting deduction u/s. 10A on sum of Rs.36,10,836 being disallowance u/s. 40(a)(i)."
23. As far as the aforesaid grounds of appeal are concerned, the facts are that the assessee paid WAN link charges and software licenses fees of Rs.14,24,051 and Rs.21,86,785 in all totaling Rs.36,10,836 to non- residents. According to the AO, assessee was obliged to deduct tax at source u/s. 195 of the Act at the time of making payments to non-residents. Since the assessee failed to do so, the AO was of the view that the aforesaid sum should be disallowed and not allowed as an expenditure ITA Nos. IT(TP)A Nos.466 & 606/Bang/2016 Page 13 of 16 while computing total income u/s. 40(a)(ia) of the Act. The plea of the assessee was that the amounts in question were reimbursements and therefore there was no obligation to deduct tax at source. This was not accepted by the revenue authorities and the aforesaid sum was disallowed and added to total income of the assessee u/s. 40(a)(ia) of the Act.
24. On appeal by the assessee, the DRP confirmed the order of AO.
25. Aggrieved by the order of DRP, the assessee has raised ground No.6 before the Tribunal.
26. In ground No.6, the ld. counsel for the assessee has submitted that even assuming disallowance u/s. 40(a)(ia) of the Act has to be sustained, the addition made consequent to such disallowance will go to increase the profits of the unit which is entitled to claim deduction on such profits u/s. 10A of the Act and therefore the impugned addition even if sustained, will be tax neutral. In other words, the assessee claims that even on the addition made consequent to disallowance u/s. 40(a)(ia) of the Act, deduction u/s. 10A should be allowed.
27. In this regard, the dl. Counsel for the assessee has placed reliance on the decision of two High Courts viz., Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT v. Gem Plus Jewellery India Ltd. (2010) 194 Taxman 192 (Bom) and Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in the case of ITO v. Kewal Construction, 354 ITR 13 (Guj). In the decision of the Hon'ble Gujarat High Court, it was held that when disallowance u/s. 40(a)(ia) of the Act goes to enhance the profits that are eligible for deduction under Chapter VIA of the Act, the deduction under Chapter VIA should be allowed on such increased profit. This position has also been now confirmed by the CBDT in its ITA Nos. IT(TP)A Nos.466 & 606/Bang/2016 Page 14 of 16 Circular No.37/2016 dated 02.11.2016 wherein the Board has observed as follows:-
"3. In view of the above, the Board has accepted the settled position that the disallowances made under sections 32, 40(a)(ia), 40A(3), 43B, etc. of the Act and other specific disallowances, related to the business activity against which the Chapter VI-A deduction has been claimed, result in enhancement of the profits of the eligible business, and that deduction under Chapter VI-A is admissible on the profits so enhanced by the disallowance."
28. In view of the above, we accept ground No.6 of the assessee and direct the AO to allow deduction u/s. 10A of the Act on the amount disallowed u/s. 40(a)(ia) of the Act. In view of the above direction, ground No.5 becomes academic and no adjudication is required in ground No.5.
29. In ground No.7, the assessee has projected the following grievance:-
"7. The learned AO has erred in :
a. Giving credit for Advance Tax paid only to the extent of Rs.25,66,655 without appreciating that the Assessee has paid Advance Tax of Rs.38,65,655/- despite direction by the DRP.
b. Without prejudice, the learned AO has erred in not giving MAT credit as per the provisions of section 115JAA of the Act despite direction by the DRP.
c. Levying a sum of Rs.12,92,876/- as interest under section 234B. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, interest under section 234B is not leviable. Even otherwise interest u/s. 234B is excessive. The appellant submits that each of the above grounds/sub-grounds are independent and without prejudice to one another."
ITA Nos. IT(TP)A Nos.466 & 606/Bang/2016 Page 15 of 16
30. We are of the view that as far as ground No.7(a) is concerned, it would be just and appropriate to direct the AO to verify and give credit for advance tax paid, if the contention of the assessee is found to be correct.
31. Ground Nos. 7(b) & 7(c) are purely consequential and the AO is directed to give consequential relief.
32. In the result, the appeal by the assessee is partly allowed.
33. As far as the appeal of revenue is concerned, the grounds that require adjudication are ground Nos.4 & 5. As far as ground Nos. 4 & 5 raised by the revenue are concerned, the issue is with regard to the question as to whether expenditure incurred in foreign currency towards telecommunication and insurance has to be excluded both from the export turnover and total turnover while computing the deduction u/s. 10A of the Act. The AO excluded the telecommunication and insurance expenses incurred in foreign currency only from the export turnover and he did not exclude the same from the total turnover while computing deduction u/s. 10A of the Act. Consequently, deduction u/s. 10A of the Act was allowed at a much lesser figure that that claimed by the assessee.
34. On appeal by the assessee, the DRP held following the decision of the Hon'ble Karnataka High Court in the case of Tata Elxsi Ltd., 349 ITR 98 (Karn) that whatever is excluded from the export turnover should also be excluded from the total turnover. If this direction is sustained, the claim made by the assessee will stand allowed. The revenue has raised ground Nos. 4 & 5 contending that the department has filed SLP before the Hon'ble Supreme Court on the issue and therefore the decision of the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka is not final. We are of the view that this cannot be a ground not to follow the decision of the jurisdictional High Court. Apart ITA Nos. IT(TP)A Nos.466 & 606/Bang/2016 Page 16 of 16 from the above, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has in the case of CIT v. HCL Technologies Ltd. in Civil Appeal No.8489-98490 of 2013 & Ors. dated 24.04.2018 upheld the view taken by the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka. In view of the above, we are of the view that there is no merit in the grounds No.4 & 5 raised by the revenue. Consequently, the same are dismissed.
35. In the result, the appeal by the assessee is partly allowed, while the appeal by the revenue is partly allowed for statistical purposes.
Pronounced in the open court on this 08th day of August, 2018.
Sd/- Sd/-
( JASON P. BOAZ ) ( N.V. VASUDEVAN)
Accountant Member Judicial Member
Bangalore,
Dated, the 08th August, 2018.
/ Desai Smurthy /
Copy to:
1. The Appellant 2. The Respondent 3. The CIT
4. The CIT(A) 5. The DR, ITAT, Bangalore.
6. Guard file
By order
Senior Private Secretary
ITAT, Bangalore.