BG EXPLORATION & PRODUCTION INDIA LTD.,MUMBAI vs. DCIT, INTERNATIONAL TAXATION, DEHRADUN

per specific provisions of PSC, wherein foreign exchange loss is

treated as an allowable deduction but AO/DRP have erred in

disallowing the same. So, we order to delete the disallowance of

31 ITA No.6791/Del./2017

Rs.5,31,59,102/- made by the AO. So, ground no.15 is determined

in favour of the taxpayer.

GROUND NO.16 35. AO/DRP have disallowed the head office expenses

amounting to Rs.240,04,33,920/- by restricting allowability of

these expenditure to 5% of the adjusted total income of the

taxpayer by invoking the provisions contained u/s 44C of the Act.

It is the case of the taxpayer that it has incurred expenses to

undertake activities required by the PSC with regard to its standard

of operation, including the quality of execution of work, access to

latest industry information and global updates, safety of its

employees and environment etc. and all these expenses are incurred on the basis of commercial expediency determined by the

taxpayer and the same need not be accepted by the joint venture

partner. Ld. AR for the taxpayer contended that identical issue has

already been decided in favour of the taxpayer in its own case for

AY 2010-11 (supra).

up for adjudication for the coordinate Bench of the Tribunal in

taxpayer’s own case for AY 2010-11 and decided in favour of the

taxpayer by returning following findings :-

32 ITA No.6791/Del./2017

“ ……Coming to the facts of the impugned ground, The Ld. Assessing Officer has disallowed the same expenditure for the only reason that had the same were incurred for the production it should have been passed through the joint venture and shared by all the partners and these expenses are not incurred wholly and actually for the purpose of the business of the Assessee. Nature of the expenses which have been disallowed by the Ld. Assessing Officer are as under:-

Particulars Amount Tanker & Related Costs 115,534,442 Tug Boat Costs 70,464,943 Safety Environment & Materials 11,355 Technical & Engineering Services 316,786,095 Less: Reversal of Water Transportation & (8,344,443) other charges Total BG Exclusive Production Cost. 494,452,392

The above expenditure are in the nature of tanker expenditure, tug and boat expenditure, safety environment and material expenditure as well as technical and engineering services. During the course of assessment proceedings, the Assessee has furnished the details of those expenditure. Merely because the joint-venture partners are not sharing the cost/expenses which is been incurred by the Assessee, It does not become disallowable in the hands of the Assessee. We find no such condition existing either under section 42, or under section 37 (1) of the Income Tax Act. Therefore, we reject the contention of the revenue that unless the expenditure is not borne by all the JV partners the expenses cannot be allowed to the Assessee. In fact, if the JV partners share the expenditure, there cannot be any question of claim of such expenditure in the hands of the Assessee, once again. Further, if the expenses are not specified in the agreement u/s 42 (1), even if the JV partners agree to share those expenditure, it is not allowable u/s 42 (1) or section 37 (1) of the act. Now it needs to be examined, whether the Assessee has incurred expenditure for the purposes of its business or not. The Assessee has stated that it has incurred such expenditure having regard to its standard of operation and the quality of execution work, safety of its employees in the environment. These expenses are required to be incurred by the Assessee based on the commercial expediency. The Assessee has stated that in relation to the support functions, which are innovatively inevitable for carrying on its business and incurred based on the commercial expediency are expenses belonging to the Assessee which cannot be accepted by the operating board. Further, there may be certain expenditure which are required to be incurred to enable the Assessee to perform its operation under the production sharing contract sustaining its activities and maintaining its standard of operations. It is irrelevant whether the joint operator board has

33 ITA No.6791/Del./2017

approved such expenditure or not because there may be several other reasons for joint-venture partners to not to share the expenditure. The Ld. Assessing Officer as well as the Ld. Dispute Resolution Panel, despite having the necessary details of the expenditure did not point out the single instance that these expenditure are not incurred by the Assessee for the purposes of its business. Merely making references to the various judicial precedents without putting to the facts on record about incurring of the expenditure by the Assessee or non-business purposes disallowance made by the Ld. and Assessing Officer cannot be upheld. Instead, despite full details available with them they have denied the claim to the Assessee. Neither the assessing officer and nor the Dispute resolution Panel point out nature of details which was not submitted by the Assessee when part of the expenditure has already been considered in detail at the time of determining Arms; Length of the transaction. In view of no adverse inference from the lower authorities on the details submitted, we are constrained to allow the claim of the Assessee of deductibility of the above expenditure of Rs. 316786095/- . In the result ground No. 3 of the appeal of the Assessee is allowed.

case and the fact that business model has not undergone any

change since AY 2010-11 and by following the decision rendered

by the coordinate Bench of the Tribunal in taxpayer’s own case for

AY 2010-11, we are of the considered view that the cost of

services availed of by the taxpayer required by PSC with regard to

its standard of operation including the quality of execution of work,

access to latest industry information and global updates, safety of

its employees and the environment etc., cannot be disallowed

merely on the ground that the said expenses have not been borne

by the joint venture partner, particularly when it is not disputed by

the Revenue that the expenditure were made for commercial

34 ITA No.6791/Del./2017

expediency. So, we hereby order to allow the claim of the taxpayer

for deduction of the expenses incurred by the taxpayer. So, ground

no.16 is determined in favour of the taxpayer.

GROUND NO.17 38. AO/DRP have disallowed an amount of Rs.1,54,16,938/-

claimed by the taxpayer on account of inventory written off on the

ground that certain internal documents furnished by the taxpayer

are not enough for allowing of theses expenditure. The ld. AR for

the taxpayer contended that the expenditure has been claimed as

per method of write off obsolete inventory in accordance with the

system of accounting regularly followed and relied upon Note-II of

Financial Statements for the year under assessment wherein it is stated that the financial statements have been prepared to comply

with all material aspects with accounting standard notified u/s

211(3C) of the Companies (Accounting Standards) Rules, 2006 as

amended and other relevant provisions of the Companies Act,

1956. The taxpayer also relied upon the supporting documents

prepared by Senior Drilling Engineer of the company certifying

that such inventory was not usable in future and was produced

before AO and consequently claimed deduction for the obsolete

inventory written off u/s 37(1) of the Act and relied upon the

35 ITA No.6791/Del./2017

decision rendered by Hon’ble Bombay High Court in case of Alfa

Laval India Ltd. vs. DCIT – 266 ITR 418 (Bom.), affirmed by the

Hon’ble Supreme Court by judgment reported in 295 ITR 451.

The ld. AR for the taxpayer also contended that the taxpayer has

submitted audit report of an independent auditor prepared on the

basis of physical verification and maintenance of inventory during

assessment proceedings and further relied upon the decision

rendered by coordinate Bench of the Tribunal in Gillette India Ltd.

vs. ACIT – 66 taxmann.com 221. Ld. DR for the Revenue to repel

the arguments addressed by the ld. AR for the taxpayer relied upon

the orders of AO/DRP.

High Court in case cited as Alfa Laval India Ltd. vs. DCIT (supra)

held as under :-

“Held, (i) that the duly certified auditor's report placed before the Assessing Officer clearly justified valuation of obsolete items at 10 per cent. of cost. There is no dispute that the assessee is entitled to value the closing stock at market value or at cost whichever is lower. It is also not in dispute that the value of the closing stock has been taken as the value of the opening stock in the subsequent year. Moreover, it is also not disputed that the obsolete items were in fact sold in the subsequent year at a price less than 10 per cent. of the cost. In the absence of any basis for valuing the obsolete items at 50 per cent. of the cost, the Tribunal could not have upheld the findings of the Assessing Officer.”

Commerce and Industries Ltd. – 240 ITR 256 (Del.) held that,

36 ITA No.6791/Del./2017

“An assessee is free to adopt a particular method of valuation of its closing stock which it has to follow regularly from year to year.

At the same time it is well settled that irrespective of the basis adopted for valuation for earlier years, the assessee has an option to change the method of valuation of closing stock, provided the

change is bona fide and followed regularly thereafter.”

system of accounting regularly followed by it in compliance to section 211 (3C) of the Companies (Accounting Standards) Rules, 2006 as amended and other relevant provisions of the Companies

Act, 1956 and has duly got prepared audited report of an independent auditor on the basis of physical verification and in view of the maintenance of inventory, the disallowance made by

the AO/DRP is not sustainable in the eyes of law. Coordinate Bench of the Tribunal in Gillette India Ltd. vs. 42. ACIT (supra) also while deciding the identical issue held in favour

of the assessee that when complete details about the inventory written off has been given sufficient to identify items of inventory to be written off in the books of account, the same is required to be

allowed. So, in these circumstances, we are of the considered view

37 ITA No.6791/Del./2017

that the AO is directed to allow the amount of Rs.1,54,16,938/- on

account of inventory written off after due verification in the light of

what has been discussed in the preceding paras. Consequently, ground no.17 is determined in favour of the taxpayer.

GROUND NO.18 43. AO/DRP have disallowed an amount of Rs.48,70,14,075/-

and amount of Rs.3,47,69,091/- on account of depreciation and

depletion respectively being the difference of depreciation/

depletion amount between the tax audit report and the computation.

The ld. AR for the taxpayer contended that the difference in the

actual cost of addition in the fixed assets as per tax audit report and

as per computation of total income is on account of allocation of interest cost of Rs.23,52,463/- which was highlighted in the

depreciation schedule of the revised computation of the total

income submitted to the AO. The ld. AR for the taxpayer further

contended that as regards the difference of depreciation of

Rs.48,70,14,075/-, it is submitted that in the previous years, the

amount of Global IT & T cost paid to BGIL was considered as

capital in nature by the taxpayer and the same was capitalized and

the taxpayer had claimed depreciation thereof but the tax auditor

report has considered this as revenue in nature, hence difference

38 ITA No.6791/Del./2017

occurred. It is further contended by the ld. AR that difference in

amount of depletion of Rs.3,47,69,091/- is due to the fact that opening WDV of assets as on the 1st day of year of assessment

arises out of additions to fixed assets and consequently,

depreciation accepted in the earlier years by the AO which was

considered by the auditor as revenue in nature but the taxpayer has

suo motu disallowed the said expenses and claimed the

depreciation in the previous years. It is further contended by ld.

AR that identical issue has been decided in favour of the taxpayer

in its own case for AY 2010-11 (supra). Ld. DR for the Revenue

to repel the arguments addressed by the ld. AR for the taxpayer

relied upon the orders of AO/DRP.

decided the identical issue in favour of the taxpayer by returning

following findings :-

“41. We have carefully considered the rival contention and also noted the facts that BGIL has acquired and developed certain IT infrastructure and software for the benefit of BG Group of companies. Such assets include production data base management system, SAP up gradation, efficient budgeting and forecasting systems, field development training programs, geosciences/geophysics simulations, integrated asset modeling systems, sophisticated e-mail facility etc. BGIL has allocated the cost of these assets to its Group companies including Assessee at cost based in allocation methodology decided at the group level. Assessee has capitalized these costs in the book of accounts. During the year, BGIL had allocated an expense of Rs. 80,13,26,640/- to the appellant out of which Rs. 66,61,30,450/- had been capitalized and balance was accounted as work in progress. The appellant had claimed depreciation of Rs.

39 ITA No.6791/Del./2017

3,30,05,676/- on the IT infrastructure and software. The Ld. Dispute Resolution Panel has stated that even the beneficial ownership of the assent also entitles the Assessee to claim the depreciation if the test of user is proved. In the present case, we do not think that there is any doubt about the ownership of the IT infrastructure in question as per paragraph No. 11.1 of the direction of the Ld. Dispute Resolution Panel. Therefore only issue now remains is to be seen whether the Assessee has properly demonstrated before the Ld. Assessing Officer that the Assessee has used the assets for the purposes of the business. It is better to look at what kind of assets the Assessee are owned by and used by it. Assets are production database management system, SAP up gradation, budgeting and forecasting system, training programs, simulations software, asset modeling systems and email facilities. When the Assessee is participating in such a huge production sharing contract, It is too naïve to think that production database management system and SAP, training programs, simulations programme and email facilities have not been used by the Assessee. Issues have also been examined at the time of determining Arm‘s length price of these expense. The actual cost of these assets are not doubted by the Ld. Assessing Officer. In view of this we are of the opinion that these assets are beneficially owned by the Assessee and are used for the purposes of the business of the Assessee, therefore entitles Assessee to claim the depreciation on these assets. In view of this ground No. 5 of the appeal of the Assessee is allowed.”

decision rendered by the coordinate Bench of the Tribunal in

taxpayer’s own case for AY 2010-11 (supra), we are of the

considered view that when the taxpayer has duly explained that the

difference of depreciation of RS.48,70,14,075/- is due to the fact

that in previous year, the amount of Global IT&T cost paid to

BGIL was considered as capital in nature by the taxpayer and the

same was capitalized on which taxpayer had claimed depreciation,

but tax auditor report has considered this as revenue in nature, no

40 ITA No.6791/Del./2017

disallowance can be made on account however subject to the

verification by the AO.

Rs.3,47,69,091/- is concerned, the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in

case of Melmould Corporation vs. CIT – 202 ITR 789 decided the

identical issue by returning following findings :-

"Thus, the value of the closing stock of the preceding year must be the value of the opening stock of the next year. The change therefore, has to be effected by adopting the new method for valuing the .closing stock which will, in its turn, become the value of the opening stock of the next year. If instead, a procedure is adopted for changing the value of the opening stock, it will lead to a chain reaction of changes in the sense that the closing value of stock of the year preceding will also have to change and correspondingly the value of the opening stock of that year and so on. "

High Court in Melmould Corporation vs. CIT (supra), AO is

directed to accept the opening WDV of assets furnished by the

taxpayer in the schedule for computation of income arrived from

the closing WDV of fixed assets of previous year and after due

verification to delete the disallowance in accordance with the

computation and income and tax audit report. Consequently,

ground no.18 is decided in favour of the taxpayer.

41 ITA No.6791/Del./2017

GROUND NO.19 48. AO/DRP have further disallowed additional depreciation of

Rs.88,90,051/- on new plant and machinery of Rs.4,44,50,253/- purchased by the taxpayer put to use during the year under

assessment claimed by the taxpayer during the course of

assessment proceedings.

(1)(iia) of the Act in case of new plant and machinery acquired and

installed by the taxpayer engaged in the business of manufacture or

production of any article or thing, a sum equal to 20% of the actual

cost of such machinery or plant is allowable as deduction in

addition to the normal depreciation and further contended that the

process of exploration and production of oil and gas comprises of extraction and separation and separation brings into existence new

and distinct article and it amounts of manufacturing.

additional deduction claimed comprehensive submission dated

29.01.2016 were filed before the AO who has merely declined the

claim on the ground that the additional claim can only be made by

way of revised return of income. We are of the considered view

that AO is required to decide the claim in view of the provisions

contained u/s 32(1)(iia) of the Act in the light of the decision

42 ITA No.6791/Del./2017

rendered by Hon’ble Supreme Court and Hon’ble High Courts in CIT vs. Hindustan Petroleum Corp. Ltd. – 396 ITR 696 (SC),

HLS India Ltd. – 355 ITR 292 (Del.), CIT vs. Sesa Goa Ltd. – 271

ITR 331 (SC), Aluminum Corporation of India Ltd. vs. Coal

Board – AIR 1959 Cal. 222 and CIT vs. Mercantile Construction Co. (1994) 74 taxman 41 (Cal. HC) on merits after providing an

opportunity of being heard to the taxpayer. Consequently, ground

no.19 is determined in favour of the taxpayer for statistical

purposes.

GROUND NO.20 51. AO/DRP have disallowed interest of Rs.2,31,62,145/- on the

ground that the same has not been claimed as deduction. Undisputedly, the taxpayer has not claimed the interest amount of

Rs.2,31,62,145/- while computing its profit for the year under

assessment and consequently, disallowed by the AO/DRP being

excess interest claim of capital nature.

taxpayer has already made a disallowance of Rs.2,31,62,145/- in its

computation of income, the addition thereof made by the AO is not

sustainable. However, we are of the considered view that since the

amount has not been claimed by the taxpayer while computing its

43 ITA No.6791/Del./2017

profit in the year under assessment, the issue is required to be sent

back to the AO for verification and to decide accordingly after

providing an opportunity of being heard to the taxpayer.

Consequently ground no.21 is determined in favour of the taxpayer

for statistical purposes.

GROUND NO.21

of difference in revenue as per Form 26AS and profit & loss

account. It is contended by ld. AR for the taxpayer that the

difference of Rs.63,65,958/- was on account of difference in

foreign exchange rate which is to be governed by the terms of PSC

and relied on para 15.3.2 of Article 15 – Taxes, royalties, rentals,

etc. of the PSC for Mid and South Tapti Field and the Revenue

from petroleum operations shall be determined in accordance with

Article 19 of the PSC. For ready perusal, relevant article of PSC is

extracted as under :-

““The revenue from the business consisting of Petroleum Operations shall be determined in accordance with Article 19 for its Participating Interest share of Crude oil saved and sold, or otherwise disposed of, from each Field." 'Article 19 - Valuation of Oil' prescribes for valuation of sale of crude oil for which the accounting treatment of currency fluctuation is provided under 'Article 20 - Currency and Exchange Control Provisions' of the aforesaid PSC. Para 20.2 in Article 20 of the aforesaid the PSC provides that for accounting of purchase and sale of currency by the contractor,

44 ITA No.6791/Del./2017

the rates as specified in Section 1.6 of Appendix C - Accounting Procedure' shall apply. The relevant extract of the aforesaid article of PSC has been reproduced for your ready reference: "The rates of exchange for the purchase and sale of currency by the Contractor shall be the prevailing rates of general application determined by the State Bank of India or such other financial body as may be mutually agreed by the Parties and in accordance with prevailing currency and exchange regulations and, for accounting purposes under this Contract, these rates shall apply as provided in Section 1.6 of Appendix C." As per the Para 1.6.1 in 'Accounting Procedure - Section l' of the aforesaid mentioned PSC, the appellant is required to consider previous month's average of the daily means of the buy and selling rates of exchange as quoted by the State Bank of India or any other financial body as may be mutually agreed. The relevant extract of the aforesaid article is reproduced for your ready reference: "For translation purposes between United States Dollars and Indian Rupees or any other currency, the previous month's average of the daily means of the buying and selling rates of exchange as quoted by the State Bank of India (or any other financial body as may be mutually agreed between the Parties) shall be used for the month in which the revenues, costs, expenditures, receipts or income are recorded. However, in the case of any single non-US Dollar transaction in excess of the equivalent of one hundred thousand us Dollars (US$ 100,000), the conversion into US Dollars shall be performed on the basis of the average of the applicable exchange rates for the day on which the transaction occurred."

with the Rule 115 of the Income-tax Rules, 1962 (for short ‘the

Rules’), accounting as per PSC would oblige the taxpayer to

reverse the excess revenue and consider it as foreign exchange loss.

The taxpayer relied upon the decision rendered by Hon’ble

Supreme Court in CIT vs. Enron Oil & Gas Limited – 305 ITR 75.

45 ITA No.6791/Del./2017

Hon’ble Apex Court in CIT vs. Enron Oil & Gas Limited 55. (supra) while deciding the identical issue held that, “Section 42 is a complete code by itself for deduction in case of business of prospecting the extraction or production of mineral oils. The section is inoperative by itself and becomes operative only when it

is read with the production sharing contract. The section was enacted to ensure that where the structure of the production sharing contract is at variance with accounting principles generally used for ascertaining taxable income, the provisions of

the production sharing contract would prevail.”

foreign exchange losses on account of foreign currency translation is an allowable deduction. So, in view of the law laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in case of CIT vs. Enron Oil & Gas Limited

(supra), we are of the considered view that the income earned by the taxpayer in foreign currency pursuant to the PSC entered into with Government of India is governed by the agreement of PSC

and the foreign exchange losses on account of foreign currency translation is an allowable deduction while computing the total income of the taxpayer. In such circumstances, provisions of PSC

are to be applied and the disallowance made by AO/DRP on

46 ITA No.6791/Del./2017

account of difference in revenue is not sustainable, hence allowable subject to verification by the AO. So, ground no.21 is determined

in favour of the taxpayer for statistical purposes.

GROUND NO.22 57. Ground No.22 is dismissed having not been pressed during

the course of arguments.

GROUND NO.23 58. AO has not granted credit of tax deducted at source to the

tune of Rs.33,53,88,297/- stated to have been deposited by the taxpayer. AO is directed to grant the credit of the TDS claimed by the taxpayer subject to verification. Accordingly, ground no.23 is

determined in favour of the taxpayer.

GROUND NO.24 59. AO charged the interest to the taxpayer u/s 234B. The ld. AR for the taxpayer contended that the interest u/s 234B is not chargeable to taxpayer it being a non-resident whose income is subject to tax deduction at source and further contended that this issue has already been determined in favour of the taxpayer in its own case for AY 2010-11 (supra). Coordinate Bench of the Tribunal by relying upon the decisions rendered by Hon’ble

47 ITA No.6791/Del./2017

Uttarakhand High Court in case of CIT vs. Maersk Company

Limited – 334 ITR 79 and Hon’ble Delhi High Court in case of

DIT vs. GE Packaged Power Incorporation – 373 ITR 65 directed

the AO not to charge the interest u/s 234B of the Act on the income

of the taxpayer which is liable to tax deduction at source by

returning following findings :-

“61. We have carefully considered the rival contentions and also perused the relevant judicial precedents cited before us. In the decision cited by the Ld. Authorised Representative in case of CIT versus GE packaged power incorporation (373 ITR 65) in Para No. 19, the Hon‘ble high court has considered the decision cited by the Ld. Departmental Representative as under:- “19. Alcatel Lucent USA Inc (supra), in any event, can be distinguished on the ground that the Court was persuaded to confirm the levy of interest under Section 234B, only on account of the equities that needed to be balanced in those peculiar facts, in favour of taxability. This is evident from the following words of the Court: "26. It further seems to us inequitable that the Assessee, who accepted the tax liability after initially denying it, should be permitted to shift the responsibility to the Indian payers for not deducting the tax at source from the remittances, after leading them to believe that no tax was deductible. The Assessee must take responsibility for its volte face. Once liability to tax is accepted, all consequences follow; they cannot be avoided. After having accepted the liability to tax at the first appellate stage, it is unfair on the part of the Assessee to invoke section 201 and point fingers at the Indian payers. The argument advanced by the learned counsel for the Assessee that the Indian payers failed to deduct tax at their own risk seems to us to be only an argument of convenience or despair. As we have pointed out earlier, it is difficult to imagine that the Indian telecom equipment dealers of the Assessee would have failed to deduct tax at source except on being prompted by the Assessee. It may be true that the general rule is that equity has no place in the interpretation of tax laws. But we are of the view that when the facts of a particular case justify it, it is open to

48 ITA No.6791/Del./2017

the court to invoke the principles of equity even in the interpretation of tax laws. Tax laws and equity need not be sworn enemies at all times. The rule of strict interpretation may be relaxed where mischief can result because of the inconsistent or contradictory stands taken by the Assessee or even the revenue. Moreover, interest is, inter alia, compensation for the use of the money. The Assessee has had the use of the money, which would otherwise have been paid as advance tax, until it accepted the assessments at the first appellate stage. Where the revenue has been deprived of the use of the monies and thereby put to loss for no fault on its part and where the loss arose as a result of vacillating stands taken by the Assessee, it is not expected of the Assessee to shift the responsibility to the Indian payers. We are not to be understood as passing a value-judgment on the Assessee's conduct. We are only saying that the Assessee should take responsibility for its actions." [Emphasis added] This Court finds that no need is made out in these facts to balance any equities in these facts, as the Assessee has not vacillated in its stand as to the existence of a PE in India or otherwise. In any event, as observed earlier, the position of law itself requires that the tax be deducted at source, whatever may be the Assessee's stance, failing which the payer is treated as an Assessee-in-default under Section 201, and the payee is required to discharge its liability to pay the tax that was not deducted under Section 191.” [Extracted from Taxmann.com] 62. We are aware that Hon‘ble Supreme Court has granted SLP against High Court's ruling that where Assessee was non- resident company, entire tax was to be deducted at source on payments made by payer to it and there was no question of payment of advance tax by Assessee; therefore, revenue could not charge any interest under section 234B from Assessee, which is pending for adjudication. However the decision of the Hon high court is to be followed by us , if the same is not stayed by the hon supreme court, therefore respectfully following the decision of the Hon‘ble high court we direct the Ld. Assessing Officer to not to charge interest under section 234B of the act on the income of the Assessee which is subject to or liable to tax deduction at source. In view of this we set aside ground No. 9 of the appeal of the Assessee back to the file of the Ld. Assessing Officer to recompute the interest under section 234B of the act accordingly.”

49 ITA No.6791/Del./2017

GROUND NO.25 61. Ground No.25 is general in nature, hence does not require any adjudication. 62. Resultantly, the appeal filed by the taxpayer is partly allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in open court on this 17th day of July, 2018.

Sd/- sd/- (R.K. PANDA) (KULDIP SINGH) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER

Dated the 17th day of July, 2018 TS

50 ITA No.6791/Del./2017