Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “A” BENCH, PUNE
Before: SHRI ANIL CHATURVEDI, AM & SHRI VIKAS AWASTHY, JM
आदेश / ORDER
PER VIKAS AWASTHY, JM
These two appeals i.e. ITA No.1108/PUN/2013 for assessment year
2003-04 and ITA No.1109/PUN/2013 for assessment year 2004-05 are filed
by the Revenue. The cross appeals of the assessee for the said assessment
years in ITA No.1081/PN/2013 for assessment year 2003-04 and ITA
No.1082/PN/2013 for assessment year 2004-05 and cross objections in CO.
No.58/PN/2014 for assessment year 2003-04 and CO. No.59/PN/2014 for
assessment year 2004-05 were decided by the Tribunal vide order dated
30.09.2016.
Thereafter, the assessee filed Miscellaneous Application u/s. 254(2) of
the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) seeking
rectification in the order of Tribunal dated 30.09.2016. The Tribunal vide
order dated 27.12.2017 in MA No.18/PUN/2017 recalled the findings of
Tribunal in ground Nos. 1, 2 and 5 raised in the appeal by Department in
ITA No.1108/PUN/2013 for assessment year 2003-04. Identical grounds
were raised by the Department in ITA No.1109/PUN/2013 for assessment
year 2004-05. Accordingly, in MA No.19/PUN/2017 for assessment year
2004-05, the findings of Tribunal with respect to ground Nos. 1, 2, 3 and 5
were recalled.
ITA Nos.1108 & 1109/PUN/2013 CO. No.59/PUN/2014 A.Ys.2003-04 & 2004-05
The assessee in CO.No.59/PUN/2014 for assessment year 2004-05
has raised additional ground corresponding to ground No. 1 raised in appeal
by the Department in ITA No.1109/PUN/2013. Accordingly, the findings of
Tribunal with regard to additional ground No.3 in CO. No.59/PUN/2014 was
also recalled.
Now, the grounds to be adjudicated in present proceeding in ITA No.
1108/PUN/2013 for assessment year 2003-04 are as under:
“On the issue of use of Controlled Transaction
Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the ld. CIT(A) was correct in law,
i) When he implicitly rejected the direct method of Comparable Uncontrolled Price under Rule 10B(1) a) for the evaluation of the International Transaction of the payment of Royalty
&
Seems to have preferred Aggregated Transaction Net Margin Method under Rule 10B(1)(e), a indirect method while evaluating the Arms Length Price, which was rejected by him for A.Y.2005-06 ( and in A.Y.2008-09 as part of the Dispute Resolution Panel);
ii) by rejecting the CUP, a direct method for working out the Arm’s Length of the international transaction and uncontrolled transaction; which provides for instant comparison of the prices of the products/services;
iii) when the OECD guidelines in para 1.70 clearly suggests that ‘an attempt should be made to reach a reasonable accommodation keeping in mind the imprecision of the various methods and the preference for higher degrees of comparability and a more direct and closer relationship to the transaction?
On the issue of Consistency. 2. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) was correct in law,
i) when the assessee company itself has provided separate benchmarking and detailed information regarding the Royalty payment in the later years;
ii) when each year should be treated separately based on the facts and documentation submitted; ( as per the ratio laid down in the
4 ITA Nos.1108 & 1109/PUN/2013 CO. No.59/PUN/2014 A.Ys.2003-04 & 2004-05
case of M/s. Onward Technologies Vs. DCIT dated 30.04.2013, appeal No. ITA No.7985/Mum/2010 of ITAT Mumbai) 5. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the CIT(A) was justified in deleting addition made on account of homologation expenses, without calling for such details in support of its claim and remanding the matter to the A.O.”
ITA No. 1108/PUN/2013 ( A.Y. 2003-04)
The ground No. 1 and 2 raised in appeal by the Department are with
respect to transfer pricing adjustment on payment of Royalty.
4.1 Shri Ranjan R. Vora appearing on behalf of the assessee submitted
that identical issue has been decided by the Tribunal in appeal filed by
assessee in ITA No.1080/PUN/2013 for the assessment year 2002-03. The
facts in the present assessment year i.e. 2003-04 are identical. The
agreement under which the Royalty has been paid is same which was the
subject matter of dispute in assessment year 2002-03. Since, the agreement
was executed in the period relevant to the assessment year 2002-03 and the
same was valid for the period up to ten years, thus, there has been no
change in the facts and circumstances in the present appeal.
Shri Rajeev Kumar representing the Department fairly admitted that
the issue relating to transfer pricing adjustment on payment of Royalty has
been adjudicated by the Tribunal in assessee’s own case in immediately
preceding assessment year i.e. assessment year 2002-03.
We observe that in ITA No.1107/PN/2013 for assessment year 2002-
03, ground Nos. 2 and 3 raised by the Department with respect to payment
of Royalty are identical to ground No. 1 & 2 of the present appeal. The
Tribunal decided the issue in favour of assessee by upholding Transactional
ITA Nos.1108 & 1109/PUN/2013 CO. No.59/PUN/2014 A.Ys.2003-04 & 2004-05
Net Margin Method (TNMM) adopted by assessee as the most appropriate
method for benchmarking its international transaction including payment of
Royalty and also emphasized on the rule of consistency. The relevant extract
of the findings of Tribunal on this issue are as under:
“73.We have considered the rival arguments made by both the sides, perused the orders of the AO and CIT(A) and the paper book filed on behalf of the assessee. We have also considered the various decisions cited before us. We find the assessee in the instant case had entered into an agreement dated 12-12-1994 with DCAG to pay royalty for technical knowhow received from DCAG in the following manner :
(a) Lumpsum payment of DM 56.6 million, net of taxes payable in 4 instalments periodically from 1995 to 1998.
(b) Running royalty @2.75% on value addition in India.
We find the assessee and DCAG amended the original agreement to pay royalty for technical knowhow received from DCAG. The copy of the revised agreement dated 21-12-1999 is enclosed at paper book page 557 to 586 according to which running royalty @5% on value addition in India to be paid and waiving of the remaining 2 instalments of lumpsum royalty payment as per the first agreement amounting to DM 19 million. For the impugned assessment year the assessee has paid royalty @5% to DCAG amounting to Rs.4,61,06,328/- for the technical knowhow received. The assessee adopted combined approach and selected TNMM as the most appropriate method to benchmark its international transaction including the payment of royalty in its TP study report. For the application of TNMM, the assessee had conducted search for comparable companies on widely recognized commercial information database for obtaining publicly available financial information. For the purpose of margin of computation, in addition to financial data for the relevant financial year, the assessee also used data for 2 previous financial years as per the TP study conducted on the search of comparable. The weighted average margin of comparable companies was 2.48% whereas the margin of the assessee company was 4.30%. Since the net profit margin earned by the assessee was higher than the weighted average margins of comparable companies, the assessee concluded that the transactions including payment of royalty are at Arm’s length. We find the TPO did not accept the application of TNM method for benchmarking the payment of royalty transaction and considered CUP as the most appropriate method to benchmark the transaction by comparing royalty payment made by the assessee @5% with the royalty payment made by Maruti Udyog Ltd. to Suzuki, Japan @3%. According to the TPO the letter received from DCAG submitted during the assessment proceedings referred to royalty rate of 3% and another 5%. Further Maruti Udyog Ltd. is paying royalty @3%. The net profit margin earned by the assessee company is less than the average net profit margin earned by the comparable companies. The AO/TPO further held that the royalty rates charged from other associated enterprises by DCAG was not submitted. Accordingly, the TPO made downward adjustment
ITA Nos.1108 & 1109/PUN/2013 CO. No.59/PUN/2014 A.Ys.2003-04 & 2004-05
of Rs.1,84,42,531/- for the year under consideration.
We find the Ld.CIT(A) deleted the above adjustment made by the TPO on the ground that the TPO has compared the royalty paid by Maruti Udyog Ltd. which is a controlled transaction. According to him, the transfer price determined by benchmarking controlled transaction with another controlled transaction cannot be considered the Arm’s length price because the arm’s length signifies transfer price without the possibility of it being influenced by the Associated Enterprise. Further, he noted that the TPO is inconsistent in his approach on this issue. He observed that during assessment year 2007-08 and 2008-09 royalty payment @5% was held to be at Arm’s length which is paid at the same rate as that for the years under consideration.
We do not find any infirmity in the above finding of the Ld.CIT(A). From the various details furnished by the assessee in the paper book we find in consideration of the use of technology and technical information received from DCAG for manufacturing activity the assessee has to pay running royalty @5% of the net value added for each contractual value. The royalty is computed by considering the net sales price of the licenced vehicles, which is exclusive of excise duty and cost of standard brought out components and landed cost of the imported materials used for the manufacturing process. The royalty in the instant case is inextricably linked with production and sales activity. In absence of production and sales and sale of products there would be no question arising regarding payment of royalty. We find force in the submission of the Ld. Counsel for the assessee that since the royalty payment is not independent of sales and therefore cannot be examined on standalone basis. Therefore, the assessee has adopted combined transaction approach using TNM method as the most appropriate method to benchmark its international transaction including payment of royalty.
We find the Delhi Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Lumax Industries Ltd. Vs. ACIT vide ITA No.5252/Del/2011 has observed as under :
“33. The TPO has made the disallowance in question mainly on the basis of the benefit test. In this regard, it is seen that the payment of royalty cannot be examined divorced from the production and sales. Royalty is inextricably linked with these activities. In the absence of production and sale of products, there would be no question arising regarding payment of any royalty. Rule 10A(d) of the IT Rules defines 'transaction' as a number of closely linked transactions. Royalty, then, is a transaction closely linked with production and sales. It cannot be segregated from these activities of an enterprise, being embedded therein. That being so, royalty cannot be considered and examined in isolation on a standalone basis. Royalty is to be calculated on a specified agreed basis, on determining the net sales which, in the present case, are required to be determined after excluding the amounts of standard bought out components, etc., since such net sales do not stand recorded by the assessee in its books of account. Therefore, it is our considered opinion that the assessee was correct in employing an
ITA Nos.1108 & 1109/PUN/2013 CO. No.59/PUN/2014 A.Ys.2003-04 & 2004-05
overall TNMM for examining the royalty. The TPO worked out the difference in the PLI of the outside party (the assessee) at 4.09% and the comparables at 7.05%. This has not been shown to fall outside the permissible range.”
We find the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of Soni Ericsson Mobile Communications Pvt. Ltd. (Supra) while deciding on the issue of bundling of transactions and use of TNM method has observed that the expression “class of transaction”, “functions performed by the parties” in section 92C(1) of the Act illustrates that the meaning or definition of the expression “transaction” does not prohibit clubbing of closely connected or continuous transactions. The Hon’ble High Court has held that in case the tax payer is engaged in single line of business, there is no bar or prohibition from applying the TNMM on entity level basis. It has further been held that once the comparables pass the functional analysis test and profit margins matches with the comparables, it leads to an affirmation of the transfer price as the arm’s length price. After this it is not permissible to make a comparison of a particular item of costs without segregation of profits.”
We further find force in the submission of the Ld. Counsel for the assessee that for application of CUP it is necessary that transactions being compared should be controlled. In the instant case the TPO has compared the royalty paid by Maruti Udyog Ltd. to Suzuki, vis-a-vis, royalty paid by the assessee to DCAG. However, Maruti Udyog Ltd. and Suzuki are associated enterprises and a controlled transaction cannot be used for benchmarking arm’s length price.
80.We find the Pune Bench of the Tribunal in the case of M/s. Bobst India Pvt. Ltd. Vs. DCIT vide ITA No.1380/PN/2010 order dated 09-10- 2014 has observed as under :
“7.9 ..... Without prejudice to above we find that according to TPO / AO has not given cogent reasoning for rejecting TNMM identified-by the Appellant as the most appropriate method for benchmarking its international transactions pertaining to domestic operations. The approach adopted by the TPO i.e. using controlled transaction of the Appellant itself (receipt of commission on marketing, of spares) for benchmarking the international transaction pertaining to receipt of commission for marketing of machines is not appropriate as per the Indian TP regulations. Accordingly international transaction of the appellant pertaining to receipt of commission for marketing of machines benchmarked by assessee by aggregating the same with other international transactions pertaining to domestic operations using TNMM should not be-rejected."
The various other decisions relied on by the assessee on this issue also support its case to the proposition that TNM method applied by the assessee is the appropriate method and the CUP method applied by the TPO is not correct where he has used a controlled transaction to benchmark the payment of royalty. We further find the assessee has obtained approval from the Foreign Investment Promotion Board for the original as well as revised agreement. It has also obtained specific approval from Department of Industrial Policy and Promotion (DIPP) for the payment of royalty as royalty payment made by MB India is not
ITA Nos.1108 & 1109/PUN/2013 CO. No.59/PUN/2014 A.Ys.2003-04 & 2004-05
covered under the automatic route. It has been held in various decisions that FIPB approval, Government of India, RBI approval etc for the royalty rates itself implies that the payments are at Arm’s length.
The Mumbai Bench of the Tribunal in the case of M/s. Thyssenkrupp Industries Pvt. Ltd. Vs. ACIT vide ITA No.6460/Mum/2012 order dated 27-02-2013 for A.Y. 2008-09 has held that when a payment is made after obtaining due approval from RBI, then such payment has to be considered at ALP. The relevant observation of the Tribunal at para 14.3 of the order reads as under :
“14.3. After considering the rival submissions and perusing the relevant material on record, we find that the assessee entered into collaboration agreement with its AE for payment of 2% of contract value for manufacturing, drawing and engineering services and 5% of the selling price as royalty. The assessee applied to the RBI seeking approval in respect of payment of royalty and technical fee through Central Bank of India. A copy of letter addressed by the Central Bank of India to the RBI dated 26.03.2008 is available on page 240 of the paper book. Through this letter, the Central Bank of India forwarded relevant documents along with a copy of the agreement. The RBI vide its letter dated 21.04.2008 requested Central Bank of India to consider the assessee’s case in accordance with its AP(DIR Series) No.76 dated 24.02.2007. It is in pursuance to the deemed approval by RBI under the automatic approval scheme that the assessee made payment of royalty and technical fee to its AE. It is relevant to note that such payment has been approved or deemed to have been approved by the RBI. When a payment is made after obtaining due approval from the RBI, how its ALP can be computed at `Nil, is anybody’s guess. The fact of approval of the payment by the RBI has been succinctly recorded by the TPO in his order as well. He still chose to propose adjustment in respect of full payment. In our considered opinion, when the rate of royalty payment and fee for drawings etc. has been approved or deemed to have been approved by the RBI, then such payment has to be considered at ALP. We, therefore, direct to delete addition of Rs.4.29 crore made by the A.O. in this regard.”
We further find in subsequent years also the royalty payment has been benchmarked considering combined transaction approach in TNM method. No separate benchmarking was undertaken to determine the ALP of Royalty. In A.Y. 2007-08 till A.Y. 2011-12 the payment of royalty was held to be at ALP. We therefore find merit in the submission of the Ld. Counsel for the assessee that in view of the rule of consistency the CIT(A) was justified in rejecting the CUP method adopted by the AO and accepting the TNM method followed by the assessee.
84.In view of the above discussion and in view of the detailed reasoning given by the CIT(A) we find no infirmity in his order. Accordingly, the same is upheld and the grounds raised by the revenue on this issue are dismissed.”
9 ITA Nos.1108 & 1109/PUN/2013 CO. No.59/PUN/2014 A.Ys.2003-04 & 2004-05
Since, the issues raised in the present appeal by the Department are
identical in facts to assessment year 2002-03, the ground Nos. 1 and 2
raised by the Department in appeal are dismissed for similar reasons.
In ground No. 5 of the appeal, the Department has assailed deleting
the addition made on account of homologation expenses.
7.1 The ld. AR submitted that the assessee is engaged in manufacturing
and sale of passenger cars. As per Central Motor Vehicles Rule, it is
mandatory for the assessee to seek approval from Automotive Research
Association of India (ARAI), an agency designated by Government of India,
before introduction of any technical change in the existing model or before
introducing new vehicle. The whole process of getting an approval from ARAI
is known as “Homologation of Vehicle”. After testing the vehicle as well as its
parts, ARAI issues certificate of homologation for the particular vehicle. The
material returned by ARAI to the assessee is in the form of scrap. The cost of
materials consumed in the above process is debited to Profit and Loss
account under the head “Homologation Expenses”. In assessment year 2002-
03, the assessee had incurred an expenditure of Rs.77.74 Lacs towards
homologation. Out of above expenditure, Rs.54.94 Lacs was with respect to
material supplied to ARAI. The Assessing Officer in the absence of complete
details of expenditure on homologation made disallowance of
Rs. 37,99,831/-. In the assessment year 2003-04, the assessee had provided
complete details of ‘Homologation Charges’. However, the Assessing Officer
made ad-hoc disallowance of Rs.10,00,000/- on account of non production
of supportive evidence. A perusal of the assessment order would reveal that
disallowance has been made merely on presumption. The Assessing Officer
has not taken pain to examine the details furnished by assessee. The
10 ITA Nos.1108 & 1109/PUN/2013 CO. No.59/PUN/2014 A.Ys.2003-04 & 2004-05
Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) deleted the addition on the ground
that the Assessing Officer has failed to specify the extent of expenditure for
which assessee has failed to furnished the details of expenditure.
7.2 On the other hand, the ld. DR submitted that the issue can be
remitted back to the file of the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication after
considering evidences filed by the assessee in respect of ‘Homologation
Expenditure’.
Both sides heard. As per contention of the ld. AR, the assessee had
furnished details of expenditure in respect of homologation. The said details
have been furnished by assessee before us at page 690 to 692 of the paper
book.
A perusal of the assessment order shows that the Assessing Officer
merely on the basis of findings in assessment year 2002-03 has presumed
that some disallowance has to be made in assessment year 2003-04, as well.
Thus, ad-hoc disallowance of Rs.10,00,000/- was made by the Assessing
Officer on account of homologation expenditure. The Assessing Officer was
under obligation to examine details of expenditure furnished by assessee. It
is not the case of Revenue that the assessee had not furnished details of
expenditure or has furnished part details of expenditure. The Assessing
Officer without examining the details furnished by the assessee has made
ad-hoc disallowance of Rs.10,00,000/- merely on the basis that disallowance
was made in assessment year 2002-03, therefore, some disallowance has to
be made in assessment year 2003-04, as well. This reasoning is certainly not
acceptable for making disallowance, even if, it is on estimation basis. Once
ITA Nos.1108 & 1109/PUN/2013 CO. No.59/PUN/2014 A.Ys.2003-04 & 2004-05
having missed the opportunity to examine material available to the Assessing
Officer during assessment proceedings, second innings cannot be granted to
the Assessing Officer to examine the same. Therefore, we find no infirmity in
the order of Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) in deleting ad-hoc
disallowance of Rs.10,00,000/- with respect to homologation charges.
Accordingly, ground No. 5 raised in appeal by the Revenue is dismissed
being devoid of any merit.
ITA No. 1109/PUN/2013 ( A.Y. 2004-05) CO. No. 59/PUN/2014 ( A.Y. 2004-05)
The grounds of appeal before us for adjudication in ITA
No.1109/PUN/2013 reads as under:
“1.Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the CIT(A) was justified in giving directions to the A.O. to verify and decide the admissibility of the claim of expenditure of capitalized cars as given in ground No. 6 of A.Y.2002-03, when the facts for the given assessment year are different from that in A.Y.2002-03.
On the issue of use of Controlled Transaction 2. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the ld. CIT(A) was correct in law, i) When he implicitly rejected the direct method of Comparable Uncontrolled Price under Rule 10B(1) a) for the evaluation of the International Transaction of the payment of Royalty & Seems to have preferred Aggregated Transaction Net Margin Method under Rule 10B(1)(e), a indirect method while evaluating the Arms Length Price, which was rejected by him for A.Y.2005-06 ( and in A.Y.2008-09 as part of the Dispute Resolution Panel); ii) by rejecting the CUP, a direct method for working out the Arm’s Length of the international transaction and uncontrolled transaction; which provides for instant comparison of the prices of the products/services; iii) when the OECD guidelines in para 1.70 clearly suggests that ‘an attempt should be made to reach a reasonable accommodation keeping in mind the imprecision of the various methods and the
ITA Nos.1108 & 1109/PUN/2013 CO. No.59/PUN/2014 A.Ys.2003-04 & 2004-05
preference for higher degrees of comparability and a more direct and closer relationship to the transaction?
On the issue of Consistency. 3. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) was correct in law,
i) when the assessee company itself has provided separate benchmarking and detailed information regarding the Royalty payment in the later years ;
ii) when each year should be treated separately based on the facts and documentation submitted; ( as per the ratio laid down in the case of M/s. Onward Technologies Vs. DCIT dated 30.04.2013, appeal No. ITA No.7985/Mum/2010 of ITAT Mumbai)
Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the CIT(A) was justified in deleting addition made on account of homologation expenses, without calling for such details in support of its claim and remanding the matter to the A.O.”
9.1 The assessee in CO.No.59/PUN/2014 for assessment year 2004-05
has raised an additional ground No. 3 corresponding to ground No. 1 raised
by the Department, the same reads as under:
“The learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has erred in not deleting the ad-hoc disallowance made by the learned Assessing Officer in respect of certain expenses incurred on capitalized cars and instead remanding back the matter to the learned Assessing Officer.”
In ground No. 1 of appeal, the Revenue has impugned the action of
Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) in remitting the issue back to
Assessing Officer to examine additional evidence furnished by assessee and
thereafter, decide admissibility of claim of expenditure of capitalized cars. We
do not find any error in the findings of Commissioner of Income Tax
(Appeals) in remitting the matter back to the file of Assessing Officer for
considering additional evidences filed by the assessee. The findings of
Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) on this issue are well reasoned &
justified. The Assessing Officer shall decide this issue afresh after taking into
13 ITA Nos.1108 & 1109/PUN/2013 CO. No.59/PUN/2014 A.Ys.2003-04 & 2004-05
consideration the additional evidences furnished by assessee and after
affording reasonable opportunity of hearing to the assessee, in accordance
with law. Thus, ground No. 1 raised in appeal by the Department and
additional ground No. 3 raised in cross objection by assessee for the
assessment year 2004-05 are allowed for statistical purposes.
We find that the ground Nos. 2 and 3 raised in appeal by the
Department in assessment year 2004-05 are identical to ground Nos. 1 and
2 raised in appeal for assessment year 2003-04. Both sides have admitted
that the facts in assessment year under appeal i.e. assessment year 2004-05
are identical to assessment year 2003-04. Thus, the findings given by us
while deciding ground No. 1 and 2 in assessment year 2003-04 would
mutatis mutandis apply to ground No. 2 and 3 raised in appeal by
Department for assessment year 2004-05. For the reasons given in
assessment year 2003-04, the ground Nos. 2 and 3 raised in appeal for
assessment year 2004-05 by the Department are dismissed.
In ground No. 5, the Revenue has assailed deleting addition made on
account of homologation expenses. The ground No. 5 is identical to ground
No. 5 raised in appeal for assessment year 2003-04. We have given detailed
findings while deciding ground No. 5 in appeal for assessment year 2003-04.
Since the facts are same and ad-hoc disallowance has been made by the
Assessing Officer in the present assessment year i.e. assessment year 2004-
05 on the basis of presumption as was made in assessment year 2003-04,
the findings given by us while deciding the ground No. 5 in assessment year
2003-04 would mutatis mutandis apply to ground No. 5 raised in appeal by
14 ITA Nos.1108 & 1109/PUN/2013 CO. No.59/PUN/2014 A.Ys.2003-04 & 2004-05
Revenue for assessment year 2004-05. Accordingly, ground No. 5 raised in appeal by the Department is dismissed.
In the result, appeal of the Revenue for assessment year 2003-04 is dismissed and appeal of the Revenue and cross objection of assessee for assessment year 2004-05 are partly allowed for statistical purposes.
Order pronounced on Wednesday, the 21st day of March, 2018.
Sd/- Sd/- (अ�नल चतुव�द� /Anil Chaturvedi) (�वकास अव�थी /Vikas Awasthy) लेखा सद�य/ACCOUNTANT MEMBER �या�यक सद�य/JUDICIAL MEMBER
पुणे / Pune; �दनांक / Dated : 21st March, 2018. SB आदेश क� ��त�ल�प अ�े�षत / Copy of the Order forwarded to :-
अपीलाथ� / The Appellant. 1. ��यथ� / The Respondent. 2. 3. The CIT (Appeals)-13, Pune. 4. The CIT-IT/TP, Pune. �वभागीय ��त�न�ध, आयकर अपील�य अ�धकरण, “ए” ब�च, 5. पुणे / DR, ITAT, “A” Bench, Pune. गाड� फ़ाइल / Guard File. 6.
// स�या�पत ��त //True Copy //
आदेशानुसार / BY ORDER,
�नजी स�चव / Private Secretary आयकर अपील�य अ�धकरण, पुणे / ITAT, Pune.