Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCH ‘I-1’, NEW DELHI
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH ‘I-1’, NEW DELHI Before Sh. N. K. Saini, AM And Sh. Sudhanshu Srivastava, JM Asstt. Year : 2006-07 : Asstt. Year : 2007-08 ITA No. 301/Del/2013 : Asstt. Year : 2008-09 ITA No. 2588/Del/2014 : Asstt. Year : 2009-10 & ITA No. 2058/Del/2015 : Asstt. Year : 2010-11 Microsoft India (R&D) Pvt. Ltd., Vs Deputy Commissioner of Income F-40, NDSE, Part-I, Tax, Circle-6(1), New Delhi New Delhi (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) PAN No. AABCM6358F Assessee by : Sh. P. S. Pardiwala, Adv. Revenue by : Sh. Amrendra Kumar, CIT DR Date of Hearing : 22.06.2016 Date of Pronouncement : 28.06.2016 ORDER Per N. K. Saini, AM:
These five appeals by the assessee are directed against the separate orders each dated 16.09.2010 of the AO for the assessment years 2006-07, 2007-08, 2008-09, 2009-10 & 2010-11 respectively.
The common issues are involved in these appeals which were heard together so these are being disposed off 5869/Del/2011 2588/Del/2014, 2058/Del/2015 Microsoft India (R&D) Pvt. Ltd. by this consolidated order for the sake of convenience and brevity.
At the first instance we will deal with the appeal in 2006-07. Following grounds have been raised in this appeal:
“1. That on facts and in law, the order passed by the Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle- 6(1), New Delhi ('Learned AO') under section 143(3) read with section 144C of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ('the Act') after considering the adjustments proposed by the Additional Commissioner of Income Tax, Transfer Pricing-l(3) ('Learned TPO') in his order passed under section 92CA(3) of the Act, on the directions of the Hon'ble Dispute Resolution Panel ('DRP') is bad in law in as much as failed to appreciate the facts involved and the applicable law thereon.
2. The Hon'ble DRP has erred in confirming the variations proposed by the Learned AO in the draft assessment order to the returned income of the appellant resulting in an addition of Rs. 1,505,082,752 to the total income of the appellant on account of adjustment in the arm's length price of the international transaction entered by the appellant with its associated enterprises.
3. That on facts and in law, the Hon'ble DRP has erred in concluding that the provisions of Section 92C (3) clause (a) to (d) of the Act are not 5869/Del/2011 2588/Del/2014, 2058/Del/2015 Microsoft India (R&D) Pvt. Ltd. applicable when the arm's length price is determined by the TPO.
That on facts and in law, Learned TPO has erred in not discharging his statutory onus to establish that the appellant's case is covered under any of (a) to (d) clause of Section 92C (3) of the Act.
5. That on facts and in law, the Hon'ble DRP and Learned TPO/AO have erred on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law in classifying the software development services rendered by the appellant as end-to end product development and has misinterpreted the phrase "end-to-end" to mean all the stages of the software development life cycle.
6. That on facts and in law, the Hon'ble DRP and Learned TPO/AO have erred in classifying the appellant as a risk bearing entirely which undertakes all risks pertaining to the software product development business, thereby completely ignoring the fact that the appellant receives a substantial cost plus mark-up remuneration from its AE, regardless of the success or failure of the products developed by it.
7. That on facts and in law, the Hon'ble DRP has erred in confirming the conclusion drawn by the Learned TPO/AO that the appellant has created significant intangibles and is the economic owner of such intangibles.
5869/Del/2011 2588/Del/2014, 2058/Del/2015 Microsoft India (R&D) Pvt. Ltd.
8. That on facts and in law, the Hon'ble DRP and Learned TPO/AO have failed to adopt a step by step scientific approach for identifying comparable companies based on a reliable Functional and Risk Analysis.
9. That on facts and in law, the Hon'ble DRP and Learned TPO/AO have erred in selection of only one comparable company which is a clear case of cherry picking of comparables causing unfair and undue hardship to the appellant.
10. That on facts and in law, the Hon'ble DRP and Learned TPO/AO have erred in the facts and circumstances of the case and in law in rejecting the appellant's claim to use of multiple year data for computing the arm's length price and, instead, has adhered to the use of single year updated data to conclude the arm's length price of the international transaction.
11. That on facts and in law, the Hon'ble DRP and Learned TPO/AO have failed to make appropriate adjustments to account for differences in working capital employed by the appellant vis-a-vis the comparables and in the process also ignored Indian transfer pricing regulations and judicial precedence.
That on facts and in law, the Hon'ble DRP and Learned TPO/AO have failed to make appropriate adjustments to account for varying risk profiles of the appellant vis-a-vis the comparables and in the 5869/Del/2011 ITA No. 301/Del/2013, 2588/Del/2014, 2058/Del/2015 Microsoft India (R&D) Pvt. Ltd. process also ignored Indian transfer pricing regulations and judicial precedence.
13. That on facts and in law, the Hon'ble DRP and Learned TPO/AO have ignored the transfer pricing regulations and judicial precedence and the orders passed by them are bad in law as they do not demonstrate the incentive for the appellant to reduce its taxable base in India.
14. That on facts and in law. the Hon'ble DRP and Learned TPO/AO have failed to apply the Proviso to section 92C of the Act and failing to allow the appellant an option for fixing the arm's length price at a variance of 5 percent from the arithmetic mean determined by him and hence erroneously adjusting the income of the appellant to the mean and making an adjustment up to the mean of comparable margins and not to the arms length margin determined by the appellant.
15. That on facts and in law, the Hon'ble DRP has erred in not passing a speaking order thus violating principles of natural justice.
16. Without prejudice to the above grounds, the Hon'ble DRP has erred in confirming the conclusions drawn by Learned AO in levying interest under section 234B of the Act while completely disregarding the provisions of the Act and the judicial precedents. The above grounds of appeal are mutually exclusive & without prejudice to each other. The 5869/Del/2011 2588/Del/2014, 2058/Del/2015 Microsoft India (R&D) Pvt. Ltd. appellant craves leave to add, amend, vary, omit or substitute any of the aforesaid grounds of appeal
at any time before or at the time of hearing of the appeal.”
4. The assessee had also raised the additional grounds and requested for admission of the same by stating in the application dated 03.12.2015 as under:
“The above referred appeal for AY 2006-07 is fixed for hearing before your Honours for hearing on 14 December 2015. The Appellant has challenged the order of the learned Assessing Officer ("Ld. AO") in respect of the adjustment made on account of difference in the arm's length price ("ALP") of the international transaction pertaining to provision of software development services as determined by the Learned Transfer Pricing Officer ("Ld. TPO") and the Appellant. In addition to the grounds of appeal filed, we wish to file the additional / supplementary ground of appeal. The additional ground does not need any verification of facts and is purely a legal issue. We therefore, request your Honours to kindly admit the additional ground and decide on merits. The Appellant wishes to humbly submit that the additional ground can be raised if the facts are placed on record. In respect of the above proposition, we rely on the following decisions:
5869/Del/2011 2588/Del/2014, 2058/Del/2015 Microsoft India (R&D) Pvt. Ltd. • National Thermal Power Co. Ltd. Vs. CIT 229 ITR 383 (SC) • Jute Corporation Of India Ltd. 187 ITR 688 (SC) • Ahmadabad Electricity Co. Ltd. 199 ITR 351 (Bom) (FB) Additionally, we wish to submit that all relevant facts are already on record and no new fact is required to be brought on record. Thus, in the interest of natural justice, we humbly request that the additional ground may kindly be admitted. In view of the above, we request your Honours to kindly consider our additional ground of appeal and decide the case on merits.
1. The transfer pricing adjustment of INR 1,505,082,752 made by the Ld, AO based on the order of Ld. TPO and confirmed by the Hon'ble Dispute Resolution Panel for provision of software services is bad in law inter-alia for the reason that: (a) the order of the Ld. TPO is bad in law in as much as based on an invalid reference made by the Ld. AO without complying with the statutory requirements; (b) the Appellant's income being eligible for deduction under Section 10A of the Income Tax Act'1961, there was no question of any erosion of the Indian tax base; and (c) the Appellant's AE being chargeable to tax at a higher rate in the US, there was no 5869/Del/2011 ITA No. 301/Del/2013, 2588/Del/2014, 2058/Del/2015 Microsoft India (R&D) Pvt. Ltd. question of shifting of any profit from a low tax paying country to a high tax paying country. The Appellant craves, to consider the above ground and the grounds raised in the appeal filed, are without prejudice to each other and craves leave to add, alter, delete or modify all or any of the above grounds of appeal.”
5. During the course of hearing the ld. Counsel for the assessee reiterated the contents of the aforesaid additional grounds and submitted that although these grounds were not raised before the TPO/AO/DRP. However, these go to the route of the matter and are purely legal grounds for which no verification of facts or investigation is required because all the material relevant to these grounds is already available on the record.
The ld. CIT DR opposed the admission of the additional grounds by stating that these were not raised either before the AO/TPO or DRP in spite of the various opportunities given by them, therefore, these additional grounds should not be admitted.
We have considered the submissions of both the parties and carefully gone through the material available on the 5869/Del/2011 2588/Del/2014, 2058/Del/2015 Microsoft India (R&D) Pvt. Ltd. record. In the present case, it is an admitted fact that the additional grounds raised by the assessee first time before the ITAT are purely legal grounds and do not need any verification of facts, so these deserve to be admitted. These grounds now raised by the assessee as additional ground were not available to the authorities below, so they have no occasion to adjudicate the same. We, therefore, deem it appropriate to set aside the issue raised by the assessee in the additional grounds to the file of the TPO/AO to be adjudicated afresh in accordance with law after providing due and reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee.
As regards to the other grounds raised by the assessee, it is gathered that ground nos. 1 to 15 relates to the addition made by the AO on account of Arm’s Length Price adjustment.
Facts of the case in brief are that the assessee filed the return of income on 30.11.2006 declaring an income of Rs.4,98,056/- which was processed u/s 143(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the Act). Later on, the case was selected for scrutiny. The assessee is a wholly owned subsidiary of Microsoft Ireland Capital Ltd., which 5869/Del/2011 2588/Del/2014, 2058/Del/2015 Microsoft India (R&D) Pvt. Ltd. is ultimately owned by Microsoft Corporation, USA, it was incorporated in India on 15.05.1998 to provide computer software development services and support services to Microsoft Corporation. The assessee company rendered services in accordance with the instructions of the Microsoft Corporation. Since international transactions were involved in this case, the AO referred the matter to the Transfer Pricing Officer (TPO) u/s 92CA of the Act. The assessee selected 36 comparables to justify that the international transactions were at Arm’s Length Price. The assessee followed TNMM method as most appropriate method which was also accepted by the TPO. Out of the 36 comparables selected by the assessee, the TPO rejected 35 comparables and considered only one comparable i.e. Infosys Technologies Ltd. The TPO proposed an adjustment of Rs.1,50,50,82,752/- in relation to the transactions pertaining to provisions of software development services by STP units, Hyderabad since it was determined not to be at arm’s length. The other international transactions entered by the assessee with the AEs relating to provisions of IT enabled services, Bangalore STP units, payment for assignment of personnel and payment of interest on foreign exchange loan were considered to be at Arm’s Length Price. The AO 5869/Del/2011 ITA No. 301/Del/2013, 2588/Del/2014, 2058/Del/2015 Microsoft India (R&D) Pvt. Ltd. framed the draft assessment order on the basis of the order of the TPO. Against the draft assessment order, the assessee raised the objection before the DRP-II, New Delhi who rejected the objections of the assessee vide order dated 30.08.2010 and directed the AO to complete the assessment inconformity with the Arm’s Length Price determined by the TPO which would result in an addition of Rs.1,50,50,52,752/-. The AO in accordance with the directions of the DRP framed the assessment at an income of Rs.1,50,50,80,810/-.
Now the assessee is in appeal. The ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that the assessee earned operating margin of 15.14% on operating cost and since the said operating margin was higher than the average arithmetic mean of the comparables worked at 12.04%, the transactions between the assessee and its AEs in respect of Software Development Services could have been considered to be at Arm’s Length and no adjustment was required. A reference was made to page no.105 of the assessee’s paper book which is the lists of the comparable having average arithmetic mean of 12.04% and reads as under:
5869/Del/2011 2588/Del/2014, 2058/Del/2015 Microsoft India (R&D) Pvt. Ltd. Margin Analysis Unadjusted margins of comparable companies Sl. Name of the Company Weighted average No. margins (%) 1 3 i Infotech Limited 6.42% 2 Akshay Software Technologies 8.24% Limited 3 Aztec Software & Technology 13.74% Services Limited 4 Bangalore Softsell Limited 4.37% 5 Bristlecone India Limited -2.92% 6 Compucom Software Limited 15.97% 7 Datamatics Limited -5.87% 8 Encore Software Limited -33.94% 9 Flextronics Software Systems 32.69% Limited 10 Four Soft Limited 22.27% 11 Future Software Limited 2.88% 12 Gebbs Infotech Limited 23.69% 13 Goldstone Technologies Limited 7.48% 14 Infosys Technologies Limited 41.17% 15 Intertec Communications Limited 46.07% 16 K P I T Cummins Info systems 13.60% Limited 17 Lanco Global Systems Limited 12.26% 18 Larsen &. Toubro Infotech 8.09% Limited 19 Maars Software International 4.27% Limited 20 Melstar information Technologies -0.15% limited 21 Mphasis BFL Limited 52.87% 22 Orient Information Technology 14.76% Limited 23 Quintegra Solutions Limited 8.59% 24 R S Software (India) Limited 7.62% 25 SIP Technologies and Exports -58.70% Limited 5869/Del/2011 ITA No. 301/Del/2013, 2588/Del/2014, 2058/Del/2015 Microsoft India (R&D) Pvt. Ltd. 26 Sasken Communication 14.35% Technologies Limited 27 Sasken Network Systems Limited 16.19% 28 Satyam Computers Services 29.13% Limited 29 Software Technology Group 15.39% International Limited 30 Sonata Software Limited 15.31% 31 Subex Systems Limited 6.39% 32 Transworld Infotech Limited 26.34% 33 Tyche Industries Limited 10.62% 34 V J I L Consulting Limited 6.47% 35 V M F Softech Limited 18.70% 36 Visualsoft Technologies Limited 29.02% Arithmetic mean 12.04% Maximum 52.87% Maximum -58.70% Lower Range 6.44% Upper Range 17.64%
It was further submitted that the TPO rejected the comparables for the reasons that the 13 comparables did not meet the comparability criteria and that the annual reports for another 5 comparables were not available. It was further submitted that the assessee itself excluded another 18 comparables and worked out the arithmetic mean of 12.80%. Therefore, the operating profit margin of the assessee was better than the average margin of the comparables and no adjustment was required. Alternatively, it was submitted that now the annual reports of the comparables which were not available at the time of making the transfer price study, 5869/Del/2011 2588/Del/2014, 2058/Del/2015 Microsoft India (R&D) Pvt. Ltd. are now available which may be considered by the TPO and the matter may be restored back to the TPO/AO.
12. In his rival submissions the ld. DR strongly supported the order of the AO/TPO and further submitted that the annual reports of the comparable selected by the assessee were not available to the TPO. Therefore, he was justified in excluding those comparables.
We have considered the submissions of both the parties and carefully gone through the material available on the record. In the present case, it is an admitted fact that complete data relating to the comparable selected by the assessee was not available at the time of making the transfer price study. However, the same are now available at the public domain. We, therefore, think it appropriate to restore this issue back to the file of the TPO/AO to be decided afresh in accordance with law after providing due and reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee.
For the assessment years 2007-08 to 2010-11 also, the assessee has raised identical additional grounds which were raised for the assessment year 2006-07 in . Therefore, our findings given in the former 5869/Del/2011 2588/Del/2014, 2058/Del/2015 Microsoft India (R&D) Pvt. Ltd. part of this order shall apply mutatis mutandis for the assessment years 2007-08 to 2010-11.
The ld. Counsel for the assessee at the very outset stated that for the assessment years 2007-08 to 2009-10, the TPO considered the “residuary profit split method” as most appropriate method instead of TNMM method. However, for the assessment year 2010-11, the TPO again considered the TNMM method as most appropriate method by following the Circular of the CBDT No. 6/2013 dated 29.06.2013. It was submitted that the matter may be restored to the TPO for application of the most appropriate method by considering the guidelines issued by the CBDT in Circular No. 6/2013 dated 29.06.2013 which was not available when the TPO passed his order for the assessment years 2007-08 to 2009-10. It was further submitted that the TPO asked the information u/s 133(6) of the Act in respect of the comparables choosen by him but those informations were not confronted to the assessee and that the comparables were choosen on the basis of the information collected u/s 133(6) of the Act and without giving opportunity of being heard to the assessee while selecting the comparables. It was submitted that the opportunity was to be given to the 5869/Del/2011 2588/Del/2014, 2058/Del/2015 Microsoft India (R&D) Pvt. Ltd. assessee and than only a view has to be taken by the TPO as to whether the comparable selected by him were to be considered or not.
In his rival submissions the ld. CIT DR supported the orders of the authorities below and further submitted that if at all the case is to be set aside than it is to be considered afresh by the TPO/AO. However, he admitted that the TPO for the assessment years 2006-07 & 2010-11, considered the TNMM method as most appropriate method but only for the assessment years 2007-08 to 2009-10, the “residuary profit split method” was considered as most appropriate method. He also could not rebut this contention of the ld. Counsel for the assessee that the informations collected u/s 133(6) of the Act relating to the selected comparables were not confronted to the assessee.
We have considered the submissions of both the parties and carefully gone through the material available on the record. In the present case, it is noticed that the TPO applied the residuary profit split method as most appropriate method instead of TNMM method choosen by the assessee as most appropriate method. It is also noticed that the TPO for the assessment year 2010-11 had 5869/Del/2011 2588/Del/2014, 2058/Del/2015 Microsoft India (R&D) Pvt. Ltd. considered the TNMM method as most appropriate method by keeping in view the Circular No. 6/2013 dated 29.06.2013 by observing in paras 2.18 to 2.20 at page no. 54 of his order as under:
“2.18 The above analysis is based on the new facts available in this office and guidance available in the form of circulars and press releases by CBDT. It shows that the assessee does get categorized as a contract R and D centre with insignificant risks. It may be seen that the circular does not mandate that all the conditions need to be satisfied but it can be seen that the assessee satisfies most of the conditions and is thus a contract R and D centre. 2.19 A contract R and D centre that is involved in performing functions for its AE does have international transactions with its AE that require determination of its arm's length price. For that, there is a requirement of the Most Appropriate Method. Circular 6/2013 states that "The assessing officer or the Transfer pricing officer, as the case may, be shall have regard to the guideline above and shall take a decision based on the totality of the facts and circumstances of the case. In doing so the assessing officer or the transfer pricing officer as the case may be shall be guided by the conduct of the parties and not merely by the terms of the contract" 2.20 It is further corroborated by the press release by the CBDT on 14 August 2013 while inviting 5869/Del/2011 2588/Del/2014, 2058/Del/2015 Microsoft India (R&D) Pvt. Ltd. comments for safe harbour guidelines. The relevant para is reproduced as follows: "(7] Where the safe harbour rules are not applicable in the case of an assessee, engaged in providing contract research and development services with insignificant risks, the Transactional Net Margin Method (TNMM) shall be considered as the most appropriate method for the determination of arm's length price unless it is shown by the assessee that it is not feasible to apply this method in the facts and circumstances of the case." On the basis of the analysis of the facts of the case, and guidelines in the matter and technical report it is considered that TNMM is most appropriate method for determining the arm's length price in the case under consideration.”
In the present case, it is also relevant to discuss the guidelines and directions issued by the CBDT in the Circular No. 6/2013 dated 29.06.2013 which read as under:
“The CBDT has carefully considered the matter and lays down the following guidelines for identifying the Development Centre as a contract R&D service provider with insignificant risk.
Foreign principal performs most of the economically significant functions involved in research or product development cycle either through its own employees or through its 5869/Del/2011 2588/Del/2014, 2058/Del/2015 Microsoft India (R&D) Pvt. Ltd. associated enterprises while the Indian Development Centre carries out the work assigned to it by the foreign principal. Economically significant functions would include critical functions such as conceptualization and design of the product and providing the strategic direction and framework; 2. The foreign principal or its associated enterprise(s) provides funds/ capital and other economically significant assets including intangibles for research or product development. The foreign principal or its associated enterprise(s) also provides a remuneration to the Indian Development Centre for the work carried out by the latter; 3. The Indian Development Centre works under the direct supervision of the foreign principal or its associated enterprise which has not only the capability to control or supervise but also actually controls or supervises research or product development through its strategic decisions to perform core functions as well as monitor activities on regular basis; 4. The Indian Development Centre does not assume or has no economically significant realized risks. If a contract shows that the foreign principal is obligated to control the risk but the conduct shows that the Indian Development Centre is doing so, then the contractual terms are not the final determinant of actual activities; 5869/Del/2011 2588/Del/2014, 2058/Del/2015 Microsoft India (R&D) Pvt. Ltd.
In the case of a foreign principal being located in a country/territory widely perceived as a low or no tax jurisdiction, it will be presumed that the foreign principal is not controlling the risk. However, the Indian Development Centre may rebut this presumption to the satisfaction of the revenue authorities. Low tax jurisdiction shall mean any country or territory notified in this behalf under section 94A of the Act or any other country or territory that may be notified for the purpose of Chapter X of the Act; 6. Indian Development Centre has no ownership right (legal or economic) on the outcome of the research which vests with the foreign principal and that this is evident from the contract as well as from the conduct of the parties. The Assessing Officer or the Transfer Pricing Officer, as the case may be, shall have regard to the guidelines above and shall take a decision based on the totality of the facts and circumstances of the case. In doing so, the Assessing Officer or the Transfer Pricing Officer, as the case may be, shall be guided by the conduct of the parties and not merely by the terms of the contract. The Assessing Officer or the Transfer Pricing Officer, as the case may be, shall bear in mind the provisions of section 92C of the Act and Rule 10A to Rule 10C of the Rules. He shall also apply the guidelines enumerated above and select the 'most appropriate method'.
5869/Del/2011 2588/Del/2014, 2058/Del/2015 Microsoft India (R&D) Pvt. Ltd. The above may be brought to the notice of all concerned.”
However, in the present case, it is an admitted fact that the said Circular was not in existence when the TPO passed the impugned orders for the respective assessment years i.e. assessment years 2007-08 to 2009-10, under consideration. However, he admitted while passing the orders u/s 92CA of the Act for the assessment year 2010-11 that TNMM is most appropriate method for determining the Arm’s Length Price. We, therefore, deem it appropriate to set aside this issue relating to the assessment years 2007-08 to 2009-10 to the file of the TPO/AO to decide as to what is the most appropriate method by considering the facts and the guidelines available in the form of circular. As regards to the issue relating to the comparables for which the information u/s 133(6) of the Act were obtained by the TPO and which were not confronted to the assessee, we are of the view that this issue also deserves to be set aside to the file of the TPO/AO for fresh adjudication in accordance with law after providing due and reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee. In the present case, it was also the common contention of both the parties that the corporate issues if involved in any of the aforesaid assessment years 5869/Del/2011 ITA No. 301/Del/2013, 2588/Del/2014, 2058/Del/2015 Microsoft India (R&D) Pvt. Ltd. those should also be decided by the TPO/AO along with the issues relating to the application of most appropriate method and the selection of the comparables and the additional ground relating to deduction u/s 10A of the Act. We order accordingly.
As regards to the assessment year 2010-11 is concerned, the ld. Counsel for the assessee admitted that there is no dispute relating to the application of most appropriate method. However, the additional ground relating to deduction u/s 10A of the Act was not before the TPO/AO. The said grounds are purely legal grounds and raised first time before the Tribunal, so this issue raised in the additional grounds is remanded to the file of the TPO/AO to be decided along with another assessment years under consideration. Since the issue relating to the deduction u/s 10A of the Act is restored to the file of the TPO/AO, the another issues relating to corporate matters should also be decided by the TPO/AO afresh in accordance with law after providing due and reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee.
As regards to the issues raised on the transfer pricing matters in the grounds of appeal relating to assessment year 5869/Del/2011 2588/Del/2014, 2058/Del/2015 Microsoft India (R&D) Pvt. Ltd. 2010-11, the contentions of both the parties were similar as were in respect of the similar grounds in another appeals relating to the other assessment years 2007-08 to 2009-10 which we have already adjudicated in former part of this order. Therefore, our findings given therein shall apply with the same force for this assessment year i.e. 2010-11 also.
In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes. (Order Pronounced in the Court on 28/06/2016)