BharatTax.net
SearchITATHigh CourtsSupreme CourtPhrasesAI ResearchHistory

Filters

BharatTax.net

Free search engine for ITAT (Income Tax Appellate Tribunal) judgments across all 28 benches in India.

Quick Links

  • Search Judgments
  • Browse by Bench
  • Recent Judgments

About

BharatTax provides free access to Income Tax Appellate Tribunal orders for legal research and reference.

© 2026 BharatTax.net. All rights reserved.

426 results for “depreciation”+ TP Methodclear

Sorted by relevance

Delhi528Mumbai494Bangalore426Chennai123Kolkata107Ahmedabad44Hyderabad34Pune26Jaipur17Chandigarh13Surat6Karnataka6Indore4Dehradun3Cochin3Guwahati2Visakhapatnam2SC1

Key Topics

Transfer Pricing88Section 143(3)68Section 92C63Addition to Income62Comparables/TP52Section 10A48Disallowance46Deduction37Section 4033Depreciation

GE MEDICAL SYSTEMS INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. DCIT, BANGALORE

In the result, the revenue’s appeal is dismissed and the assessee’s appeal is partly allowed

ITA 332/BANG/2011[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore30 Jun 2015AY 2004-05

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi & Shri Abraham P George

For Appellant: Shri K.R.Vasudevan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri C.H.Sundar Rao, CIT(DR)
Section 10ASection 143(3)Section 92C

Method (CPM). In the absence of such adjustment, a mere application of CPM on comparables with different functional profile will not be in tune with the TP Rules. Therefore, as CPM is adopted as the MAM, the assessee should be allowed adjustment on actual basis, which will reliable and accurate, as stipulated in Rule 10C(2). Needless

GE MEDICAL SYSTEMS INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. DCIT, BANGALORE

Showing 1–20 of 426 · Page 1 of 22

...
30
Section 14A28
TP Method20

In the result, the revenue’s appeal is dismissed and the assessee’s appeal is partly allowed

ITA 333/BANG/2011[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore30 Jun 2015AY 2005-06

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi & Shri Abraham P George

For Appellant: Shri K.R.Vasudevan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri C.H.Sundar Rao, CIT(DR)
Section 10ASection 143(3)Section 92C

Method (CPM). In the absence of such adjustment, a mere application of CPM on comparables with different functional profile will not be in tune with the TP Rules. Therefore, as CPM is adopted as the MAM, the assessee should be allowed adjustment on actual basis, which will reliable and accurate, as stipulated in Rule 10C(2). Needless

DCIT, BANGALORE vs. M/S GE MEDICAL SYSTEM (I) (P) LIMITED, BANGALORE

In the result, the revenue’s appeal is dismissed and the assessee’s appeal is partly allowed

ITA 337/BANG/2011[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore30 Jun 2015AY 2004-05

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi & Shri Abraham P George

For Appellant: Shri K.R.Vasudevan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri C.H.Sundar Rao, CIT(DR)
Section 10ASection 143(3)Section 92C

Method (CPM). In the absence of such adjustment, a mere application of CPM on comparables with different functional profile will not be in tune with the TP Rules. Therefore, as CPM is adopted as the MAM, the assessee should be allowed adjustment on actual basis, which will reliable and accurate, as stipulated in Rule 10C(2). Needless

NOVELL SOFTEARE DEVELOPMENT (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. DCIT, BANGALORE

In the result the appeal by the Assessee and the Revenue are partly allowed

ITA 1047/BANG/2011[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore13 Feb 2015AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Abraham P. George

For Appellant: Shri T. Suryanarayan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Farahat Hussain Qureshi, CIT-II(DR)
Section 92Section 92CSection 92E

TP)A Nos.1105 & 1047/Bang/2011 Page 18 of 25 6. Depreciation and amortization Depreciation on fixed assets is applied on the Written down value method

DCIT, BANGALORE vs. M/S NOVELL SOFTWARE DEVELOPMENT (INDIA)PVT. LTD.,, BANGALORE

In the result the appeal by the Assessee and the Revenue are partly allowed

ITA 1105/BANG/2011[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore13 Feb 2015AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Abraham P. George

For Appellant: Shri T. Suryanarayan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Farahat Hussain Qureshi, CIT-II(DR)
Section 92Section 92CSection 92E

TP)A Nos.1105 & 1047/Bang/2011 Page 18 of 25 6. Depreciation and amortization Depreciation on fixed assets is applied on the Written down value method

OUTSOURCEPARTNERS INTERNATIONAL PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. DCIT, BANGALORE

In the result, all appeals are partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 443/BANG/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore31 Oct 2017AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Sunil Kumar Yadav & Shri Jason P Boazit(Tp)A Nos. & Appellant Respondent Assessment Years No.443/Bang/2016 M/S. Outsource Partners Dy. Commissioner Of 2011-12 International Pvt. Ltd., Income-Tax, Tower 2D, Phase I, Vikas Circle-5(1)(2), Telecom Ltd., Bangalore. Vrindavan Tech Village, Outer Ring Road, Devarabeesanahalli, Bangalore- 560087. Pan: Aaaco5734C No. 526/Bang/2016 Dy. Commissioner Of M/S. Outsource Partners 2011-12 Income-Tax, International Pvt. Ltd., Circle-5(1)(2), Pan: Aaaco5734C Bangalore. No.535/Bang/2017 M/S. Outsource Partners Assistant Commissioner Of 2009-10 International Pvt. Ltd., Income Tax, Pan: Aaaco5734C Circle-5(1)(2), Bangalore.

For Appellant: Shri. K. R. Vasudevan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. R. N. Parbat, CIT-III
Section 10ASection 92C(3)Section 92D

TP)A Nos.443,526/Bang/2016, No.535/Bang/2017 Page 17 of 35 provided in Schedule XIV, whereas the comparables provided for depreciation as per Income-tax Rules on written down value method

DCIT, BANGALORE vs. OUTSOURCE PARTNERS INTERNATIONAL PVT. LTD.,, BANGALORE

In the result, all appeals are partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 526/BANG/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore31 Oct 2017AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Sunil Kumar Yadav & Shri Jason P Boazit(Tp)A Nos. & Appellant Respondent Assessment Years No.443/Bang/2016 M/S. Outsource Partners Dy. Commissioner Of 2011-12 International Pvt. Ltd., Income-Tax, Tower 2D, Phase I, Vikas Circle-5(1)(2), Telecom Ltd., Bangalore. Vrindavan Tech Village, Outer Ring Road, Devarabeesanahalli, Bangalore- 560087. Pan: Aaaco5734C No. 526/Bang/2016 Dy. Commissioner Of M/S. Outsource Partners 2011-12 Income-Tax, International Pvt. Ltd., Circle-5(1)(2), Pan: Aaaco5734C Bangalore. No.535/Bang/2017 M/S. Outsource Partners Assistant Commissioner Of 2009-10 International Pvt. Ltd., Income Tax, Pan: Aaaco5734C Circle-5(1)(2), Bangalore.

For Appellant: Shri. K. R. Vasudevan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. R. N. Parbat, CIT-III
Section 10ASection 92C(3)Section 92D

TP)A Nos.443,526/Bang/2016, No.535/Bang/2017 Page 17 of 35 provided in Schedule XIV, whereas the comparables provided for depreciation as per Income-tax Rules on written down value method

INFINEON TECHNOLOGIES INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. DCIT, BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1068/BANG/2011[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore22 Sept 2016AY 2007-08

Bench: Smt. Asha Vijayaraghavanshri S Jayaramanit(Tp)A Nos.1068/Bang/2011 (Asst. Year 2007-08) M/S Infineon Technologies India Pvt. Ltd., Kalyani Platina, 3Rd Floor, Block I, #6&24, Epip Zone Phase I, Whitefiled, Bengaluru- 560 066. . Appellant Vs. The Dy Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Circle – 11(4), Bengaluru. . Respondent

For Appellant: Shri KR Vasudevan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. Priscilla Singsit, CIT
Section 10ASection 133(6)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 92C

depreciation provided under different methods would almost be the same except for marginal difference. In the IT(TP)A No.1068/B/11

ESSILOR MANUFACTURING INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. DCIT, BANGALORE

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed and the

ITA 1019/BANG/2014[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore24 Feb 2016AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Abraham P George & Shri Vijay Pal Rao

For Appellant: Shri Sampath Raghunathan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Mrs. Neera Malhotra & Ms.S. Praveena
Section 143(3)Section 250Section 92CSection 92C(3)Section 92D

TP)A No.227/Bang/2010. 6.3 On the other hand, the learned Departmental Representative has submitted that there is no provision under the Rules that permits any adjustment for depreciation. Further, the assessee did not claim the adjustment on account of depreciation before the TPO and what was claimed by the assessee is only the capacity utilization adjustment and not the depreciation

AMD FAR EAST LIMITED INDIAN BRANCH,BANGALORE vs. JDIT, BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1282/BANG/2011[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore29 Apr 2016AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Ak Garodia & Shri Vijaypal Raoassessment Year : 2007-08 Amd Far East Limited – Indian Branch Office Vs. Joint Director Of Income Tax (Since Taken Over By Amd India Private Ltd.), (International Taxation – I, Poddar Heritage Building, Bangalore. 28 Cubbon Road, Bangalore – 560 001. Pan: Aadca 1739L Appellant Respondent Appellant By : Shri P. C. Khincha, C.A. Respondent By : Ms Neera Malhotra, Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing : 26.04.2016 Date Of Pronouncement : 29.04.2016

For Appellant: Shri P. C. Khincha, C.AFor Respondent: Ms Neera Malhotra, CIT(DR)
Section 133(6)Section 92CSection 92C(3)

method (SLM) of depreciation and accordingly, the depreciation charged by the assessee company is much higher than the depreciation charged by the comparables. He submitted that the percentage of depreciation to total assets in the present case is 28.47 % whereas the average depreciation to total assets in the case of the ITA No.1282/B/11 7 comparables is only

M/S VOLVO INDIA PVT. LTD. vs. ACIT, BANGALORE

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is partly allowed

ITA 1537/BANG/2012[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore08 May 2019AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Jason P. Boaz

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Vohra, Sr. Advocate &For Respondent: Shri Pradeep Kumar, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 139Section 143Section 143(3)Section 144Section 153(1)Section 18

depreciation as per the written down value as appearing in the books of the transferor for all items of assets except intangible assets which was not recognised by the transferor in its books of accounts and which the Assessee out of the lump sum consideration paid for acquiring the IT(TP)A No.1537/Bang/2012 Page 31 of 58 business attributes

M/S INGERSOLL-RAND CLIMATE SOLUTIONS PRIVATE LIMITED ,BANGALORE vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-3(1)(1), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal of the assessees is partly allowed

ITA 729/BANG/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore25 Jul 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri George George K. & Ms. Padmavathy S

For Respondent: Shri Sumer Singh Meena, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 143(3)

TP)A Nos.729/Bang/2017 Page 14 of 16 19. Considering the facts of the present case and respectfully following the decision of the coordinate bench of the Tribunal we are of the view that the TPO is not justified in applying CUP is the most appropriate method for computing the ALP treating the cost contribution charges as the most appropriate method

M/S. RANDOX LABORATORIES INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,CIRCLE- 5(1)(1), BANGALORE

In the result, appeal by the Assessee is partly allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 2576/BANG/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore04 Jan 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan & Shri B. R. Baskaranit(Tp)A No.2576/Bang/2019 Assessment Year : 2015-16 M/S. Randox Laboratories India Vs. The Asst.Commissioner Of Private Limited, Income Tax, Plot No.191-195 & 246-250, Circle 5(1)(1), Bommasandra-Jigani Link Road, Bengaluru. Kiadb Industrial Area, Bengaluru – 560 105. Pan: Aadcr 0074 K Assessee Respondent

For Appellant: Shri S. Krishna Upadhyaya, CAFor Respondent: Shri Sumeer Singh Meena, CIT(DR-OSD), ITAT, Bangalore
Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 92Section 92ASection 92CSection 92F

Method (TNMM) as the MAM. Further, the TPO also rejected the TP study conducted by the Assessee and passed the order u/s 92CA of the Act on 29.10.2018 making an addition of Rs. 3,01,91,170 as TP adjustment. 9. The Assessee in its objection to the draft assessment order in which the addition proposed

AMERICAN POWER CONVERSION (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. ADDL.C.I.T., BANGALORE

In the result, appeal of the assessee stands partly allowed as indicated herein above

ITA 1111/BANG/2012[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore28 Feb 2022AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri. Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiit(Tp)A No. 1111/Bang/2012 Assessment Year : 2008-09

For Appellant: Shri Ketan Ved, CA
Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 92C

method and OP/TC as PLI. Assessee computed its margin at 10% on cost and average margin of 3 comparables were determined at 7% in TP study report. Assessee thus held that the transaction was within +/5% of the price charged and thus was treated to be at arms length. 2.8.1 Ld.TPO accordingly called for economic analysis and by applying various

KIRLOSKAR TOYOTA TEXTILE MACHINERY PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. DCIT, BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is treated as partly allowed

ITA 197/BANG/2015[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore28 Feb 2022AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan & Shri B. R. Baskaranit(Tp)A No.197/Bang/2015 Assessment Year : 2009-10 M/S. Toyota Industries Engine India Pvt. Ltd., Vs. Dcit, (Formerly Known As Kirloskar Toyota Textile Circle – 11(5), Machinery Pvt. Ltd.,) Bengaluru. Plot No.09, 2Nd Phase, Jigani Industrial Area, Bengaluru – 560 105. Pan : Aaack 7425 Q Assessee Respondent Assessee By : Shri. Ajit Tolani, Ca Revenue By : Shri. Sumer Singh Meena, Cit(Dr)(Itat), Bengaluru Date Of Hearing : 24.02.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 28.02.2022 O R D E R Per N V Vasudevan

For Appellant: Shri. Ajit Tolani, CAFor Respondent: Shri. Sumer Singh Meena, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru

method and rates for calculating depreciation as is adopted while preparing its accounts that are laid before the company at its annual general meeting in accordance with provisions of Sec.210 of the Companies Act. Explanation below Sec.115JB of the Act provides that for the purposes of section 115JB of the Act, "book profit" means the net profit as shown

AMERICAN POWER COVERSION (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. ADDL.C.I.T., BANGALORE

In the result appeal filed by assessee stands partly allowed as indicated herein above

ITA 1319/BANG/2011[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore23 Oct 2019AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri A.K.Garodia & Smt.Beena Pillaiit(Tp)A No.1319(Bang)/2011 (Assessment Year : 2007-08)

For Appellant: Shri Sharath Rao, CAFor Respondent: Shri C.H.Sundar Rao, CIT
Section 133(6)Section 92C

method and OP/TC as PLI. Assessee computed its margin at 10% on cost and average margin of 3 comparables were determined at 7% in TP study report. Assessee thus held that the transaction was within +/5% of the price charged and thus was treated to be at arms length. S.No. Particulars Margin 1. Telecommunication consultants -2% India limited 2. Crisil

ITO WARD - 5(1)(1), BANGALORE vs. M/S NOVELL SOFTWARE DEVELOPMENT (INDIA) PVT. LTD.,, BANGALORE

In the result, appeal filed by assessee stands allowed and appeal filed by the revenue stands dismissed

ITA 280/BANG/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore29 Apr 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri. Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiit(Tp)A No. 280/Bang/2016 Assessment Year : 2011-12 M/S. Micro Focus Software India Pvt. Ltd. (Earlier Known As Novell Software Development The Income Tax (India) Pvt. Ltd.), Officer, Bagmane Tech Park ‘D’ Ward – 4 (1)(3), Block, Bangalore. ‘Laurel’ 65/2, Vs. C V Raman Nagar, Byrasandra, Bangalore – 560 093. Pan: Aaacn6992K Appellant Respondent & It(Tp)A No. 319/Bang/2016 Assessment Year : 2011-12 (By Assessee) : Smt. Tanmayee Rajkumar, Assessee By Advocate : Dr. Manjunath Karkihalli, Cit Revenue By (Dr) Date Of Hearing : 03-03-2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 29-04-2022 Order Per Beena Pillaipresent Cross Appeals Has Been Filed By Revenue As Well As Assessee Against Order Dated 29.12.2015 Passed By Ld.Ito Ward 5(1)(1)

Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 92C(3)

depreciation from cost while treating foreign exchange fluctuation and deprecation non-operating in nature as applied by the TPO. 6. Whether the Ld.DRP was right in seeking exact comparability while searching for comparable companies of the assessee under TNMM method whereas requirement of law and international jurisprudence requires seeking similar comparable companies. 7. For these and other grounds that

NOVELL SOFTWARE DEVELOPMENT (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. ITO, BANGALORE

In the result, appeal filed by assessee stands allowed and appeal filed by the revenue stands dismissed

ITA 319/BANG/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore29 Apr 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri. Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiit(Tp)A No. 280/Bang/2016 Assessment Year : 2011-12 M/S. Micro Focus Software India Pvt. Ltd. (Earlier Known As Novell Software Development The Income Tax (India) Pvt. Ltd.), Officer, Bagmane Tech Park ‘D’ Ward – 4 (1)(3), Block, Bangalore. ‘Laurel’ 65/2, Vs. C V Raman Nagar, Byrasandra, Bangalore – 560 093. Pan: Aaacn6992K Appellant Respondent & It(Tp)A No. 319/Bang/2016 Assessment Year : 2011-12 (By Assessee) : Smt. Tanmayee Rajkumar, Assessee By Advocate : Dr. Manjunath Karkihalli, Cit Revenue By (Dr) Date Of Hearing : 03-03-2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 29-04-2022 Order Per Beena Pillaipresent Cross Appeals Has Been Filed By Revenue As Well As Assessee Against Order Dated 29.12.2015 Passed By Ld.Ito Ward 5(1)(1)

Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 92C(3)

depreciation from cost while treating foreign exchange fluctuation and deprecation non-operating in nature as applied by the TPO. 6. Whether the Ld.DRP was right in seeking exact comparability while searching for comparable companies of the assessee under TNMM method whereas requirement of law and international jurisprudence requires seeking similar comparable companies. 7. For these and other grounds that

M/S CENTUM RAKON INDIA PVT LTD,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2(1)(1), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee stands allowed

ITA 1964/BANG/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore01 Nov 2021AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt Beena Pillaiita. No. 1964/Bang/2017 Assessment Year: 2009-10 M/S. Rakon India Pvt. The Deputy Ltd., Commissioner Of #12, Khb Industrial Area, Income Tax, Yelahanka New Town, Circle 2(1)(1), Bangalore – 560 106. Vs. Bangalore. Pan: Aadcc2533L (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By : Shri Sandeep Chalapathy, Ca Shri Kannan Narayanan, Jcit Respondent By : (Dr) Date Of Hearing : 17.08.2021 Date Of Pronouncement : 01.11.2021 Order Per Beena Pillaipresent Appeal Is Filed By Assessee Against Order Dated 14/07/2017 Passed By The Ld.Cit(A), Bangalore-2 For Assessment Year 2009-10 On Following Grounds Of Appeal: “1. That The Order Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) In So Far It Is Prejudicial To The Interests Of The Appellant Is Bad & Erroneous In Law & Against The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case. 2. That The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) Erred In Law & On Facts In Determining The Alp Of International Transaction At Rs. 32,77,99,833 /- 3. Comparables: 3.1. That The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) Erred In Law & On Facts In Choosing M/S. Valiant Communication Ltd As A Comparable Entity Ignoring The Fact That M/S. Valiant Communication

For Appellant: Shri Sandeep Chalapathy, CAFor Respondent: (DR)

method of providing for depreciation is different and other circumstances exist to justify the adoption of profit before depreciation. 4.3.That the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) erred in law and on facts in not excluding the excise duty from the operating cost. 4.4. Without prejudice to ground no. 4.1 to 4.3 above, that the learned Commissioner of Income

M/S. TE CONNECTIVITY SERVICES INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-7(1)(1), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 300/BANG/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore26 May 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiit(Tp)A No.300/Bang/2021 Assessment Year : 2016-17

For Appellant: Shri Sriram Sheshadri & Ms. Amulya K., CAsFor Respondent: Dr. Manjunath Karkihalli, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 143(3)

TP)A No.300/Bang/2021 Page 31 of 44 independent valuer, wherein the business acquired by the Appellant was valued using a combination of two internationally accepted methods, i.e., the Discounted Cash Flow ("DCF") and the Comparable Market Multiple Method. The value of the business was determined as the weighted average of the values determined under both the said methods, by assigning