TMI Blog2017 (6) TMI 287X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... TPO to decide afresh in the light of the findings recorded herein above. Adjustment by clubbing commission income with market support services in allocating the expenses to the agency services in the ratio of sales - Held that:- TPO/DRP/AO have erred in making adjustment by clubbing commission income with market support services in allocating the expenses to the agency services in the ratio of sales. So, following the decision rendered by coordinate Bench of the Tribunal, the ld. TPO is directed to allocate expenses on the basis of gross margin in the agency segment and not in the ratio of sales for the purpose of computing the ALP transaction. No doubt, assessee by making benchmarking analysis of marking support services in the TP study considered 11 comparables with weighted average operating profit margin of 7.32% as against assessee’s margin of 5.00% but the said transfer study has been rejected by the TPO who has rejected 9 comparables out of 11 comparables chosen by the assessee and after introducing 6 new comparable companies computed the average OP/OC at 21.8% and computed the TP adjustment on account of difference in the arm’s length price of the international tran ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t appeal sought to set aside the impugned order dated 29.12.2014, passed by the AO in consonance with the orders passed by the ld. DRP/TPO under section 143 (3) read with section 144C of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (for short the Act ) qua the assessment year 2010-11 on the grounds inter alia that :- 1. That the assessing officer erred on facts and in law in completing the assessment under section 144C read with section143(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ('the Act') at an income of ₹ 6,11,08,644 as against the income of ₹ 3,77,44,037 returned by the appellant. 2. That the assessing officer erred on facts and in law in making an adjustment of ₹ 2,33,64,607 allegedly on account of the difference in the arm's length price of the international transactions undertaken by the appellant on the basis of the order passed under section 92CA(3) of the Act by the TPO. 3. That the DRP/TPO erred on facts and in law in making an adjustment of ₹ 39,89,080 to the arm's length price of the 'international transaction' of receipt of administration and support services on the basis of the order passed under section 92CA(3) of the Act by ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he same products, viz., ophthalmic glass products and life sciences products and involves performing some of the common functions by the same employees and it is not feasible to segregate the cost relating to the same. 4.3 That the DRP/TPO erred on facts and in law in not appreciating that the appellant does not employ any separate/specific personnel/asset for provision of agency services and same employees engaged in the distribution segment perform the necessary functions for provision of agency services. 4.4 That the DRP/TPO erred on facts and in law in allocating common expenses to the agency segment in the ratio of sales, resulting in disproportionate allocation of expenses not appreciating that such expenses ought to have been allocated in the gross profit ratio. 4.5 That the DRP/TPO erred on facts and in law in using inappropriate quantitative filters which are not based on any rational or reasonable basis. 4.6 That the DRP/TPO erred on facts and in law in selecting the following companies which are functionally dissimilar to the appellant as comparable companies for the purpose of benchmarking analysis: a) Cybermedia Online Ltd. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... er as opposed to the comparable companies who were independent entrepreneurs. 5. That the assessing officer erred on facts and in law in making an adjustment of ₹ 28,84,979 to the arm's length price of the alleged 'international transactions' of accounts receivable undertaken with the associated enterprise, on the basis of the order passed under section 92CA(3) of the Act by the TPO. 5.1 That the DRP/TPO erred on facts and in law in not appreciating that delay in receipt of receivable is not an international transaction, per se, under section 92B of the Act but is a consequence of an international transaction undertaken in the form of services rendered to the associated enterprises. 5.2 That the DRPITPO erred on facts and in law in recharacterizing the alleged transaction of receipts of receivables as unsecured loans advanced to the associated enterprises. 5.3 Without prejudice, the DRP/TPO erred on facts and in law in considering the annual average yield of corporate bonds prevailing during the financial year 2009-10 as the arms length rate of interest to be charged on delay in receipt of receivables without appreciating that such ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Rs.204,179,389 (ii) Import of life science products Rs.63,888,486 (iii) Commission Income received Rs.9,277,050 (iv) Receipt of Admin and Support Service Rs.3,989,079 (v) Income from marketing support services Rs.101,489,370 (vi) Reimbursement of expenses to AEs Rs.7,780,043 3. TPO disputed international transaction qua receipt of administrative and support services to the tune of ₹ 39,89,079/-. Assessee paid administrative and support services fee amounting to ₹ 39,89,079/- to its AEs. Assessee in order to benchmark international transactions applied TNMM as the most appropriate method treating itself to be the tested party and Operating Profit to Operating Cost (OP/OC) as the Profit Level Indicator (PLI) by aggregating receipt of administrative and support services and commission income received being closely linked. Assessee by selecting 7 comparable companies in its transfer ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... l. 8. We have heard the ld. Authorized Representatives of the parties to the appeal, gone through the documents relied upon and orders passed by the revenue authorities below in the light of the facts and circumstances of the case. GROUNDS NO.1 2 IN ITA No.548/DEL/2015, 816/DEL/2017 817/DEL/2017 9. Grounds No.1 2 in all the aforesaid three appeals are general in nature and do not require any adjudication. GROUNDS NO.3 TO 3.6 IN ITA NO.548/DEL/2015 GROUNDS NO.4 TO 4.3 IN ITA NO.816/DEL/2017 GROUNDS NO.4 TO 4.4 IN ITA NO.817/DEL/2017 10. DRP / TPO made an adjustment of ₹ 39,89,080/- to the Arms Length Price (ALP) of international transaction qua receipt of administrative and support services which is challenged by the assessee on the ground that the same is not sustainable. TPO made the adjustment on the grounds inter alia that no services have been received by the assessee; that no benefit was derived by the assessee by making payment of administrative and support services; and that no such services were actually needed by the assessee. 11. TPO, by relying upon the principle of benefit test , used CUP as most appropriate metho ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ost allocation. 14. TPO also rejected the contentions raised by the assessee that the payment of intra group services is a business decision which cannot be questioned is based on wrong appreciation of transfer pricing legislation and relied upon the decision of LG Electronics India Pvt. Ltd. (ITA No.5140/Del/2011) . 15. Ld. DRP while agreeing with the TPO that the payment for intra group services to AEs is separate international transactions independent of financial results and capable of verifiable separately and in an uncontrolled environment, any taxpayer for availing the services would produce the documentary evidences to substantiate on the following issues :- In an uncontrolled environment any taxpayer for availing the services would produce the documentary evidences to substantiate on the following issues: (i) Contemporaneous documentary evidence to show that these services have actually been received. (ii) Need for the receipt of such services for which payment has been made. (iii) Documentary evidences as to when and how these services were requisitioned from the AEs. (iv) Basis of determination of rate or payment for int ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed the agreements which were entered not during the year but in earlier year and has been paying the service fee termed as management fee accordingly. This claim is not arising for the first time in this year but, is also there in earlier years and later years. Assessee is part of a worldwide group and they have placed some corporate centers for guidance of various units run by them across the globe. It was submitted that the costs being incurred by the centers are being shared by various units and assessee's share in this year has come to 5% of the receipts payable to NFO Worldwide Inc USA and at 4% to NFO Asia Pacific Ltd. Hongkong on the net revenues. These amounts are within the norms prescribed for payment of fees to various group companies of similar nature. There is no dispute with reference to services being provided by the group companies to assessee and assessee also paid various other amounts including royalty. As submitted by assessee, even though some correspondence was placed on record with reference to the advise given to assessee, providing a concrete evidence with reference to the services in the nature of specific activities is difficult, like proving the role ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ded by the assessee; and that the explanation given by the assessee with regard to the benefit derived are too generic in nature and no detail has been provided in respect of allocation keys applied by the AE for the purpose of allocating expenses to the assessee. 21. Ld. AR for the assessee challenging the impugned order determining the value of administrative support services fee as nil filed written synopsis as under :- It is respectfully submitted that the adjustment made by the TPO on the aforesaid grounds is not sustainable for the reasons submitted hereunder :- The breakup of administrative support services availed by the appellant during the year along with the amount incurred for each type of services is submitted as under :- Name of the AEs Nature of Service Amount Allocation Keys Reference to PB (Documentary evidences) Corning Inc., United States IT Support 1,725,976 Expenses are allocated on the basis of the actual hours spent by the associated enterprise for providing ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of invoices raised by the associated enterprises on the appellant and details of allocation keys applied by the associated enterprises for the purpose of allocating expenses to the appellant before the lower authorities, substantiating the fact that the services have been actually received by the appellant. Reliance, in this regard is placed on the recent decision of Delhi Bench of the Tribunal in the case of GE Money Financial Services Pvt. Ltd. vs. ACIT (ITA No.5882/De1/2010), wherein, the Hon'ble Tribunal held that the assessee is required to maintain and produce the evidence of receipt of services, which a businessman keeps and maintains regarding services received from the third party. The assessee cannot be expected to maintain detailed documentation evidencing the receipt of services merely because the services have been rendered by its associated enterprise. 2. The TPO, further held that no benefit was derived by the assessee by making payment for Administrative Support Services. It is reiterated that in terms of the group policy, all Corning Group entities have a mandate to avail support function services from the respective shared service centers to ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... IT (ITA No 2057 2058/Mum/2009) viii. AWB India Pvt Ltd vs Add!. CIT (ITA No 4454/De1l2011) ix. PERI India Pvt. Ltd. vs. DCIT (ITA No. 7265/Mum/2012) x. DCIT VS. MIs Danisco India Pvt Ltd(ITA 24441 Dell 2012) xi. TNS India Pvt. Ltd. (ITA No. 944/Hyd/2007) xii. Gillette India Limited vs. ACIT (ITA 10871 JPI 2011) xiii. DCIT vs Danisco (India) Pvt Ltd (ITA 24441 De1/2012) xiv. Indigene Pharmaceuticals vs. ACIT (ITA No.1541Hyd/2011 1874/Hyd/2012) xv. Kirby Building Systems India Ltd VS. Addl CIT (ITA 19751 HYDI 2010) xvi. Festo Controls Pvt. Ltd. vs DCIT (ITA No. 969/Bang/2011) xvii. Honda Siel Power Products Ltd. vs. DCIT (ITA 57131 Dell 2011) xviii. Quintiles Research (India) Private Ltd. vs DCIT (ITA 1605/Bang/2012) xix. Rockwell Automation India Pvt Ltd vs DCIT (ITA 5671 Dell 2015) 22. On the other hand, ld. DR for the Revenue also made a written submission to repel the contentions raised by the ld. AR for the assessee as under :- In the TP Study Report the assessee has clubbed the above International Transaction (Receipt of IT Support Services, Accounting Services, Human Resource Services etc. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... O's order). Thus, the ALP of IGS was correctly taken at NIL after conducting need test, rendition test and benefit test. The Hon'ble Delhi High Court has held in case of Commissioner of Income-tax-I v. Cushman and Wakefield (India) (P.) Ltd. [2014] 46 taxmann.com 317 (Delhi) that ALP can be computed at NIL by the TPO if an independent entity would not pay any amount. The relevant extract of the above judgment is reproduced below:- 35. The TPO's Report is, subsequent to the Finance Act, 2007, binding on the AO. Thus, it becomes all the more important to clarify the extent of the TPO's authority in this case, which is to determining the ALP for international transactions referred to him or her by the AO, rather than determining whether such services exist or benefits have accrued. That exercise of factual verification is retained by the AO under Section 37 in this case. Indeed, this is not to say that the TPO cannot - after a consideration of the facts - state that the ALP is 'nil' given that an independent entity in a comparable transaction would not pay any amount. However, this is different from the TPO stating that the assessee di ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ion test), independent parties will definitely not pay for it, and thirdly if the services though required and are rendered but are not beneficial to the receiver (benefit test) then naturally the independent parties will not pay for such services. Similarly, the services, which one already is availing, independent parties may not pay for it as it amounts to redundancy. Therefore as the TPO is only empowered to determine arm s length price of international transaction, as per provision of section 92(2) he is required to consider all the above aspects of the services for which AE is remunerated. In absence of all these criteria satisfied cumulatively for services, it is incomprehensible that any independent party would pay for the services i.e. i. if services are not required, ii. if they are not rendered, iii. if they are not benefitting the recipient iv. if they are duplicative in nature v. if they are for the safeguarding interest of owner i. e. shareholder activity vi. And if it were so, there would not be any comparable instances for similar kind of services and the purpose of determining arms length price of the Internat ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... generic in nature in respect of all the services availed by them. For facility of reference, para 11.3 of the DRP is reproduced as under :- 11.3 From the taxpayer's submission, it is seen that though the taxpayer has submitted documents to the TPO and before the Panel to substantiate that they have received the services but the explanation given about the benefits derived by the taxpayer are too generic in nature in' respect of all the services availed by them. Inspite of the opportunity given by this Panel no details about the total expenses incurred by the AE and its participating countries were provided no basis for the allocation key for those expenses have been provided. In an uncontrolled environment any taxpayer for availing the services would produce the documentary evidences to substantiate on the following issues: (i) Contemporaneous documentary evidence to show that these services have actually been received. (ii) Need for the receipt of such services for which payment has been made. (iii) Documentary evidences as to when and how these services were requisitioned from the AEs. (iv) Basis of determination of rate or payment for intra-group service ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ? 27. The ld. AR relied upon decisions rendered by Hon ble jurisdictional High Court in the case of CIT vs. EKL Appliances Ltd. ITA Nos.1068/2011 1070/2011 dated 29.03.2012 wherein identical issues were raised by the Revenue that the assessee has failed to demonstrate the actual benefit derived by it by using the services rendered to it by the AE and in these circumstances, payment of administrative services fee was unjustified and ALP of the transactions should be taken as nil. However, Hon ble jurisdictional High Court in the judgment in EKL Appliances Ltd. (supra) returned the finding in favour of the assessee by rejecting the contentions raised by the Revenue. The operative part of the judgment in EKL Appliances Ltd. (supra) is reproduced as under for ready perusal :- 20. In the case of Sassoon J. David Co. Pvt. Ltd. v. CIT, (1979) 118 ITR 261 (SC), the Supreme Court referred to the legislative history and noted that when the Income Tax Bill of 1961 was introduced, Section 37(1) required that the expenditure should have been incurred wholly, necessarily and exclusively for the purposes of business in order to merit deduction. Pursuant to public ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 28. Furthermore, Hon ble High Court of Punjab Haryana in the judgment in M/s. Knorr-Bremse India Pvt. Ltd. vs. ACIT (ITA No.182 of 2013 (O M) dated 06.11.2015) relied upon by both the ld. AR for the assessee as well as ld. DR for the Revenue has also dealt with the identical issue of benefit test. Operative part of the judgment in M/s. Knorr-Bremse India Pvt. Ltd. (supra) is as under:- 20. A reading of the orders of the TPO, the DRP and of the Tribunal makes it clear that one of the main reasons for not accepting the assessee s case was that the assessee had not been able to substantiate that the payment for the services had actually increased its profits. As we noted earlier, the TPO, in fact, further held that the assessee should have been able to show the level of increase in profit post the said transactions. 21. We are unable to agree with this finding. The answer to the issue whether a transaction is at an arm s length price or not is not dependent on whether the transaction results in an increase in the assessee s profit. This would be contrary to the established manner in which business is conducted by people and by enterprises. Business deci ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the requirement has to be seen with the standpoint of businessman and not the TPO/AO. Assessee has otherwise demonstrated details of hours spent by AE in providing IT support services. Invoice is available at pages 274 to 295 and details of hours spent by AE are available at pages 402 to 403B. 32. Assessee brought on record the detail of administrative support services availed by the assessee company which is tabulated at page 2 of synopsis, reproduced as under, for ready perusal :- Name of the AEs Nature of Service Amount Allocation Keys Reference to PB (Documentary evidences) Corning Inc., United States IT Support 1,725,976 Expenses are allocated on the basis of the actual hours spent by the associated enterprise for providing services to the appellant. Details placed on record by way of additional evidence before the Hon'ble DRP Invoice Page 274 295 Details of hours spent by AE Page 402-403B Corning China (Shanghai) Regional Headquarter ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t services from respective share service centers to avail the low cost, specialization and confidentiality and as such administrative support services were taken from the AEs. This contention raised by ld. AR is sustainable as the decision to run the business in a particular manner is to be taken by the businessman and not the Revenue. So, the benefit test for determination of ALP is to be seen from the standpoint of assessee and businessman and not from the standpoint of Revenue. 35. So far as the question that the assessee has not actually needed the services as raised by ld. DR is concerned when the services are being taken as per policy of the group company to avail the benefit of low cost, specialization and confidentiality and rendering and need of the services is proved from the detail brought on record by the assessee in para no.31, the TPO cannot decide if services are needed by the assessee or not. 36. Hon ble High Court in judgment cited as EKL Appliances Ltd. (supra) held that it is not necessary for the assessee to show that any legitimate expenditure incurred by him was also incurred out of necessity and the only condition is that the expenditure should ha ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ove, this line of reasoning. It is only elementary that how an Assessee conducts his business is entirely his prerogative and it is not for the revenue authorities to decide what is necessary for an Assessee and what is not. An Assessee may have any number of qualified accountants and management experts on his rolls, and yet he may decide to engage services of outside experts for auditing and management consultancy; it is not for the revenue officers to question Assessee's wisdom in doing so. The Transfer Pricing Officer was not only going much beyond his powers in questioning commercial wisdom of Assessee's decision to take benefit of expertise of Dresser Rand US, but also beyond the powers of the Assessing Officer. We do not approve this approach of the revenue authorities. We have further noticed that the Transfer Pricing Officer has made several observations to the effect that, as evident from the analysis of financial performance, the assessee did not benefit, in terms of financial results, from these services. This analysis is also completely irrelevant, because whether a particular expense on services received actually benefits an Assessee in monetary terms or not ev ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... , we find that the Bangalore Bench of the Tribunal in Gemplus India P. Ltd. 2010- TII-55-ITAT-BANG-TP, held that the assessee has to establish before the Transfer Pricing Officer that the payments made were commensurate to the volume and quality service and that such costs are comparable. When commensurate benefit against the payment of services is not derived, then the Transfer Pricing Officer is justified in making an adjustment under the arm's length price. 38. In the case on hand, the Transfer Pricing Officer has determined the arm's length price at nil keeping in view the factual position as to whether in a comparable case, similar payments would have been made or not in terms of the agreements. This is a case where the assessee has not determined the arm's length price. The burden is initially on the assessee to determine the arm's length price. Thus, the argument of the assessee that the Transfer Pricing Officer has exceeded his jurisdiction by disallowing certain expenditure, is against the facts. The Transfer Pricing Officer has not disallowed any expenditure. Only the arm's length price was determined. It was the Assessing Officer who comput ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... trative or the administrative support services are to be segregated for the purpose of benchmarking as has been done by the TPO? 41. The ld. AR for the assessee by relying upon the decision rendered by Hon ble jurisdictional High Court in case of Magneti Marelli Powertrain India Pvt. Ltd. vs. DCIT (ITA 350/2014 dated 25.10.2016) contended that when the TPO has accepted TNMM applied by the assessee as most appropriate method in respect of other international transaction the aggregation of other international transaction like fee for intra group services is permissible. 42. Hon ble jurisdictional High Court decided the issue in Magneti Marelli Powertrain India Pvt. Ltd. (supra) in favour of the assessee by determining the following findings :- 17. As far as the second question is concerned, the TPO accepted TNMM applied by the assessee, as the most appropriate method in respect of all the international transactions including payment of royalty. The TPO, however, disputed application of TNMM as the most appropriate method for the payment of technical assistance fee of ₹ 38,58,80,000 only for which Comparable Uncontrolled Price ( CUP ) method was sought to ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the considered view that the TNMM may be used for determining the ALP of intra group services. Accordingly, this issue is restored to the TPO to decide afresh in the light of the findings recorded herein above. Grounds No.3 TO 3.6 IN ITA NO.548/DEL/2015, Grounds No.4 TO 4.3 IN ITA No.816/DEL/2017 and Grounds No.4 TO 4.4 IN ITA No.817/DEL/2017 are determined in favour of the assessee. GROUNDS NO.4 TO 4.12 IN ITA NO.548/DEL/2015 GROUNDS NO.3 TO 3.9 IN ITA NO.816/DEL/2017 GROUNDS NO. 3 TO 3.8 IN ITA NO.817/DEL/2017 46. During the year under assessment, the assessee entered into 5 international transactions with its AE and the ALP of which is determined by applying TNMM treating itself to be a tested party and by taking OP/OC as PLI as under :- 47. Assessee in its TP study determined the ALP of aforesaid transactions by applying the TNMM considering itself to be a tested party and taking Operating Profit Operating Cost (OP/OC) as Profit Level Indicator (PLI). Assessee aggregated international transactions relating to import of Opthalmic Glass Products life sciences products, provision of limited agency services and receipt of administrative and support ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Depreciation 14,82,645/- Total (A) 1,93,29,321/- 27. The CIT(A) has held that out of the aforesaid sum of ₹ 30,78,570/- and ₹ 3,77,758/- pertaining to advertisement and insurance have no nexus with the agency function. 28. We find merit in the said conclusion as no material has been lead to discredit the above conclusion. Thus we hold that aggregate indirect expenses common to both the functions are of ₹ 1,58,72,993/- (Rs. 1,93,29,321/- - ₹ 30,78,570/- - ₹ 3,77,758/-). The CIT(A) further more held that allocation of such expenses should be done on the basis of gross margin of distribution function and commission income receipts and not on the basis of sales, as adopted by the TPO. Here too, we do not find any infirmity in the approach adopted by the CIT(A). The CIT(A) has correctly held that allocation of expenses in proportion to sales would amount to give equal weightage in terms of functions performed, assets utilized and risks assumed to both distribution function as well as agency service activity, which otherwise involves much lesser fun ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ected to be deleted. 29. Having regard to the above factual conclusion we uphold the action and reject the grounds raised by the revenue. Ground 1 thus stands dismissed. 16. So, there being no dispute that the issue in controversy has been squarely covered in assessee s own case vide order dated 28.08.2015 (supra) qua AY 2003-04 which has been further validated up to AY 2006-07, by following the order passed by the coordinate Bench, we direct the TPO to allocate the expenses on the basis of gross margin in the agency segment and not in the ratio of sales for the purpose of computing the ALP of the international transactions as the TPO/DRP/AO have erred in making adjustment by clubbing commission income with market support services in allocating expenses to the agency segment in the ratio of sales. So, ground no.2.2 is determined in favour of the assessee. GROUNDS NO.2.3, 2.4, 2.5, 2.6 2.7 17. TPO, after clubbing marketing support segment and agency services activities, selected 10 comparables for benchmarking the international transactions having average OP/OC at 22.12%. However, DRP excluded 2 comparables, namely, RITES Limited and Vapi Waste ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ment on account of difference in the arm s length price of the international transactions of agency commission and marketing support services fee at ₹ 1,98,16,836/-, which has been restricted to ₹ 1,64,90,548/- by the ld. DRP by allowing the working capital adjustment to the assessee. 51. However, we are of the considered view that since the basis for allocating the expenses to the agency segment is ordered to be changed, it would be futile to examine the suitability of the comparables considered by the TPO for benchmarking the international transactions as it would change the entire scenario and for that purpose, fresh TP study analysis is required to be done by the TPO. Consequently, we direct the TPO to make fresh TP study analysis after providing an opportunity of being heard to the assessee company to benchmark the international transaction undertaken by the assessee. Grounds No.4 to 4.12 in ITA NO.548/DEL/2015, Grounds No.3 to 3.9 in ITA NO.816/DEL/2017 and Grounds No.3 to 3.8 in ITA NO.817/DEL/2017 are determined in favour of the assessee. GROUNDS NO.5 TO 5.8 IN ITA NO.548/DEL/2015 GROUNDS NO. 5 TO 5.3 IN ITA NO.817/DEL/2017 52. The assessee ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
