TMI Blog2017 (5) TMI 1756X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nt is to accept that the Assessing Officer to form a firm opinion about ultimately taxability of income which in his prima facie opinion escaped from taxation. Therefore, we are of the view that at that time when Assessing Officer recorded reasons he cannot be expected to anticipate the ultimate taxability of an item. We do not find any force in the contentions of ld. counsel for the assessee on the first fold of submissions. Assessee has not submitted the letter to the right official alleging therein that the return filed on 14th October, 2004 u/s 139(1) is to be treated as filed in response to the notice u/s 148 of the Act. Therefore, we do not find any merit in this contention of the ld. counsel for the assessee. We do not find any infirmity in the order of ld. CIT(A) for upholding the reassessment for Asst. Year 2004-05. Nature of expenditure - expenditure for purchase of library books and computer software - Revenue or capital expenditure - HELD THAT:- In the present case, the assessee which is engaged in the business of providing contract research and development services to its associate enterprise is dependent on the latest information, technology developments at th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he assessee for AY 2004-05 to AY 2008-09 is allowed. Selection of comparable - Services provided by Alphageo (India) Ltd includes 2D and 3d surveys, Seismic data acquisition in 2D and 3D, Seismic data processing/reprocessing/special processing, Seismic data interpretation and Reservoir data acquisition and analysis. It shows that Alphageo (India) Ltd is not into research and development but is only engaged in the provision of data into organized forms. Assessee-company SRPTL is into the field of research and development, whereas, Alphageo (India) Ltd is not into research and development but only engaged in provision of data into organized forms. It cannot be taken as a comparable for calculating Arms Length Price with Associate Enterprise by applying TNMM Method. We, therefore, respectfully following the decisions referred above, direct the ld. TPO to exclude M/s. Alphageo (India) Ltd from the list of comparable companies for AY 2004-05 to AY 2008-09. Celestial Labs Limited is basically engaged in the development of tailor made software packages and software tools and does not involve in the research and development activities. The fact that Celestial Labs Limited is not ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... be excluded from the operating cost for calculating operating profit margin by relying on the decision of the Schefenacker Motherson Ltd. [ 2009 (6) TMI 125 - ITAT DELHI] We find substance in the plea of the assessee of excluding deprecation from operating cost because the ultimate object is to calculate the Arms Length Price with the AE. To arrive at Arms Length Price, comparable are taken as a basis to compute as to whether assessee has charged less revenue as compared to the prevailing market rate or has shown higher cost. The assessee s revised PLI is much better than the average of the comparable .In the given facts of the case, where the asset turnover ratio of the assesseecompany i.e. SRTPL is too low as compared to the asset turnover ratio of the comparable and also due to difference in the method of calculating depreciation and respectfully following the decisions referred above relating to this issue, we are of the view that depreciation should be excluded from the operating cost for the purpose of calculating profit level indicator for doing the transfer pricing analysis of the arm s length price of the international transaction entered with Associate Enterprise. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... retaining Vimta Lab as comparable. Further we have dismissed revenue s appeal of including Celestial Lab as comparable. We have accordingly directed the learned Transfer Pricing officer to perform Transfer pricing analysis of International transaction with Associate Enterprise in light of our decision on quantum issue. We are, therefore, of the view that as the ld. AO will re-compute the ALP as per our discussions above, there remains no basis for confirming penalty under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act imposed - ITA No. 1065/Ahd/2012, 1038/Ahd/2012, 1066/Ahd/2012, 1039/Ahd/2012, 1067/Ahd/2012, 3283/Ahd/2010, 459/Ahd/2015, 1040/Ahd/2012, 577/Ahd/2015, 2801/Ahd/2012, 709/Ahd/2016, CO. No.55/A/2015 - - - Dated:- 1-5-2017 - SHRI RAJPAL YADAV, JM, AND SHRI MANISH BORAD, AM. For the Appellant : Shri Dhinal Shah, AR For the Respondent : Shri Mahesh Shah, CIT, DR Uma Shankar Prasad, Sr.DR. ORDER PER MANISH BORAD, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER: This present bunch of 11 appeals and one Cross Objection are directed at the instance of assessee as well as Revenue for Asst. Years 2004-05 to 2008-09. In order to appreciate the facts in more scientific manner exhibiting the dat ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... -do- 271(1)(c) of the Act 1.1.2016 Table no.2 Sr.No. Ay Appellant Appeal No. Nature of issues 1 2004-05 SRTPL Appeal 1065/Ahd/2012 Reopening of assessment transfer pricing issues and purchase of library books 2 Department Appeal 1038/Ahd/2012 3 2005-06 SRTPL Appeal 1066/Ahd/2012 Reopening of assessment transfer pricing issues and purchase of library books and purchase of computer software 4 Department Appeal 1039/Ahd/2012 5 2006-07 SRTPL Appeal 3283/Ahd/2010 Transfer pricing issues, purchase of library books and purchase of computer software 6 2007-08 SRTPL ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f Explanation 3 to section 147 of the Act which were not on the statute when the reference to the TPO was made by the learned AO. Grounds relating to corporate tax adjustments 3. Without prejudice to Ground No. 1 2 above, on facts and in circumstances of the and in law, the learned CIT (A) erred in confirming the action of the learned AO in holding that purchase of library books of ₹ 17,31,114 is a capital expenditure and hence not allowable as a revenue expenditure. Grounds relating to transfer pricing adjustments 4. Without prejudice to Ground No.l 2 above, the learned CIT (A) erred in confirming the transfer pricing adjustment of ₹ 2,08,61,862 determined by the learned TPO. 4.1 On facts and in circumstances of the case and in law, the learned CIT(A) erred in confirming the action of the learned TPO in invoking transfer pricing provisions even though no single company selected as comparable is engaged in identical business of the Appellant. 4.2 On facts and in circumstances of the case and in law, the learned CIT(A) erred in confirming the action of the learned TPO in treating deferred revenue expenditure of ₹ 70.98 lacs as an ordinar ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ding that reassessment proceedings under section 147 of the Act are valid in law. 1.1 The learned CIT(A) has erred in rejecting the contention of the Appellant that the assessment was barred by limitation and void ab initio as the notice under section 143(2) of the Act was served beyond the time limit specified under Proviso to Section 143(2)(ii). 1.2 The learned CIT(A) has erred in stating that the Appellant has not filed any return of income in response to notice under section 148 of the Act. 1.3 The learned CIT(A) has erred in holding that the provisions of Section 292BB are applicable to the subject captioned year. 2. Without prejudice to Ground No. 1 above, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the learned CIT (A) has erred in confirming the action of the learned AO in relation to calling for information and making an addition to the total income of the Appellant on issues which are not connected with the reasons on the basis of which the reassessment was initiated. It is submitted that: 2.1 The learned Assessing Officer is not permitted to make general inquiries on matters totally unconnected with the issue on which proceedings under Sec ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f the case and in law, the learned CIT(A) erred in not granting risk adjustment and other economic adjustments while calculating the operating margins of the Appellant. Grounds 1039/Ahd/2012 Asst. Year 2005-06- By Revenue 1. The facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law the learned CIT(A) has erred in excluding M/s. Celestial Labs from the list of comparable for determining the arm's length price holding that M/s. Celestial Lab is not involved in research and development work without considering the fact that it was evident from the draft red herring prospectus submitted by M/s. Celestial Labs to SEBI for its 1PO that the company is indeed engaged in research related to development of pharmaceutical product and molecules. 2. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law the learned CIT(A) has erred in allowing standard deduction of 5% as per section 92C(2) of the Act without considering the fact that the provisions of section 92C of the Act clearly states that the +/-5% variation is not to be allowed as standard deduction. 3. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the C1T(A) ought to have upheld the order of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... re particularly M/s. Vimta Labs Ltd and M/s. Alphageo (India) Ltd be rejected on the ground of their size of operations, their age as well as lack of segment report viz-a-viz that of appellant and consequent to such reduction, ALP so worked out being at arm s length, the addition made be deleted. 6. a. Without prejudice, Ld. TPO as well as Ld. D.R.P. have erred in working A.L.P. without making mandatory F.A.R. adjustment prescribed in the Rules as attributable to the assets employed as well as risk assumed, in the form of adoption of earnings before depreciation and deduction at 6% of A.L.P. towards non assumption of finance risk representing difference between P.L.R. and bank rate. b. Ld. TPO and Ld. D.R.P. ought to have considered Appellant's submission for adoption of profit before depreciation for the purpose of working A.L.P under TNMM. Appellant therefore pleads that post such adjustment A.L.P. works at arm s length and addition made in the A.O. be deleted. 7. a. Ld. TPO and Ld. D.R.P. have erred in not granting deduction of 5% of A.LP. as permissible under proviso to subsection (2) of section 92C as in force. b. Appellant therefore pleads that the said deduct ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... in respect of library books in earlier assessment years. Grounds relating to transfer pricing adjustments 3. On facts and in circumstances of the case and in law, the learned CIT (A) erred in confirming the transfer pricing adjustment of ₹ 2,11,50,423 determined by the learned TPO. 3.1 On facts and in circumstances of the case and in law, the learned CIT(A) erred in confirming the action of the learned TPO in invoking transfer pricing provisions even though no single company selected as comparable is engaged in identical business of the Appellant. 3.2 On facts and in circumstances of the case and in law, the learned CIT(A) erred in confirming the action of the learned TPO in treating deferred revenue expenditure of ₹ 53.23 lacs as an ordinary operating expenditure while computing the operating margin of the Appellant. 3.3 On facts and in circumstances of the case and in law, the learned CIT(A) erred in confirming the action of the learned TPO / AO in treating Vimta Labs Limited and Alphageo (India) Limited as comparable companies for Financial Year 2006-07. 3.4 On facts and in circumstances of the case and in law, the learned CIT(A) erred in confir ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... visions of section 92C of the Act clearly states that the +/-5% variation is not to be allowed as standard deduction. 2. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the CIT(A) ought to have upheld the order of the Assessing Officer. 3. The appellant craves leave to add, to amend or alter the above grounds as may be deemed necessary Grounds 577/Ahd/2015 Asst. Year 2007-08- By Revenue 1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case the learned CIT(A) has erred in facts and in law in directing to delete the penalty u/s.271(1)(c) of the Act of ₹ 54,54,7837- on account of upward adjustment made by the TPO, without appreciating that the assessed income under the normal provisions was Rs. Nil, only due to set off brought forward unabsorbed depreciation. 2. The appellant craves leave to add, to amend or alter the above grounds as may be deemed necessary. Grounds CO No.55/Ahd/2015 Asst. Year 2007-08- By assessee On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the learned Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 2(1)(1), Baroda (hereinafter referred to as the 'learned AO') and the learned Commissioner of I ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... st computing the operating margins of the Appellant and the comparable companies. It is prayed that the learned TPO be directed to make such economic adjustment while computing the operating margins of the Appellant and the comparable companies. 5. On facts and in circumstances of the case and in law, the learned CIT(A) erred in not granting risk adjustment and other economic adjustments while calculating the operating margins of the Appellant. It is prayed that the learned TPO be directed to make such adjustments to the Appellant. 6. On facts and in circumstances of the case and in law, the learned CIT (A) erred in confirming the action of the learned TPO / AO in treating the following incomes as non operating incomes while computing the margins of the appellant: Accumulated Depreciation Op. Bal. difference considered as income ₹ 886,005 VAT Refund ₹ 83,759 Income from sale of grass, scrap, etc ₹ 67,367 Total ₹ 1,037,131 The appellant prays that the learned TPO / AO be di ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... challenged the disallowance of expenditure for purchase of library books and computer software for treating them as capital expenditure as against revenue expenditure during AY 2004-05 to AY 2007-08. iii) With regard to Transfer Pricing Adjustment, assessee has challenged the considering of the deferred revenue expenditure as operating expenditure for the computation of operating margins of assessee company (SRTPL) for AY 2004-05 to 2008-09 iv) Calculation of Arm s length Price after giving adjustment of depreciation or profit before depreciation interest and tax(PBDIT) to be used as Profit Level Indicator for computing the operating margins for AY 2004-05 to 2008-09; v) Assessee has challenged the inclusion of Vimta Labs and Alphangeo as comparable, whereas the Department has challenged the order of CIT(A) for not considering the Celestial Lab as comparable; vi) Both Assessee and revenue has challenged the availability/non-availability of benefit of +/- 5% as standard deductions u/s.92C of the IT Act vii) Allowing of basic adjustment and other economic adjustment while computing the operating margin. viii) Both the parties have challenged the sustaining/deleting ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... essment within the meaning of section 147 of the Income tax Act. (5) Issue notice u/s 148 of the Income-tax Act, 1961. A Y 2005-06 (1) In this case, the return of income was filed on 30-8-2005 showing total loss at ₹ 1,71,84,69/-. The tax payable under MAT was also shown at Rs.NIL. (2) The return of income was accompanied by audited accounts. In the profit loss account, the assessee has shown the following incomes:- Research Fees ₹ 7,34,03,329/- Exchange Fluctuation gain ₹ 1,10,77,247/- Miscellaneous income ₹ 13,54,395/- ₹ 8,58,34,961/- But in the computation of total income, the assessee has excluded the exchange fluctuation gain from the total income as well as from the book profit U/S.115JB. Any gain on account of exchange fluctuation is treated as profit and any loss out of exchange fluctuation is treated as a loss. In this case, the assessee has earned a gain of ₹ 1,10,77,247/- on account of exchange fluctuation. Therefore, this gain should be considered as t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he file of A.O. The Hon. High Court has observed that assessee can challenge the validity of reopening on all grounds other than the one which have found not sustainable. Copy of the decision dated 20th June, 2016 is placed before us. 5.2 Ld. Counsel for the assessee while impugning the reopening has contended that as far as the issue wherein tangible material came to the possession of Assessing Officer for harboring the plea that income has escaped assessment is concerned that issue has become in fructuous after the decision of Hon. High Court and assessee cannot re-agitate this issue before the Tribunal. However, apart from this issue he has raised two other folds of submissions. 5.3 In the first fold of submissions he contended that the AO has reopened the assessment in AY 2004-05 on the basis that exchange fluctuation gain amounting to ₹ 54,03,649/- was not included by the assessee in the book profit computed for the purpose of alternative tax u/s 115JB . He however, contended that apart from this ground AO has also observed that the amount of fluctuation gain was not considered by the assessee while computing income under the regular provisions. As far as this limb ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... l requirement. There is ultimate result after inclusion of such amount are altogether is a different matter. 5.6 We have duly considered the rival contentions on this issue. We have perused the reasons recorded by the Assessing Officer (extracted supra). A perusal of the reasons would indicate that there was an exchange fluctuation gain. The assessee was bound to give treatment of this gain in the books of account. The assessee has not included this amount in the income computed under the regular provisions as also in the book profit. Since the addition has been deleted out of the computation of regular income, therefore, we deem it necessary to make no discussion on this receipt. 5.7 The set of questions before us is that Assessing Officer has recorded the reasons on 10th October, 2006. At that point of time he was required to form his opinion prima facie. It was not incumbent on the Assessing Officer to arrive at a firm conclusion. Ld. counsel for the assessee has also not disputed about the legal position that fluctuation gain should be included in the book profit. His argument is that even after inclusion there is no taxable income under MAT also. To our mind this line of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... essing Officer but when it took up this issue before ld. CIT(A) a remand report was called for and on the basis of that Remand Report ld. CIT(A) observed that assessee has not filed return in response to notice u/s 148 of the Act. The Assessee has submitted alleged letter altogether with different authorities whose cognizance cannot be taken and, therefore, there is no error relating the action taken by Assessing Officer. 5.11 We have duly considered the rival contentions. We deem it pertinent to take note of the remand report reproduced by ld. CIT(A) and the finding of ld. first appellate authority which read as under :- 4.3 Subsequent to this, the A.O. was asked to comment on the observations made by the appellant In above mentioned letter. The A.O, vide his report dated 30-09-2011 has stated as follows; 2. After going through the contents of letter submitted by the assessee in your office on 23.09.2011 it is found that the contention of the assessee is not acceptable on the following grounds.:- (1) In this case the notice u/s 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1963. was issued to the assessees on 17.04.2007. The assessee did not file its return of income in response to th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... validity of notice issued u/s 143(2) of the Act during the course of assessment proceedings, Therefore, the assessee cannot challenge its validity after the assessment proceedings. Legislature has therefore, intentionally inserted section 292BB in the Act to remove such incongruities and the provisions of the same can be reckoned with, 4.3.1 A copy of this report was forwarded to the appellant, who has not made any comment on this, 4.4 I have considered the facts of the case. The appellant claims that he filed a letter on 19.06.2007 with the A.O. asking him to treat the original return filed as the return filed in response to notice u/s 148. But, as already pointed out, the letter had been filed in a wrong office. Moreover, the A.O. has observed in the assessment order that a letter no. Cir 4/AABCS/7650L/2008-09 dated 25.05,2008 was issued and served upon the appellant fixing the hearing in the case on 04.06.208. A copy of this letter has been submitted by the A.O. In this letter, ft has been clearly mentioned that the appellant has not filed any revised return of income in response to the notice u/s 148. Hence, it was requested to file a revised return immediately. In resp ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... essing Officer failed to collect any tangible material independently after filing of return then he cannot reopen the assessment. This proposition has been decided against the assessee by Hon. Jurisdictional High Court. Similarly other decisions are with a view to buttress his argument that 143(2) notice was not served within time limit. While examining in Asst. Year 2004-05 we have observed that the alleged return was not submitted by the assessee to an appropriate authority, therefore, its cognizance cannot be taken for the purpose that returns were filed in response to notice u/s 148 of the Act. The facts are altogether identical as in Asst. Year 2004-05. Therefore, we do not find any merit in these arguments of the ld. counsel for the assessee. The reopening of assessment in this year is upheld. 7. The next common issue relates to expenditure for purchase of library books and computer software during AY 2004-05 to AY 2007-08, which have been treated as capital expenditure by learned Assessing office as against Revenue expenditure claimed by the assessee by observing that the library books and computer software which are used for research purposes provide enduring benefit to ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Roadways Ltd. (304 ITR 84) (Mad HC) CIT and Anr. vs Toyota Kirloskar Motors (P) Ltd. (349 ITR 65) (Kar HC) CIT vs Varinder Agro Chemicals Ltd. (309 ITR 272) (P H HC) CIT vs Asahi India Safety Glass Ltd. (346 ITR 329) (Del HC) On the hand learned Departmental Representative relied upon the order of lower authorities 7.3 We have heard the rival contentions, perused the material available on record and gone through the decisions relied on by the ld. Counsel. The assessee is aggrieved with the order of ld. CIT(A) confirming the action of the ld. AO of treating the expenditure incurred on library books and computer software as capital expenditure during Assessment year 2004-05 to Assessment Year 2007-08. We notice that the assessee is engaged in the business of research and development which is a dynamic field and keeps on changing on day to day basis. Library books are the reference material for conducting research. In this era of quick changes on account of technology, the assessee needs to update with the latest information. Some books can be of enduring benefit but in most of the cases, such books do not provide any long term benefits. 7.4 Similarly, we also ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rudently, it needs to use latest books and software. In the present era, it is well evident that the computer software are changing every now and then and similarly due to overall in-depth knowledge sharing, the assessee needs to update with the help of books. 7.6 We further observe that the Co-ordinate Bench, Ahmedabad in the case of ACIT vs Torrent Pharmaceutical Ltd. (supra), the Tribunal has adjudicated the issue relating the payment of software expenditure to IBM for being treated as revenue or capital. It held in favour of the assessee by following the decision of Delhi Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Escorts Ltd. v ACIT, (2007) 104 ITD 427 (Del), wherein it has been held that software becomes obsolete with technological innovation and advancement within a short span of time and it can be said that where the life of the computer software is shorter (say less than 2 years), it may be treated as revenue expenditure. 7.7 Examining the facts of the case in the light of above decision, we observe that the expenditure on library books and computer software are not providing any enduring benefit to the assessee generally and they become obsolete and unusable in a very sho ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... est in all patents, trademarks, copyrights, trade secrets, confidential information or any other proprietary rights from the Research Projects SRTPL shall retain no right, title or ownership in the Research Results or Research Projects performed under this Agreement Should SABIC or any of its agents or representatives seek to obtain patents, trademarks or copyrights in any country in the world on all or part of the Research Results, SRTPL agrees to cooperate fully in providing information, completing forms, performing actions and obtaining necessary signatures and/or assignments required to obtain such patents, trademarks or copyrights. However, the patents, trademarks, copyrights will be in the name of SRTPL, but will remain in the property of SABIC. 8.1 Thus it was found by the AO that assessee is engaged in research in computer and lead services and earned ₹ 5,42,35,259/- in Asst. Year 2004-05. Realizing involvement of international transaction ld. AO made reference under sec.92CA to the TPO. On scrutiny of the account it revealed to the TPO that assessee has only one international transaction vide which it has provided research services to its aid. In order to justify ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ons to the show cause notice issued by learned Assessing officer by submitting that the TPO has considered net margins of the four companies and gross margin of the fifth company M/s. Alphangeo (India) Ltd instead of net margin due to which apparently uncomparable have been compared which has resulted in higher markup. It was further submitted that in the matters of deployment of asset, they are not comparable to assessee. 8.5 However Learned Assessing officer was not convinced with the reply of assessee and made addition of upward transfer pricing adjustment of ₹ 20861862/- which was arrived at after calculating total cost of the assessee after including deferred revenue expenditure. 8.6 Dissatisfied with the order of Assessing Officer, assessee went in appeal before CIT(A) and partly succeeded. 8.7 Now we will take up the issue of Deferred Revenue expenditure The learned AO as well as the learned CIT(A) are of the view that since deferred revenue expenditure was incurred in connection with the Research and Development activities to be undertaken by SRTPL in future, it is to be considered as an operating expenditure for the computation of operating margins of S ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ole to Win India Pvt. Ltd. v DCIT (60 taxmann.com 311) where the ITAT has held that the expenses which have been disallowed while computation of the taxable are also excludible from the computation of operating margin. (Refer Sr no 8 Page 130 to 158 of paper book 3) In the present case, as mentioned earlier, SRTPL has disallowed the deferred revenue expenditure in the computation of income and hence the deferred revenue expenditure should be excluded from the computation of operating costs. 8.12 Learned Departmental representative submitted that the The expenditure incurred by SRTPL are general and routine in nature which are required to be spent for running day-to-day business. The same should have been reimbursed by the AE at cost +5% markup based on the Technology Research Agreement entered by SRTPL with the AEs. 8.13 Further, the learned Departmental Representative has argued that no interest was charged on the loan extended to SRTPL by the Associated Enterprises and hence the transaction of loan is not at arm's length. Accordingly, based on above the deferred revenue expenditure is to be treated as an operating expenditure for the purpose of transfer pricing. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e impugned expenditure of ₹ 70.98 lacs which is 1/5th of the non-operating expenditure of ₹ 3.56 crores has been incurred much before the commencement of commercial operation in January 2002 and it was not towards any specific research and development project and has also not been recovered from the AE. It is also relevant to note that as per the agreement entered into by the assessee with AE, it is only entitled to recover the operating cost connected with the research project. The relevant extract of the agreement is reproduced below:- 4. Compensation for Research Projects SABIC will reimburse SRTPL for the actual costs of each Research Project according to the following criteria:- (a)Reimbursable Operating Costs: SABIC will reimburse SRTPL for all operating costs incurred and reasonably allocate to each Research Project, in accordance with the following: 8.17 From above condition referred in the agreement we notice that it is only the operating cost which the assessee can get reimbursed; whereas the impugned expenditure is undisputedly non-operating in nature relating to a period prior to the commencement of commercial operation and has also been d ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... es like acquisition and processing of data. The services provided by Alphageo are: - 2D and 3D seismic services - Designing and preplanning of 2D and 3D surveys - Seismic data processing and interpretation - Reservoir data acquisition and analysis, etc Accordingly the company is not into research and development. Rather the company is engaged into provision of data into organized form. It collates data, organizes them and provides it to its customers. Reliance is also placed on the annual report of the company outlining its activity (refer Sr No 8 Page 80 to 173 of factual paper book) 9.4 Further reliance is also placed on the ruling of Mumbai ITAT in the case of Syngenta Biosciences Private Limited v DCIT (ITA 1083/Mum/2015) wherein Alphageo was rejected as a comparable. (Please refer Sr No 9, Page 159 to 177 of Paper book 3) 9.5 It further relied on the ruling of Mumbai ITAT in the case of Syngenta Biosciences Private Limited v DCIT(180 TTJ 61) wherein Alphageo was rejected as a functionally comparable since it was engaged in the provision of seismic surveys and not in the field of research and development. (Please refer Sr No 9, Page 159 to 177 of P ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... efore any of the Appellate authorities. This company has been accepted as a comparable by both, the Department and SRTPL. On the other hand learned departmental representative submitted that Alphageo (India) Limited is engaged in the provision of seismic survey which is related to the services of data acquisition research analysis and hence it should be considered as a comparable. 9.6 Further, exclusion of Aiphageo (India) Limited cannot be only because the company earns higher margins. The learned DR has also submitted that Biotech Consortium, a loss making company, has been accepted as a comparable by both, the Department and SRTPL. Since a loss making company has been accepted as a comparable, the company with higher margins should also be accepted as a comparable. Also the comparable has been accepted by SRTPL as comparable in its own Transfer 7 Pricing analysis and hence the same cannot be rejected as a comparable now. 9.7 We have heard the rival contentions and perused the material available on record. The issue raised through this ground by assessee is challenging the inclusion of Alphageo India Ltd as comparable by the TPO which has been further upheld by the lo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of Syngenta Biosciences Private Limited v DCIT, reported in 180 TTJ 61, wherein comparable M/s. Alphangeo India Ltd was rejected as a functional comparable since it was engaged in the provision of Seismic Survey Services and not in the field of research and development. The relevant extract of the decision is reproduced below:- We find that the assessee's activity in R T includes undertaking certain samples preparation and chemical analysis activities for the agro chemical business. It supplies to its AEs the necessary formula, information and expertise to enable it to provide R T activities. Whereas on the other hand, Alphageo (India) Ltd. is in the business of exploration and production of oil. We are of the view that these two companies i.e. the assessee and Alphageo (India) Ltd. are functionally not comparable and cannot be taken into consideration. 98.12 Further we also notice that ld. DR has contended that the comparable M/s. Alphangeo India Ltd has been accepted by the assessee as comparable in its own transfer pricing analysis and hence the same cannot be rejected as a comparable now. We, however, disagree with the contention of the ld. DR, because there is no b ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... comparable companies for AY 2004-05 to AY 2008-09. In the result this ground of the assessee is allowed. 10. Another issue of comparable raised by the Revenue against the order of Learned CIT(A) is for excluding the Celestial Labs Limited from the list of comparable for determining the Arm s Length Price with AE 10.1 Learned Departmental Representative submitted that Celestial Limited is engaged in the business of software development activities. These activities are in the nature of Research Development services and hence it is comparable to SRTPL. 10.2 Learned counsel for the assessee submitted that Celestial Labs Limited is engaged in developing tailor made software packages and software tools and is not involved in the research and development activities. As per Director's report for the year ending 31 March 2004, Celestial Labs could cater to a variety of users and was instrumental in developing tailor made Software packages for the end users. Accordingly, Celestial Labs is not a good comparable for Research and development company. Further, reliance placed by the AO on draft prospectus is also misplaced as the same relates to future expansion plans and was als ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... interfere with the order of Learned CIT(A) and uphold his decision of excluding the Celestial Labs Limited from the list of comparable for AY 2004-05 , AY 2005-06 and AY 2006-07. 11. Next issue relates to ground taken by the assessee is against the order of ld. CIT(A) confirming the inclusion of Vimta Labs Limited as a comparable. 11.1 At the outset ld. Authorized Representative has requested for not pressing this ground of inclusion of Vimta Labs Limited as comparable for calculating Arm s length price with AE. 11.2 We accordingly treat the grounds challenging the inclusion of Vimta Labs Ltd in the list of comparable as not pressed and dismiss the same and direct the ld. TPO to retain Vimta Labs Limited in the final list of comparable companies for calculating the Arm s length price of International transaction entered by SRTPL with Associate Enterprise SABIC. In the result this ground of the assessee is dismissed. 12. Another common ground raised by the assessee is against the order of ld. TPO and DRP for not granting deduction of +/- 5% of ALP as permissible under proviso to Section 92C(2) as in force. At the outset, ld. Counsel for the assessee conceded to fact that ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ase of TNMM, the net profit margin arising in comparable uncontrolled transactions is to be adjusted to take into account the differences, if any, between the international transaction and the comparable uncontrolled transactions, or between the enterprises entering into such transactions, which could materially affect the amount of net profit margin in the open market. In the present case, SRTPL follows a different method of charging depreciation in the books of accounts as compared to the comparable. SRTPL follows SLM method of depreciation whereas the comparable follow SLM and WDV method both. The difference in the method of depreciation affects the amount of depreciation in the books of accounts. The difference in the method of depreciation has resulted into the lower Asset Turnover ratio of SRTPL as compared to the comparable companies. The different Asset-Turnover ratio highlights the diverse maturity stages of SRTPL and of the comparable companies business and also the substantial capital expenditure undertaken by SRTPL. (please refer chart number 1 provided during the hearing which shows comparison asset turnover ratio of SRTPL vis-a-vis the comparable in vari ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Lason India P. Ltd. is also misplaced as the ITAT had not considered the comparability factor under Transfer Pricing. Further, the ITAT has also not considered the other rulings of the other benches. Further, the subsequent judgments after this decision have consistently held that PLl could be taken before depreciation. The learned Departmental Representative has also relied upon the conclusions provided by ^ the DRP in its directions for AY 200607 and has contended that PBDIT should not be used as a PLI. The detailed reply to the DRP's conclusions is provided as Annexure 2. (b) Depreciation adjustment to be allowed while computing the operating margins The comparable companies operating costs should be recalculated by considering the ratio of depreciation to operating costs adopted by SRTPL to bring the depreciation charged by SRTPL at par with the comparable. Since there has been a substantial difference in the asset turnover ratio and the methods of depreciation followed by the comparable, a suitable adjustment should be allowed to SRTPL to bring its depreciation in par with the comparable for the comparability purpose. Further the learned DR has primaril ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 4% 161% * 217% Spectrum Infotech Limited * * 1778% * * SRTPL 17% 22% 22% 20% 29% Denotes that the company was not selected as a comparable in that particular year Note: The above data is after excluding Alphageo (India) Limited as a comparable. For the data of asset turnover ratio including Alphageo (India) Limited, refer Sr no. 9,19,27 and 34 of Paperbook 2 b. Comparison of Operating Margins using PBDIT as a PL! (Chart 2 provided during the hearing) Comparable Method of depreciation^ AY 2004-05 AY 2005-06 AY 2006-07 AY 200708 AY 2008-09 Biotech Consortium India Limited WDV -32,97% -14.49% -16.84% -13.61% 13.64% IDC (India) Limited SLM ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... -10.41% -2.10% -7.53% -2.94% -4.55% SRTPL SLM LA89%H 8.12% 6.78% 4.89% 6.76% SRTPL % of Depreciation to operating cost (used as a depreciation adjustment for computing margins of com parables) 37.03% 29.83% 29.56% 26.94% 30.49% *Denotes that the company was not selected as a comparable in that particular year - Accordingly, inclusion of depreciation in the analysis would distort the comparability. - Reliance in this regard is placed on following judicial precedents: - Siemens Healthcare Diagnostics Ltd v. ACIT (152 ITD 155) (Ahmedabad ITAT) - Pentair Water India Pvt. Ltd. v ACIT (ITA No 2/PNJ/2013 ITA No 5/PNJ/2013) (Panaji ITAT) - Schefenacker Motherson Limited (123 TTJ 509) (Delhi ITAT) M/s Qual Core Logic Limited vs Deputy CIT (ITA 893/Hyd/2011) (Hyderabad ITAT) - DCIT vs M/s.Reuters India Private Limited (ITA No 9177/M/2010) ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d as a PLI. However, SRTPL submits that the Delhi ITAT in its judgment at Para 5.4, Question I, Point v has mentioned that the depreciation plays a pivotal role in the case of the manufacturing entities and hence PBDIT cannot be considered as a PLI. 13.8 The learned Departmental Representative also relied upon the conclusions provided by the DRP in its directions for AY 2006-07 and has contended that PBDIT should not be used as a PLI. However the learned Departmental Representative in his arguments has primarily agreed that a suitable adjustment for the amount of depreciation needs to be provided when there is a difference in the method of depreciation charged. 13.9 We have heard the rival contentions and perused the record placed before us. The assessee s common ground for AY 2004-05 to AY 2008-09 relates to computation of operating margin, wherein it has been contended by assessee that either the operating profit margin needed for undertaking transfer pricing analysis , to be calculated by using operating cost excluding depreciation cost or alternatively depreciation adjustment to be allowed for computing the operating margin for the very reason that different methods of ca ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... for the depreciation can be granted to bring the depreciation in par with the comparable in appropriate circumstances. 13.14 We further observe that the factors mentioned in Rule 10B are not exhaustive. The principal object of benchmarking international transactions against uncontrolled transactions is to compute an ALP to those transactions. This exercise would fail if a factor, which has a material bearing on the value or the profitability. In the given case, the relevant factors were present. On perusal of the comparable and the details, we observe that the assessee-company has adopted SLM method to calculate the depreciation; whereas the comparable like Biotech Consortium India Limited, Research Support International Limited, Spectrum Infotech Limited etc. have calculated the depreciation on WDV. Another important factor which we observe is the asset base held by the assessee SRTPL vis- -vis comparable. The ld. Counsel has placed on record charts for all the five assessment years depicting asset turnover ratio which we find necessary to reproduce below: Assessment Year 2004-05 - Asset turnover ratio Name of the Company F ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Assessment Year 2006-07 - Asset turnover ratio Name of the Company Fixed Assets As on March 2005 (A) Fixed Assets As on March 2006 (B) Average Fixed Assets C = (A+B)/2 Turnover for the year ended 31 March 2006 (D) Asset Turnover Ratio E = D/C8*100 SRTPL 34,85,21,394 38,54,95,274 36,70,08,334 8,19,93,269 22% Biotech 25,45,616 30,71,279 28,08,448 1,29,02,848 459% IDC (India) Limited 1,49,22,320 1,82,48,747 1,65,85,534 12,17,24.905 734% Research 16,93,000 5,57,44,000 2,87,18,500 4,62,80,000 161% Spectrum 30,49,498 22,00,218 26,24,858 4 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 71% Research 5,88,15,000 7,49,81,000 6,68,98,000 14,53,85,000 217% 13.15 On perusal of the above chart, we notice that there is a huge difference in asset turnover ratio so much so that assessee s asset turnover ratio is ranging between 17% to 29%; whereas the asset turnover ratio of the comparable is ranging between 71% to 177.8%. It is an admitted fact not disputed by the revenue also that there is a variation in adoption of method of calculating depreciation and also there is a huge difference of asset turnover ratio depicted in the above table. At this level, we agree that the depreciation adjustment has to be provided to calculate the operating profit margin as if evident that there has been substantial under utilization of the assets vis- -vis comparable companies resulting in high depreciation cost to the assessee as compared to its revenues and various depreciation methods followed by the assessee and the comparable companies. We therefore, hold that in the absence of any depreciation adjustment, being granted to the assessee, it would not be possible to ma ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s to 5.75%. Therefore, the Transfer Pricing Officer added ₹ 2,91,87,164/- to the income of the assessee. The assessee claimed before the Transfer Pricing Officer that there is huge difference between the depreciation of the assessee and the depreciation of the comparable case in as much as ratio of depreciation to total cost ratio is almost three times higher in the case of the assessee as compared to M/s. Span Diagnostics Limited, the comparable case. The depreciation in the case of the assessee comes to 8.02% of operating cost whereas the depreciation to the total operating cost comes to 2.63% only in the case of M/s. Span Diagnostics Limited. The assessee also pointed out that the depreciation charged by the assessee in its books of accounts is on Written Down Value (WDV) method whereas the depreciation charged in the case of M/s. Span Diagnostics Limited is on Straight-line method, hence for comparing Transaction Net Margin Method of the two companies, adjustment in respect of depreciation is must. However, the Transfer Pricing Officer had given no finding on the variation in the amount of depreciation as well as effect of variation in two different methods of providing d ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of the international transactions. Object and purpose of the transfer pricing to compare like with the like, and to eliminate differences, if any, by suitable adjustment is to be seen. Therefore, there was justification on the part of the taxpayer in pleading that profits be taken without deduction of depreciation as depreciation was leading to large differences in margins for various reasons. The taxpayer also relied upon para 22.4 of Guidance Note on Transfer Pricing issued by ICAI suggesting cash -profit/sales as one of the ratios to be applied for computing ALP under the TNMM as per Indian Regulations. Contention that depreciation would depend upon type of technology employed, age and nature of machinery used, is quite well-founded. Above, along with size of enterprise and investment in plant/machinery were important factors to be taken into account for comparison and for computing profit. There is considerable support for the contention raised on behalf of the taxpayer in the OECD Guidelines on Transfer Pricing. The claim of depreciation can lead to great difference in computing profits of comparable as depreciation is permitted depending upon nature of plant/machinery and yea ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ** The CFT(A) has observed fresh investment was being made in automobile ancillary industry which was in expansion phase and, therefore, there is no requirement to exclude depreciation in computing PLI . What expansion, when made, the date and year of expansion, its comparability with taxpayer's case? Nothing relevant is stated in the impugned orders. One does not know how differences on account of depreciation could be ignored on the facts stated above merely on general observations that automobile ancillary industry is in the expansion phase. Taxpayer is seeking adjustment of differences on account of depreciation and no plausible reason has been given for not accepting this claim. There is no finding that there are no differences in claim of depreciation and, therefore, it should have been excluded in computing operating profit as warranted by rules. On the other hand, the differences as per the chart are accepted. The finding that cash profit cannot be considered is not legally correct. The taxpayer in order to get adjustment of difference in depreciation furnished arm's length working after excluding depreciation and by taking all other expen ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... io without being affected by the depreciation charged by each of the companies. We noted that different companies have adopted different method of depreciation. In fact, for charging depreciation to the Profit Loss account there are different prevalent recognized methods of depreciation. Some Assessee opt of Straight Line method, some opt for Written Down method and some opt for Sum of Digit method or even Replacement Cost method. Selection of each method will affect the rate and quantum of depreciation even if the nature of the asset is the same and ultimately, the net profit derived by the company will vary. For determining the fair and true profit, in our opinion, it is appropriate that the effect of the depreciation must be excluded out of the operating profit for determining the operating profit ratio. Therefore, the best way of computing the operating profit, in our opinion, will be to compute the profit before depreciation in respect of each of the company. This will take out the inconformity or the variation in the profit level of the comparable arising due to adoption of different method of charging depreciation. We have gone through the order of the Bombay Bench of this ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... o consideration the above cited decisions for deciding the issue afresh as per law. Needless to mention that proper opportunity of hearing shall be allowed to the assessee before adjudicating the issue afresh. We order accordingly. Thus, this ground of appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. 13.19 We further observe that similar issue has also been adjudicated by Hyderabad Bench of the Tribunal in the case of M/s Qual Core Logic Limited Vs. Deputy CIT in ITA 893/Hyd/2011) (Hyderabad ITAT) while dealing the issue of determination of ALP as to whether profit should be taken without deduction of depreciation. The Coordinate Bench observed as follows:- 57. We have heard both the parties on this and perused the material on record. In the present appeal, ALP of transactions carried was to be determined by comparing net profit of the taxpayer (tested party) with mean net profit of comparable. Only receipts and expenditure, having connection with international transactions, were required to be taken into account. Any receipt or expenditure having no bearing on price or margin of profit could not be taken into consideration. It is evident from statutory provisi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ze of the assets besides the age of the assets of comparable was leading to difference in the profit margins and in mean margin. On the contrary, claim of depreciation is eating up large chunk of profit in the case of the taxpayer. The CIT(A) has not said a word on asset employed and risks suffered by the tested party and the comparable. Thus, material differences needing suitable adjustment were ignored and a flawed analysis was carried even in appellate proceedings. Without considering obvious material differences, the contention of the assessee to take profit without depreciation was rejected. This rejection is not sound in law. This ground is allowed. Accordingly, we direct the Assessing Officer to recompute the ALP. 13.20 Similar view has also taken by the Co-ordinate Bench, Mumbai in the case of DCIT vs M/s. Reuters India Private Limited in ITA No 9177/M/2010) (Mum ITAT) following the Special Bench decision of Chandigarh Bench in the case of DCIT v Quark Systems (P.) Ltd. (4 ITR (T) 606), by observing as under:- 4. We have heard the rival submissions and perused the relevant material on record. Insofar as the question of taking up Cash profit to Total cost as PLI fo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tment can be made to eliminate the material effects of such differences. When we read sub-clauses (ii) (iii) of Rule 10B(1)(e) in juxtaposition to sub-rules (2) (3) of Rule 10B, the position which emerges is that the net operating profit margin of comparable companies calls for adjustment in such a manner so as to bring both the international transaction and comparable cases at the same pedestal. ln other words, if there are no differences in these two, then the average of the net operating profit margin of the comparable companies becomes a benchmark. However, in case there are some differences between the comparable and the assessee, then the effect of such differences should be ironed out by making suitable adjustment to the operating profit margin of comparable. That is the way for bringing both the transactions, namely, the international transaction and the comparable uncontrolled transactions, on the same platform for making a meaningful and effective comparison. The above analysis transpires that the law provides for adjusting the profit margin of comparable on account of the material differences between the international transaction of the assessee and comparable uncont ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 1.90% WDV IDC India 8,30,99,654 7,26,71,595 1,04,28,059 14.35% SLM Average (A) 27.10% Assessment Year 2006-07 Margin computation using PBDIT / Operating costs as the PLI Name of the company Operating revenues Op cost excl depn Operating margins Revised PLI = PBDIT / Total operating costs excluding depreciation Method of Depreciation SRTPL 8,19,93,209 5,92,67,547 2,27,25,662 38.34% SLM Biotech 1,90,60,689 2,29,21,870 (38,61,181) -16.84% WDV Vimta Labs 54,45,59,498 28,97,74,505 25,47,84,99 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Depreciation SRTPL 11,84,34,422 8,50,17,113 3,34,17,309 39.31% SLM Biotech 3,79,00,000 3,33,51,461 45,48,539 13.64% WDV IDC (India) Limited 15,68,00,000 13,25,79,071 2,42,20,929 18.27% SLM Vimta 81,76,00,000 56,62,14,854 25,13,85,146 44.40% SLM Research Support 14,54,00,000 11,92,59,000 2,61,41,000 21.92% WDV Average (A) 24.56% 13.23 If we summarize the above five charts for AY 2004-05 to AY 2008-09 the revised Profit level Indicator after excluding depreciation from operating cost then the revised PLI shall be as follows:- AY 200 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f the order by the ld. CIT(A) in quantum appeal, two additions with respect to transfer pricing adjustment under normal provisions and other with respect to foreign exchange gain under MAT provisions were sustained and confirmed. Subsequently, the ld. AO proceeded with the penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c) of the Act and levied penalty amounting to ₹ 59,11,496/- in respect to the addition confirmed by the ld. CIT(A). Thereafter, the ld. CIT(A) vide his order dated 30.12.2014 deleted the penalty amounting to ₹ 54,54,783/- in respect of transfer pricing adjustment but confirmed penalty amounting to ₹ 4,56,713/- in respect of foreign exchange gain under MAT provisions. 14.2 As far as Department s appeal ITA No.577/Ahd/2015 is concerned, in lieu of the fact that we have allowed the ground of assessee s for calculating operating profit margin after excluding depreciation from the operating cost and we have also directed the ld. AO to exclude Alphageo lndia Limited and Celestial Labs from the list of comparable and retain Vimta Labs Limited as comparable and have given direction to calculate the Arms Length Price of International transaction with AE after g ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... see had made a wholly untenable and legally sustainable claim, the same cannot be allowed and the ld. AO had rightly levied the penalty on the said addition. 16.2 Aggrieved, the assessee is now in appeal before the Tribunal. 16.3 Ld. Authorized Representative for the assessee submitted that the assessee had earned the notional foreign exchange gain in respect of the ECB loans availed from the group company for the purpose of acquiring capital assets and the assessee was under a bona fide belief that the same needs to be reduced from the book profits while computing MAT under Section 115JB. Ld. Counsel further referred to the decision of Mumbai ITAT in the case of ITO vs Suraj Jewellery (lndia) Ltd (21 SOT 79), wherein it has been held that where Profit and Loss includes certain receipts which are not of income nature, the same are to be excluded before making any calculation in this regard. Ld. Counsel further referred to the decision of Mumbai ITAT in the case of Oriental Containers Limited vs JCIT (19 SOT 30) (Mum ITAT) wherein it has been held that MAT is not to be levied on artificial income. It was further contended that there was no error found in the calculation of for ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... furnishing inaccurate particulars regarding the income of the assessee and such a claim made in the return cannot amount to furnishing inaccurate particulars. We further observe that the Hon ble jurisdictional High Court in the case of CIT Vs Wood Papers Ltd, has also relied on the above referred judgment of Hon ble Apex Court and held that mere making of false claim does not confirm levy of penalty. We are, therefore, of the view that in the given facts and circumstances of the case, and respectfully following the judgments of Hon ble Apex Court and Hon ble jurisdictional High Court, we find that the assessee should not have been visited with penalty under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act. We, therefore, delete the penalty of ₹ 4,56,513/- and allow the ground raised by the assessee. 17. Now we take up ITA No.709/Ahd/2016 for AY 2008-09, where in the assessee is aggrieved with the order of ld. CIT(A) in confirming the penalty of ₹ 45,55,500/- in respect of transfer pricing adjustment. 17.1 Briefly stated facts are that subsequent to passing of order by ld. CIT(A), wherein the additions with respect to transfer pricing adjustment under normal provision were sustained a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
