Jcb India Ltd., Pune vs Assessee

Assessee By : Shri G.C. Srivastava, Advocate & Shri Saurabh Srivastava, FCA Department By : Shri Vikram Sahay, CIT, DR & Ms Y.S. Kakkar, Sr. DR

Date of Hearing : 08.06.2015 Date of Pronouncement : 10.06.2015 ORDER PER R.S. SYAL, AM:

This appeal by the assessee emanates from the final order passed

by the Assessing Officer (AO) on 20.10.2010 u/s 143(3) read with ITA No.1456/Pune/2010 section 144C(13) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter also called

'the Act') in relation to the assessment year 2006-07.

2. The first challenge in this appeal to the addition on account of

transfer pricing adjustment amounting to Rs.21,75,42,500/-.

3.i. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that JCB, UK, is a major

player in the global construction and agriculture sectors. JCB India Ltd.,

is a wholly owned subsidiary of JCB, UK. In turn, JCB Manufacturing

Ltd. (i.e., the assessee) was set up by JCB India as its 100% subsidiary

on 21.06.2004. The assessee commenced its business on 20.6.2005. It

is a matter of record that the assessee company got merged with JCB

India by virtue of the judgment of the Hon'ble High Court dated

26.5.2010 w.e.f. 1.4.2009. Thus, in so far as the year under

consideration is concerned, the assessee was a subsidiary of JCB India.

The assessee manufactured components such as back blades, buckets,

dippers, chassis, loader arm, track beam, etc., which form parts of earth

moving machines. Five international transactions were reported by the

assessee in Form No.3CEB for the year in question. First transaction is

2 ITA No.1456/Pune/2010

'Export of finished goods' amounting to Rs.20,21,62,339/- and the

second transaction is 'Import of raw materials' to the tune of

Rs.73,73,270/-. The assessee benchmarked these two international

transactions jointly by applying the Transactional Net Margin Method

(TNMM). Apart from the above two, the assessee also entered into

three more international transactions, namely, 'Import of machinery,

jigs and fixtures', `Reimbursement of expenses paid' and

`Reimbursement of expenses received.'. These three international

transactions were demonstrated at arm's length price (ALP) by applying

the Comparable Uncontrolled Price (CUP) method. There is no dispute

in so far as the last three international transactions are concerned. On a

reference made by the AO to the Transfer Pricing Officer (TPO), it was

found by the latter that the assessee adopted Profit level indicator (PLI)

of Operating profit to Sales for the international transaction of `Import

of raw material' and Operating profit/Total cost for the international

transaction of `Export of finished goods'. The assessee aggregated

these two international transactions of import of raw materials and

export of finished goods and carried out entity level benchmarking. The 3 ITA No.1456/Pune/2010

TPO did not dispute the application of TNMM as the most appropriate

method, nor did he disagree with the aggregation of these international

transactions. The assessee used 10 companies as comparables, which

have been enlisted on page 5 of the TPO's order. The TPO excluded

two companies from such list, namely, Ahmedabad Steelcraft Ltd.

with OP/TC at (-)16.71% and Shiv Agrico Implements Ltd. (Seg.) with

OP/TC at (-)50.79%. Arithmetical mean of the remaining 8 comparable

companies was computed by the TPO at 13.47%.

3.ii. On perusal of the details furnished by the assessee on the issue of

its determination of PLI, the TPO observed that the assessee had

adjusted its PLI to 10.79% as against the unadjusted OP/TC at (-)

45.23%. On being called upon to explain as to how it could substitute

its actual operating profit margin with some hypothetical adjusted figure,

the assessee submitted that because of its first year of operation, the

operating costs were high due to lower productivity on account of

workmen being in learning phase; higher consumption of electricity on

account of diesel gensets; and higher distribution cost and fixed

4 ITA No.1456/Pune/2010

overheads on account of lower volumes. The assessee invited the

attention of the TPO towards Annexure H to the Transfer pricing study

report, giving the working of the adjusted operating profit. The TPO

observed that nothing was mentioned as to how the adjusted figures

were arrived at and, further, the basis of such adjustment was unknown.

He refused to allow this adjustment as, in his opinion, any adjustment

can be made only to the profit margin of the comparables under Rule

10B(1)(e)(iii) and not to the profit margin of the assessee under Rule

10B(1)(e)(i). Discarding the adjusted positive profit margin declared by

the assessee at 10.79% on a hypothetical basis, the TPO adopted

unadjusted profit margin of the assessee at (-)45.23%. By considering

the arithmetical mean of the operating profit margin of the comparables

at 13.47%, the TPO applied benchmark of Operating profit/Total cost at

58.70% (45.23% +13.47%) on the international transaction of 'Export of

finished goods.' This resulted into recommendation for a transfer

pricing adjustment to the tune of Rs.2175.425 lac. The assessee

remained unsuccessful before the Dispute Resolution Panel (DRP). That

5 ITA No.1456/Pune/2010

is how, the AO in the impugned order made addition for a sum of

Rs.21.75 crore and odd. The assessee is aggrieved against this addition.

4. We have heard the rival submissions and perused the relevant

material on record. The assessee is not satisfied with the order of the

AO/TPO only on two counts viz., (i) non-adoption of adjusted operating

profit rate; and (ii) removal of two companies from the list of

comparables. Apart from the above, all other aspects of the TP analysis

carried out by the TPO, have been accepted by the assessee. We will

deal with the above referred two issues one by one.

I. Non-adoption of adjusted PLI of the tested party.

5. It is an undisputed position that the assessee's unadjusted PLI

(OP/TC) stood at loss of (-)45.23%. The assessee, however, adjusted

such PLI to 10.79%. This was done by adopting the amount of

operating expenses for transfer pricing analysis at Rs.1831.98 lac as

against the actual operating expenses incurred by it during the year in

question at Rs. 3706.55 lac. Thus, it is apparent that the assessee has

reduced operating expenses by more than 50% of actual amount spent

6 ITA No.1456/Pune/2010

for the purposes of transfer pricing analysis. This was tried to be

justified before the TPO by arguing that the company started its

operation in June, 2005 and, hence, the year under consideration was not

even first full year of operations. It was further submitted that it had

incurred costs which were extraordinary and non-operating in nature due

to the start-up related reasons. It was further submitted through its letter

dated 15.6.2009 that the costs for the current year were considered on

the basis of the costs incurred for the financial year 2008-09 as a first

point of reference and also the audited accounts for financial year 2007-

08, where the figures for financial year 2008-09 were not available.

This has been mentioned in para 2.7 of the assessee's letter dated

15.6.2009 addressed to the TPO during the course of the TP

proceedings. Thus, it is apparent that instead of the actual costs incurred

by the assessee during the year under consideration in respect of the

international transaction, it opted for the figures of standard costs by

relying on the figures for the assessment years 2009-10 and 2008-09.

The question arises as to whether the course of action adopted by the

assessee in substituting the actual costs incurred with some standard 7 ITA No.1456/Pune/2010

costs is permissible under law. To be more precise, whether any

adjustment is permissible in the assessee's own profit margin?

6. In order to answer this question, we need to have a look at the

provisions relating to computation of income from international

transaction having regard to the arm's length price contained in Chapter-

X of the Act. Sub-section (1) of section 92 provides that: 'Any income

arising from an international transaction shall be computed having

regard to the arm's length price.' Computation of arm's length price has

been enshrined in section 92C of the Act. Sub-section (1) of section

92C provides that: `The arm's length price in relation to an international

transaction shall be determined by any of the following methods, being

the most appropriate method, having regard to the nature of transaction

or class of transaction or class of associated persons or functions

performed by such persons or such other relevant factors as the Board

may prescribe....' . Then five specific methods have been set out in this

provision and the sixth one is: 'Such other method as may be prescribed

by the Board.' Rule 10B deals with the determination of arm's length

8 ITA No.1456/Pune/2010

price u/s 92C with the methods as prescribed under the Act. Adverting

to the facts of the instant case, it is found that the assessee applied the

TNMM as the most appropriate method, which has been concurred with

by the TPO. The modus operandi for the computation of ALP under this

method has been set out in Rule 10B(1)(e) as under:-

"(e) transactional net margin method, by which,--

(i) the net profit margin realised by the enterprise from an international transaction entered into with an associated enterprise is computed in relation to costs incurred or sales effected or assets employed or to be employed by the enterprise or having regard to any other relevant base ;

(ii) the net profit margin realised by the enterprise or by an unrelated enterprise from a comparable uncontrolled transaction or a number of such transactions is computed having regard to the same base ;

(iii) the net profit margin referred to in sub-clause (ii) arising in comparable uncontrolled transactions is 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 ;

(iv) the net profit margin realised by the enterprise and referred to in sub-clause (i) is established to be the same as the net profit margin referred to in sub-clause (iii) ;

9 ITA No.1456/Pune/2010 (v) the net profit margin thus established is then taken into account to arrive at an arm's length price in relation to the international transaction."

7. Rule 10B(2) provides that for the purposes of sub-rule (1), the

comparability of an international transaction with an uncontrolled

transaction shall be judged with reference to various factors given in this

provision, such as, the specific characteristics of the property

transferred or services provided in either transaction ; the functions

performed, taking into account assets employed or to be employed and

the risks assumed, by the respective parties to the transactions ; the

contractual terms (whether or not such terms are formal or in writing) of

the transactions which lay down explicitly or implicitly how the

responsibilities, risks and benefits are to be divided between the

respective parties to the transactions ; and conditions prevailing in the

markets in which the respective parties to the transactions operate,

including the geographical location and size of the markets, the laws and

Government orders in force, costs of labour and capital in the markets,

10 ITA No.1456/Pune/2010

overall economic development and level of competition and whether the

markets are wholesale or retail.

8. Rule 10B(3) stipulates that an uncontrolled transaction shall be

comparable to an international transaction, if, (i) none of the

differences, if any, between the transactions being compared, or between

the enterprises entering into such transactions are likely to materially

affect the price or cost charged or paid in, or the profit arising from, such

transactions in the open market ; or (ii) reasonably accurate adjustments

can be made to eliminate the material effects of such differences.

9. When we read sub-rules (2) and (3) in juxtaposition to Rule

10B(1)(e), it emerges that the arm's length price under TNMM can be

determined by comparing the profitability of an international transaction

with that of the comparable uncontrolled transaction. In order to make

such a comparison, it is relevant to see the differences, if any, between

the international transaction and comparable uncontrolled transaction. If

there are no differences between the two sets of transactions or the

differences, if exist, are not likely to materially affect the price/profit

11 ITA No.1456/Pune/2010

from such transaction, then, the matter ends and the comparables are

determined and the ALP can be worked out. The other situation may be

when there are differences between the international transaction and

uncontrolled transaction, which materially affect the price or profit from

such transactions. In such a situation, the law contemplates of making a

reasonably accurate adjustment to the uncontrolled transaction for

eliminating the material effects of such differences. Coming back to the

modus operandi given in Rule 10B(1)(e) for the determination of ALP

under TNMM, we find that sub-clause (i), being the first step, provides

that the net profit margin realized by the enterprise from an international

transaction should be computed in relation to a base, such as, costs

incurred or sales effected or assets employed, etc. Under sub-clause (ii),

which is the second step in the determination of ALP under TNMM, the

net profit margin from a comparable uncontrolled transaction is

computed having regard to the same base as adopted under sub-clause

(i), namely, costs incurred or sales effected or assets employed, etc.

Under sub-clause (iii), which is the third step, the profit margin of the

uncontrolled transaction realized in sub-clause (ii) is adjusted to take 12 ITA No.1456/Pune/2010

into account the differences between the international transaction and the

comparable uncontrolled transaction. It is this adjusted profit margin of

comparables which is considered for benchmarking the profit margin

realized by the assessee from international transaction as per sub-clause

(i). On going through the mandate of Rule 10B(1)(e), it is manifest that

sub-clause (i) clearly refers to the computation of `the net profit margin

realised by the enterprise from an international transaction.' There is

no stipulation under the provision which calls for adjusting the net profit

margin realized by the assessee from its international transaction due to

one reason or the other. When the prescription of the provision is

explicitly patent in providing for computing the profit margin of the

assessee from its international transaction as such, we fail to appreciate

as to how any adjustment can be made to the profit margin of the

assessee under sub-clause (i) due to reasons, such as, the incurring of

extraordinary and non-operating costs due to start up related reasons. If

such an adjustment is made, the resultant figure will shed the character

of the net profit margin realized, which is contrary to the express

language of the provision. It is obvious that in the computation of 13 ITA No.1456/Pune/2010

operating profit margin from an international transaction, all non-

operating costs do not form part of the cost base which are thus excluded

at the very outset. In so far as the operating costs are concerned, these

find their place in the computation irrespective of the fact whether they

are higher or lower due to any reason whatsoever. The rationale behind

the entire transfer pricing regime is to compare the costs/profits

incurred/earned by the assessee from an international transaction as it is

with an uncontrolled transaction and compute income from such

international transaction having regard to its ALP determined on the

basis of a comparable uncontrolled transaction. If the operating costs

incurred by the assessee from the international transaction are adjusted

at the very threshold, then how the transfer pricing provisions would

apply to determine the ALP of an international transaction, is beyond

our comprehension. The mandate of the provision is crystal clear that

whatever be the operating costs incurred by the assessee in relation to an

international transaction, these are liable to be considered as such

without making any adjustment whatsoever in determining the net profit

margin realized. If any adjustments are allowed to the assessee's profit 14 ITA No.1456/Pune/2010

margin, then the entire transfer pricing exercise will be thrown to the

winds, thereby making the provisions of Chapter-X as a redundant piece

of legislation. Once the legislature provides for computing profit margin

earned by the assessee from an international transaction without any

adjustment, it has to be the operating profit margin as per the books of

account strictly in conformity with the business conditions as they exist

without any plus or minus.

10. The above discussed is not the end of the road. We want to make

it clear that it is not as if the difference between the international

transaction and comparable uncontrolled transaction, not reckoned in the

operating profit margin of the assessee, remains unaddressed to. For

giving effect to such differences and allowing adjustment for brining the

international transaction and comparable uncontrolled transaction at par,

the mandate of sub-clause (iii) of Rule 10B(1)(e) comes into play. This

sub-clause provides that: ` the net profit margin referred to in sub-clause

(ii) arising in comparable uncontrolled transactions is adjusted to take

into account the differences, if any, between the international transaction

15 ITA No.1456/Pune/2010

and the comparable uncontrolled transactions.... which could materially

affect the amount of net profit margin..'. Thus, it is vivid from the

prescription of the provision that if there are differences in terms of Rule

10B(2) between the international transaction and uncontrolled

transaction and such differences have bearing on the amount of net profit

margin, then such differences should be adjusted in the net profit margin

of the comparables as per sub-clause (iii) of Rule 10B(1)(e), so that the

international transaction undertaken by the assessee becomes

comparable with the uncontrolled transaction. The crux of the matter is

that the adjustment due to differences between the international

transaction and comparable uncontrolled transaction is always adjusted

in the profit margin of the comparables as per sub-clause (iii) and not in

the profit margin of the assessee as per sub-clause (i) of rule 10B(1)(e).

11. Having held that adjustment is warranted in the operating margin

of the comparables for neutralizing the material effects of the

differences between the international transaction and uncontrolled

transactions, we want to accentuate that the simple fact of the assessee

16 ITA No.1456/Pune/2010

incurring a particular operating cost higher than its comparables, cannot

call for any adjustment. It can be noticed that the TNMM contemplates

comparison of the percentage of the operating profit margin earned by

the assessee from its international transaction with such a percentage of

the operating profit margin earned by comparables in uncontrolled

transactions. Firstly, when we take into consideration the percentage of

the operating profit margins, the effect of quantitative differences

between the two sets of transactions is automatically wiped out.

Secondly, when we consider the operating profit margin, it carries the

overall effect of all operating costs/revenue. In the case an assessee

having newly set up its business, the amount of depreciation may be

higher. One cannot simply make an adjustment by comparing the higher

amount of depreciation charged by the assessee vis-à-vis its

comparables. It is so for the reason that when during the initial years,

the amount of depreciation is higher, the repair costs is on the lower

side. In later years of operation, when the amount of depreciation goes

southwards, the repair cost goes northwards. When we take up operating

profit for comparison under the TNMM, such figure of operating profit 17 ITA No.1456/Pune/2010

counterbalances the effect of all such higher and lower individual costs

which eventually subsume into the operating profit. As such, it is

impermissible to pick up individual items of costs or revenues for

making a comparison and then adjusting them in the ultimate figure of

operating profit, unless such increased or reduced cost/revenue is due to

the extraordinary and abnormal factors de hors a mere higher or lower

quantum aspect. First year of operation of a business per se is not an

extraordinary event. The assessee, as a matter of right, can't claim any

adjustment in the first year of its operation without specifically pointing

out the differences with comparables indicating the incurring of

abnormal costs. As a matter of fact, any year of operation can be an

extraordinary depending upon the facts and circumstances of each case

and there can be no thumb rule that the first year of operation is always

extraordinary. Before claiming any adjustment in the first year of

operation, it is incumbent upon the assessee to specifically delineate that

which of its operating expenses are abnormal confined to the start up

phase only, which are usually not incurred after the first year of

operation. It is only when the assessee satisfies this basic condition of 18 ITA No.1456/Pune/2010

showing the presence of some specific expenses confined to the initial

phase which are absent in the regular phase of business, that it becomes

entitled to claim adjustment in the profit margin of its comparables. The

broad-brush claim of higher unusual operating expenses in the first year

of operation, without any substantiation, cannot be allowed.

12. Reverting to the facts of the instant case, it is noticed that the

assessee actually incurred operating expenses for the year in question at

Rs. 3706.55 lac. However, for the purposes of the Transfer pricing

analysis, the assessee reduced such operating expenses to Rs.1831.98 lac

and computed its profit margin with such reduced operating expenses.

This exercise was done by the alleged standardization of the actual

operating costs on the basis of such costs incurred by it during the

periods relevant to the assessment years 2008-09 and 2009-10. The

methodology adopted by the assessee for carrying out transfer pricing

analysis is simply devoid of any statutory sanction, totally unacceptable

and a glaring example of travesty of the transfer pricing provisions. As

against this, the TP analysis should have started with the actual

19 ITA No.1456/Pune/2010

operating costs of Rs. 3706.55 lac and then the assessee specifically

showing how some of the first year of operation specific expenses were

absent in the case of comparables, requiring adjustment in the profit

margin of the comparables. Nothing of this sort has been done by the

assessee.

13. We notice that the assessee vide its letter dated 7.9.2009 addressed

to the TPO, a copy of which is available on page 1004 of the paper book,

submitted with prejudice to its earlier submissions that if the adjustment

as computed by it was not acceptable, that is, the abnormal costs were

not excluded, then the comparables so chosen by it would cease to be

comparable. Similar contention was made by the assessee before the

DRP vide its letter dated 20.7.2010. We find that the TPO/DRP have not

considered this argument of the assesee. They simply held that no

adjustment is warranted in the computation of the operating profit of the

assessee, with which we also agree. However, they failed to consider if

the assessee had in fact, incurred any extraordinary or abnormal costs

due to its first year of operation. If, in fact, such abnormal costs were

20 ITA No.1456/Pune/2010

incurred, then it was mandatory on the part of the authorities to adjust

the profit margin of comparables to that extent. It appears that both the

assessee as well the TPO did not properly approach the transfer pricing

analysis in a right perspective. The assessee kept on harping on the

adjustment to its profit on an unrealistic basis and the TPO ignored to

examine, if the assessee was at all rightly entitled to any adjustment on

account of its first year of operation. In our considered opinion, the

proper transfer pricing analysis can be done only by first finding out

suitable comparables with or without making adjustment in their profit

margins in terms Rule 10B(1)(e)(iii). If, in any case, either the

comparables are not available or the adjustment as discussed above is

not feasible, then, the TNMM cannot be considered as the most

appropriate method, which should be ignored and substituted with

another suitable method for determining the ALP of the international

transaction of `Export of finished goods.'.

II. Removal of two comparables

21 ITA No.1456/Pune/2010

14. The assessee has, by means of specific grounds, objected to the

removal by the TPO of Ahmedabad Steelcraft Ltd. and Shiv Agrico

Implements Ltd. (Seg.) from the list of comparables. Here it is pertinent

to mention that the assessee chose some companies as comparable under

the TNMM and the TPO, accepting the applicability of this method,

excluded these two companies. As such exclusion has been challenged,

we need to examine whether these two companies are in fact

comparable. It is significant to mention that the following evaluation is

on the presumption that the TNMM is applicable as the most appropriate

method. As such, we proceed to examine the comparability or otherwise

of these two companies, one by one.

(i) Ahmedabad Steelcraft Ltd.

15. The assessee chose this company as comparable with OP/TC at

(-)16.71%. The TPO removed it from the final set of comparables by

noticing that the same apart from being functionally different, also

suffered losses because of change in the Government policy and on

22 ITA No.1456/Pune/2010

account of retrenchment of employees and other extraordinary factors.

The assessee is aggrieved against the exclusion of this company.

16. After considering the rival submissions and perusing the Annual

report of this company, which is available on pages 553 onwards of the

paper book, it can be seen that this company is using its own wind mill

against the assessee using generator sets of production. These two

models of production have different implications on the operating costs.

Apart from that, it is observed that the turnover of this company

significantly reduced to Rs.9.92 crore in the current year from Rs.36.68

crore in the preceding year due to change in the Government policies. It

has been so recognized in the director's report of this company. It has

further been mentioned in such report that this company retrenched 105

employees and compensation aggregating to Rs.42.39 lac was paid

during the year. In our considered opinion, the above cited

extraordinary and abnormal differences make this company

incomparable with the assessee. We, therefore, hold that the TPO was

right in excluding this company from the list of comparables.

23 ITA No.1456/Pune/2010

(ii) Shiv Agrico Implements Ltd. (Seg.)

17. The assessee included this company on segment level in the list of

comparables with OP/TC at (-)50.79%. The TPO held this company to

be non-comparable by observing that it has three business segments,

namely, Foundry, rolling and forging; Engineering & Fabrication; and

Others. He noticed that all the products made by the company from

Foundry, rolling and forging division pass on to the Engineering &

Fabrication unit, thereby impacting the profitability of the Engineering

division. He further noticed that the fixed assets used in these two

segments were not properly identifiable. The assessee is aggrieved

against the exclusion of this company on segment level.

18. Having heard the rival submissions and perused the relevant

material on record including the Annual report of this company for the

year in question, we find that this company has reported its revenues in

three segments as discussed above. The assessee has chosen

'Engineering and Fabrication' segment of this company to be

comparable. We are disinclined to accept the view point of the TPO/AO

24 ITA No.1456/Pune/2010

in excluding this company for the reason of the goods from Foundry,

rolling and forging segment moving to Engineering and Fabrication

segment. It is obvious that when the goods move from one segment to

another, their profitability is accordingly taken into consideration under

the respective segment. Once this company has shown its segmental

results and the TPO has not pointed out as to how its Engineering and

Fabrication segment is dissimilar with that of the assessee, we hold that

this company on segment basis should be included in the final set of

comparables.

19. In view of the foregoing discussion, we set aside the impugned

order and remit the matter to the file of TPO/AO for a fresh

determination of the ALP of the international transaction of `Export of

finished goods' in accordance with our above observations/directions.

Needless to say, the assessee will be allowed a reasonable opportunity of

being heard in such fresh proceedings.

20. The only other ground which survives in this appeal is against the

ad hoc disallowance of expenses to the tune of Rs.2 lac. The facts

25 ITA No.1456/Pune/2010

apropos this ground are that the assessee appointed a Clearing &

Forwarding agent, viz., Haulage Corporation. On being called upon to

produce details of such expenses, the assessee submitted all the

necessary details along with sample supporting invoices and

corresponding confirmation from Haulage Corporation. The AO

observed that these expenses were in the nature of transportation

charges, custom clearing and reimbursement of expenses. He

disallowed a sum of Rs.2 lac on ad hoc basis by mentioning that the

assessee failed to furnish invoices in support of reimbursement of

expenses, which were to the tune of Rs.34.81 lac. The assessee has

assailed this addition.

21. After considering the rival submissions, it is observed that these

expenses have been incurred by the assessee by way of payment to

Clearing & Forwarding agent, viz., Haulage Corporation. Even the

reimbursement of expenses have been made to such agent only. When

the assessee furnished all the details about such expenses including

sample supporting invoices and confirmation from Haulage Corporation,

26 ITA No.1456/Pune/2010

we cannot countenance the addition made on ad hoc basis without the

AO specifically pointing out any lacuna in the details submitted by the

assessee. We, therefore, order for the deletion of this addition.

22. In the result, the appeal is partly allowed.

The order pronounced in the open court on 10.06.2015.

Sd/- Sd/- [A.T. VARKEY] [R.S. SYAL] JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER

Dated, 10th June, 2015. dk Copy forwarded to: 1. Appellant 2. Respondent 3. CIT 4. CIT (A) 5. DR, ITAT

AR, ITAT, NEW DELHI.

27