Henkel Adhesives Technologies India P. Ltd.,, Navi Mumbai v. Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax,,

ITA 1325/PUN/2015 | 2010-2011
Pronouncement Date: 24-11-2017 | Result: Partly Allowed

Appeal Details

RSA Number 132524514 RSA 2015
Assessee PAN AAACL1954B
Bench Pune
Appeal Number ITA 1325/PUN/2015
Duration Of Justice 2 year(s) 1 month(s) 16 day(s)
Appellant Henkel Adhesives Technologies India P. Ltd.,, Navi Mumbai
Respondent Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax,,
Appeal Type Income Tax Appeal
Pronouncement Date 24-11-2017
Appeal Filed By Assessee
Tags No record found
Order Result Partly Allowed
Bench Allotted A
Tribunal Order Date 24-11-2017
Date Of Final Hearing 11-01-2018
Next Hearing Date 11-01-2018
Assessment Year 2010-2011
Appeal Filed On 08-10-2015
Judgment Text
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PUNE BENCH A PUNE BEFORE MS. SUSHMA CHOWLA JM AND SHRI ANIL CHATURVEDI AM . / ITA NO. 1 970 /P U N/20 1 4 / ASSESSMENT YEAR : 20 09 - 1 0 HENKEL ADHESIVES TECHNOLOGIES INDIA PVT. LTD. 10 TH FLOOR KESAR SOLITAIRE PLOT NO.05 SECTOR - 19 SANPADA NAVI MUMBAI MAHARASHTRA . / APPELLANT PAN: AAACL1954B VS. THE DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE 1(2) PUNE . / RESPONDENT . / ITA NO. 1325 /P U N/20 15 / ASSESSMENT YEAR : 20 10 - 11 HENKEL ADHESIVES TECHNOLOGIES INDIA PVT. LTD. 10 TH FLOOR KESAR SOLITAIRE PL OT NO.05 SECTOR - 19 SANPADA NAVI MUMBAI MAHARASHTRA . / APPELLANT PAN: AAACL1954B VS. THE DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE 11 PUNE . / RESPONDENT ASSESSEE BY : S /S HRI M.P. LOHIA & RAJENDRA AGIWAL REVENU E BY : SHRI ACHAL SHARMA ADDL.CIT / DATE OF HEARING : 30 . 1 0 . 201 7 / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT: 24 . 1 1 . 201 7 ITA NO. 1 97 0 /P U N/20 1 4 ITA NO.1325 /PUN/201 5 2 / ORDER PER SUSHMA CHOWLA J M : BOTH T HE APPEAL S FILED BY THE ASSESSEE ARE AGAINST SEPARATE ORDER S OF CIT (A) - IT/TP PUNE DATED 21.08.2014 & CIT(A) - 13 PUNE DATED 27.07.2015 RELATING TO ASSESSMENT YEAR S 2009 - 10 & 20 1 0 - 1 1 AGAINST RESPECTIVE ORDER S PASSED UNDER SECTION 143(3) R.W.S. 144C & 143(3) OF THE INCOME - TAX ACT 1961 (IN SHORT THE ACT) . 2 . BOTH THE APPEAL S FILED BY THE ASSESSEE ON SIMILAR ISSUE WERE HEARD TOGETHER AND ARE BEING DISPOSED OF BY THIS CONSOLIDATED ORDER FOR THE SAKE OF CONVENIENCE. 3. THE ASSESSEE IN ITA NO. 1 97 0 /PUN/201 4 HAS RAISED THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS OF APPEAL: - ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN LAW IN CONNECTION WITH THE INTERNATIONAL TRANSACTION OF EXPORT OF FINISHED GOODS TO ASSOCIATED ENTERPRISES ('AES') THE LEARNED CIT(A): GENERAL GROUND 1 . ERRED IN UPHOLDING AN ADJUSTMENT TO THE INTERNATIONAL TRANSACTION OF EXPORT OF FINISHED GOODS TO AES. REJECTION OF AGGREGATION APPROACH AND TRANSACTIONAL NET MARGIN METHOD ('TNMM') 2 . ERRED IN APPRECIATING THAT AS PER RULE 10C OF THE INCOME TAX RULES 1962 CHOICE OF THE MOST APPROPRIATE METHOD DEPENDS INTER - ALIA ON THE A VAILABILITY OF RELIABLE DATA DEGREE OF COMPARABILITY BETWEEN THE CONTROLLED AND UNCONTROLLED TRANSACTIONS AND THE FEASIBILITY OF MAKING REASONABLY ACCURATE ADJUSTMENTS. 3 . ERRED IN REJECTING THE AGGREGATION APPROACH ADOPTED BY THE APPELLANT FOR BENCHMARKING ITS INTERNATIONAL TRANSACTIONS VIZ IMPORT OF RAW MATERIALS IMPORT OF PACKING MATERIALS AND EXPORT OF MANUFACTURED FINISHED PRODUCTS (CLASSIFIED AS 'MANUFACTURING ACTIVITY') USING TNMM WITHOUT PROVIDING ANY COGENT REASONS FOR THE SAME. ITA NO. 1 97 0 /P U N/20 1 4 ITA NO.1325 /PUN/201 5 3 4 . ERRED IN REJECTI NG TNMM AS THE MOST APPROPRIATE METHOD FOLLOWED BY THE APPELLANT IN ITS TRANSFER PRICING STUDY TO BENCHMARK THE ABOVE - MENTIONED INTERNATIONAL TRANSACTION WITHOUT APPRECIATING THE FACTS OF THE CASE AND DISREGARDING THE OBJECTIONS RAISED BY THE APPELLANT IN THIS REGARD. 5 . ERRED IN REJECTING INTERNAL TNMM AS THE MOST APPROPRIATE METHOD SUBMITTED WITHOUT CONSIDERING FACTS AND ARGUMENTS SUBMITTED IN THIS REGARD AND DISPOSING THE SAID GROUND WITHOUT PROVIDING ANY COGENT REASONS. APPLICATION OF COMPARABLE UNCONTR OLLED PRICE ('CUP') METHOD 6 . ERRED IN FAILING TO APPRECIATE THE FACT THAT PROPER QUANTIFICATION OF ALL THE DIFFERENCES AS NARRATED ABOVE WAS NOT POSSIBLE TO MAKE A PROPER ADJUSTMENT TO THE CUP SO ARRIVED AT AND HENCE CUP METHOD COULD NOT BE REGARDED AS THE MOST APPROPRIATE METHOD. 7 . ERRED IN IGNORING AND NOT PROVIDING ANY OBSERVATION ON CRUCIAL FACTORS OF DIFFERENCE (SUCH AS DIFFERENCES IN GEOGRAPHICAL LOCATIONS SCALE OF BUSINESS OPERATIONS FUNCTIONS PERFORMED BUSINESS STRATEGIES RISK ASSUMED SALES IN D IFFERENT LEVELS OF VA L UE CHAIN ETC.) WHILE APPLYING CUP METHOD AS THE MOST APPROPRIATE METHOD 8 . ERRED IN UPHOLDING THAT WHILE APPLYING CUP THE APPELLANT SHOULD BE GRANTED ADJUSTMENT ONLY ON ACCOUNT OF DIFFERENCES I N MARKETING ACTIVITIES CARRIED OUT BY THE APPELLANT FOR EXPORTS MADE TO AES VIS A VIS SALES TO NON AES AND ACCORDINGLY IGNORING THE OTHER DIFFERENCES EXISTING ON TRANSACTIONS BETWEEN AES AND NON - AES. 9 . ERRED IN APPRECIATING THE FACT THAT IN ORDER TO APPLY CUP METHOD A VERY HIGH DEGREE OF COMPAR ABILITY WAS IMPERATIVE. 10 . ERRED IN FAILING TO APPRECIATE THAT THE EXPORT TO AES WERE NOT IN THE NORMAL COURSE OF BUSINESS AS IS EVIDENT FROM THE FACT THEY MAKE - UP LESS THAN 0.5 % OF THE SALES OF RS 67.42 CRORES TO NON - AES. LEVY OF INTEREST UNDER SECTION 234 B OF THE ACT 11 . ERRED IN LEVYING INTEREST UNDER SECTION 234B OF THE ACT. LEVY OF INTEREST UNDER SECTION 234C OF THE ACT 12 . ERRED IN LEVYING INTEREST UNDER SECTION 234C OF THE ACT INITIATION OF PENALTY UNDER SECTION 271(1)(C) 13 . ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE INITIATI ON OF PENALTY PROCEEDINGS UNDER SECTION 271(1)(C) OF THE ACT THE APPELLANT SUBMITS THAT EACH OF THE ABOVE GROUNDS OF APPEAL IS WITHOUT PREJUDICE TO THE OTHER. 4. THE GROUND OF APPEAL NO.1 RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE IN BOTH THE APPEALS IS GENERAL AND HENCE T HE SAME ARE DISMISSED. ITA NO. 1 97 0 /P U N/20 1 4 ITA NO.1325 /PUN/201 5 4 5. THE LEARNED AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE FOR THE ASSESSEE AT THE OUTSET POINTED OUT THAT THE ISSUE RAISED IN GROUNDS OF APPEAL NO.2 TO 10 IS AGAINST REJECTION OF AGGREGATION APPROACH ADOPTED BY THE ASSESSEE AND ALSO AGAINST SELECTIO N OF TNMM METHOD AS MOST APPROPRIATE METHOD. THE ASSESSING OFFICER / TPO HAD APPLIED CUP METHOD. THE LEARNED AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE FOR THE ASSESSEE POINTED OUT THAT THE TRIBUNAL IN ASSESSEES OWN CASE RELATING TO ASSESSMENT YEARS 2007 - 08 AND 2008 - 09 HAD APPLIED INTERNAL CUP TO BENCHMARK INTERNATIONAL TRANSACTIONS OF ASSESSEE. HE ALSO POINTED OUT THAT THE ASSESSEE IN EARLIER YEAR HAD ASKED FOR MARKETING ADJUSTMENT AND ALSO BAD DEBT RISK ADJUSTMENT WHICH WAS ALSO ALLOWED BY THE TRIBUNAL. 6. THE LEARN ED DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE FOR THE REVENUE ON THE OTHER HAND PLACED RELIANCE ON THE ORDER OF CIT(A). 7. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS AND PERUSED THE RECORD. THE ASSESSEE FOR THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION HAD FURNISHED THE RETURN OF INCOME DECL ARING TOTAL INCOME AT RS.31 16 08 618/ - . THE ASSESSEE WAS ENGAGED IN THE BUSINESS OF MANUFACTURE AND TRADING OF INDUSTRIAL AUTOMOTIVE AND ELECTRONIC ADHESIVE SEGMENTS. THE CASE OF ASSESSEE WAS PICKED UP FOR SCRUTINY. THE ASSESSING OFFICER NOTED THAT TH E ASSESSEE HAD ENTERED INTO VARIOUS INTERNATIONAL TRANSACTIONS WITH ITS ASSOCIATED ENTERPRISES TOTALING RS.20 71 83 143/ - . HENCE REFERENCE WAS MADE UNDER SECTION 92CA(1) OF THE ACT TO COMPUTE ARM'S LENGTH PRICE OF INTERNATIONAL TRANSACTIONS TO THE TRANSF ER PRICING OFFICER (TPO). THE TPO REJECTING AGGREGATION APPROACH OF ASSESSEE AND ALSO REJECTING TNMM METHOD TO BE MOST APPROPRIATE METHOD APPLIED CUP METHOD AND MADE AN ITA NO. 1 97 0 /P U N/20 1 4 ITA NO.1325 /PUN/201 5 5 UPWARD ADJUSTMENT OF RS.57 20 899/ - . THE ASSESSING OFFICER ON RECEIVING THE ORDER UN DER SECTION 92CA(3) OF THE ACT FROM THE TPO ISSUED ASSESSMENT ORDER. 8. THE ASSESSEE FILED AN APPEAL BEFORE THE CIT(A) WHO IN TURN APPLYING THE RATIO LAID DOWN BY THE TRIBUNAL IN ASSESSEES OWN CASE FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2007 - 08 UPHELD THAT CUP METHOD W OULD BE MOST APPROPRIATE METHOD. THE CIT(A) FURTHER HELD THAT ADJUSTMENT ON ACCOUNT OF DEBTORS RISK AND MARKETING FUNCTION WAS CONSIDERED BY THE TRIBUNAL AND THE SAID ADJUSTMENT WAS GRANTED TO THE ASSESSEE. HOWEVER AFTER CONSIDERING THE DETAILS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE THE CIT(A) DIRECTED THAT AFTER VERIFICATION THE ADJUSTMENT MAY BE COMPUTED ACCORDING TO THE METHOD APPROVED BY THE TRIBUNAL ACCORDING TO THE AMOUNT OF DEBTORS RISK AND MARKETING EXPENSES. THE CIT(A) IN RESPECT OF INTERNATIONAL TRANSACTIONS OF IMPORT OF RAW MATERIAL OBSERVED THAT THE TPO HAD MADE ADJUSTMENT OF RS.2.92 LAKHS ON THE VALUE OF INTERNATIONAL TRANSACTIONS OF RS.8.21 CRORES. THE CIT(A) FOUND THE SAID ADJUSTMENT TO BE NEGLIGIBLE COMPARED TO THE VALUE OF INTERNATIONAL TRANSACTIONS A ND HELD THAT THERE IS NO JUSTIFICATION IN THE ADJUSTMENT. 9. THE LEARNED AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE FOR THE ASSESSEE HAS POINTED OUT THAT IN THE MANUFACTURING SEGMENT THERE WAS DISPUTE WITH RESPECT TO IMPORT OF RAW MATERIALS WHICH HAS BEEN DELETED BY THE CIT(A) AND THE REVENUE IS NOT IN APPEAL. IN RESPECT OF SEGMENT OF EXPORT OF FINISHED GOODS THE LEARNED AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE FOR THE ASSESSEE POINTED OUT THAT THE TRIBUNAL HAD DIRECTED THAT INTERNAL CUP BE APPLIED. HE FAIRLY POINTED OUT THAT THE TRI BUNAL HAD DIRECTED THAT INTERNAL CUP BE APPLIED AS AGAINST COMBINED TNMM METHOD APPLIED BY THE ASSESSEE. ITA NO. 1 97 0 /P U N/20 1 4 ITA NO.1325 /PUN/201 5 6 10. THE LEARNED DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE FOR THE REVENUE FAIRLY PLACED RELIANCE ON THE ORDER OF TRIBUNAL IN THIS REGARD. 11. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIV AL CONTENTIONS AND PERUSED THE RECORD. THE ISSUE WHICH ARISES BEFORE US IS WITH REGARD TO BENCHMARKING OF TRANSACTIONS OF EXPORT OF FINISHED GOODS WHEREIN THE ASSESSEE HAD APPLIED TNMM METHOD AS THE MOST APPROPRIATE METHOD WHICH WAS DISREGARDED BY THE TP O AND INTERNAL CUP METHOD WAS APPLIED TO BENCHMARK SAID INTERNATIONAL TRANSACTIONS. VIDE PARAS 8 TO 10 OF THE ORDER DATED 18.02.2015 RELATING TO ASSESSMENT YEAR 2008 - 09 IN ITA NO.339/PN/2013 THE TRIBUNAL IN TURN RELIED ON THE EARLIER ORDER OF TRIBUNAL I N ASSESSEES OWN CASE IN ASSESSMENT YEAR 2007 - 08 AND UPHELD APPLICATION OF CUP METHOD AND HAD REMITTED THE MATTER TO THE FILE OF ASSESSING OFFICER TO CONSIDER THE FACTS AND FIGURES OF CURRENT YEAR AND DECIDE AFRESH IN THE LIGHT OF THE DECISION OF TRIBUNAL IN ASSESSMENT YEAR 2007 - 08. THE RELEVANT FINDINGS OF THE TRIBUNAL IN THE ORDER RELATING TO ASSESSMENT YEAR 2007 - 08 READ AS UNDER: - 14. NO DOUBT THE ONUS SHALL BE ON THE ASSESSEE TO JUSTIFY SUITABLE ADJUSTMENTS TO THE COMPARABLE UNCONTROLLED TRANSACTION . IN THE PRESENT CASE ASSESSEE HAS CLAIMED ADJUSTMENTS ON ACCOUNT OF DIFFERENCES IN SALES & MARKETING FUNCTIONS AND CREDIT RISK AND SUCH A PLEA WAS VERY MUCH RAISED BEFORE THE TPO. THE ASSESSEE HAS REFERRED TO THE SEGMENTAL ACCOUNTS PLACED AT PAGE 302 OF THE PAPER BOOK TO SHOW THAT IT HAD INCURRED EXPENDITURE ON SALES & MARKETING FUNCTION WHICH IS ALMOST 41% OF THE SALES MADE TO THE NONASSOCIATED ENTERPRISES AND ON ACCOUNT OF CREDIT RISK IT IS STATED TO BE 1% AS THE PROVISION FOR BAD AND DOUBTFUL DEBTS IS AROUND 1% OF SALES AND IN THIS REGARD REFERENCE HAS BEEN MADE TO SCHEDULE 16 OF THE FINANCIAL STATEMENTS PLACED AT PAGE 180 OF THE PAPER BOOK. ON THIS BASIS THE TOTAL ADJUSTMENT TO THE COMPARABLE UNCONTROLLED TRANSACTION HAS BEEN WORKED AT RS.34 10 27 4/ - AS PER DETAILS AT PAGE 303 OF THE PAPER BOOK. THE SAID WORKING WAS VERY MUCH BEFORE THE TPO AS IS EVIDENT FROM A READING OF PARA 8(A)(VIII) OF HIS ORDER. THE TPO HAS NOT DISPUTED THE WORKING OF THE ADJUSTMENTS AND IN PRINCIPLE ALSO WE FIND NO REASONS TO DENY THE SAME. IT IS ALSO NOT IN DISPUTE THAT IN ASSESSEES OWN CASE FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2008 - 09 THE LD. DRP ITSELF HAS ALLOWED ADJUSTMENTS ON ACCOUNT OF SALES & MARKETING FUNCTIONS AND CREDIT RISK. THE PLEA OF THE TPO THAT SUCH COSTS DO NOT ENTIRE THE PRODUCT PRICING AS THE PRODUCTS ARE PRICED AT THE PREVAILING MARKET PRICES IN OUR OPINION IS NOT JUSTIFIED. THUS IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY CREDIBLE REASON ADVANCED BY THE TPO TO DENY SUCH ADJUSTMENTS WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT THE ADJUSTMENT OF RS.34 10 274/ - COMPUTED BY THE ASSESSEE ON ACCOUNT OF SALES & MARKETING FUNCTION AND CREDIT RISK IS ALLOWABLE. WE HOLD SO. ITA NO. 1 97 0 /P U N/20 1 4 ITA NO.1325 /PUN/201 5 7 12. WE FIND THAT THE ISSUE RAISED IN THE PRESENT APPEAL IS IDENTICAL TO THE ISSUE BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL IN ASSESSEES OWN CASE FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR S 2007 - 08 AND 2008 - 09. THE FINDINGS OF TRIBUNAL IN ORDER DATED 18.02.2015 IN PARAS 8 TO 10 ARE BEING REFERRED TO BUT THE SAME ARE NOT BEING REPRODUCED FOR THE SAKE OF BREVITY. FOLLOWING THE SAME PARITY OF REASONING HOWEVER WE DIRECT THE ASSESSING OFFIC ER TO CONSIDER THE FACTS AND FIGURES OF THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION AND DECIDE THE ISSUE IN THE LIGHT OF DIRECTIONS OF THE TRIBUNAL IN ASSESSMENT YEAR 2007 - 08. THE ASSESSEE HAD ASKED FOR MARKETING ADJUSTMENT AND BAD DEBT RISK WHICH HAS ALSO BEEN CONSIDER ED BY THE TRIBUNAL IN ASSESSMENT YEAR 2007 - 08 WHICH HAS BEEN APPLIED IN ASSESSMENT YEAR 2008 - 09 AND ACCORDINGLY THE SAME WOULD BE TAKEN NOTE OF BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER WHILE DECIDING THE ISSUE. THE CIT(A) HAD PARTLY ALLOWED THIS CLAIM OF ASSESSEE. HOW EVER THE TPO IS DIRECTED TO APPLY THE RATIO LAID DOWN IN ASSESSMENT YEAR 2007 - 08 AND DECIDE AFRESH. THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL NO.2 TO 10 ARE DECIDED AS INDICATED ABOVE. 13. THE ISSUE IN GROUND OF APPEAL NO.11 RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE IS AGAINST CHARGING OF IN TEREST UNDER SECTION 234B OF THE ACT WHICH IS CONSEQUENTIAL AND HENCE THE SAME IS DISMISSED. 14. THE ISSUE IN GROUND OF APPEAL NO.12 IS AGAINST CHARGING OF INTEREST UNDER SECTION 234C OF THE ACT. THE LEARNED AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE FOR THE ASSESSEE IN THIS REGARD POINTED OUT THAT LAST DATE FOR DEPOSIT OF ADVANCE TAX INSTALLMENT FOR MARCH WAS 15.03.2009 WHICH WAS SUNDAY AND TAXES WERE DEPOSITED ON 16.03.2009. HE REFERRED TO THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A) AT PAGE 20 WHEREIN SIMILAR PLEA WAS RAISED BEFORE THE C IT(A) BUT HE HAS FAILED TO GIVE ITA NO. 1 97 0 /P U N/20 1 4 ITA NO.1325 /PUN/201 5 8 DIRECTIONS ON THIS ACCOUNT. REFERENCE WAS MADE TO THE CBDT CIRCULAR NO.676 DATED 14.01.1994 THAT IN CASE THE LAST DATE FOR PAYMENT OF ANY INSTALLMENT OF ADVANCE TAX WAS A DAY ON WHICH THE RECEIVING BANK WAS CLOSED THEN TH E ASSESSEE COULD MAKE THE PAYMENT ON NEXT IMMEDIATELY FOLLOWING WORKING DAY AND IN SUCH CASES THE INTEREST LEVIABLE UNDER SECTION 234C OF THE ACT WOULD NOT BE CHARGED. WE FIND MERIT IN THE PLEA OF ASSESSEE THAT IN CASE THE LAST DATE FOR PAYMENT OF ADVANC E TAX I.E. 15.03.2009 WAS SUNDAY AND WHERE THE ASSESSEE HAS DEPOSITED ADVANCE TAX ON NEXT WORKING DAY ON WHICH BANKS WERE OPEN ON 16.03.2009 NO INTEREST IS CHARGEABLE UNDER SECTION 234C OF THE ACT. ACCORDINGLY WE HOLD SO AND DIRECT THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO DELETE THE INTEREST CHARGED UNDER SECTION 234C OF THE ACT ON THIS COUNT. 15. NOW WE TAKE UP THE APPEAL IN ASSESSMENT YEAR 2010 - 11 WHEREIN GROUND OF APPEAL NO.1 IS GENERAL AND THE SAME IS DISMISSED. 16. THE ISSUE IN GROUNDS OF APPEAL NO.2 TO 4 IS AG AINST REJECTION OF AGGREGATION APPROACH AND THE TNMM METHOD SELECTED BY THE ASSESSEE AS MOST APPROPRIATE METHOD AND APPLICATION OF CUP METHOD BY THE AUTHORITIES BELOW . THE SAID ISSUE IS IDENTICAL TO THE ISSUE RAISED IN ASSESSMENT YEAR 2009 - 10 VIDE GROUNDS OF APPEAL NO.2 TO 10. FOLLOWING THE SAME PARITY OF REASONING WE DIRECT THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO APPLY CUP METHOD AND CONSIDER THE FACTS AND FIGURES OF THIS Y EAR AND COMPUTE THE ADJUSTMENT IF ANY IN THE HANDS OF ASSESSEE ON ACCOUNT OF ARM'S LENGTH PRICE OF INTERNATIONAL TRANSACTIONS AND DECIDE THE ISSUE IN ACCORDANCE WITH ORDER RELATING TO ASSESSMENT YEAR 2007 - 08 . ITA NO. 1 97 0 /P U N/20 1 4 ITA NO.1325 /PUN/201 5 9 17. THE ISSUE S IN GROUNDS OF APPEAL NO.5 A ND 6 ARE AGAINST LEVY OF INTEREST UNDER SECTIONS 234C AND 234D OF THE ACT IS CONSEQUENTIAL AND HENCE THE SAME ARE DISMISSED. 18 . IN THE RESULT BOTH THE APPEALS OF ASSESSEE ARE PARTLY ALLOWED. ORDER PRONOUNCED ON THIS 24 TH DAY OF NOVEM BER 201 7 . SD/ - SD/ - ( ANIL CHATURVEDI ) (SUSHMA CHOWLA) / ACCOUNTANT MEMBER / JUDICIAL MEMBER / PUNE ; DATED : 24 TH NOVEM BER 201 7 . GCVSR / COPY OF THE ORDER IS FORWARDED TO : 1. THE APPELLANT ; 2. THE RESPONDENT; 3. THE CIT(A) - IT/TP / CIT(A) - 13 PUNE ; 4. THE DIT (TP/IT) /CIT - I PUNE ; 5. THE DR A ITAT PUNE; 6. GUARD FILE . / BY ORDER // TRUE COPY // / SR. PRIVATE SECRETARY / ITAT PUNE