Agro Tech Foods Limited, Secunderabad v. Dy. Commissioner of income Tax, Circle-1(1),, Hyderabad

ITA 160/HYD/2014 | 2009-2010
Pronouncement Date: 31-07-2014 | Result: Allowed

Appeal Details

RSA Number 16022514 RSA 2014
Bench Hyderabad
Appeal Number ITA 160/HYD/2014
Duration Of Justice 5 month(s) 27 day(s)
Appellant Agro Tech Foods Limited, Secunderabad
Respondent Dy. Commissioner of income Tax, Circle-1(1),, Hyderabad
Appeal Type Income Tax Appeal
Pronouncement Date 31-07-2014
Appeal Filed By Assessee
Order Result Allowed
Bench Allotted B
Tribunal Order Date 31-07-2014
Assessment Year 2009-2010
Appeal Filed On 03-02-2014
Judgment Text
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL HYDERABAD BENCHES B : HYDERABAD BEFORE SHRI B. RAMAKOTAIAH ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI SAKTIJIT DEY JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA.NO.160/HYD/2014 ASSESSMENT YEAR 2009-2010 AGRO TECH FOODS LIMITED SECUNDERABAD 500 003 PAN AAECA-0303-M VS. DCIT CIRCLE 1(1) HYDERABAD. (ASSESSEE) (RESPONDENT) FOR ASSESSEE MR. KANCHAN KAUSHAL WITH MR. ALIASGER RAMPURWALA MR. ABHIROOP BHARGAV FOR REVENUE MR. D. SUDHAKAR RAO DATE OF HEARING 09.06.2014 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT 31.07.2014 ORDER PER B. RAMAKOTAIAH A.M. THIS IS ASSESSEES APPEAL AGAINST THE ORDER OF TH E A.O. UNDER SECTION 143(3) READ WITH SECTION 144C OF THE INCOME TAX ACT 1961 CONSEQUENT TO THE TPO ORDER UN DER SECTION 92CA(3) OF THE ACT. 2. ASSESSEE HEREIN HAS RAISED 13 GROUNDS OUT OF WHICH GROUNDS NO. 2 TO 8 WITH REFERENCE TO VARIOUS OBJECTIONS WHILE ANALYZING THE PLI UNDER TNMM LIKE REJECTION OF ASSESSEES DOCUMENTATION ADOPTION OF TNMM AGAINST COST PLUS AND RE-SALE METHOD ADOPTION OF MULTIPLE YEAR DATA ETC. WERE NOT PRESSED. ACCORDINGLY GROUNDS NO. 2 TO 8 ARE TR EATED AS WITHDRAWN. 2 ITA.NO.160/HYD/2014 AGRO TECH FOODS LIMITED SECUNDERABAD. 2.1. THE MAIN GROUNDS ARE WITH REFERENCE TO THE TP ADJUSTMENTS MADE BY THE A.O. CONSEQUENT TO THE TPO ORDER WHICH DRP HAS CONFIRMED. 3. BRIEFLY STATED ASSESSEE COMPANY IS ENGAGED IN THE BUSINESS OF MANUFACTURING AND SELLING AND DISTRIBUT ION OF BRANDED EDIBLE OILS FOOD PRODUCTS BULK COMMODITIE S ETC. IT FILED ITS RETURN OF INCOME ON 30.09.2009 DECLARING TOTAL INCOME OF RS.12 75 95 829. AS ASSESSEE HAS INTERNATIONAL T RANSACTIONS WITH ITS AE ASSESSEE HAS FILED THE NECESSARY T.P. DOCUMENTATION AND HAS SELECTED 17 COMPANIES UNDER I TS MANUFACTURING SEGMENT AND 6 COMPARABLES IN ITS TRAD ING ACTIVITY. A.O. HAS NOTED THAT THE INTERNATIONAL TRA NSACTIONS ARE TO THE TUNE OF RS. 31 CRORES OUT OF WHICH PURCHASE OF RAW MATERIAL WAS ABOUT RS. 25 CRORES CONSTITUTING 81%. WHEN THE MATTER WAS REFERRED TO THE TPO TO ANALYSE THE ARM S LENGTH PRICE OF THE INTERNATIONAL TRANSACTIONS TPO ANALYS ED THE COMPANY BY MAKING FAR ANALYSIS IN WHICH HE NOTED DO WN THAT ASSESSEE IMPORTED MICROWAVE POPCORN ACT II ITS WOR LDS LARGEST SELLING POPCORN FROM CONAGRA GROUP AND RESELLS IT IN THE INDIAN MARKET. HOWEVER ASSESSEE HAS STARTED THE MANUFACTURE OF MICROWAVE POPCORN IN OCTOBER 2007 A ND FLAVORS ARE ADDED TO SUIT THE INDIAN CUSTOMERS. THE PACKING REQUIREMENTS ARE ALSO MADE TO ENSURE ADHERENCE TO I NDIAN STATUTORY REGULATIONS. ASSESSEE IMPORTS CORN IN BUL K WHICH IS THEN SEASONED PACKAGED IN SMALL PACKS AND SOLD AS INSTANT POPCORN ACT II. IT ALSO PURCHASES PEANUT BUTTER FRO M CONAGRA GROUP. ASSESSEE IMPORTS FRENCH FRIES SWISSMISS AND SNACK PACK FROM CONAGRA GROUP RE-SELLS IT IN INDIA. FOR IMPORTED FINISHED PRODUCTS ASSESSEE DOES NOT CARRY OUT ANY VALUE ADDITION. ASSESSEE JUSTIFIED ARMS LENGTH PRICE USIN G COST PLUS METHOD AND RESALE METHOD IN ITS T.P. STUDY WHEREAS THE TPO REJECTED THE SAME AS DETAILED IN THE ORDER. NOW TH ERE IS NO 3 ITA.NO.160/HYD/2014 AGRO TECH FOODS LIMITED SECUNDERABAD. DISPUTE WITH REFERENCE TO SELECTION OF TNMM AS THE MOST APPROPRIATE METHOD. THE DISPUTE IS WITH REFERENCE T O EXCLUSION OF SOME COMPARABLES SELECTED BY ASSESSEE BY THE TPO . IN THE T.P. STUDY THE TPO NOTED THE OPERATING REVENUES AS UNDER: DESCRIPTION ENTITY LEVEL (BRANDED FOODS) (SIB) (IN RS.) OPERATING REVENUE 7 75 12 10 111 6 25 30 00 000 1 48 30 00 000 OPERATING COST 7 59 59 50 000 5 96 59 85 910 1 48 90 14 090 OPERATING PROFIT 15 52 60 000 28 70 14 090 -60 14 090 OP/OR(%) 2.00 4.59 -0.41 OP/OC(%) 2.04 4.81 -0.40 3.1. THE INTERNATIONAL TRANSACTIONS REPORTED BY ASSESSEE AS PER 3CEB REPORT FOR THE F.Y. 2009-10 AS UNDER : A.E. NATURE OF TRANSACTION AMOUNT (IN RUPEES) CONAGRA FOODS EXPORT COMPANY PURCHASE OF FOOD MATERIAL (RAW MATERIAL) 4 37 67 848 CONAGRA FOODS EXPORT COMPANY PURCHASE OF FOOD MATERIAL (FINISHED PRODUCTS) 90 06 221 CONAGRA FOODS EXPORT COMPANY PURCHASE OF FOOD MATERIAL (RAW MATERIAL) 20 48 00 942 LAMB WESTON INC. PURCHASE OF FOOD MATERIAL (FINISHED PRODUCTS) 3 27 46 975 CONAGRA FOODS INC. PROFESSIONAL CHARGES 38 21 250 CONAGRA FOODS INC. ROYALTY 75 15 416 CONAGRA FOODS INC. REIMBURSEMENT OF EXPENSES (RECEIPTS) 85 71 882 CONAGRA FOODS INC. SOFTWARE DEVELOPMENT SERVICES 1 08 10 143 32 10 40 677 4 ITA.NO.160/HYD/2014 AGRO TECH FOODS LIMITED SECUNDERABAD. 3.2. THE TPO AFTER ANALYZING THE VARIOUS COMPARABL E COMPANIES SELECTED BY ASSESSEE ANALYSED EACH OF THE COMPANY AND ULTIMATELY SELECTED ONLY 3 COMPANIES AS COMPAR ABLE IN ITS BRANDED FOOD CATEGORY WHICH ARE AS UNDER : NAME OF THE COMPARABLE OP OC OP/OR OP/OC ADF FOODS LTD. 1 00 78 23 000 86 68 48 000 13.99 16.26 TASTY BITE EATABLES LTD. 45 78 93 000 41 31 26 000 9.18 10.11 DFM FOODS LTD. 53 33 89 000 46 76 76 600 12.32 14.05 TOTAL 35.49 40.42 AVERAGE 13.15 15.16 3.3. THEREAFTER AS ASSESSEE OP/OC IS ONLY 4.81% A S AGAINST 13.15% ARRIVED AT BY THE TPO HE HAS PROPOSE D ADJUSTMENT OF RS.2 78 35 481/- TO THE INCOME RETURN ED AS EXCESS PAYMENT TREATED AS ADJUSTMENT UNDER SECTION 92CA. 3.4. ASSESSEE RAISED OBJECTIONS BEFORE THE DRP WIT H REFERENCE TO WORKING OF SEGMENTAL PROFITS REJECTIO N OF ASSESSEES T.P. STUDY AND ALSO REJECTION OF SOME OF THE COMPARABLES. HOWEVER THE DRP EXCEPT ADJUSTING THE COMPARABLES AVERAGE MARGIN FROM 13.15% TO 11.83% RE JECTED OTHER CONTENTIONS. HENCE THE PRESENT APPEAL. 4. LD. COUNSEL REFERRED TO GROUND NO.9 WITH REFERE NCE TO REJECTING COMPANIES SIMILAR TO ASSESSEE WHILE PE RFORMING COMPARABILITY ANALYSIS AND ALSO ERROR IN COMPUTING THE MARK- UP OF ONE COMPARABLE COMPANY. ASSESSEE HAS RESTRICT ED THE OBJECTIONS WITH REFERENCE TO EXCLUSION OF FOUR COMP ANIES I.E. (1) CAPITAL FOODS LTD. (2) MTR FOODS (3) SHIVADEEP INDUSTRIES LIMITED (4) VENKATARAMANA FOOD SPECIALITY LIMITED ( VFSL) 5 ITA.NO.160/HYD/2014 AGRO TECH FOODS LIMITED SECUNDERABAD. WHICH ASSESSEE CONTENDS ARE SIMILAR IN NATURE TO A SSESSEES BUSINESS. REGARDING TASTY BITES A COMPARABLE SELECT ED THE OBJECTION IS ON WORKING THE MARGINS. THE DETAILED S UBMISSIONS OF EACH OF THE ISSUE ARE AS UNDER. 1. CAPITAL FOODS LIMITED (CAPITAL FOODS). ASSSESSEE SUBMITS THAT CAPITAL FOODS IS ENGAGED IN MANUFACTURE AND SALE OF READY TO EAT MIXES. IT SELL S UNDER VARIOUS BRANDS LIKE CHINGS SECRET SMITH & JONE S AS WELL AS SELLING SNACK FOOD. IT MAY BE NOTED THAT LD . TPO HAS SELECTED TASTY BITES LIMITED AND ADF FOOD LIMIT ED AS COMPARABLE COMPANIES WHICH HAVE SIMILAR FUNCTIONAL PROFILE TO THAT OF CAPITAL FOODS.CONSIDERING THE FU NCTIONAL SIMILARITY OF CAPITAL FOODS WITH THAT OF ASSESSEE THE COMPANY HAS TO BE ACCEPTED AS COMPARABLE. 2. MTR FOODS LIMITED (MTR) ASSESSEE SUBMITS THAT MTR IS ENGAGED IN THE SALE O F READY TO EAT FOODS LIKE SNACK FOODS READY-TO-EAT C URRIES GRAVIES FROZEN FOOD ETC. ASSESSEE SUBMITS THAT TH E LD. TPO HAS IGNORED THE FACT THAT ASSESSEE IS ENGAGED I N THE READY TO EAT SNACK FOOD WHICH IS AKIN TO THE BUSINE SS CARRIED ON BY MTR. THE LD. TPO HAS SELECTED ADF FOO D LIMITED (ADF) AND TASTY BITE AS COMPARABLES WHICH A RE INTO THE SAME FUNCTIONAL PROFILE OF MTR. 3. SHIVDEEP INDUSTRIES LIMITED (SHIVDEEP) : ASSESSEE SUBMITS THAT SHIVDEEP IS MANUFACTURER AND EXPORTER OF BHUJIYA NAMKEEN SWEETS PAPAD SOHAN PAPRI AND RASGULLA. THE EXTRACTS FROM THE SHIVDEEP S WEBSITE EXHIBITS THE PRODUCTS WHICH ARE MANUFACTURE D AND SOLD IN A PACKAGED STATE WHICHA RE READY TO USE/CONSUMED. THE PRODUCT PROFILE OF THE COMPANY IS SIMILAR O THE COMPARABLES ACCEPTED BY LD. TPO AND T O THAT OF ASSESSEE. LD. TPO ALSO REJECTED SHIVDEEP AS COMPARABLE AS NO DATA HAS BEEN MADE AVAILABLE. ASSESSEE SUBMITS THAT ANNUAL REPORT/FINANCIAL DATE OF SHIVDEEP FOR F.Y. 2009-10 ARE VERY MUCH AVAILABLE. ASSESSEE HAS EXTRACTED THE DETAILS FROM PROWESS AND PROVIDED AS A PART OF PAPER BOOK. (REFER PAGE 637 T O 672 OF PAPER BOOK). IT IS PERTINENT TO NOTE THAT FOR RE JECTING HALDIRAM BHUJIWALA LIMITED FOR WHICH THE ANNUAL R EPORT FOR F.Y. 2008-09 WAS NOT AVAILABLE THE LD. TPO HAS USED 6 ITA.NO.160/HYD/2014 AGRO TECH FOODS LIMITED SECUNDERABAD. THE ANNUAL REPORT OF F.Y. 2009-10 FOR ANALYZING THA T THE COMPANY IS NOT COMPARABLE. 4. VENKATRAMANA FOOD SPECIALITY LIMITED (VFSL) VFSL IS CONSISTENTLY RECOGNISED AS A PROMINENT MANUFACTURER AND SUPPLIER OF SNACK FOODS KEEPING IN MIND TO PRESERVE THE TRADITIONAL VALUES OF THE PRODUCT I N ITS 18 YEAR OLD BUSINESS ENTITY. THE COMPANY HAS MAD A PRESENCE FELT FOR ITSELF OVER THE YEARS IN THE INDI AN SNACK FOOD MARKET AND HAS TOP-OP-THE-MIND RECALL. THE EXT RACTS FROM THE VFSL WEBSITE SHOWS THAT THE PRODUCTS WHICH ARE MANUFACTURED AND SOLD IN A PACKAGED CONDITION AND A RE READY TO EAT SNACKS. THE LD. TPO HAS IGNORED THE FUNCTIONAL SIMILARITY AND REJECTED VFSL AS A COMPAR ABLE. 5. TASTY BITES EATABLES LIMITED ASSESSEE SUBMITS THAT LD. TPO HAS INCORRECTLY COMP UTED THE MARK-UP OF TASTY BITES SELECTED AS COMPARABLE. IN THE PAGE 15 OF THE TP ORDER THE LD. TPO HAS STATED THA T INCOME NOT PERTAINING TO OPERATIONS ARE NON-OPERA TING IN NATURE AND ACCORDINGLY TO BE EXCLUDED WHILE COMPUTI NG OPERATING PROFIT. HOWEVER LD. TPO HAS CONSIDERED T HE FOLLOWING INCOME AS OPERATIONAL INCOME WHILE DETERMINING THE MARK-UP OF 9.18% FOR TASTY BITES: A) INCOME FROM COLD STORAGE RENTALS AND B) INCOME FROM PROCESSING CHARGES. NO APPROPRIATE REASON WAS PROVIDED BY LD. PANEL AND MERELY STATED THAT IT HARDLY WILL HAVE ANY IMPACT ON THE MARGIN. 5. IN THE LIGHT OF THE ABOVE LD. COUNSEL SUBMITTE D THAT MARK-UP IN THE CASE OF TASTY BITES EATABLES LT D. HAS TO BE CORRECTED AND FOUR COMPARABLES WHICH ARE ON SI MILAR LINES SHOULD BE INCLUDED. 5.1. LEARNED D.R. RELIED ON THE ORDERS OF THE TPO TO SUBMIT THAT THESE COMPANIES ARE EXCLUDED BECAUSE TH EY ARE NOT IN SIMILAR LINE OF BUSINESS. 6. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS. ON PERUSAL OF THE TPO ORDER IN THE FAR ANALYSIS IT IS CLEARLY STATED THAT ASSESSEE IS IN THE MANUFACTURE OF NOT O NLY BRANDED 7 ITA.NO.160/HYD/2014 AGRO TECH FOODS LIMITED SECUNDERABAD. OILS BUT ALSO BRANDED FOODS UNDER VARIOUS BRAND NAM ES. ALONG WITH THAT ASSESSEE ALSO IMPORTS SOME RAW MATERIAL RE- PACKAGES THEM BY MAKING VALUE ADDITION AND SELLS IT S PRODUCTS IN THE FOOD CATEGORY. SOME OF THE OTHER PRODUCTS AR E ALSO DIRECTLY IMPORTED AND TRADED. IN FACT THE TPO CONS IDERED THE COMPANIES WHICH ARE SELECTED BY ASSESSEE IN HIS ANA LYSIS AS A MANUFACTURER AND MARKETER OF FOOD PRODUCTS. THE COM PANIES SELECTED ARE ALSO ON SIMILAR LINE OF BUSINESS. HOWE VER AS SEEN FROM THE ANALYSIS IN PAGES 10 TO 12 OF THE ORDER T HE COMPANIES ASSESSEE HAS AGREED FOR INCLUSION ARE REJECTED ONLY ON THE BASIS OF ASSESSEE COMPANY ENGAGED IN SALE OF READY TO EA T ITEMS. THIS FINDING OF THE TPO CANNOT BE SUPPORTED BECAUSE ASSESSEE IS ALSO MANUFACTURING FOOD ITEMS AND SO REASONING G IVEN BY THE TPO CANNOT BE SUPPORTED. FOR EXAMPLE THE REASONING GIVEN FOR CAPITAL GOODS IN THE TPO ORDER IS AS UNDER : THE COMPANY IS ENGAGED IN MANUFACTURING KETCH-UPS CHUTNEY AND PASTES BAKED BEANS & SOUPS DHOKLA ID LI PATRA & SULI MAI HAKKA AND INSTANT NOODLES SOUPS & SAUCES MIXES MAYONNAISE CUSTARD AND JELLY WHEREAS ASSESSEE COMPANY IS ENGAGED IN SALE OF READY TO EAT ITEMS. THE COMPANY IS FUNCTIONALLY DIFFERENT AND HENCE IS NOT COMPARABLE. ( EMPH ASIS SUPPLIED) 6.1. LIKEWISE THE TPO REJECTED THE OTHER THREE COMPANIES ALSO GIVING THE SAME REASONING. SINCE ASS ESSEE IS ALSO INVOLVED IN MANUFACTURING AND MARKETING OF FOO D ITEMS WE ARE OF THE OPINION THAT THESE FOUR COMPANIES ALS O SHOULD BE INCLUDED IN COMPARABILITY ANALYSIS. INFACT TPO WAS SELECTIVE IN SELECTING SOME AND REJECTING SOME WHICH ARE IN SIMI LAR LINE OF BUSINESS. WITH REFERENCE TO THE TASTY BITE EATABLE S LTD. WHICH IS ALSO IN THE BUSINESS OF MANUFACTURING AND MARKETING THE TPO INCLUDED THAT AS FUNCTIONALLY SIMILAR BUT A CCORDING TO ASSESSEE COMPUTED THE MARGIN WRONGLY. THIS REQUIRE S RE- EXAMINATION BY THE TPO AS TPO HIMSELF HAS GIVEN A F INDING 8 ITA.NO.160/HYD/2014 AGRO TECH FOODS LIMITED SECUNDERABAD. THAT TAX PAYER HAS INCLUDED INCOME FROM COLD STORAG E AS OPERATING INCOME VIDE PARA 16 OF THE ORDER UNDER IT EM NO.3. HE HAS OPINED THAT OPERATING INCOME SHOULD BE EXCLUDED AND MANUFACTURING OF SNACKS AND OPERATION OF COLD STORA GE CANNOT BE EVEN CONSIDERED TO BE CLOSELY RELATED SO AS TO A GGREGATE IT. HOWEVER IT WAS THE CONTENTION THAT A.O. INCLUDED I NCOME OF COLD STORAGE RENTALS AND PROCESSING CHARGES IN THE COMPUTATION OF MARK-UP. IF CORRECT MARK-UP WAS CONS IDERED IT WOULD BE ABOUT 3.41% RAHER THAN 9.18% DETERMINED BY THE A.O./TPO. IN VIEW OF THIS WE DIRECT THE TPO TO RE- EXAMINE THIS COMPUTATION OF MARK-UP BY GIVING DUE OPPORTUNITY TO ASSESSEE AND RE-WORKOUT THE ADJUSTMENT AND ALSO BY INCLUDING THE ABOVE FOUR COMPARABLES WHICH ARE ALSO ON THE SAME L INE OF BUSINESS. GROUND NO. 9 OF ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED FOR S TATISTICAL PURPOSES. 7. GROUND NO.10 PERTAINS TO NOT GRANTING CREDIT OF TAX DEDUCTED AT SOURCE TO THE EXTENT OF RS.59 73 427. A SSESSEE CLAIMED CREDIT OF TDS TO AN EXTENT OF 1 12 33 343 I N THE REVISED RETURN FILED FOR THE IMPUGNED ASSESSMENT YEAR. THE ENTIRE AMOUNT OF RS.1 12 33 343 WAS GIVEN CREDIT IN THE IN TIMATION UNDER SECTION 143(1). HOWEVER WHILE PASSING THE OR DER UNDER SECTION 143(3) A.O. GRANTED TDS CREDIT ONLY TO THE EXTENT OF RS.52 59 916 AND DENIED TDS CREDIT TO AN EXTENT OF RS.59 73 427. EVEN THOUGH THE APPLICATION UNDER SEC TION 154 WAS PASSED IT SEEMS THE SAME WAS REJECTED. SINCE F ORM 26A ALSO REFLECTS TDS CREDIT OF MORE THAN WHAT ASSESSE E CLAIMED WE ARE OF THE OPINION THAT THERE IS NO REASON TO DE NY THE AMOUNT OF CREDIT WHICH WAS ALREADY GRANTED IN AN OR DER UNDER SECTION 143(1). A.O. IS DIRECTED TO EXAMINE AND ALL OW CREDIT ACCORDINGLY. GROUND NO.10 OF ASSESSEE IS CONSIDERED AS ALLOWED. 9 ITA.NO.160/HYD/2014 AGRO TECH FOODS LIMITED SECUNDERABAD. 8. GROUND NO.11 PERTAINING TO GRANTING MAT CREDIT TO AN EXTENT OF RS.1 13 72 216 AS AGAINST RS.1 28 84 7 21 CLAIMED THEREBY SHORT ALLOWANCE OF RS.15 12 505. HERE ALSO IT WAS THE SUBMISSION THAT ENTIRE CREDIT WAS GIVEN IN THE INTI MATION UNDER SECTION 143(1) BUT IN THE FINAL ORDER PASSED UNDER SECTION 143(3) THE MAT CREDIT WAS RESTRICTED TO RS.1 13 72 216 WITHOUT SPECIFICALLY MENTIONING ANY REASON. HERE AL SO THE APPLICATION UNDER SECTION 154 SEEMS TO HAVE BEEN RE JECTED BY THE A.O. THEREFORE WE DIRECT THE A.O. TO EXAMINE A ND ALLOW CORRECT CREDIT BY GIVING DUE OPPORTUNITY TO ASSESSE E. GROUND NO.11 IS CONSIDERED AS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURP OSES. 9. GROUNDS NO.12 AND 13 PERTAINS TO LEVY OF INTERE ST CONSEQUENTIALLY UNDER SECTION 234B AND 234C. SINCE THIS LEVY OF INTEREST IS LINKED TO GIVING CREDIT OF TDS/MAT C REDIT AND ALSO TO THE ADDITIONS BEING MADE IN THE ORDER WE DIRECT THE A.O. TO RE-WORKOUT THE INTEREST WHILE GIVING EFFECT TO THE ORDER AND ASSESSEE SHOULD BE GIVEN DUE OPPORTUNITY BEFORE LEV Y OF ANY INTEREST AND THE ORDER SHOULD ALSO MENTION ABOUT TH E CALCULATIONS OF THE INTEREST IF ANY. WITH THESE DIR ECTIONS GROUNDS NO. 12 AND 13 OF ASSESSEE ARE ALLOWED FOR S TATISTICAL PURPOSES. 10. IN THE RESULT APPEAL OF ASSESSEE IS CONSIDERE D AS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT O N 31.07.2014. SD/- SD/- (SAKTIJIT DEY) (B.RAMAKOTAIAH) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER HYDERABAD DATED 31 ST JULY 2014. VBP/- 10 ITA.NO.160/HYD/2014 AGRO TECH FOODS LIMITED SECUNDERABAD. COPY TO 1. AGRO TECH FOODS LIMITED 31 SAROJINI DEVI ROAD SECUNDERABAD 500 003. 2. DCIT CIRCLE 1(1) HYDERABAD 3. DRP HYDERABAD 4. DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX (IT & T.P.) HYDERABAD 5. ADDL. CIT (TRANSFER PRICING) HYDERABAD 6. D.R. ITAT B BENCH HYDERABAD.