Hyundai Motors India Engineering Private Limited, Hyderabad v. Dy.CIT, Circle-2(2),, Hyderabad

ITA 255/HYD/2014 | 2009-2010
Pronouncement Date: 31-07-2014 | Result: Partly Allowed

Appeal Details

RSA Number 25522514 RSA 2014
Assessee PAN AABCH7867C
Bench Hyderabad
Appeal Number ITA 255/HYD/2014
Duration Of Justice 5 month(s) 9 day(s)
Appellant Hyundai Motors India Engineering Private Limited, Hyderabad
Respondent Dy.CIT, Circle-2(2),, Hyderabad
Appeal Type Income Tax Appeal
Pronouncement Date 31-07-2014
Appeal Filed By Assessee
Order Result Partly Allowed
Bench Allotted A
Tribunal Order Date 31-07-2014
Assessment Year 2009-2010
Appeal Filed On 19-02-2014
Judgment Text
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL HYDERABAD BENCH B' HYDERABAD BEFORE SHRI B.RAMAKOTAIAH ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI SAKTIJIT DEY JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA NO.255/HYD/14 ASSESSMENT YEAR 2009-10 M/S. HYUNDAI MOTORS INDIA ENGINEERING P. LTD. HYDERABAD ( PAN - AABCH 7867 C ) V/S. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX CIRCLE 2(2) HYDERABAD (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY : SHRI H.SRINIVASULU RESPONDENT BY : SHRI P.SOMA SEKHARA REDDY DR DATE OF HEARI NG 29 .0 5 .2014 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT 31.07.2014 O R D E R PER B.RAMAKOTAIAH ACCOUNTANT MEMBER: THIS APPEAL BY ASSESSEE IS DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDER OF ASSESSMENT DATED 13 TH JANUARY 2014 PASSED UNDER S.143(3) READ WITH S.92CA AND 144C(5) OF THE ACT I N PURSUANCE OF THE ORDER OF THE DISPUTE RESOLUTION PA NEL HYDERABAD DATED 26.12.2013 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2009- 10. ITA NO.255/HYD/2014 M/S. HYUNDAI MOTOR INDIA ENGINEERING P. LTD. HYD. 2 2. THE ASSESSEE RAISED FOUR GROUNDS INVOLVING VARIOUS SUB-GROUNDS OUT OF WHICH GROUND NO.1 GROUN D NO.2.1.1 2.1.2 AND GROUND NO.4 ARE GENERAL IN NAT URE. IN THE COURSE OF ARGUMENTS THE LEARNED COUNSEL HAS NO T PRESSED THE GROUNDS NO. 2.4. ON REJECTION OF USAGE OF MULTIPLE YEAR DATA BY THE ASSESSEE IN ITS TP STUDY. ISSUE IN THESE APPEALS IS WITH REFERENCE TO TRANSFER PRICING ADJUSTMENTS MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER/TPO; AND CHARGING OF INTEREST UNDER S.234B AND 234C. IN THE COURSE OF ARGUMENTS THE LEARNED COUNSEL CONFINED HIS ARGU MENTS TO THE SELECTION OF COMPARABLES ON VARIOUS FILTERS AND THE ARGUMENTS ARE ACCORDINGLY MADE. GROUND NO.2.3.5 SEE KING INCLUSION OF COMPARABLES SELECTED BY THE ASSESSEE I N ITS TRANSFER PRICING STUDY WAS NOT PRESSED. THEREFORE THE MAIN ARGUMENTS RELATE TO EXCLUSION OF SEVEN COMPARABLES INCLUDED BY THE TPO IN HIS TRANSFER PRICING ORDER. 3. WE HAVE HEARD THE LEARNED AUTHORISED REPRESENTATIVE AND THE LEARNED DEPARTMENTAL REPRESE NTATIVE IN DETAIL PERUSED THE PAPER-BOOKS PLACED ON RECORD ALONG WITH THE SUMMARY OF THE CHARTS PREPARED ABOUT STATE MENTS OF VARIOUS COMPARABLES. IN THE COURSE OF ARGUMENTS THE LEARNED COUNSEL RELIED ON VARIOUS DECISIONS OF THE COORDINATE BENCHES FOR EXCLUSION OF CERTAIN COMPARABLES. WHAT WE NOTICE IS THAT MANY OF THE ORDERS PERTAIN TO EARLIE R YEARS AND NOT FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR INVOLVED IN THIS APPEAL . TRANSFER PRICING ISSUES MAINLY RELY ON THE FACTUAL MATRIX OF EACH CASE IN EACH ASSESSMENT YEAR. THEREFORE WHILE CONSIDER ING SOME OF THE PRINCIPLES ESTABLISHED IN VARIOUS DECISIONS OF THE COORDINATE BENCHES OF EARLIER YEARS WE COULD NOT A PPLY THE ITA NO.255/HYD/2014 M/S. HYUNDAI MOTOR INDIA ENGINEERING P. LTD. HYD. 3 FINDINGS THEREON UNLESS FACTS ARE SIMILAR. SUFFICE TO SAY THAT WE HAVE CONSIDERED ALL CASE-LAW WHILE DECIDING THE ISSUES RELIED ON BY THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE PARTICULARLY OF THE HYDERABAD BENCHES OF THE TRIBU NAL IN HYUNDAI MOTORS INDIA ENGINEERING P. LTD. HYDERABAD V/S. ITO WARD 2(2) HYDERABAD (ITA NO.1850/HYD/2012 FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2008-09 DATED 21.2.2014); IN CAPITA L IQ INFORMATION SYSTEMS (INDIA) PVT. LTD. HYDERABAD V/ S. DY. CIT (ITA NO.1961/HYD/2011 FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2007- 08 DATED 23.11.2012) AND M/S. ZAVATA INDIA PRIVATE LTD. HYDERABAD V/S. ITO WARD 3(2) HYDERABAD (ITA NO.628/HYD/2008 FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2004-05 DATED 13.1.2013) AND OF THE BANGALORE BENCH OF THE TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF SYMPHONY MARKETING (IT(TP)A NO.1316/BANG/2012 DATED 14.8.2013) WHICH BASICALLY PERTAIN TO EARLIER ASSESSMENT YEARS AND NOT FOR THE YEAR UNDER APPEAL IN THIS CASE. 4. BRIEFLY STATED ASSESSEE HYUNDAI MOTOR INDIA ENGINEERING P. LTD (IN SHORT HMIEPL) IS A COMPANY INCORPORATED IN NOVEMBER 2006 AS A SUBSIDIARY OF H YUNDAI MOTOR INDIA LIMITED (IN SHORT HMIL). THE ASSESSEE HMIEPL AND HMIL FORMED PART OF HYUNDAI MOTOR COMPANY KORE A. THE ASSESSEE IS ENGAGED IN THE BUSINESS OF PROVIDIN G SUPPORT SERVICES IN CONNECTION WITH COMPUTER AIDED ENGINEER ING (IN SHORT CAE) / COMPUTER AIDED DESIGN (IN SHORT CAD ). THE ASSESSEE IS INVOLVED IN PROVIDING SUPPORT SERVICES IN CONNECTION OF MODELING AND ITERATIVE SIMULATION. IT RECEIVES THE BASIC DESIGN FROM ITS GROUP COMPANY. WITH RESPE CT TO CAD MODELLING ASSESSEE MAKES A 3-D CAD MODELLING D ATA OF ITA NO.255/HYD/2014 M/S. HYUNDAI MOTOR INDIA ENGINEERING P. LTD. HYD. 4 VEHICLE COMPONENTS USING CAD SOFTWARE TOOLS. THE CA E MODELLING SERVICES COMPRISES OF FINITE MODELLING FO R THE COMPUTER SIMULATION WHICH WOULD INVOLVE BREAKING DO WN THE MODEL INTO VARIOUS STRUCTURES. THE TPO AS WELL AS T HE ASSESSEE CHARECTERISED ASSESSEE AS A ROUTINE SUPPOR T SERVICE PROVIDER WITH SKILLED AND TRAINED WORKFORCE AND IT ASSUMES LESS THAN NORMAL RISK ASSOCIATED WITH CARRYING OUT SUCH BUSINESS. 5. DURING THE YEAR ASSESSEES OPERATING REVENUE WAS TO THE TUNE OF RS.24.91 CRORES AND OPERATING CO ST WAS RS.23.40 CRORES. THE OPERATING PROFIT TO COST RATIO WAS 6.44%. IN ITS TRANSFER PRICING REPORT ASSESSEE REP ORTED I.T. ENABLED SERVICES (IN SHORT ITES) AT RS.22.03 CROR ES AND REIMBURSEMENT OF EXPENDITURE OF RS.45 568. ASSESSE E IN ITS TRANSFER PRICING STUDY SELECTED TNMM AS THE MOST APPROPRIATE METHOD. EVEN THOUGH THERE IS NO DISPUT E WITH REFERENCE TO THE METHOD ADOPTED THE TPO REJECTED T HE DOCUMENTATION MAINTAINED BY ASSESSEE ON THE REASONS THAT MULTIPLE YEAR DATA WAS USED; HAS NOT APPLIED EXPORT FILTERS PROPERLY; AND ALSO SELECTED SOME OF THE COMPANIES W HICH ARE NOT FUNCTIONALLY SIMILAR. AFTER ANALYZING THE REAS ONS THE TPO UNDERTOOK FRESH SEARCH OF COMPARABLES AND AFTER DETAILED ANALYSIS GAVE A SHOW CAUSE NOTICE TO ASSE SSEE FOR ITS OBJECTIONS TO THE SELECTION OF 14 COMPARABLES. ULTIMATELY THE TPO DETERMINED THE FOLLOWING TWELVE COMPANIES A S COMPARABLES AND ARRIVED AT THE AVERAGE PROFIT LEVEL INDICATOR (PLI) OF 27.42% AS PER THE DETAILS TABULATED HEREU NDER- ITA NO.255/HYD/2014 M/S. HYUNDAI MOTOR INDIA ENGINEERING P. LTD. HYD. 5 SL. NO. COMPANY NAME OPERATING REVENUE RS.(IN CRORES) PBIT/COST % 1. ACCENTIA TECHNOLOGIES LIMITED 78.73 49.40 2. ACROPETAL TECHNOLOGIES LTD. (SEG.) 33.13 25.01 3. ADITYA BIRLA MINACS WORLDWIDE LTD. 231.57 0.53 4. COSMIC GLOBAL LTD. 7.76 48.20 5. CROSSDOMAIN SOLUTIONS P. LTD 33.76 29.38 6. ECLERX SERVICES LTD. 187.98 53.44 7. INFOSYS B P O LTD. 101.62 16.90 8. JEEVAN SOFTECH TECHNOLOGY LTD. 1.79 16.56 9. MICROLAND LIMITED 144.05 2.35 10. MICROGENETIC SYSTEMS LTD. 1.27 10.11 11. R.SYSTEMS INTERNATIONAL LTD.(SEG.) 26.55 5.77 12. GENESYS INTERNATIONAL LTD. 83.18 71.50 ARITHMETIC MEAN 27.42 6. HAVING ARRIVED AT THE ARITHMETIC MEAN PLI AT 27.42% THE TPO ALLOWED WORKING CAPITAL ADJUSTMENT AT 2.05%. THE ARITHMETIC MEAN PLI WAS DETERMINED AT 25 .37% AND TAKING THE OPERATING COST OF RS.37.42 CRORES T HE TPO SUGGESTED ADJUSTMENT OF RS.4 42 02 149 UNDER S.92CA . 7. THE ASSESSING OFFICER ISSUED A DRAFT ASSESSMENT ORDER PROPOSING TO MAKE THE ADJUSTMENT AND ASSESSEE FILED ITS OBJECTIONS BEFORE THE DRP. THE DRP VIDE ITS ORD ER RUNNING INTO 14 PAGES REJECTED GROUNDS RAISED BY THE ASSES SEE ON TP ADJUSTMENTS. AS THE DRP CONFIRMED THE TRANSFER PR ICING ITA NO.255/HYD/2014 M/S. HYUNDAI MOTOR INDIA ENGINEERING P. LTD. HYD. 6 ADJUSTMENT MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND THE TP O ASSESSEE IS IN APPEAL BEFORE US. 8. ASSESSEE HAS RAISED GROUNDS ON VARIOUS ASPECTS OF TRANSFER PRICING ADJUSTMENTS LIKE REJECTION OF ASSESSEES TP STUDY USE OF FILTERS OBTAINING DATA UNDER S.13 3(6) OF THE ACT WHICH IS NOT AVAILABLE IN PUBLIC DOMAIN SELECT ION OF COMPARABLES AND RISK PROFILE OF ASSESSEE COMPANY VI S--VIS COMPARABLE COMPANIES. AS ALREADY STATED IN THE CO URSE OF ARGUMENTS LEARNED COUNSEL RESTRICTED HIS ARGUMENTS TO THE SELECTION OF COMPARABLES. ASSESSEE IS OBJECTING TO SEVEN COMPARABLES SELECTED BY THE TPO. 9. WE HAVE HEARD THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR ASSESSEE AND THE LEARNED DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE IN DETA IL AND THEIR ARGUMENTS ARE CONSIDERED AT THE APPROPRIATE S TAGES OF THIS ORDER. AS BRIEFLY STATED ASSESSEE IS OBJECTI NG TO THE FOLLOWING SEVEN COMPARABLES OUT OF TWELVE COMPARABL ES SELECTED BY THE TPO. SL. NO. COMPANY NAME 1. INFOSYS B P O LTD. 2. GENESYS INTERNATIONAL LTD. 3. ECLERX SERVICES LTD. 4. COSMIC GLOBAL LTD. 5. ACROPETAL TECHNOLOGIES LTD. (SEG.) 6. ACCENTIA TECHNOLOGIES LIMITED 7. CROSSDOMAIN SOLUTIONS P. LTD IT WAS SUBMITTED THAT IF THESE COMPARABLES WERE CON SIDERED OTHER ISSUES RELATING TO TRANSFER PRICING ADJUSTMEN T BECOME ACADEMIC IN NATURE. ITA NO.255/HYD/2014 M/S. HYUNDAI MOTOR INDIA ENGINEERING P. LTD. HYD. 7 10. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE CONTENTIONS OF THE PARTIES AND EXAMINED THE DOCUMENTS AND PAPER-BOOKS PLACED ON RECORD. CORRECTNESS OF INCLUSION OF THE A BOVE COMPANIES IS DECIDED HEREUNDER CASE BY CASE. (1) INFOSYS B P O LTD. : 11. IT WAS THE CONTENTION OF ASSESSEE THAT THIS B PO IS A GIANT IN ITS AREA AND HAS BRAND VALUE OF INF OSYS TECHNOLOGIES LIMITED. ASSESSEES MAIN CONTENTION WA S THAT IT IS NOT FUNCTIONALLY SIMILAR AND ITS TURNOVER IS MUC H MORE WHEN COMPARED TO THAT OF ASSESSEE. IT WAS ALSO CON TENDED THAT THE INFOSYS BPO HAS DONE BRAND BUILDING EXERCI SE BY INCURRING LARGE AMOUNTS OF BRAND BUILDING AND ADVER TISEMENT EXPENDITURE AND UNDERTAKING BRAND CAMPAIGNING OUTSI DE INDIA. FURTHER IT ALSO HAS HUGE ASSET BASE AND TH EREFORE THIS COMPANY IS NOT FUNCTIONALLY COMPARABLE TO ASSE SSEE. ASSESSEE RELIED ON THE DECISION OF THE HONBLE DELH I HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT V/S. AGNITY INDIA TECHNOLO GIES PVT. LTD. (2013) 219 TAXMAN 26 (DEL) WHEREIN IT WAS HE LD THAT HUGE TURNOVER COMPANIES LIKE INFOSYS AND WIPRO CAN NOT BE CONSIDERED AS COMPARABLE TO SMALLER COMPANIES LIKE ASSESSEE. 11.1 WE ARE IN AGREEMENT WITH THE CONTENTIONS OF THE COMPARABILITY ON TURNOVER RATIO OF ASSESSEE WITH TH IS COMPANY ON THE GROUND THAT ASSESSEES TURNOVER IS A BOUT RS.15.79 CRORES AS AGAINST TURNOVER OF RS.1016 CRO RES OF THE INFOSYS. WE ARE ALSO OF THE VIEW THAT OTHER CONTEN TIONS WITH REGARD TO THE BRAND VALUE AND BRAND BUILDING EXERC ISE HAVING HUGE ASSET BASE CAN BE CONSIDERED TO ARRIVE AT THE ITA NO.255/HYD/2014 M/S. HYUNDAI MOTOR INDIA ENGINEERING P. LTD. HYD. 8 CONCLUSION THAT INFOSYS BPO IS FUNCTIONALLY NOT SIM ILAR TO THAT OF ASSESSEE. INFOSYS BPO STANDS ON ITS OWN AS AN EXCLUSIVE BPO OF THE INFOSYS TECHNOLOGIES AND IN EARLIER YEAR S GENERALLY INFOSYS BPO IS EXCLUDED IN MANY OF THE C ASES. CONSIDERING THESE ASPECTS WE ARE OF THE OPINION TH AT EVEN THOUGH THE PROFITS OF THE INFOSYS BPO LTD. IS REASO NABLE AND NO SUPER PROFITS ARE EARNED BECAUSE OF ITS BIG BRA ND VALUE THIS COMPANY HAS TO BE EXCLUDED ON THE GROUNDS OF FUNCTIONAL DISSIMILARITY ON FAR ANALYSIS. THEREFORE WE DIRECT THE ASSESSING OFFICER/TPO TO EXCLUDE THIS COMPANY. (2) GENESYS INTERNATIONAL LTD. 12. IT WAS THE CONTENTION THAT THIS COMPANY FUNCTIONS IN TWO HORIZONTALS AND IS HAVING SUPER P ROFITS. IT WAS FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT THIS COMPANY IS NOT ONLY IN SOFTWARE DEVELOPMENT BUT ALSO IN GEOSPATIAL SERVICE S WHICH ARE HIGHLY TECHNICAL. IT ALSO INVOLVED IN CONSULTI NG ACTIVITY. IT WAS THE CONTENTION THAT THIS COMPANY WAS ANALYSE D BY THE COORDINATE BENCH OF THE TRIBUNAL AT DELHI IN THE CA SE OF M/S. MERCER CONSULTING (INDIA) LTD. V/S DCIT (VIDE ORDE R DATED 6 TH JUNE 2014 IN ITA NO.966/DEL/2014) FOR SAME ASSESSMENT YEAR WHEREIN THIS COMPANY WAS EXCLUDED IN THAT CASE. LEARNED COUNSEL FOR ASSESSEE RELIED UPON THE FINDINGS OF THE TRIBUNAL VIDE PARAS 14.2 AND 14.3 IN THAT C ASE WHICH READ AS FOLLOWS- 14.2. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS A ND PERUSED THE RIVAL MATERIALS ON RECORD. IT HAS BEEN NOTICED SUPRA THAT ASSESSEE IS BASICALLY PROV IDING VARIOUS SERVICES TO THE CUSTOMERS OF ITS AES IN RELATION TO HUMAN RESOURCES WHICH ARE MORE OR LESS CENTERED AROUND THE EMPLOYEES OF THE ITA NO.255/HYD/2014 M/S. HYUNDAI MOTOR INDIA ENGINEERING P. LTD. HYD. 9 PROSPECTIVE CLIENTS. WHEN WE CONSIDER THE NATU RE OF SERVICES PROVIDED BY GENESYS INTERNATIONAL CORPORATION LTD. IT COMES TO THE FOREFRONT THAT THEY ARE PROVIDING FULL RANGE OF GEOSPATIAL SERVICE S TO ITS CUSTOMERS. IN SIMPLE TERMS GEOSPATIAL SERVI CES MEANS THE SERVICES RELATING TO THE RELATIVE P OSITION OF THINGS ON THE EARTHS SURFACE. THESE BASI CALLY INCLUDE 3D MAPPING NAVIGATION MAPS IMAGE PROCESSING CADASTRAL MAPPING ETC. IF WE TA KE INTO ACCOUNT THE NATURE OF SERVICES PROVIDED BY THE ASSESSEE BEING FINANCIAL AND RETIREMENT SECURITY HEALTH PRODUCTIVITY OF EMPLOYEES AN D EMPLOYMENT RELATIONSHIPS AND THEN TRY TO COMP ARE THEM WITH THOSE RENDERED BY GENESYS IT IS MANIFESTED THAT BOTH ARE TOTALLY INCOMPARABLE. 14.3. THE TPO ON PAGE 48 OF HIS ORDER HAS EXAMINED CBDT CIRCULAR SO 890 (E) DATED 26.9.2000 WHICH PROVIDES A DETAILED LIST OF PRODUCTS OR SERVI CES THAT CAN BE COVERED UNDER THE ITES FOR THE PURPOSES OF SECTION 10A AND 10B OF THE ACT. IN THIS CIRCULAR INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY ENABLED PRODUCTS/SERVICES HAVE BEEN DIVIDED INTO FIFTEE N CATEGORIES STARTING WITH BANK OFFICE OPERATIO NS CALL CENTRES ETC. AND ENDING WITH WEBSITE SERVICES. FROM THE VERY DESCRIPTION OF SUCH SERVICES IT IS PALPABLE THAT EVEN THOUGH THESE FALL UNDER THE OVERALL ITES CATEGORY BUT SOME OF THEM ARE QUITE DIFFERENT FROM EACH OTHER. TO CITE SERVICE AT SL.NO. (VI) OF THIS CIRCULAR IS GEOGRAPHIC INFORMATION SYSTEM SERVICES AND AT SL. NO. (V II) IS HUMAN RESOURCES SERVICES. NO DOUBT ALL THESE FIFTEEN CATEGORIES OF PRODUCTS/SERVICES HAVE BEEN INCLUDED UNDER THE MAJOR HEAD OF INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY ENABLED SERVICES (ITES) BUT MOST OF THEM ARE QUITE DISTINGUISHABLE FROM OTHERS. IN OU R CONSIDERED OPINION THE FIFTEEN BROAD CATEGORIES SE T OUT IN THIS CIRCULAR CANNOT PER SE BE CLAIMED AS SIMILA R TO EACH OTHER. A CURSORY LOOK AT THESE PRODUCTS/SERVIC ES TRANSPIRES THAT SOME OF THEM ARE FUNCTIONALLY QUITE DIFFERENT FROM EACH OTHER. FURTHER THE LEVEL OF INVESTMENT REQUIRED FOR PROVIDING SUCH SERVICES I S ALSO NOT CONSISTENT. IN OUR CONSIDERED OPINI ON THE MERE FACT THAT TWO SERVICES ARE PLACED UNDER THIS CATEGORY DO NOT BECOME AUTOMATICALLY COMPARABLE. ITA NO.255/HYD/2014 M/S. HYUNDAI MOTOR INDIA ENGINEERING P. LTD. HYD. 10 IF A CASE PROVIDING ONE CATEGORY OF SERVICES UNDER ITES IS CLAIMED AS COMPARABLE WITH ANOTHER IN THE CATEGORY OF SERVICE UNDER ITES AS PER THIS CIRCULAR THEN IT MUST BE SHOWN EX FACIE THAT IT IS BROADLY SIMILAR. ADVERTING TO THE FACTS OF THE INSTAN T CASE WE FIND THAT THE SERVICES RENDERED BY GENESYS FALL UNDER CLAUSE (VI) WITH THE HEADING GEOGRAPHICA L INFORMATION SYSTEMS SERVICES WHEREAS THOSE RENDERED BY THE ASSESSEE FALL PARTLY UNDER CLAU SE (VII) WITH THE HEADING HUMAN RESOURCES SERVICES A ND PARTLY UNDER CLAUSE (XI) WITH THE HEADING PAYR OLL. ON JUXTAPOSITION EXAMINATION OF THESE TWO SETS O F SERVICES WE FIND THAT THERE IS A VAST DIFFERENCE W HICH MAKE ONE QUITE DISTINCT FROM THE OTHER. IN VIEW OF SUCH FUNCTIONAL INCOMPARABILITY BETWEEN ASSESSE E AND GENESYS WE HOLD THAT THIS COMPANY CANNOT BE TREATED AS COMPARABLE. WE THEREFORE DIRECT TO EXCLUDE THIS CASE FROM THE LIST OF COMPARABLES. 12.1. ON CAREFUL CONSIDERATION OF THE MATTER RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING THE ABOVE DECISION OF THE CO ORDINATE BENCH WE ARE ALSO OF THE OPINION THAT THERE IS VAS T DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE FUNCTIONS OF THE ABOVE COMPA NY AND THAT OF ASSESSEE. THIS COMPANY AS SUCH CANNOT BE T REATED AS COMPARABLE ON FAR ANALYSIS. WE THEREFORE DIRECT THE ASSESSING OFFICER/TPO TO EXCLUDE THIS COMPANY. (3) ECLERX SERVICES LTD. 13. THE OBJECTION OF ASSESSEE TO THIS COMPA RABLE IS THAT THIS COMPANY IS FUNCTIONALLY DISSIMILAR. IT I S IN THE BUSINESS OF CONSULTANCY AND ADVISORY SERVICE AND PR OVIDES ONLY ANALYTICAL DATA. IT IS ALSO INVOLVED IN QUALIT Y MONITORING. IT IS THE STAND OF THE ASSESSEE THAT THIS COMPANY O FFERS SOLUTIONS THAT INCLUDE DATA ANALYTICS OPERATIONS MANAGEMENT AUDITS AND RECONCILIATION AND THEREFORE HAS TO BE CLASSIFIED AS HIGH END KPO. IN SUPPORT OF THE ST AND OF THE ITA NO.255/HYD/2014 M/S. HYUNDAI MOTOR INDIA ENGINEERING P. LTD. HYD. 11 ASSESSEE EXTRACTS FROM THE ANNUAL REPORT OF THIS C OMPANY HAVE BEEN POINTED OUT. THEREFORE THE FUNCTIONS OF THE ABOVE COMPANY ARE DISSIMILAR TO ASSESSEE WHICH IS A CAPTIVE SERVICE PROVIDER. ON THE PRINCIPLES LAID DOWN BY T HE HONBLE SPECIAL BENCH OF THE ITAT (MUMBAI) IN THE CASE OF M AERSK GLOBAL CENTRES (INDIA) PVT. LTD. V/S. ACIT (ITA NO.7466/MUM/2012 FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2008-09 DATED 7.3.2014) AND THE PRINCIPLES LAID DOWN BY THE COORD INATE BENCH OF THE TRIBUNAL(DELHI) IN THE CASE OF M/S. ME RCER CONSULTING (INDIA) PVT. LTD. (SUPRA) ASSESSEE SUB MITS THAT THIS COMPANY CANNOT BE SELECTED AS A COMPARABLE. 13.1 THE LEARNED DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE HOWEVER SUBMITTED THAT HAVING ACCEPTED ADITYA BIRL A MINACS WORLDWIDE LTD. AS A COMPARABLE COMPANY THIS COMPA NY SHOULD ALSO BE INCLUDED AS OTHERWISE BOTH THE COM PANIES SHOULD BE EXCLUDED. 13.2 WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE ISSUE AND EXAMINED TH E ANNUAL REPORT AND THE OBJECTIONS OF ASSESSEE. AS S EEN FROM THE ANNUAL REPORT THE ABOVE COMPANY IS INVOLVED I N DIVERSE NATURE OF SERVICES WHICH ARE OF HIGH END NA TURE. IN EARLIER YEAR THIS COMPARABLE WAS ACCEPTED AS A KPO AND EXCLUDED. SIMILAR FACTS EXIST IN THIS YEAR ALSO. WE THEREFORE DIRECT THE ASSESSING OFFICER/TPO TO EXCLUDE THIS CO MPANY. (4) COSMIC GLOBAL LTD. 14. THE MAIN OBJECTION OF ASSESSEE WITH REFERENCE TO THE INCLUSION OF THIS COMPANY IS WITH REFERENCE TO OUTSOURCING OF ITS MAIN ACTIVITY. EVEN THOUGH THIS COMPANY WAS SELECTED ITA NO.255/HYD/2014 M/S. HYUNDAI MOTOR INDIA ENGINEERING P. LTD. HYD. 12 AS COMPARABLE IN ASSESSEES TP STUDY IT HAS RAISED OBJECTION BEFORE THE TPO THAT THIS COMPANYS EMPLOYEE COST IS LESS THAN 21.30% AND MOST OF THE COST IS WITH REFERENCE TO THE OUTSOURCING CHARGES OR TRANSLATION CHARGES AND AS SUCH THIS IS NOT A COMPARABLE COMPANY. THE TPO THOUGH CONSID ERED THESE SUBMISSIONS REJECTED THE SAME ON THE REASON THAT THIS DOES NOT IMPACT THE PROFIT MARGIN OF THE COMPA NY. OPPOSING THE VIEW TAKEN BY THE TPO IT IS SUBMITTED THAT THIS COMPANY CANNOT BE SELECTED AS COMPARABLE AS SIMIL AR ISSUE WAS DISCUSSED BY THE COORDINATE BENCH OF THE TRIBUNAL(DELHI) IN THE CASE OF MERCER CONSULTING (I NDIA) P. LTD. (SUPRA) VIDE PARAS 13.2 TO 13.3 WHICH READ AS UNDER- 13.2. NOW COMING TO THE FACTUAL MATRIX O F THIS CASE WE FIND FROM THE MATERIAL ON RECORD THAT OUTSOURCING CHARGES OF THIS CASE CONSTITUTE 57.31% OF THE TOTAL OPERATING COSTS. THIS DOES NOT APPE AR TO US TO BE A VALID REASON FOR ELIMINATING THI S CASE FROM THE LIST OF COMPARABLES. ON GOING THROUGH THE ANNUAL ACCOUNTS OF COSMIC GLOBAL LIMITED A COP Y OF WHICH HAS BEEN PLACED ON RECORD WE FIND THAT ITS TOTAL REVENUE FROM OPERATIONS ARE AT RS.7 .37 CRORE DIVIDED INTO THREE SEGMENTS NAMELY ME DICAL TRANSCRIPTION AND CONSULTANCY SERVICES AT RS.9.90 L ACS TRANSLATION CHARGES AT RS.6.99 CRORE AND ACCOU NTS BPO AT RS.27.76 LAC. THE LD. AR HAS MADE OU T A CASE THAT OUTSOURCING ACTIVITY CARRIED OUT BY THIS COMPANY CONSTITUTES 57% OF TOTAL EXPENSES. TH E REASON FOR WHICH WE ARE NOT AGREEABLE WITH THE LD. AR IS THAT WE HAVE TO EXAMINE THE REVENUE OF THIS CASE ONLY FROM ACCOUNTS BPO SEGMENT AND NOT ON THE ENTITY LEVEL BEING ALSO FROM MEDICAL TRANSCR IPTION AND TRANSLATION CHARGES. WHEN WE ARE EXAMININ G THE RESULTS OF THIS COMPANY FROM THE ACCOUNT S BPO SEGMENT ALONE THERE IS NO NEED TO EXAMI NE THE POSITION UNDER OTHER SEGMENTS. THE ENTIRE OUTSOURCING IS CONFINED TO TRANSLATION CHARGES PAID AT RS.3.00 CRORE WHICH IS STRICTLY IN THE REALM OF THE TRANSLATION SEGMENT REVENUES FROM WHICH ARE TO ITA NO.255/HYD/2014 M/S. HYUNDAI MOTOR INDIA ENGINEERING P. LTD. HYD. 13 THE TUNE OF RS.6.99 CRORE. IF THIS SEGMENT O F TRANSLATION IS NOT UNDER CONSIDERATION FOR DEC IDING AS TO WHETHER THIS CASE IS COMPARABLE OR NOT WE CANNOT TAKE RECOURSE TO THE FIGURES WHICH ARE RELEV ANT FOR SEGMENTS OTHER THAN ACCOUNTS BPO. THUS I T IS HELD THAT THIS CASE CANNOT BE EXCLUDED ON TH E STRENGTH OF OUTSOURCING ACTIVITY WHICH IS ALIEN TO THE RELEVANT SEGMENT. 13.3. HOWEVER WE FIND THIS CASE TO INCOMPARABLE ON THE ALTERNATIVE ARGUMENT ADVANCE D BY THE LD. AR TO THE EFFECT THAT TOTAL REVE NUE OF THE ACCOUNTS BPO SEGMENT OF COSMIC GLOBAL LIMITED IS VERY LOW AT RS.27.76 LACS. WE HA VE DISCUSSED THIS ASPECT ABOVE IN THE CONTEXT OF CG- VAKS CASE AND HELD THAT A CAPTIVE UNIT CANN OT BE COMPARED WITH A GIANT CASE AND THUS EXCLUDED CG-VAK WITH TURNOVER FROM ACCOUNTS BPO SEGMEN T AT RS.86.10 LACS. AS THE SEGMENTAL REVENUE O F BPO SEGMENT OF COSMIC GLOBAL LIMITED AT RS.27.76 LAC IS STILL ON MUCH LOWER SIDE THE REASONS GIVE N ABOVE WOULD FULLY APPLY TO HOLD COSMIC GLOBA L LIMITED AS INCOMPARABLE. THIS CASE IS THEREF ORE DIRECTED TO BE EXCLUDED FROM THE LIST OF COMPARAB LES. IN VIEW OF THE DETAILED ANALYSIS OF THE COORDINATE BENCH OF THE TRIBUNAL IN THE ABOVE REFERRED CASE IN THIS CA SE ALSO WE ACCEPT THE CONTENTIONS OF ASSESSEE AND DIRECT THE A SSESSING OFFICER/TPO TO EXCLUDE THIS COMPARABLE FOR THE SAME REASONS. (5) ACROPETAL TECHNOLOGIES LTD. (SEG.) 15. THE OBJECTION OF ASSESSEE WITH REFERENCE TO TH IS COMPANY IS THAT THE COMPANY IS INVOLVED IN ENGINEER ING DESIGN SERVICES AND HIGH END SERVICES AND HAS PRODU CTS IN ITS INVENTORY. IT IS ALSO INVOLVED IN R&D ACTIVITY AND DEVELOPING SOPHISTICATED DELIVERY SYSTEM. IT WAS FURTHER SUBM ITTED THAT THIS COMPANY IS NOT FUNCTIONALLY COMPARABLE AT SEG MENT ITA NO.255/HYD/2014 M/S. HYUNDAI MOTOR INDIA ENGINEERING P. LTD. HYD. 14 LEVEL ALSO AS ENGINEERING DESIGN SERVICES ARE HIGH END SERVICES AS CONSIDERED IN OTHER CASES. IT IS FUR THER SUBMITTED THAT ALLOCATION OF EXPENSES BETWEEN SEGME NTS IS NOT POSSIBLE AND DEPRECIATION WAS NOT ALLOCATED BET WEEN THE SEGMENTS. THERE ARE EXTRA-ORDINARY EVENTS WHICH IMP ACT PROFIT ALSO AS CAN BE SEEN FROM THE ANNUAL REPORTS . IT IS FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT THIS COMPANY IS NOT SELECTED IN THE LIST OF COMPARABLES SELECTED IN THE CASE OF MERCER CONS ULTING (INDIA) PVT. LTD. AND THEREFORE SELECTION OF THE C OMPANY BY THE TPO IN THIS CASE WHICH IS ALSO IN SIMILAR I TES SERVICES IS NOT PROPER. 15.1 AFTER CONSIDERING THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS WE A GREE WITH THE OBJECTIONS RAISED BY ASSESSEE PARTIALLY. A S SEEN FROM THE ANNUAL REPORT THIS COMPANY IS INVOLVED IN ENGINEERING DESIGN SERVICES AND HAS PRODUCTS ALSO WHICH MAKES IT FUNCTIONALLY NOT COMPARABLE AT ENTITY LEVE L. HOWEVER TPO HAS CONSIDERED ONLY SEGMENTAL PROFITS OF ITES. AT THE SEGMENTAL LEVEL IT PROVIDES ENGINEERING DESIGN SER VICES WHICH WAS CONSIDERED AS HIGH END BY THE COORDINATE BENCH OF THE TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF MERCER CONSULTING (I NDIA) PVT. LTD. (SUPRA). ASSESSEE ALSO PROVIDES ENGINEERING D ESIGN SERVICES. LAST YEAR ALSO THIS COMPARABLE WAS ANALYS ED IN ASSESSEES OWN CASE BY ITAT AND HELD AS UNDER: WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE. LD COUNSEL SUBMISSION WAS THAT THIS COMPANY WAS EXCLUDED IN THE CASE OF SYMPHONY MARKETING SOLUTIONS INDIA(P) LTD (SUPRA) BY THE BAN GALORE BENCH SO THE SAME REQUIRE EXCLUSION. IN THE ABOVE CASE IT WAS CONSIDERED LIKE THIS: ITA NO.255/HYD/2014 M/S. HYUNDAI MOTOR INDIA ENGINEERING P. LTD. HYD. 15 13. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE LEARN ED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE. ON A PERUSAL OF THE NOTE NO.15 OF NOTES TO ACCOUNTS WHICH GIVES SEGMENTAL REVENUE OF THIS COMPANY IT IS CLEAR THAT THE MAJOR SOURCE OF INCOME FOR THIS COMPANY IS FROM PROVIDING ENGINEERING DESIGN SERVICE AND INFORMATION TECHNOLO GY SERVICES. THE FUNCTIONS PERFORMED BY THE ENGINEERIN G DESIGN SERVICES SEGMENT OF THE COMPANY CANNOT BE CONSIDERED AS COMPARABLE TO THE ITES/BPO FUNCTIONS PERFORMED BY THE ASSESSEE. THE PERFORMANCE OF ENGINEERING DESIGN SERVICES IS REGARDED AS PROVIDIN G HIGH END SERVICES AMONG THE BPO WHICH REQUIRES HIGH SKILL WHEREAS THE SERVICES PERFORMED BY THE ASSESSE E ARE ROUTINE LOW END ITES FUNCTIONS. WE THEREFORE HO LD THAT THIS COMPANY COULD NOT HAVE BEEN SELECTED AS A COMPARABLE ESPECIALLY WHEN IT PERFORMS ENGINEERING DESIGN SERVICES WHICH ONLY A KNOWLEDGE PROCESS OUTSOURCING [KPO] WOULD DO AND NOT A BUSINESS PROCESS OUTSOURCING [BPO]. AS CAN BE SEEN ABOVE EVEN THOUGH SAID COMPANY WAS EXCLUDED ON THE DIFFERENTIATION OF HIGH END SERVICE S BEING PROVIDED BY THIS COMPANY AS NOTICED ASSESSEE ALSO PROVIDE HIGH END SERVICES IN CAD / CAE DESIGNING AR EAS. THESE ARE HIGH END SERVICES AS CONSIDERED BY THE BANGALORE BENCH. THEREFORE WE ARE OF THE OPINION TH AT FUNCTIONS OF ASSESSEE ARE SIMILAR TO THE ABOVE COMP ANY. THE OBJECTIONS OF ASSESSEE ARE REJECTED. 15.2. WE ACCORDINGLY HOLD THAT THIS COMPANY IS FU NCTIONALLY SIMILAR AT SEGMENT LEVEL. HOWEVER ASSESSEE OBJECTS ON ADOPTING SEGMENTAL PROFITS PARTICULARLY LACK OF INF ORMATION HOW THE EXPENDITURE/ DEPRECIATION WAS APPORTIONED. THEREFORE THE ISSUE OF ADOPTING THE SEGMENTAL RESUL TS IN ANALYZING THE PROFIT AND PLI IS RESTORED TO TPO/AO FOR FRESH EXAMINATION. ASSESSEE SHOULD BE GIVEN DUE OPPORTUNI TY TO MAKE ITS OBJECTIONS WHICH SHOULD BE DEALT WITH APPR OPRIATELY. ITA NO.255/HYD/2014 M/S. HYUNDAI MOTOR INDIA ENGINEERING P. LTD. HYD. 16 (6) ACCENTIA TECHNOLOGIES LIMITED. 16. THIS COMPANY WAS OBJECTED TO BY ASSESSEE ON THE REASON OF SUPER PROFITS AS WELL AS EXTRA-ORDINA RY EVENTS. IT WAS SUBMITTED THAT ACQUISITION OF OAK TECHNOLOGI ES & TRANS SERVICES HAS IMPACT ON THE PROFITS OF THE COM PANY AND HAS TAKEN INORGANIC GROWTH AS STRATEGY TO INCREASE THE PROFITS BECAUSE OF THE PECULIAR ECONOMIC CIRCUMSTAN CES AND BRAND VALUE. THE SAME IN THESE CIRCUMSTANCES CANNO T BE SELECTED. IT WAS SUBMITTED THAT ASSESSEE WAS IN ME DICAL TRANSCRIPTION SERVICES. 16.1. THE DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE HOWEVER OBJECTED TO THE PLEAS OF ASSESSEE STATING THAT THE EXTRAORDINARY EVENTS OCCURRED IN EARLIER YEAR AND T HEREFORE THE SAME CANNOT BE CONSIDERED AS HAVING ANY IMPACT IN THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION. 16.2 WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS AND NOTICED THAT THIS COMPANY OPERATES IN A DIFFERENT BUSINESS STRATEGY OF ACQUIRING COMPANIES FOR INORGANIC GROWT H AS ITS STRATEGY. IN EARLIER YEARS ON THE REASON OF ACQUIS ITION OF VARIOUS COMPANIES BEING AN EXTRAORDINARY EVENT WHI CH HAD AN IMPACT ON THE PROFIT THIS COMPANY WAS EXCLUDED. AS SUBMITTED BY THE LEARNED COUNSEL THIS YEAR ALSO T HE ACQUISITION OF SOME COMPANIES BY THAT COMPANY MAY H AVE IMPACT ON THE PROFIT. CONSIDERING THE PROFIT MARGIN S OF THE COMPANY AND INSUFFICIENT SEGMENTAL DATA WE ARE OF THE OPINION THAT THIS COMPANY CANNOT BE SELECTED AS A COMPARABLE. MOREOVER THIS IS ALSO NOT A COMPARABL E IN THE ITA NO.255/HYD/2014 M/S. HYUNDAI MOTOR INDIA ENGINEERING P. LTD. HYD. 17 CASE OF M/S. MERCER CONSULTING (INDIA) P. LTD. (SU PRA) WHICH INDICATES THAT THE TPO THEREIN HAS EXCLUDED IT AT THE OUTSET. IN VIEW OF THIS WE DIRECT THE ASSESSING OFFICER/TP O TO EXCLUDE THIS COMPARABLE FROM THE LIST OF COMPARABL ES SELECTED. (7) CROSSDOMAIN SOLUTIONS P.LTD: 17. ASSESSEES MAIN OBJECTION PERTAINS TO VIOLATIO N OF PRINCIPLES OF NATURAL JUSTICE IN SELECTING THIS COM PARABLE. BEFORE THE TPO ASSESSEE OBJECTED TO OBTAINING INFO RMATION UNDER S.133(6) WHICH IS NOT AVAILABLE IN THE PUBLIC DOMAIN. VIDE ANNEXURE 16 TO THE OBJECTION ASSESSEE RAISED T WO GROUNDS MAINLY ON OBTAINING INFORMATION UNDER S.13 3(6) AND VIOLATION OF PRINCIPLES OF NATURAL JUSTICE. BE FORE US ALSO THE MAIN CONTENTION IS WITH A REFERENCE TO THE VARI ATION IN REVENUE BETWEEN THE INFORMATION IN THE ANNUAL REPOR T AND THE FIGURES ADOPTED BY THE TPO. EVEN THOUGH AN ISSU E WAS RAISED THAT THIS COMPANY WAS NOT FUNCTIONALLY COMPA RABLE WE DO NOT SEE ANY MERIT IN THAT ARGUMENT AS NO SUC H OBJECTION WAS RAISED BEFORE THE REVENUE AUTHORITIES . FURTHER WE HAVE SEEN THE ANNUAL REPORT AND MOST OF THE REVENUE OF THIS COMPANY IS FROM SERVICES ONLY. COMP ANY IS IN THE PAY ROLL SERVICE ACTIVITY. THEREFORE WE ARE OF THE OPINION THAT THE COMPANY IS FUNCTIONALLY SIMILAR TO THE ACTIVITIES OF THE ASSESSEE COMPANY WHICH IS IN THE ITES FIELD. IN VIEW OF THIS WE ARE NOT INCLINED TO EXCLUDE THI S COMPANY ON THE BASIS OF FUNCTIONAL DISSIMILARITY AS CONTEN DED BY THE ASSESSEE BEFORE US. BUT WE DIRECT THE AO/TPO TO E XAMINE THE VARIATION IN REVENUE BETWEEN THE INFORMATION IN ANNUAL REPORT AND THE FIGURES ADOPTED BY THE TPO. THE ASS ESSING ITA NO.255/HYD/2014 M/S. HYUNDAI MOTOR INDIA ENGINEERING P. LTD. HYD. 18 OFFICER/TPO IS DIRECTED TO WORK OUT THE PLI AFTER G IVING PROPER OPPORTUNITY TO THE ASSESSEE AND CONSIDERING THE OBJECTIONS OF THE ASSESSEE. SUBJECT TO THESE REMARK S ASSESSEES CONTENTIONS ARE REJECTED. 18. WITH REFERENCE TO GROUND NO.2.5 ON RISK PROFIL E LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE CONTENDED THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER/DRP HAVE NOT CONSIDERED THE RISK PROFILE OF THE ASSESSEE AND NECESSARY ADJUSTMENTS HAVE NOT BEE N MADE IN ORDER TO MITIGATE THE DIFFERENCES BETWEEN THE ASSESSEES RISK PROFILE AND THE COMPARABLES SELECTE D BY THE TPO. ASSESSEE CONTENDS THAT ADJUSTMENT OF 1% WHIC H WAS GRANTED BY THE COORDINATE BENCH IN THE CASE OF HELL OSOFT INDIA P. LTD. IN ITA 645/HYD/2009 SHOULD HAVE BEEN ALLOWED. EVEN THOUGH IT WAS CONTENDED THAT THE COOR DINATE BENCH ORDER IN THAT BEHALF IS BINDING ON THE ASSESS ING OFFICER WE ARE NOT INCLINED TO AGREE WITH THAT CON TENTION AS RISK PROFILE OF EACH ASSESSEE DIFFERS DEPENDING ON ITS OWN BUSINESS ACTIVITY WHEN COMPARED TO THAT OF THE COMP ARABLE COMPANY AND IN EACH CASE SEPARATE RISK PROFILE HAS TO BE ANALYSED IN FAR ANALYSIS. THEREFORE ALLOWING DEDUC TION OF 1% TOWARDS RISK PROFILE UNIFORMLY CANNOT BE ADOPTED AS A NORM. FURTHER THIS ASPECT REQUIRES TO BE RE-EXAMIN ED BY THE TPO. THEREFORE AFTER EXCLUDING THE ABOVE COMPANIE S IF ANY ADJUSTMENT IS REQUIRED TO BE MADE ASSESSING OFFICE R IS DIRECTED TO CONSIDER THE RISK PROFILE AND ALLOW NEC ESSARY DEDUCTION BASED ON THE FACTS OF EACH COMPARABLE CA SE. THE ASSESSING OFFICER/TPO SHOULD ALSO ALLOW THE WORKING CAPITAL ADJUSTMENT ALREADY PROVIDED IN THE COMPUTATION BY T HE TPO. THIS GROUND IS DECIDED ACCORDINGLY. ITA NO.255/HYD/2014 M/S. HYUNDAI MOTOR INDIA ENGINEERING P. LTD. HYD. 19 19. AS FOR GROUND NO.3 IT RELATES TO CHARGING OF INTEREST UNDER SEC.234B AND 234C OF THE ACT WHICH IS MERELY CONSEQUENTIAL AND THE ASSESSING OFFICER/TPO ARE DIRECTED TO RE-COMPUTE THE SAME AS PER LAW WHILE GI VING EFFECT TO THIS ORDER. 20. IN THE RESULT ASSESSEES APPEAL IS PARTLY ALL OWED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE COURT ON 31 ST JULY 2014. SD/- SD/- (SAKTIJIT DEY) (B.RAMAKOTAIAH) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER HYDERABAD DT/- 31 ST JULY 2014 COPY FORWARDED TO: 1. M/S. HYUNDAI MOTORS INDIA ENGINEERING P. LTD. SURVEY NO.5/2 & 5/3 OPP HITECH CITY RAILWAY STATIO N IZZATNAGAR LINGAMPALLY MANDAL R.R. DIST. HYDERAB AD 00 084 2. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX CIRCLE 2(2) HYDERABAD 3. DISPUTES RESOLUTION PANEL HYDERABAD 4. DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE ITAT HYDERABAD. B.V.S