ITO, Bangalore v. Alcon Laboratories (P) Ltd.,, Bangalore

ITA 391/BANG/2015 | 2010-2011
Pronouncement Date: 21-11-2017 | Result: Partly Allowed

Appeal Details

RSA Number 39121114 RSA 2015
Assessee PAN AACCA3430F
Bench Bangalore
Appeal Number ITA 391/BANG/2015
Duration Of Justice 2 year(s) 8 month(s) 3 day(s)
Appellant ITO, Bangalore
Respondent Alcon Laboratories (P) Ltd.,, Bangalore
Appeal Type Income Tax Appeal
Pronouncement Date 21-11-2017
Appeal Filed By Department
Tags No record found
Order Result Partly Allowed
Bench Allotted A
Tribunal Order Date 21-11-2017
Date Of Final Hearing 20-06-2017
Next Hearing Date 20-06-2017
First Hearing Date 20-06-2017
Assessment Year 2010-2011
Appeal Filed On 18-03-2015
Judgment Text
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL A BENCH : BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI A.K. GARODIA ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI LALIET KUMAR JUDICIAL MEMBER IT (TP) A NO. 39 1 /BANG/201 5 ASSESSMENT YEAR : 20 1 0 1 1 THE INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 1 (1) (1) BANGALORE. VS. M/S. ALCON LABORATORIES PVT. LTD. 3 RD FLOOR CRESCENT 4 PRESTIGE SHANTINIKETAN WHITEFIELD BANGALORE 560 048. PAN: AA C C A3430F APPELLANT RESPONDENT C.O. NO. 2/BANG/2016 (IN IT (TP) A NO. 39 1/BANG/201 5 ) ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2010 11 M/S. ALCON LABORATORIES PVT. LTD. 3 RD FLOOR CRESCENT 4 PRESTIGE SHANTINIKETAN WHITEFIELD BANGALORE 560 048. PAN: AACCA3430F VS. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 1 (1)(1) BANGALORE. APPELLANT RESPONDENT ASSESSEE BY : SHRI NARENDRA JAIN CA REVENUE BY : SHRI BISWARANJAN SASMAL CIT (DR) DATE OF HEARING : 16.11.2017 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 2 1 .11.2017 O R D E R PER SHRI A.K. GARODIA ACCOUNTANT MEMBER THIS APPEAL IS FILED BY THE REVENUE AND THE CROSS OBJECTION IS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AND THESE ARE DIRECTED AGAINST THE ASSESSM ENT ORDER DATED 29.01.2015 PASSED BY THE A.O. U/S 143 (3) R.W.S. 14 4C FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2010 11. IT(TP)A NO. 391/BANG/2015 & C.O. NO. 2/BANG/2016 PAGE 2 OF 9 2. THE GROUNDS RAISED BY THE REVENUE IN ITS APPEAL ARE AS UNDER: 1. THE ORDER OF THE DISPUTE RESOLUTION PANEL IS OPP OSED TO LAW AND THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE. 2. THE DRP ERRED IN DIRECTING THE TPO TO EXCLUDE M/ S. HCCA BUSINESS SERVICES PVT LTD. M/S. KILLICK AGENCIES & MARKETING LTD FROM THE LIST OF FINAL COMPARABLES BEING FUNCTIONALLY UN COMPARABLE WITHOUT APPRECIATING THE FACT THAT THESE COMPANIES QUALIFY ALL THE QUALITATIVE AND QUANTITATIVE FILTERS APPLIED BY THE TPO. 3. THE DRP ERRED IN DIRECTING THE TPO TO EXCLUDE M/ S. HINDUSTAN HOUSING CO. LTD FROM THE LIST OF FINAL COMPARABLES BEING FUNCTIONALLY UNCOMPARABLE AND RELATED PARTY TRANSACTION EXCEEDS 25% WITHOUT APPRECIATING THE FACT THAT THESE COMPANIES QUALIFY ALL THE QUALITATIVE AND QUANTITATIVE FILTERS APPLIED BY THE TPO. 4. THE DRP ERRED IN DIRECTING THE AO TO CARRY OUT T HE WORKING CAPITAL ADJUSTMENT AS PER THE ACTUAL FIGURES WORKED OUT BY THE ASSESSEE WITHOUT PUTTING ANY CAP ON THE GROUND THAT THERE IS TIME VALUE OF MONEY WITHOUT APPRECIATING THE FACT THAT THE TPO HA D PUT A CAP ON THE BASIS OF THE AVERAGE COST OF WORKING CAPITAL OF THE COMPARABLES SELECTED BY THE TPO AND THAT THE ACCURATE DETAILS O F DEBTORS AND CREDITORS OF THE ASSESSEE AND THE COMPARABLES WERE NOT AVAILABLE. 5. THE DRP ERRED IN DIRECTING THE AO TO DELETE THE ADDITION MADE U/S 40A(7) BY RELYING ON THE DECISION OF THE HYDERABAD TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF CAPITAL IQ INFORMATION SYSTEMS (INDIA) P. L TD WITHOUT APPRECIATING THE FACT THAT THE ASSESSEE COMPANY HAD INCORPORATED CERTAIN CHANGES FOR WHICH NO APPROVAL FROM THE CIT WAS ACQUIRED AND THE CONTRIBUTION TO FUND IS ONLY A PROVISION NOT AN ACTUAL EXPENSE UNDER THE PURVIEW OF SECTION 37(1) OF THE ATT. 6. FOR THESE AND SUCH OTHER GROUNDS THAT MAY BE URG ED AT THE TIME OF HEARING IT IS HUMBLY PRAYED THAT THE ORDER OF THE DRP BE REVERSED AND THAT OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER BE RESTORED. 7. THE APPELLATE CRAVES LEAVE TO ADD TO ALTER TO AMEND OR DELETE ANY OF THE GROUNDS THAT MAY BE URGED AT THE TIME OF HEA RING OF THE APPEAL. 3. THE GROUNDS RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE IN ITS C. O. ARE AS UNDER: GENERAL GROUNDS 1. THE ORDER OF THE LEARNED ASSESSING OFFICER PURSU ANT TO THE DIRECTIONS OF THE DISPUTE RESOLUTION PANEL BANGALO RE TO THE EXTENT PREJUDICIAL TO THE RESPONDENT IS BAD IN LAW. IT(TP)A NO. 391/BANG/2015 & C.O. NO. 2/BANG/2016 PAGE 3 OF 9 2. THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS ERRED IN RECOMPUTING T P ADJUSTMENT AT RS.34 75 946/- WITHOUT GIVING THE BASIS OF COMPUTAT ION OF TP ADJUSTMENT IN THE FINAL ASSESSMENT ORDER. THE ORDER IS THEREFORE BAD IN LAW. 3. THE DISPUTE RESOLUTION PANEL BANGALORE HAS ERRE D IN CONFIRMING THE ACTION OF THE TRANSFER PRICING OFFICER IN: A. COMPUTING THE ARM'S LENGTH PRICE BASED ON THE DATA FOR THE FINANCIAL YEAR 2009-10 OF THE COMPARABLES WHIC H WAS NOT AVAILABLE WHEN THE ASSESSEE UNDERTOOK TRANS FER PRICING DOCUMENTATION AND REPORTING OBLIGATIONS; B. REJECTING THE COMPARABLES SELECTED BY THE RESPONDEN T ON UNJUSTIFIABLE GROUNDS; C. REJECTING THE TRANSFER PRICING ANALYSIS UNDERTAKEN BY THE RESPONDENT ON UNJUSTIFIABLE GROUNDS. D. CONDUCTING A FRESH TRANSFER PRICING ANALYSIS DESPIT E ABSENCE OF ANY DEFECTS IN THE TRANSFER PRICING ANAL YSIS SUBMITTED BY THE RESPONDENT; E. ADOPTING INAPPROPRIATE FILTERS IN THE PROCESS OF SE LECTING COMPARABLES; F. ADOPTING COMPANIES AS COMPARABLES EVEN THOUGH THEY ARE NOT COMPARABLE IN RESPECT OF FUNCTIONS PERFORMED R ISKS ASSUMED ASSETS UTILIZED SIZE TURNOVER UNUSUAL CIRCUMSTANCES ETC; AND G. NOT RECOGNIZING THAT THE RESPONDENT WAS INSULATED F ROM RISKS AS AGAINST COMPARABLES WHICH ASSUME THESE R ISKS AND THEREFORE HAVE TO BE CREDITED WITH A RISK PREMI UM ON THIS ACCOUNT. 4. THE DISPUTE RESOLUTION PANEL BANGALORE HAS ERRE D IN CONFIRMING THE SELECTION OF ASIAN BUSINESS EXHIBITIONS AND CON FERENCES LTD AS A COMPARABLE EVEN THOUGH IT IS FUNCTIONALLY DIFFEREN T FROM THE RESPONDENT AND HAS UNUSUAL CIRCUMSTANCES DURING THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION. 5. THE DISPUTE RESOLUTION PANEL BANGALORE HAS ERRE D IN: A. REJECTING H T MUSIC AND ENTERTAINMENT COMPANY LTD & TOURISM DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LTD AS COMPARABLES WITHOUT APPRECIATING THAT THEY ARE SIMILAR TO ASIAN BUSINESS EXHIBITIONS AND CONFERENCES LTD WHICH IS ACCEPTED TO BE COMPARABLE BY THE DRP; AND IT(TP)A NO. 391/BANG/2015 & C.O. NO. 2/BANG/2016 PAGE 4 OF 9 B. REJECTING LCRA MANAGEMENT CONSULTING SERVICES LTD. AS A COMPARABLE ON THE GROUND THAT IT IS FUNCTIONALLY DI FFERENT FROM THE RESPONDENT. 6. THE DISPUTE RESOLUTION PANEL BANGALORE HAS ERRE D IN CONFIRMING THE ACTION OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN MAKING A REF ERENCE TO TRANSFER PRICING OFFICER FOR DETERMINING THE ARM'S LENGTH PR ICE WITHOUT DEMONSTRATING AS TO HOW OR WHY IT WAS NECESSARY AND EXPEDIENT TO DO SO. 7. THE DISPUTE RESOLUTION PANEL BANGALORE HAS ERRE D IN CONFIRMING THE ACTION OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND TRANSFER PR ICING OFFICER IN: A. PASSING THE ORDER WITHOUT DEMONSTRATING THAT THE RESPONDENT HAD MOTIVE OF TAX EVASION; AND B. NOT APPRECIATING THAT THE CHARGING OR COMPUTATION PROVISION RELATING TO INCOME UNDER THE HEAD 'PROFIT S & GAINS OF BUSINESS OR PROFESSION' DO NOT REFER TO OR INCLUDE THE AMOUNTS COMPUTED UNDER CHAPTER X AND THEREFORE THE ADDITION MADE UNDER CHAPTER X IS BAD IN LAW. GROUND RELATING TO GRATUITY PAYMENT 8. THE LOWER AUTHORITIES HAVE ERRED IN: A. DISALLOWING PROVISION MADE FOR CONTRIBUTION TO GRAT UITY FUND WITHOUT APPRECIATING FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES O F THE CASE. B. NOT APPRECIATING THAT THE WITHDRAWAL OF APPROVAL BY THE COMMISSIONER IS BAD IN LAW. OTHER GROUNDS 9. THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS ERRED IN GIVING CREDIT FOR TDS AT RS.5 62 469/- AS AGAINST RS.5 97 736/- AS CLAIMED B Y THE RESPONDENT IN THE RETURN OF INCOME DESPITE DIRECTIONS BY THE D ISPUTE RESOLUTION PANEL BANGALORE. 10. LEVYING A SUM OF RS 31 96 701/- AS INTEREST UND ER SECTION 234B. ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE INTEREST UNDER SECTION 234B IS EXCESSIVE. THE RESPONDENT DENIES IT S LIABILITY TO PAY THE EXCESSIVE INTEREST. 4. IT WAS SUBMITTED BY THE LEARNED AR OF THE ASSESS EE THAT IN THE C.O. FILED BY THE ASSESSEE THE ONLY GRIEVANCE OF THE ASSESSEE IS REGARDING ONE COMPARABLE I.E. ASIAN BUSINESS EXHIBITION & CONFERE NCES LTD. AS PER THE ASSESSEE THIS IS NOT A GOOD COMPARABLE AND IT SHOU LD BE EXCLUDED. IN IT(TP)A NO. 391/BANG/2015 & C.O. NO. 2/BANG/2016 PAGE 5 OF 9 SUPPORT OF THIS CONTENTION HE PLACED RELIANCE ON A TRIBUNAL ORDER RENDERED IN THE CASE OF DCIT VS. ELECTRONICS FOR IMAGING IND IA PVT. LTD. IN IT (TP) A NO. 212/BANG/2015 DATED 24.02.2016 FOR THE SAME ASS ESSMENT YEAR COPY AVAILABLE ON PAGES 349 TO 381 OF THE PAPER BOOK. IN PARTICULAR OUR ATTENTION WAS DRAWN TO PARA 52 TO 55 OF THIS TRIBUN AL ORDER ON PAGE 372 TO 375 OF THE PAPER BOOK. IT WAS ALSO POINTED OUT THAT THE TRIBUNAL HAS FOLLOWED ANOTHER TRIBUNAL ORDER OF MUMBAI BENCH REN DERED IN THE CASE OF RGA SERVICES INDIA PVT. LTD. VIDE ORDER DATED 20.11 .2015 IN ITA NO. 22/MUM/2015. THE BENCH WANTED TO THE ASSESSMENT YEA R INVOLVED IN THIS ORDER OF THE MUMBAI BENCH OF THE TRIBUNAL. IN REPLY HE SUBMITTED THAT A COPY OF THIS TRIBUNAL ORDER IS AVAILABLE ON PAGES 4 83 TO 490 OF THE PAPER BOOK AND FROM THE SAME IT CAN BE SEEN THAT THE ASS ESSMENT YEAR INVOLVED IN THAT ORDER IS SAME I.E. 2010 11. LEARNED DR OF THE REVENUE SUPPORTED THE ORDERS OF TPO AO & DRP. 5. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS. WE FIN D THAT THE ISSUE IN DISPUTE IS SQUARELY COVERED IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESS EE BY THESE TWO TRIBUNAL ORDERS CITED BY THE LEARNED AR OF THE ASSESSEE FOR SAME ASSESSMENT YEAR. WE FIND THAT IN PARA 8 OF THE TRIBUNAL ORDER RENDER ED IN THE CASE OF DCIT VS. ELECTRONICS FOR IMAGING INDIA PVT. LTD. (SUPRA) THE PROFILE OF THAT ASSESSEE WAS NOTED AND AS PER THE SAME THAT ASSESS EE WAS ENGAGED IN SOFTWARE DEVELOPMENT SERVICES AND SALES & MARKETING SUPPORT SERVICES. BOTH WERE BENCHMARKED SEPARATELY AND THE PARAS OF T HE TRIBUNAL ORDER REFERRED TO BEFORE US ARE IN RESPECT OF MARKETING S UPPORT SERVICES. IN THE PRESENT CASE ALSO THE DISPUTE IS REGARDING MARKETI NG SUPPORT SERVICES PROVIDED BY THE ASSESSEE. HENCE THE PROFILE OF THE PRESENT ASSESSEE AND ELECTRONICS FOR IMAGING INDIA PVT. LTD. IS SAME. HE NCE WE RESPECTFULLY FOLLOW THIS TRIBUNAL ORDER AND HOLD THAT IN THE PRE SENT CASE ALSO THIS COMPARABLE I.E. ASIAN BUSINESS EXHIBITION & CONFERE NCES LTD. SHOULD BE EXCLUDED FROM THE FINAL LIST OF COMPARABLE. 6. IN THE RESULT C.O. FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS ALL OWED. IT(TP)A NO. 391/BANG/2015 & C.O. NO. 2/BANG/2016 PAGE 6 OF 9 7. REGARDING THE APPEAL OF THE REVENUE LEARNED DR OF THE REVENUE SUPPORTED THE DRAFT ASSESSMENT ORDER PASSED BY THE AO AND THE ORDER OF TPO. LEARNED AR OF THE ASSESSEE SUPPORTED THE ORDER OF DRP. HE ALSO SUBMITTED THAT IN THE APPEAL OF THE REVENUE THE GR IEVANCE OF THE REVENUE IS REGARDING DIRECTION OF DRP TO EXCLUDE THREE COMP ARABLES I.E. 1) HCCA BUSINESS SERVICES PVT. LTD. 2) HINDUSTAN HOSING CO . LTD. AND 3) KILLICK AGENCIES & MKTG. LTD. HE SUBMITTED THAT AS PER THE SAME TRIBUNAL ORDER RENDERED IN THE CASE OF DCIT VS. ELECTRONICS FOR IM AGING INDIA PVT. LTD. (SUPRA) IT WAS HELD THAT THESE COMPARABLES ARE ALS O NOT GOOD COMPARABLES AND IN THIS REGARD OUR ATTENTION WAS D RAWN TO PAGES 369 379 & 371 OF THE PAPER BOOK. AT THIS JUNCTURE THE BENCH POINTED OUT THAT AS PER THE TRIBUNAL ORDER ON PAGE 379 THE DECISION IS THIS THAT SINCE THE AVAILABILITY OF COMPARABLES IS NOT AN ISSUE AND THE REFORE RPT PERCENTAGE AT 15% IS APPROVED. THE BENCH POINTED OUT THAT IN T HE PRESENT CASE THERE ARE ONLY 6 COMPARABLES AS PER TPO AND OUT OF THAT 3 ARE ALREADY EXCLUDED BY DRP AND FOR 1 COMPARABLE THE ASSESSEE IS IN APP EAL BEFORE US AND THEREFORE IN THE FACTS OF THE PRESENT CASE IT CAN NOT BE SAID THAT THE AVAILABILITY OF COMPARABLES IS NOT AN ISSUE AND HEN CE RPT PERCENTAGE IN THE PRESENT CASE CANNOT BE 15% AND IT HAS TO BE 25% . IN REPLY LEARNED AR OF THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE IS REQU ESTING TO EXCLUDE ONLY ONE COMPARABLE BY APPLYING RPT FILTER I.E. HINDUSTA N HOSING CO. LTD. WHERE RPT % IS 26.97%. THE BENCH WANTED TO KNOW AS TO WHETHER RPT % OF THIS COMPARABLE COMPANY IS COMMENTED UPON BY ANY OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW. IN REPLY HE SUBMITTED THAT THERE IS NO SUCH COMMENT IN THE ORDERS OF THE LOWER AUTHORITIES AND THEREFORE REGARDING T HIS COMPARABLE THE MATTER MAY BE RESTORED TO AO/TPO FOR A FRESH DECISI ON AFTER EXAMINING THE RPT % OF THAT COMPANY. 8. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS. WE FIN D THAT IN RESPECT OF ALL THESE THREE COMPARABLES THE DRP EXCLUDED THEM ON T HIS BASIS THAT THESE ARE FUNCTIONALLY DIFFERENT. BEFORE US IN RESPECT O F HINDUSTAN HOSING CO. LTD. THE ARGUMENT OF THE LEARNED AR OF THE ASSESSE E IS THIS THAT IT SHOULD BE EXCLUDED BY APPLYING RPT FILTER OF 25% BUT SINCE ACTUAL RPT % OF THIS IT(TP)A NO. 391/BANG/2015 & C.O. NO. 2/BANG/2016 PAGE 7 OF 9 COMPANY IS NOT EXAMINED AND COMMENTED UPON BY ANY O F THE LOWER AUTHORITIES WE FEEL IT PROPER TO RESTORE THE MATTE R BACK TO AO/TPO FOR A FRESH DECISION IN RESPECT OF INCLUSION/EXCLUSION OF THIS COMPARABLE BY APPLYING 25% RPT FILTER. WE ORDER ACCORDINGLY. 9. IN RESPECT OF REMAINING TWO COMPARABLES I.E. 1) HCCA BUSINESS SERVICES PVT. LTD. AND 2) KILLICK AGENCIES & MKTG. LTD. WE FIND THAT AS PER THE TRIBUNAL ORDER RENDERED IN THE CASE OF DCIT VS. ELE CTRONICS FOR IMAGING INDIA PVT. LTD. (SUPRA) IT WAS HELD THAT THESE TWO ARE NOT GOOD COMPARABLES BECAUSE THESE ARE FUNCTIONALLY DIFFEREN T. WE HAVE ALREADY NOTED THAT THIS TRIBUNAL ORDER IS APPLICABLE IN THE PRESENT CASE. HENCE HENCE WE RESPECTFULLY FOLLOW THIS TRIBUNAL ORDER A ND HOLD THAT IN THE PRESENT CASE ALSO THESE TWO COMPARABLES I.E. 1) HC CA BUSINESS SERVICES PVT. LTD. AND 2) KILLICK AGENCIES & MKTG. LTD. ARE RIGHTLY EXCLUDED BY DRP FROM THE FINAL LIST OF COMPARABLE. 10. THE NEXT TP ISSUE IN THE APPEAL OF THE REVENUE IS REGARDING THE DIRECTION OF DRP THAT WORKING CAPITAL ADJUSTMENT SHOULD BE GRANT ED ON ACTUAL BASIS WITHOUT ANY CAP. 11. IN RESPECT OF THIS ISSUE LEARNED DR OF THE REV ENUE SUPPORTED THE DRAFT ASSESSMENT ORDER PASSED BY THE AO AND THE ORDER OF TPO. LEARNED AR OF THE ASSESSEE SUPPORTED THE ORDER OF DRP. HE ALSO SU BMITTED THAT THIS ISSUE IS COVERED IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE BY THE T RIBUNAL ORDER RENDERED IN THE CASE OF ARM EMBEDDED TECHNOLOGIES (P) LTD. VS. DCIT IN IT (TP) A NO. 1659/BANG/2014 DATED 31.08.2015 COPY ON PAGES 453TO 471 OF THE PAPER BOOK AND OUR ATTENTION WAS DRAWN TO PARA 25 O F THIS TRIBUNAL ORDER ON PAGE 470. 12. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND BY RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING THE TRIBUNAL ORDER RENDERED IN THE CASE OF ARM EMBEDDED TECHNOLOGIES (P) LTD. VS. DCIT (SUPRA) WE DECLINE TO INTERFERE IN T HE ORDER OF DRP ON THIS ISSUE. IT(TP)A NO. 391/BANG/2015 & C.O. NO. 2/BANG/2016 PAGE 8 OF 9 13. REGARDING THE CORPORATE TAX ISSUE AS PER GROUND NO. 5 OF THE APPEAL OF REVENUE LEARNED DR OF THE REVENUE SUPPORTED THE DR AFT ASSESSMENT ORDER PASSED BY THE AO. LEARNED AR OF THE ASSESSEE SUPPOR TED THE ORDER OF DRP. HE ALSO SUBMITTED THAT AFTER PASSING OF THE OR DER BY DRP ON 17.05.2016 CBDT HAS PASSED AN ORDER U/S 119 COPY ON PAGES 437 TO 439 OF THE PAPER BOOK AND AS PER THE SAME DELAY CO MMITTED BY THE ASSESSEES TRUST IN FILING THE RELEVANT INFORMATION WITH JURISDICTIONAL CCIT/CIT WAS CONDONED AND THEREAFTER AS PER ORDER DATED 27.10.2016 COPY ON PAGES 440 & 441 OF THE PAPER BOOK APPROVAL WAS GRANTED TO M/S ALCOM LABORATORIES (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED EMPLOYEE S GRATUITY FUND TRUST W.E.F. 01.01.2006 AND THEREFORE NOW THE RELEVANT T RUST STANDS APPROVED AND THEREFORE THE ORDER OF DRP IS PROPER. 14. IN THIS REGARD WE FIND THAT ALTHOUGH THE BASIS OF THE ORDER OF DRP IS DIFFERENT BUT IN VIEW OF THIS SUBSEQUENT DEVELOPMEN T THE OBJECTION OF THE AO FOR WHICH HE MADE THIS DISALLOWANCE DOES NOT SU RVIVE AND THEREFORE WE DECLINE TO INTERFERE IN THE ORDER OF DRP ON THIS ISSUE ALSO. 15. IN THE RESULT APPEAL FILED BY THE REVENUE IS P ARTLY ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. 16. IN THE COMBINED RESULT C.O. FILED BY THE ASSES SEE IS ALLOWED AND THE APPEAL FILED BY THE REVENUE IS PARTLY ALLOWED FOR S TATISTICAL PURPOSES. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON THE DATE MENT IONED ON THE CAPTION PAGE. SD/- SD/- (LALIET KUMAR) (A.K. GARODIA) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER BANGALORE DATED THE 21 ST NOVEMBER 2017. / MS/ IT(TP)A NO. 391/BANG/2015 & C.O. NO. 2/BANG/2016 PAGE 9 OF 9 COPY TO: 1. APP ELLANT 2. RESPONDENT 3. CIT 4. CIT(A) 5. DR ITAT BANGALORE. 6. GUARD FILE BY ORDER SENIOR PRIVATE SECRETARY INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL BANGALORE.