Case Law Details
Dana India Pvt. Ltd. Vs DCIT (ITAT Pune)
ITAT Pune held that foreign exchange gain/loss which has arisen from exports/imports of the product/materials which are in the ordinary course of business of the assesses are included as operating cost.
Facts-
The issue in the present case is that the assesse treated the Foreign Exchange fluctuation gain as an operating revenue, whereas, the Transfer Pricing Officer (TPO)/Assessing Officer (AO), based on their decision on Rule 10TA of the Income Tax Rules of 1962, considered the fluctuation gain as non-operating revenue, resulting and influence in the assessor’s capacity to calculate its profit level indicator (PLI).
Conclusion-
We observe that we have held in the case of the assessee that foreign exchange gain/loss which has arisen from exports/imports of the product/materials which are in the ordinary course of business of the assesses are included as operating cost. This is in conformity with the decision of the Tribunal in earlier year (supra) orders of the assessee and following the same parity of reasoning and in the same set of facts and circumstances the same is allowed for this year also. In view of these findings, the additional ground filed by the assessee is therefore, rendered academic in nature.
FULL TEXT OF THE ORDER OF ITAT PUNE
This appeal preferred by the assessee emanates from findings of the Ld. Disputes Resolution Panel-3, Mumbai-2, (here in after referred to as “the DRP”) dated 20-08-2018 for A.Y. 2014-15 u/s 144C(5) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”) as per the following grounds of appeal.
“Being aggrieved by the assessment order finalized u/s 144C(3) r.w.s.143(3) of the Income `Tax Act, 1961 by the learned Deputy Commissioner of income Tax, Circle 1 (2), Pune (AO) consequent to the directions of the Hon’ble Dispute Resolution Panel-3,Mumbai (DRP) in the case of Dana India Private Limited (the appellant), your appellant submits following grounds which are without prejudice to each other for Your due and sympathetic consideration:
On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law
I. Transfer Pricing ( TP) adjustments:
Against the adjustments made under Transfer Pricing assessment
The learned TPO/AO erred in making aggregate upward adjustment of Rs. 13.06 crores ( Page 7 Para 6 of A O’s final order) to the Arm’s Length Price (ALP) of the international transactions in the manufacturing segment entered into by the appellant.
In making the said aggregate TP adjustment the AO/ TPO further erred inter alia
2. In excluding realized forex gain Rs. 4.37cr. earned on exports of manufactured components and insurance claim receipt of Rs. 6 lakhs in respect of export consignment damage claim from the operating income of the appellant in computing the profit level indicator (PKLI) of Op to OC.
3. In the alternative disaggregating and determining the ALP of international transaction of allocation of cross charge of intra group business support services Rs. 7,64,67,217/- viz. Selling, General and Administration (SG & A) services at ‘nil’ by adopting “other method” without assigning any reason.
The learned TPO/AO further erred in not appreciating that services were inextricably linked with other international transactions in the manufacturing segment and it was impractical to evaluate the transaction separately and the appellant had demonstrated the need, evidence and rendition of said services before the TPO.
4. Without prejudice to the aforesaid ground the appellant further submits that the learned TPO/AO ought to have chosen the AE as the tested party as it was the least complex of parties and for which data was available for comparability analysis.
5. The learned TPO/AO erred in additionally choosing and thrusting so called external comparable companies on her own viz. Enkei Wheels (India) Ltd., RSB Transmissions (I) Ltd., Ring Plus Aqua Ltd., Shivam Autotech Ltd., Wheels India Ltd., Z.F. Steering Gear (India) Ltd., Happy Forgings Ltd., Rico Auto Industries Ltd. and Embross Auto Comp Ltd. even though the functions performed by the aforesaid companies were subject to distinctive set of cost drivers as they are in different segments and perform various functions differently and their finished products catered to customers in completely distinct and different industrial segments and reasonably accurate adjustments to the operating expenses and profit could not have been made to eliminate the material effects of such differences.
6. Not restricting the TP adjustment Rs. 13.06 er. only to the value of international transaction in the manufacturing segment under TNMM on the basis of principle of proportionality.
II. Non Transfer Pricing ( Corporate) issues.
- The learned AO erred in disallowing the contribution made to gratuity fund OF Rs. 23,30,000 and superannuation fund amounting to Rs 2,37,000 under the provisions of section 40A(7) of the Act.
The Appellant prays that the learned AO be directed to allow deduction for contribution of Rs 25,57,000 made to gratuity fund and superannuation fund which are pending-for approval before the Income Tax department.
8. The learned AO erred in facts and in law in adding the interest amount of Rs. 1,70,316 to the income of the appellant corresponding to the tax deducted of Rs. 11,534 ( on Rs. 1,15,336) by Maharashtra State Distribution Company Ltd. and Rs. 5,498 ( on Rs. 54,980) by Tamilnadu Generation and Distribution Corporation Ltd. and treating it as not being recorded in the books of accounts of the appellant even though the same were netted off and reduced from the power expenses incurred in the year under consideration.
The Appellant prays that the learned AO be directed to delete the said addition made.
The appellant craves leave to add to, alter, delete, raise any of the grounds at the time of hearing. “
2. At the outset, the ld. Counsel for the assessee, at the time of hearing submitted that the first issue for adjudication before the Tribunal is the issue of forex gain. There is no discussion in TPO’s order. The ld. D.R.P has discussed this issue from para 3 onwards, which is as follows:
“The inclusion of FE gain/loss in the operating revenue would result in distortion of net margins of the tested party and the comparable companies making the comparability analysis unreliable, which is illustrated by way of the following situations.
i) In a case where two enterprises sell the same product on the same date at the same net margin but realise the sale proceeds on different dates, their PLI computed by including the FE gain/loss in the operating revenue would be different due to the difference in the quantum of the gains/loss arising from the difference in the exchange rate on the said dates of realisation.
ii) Where the two enterprises have exported the same product on the same date at the same net margin to different countries with different currencies, their PLI computed by including the FE gain/loss in the operating revenue would be different due to the difference in the extent of fluctuation in the exchange rates of the two currencies from the date of sale to the date of realisation of the sale proceeds.
Further, it is relevant to note that Rule 10TA of IT Rules forming part of safe harbour rules dealing with the definition of operating revenue and operating expense prescribe the exclusion of the income/loss arising on account of foreign currency fluctuations from the operating revenue/expenses. Though the assessee has not opted for safe harbour rules and the said rules are not applicable to the assessee for the purpose of acceptance of the transfer price if it has resulted in an operating margin which is not less than the rate of prescribed therein, the scope and meaning attached to the expressions ‘operating revenue’, and ‘operating expenses’ as per these rules can be considered to provide guidance for the interpretation of these expressions in the case of the assessee also as the meaning of these expressions would remain the same irrespective of whether an enterprise has opted for safe harbour rules or not.
Having regard to the reasons cited above, we are of the view that the FE fluctuation gain/loss is required to be treated as non-operating and excluded from the computation of the PLI of the tested party and the comparables for facilitating a reliable comparability analysis.
This issue of treatment of foreign exchange loss/gain is operating or non-operating for the purpose of computing the PLI of the assessee and the comparables has been a subject matter of various decisions of Hon’ble tribunals. The assessee has relied on many decisions wherein various benches of the Hon’ble SITAT have held that the foreign exchange fluctuation gain/loss should be treated as Operating income/cost. However, we find that in the case of M/.s. DHL Express (India) )(P).Ltd. (2011) 11 taxman.com 40, the Hon’ble ITAT Mumbai laid down the principles that the foreign exchange gain/loss has nothing to do with the main operations of the assessee and therefore the same represents a non-operating income/loss which needs to be excluded for the purpose of benchmarking the international transactions . Thus, we find that there is no judicial consensus on the issue of treatment of gain/loss arising from foreign exchange rate fluctuation in respect of transactions carried out during the course of business. As the issue is pending before the higher courts for adjudication and has not reached finality in the light of the change in law doing away with the right of the department to appear against the order of the DROP, we rely on the above cited decisions of the Hon’ble Mumbai, apart from the detailed reasons cited in the preceding paragraphs to hold that the foreign exchange fluctuation gain/loss should be treated as non-operating income/expenses for the purpose of computation of PLI of the tested party and the comparables.
The action of the TPO of treating the forex gain/loss as non-operative is proper and justified and therefore the contention of the assessee is rejected.”
3. Therefore, the ld. D.R.P held that the forex gain/loss as non-operating in nature and upheld the action of the ld. T.P.O/A.O. Thereafter, the ld. A.R submitted that in assessee’s own case for A.Y. 2013-14, Pune Tribunal in ITA No. 473/PUN/2018 for A.Y. 2013-14, order dated 25-02-2021 has held that forex gain/loss arising from business transaction was operating revenue/cost. The relevant paras are as follows:
“12.2 We have noted supra that rule 10TA is not relevant in determining the ALP under rule 10B(1)(e). Ergo, decision as to a particular item of revenue, being operating or non-operating, needs to be taken in the hue of commercial principles de hors definition given in rule 10TA. In the context of the three items under consideration, namely, Tooling Expenses provision reversal, Testing provision reversal and Sales tax refund, we find that what is relevant in this context is to find out the treatment given to them at the time of the creation of provision for Tooling expenses or Testing expenses on one hand or the payment of Sales tax on the other. In case these three items, at the time of their creation/payment – whether in this year or in any preceding year – were taken as part of operating costs, then the sequitur is that their reversal in the year under consideration would also draw the same colour, namely, that of operating nature and would constitute operating income and vice versa. The ld. AR did not readily have the relevant data to demonstrate their nature at the time of their creation/payment. Under these circumstances, we set aside the impugned order and remit the matter to the file of AO/TPO for seeing if the provisions of Tooling and Testing, at the time of their creation, were taken as part of the operating cost. In case, the answer is found to be in affirmative, then naturally, their reversal in the year under consideration would also lead to operating revenue. Similarly, if the amount of sales tax was taken as operating cost at the time of payment, then receipt of its refund in the year in question would also give rise of the operating revenue and vice-versa.
IV. Foreign exchange fluctuation gain
13. The next item is foreign exchange fluctuation gain. The assessee treated this amount as operating revenue. The TPO, again relying on the definition of operating revenue under Rule 10TA, did not accept the assessee’s contention. We have held above that Rule 10TA is not applicable and as such the determination of the character of foreign exchange gain will have to be guided by the normal business understanding and commercial principles. It is fairly settled that foreign exchange gain/loss arising from business transactions is operating revenue/cost. Several benches of the Tribunal including a recent decision of the Pune Benches in Delval Flow Controls Pvt. Ltd. Vs. DCIT (ITA No.640/PUN/2017) dated 20-01-2021 have laid down to this extent. We, therefore, direct to take foreign exchange gain as part of operating revenue.”
4. Therefore, the Tribunal has held in assessee’s own case that foreign exchange gain is a part of operating revenue. The ld. CIT DR could not place on record documents/evidences to suggest any deviation of facts. In view thereof, following the same parity of reasoning in assessee’s own case in earlier years, the grounds on forex gain issue are allowed.
5. The next issue is with regard to the insurance claim. The ld. D.R.P has discussed this issue at page 9 para 3.3.3 as under:
3.3.3 Objection with respect to other operating income of 30 lacs.
“Though there is no reference in the order of TPO for reasons for excluding this income we find that only reference is made to rule 10TA. The assessee has filed details of break up as in para 3.2(ii). Considering that the income is tooling receipt, the panel holds it is in the nature of operating income. However, as regards insurance claim, the same relates to earlier years received in A.Y.; 2014-15 (details filed on 10-08-2018) and hence cannot be part of current year operating income. Objection is partly allowed.”
6. We find that in assessee’s own case for A.Y. 2013-14 (supra) the Tribunal has observed as follows:
“12.2 ..In case these three items, at the time of their creation/payment – whether in this year or in any preceding year – were taken as part of operating costs, then the sequitur is that their reversal in the year under consideration would also draw the same colour, namely, that of operating nature and would constitute operating income and vice versa……..”
7. So, therefore, it was observed by the Tribunal that if any item at the time of creation/payment if it is taken as part of operating cost in the year under consideration, then, it would be operating in nature and would constitute operating income. We notice that at page 5 of the D.R.P’s order there is a table given in which it is stated that “insurance claim receipt in respect of export assignment damage claim”, which therefore, signifies it as operating cost. Once it is operating cost then in the year under consideration it would also draw the same colour viz. it would be operating in nature and would constitute operating income. This ground of the assessee is therefore, allowed.
8. The next issue in this appeal pertains to payment of intra group services. The T.P.O has dealt with this issue at page 27 para 11.3 on wards. The main objection of the department regarding this issue is that the assessee has not submitted any documents to prove the actual receipt of services. The H.R functions including employee revenue policy, job evaluation, hiring and recruitment, etc. None of these services have been proved by the assessee as received from A.E.
9. At the time of hearing, the ld. .A.R for the assessee reiterated the submissions placed before the subordinate authorities and vehemently contended that the services were actually received and that they have submitted detailed evidences before the Department evidencing such receipt of intra group services. That even before us, in the paper book at page 70 to 253 they have annexed all the said evidences. The ld. A.R further submitted that in assessee’s own case for A.Y. 2013-14 (supra) on the identical facts situation where the assessee was called upon by the department to file details for proving receipt of services and benefits derived, in absence of any satisfactory explanation tendered by the assessee, the T.P.O had determined the ALP at NIL of the international transactions regarding intra group services cost. In such scenario, the Tribunal had observed that given factum of various e-mails, etc. submitted by the assessee before the Department, it is difficult to hold that the assessee did not lead any evidences proving receipt of services.
10. Per contra, the ld. CIT DR submitted that one e-mail can pertain to so many transactions but it is not at all clear from the evidences submitted by the assessee that whether that particular e-mail pertains to receipt of intra group services or some other transactions. Therefore, the ld. CIT DR submitted that the matter may be restored to the file of the A.O/T.P.O for fresh adjudication after due verification.
11. Having heard the parties on this issue, we find that Pune Tribunal in assessee’s own case (supra) has discussed and held on this issue as follows:
“17.3 We have heard the rival submissions and gone through the relevant material on record. It is seen that the assessee claimed to have incurred Rs.11.71 crore to Dana Corporation, USA for receipt of Sales, General and Administration services. The TPO determined Nil ALP primarily on the ground that the assessee could not adduce any evidence for receipt of services and also that no benefit was derived from such services. In our considered ITA No.473/PUN/2018 Dana India Private Limited 26 opinion, there is no rationale in applying the `benefit test’ while determining the ALP of intra-group services. Once a particular expenditure is incurred for which services are received, it does not matter whether or not such services resulted into any benefit to the assessee. This reasoning of the authorities below is jettisoned.
17.4 The second reason of the TPO is that the assessee could not lead any evidence to support the receipt of services. As against that, the ld. AR has placed before us two paper books, one from pages 1 to 160 and second from 161 to 269 containing the evidence of receipt of services from Dana Corporation, USA along with copies of relevant agreements. It can be seen from various e-mails that the AE did render Sales and Administration services to the assessee. As such, it is difficult to hold that the assessee did not lead any evidence towards receipt of services.
17.5 The ld. AR submitted that the TPO should not have questioned the ALP of the of the intra-group services as it was accepted at arm’s length in the earlier years, that is, 2008-09 and 2012-13. Similar contention was also advanced before the DRP as has been recorded at page 32 of its direction. In our view, the factum of acceptance of payment for the intra-group services at ALP for the preceding years is simply relevant but not decisive. ITA No.473/PUN/2018 Dana India Private Limited 27 The international transactions need to be independently proved at ALP every year.
17.6 On a specific query as to the amount of intra-group expense incurred by the assessee in the year under consideration and in the earlier years, the ld. AR could give the amount of intragroup services expense only for the immediately preceding year at Rs.2.74 crore as against cost for the year under consideration at Rs.11.71 crore. Considering the difference in the figures of revenue on one hand and intergroup services on the other for the current year vis-a-vis the preceding year, ex facie, the transaction cannot be declared at ALP, unless a detailed examination is carried out. As the TPO has determined Nil ALP on the preliminary premise that there was no evidence of receipt of services and we have noticed above the fact of receipt of services, we set-aside the impugned order on this score and remit the matter to the file of AO/TPO for determining the ALP of the international transaction of Intra-group Sales, General and Administrative services afresh as per law after allowing reasonable opportunity of hearing to the assessee.”
12. In the aforesaid findings, the Tribunal has observed that since T.P.O determined NIL ALP on the preliminary premises that there was no evidence of receipt of services and that the Tribunal has noticed the fact of receipt of services, therefore, this issue was set aside and the matter was remanded back to the file of the A.O./TPO for determining the ALP of the international transaction of intra group services as per law after allowing reasonable opportunity of hearing to the assessee. Therefore, following the same parity of reasoning for this year also and on the same premises that on one hand the revenue states that no evidence was furnished regarding receipt of intra group services and on the other hand the Tribunal has noticed the fact of receipt of services, as per the aforestated order in assessee’s own case (supra) and also considering the submissions of the ld. D.R on this issue, therefore, for detailed factual verification this issue is remanded back to the file of the A.O/T.P.O to re-adjudicate as per law complying with the principles of natural justice. This ground of appeal is allowed for statistical purposes.
13. The ld. A.R for the assessee submitted that they are not pressing grounds No. 4 and 5.
14. Having considered the submissions of the ld. A.R these grounds are dismissed as not pressed.
15. In ground No. 6, the assessee contends that T.P adjustment of Rs. 13.06 cores should be restricted only to value of international transactions in the manufacturing segment under TNMM on the basis of principle of proportionality. Similar issue has been dealt with by co-ordinate Bench of Pune Tribunal in the case of DCIT Cir. 1(1) Pune Vs. Franke Faber India Pvt. Ltd. in ITA No. 161/PUN/2022 for A.Y. 2012-13, order dated 01-08-2022, wherein it has been categorically held as follows:
“10. The only other ground is about the proportionate adjustment. In this regard we find that the issue of restricting the transfer pricing adjustment to the extent of international transactions rather than the entity level is no more res integra in view of several judgments rendered by various higher forums including the Hon’ble jurisdictional High Court in CIT Vs. Phoenix Mecano (India) Pvt. Ltd. (2019) 414 ITR 704 (Bom.) holding that the transfer pricing adjustment should be restricted only to the international transactions and not the entity level transactions. The Hon’ble High Court in has held that the transfer pricing adjustment made at entity level should be restricted to the international transactions only. Here, it is pertinent to mention that the Department’s SLP against the judgment in the case of Phoenix Mecano (India) Pvt. Ltd. has since been dismissed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in CIT Vs. Phoenix Mecano (India) Pvt. Ltd. (2018) 402 ITR 32 (St.). Similar view has been taken by the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in CIT Vs. Thyssen Krupp Industries Pvt. Ltd. (2016) 381 ITR 413 (Bom.) and CIT Vs. Tara Jewels 7 Exports (P). Ltd. (2010) 381 ITR 404 (Bom.). We, therefore, set aside the impugned order on this score and direct that the transfer pricing adjustment should be restricted only to the extent of the international transactions.
16. Respectfully following the aforetated judicial pronouncement we set aside the findings of the ld. D.R.P on this issue and direct that the transfer pricing adjustment should be restricted only to the extent of the international transactions. Accordingly, Ground No. 6 stands allowed.
17. Regarding ground No. 7, the ld. A.R for the assessee submitted that the issue of contribution made to gratuity fund and superannuation fund under the provisions of sec. 40A(7) of the Act is decided in favour of the assessee in assessee’s own case for A.Y. 2013-14 (supra) as per the following paragraphs.
“19.1 The only other ground that survives for adjudication is the disallowance of Rs.27,98,305/- towards contribution to the employees’ gratuity fund and Rs.42,44,970/- towards contribution to superannuation fund. The AO invoked the provisions of section 40A(7) for disallowing the claim made by the assessee on the premise of non-approval of the funds from the Commissioner of Income-tax.
19.2 The ld. AR contended that the assessee applied for the approval of these funds before the Commissioner of Income-tax several years ago, but no decision has been rendered so far despite repeated reminders. Considering the provisions of section 40A(7) of the Act, it is apparent that the deduction can be allowed only if the Gratuity and Superannuation Funds are duly approved by the Commissioner of Income-tax. As the requisite funds are still pending approval from the ld. Commissioner of Income-tax, we are constrained to directly grant any deduction in this regard. It is expected that the ld. CIT will shortly pass an order on the assessee’s applications. The matter is sent back to the AO, who will decide the matter in conformity with such order of the ld. CIT.”
18. Considering the provisions of section 40A(7) of the Act it is apparent that the deduction can be allowed only if the gratuity and superannuation funds are duly approved by the ld. C.I.T. In the present case before us, the ld. A.R for the assessee submitted that the issue is still pending approval from the ld. C.I.T. It is expected that the ld. C.I.T. will shortly pass orders with regard to assessee’s application. Following the same parity of reasons for this year also as in the preceding year, the matter is sent back to the file of the ld. A.O. who will decide the matter in conformity with such order of the ld. C.I.T. Ground No. 7 is allowed for statistical purposes.
19. In ground No. 8, the assessee is aggrieved by the addition of interest amount of Rs.1,70,316/- to the income of the assessee corresponding to the tax deducted of Rs., 11,534/- (on Rs. 1,15,336/-) by Maharashtra State Distribution Company Ltd., and Rs. 5,498 (on Rs. 54,980/-) by Tamilnadu Generation and Distribution Corporation Ltd., treating it as not being recorded in the books of accounts of the assessee even though the same were netted off and reduced from the power expenses incurred in the year under consideration. The A.O has dealt with this issue at page 8 para 14 of his order which is as follows:
“14. During the course of assessment proceedings, on verification of records, it is found the assessee has received an amount of Rs. 1,15,336/- from Maharashtra State Distribution Co. Ltd. (MSDCL) on which TDS of Rs. 11,534/- was deducted u/s 194A. Further, the assessee has also received an amount of Rs. 54,980/- from Tamilnadu Generation and Distribution Corporation Ltd. (TGDCL) on which TDS of Rs. 5,498/- was deducted u/s 194A. The authorised representative of the assessee was asked to reconcile receipts and TDS captured in the ITS data with the books of accounts of the assessee company. The AR of the assessee submitted reconciliation of 26AS on 21-11-2017. On perusal it is noticed that the receipt of Rs. 1,70,316/- (1,15,336/- + 54,980/-)has not been recorded in the books of the assessee company. The assessee is following mercantile system of accounting. The receipt needs to be recorded in the books of the assessee in the assessment year 2014-15. Therefore, interest income of Rs. 1,70,316/- was proposed to be charged to tax in the draft assessment order by adding it to the income returned by the assessee company.
14.1 In respect of objection filed by the assessee against the addition on account of interest income received from Maharashtra State Distribution Co. Ltd. And Tamilnadu Generation and Distribution Corporation Ltd. Of Rs. 1,70,316/-. The Hon’ble DRP has rejected the ground in the absence of details to substantiate the claim. Hence, Rs. 1,70,316/- is added to the total income.”
20. The ld. A.R reiterated the submissions regarding this issue and submitted that they have netted off and reduced from the power expenses incurred in the year under consideration and the assessee has submitted details of electricity bills showing netting of interest income on deposit from the electricity charges annexed at pages 730 to 737 of the paper book. The ld. A.R further submitted that in this regard the matter can go back to the file of the A.O for reconciliation. The ld. D.R did not raise any objection.
21. Having heard the parties this issue is remitted back to the file of the A.O for re-adjudication after considering the detailed evidences as filed by the assessee. Ground No. 8 is allowed for statistical purposes.
22. The assessee has also raised the following additional ground:
“Being aggrieved by the directions of Dispute Resolution Panel (DRP) and order of assessment finalised by the ld. A.O consequent to the directions of DRP confirming the Profit Level Indicator (PLI) reworking of TPO made on the basis of Rule 10TA of the Income-tax Rules, 1962. Your appellant submits following additional ground for your kind and sympathetic consideration.
The ld. DRP/AO erred in confirming the upward TP adjustment by reworking the PLI of Operating Profit (OP) to Operating Cost (OC) of the appellant and the external uncontrolled entities under TNMM by suo motu applying Safe Harbour (SHR) Rules and Rule 10TA inter alia and excluding the foreign exchange gain/loss from the Operating Profit without appreciating the fact that the appellant had not opted for the SHR and Rule 10TA was not at all applicable in its case.
It is prayed that the foreign exchange gain/loss having arisen from the exports/imports of products/material in the ordinary course of conduct of business be directed to be included in the operating profit.
Your appellant craves leave to ad, modify or raise ground at the time of hearing.”
23. We observe that we have held in the case of the assessee that foreign exchange gain/loss which has arisen from exports/imports of the product/materials which are in the ordinary course of business of the assessee are included as operating cost. This is in conformity with the decision of the Tribunal in earlier year (supra) orders of the assessee and following the same parity of reasoning and in the same set of facts and circumstances the same is allowed for this year also. In view of these findings, the additional ground filed by the assessee is therefore, rendered academic in nature.
24. The appeal of the assessee is decided as directed here in above.
25. In the combined result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes.
Order pronounced in the open Court on this 2nd November 2022