Per R. S. Syal, AM: This appeal by the assessee is directed against the order passed by the Assessing Officer u/s 143(3) read with section 144C of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter also called `the Act) on 20.1.2014 in relation to the assessment year 2009-10.
I. LACK OF JURISDICTION 2.1. The first issue espoused up by the ld. AR raised through ground No. 3 is against the non-discharging of the statutory onus cast upon the Assessing Officer in terms of clauses (a) to (d) of sec. 92c(3) ITA No. 722/Del/2014 Techbooks International Pvt. Ltd. of the Act. The ld. Senior Counsel for the assessee submitted that a specific objection in this regard was taken before the Dispute Resolution Panel (DRP) which has been summarily dismissed without giving any convincing reason. On the merits of the ground, it was put forth that the Assessing Officer (AO) failed to discharge the onus to establish that the assessees case was covered under any of the clauses (a) to (d) of sec. 92c(3) which is a pre-condition for assuming jurisdiction to proceed with the determination of Arms Length Price (ALP) of the international transactions. In support of this contention, the ld. AR relied on certain lines from the judgment of the Honble Delhi High Court in the case of Sony India (P) Ltd. Vs CBDT and Anr. (2007) 288 ITR 52 (Delhi). He stated that it was obligatory on the part of the A.O to form an opinion as regards fulfillment of either or all of requirements stipulated in the clauses (a) to (d) of sec. 92c(3). Having not done so, the ld. AR urged that the following entire exercise of determining the ALP and the resultant transfer pricing addition got vitiated. The ld. DR opposed this argument but stating that no such requirement is enshrined in the provision. He also relied on the judgment in the case of Sony India (supra). 2.2. We have heard the rival submissions and perused the relevant material on record. The thrust of the ld. AR is on sub-sec. (3) of sec. 92C which, in turn, provides that where during the course of any proceeding for the assessment of income, the Assessing Officer, on the basis of material or information or document in his possession, is of the opinion that (a) the price charged or paid in an international transaction has not been determined in accordance with sub-sections (1) and (2); or (b) any information and documents relating to an ITA No. 722/Del/2014 Techbooks International Pvt. Ltd. international transaction have not been kept and maintained by the assessee in accordance with the provisions contained in sub-section (1) of sec. 92D; or (c) the information or data used in computation of the arm's length price is not reliable or correct; or (d) the assessee has failed to furnish, within the specified time, any information or document which he was required to furnish by a notice issued under sub-section (3) of sec. 92D, then he may proceed to determine the ALP in relation to the said international transaction. Sec. 92CA, which is quite relevant for our purpose deals with making a reference to the Transfer Pricing Officer (TPO). Sub-sec. (1) of sec. 92CA of the Act mandates that where an assessee has entered into an international transaction in any previous year, and the AO considers it necessary or expedient so to do, he may, with the previous approval of the Commissioner, refer the computation of the arm's length price in relation to the said international transaction under sec. 92C to the TPO. Here it is relevant to take note of Instruction No. 3 of 2003 dated 28.5.2003 issued in the context of section 92CA, which provides that wherever the aggregate value of international transactions of an assessee in a year exceeds Rs. 5 crore, the case should be picked up for scrutiny and reference u/s 92CA be made to the TPO. The assessee in Sony India (supra) challenged the vires of the Instruction No. 3 of 2003 by claiming that the words necessary and expedient in section 92CA(1) require formation of opinion by the A.O before making a reference to the TPO. Rejecting this contention, the Honble High Court held that : `There is nothing in s. 92CA itself that requires the AO to first form a considered opinion in the manner indicated in s. 92C(3) before he can make a reference to the TPO. In our view, it is ITA No. 722/Del/2014 Techbooks International Pvt. Ltd. not possible to read such a requirement into s. 92CA(1). However, it will suffice if the AO forms a prima facie opinion that it is necessary and expedient to make such a reference.. It was further noticed by Their Lordships that the transactions of high value require a careful examination to determine if the declared price is in fact acceptable as at ALP. It may not be expedient for the AO to efficiently deal with the assessment involving such an exercise. In that sense it achieves the expedient disposal of the assessment by the AO if the exercise is referred for a specialised determination by the TPO. That is how the Instruction No. 3 dt. 20th May, 2003 issued by the CBDT was held to be consistent with the statutory objective underlying s. 92CA(1) and acting as a guidance to the AO in the exercise of discretion in referring an international transaction to the TPO for determination of its ALP. Eventually, it was held by Their Lordships that such Instruction is neither arbitrary nor unreasonable, and is not ultra vires the Act.. It is palpable from the above judgment that the AO is required to form only a prima facie view at the stage of making reference to the TPO. The effect of holding such Instruction as intra vires is that all of its contents are legally sustainable. Similar view has been reiterated by the Honble Delhi High Court in Ranbaxy Laboratories Ltd. VS. CIT (2013) 245 ITR 193 (Del). It is further relevant to note that the Honble Punjab & Haryana High Court was called upon to answer inter alia question : (iv) Whether opportunity of being heard is required before referring the matter of determination of ALP to TPO ?" in Coca Cola Inc. VS. Asstt. CIT (2009) 309 ITR 194 (P&H). Answering this question in negative, the Honble High Court observed that : `The decision is to be taken by the AO having regard to the question ITA No. 722/Del/2014 Techbooks International Pvt. Ltd. whether it will be proper for the AO himself to determine the ALP or it will be expedient to have it determined from the TPO. There is safeguard of seeking prior approval of the CIT. Whether computation of ALP is made by one officer or by the other, does not in any manner affect the assessee.. These judgments make it clear that there is no such requirement in the language of the statute as is sought to be read by the ld. AR. 2.3. We find that the legislature has provided sufficient safeguards to protect the interest of the assessee in this regard. Firstly, the reference by the A.O to the TPO u/s 92CA(1) can be made only with the previous approval of Commissioner. Secondly, the TPO gives sufficient opportunity to the assessee to show cause as to how its international transactions are at ALP. Thirdly, the assessee is free to challenge the draft order passed by the A.O, giving effect to the TPOs finding, before the Dispute Resolution Panel. The DRP is required to give due opportunity of hearing to the assessee before giving decision on the objections raised against the draft order including the transfer pricing adjustment. It is only thereafter that the final assessment order is passed. Thus, it is evident that assessee gets two opportunities to put forth its point of view before the finalization of the assessment order, viz., firstly before the TPO and then the DRP. The resultant assessment order passed after these twin opportunities is again subject to appeal before the tribunal. In view of the aforenoted safeguards provided by the legislature shielding the interest of the assessee, we are of the considered opinion that there is no need to device and introduce one more protection in terms of the recording of detailed satisfaction by the A.O before making reference to the TPO ITA No. 722/Del/2014 Techbooks International Pvt. Ltd. that the price charged/paid in an international transaction is not at ALP. 2.4. The ld. AR harped on one-two lines from the judgment of the Honble jurisdictional High Court in the case of Sony India (supra) to unsuccessfully bolster his point of view about the necessity of formation of a considered view (analogous to that u/s 147 before issuing notice u/s 148) by the AO before making a reference in terms of clauses (a) to (d) of section 92c(3). There is hardly any doubt that the requirements of section 147 are quite distinct from that of section
92. Even otherwise, it is trite that requirements of one section cannot be bodily lifted and read into another unless the statute so mandates. Admittedly the value of the assessees international transactions standing at Rs.116 crore is far in excess of the threshold limit of Rs.5 crore given in the Instruction, which, in turn, has been issued in the context of section 92CA. It is significant to note that the case of the assessee is covered under section 92CA and not section 92C as has been argued which is also evident from a reading of ground no.3. Arguments have been advanced by taking recourse to clauses (a) to (d) that are part of section 92C(3) and not section 92CA, which is really applicable to the assessee. When the Honble Delhi High Court in Sony India (supra) has considered and decided the question of validity of the Instruction issued in the context of section 92CA against the assessee, which is fully and directly applicable in the instant case, we fail to appreciate as to how the ratio decidendi of the judgment can be kept at bay and a different conclusion arrived at. Everyone, be the contesting parties or the authorities, acting under the jurisdiction of the Honble High Court are bound by its judgment. It is neither ITA No. 722/Del/2014 Techbooks International Pvt. Ltd. permissible to the appearing parties to seek to canvass a contrary view nor the authorities to be swayed by such arguments and render a divergent view. As the case of the assessee is governed by the Instruction issued in the context of section 92CA and there are direct judgments of the Honble jurisdictional High Court against the assessee on this issue, we jettison this contention raised on behalf of the assessee. 2.5. The ld. AR also submitted during the course of arguments that his objection would be taken care if something is brought on record to demonstrate that the AO did form an opinion as to the fulfillment of the conditions as stipulated in sections 92C/92CA. We are unable to countenance this contention for the obvious reason that when there is a procedure prescribed for doing a particular thing and that thing is done by the concerned authority, then the presumption is that the requisite prescribed procedure was properly followed. This presumption would fail if the assessee brings on record some cogent material to indicate that the authority failed to follow the prescribed procedure. A bald statement about not fulfilling the requisite formalities by the concerned authority, unbacked by any evidence, cannot be accepted. If such a contention is accepted, then it would open floodgates of disputes thereby causing unnecessary delay in the disposal of appeals inasmuch as the assessee would be challenging each and every step taken by the AO demanding proof of having complied with the requisite requirements. Obviously, such a position cannot be accepted. The nutshell is that the prescribed procedure is to be presumed as having been rightly complied with by the concerned authority unless it is specifically and explicitly shown otherwise. ITA No. 722/Del/2014 Techbooks International Pvt. Ltd. Scrutiny in this regard can be undertaken by the appellate authorities only when the assessee adduces some evidence to indicate that there was a failure on the part of the authority to adhere to the prescribed procedure. No material worth the name has been brought on record by the assessee to demonstrate that the AO failed to form a prima facie view at the time of making a reference to the TPO. Finding no merit in this legal ground, we dismiss the same.
II. RULE OF CONSISTENCY 3.1. Next argument taken by the ld. Counsel for the assessee is that no TP adjustment was called for in the extant year inasmuch as the assessees working of ALP for the preceding year was accepted by the authorities. He relied on the judgments of the Honble Supreme Court in Radhasoami Satsang Vs CIT (1992) 193 ITR 321 (SC) and CIT Vs Excel Industries Ltd. 2013 358 ITR 259 (SC) to accentuate on the rule of consistency. 3.2. In principle, we appreciate the rule of consistency. It goes without saying that if a particular issue has been decided in a particular manner in a preceding year, similar view should be taken on such issue in the subsequent year. But it is pertinent to note that the rule of consistency is not without exception. It comes with a rider that there should be no change in the factual or legal position governing that issue in the preceding year vis--vis the succeeding year. If the facts and circumstances and the legal position obtaining in the preceding year is similar to that in the later year, then the view taken in the preceding year should ordinarily be followed. However, we find ITA No. 722/Del/2014 Techbooks International Pvt. Ltd. that the instant case falls in the exception to the rule of consistency. It is relevant to highlight that presently we are dealing with the applicability of Chapter-X, being special provision relating to avoidance of tax. The core of this Chapter is that any income arising from an international transaction should be computed having regard to the Arms Length Price. Certain methods have been prescribed for the determination of ALP. Under the Transactional Net Margin Method (TNMM), which has been applied in the present case, the ratio of net operating profit margin to one of the bases adopted by the assessee is compared with similar base of the comparables for ascertaining whether the assessees international transactions are at ALP. Certain filters are applied for choosing comparables, which form the bedrock for the setting of the benchmark. The profit margin or even the comparables sometimes undergo change from one year to another. Simply because the Arms Length Price declared by the assessee was accepted in a preceding year does not put an embargo on the powers of the authority to determine the ALP of the international transactions for the subsequent year. There are several factors which are taken into consideration for determining the ALP of an international transaction. It is also quite possible that a particular case incomparable in one year may become comparable in the subsequent year and vice versa. The ld. DR submitted that some of the assessees own chosen comparables for the preceding year are not there in the list of comparables for the instant year. This contention has not been controverted on behalf of the assessee. Further a case though functionally comparable may find exclusion from the list of comparables for a year because of certain specific filter in one year, such as the `Related Party Transactions ITA No. 722/Del/2014 Techbooks International Pvt. Ltd. breaching the reasonable percentage, but it may again find its place in the list of comparables for the subsequent year. The mere fact that no Transfer Pricing Adjustment was made in the preceding year would simply mean that the profit shown by the assessee from its international transactions is equal to or more than the benchmarked profit. If the assessee has shown profit at Arms Length Price in one year, which has been accepted as such, it does not necessarily mean that the assessees profit from international transaction in the succeeding year is also better than that of the comparables. It is axiomatic that if profit from the assessees international transactions in succeeding year is equal to or better than that of comparables after considering the cushion available, then there can be no question of making any transfer pricing adjustment notwithstanding the fact that the international transactions were scrutinized in terms of section 92. The crux of the matter is that there are several factors which affect the determination of the ALP, which may be present in one year but absent in the other year. It is too far to claim that the acceptance of international transaction at ALP in one year should preclude the authorities from the determination of ALP in a subsequent year. We, therefore, reject this contention.
III. FOREIGN EXCHANGE FLUCTUATION GAIN/LOSS 4.1. The next issue taken up by the ld. AR is against the exclusion of foreign exchange fluctuation gain/loss from the operating revenue/cost of the assessee as well as the comparables. ITA No. 722/Del/2014 Techbooks International Pvt. Ltd. 4.2. Briefly stated the facts of this issue are that the assessee is a wholly owned subsidiary of Aptara. It offers a combined print and electronic delivery solutions based on XML to publishers. It is engaged in development of customized electronic data. It converts data from hard copy or files into XML/SGML/HTML, creating electronic style file. The assessee earned revenue of Rs. 113.76 crores from its Associated Enterprises (AEs) towards provision of I.T Enabled data conversion services. The assessee chose TNMM as the most appropriate method and Profit Level Indicator (PLI) of Operating profit to Total Cost. The assessee declared its OP/OC ratio at 15.64%. Five comparable cases were chosen, whose average PLI, on the basis of weighted average for the current year and immediately preceding two years, was shown at 12.81%. On the basis of such calculations, it was claimed that its international transactions were at ALP. The TPO accepted the application of TNMM as the most appropriate method without disturbing the PLI of OP/OC. However, the use of multiple years data was restricted to only the current years data. All the five comparables reported by the assessee in its TP study were held to be incomparable. The TPO conducted his own search and came up with certain new comparables as tabulated on page 14 of his order. The assessee also selected certain new comparable cases and offered to the TPO for consideration. After considering the entire material, the TPO shortlisted five comparable cases with their OP/TC as under: ITA No. 722/Del/2014 Techbooks International Pvt. Ltd. Name of the Company OP/TC(%)
1. Aditya Birla Minacs Worldwide Ltd. 13.91%
2. Crossdomain 25.63%
3. Cosmic Global 48.12%
4. Cepha Imaging 20.08%
5. Coral Hub 36.93% Average 28.93% 4.3. Thereafter, he proceeded to compute the ALP and proposed transfer pricing adjustment of Rs. 14,33,87,402/-. Pursuant to the direction given by the DRP, the A.O passed the final order making addition on account of TP adjustment at Rs. 18,29,51,057/-. The assessee is aggrieved against this addition. 4.4. The first issue agitated before us is against treating the foreign exchange fluctuation as an item of non-operating nature which was excluded by the TPO for the purposes of computing the margin of the assessee as well as of the comparables. The ld. AR contended that the assessee earned foreign exchange gain amounting to Rs. 1,17,78,842/- which was declared as part of the operating profit by reducing it from the operating expenses incurred by the assessee, but the TPO reduced such amount of foreign exchange fluctuation gain from the assessees profit and also embarked upon the same exercise for excluding the effect of similar foreign exchange gain/loss from the financial results of the five comparables cases finally chosen by him. It was urged that the forex gain/loss is required to be considered as a part of the operating revenue/cost. ITA No. 722/Del/2014 Techbooks International Pvt. Ltd. 4.5. We observe that the assessee raised objection at Serial No.
11 before the DRP contending for the inclusion of foreign exchange gain/loss as part of the operating cost/revenue. The DRP vide page 9 of its order directed the TPO: to rectify the arithmetical errors in the computation of margins of the comparables in accordance with the provision of the Act. There is no decision on the assessees objection against not including foreign exchange gain/loss as the operating revenue/cost. On a specific query, it was pointed out by the ld. AR that the assessees foreign exchange gain resulted from the international transactions in question which are of the revenue character. 4.6. We find merit in the contention raised on behalf of the assessee about the inclusion of foreign exchange gain/loss in the operating revenue/costs of the assessee as well as that of the comparables. When we advert to the nature of such foreign exchange gain earned by the assessee, it comes out that the same is in relation to the revenue earned by the assessee from its A.Es in connection with the provision of I.T Enabled data conversion services, which has been reported as international transaction to the tune of Rs. 113.76 crores. When the foreign exchange gain directly emanates from the consideration received for rendering of services to its A.E, we fail to appreciate as to how such foreign exchange gain fluctuation can be considered as an item of non-operating revenue. What is true for foreign exchange gain from the transactions of the revenue nature being considered as part of operating revenue is equally true for the ITA No. 722/Del/2014 Techbooks International Pvt. Ltd. foreign exchange loss being considered as part of operating costs from the transactions of the revenue nature. 4.7. The Special Bench of the Tribunal in ACIT Vs Prakash I. Shah (2008) 115 ITD 167 (Bom)(SB) has held that the gain due to fluctuation in the foreign exchange rate emanating from export is its integral part and cannot be differentiated from the export proceeds simply on the ground that the foreign currency rate has increased subsequent to sale but prior to realization. It went on to add that when goods are exported and the invoice is raised in the currency of the country from where the goods are sold and subsequently when the amount is realized in that foreign currency and then converted into Indian rupees, the entire amount is relatable to the exports made. In fact it is only the translation of invoice value from the foreign currency to the Indian rupees. It held that the exchange rate gain or loss cannot have a different character than the transaction to which it relates. The Bench further found fallacy in the submission made on behalf of the Revenue that the exchange rate difference should be detached from the exports and be considered as an independent transaction. Eventually, the Special Bench held that such exchange rate gain arising from export cannot be viewed in a different shade. 4.8. In the context of transfer pricing, the Bangalore Bench of the Tribunal in SAP Labs India Pvt. Ltd. Vs ACIT (2011) 44 SOT 156 (Bangalore) has held that foreign exchange fluctuation gain is part of operating profit of the company and should be included in the operating revenue. Similar view has been taken in Trilogy E Business ITA No. 722/Del/2014 Techbooks International Pvt. Ltd. Software India (P) Ltd. Vs DCIT (2011) 47 SOT 45 (URO) (Bangalore). The Mumbai Bench of the Tribunal in S. Narendra Vs Addtl. CIT (2013)
32 taxman.com 196 has also laid down to this extent. In view of the foregoing discussion, we are of the considered opinion that the amount of foreign exchange gain/loss arising out of revenue transactions is required to be considered as an item of operating revenue/cost. 4.9. Since, the TPO has computed PLI of the assessee as well as comparables by ignoring the amount of forex gain/loss, we set aside the impugned order and remit the matter to the file of AO/TPO to recompute the assessees margin as well as that of the comparables by considering foreign exchange gain/loss as an item of operating revenue/cost. We want to make it clear that our finding in this regard is restricted to considering forex gain/loss from the transactions of the revenue nature as part of operating revenue/cost. If the forex gain/loss is relatable to capital account, then that cannot be considered as part of operating revenue/cost. In the fresh exercise to be undertaken by the TPO/AO, it is directed to examine the nature of forex gain/loss in the light of our above observations not only in the case of the assessee but also the comparables for deciding as to whether such forex gain/loss should constitute part of operating revenue/costs.
IV. CORAL HUB LTD. 5.1. The next objection of the ld. AR is against the inclusion of the case of Coral Hub Ltd. (earlier known as Vishal Information ITA No. 722/Del/2014 Techbooks International Pvt. Ltd. Technologies Ltd.[VITL]) in the list of comparables. The ld. AR argued that the TPO erred in including this case in the list of comparables, which is quite different from that of the assessee. It was submitted that this company was involved in an altogether different business model of outsourcing activities; owning significant intangibles with minimum employees cost ratio as compared to that of the assessee. He stated that this case has been held by the revenue authorities themselves to be incomparable for the immediately preceding year, that is, A.Y. 2008-09. It was pointed out that this case was included by the TPO in the list of comparables while determining the ALP for the assessment year 2007-08. Inviting our attention towards the order passed by the Tribunal in assessees own case for the assessment year 2007-08, the ld. AR contended that this case has been held to be incomparable. It was, therefore, prayed that this case be excluded from the list of comparables for the instant year. Per contra, the ld. DR relied on the impugned order on this issue. 5.2. After considering the rival submissions and perusing the relevant material on record, we find that the contention of the ld. AR that the case of VITL be excluded because it was done for the A.Y. 2008-09, is not tenable. It is relevant to note that this case was held to be not comparable on the basis of filter of `Related party transactions at more than 25%, thereby taking it out of the purview of uncontrolled transaction. Nothing has been brought on record to demonstrate that the related party transactions of VITL for the current year exceed the threshold limit of 25%. While dealing with the rule of consistency supra, we have observed that simply because a case has ITA No. 722/Del/2014 Techbooks International Pvt. Ltd. been held to be incomparable for one year cannot per se be considered as incomparable for the succeeding year. It is essential to consider the basis on which such case was held to be not comparable. If the same basis continues in the succeeding year, then, of course, such case merits exclusion. As the base for leaving out the case of VITL from comparables for the immediately preceding year has not been proved for the instant year, we cannot approve this contention of the ld. AR. 5.3. However, we find from the Tribunal order for the assessment year 2007-08 that the case of Vishal Information Technologies Ltd. (now called as Coral Hub Ltd.) has been held to be not comparable because of different business model as it was outsourcing execution of contract from external vendors. The Tribunal has noted in para 13 of its order, a copy of which is available on record, that the employee cost in the case of VITL was a mere 3% of the total cost, whereas in the case of the assessee it stood at 60%. The position for the current year is also more or less similar. The employees cost of VITL for the instant year is at 2.71% of the total cost as against a little more than 60% of the assessee. 5.4. At this juncture, it is paramount to record the contention of the ld. DR that the filter of employees cost to total cost is not relevant as it does not ultimately impact the overall profitability. He fortified this contention on the strength of the order passed by the Hyderabad Bench of the Tribunal in the case of DCIT Vs Deolite Consulting India Pvt. Ltd. (a copy of order placed on record) in which it has been held ITA No. 722/Del/2014 Techbooks International Pvt. Ltd. that such a filter does not impact the overall profitability and the specific case of VITL has been held to be comparable. 5.5. Confronted with two orders passed by the tribunal taking diagonally opposite views on this filter, we find that one of such orders has been passed in the case of this very assessee for the preceding year directing the exclusion of VITL from the list of comparables on the basis of the filter of employees cost to total cost. One option in such circumstances is to refer the matter for the constitution of special bench on this issue and the second is to follow the view taken in assessees own case. Without making an indepth analysis, prima facie we feel that the view taken by the tribunal in assessees own case is equally convincing vis--vis the contrary view taken by the Hyderabad Bench. Since the rule of consistency enjoins to follow the view taken in the preceding year when there is no change in facts or law, we are persuaded to follow the view canvassed by the Tribunal in assessees own case, more so, when the ld. DR failed to show that the facts and circumstances of the instant year are not similar to those of the A.Y. 2007-08. However, we want to make it clear that our decision to follow the view taken by the tribunal in assessees own case is founded on the principle of stare decisis without independent evaluation of the rival views. The issue, as to which of the two views is more convincing de hors any specific background as is there before us in which the tribunal has taken one view in assessees own case, can be independently examined at some other appropriate time in a suitable case. Since the Tribunal in a preceding year has held this case to be not comparable on the strength of filter of ITA No. 722/Del/2014 Techbooks International Pvt. Ltd. percentage of employees cost to total cost and the assessee passes the test of this filter for the instant year as well, we direct the exclusion of this case from the list of comparables.
6. Initially, the ld. AR made certain submissions against the exclusion of some comparables cases chosen by the assessee and inclusion of some fresh cases by the TPO. However, it was later on submitted during the course of hearing that if the Bench agrees with the assessees contention on the inclusion of foreign exchange fluctuation gain/loss in the operating revenue/cost in assessees case as well as the comparables and the exclusion of the case of Coral Hub Ltd., he will not press for adjudication on other issues. As we have decided these two issues in assessees favour, there is no need to deal with the other grounds inter alia challenging the inclusion or exclusion of other cases in the final list of comparables. We consider it our duty to record that on such submission advanced by the ld. AR, we did not permit the ld. DR to argue in support of the orders passed by the authorities below on such other issues.
7. In the result, the appeal is partly allowed for statistical purposes. Sd/- Sd/- (Rajpal Yadav) (R. S. Syal) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Dated: 28/4/2014 *Subodh* ITA No. 722/Del/2014 Techbooks International Pvt. Ltd. Copy forwarded to:
1. Appellant
2. Respondent
3. CIT
4. CIT(Appeals)
5. DR: ITAT ASSISTANT REGISTRAR Date Initial
1. Draft dictated on 24.4.2014 PS
2. Draft placed before author 28.4.2014 PS
3. Draft proposed & placed before the second member JM/AM
4. Draft discussed/approved by Second Member. JM/AM
5. Approved Draft comes to the Sr.PS/PS PS/PS
6. Kept for pronouncement on PS
7. File sent to the Bench Clerk PS
8. Date on which file goes to the AR
9. Date on which file goes to the Head Clerk.
10. Date of dispatch of Order.