Income Tax Appellate Tribunal Delhi Bg Exploration & Production India Ltd., ... vs Dcit, International Taxation, ... on 3 April, 2019 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCHE 'I1', NEW DELHI Before Sh. N. S. Saini, Accountant Member And Smt. Beena A. Pillai, Judicial Member ITA No. 7476/Del/2018 : Asstt. Year : 201314 ITA No. 7477/Del/2018 : Asstt. Year : 201415 B.G. Exploration & Production India Vs Deputy Commissioner of Ltd., C/o BSR & Associated LLP, 1st Income Tax, International Floor, Lodha Excelus, Apollo Mills Taxation, Circle1, Compound, N.M. Joshi Marg, Dehradun Mahalakshmi, Mumbai400011 (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) PAN No. AAACE4569K Assessee by : Sh. Ajay Vohra, Sr. Adv., Sh. Anshul Sachar, Adv. & Sh. Neeraj Jain, Adv. Revenue by : Sh. Sanjay I. Bara, CIT DR Date of Hearing :25.03.2019 Date of Pronouncement : 03.04.2019 ORDER Per Both parti es submi tted that all i ssues under consi derati on i n year before us a re squa rel y covered by order of Co ordi nate Bench of thi s Tri bunal i n assessee's own ca se for a ssessment year 201011 in ITA Nos.1170 & 1581/Del /2015, order date d 24.04.2017. He submitted that for assessment year 201011 i denti cal i ssues have been consi dered i n detail and deci ded at l ength. 2. Further, speci fi c observati ons by DRP are as under: "It has been brought to notice by the assessee that the Hon'ble ITAT ha s passed the orders for AY 2011 2 ITA Nos. 7476 & 7477Del/2018 BG Exploration & Production India Ltd. 12 and 201213 respectively on 18.07.2018 & 17.07.2018. In these orde rs relief has been given to the assessee on the issues of branch office expenditure cost incurred on non producing PSC , head office expenditure, inventory written off and depreciati on. In ca se a decisi on is taken by the department to accept the decision of Hon 'ble ITAT before the final orde r is passed, the order of the ITAT may be followed to avoid further litigation as the matter become final." 3. Based upon aforestated submi ssi on, i t was submitted by l d. CIT DR that, the orders i n prece di ng assessment year (supra) has been chall enged before Hon'bl e Del hi Hi gh Court, and to keep the i ssues ali ve, Revenue i s contesting before thi s Tri bunal . We upon the a bove submi ssi ons are thus di sposi ng off the assessment years before us by way of a common orde r as under. 4. These are the appeal s fil ed by the assessee agai nst the orde r of the Assessi ng Offi cer u/s 143(3)/144C(13) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 dated 29.10.2018 for assessment years 201314 and 201415 respectivel y. 5. Ground No. 1 i s not pressed. Accordi ngl y thi s ground stands di smi ssed. 6. Ground Nos. 2 to 5 & 7 of the appeal of the assesse e reads as under: "Ground No. 2: Erroneous re jecti on of Transactional Net Margin Method ("T NMM") and selection of Comparable Uncontrolled Price ("C UP") Method. 2.1 The learned AO / DRP / Transfer Pricing Officer ("TPO") have erred in law and on facts by disrega rding the economic analysis conducted by the Appellant, for determination of the arm's length 3 ITA Nos. 7476 & 7477Del/2018 BG Exploration & Production India Ltd. price (" ALP") by application of TNMM on an aggregated basis and further, erred in applying CUP method. Ground No. 3: Without prejudice that TNMM should be selected, learned AO / DRP / TPO applied CUP method in an erroneous manner. 3.1 Without prejudi ce that TNMM should be selected as the most appropriate method for benchmarking the transactions pertaining to intragroup services, the learned AO / DRP / T PO have erroneously selected CUP method an d have a pplied the same in an errone ous manner by considering the amount approved by the Joint Venture ("JV") partner as CUP. Ground No. 4: Errone ously disre garde d the Hon'ble ITAT's decisi on in AY 201112 and AY 201213 and directions of the Hon'ble DRP for AY 200910 and AY 201011. 4.1 The learned AO / DR P / TPO erred in disrega rding the de cision of ITAT i n AY 2011 12 and AY 201213 and the di rections issued by the Hon'ble DRP in the case of the Appellant for the prior years i.e. AY 200910 and AY 201011 (which have also been affirmed by Hon'ble ITAT) even though the facts and circumstances of its case and the bu siness model of the Appellant continued to remain the same. Ground No. 5: Errone ously questioning