Income Tax Appellate Tribunal Delhi M/S. Aircom International India (P) ... vs Dcit, New Delhi on 28 February, 2017 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL (DELHI BENCH 'I1' : NEW DELHI) BEFORE SHRI R.S. SYAL, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER and SHRI KULDIP SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA No.4836/Del./2009 (ASSESSMENT YEAR : 200506) DCIT, Circle 1 (1), vs. M/s. Aircom International India Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi. M 12, Balrama House, Karampura Commercial Complex, New Delhi 110 015. (PAN : AADCA0915A) CO No.50/Del/2010 (in ITA No.4836/Del./2009) (ASSESSMENT YEAR : 200506) M/s. Aircom International India Pvt. Ltd., vs. DCIT, Circle 1 (1), M 12, Balrama House, New Delhi. Karampura Commercial Complex, New Delhi 110 015. (PAN : AADCA0915A) (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) ASSESSEE BY : Shri Nageshwar Rao, Advocate REVENUE BY : Shri Neeraj Kumar, Senior DR Date of Hearing : 16.02.2017 Date of Order : 28.02.2017 ORDER PER KULDIP SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER : Since common questions of facts and law have been raised in both the aforesaid appeal and cross objection, the same are being 2 ITA No.4836/Del./2009 CO No.50/Del/2010 disposed off by way of consolidated order to avoid repetition of discussion. 2. The Appellant, M/s. Aircom International India Pvt. Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as 'the assessee') in ITA No.4836/Del/2009 by filing the present appeal sought to set aside the impugned order dated 28.10.2009 passed by the Commissioner of Incometax (Appeals)XX, New Delhi qua the assessment year 200506 on the grounds inter alia that : "1) Whether the Ld. CIT (A) in the facts and circumstances of the case erred in calculating the mean PLI of the comparables by inclusion of a comparable having margin below () 0.05%which was a filter applied by the assessee and not disputed either by the TPO or by the CIT(A). 2) Whether the Ld. CIT(A), in fact a d circumstances of the case, erred to reject a comparable on the grounds of having related party transaction is of more than 15 to 20% when if fact such transactions were never routed through the profit and loss account. 3) Whether the Ld. CIT(A). in facts and circumstances of the case erred in not holding the approach of the TPO as unjustified and having consequently applied the amended filters of the TPO on the comparables of the assessee itself, when the criteria of industry selection of the assessee was not focused. 4) Whether the ld. CIT (A) in facts and circumstances of the case erred in rejecting filters of revision of lower turnover limit, negative growth phase, wages to sales and Net Fixed Assets to Sales. 3 ITA No.4836/Del./2009 CO No.50/Del/2010 5) Whether the Ld. CIT(A) in facts and circumstances of the case erred in holding that Stock adjustment should be taken as expense when there are no statutory guidelines on this issue and consistency of approach have been followed by the TPO. 6) Whether the Ld. CIT(A), in facts and circumstances of the case erred in holding that Forex Gain/Loss and Miscellaneous Income is non operating in nature." 3. The Objector, DCIT, Circle 1(1), New Delhi (hereinafter referred to as 'the Revenue'), by filing the present cross objection, sought to set aside the impugned order dated 28.10.2009 passed by the Commissioner of Incometax (Appeals)XX, New Delhi qua the assessment year 200506 on the grounds inter alia that : 1. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax Appeals ("CIT(A)") erred in not holding the order passed by the Ld. Assessing Officer ("Ld. AO") as bad in law and void abinitio. 2. That the Ld. CIT(A) erred in not recognizing that the reference made by the Ld. AO suffered from jurisdictional error. The Ld.