9911796707
TMI Blog2022 (2) TMI 1446X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ssessee before the Transfer Pricing Officer wherein the profile of the assessee company has been described it is relevant to note that the TPO while issuing the show cause notice as well as while proposing the adjustment as well as the DRP has not disputed the fact rather there is an categorical affirmation that the assessee is engaged in the business of manufacture and export of colored stones and studded jewellery and has manufacturing units in Jaipur and Mumbai. It has the necessary manufacturing set up with requisite assets and infrastructure in place which are employed. The associated enterprises perform substantial part of marketing, sales and distribution functions. The assessee takes all types of risk such as inventory risk, credit collection Risk, product risk, manpower risk, market risk (to limited extent), technology risk, general business risk and foreign exchange risk. Therefore, we donot find any infirmity in assessee being classified as a manufacturer performing all the entrepreneurial functions. It is again noted that the TPO while issuing the show cause notice as well as while proposing the adjustment as well as the DRP has not disputed the functions performed, the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... io as an appropriate PLI is not justified in the instant case. Cost Plus Method as the most appropriate method confirmed for determining the arms length and Gross Profit/COP as the appropriate Profit Level Indicator Selection of comparables and application of the PLI (i.e. Gross Profit margin / Cost of production) - Taking into consideration the comparables so selected by the TPO where the median OP/COP comes to 12.90% and given that the assessee has reported OP/COP of 13.51%, we find that the assessee s transactions with its associated enterprises meets the arms length requirements and no adjustment is warranted. Therefore following the approach so suggested by OECD/UN transfer pricing guidelines the transfer pricing adjustment is hereby directed to be deleted. Decided in favour of assessee. X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ase, functional profile of the Appellant, established legal principles and internationally accepted transfer pricing guidelines. 4.4 On facts and in law, without prejudice to the other grounds, even if TNMM is adopted as the Most Appropriate Method in the given case, then the Ld. TPO, Ld. AO and the Hon'ble DRP erred in not adopting Operating Profit /Operating Cost ('OP/OC') as the most appropriate PLI and instead incorrectly applied the Berry Ratio. 5. On facts and in law, the Ld. TPO, Ld. AO and the Hon'ble DRP erred in violating the provisions of Rule 10B(2) of the Rules by rejecting certain functionally comparable companies identified by the Appellant in its TP documentation. 6. On facts and in law, the Ld. TPO, Ld. AO and the Hon'ble DRP erred in arbitrarily applying new filters and introducing new companies in the comparable set without sharing the entire search process with the Appellant. 7 On facts and in law, without prejudice to the above grounds, the Ld. TPO, Ld. AO and the Hon'ble DRP erred in disregarding the Appellant's submissions for considering the correct computation of OP/ VAE under the Berry Ratio for the Appellant as well as ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nd in this scenario, OP/Cost of Production will not be an appropriate PLI and as against the same, OP/VAE has been stated to be the appropriate PLI by the TPO. Further, referring to the comparables for benchmarking the international transactions, rejecting most of the comparables except few as selected by the assessee and selecting fresh set of comparables, the TPO stated that the median OP/VAE of the comparables is proposed to be taken at 55.27% and using the same, arms' length revenues of the assessee were determined at Rs.389,85,63,762/- as against reported operating revenues of Rs. 360,60,46,377/- resulting in a difference of Rs.29,25,17,385/- which was proposed as an adjustment u/s 92CA of the Act. Thereafter, the Transfer Pricing Officer passed an order u/s 92CA(3) of the Act dated 25.10.2019 proposing an adjustment of Rs.29,25,17,385/- and taking into consideration the adjustment so proposed by the Transfer Pricing Officer, the draft assessment order u/s 143(3) read with section 144C(13) of the Act was passed by the Assessing officer on 13.11.2019 wherein adjustment on account of transfer pricing as proposed by the Transfer Pricing Officer was made and the assessed income wa ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n its Transfer Pricing Report, the assessee was characterized as a routine manufacturer performing all the entrepreneurial functions and accordingly, the assessee applied the GP/COP as the PLI and choose CPM as the most appropriate method for the purpose of benchmarking analysis in the TP documentation. It was stated that the TPO failed to appreciate that the assessee is engaged in manufacturing activities in complete disregard to the facts of the case, functional profile of the assessee, established legal principles and internationally accepted transfer pricing guidelines. Thereafter, the TPO rejected assessee's benchmarking approach and applied Berry Ratio by observing the following in the TP order as under: "In this case the Appellant is purchasing from related parties and selling to related parties. So, both cost and revenue sides are tainted. In this scenario, OP/Cost of Production will not be an appropriate PLI. OP/VAE has been chosen as PLI" 7. In this regard, the Ld AR submitted that nowhere it is mentioned in either the Indian TP regulations, OECD Guidelines or the UN TP Manual that Berry Ratio is an appropriate method when both sales and cost sides are tainte ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... on value adding activities (and not manufacturing costs). It was submitted that the Berry Ratio is mostly used with low-risk procurement and distribution service providers, which have no funds blocked in inventories and employ no intangible assets. The Ld. AR drawn our attention to the financial statements of the assessee at Page 47-72 of the Paper Book for a detailed break up of inventories and other assets of the assessee and stated that the aforesaid analogy is considered under UN TP manual (2017) as well, extract of which is enclosed on Page 379 of the Paper Book. It was stated that a similar view has been adopted in the OECD guidelines (2017) and relevant extract of the same is submitted at Page 376-378 of the Paper Book. The Ld. AR also relied upon the following judicial precedents which clearly states that Berry ratio can be effectively applied in cases of stripped-down distributors, which have no financial exposure and risk in respect of goods distributed by them: • Delhi ITAT's decision in case of Mitsubishi Corporation India Pvt. Ltd (ITA number 5042/Del/l1 dated 21st October 2014) • Delhi High Court's decision in the case of Sumitomo Corporation Ind ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... with its AEs on a principal-to-principal basis and on an arm's length basis. Further, as a matter of fact, the assessee's AEs have made very nominal or no profit during the year under consideration as per details below: Sr.No. Name of AE OP/OR(%) 1. STS Gems Limited, Hong Kong -3.88% 2. Jewel Gem USA Inc., USA 2.30% 3. STS Gems Thai Limited, Thailand 4.70% 4. The Jewellery Channel Limited, UK 3.67% 5. The Jewellery Channel Inc., USA -1.34% 6. STS Gems Limited, Japan - 7. STS Jewels Inc., USA 4.20% 14. It was submitted that the fact that VGLs operating margin (9.72%) is significantly higher than that of the AEs and there is no motive for the assessee to shift profits outside India and therefore, no adjustment is warranted. Further, any transfer pricing adjustment to the aforesaid transaction of VGL with its AEs would lead to double taxation. 15. Per contra, the Ld. PCIT DR has drawn our reference to the findings of the TPO as well as the DRP. The findings of the TPO are already noted above. As far as the findings of the DRP are considered, the contents thereof read as under: "4.1.1 Ground number 1 is related to the overall proposed TP adjustment of R ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... olled transaction, the price so paid can be said to be arm's length price. In view of the above discussion the Panel does not find any reason to interfere with the order of the AO/TPO on this issue." 16. The ld PCIT/DR also referred to the report of the Transfer Pricing Officer dated 16.11.2011 and contents thereof read as under: "2. In the above context, point wise reply to the contentions raised by Ld. AR was sought from this office. The point wise replies to the contentions are given below:- i) Comments on show cause notice was not considered. In the last paragraph of show cause notice dated 15.10.2019, it was dearly stated that if the Taxpayer does not attend hearing on the said date i.e. 18.10.2019 or any other date communicated by the TPO, it is presumed that the tax payer does not want to avail the opportunity of hearings and in that case, the proceedings would be continued or decided based on the written submission made and/or material available on record. Again, the noticed 16,10,2019 was issued providing the last opportunity to submit the reply of above-mentioned show cause notice by 18.10.2019. However, the reply of the assessee or any other intimation had ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n TPO was of the view that the MAM applied by the assessee was not in accordance with the provisions and also mentioned the reason for such rejection at Para No.03 (Page No.3) of TP Order." 17. Further drawing our reference to the Annual Financial Statements of the assessee company, it was submitted that the assessee is an international electronic retailer of fashion jewellery and in year 2015-16 through its e-stores represented by US and UK TC channels and supported by ecommerce platform, it had sold 8.1 million products and generated Rupees 1276 crores in revenues. It was accordingly submitted that the assessee is basically a retailer where it buys goods from its related entities and has substantially sold to its related entities and, therefore, the TPO has rightly applied Operating Profit/Value Added Expenses as an appropriate PLI and rejecting the Gross Profit/Cost of Production as adopted by the assessee. It was accordingly, submitted that there is no infirmity in the order of the DRP which has rightly confirmed the adoption of Operating Profit/Value Added Expenses as an appropriate PLI and, therefore, the transfer pricing adjustment has been rightly confirmed by the DRP whic ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 9,715 3,60,23,34,698 Other Operating income 37,11,679 3,60,60,46,377 18.1 Particulars of Sale of Products Particulars Year ended 31st March, 2016 (Rs.) Gem Stones 56,25,10,29 Jewellery 2,86,46,93,753 Life Style Products 14,98,67,046 Diamonds 2,52,63,600 3,60,23,34,698 20 a. Cost of Materials Consumed Particulars Year ended 31st March, 2016 (Rs.) Materials Consumed Opening Material-inprocess 72,68,15,922 Add: Purchases 2,69,18,74,749 3,41,86,90,671 Less: Closing Material-inprocess 1,14,71,78,872 2,27,15,11,799 2,27,15,11,799 20 b. Particulars of Material Consumed Particulars Year ended 31st March, 2016 (Rs.) Gem Stones 1,46,47,89,128 Alloys 55,98,204 Diamond 12,57,03,250 Gold 14,06,08,480 Platinum 69,98,367 Silver 41,34,12,926 Parts & Findings 9,36,19,065 Others Metal 2,07,82,379 2,27,15,11,799 25 Other Expenses a. Manufacturing Expenses Particulars Year ended 31st March, 2016 (Rs.) Job Work Charge 29,71,74,362 Stores and Consumables 5,64,85,051 Power and Fuel 3,57,87,155 Repairs and Maintenance # 1,22,48,322 Other Manufacturing Expenses 1,32,81,415 41,49,76,305 19. We have heard the rival contentions and perus ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the functions performed in the controlled transaction (taking account of assets used and risks assumed) is not materially affected by the value of the products distributed, i.e. it is not proportional to sales, and • The taxpayer does not perform, in the controlled transactions, any other significant function (e.g. manufacturing function) that should be remunerated using another method or financial indicator. 2.108 A situation where Berry ratios can prove useful is for intermediary activities where a taxpayer purchases goods from an associated enterprise and on-sells them to other associated enterprises. In such cases, the resale price method may not be applicable given the absence of uncontrolled sales, and a cost plus method that would provide for a mark-up on the cost of goods sold might not be applicable either where the cost of goods sold consists in controlled purchases. By contrast, operating expenses in the case of an intermediary may be reasonably independent from transfer pricing formulation, unless they are materially affected by controlled transaction costs such as head office charges, rental fees or royalties paid to an associated enterprise, so that, dependi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... represents a return on a company's value added functions on the assumption that these value added functions are captured in its operating expenses. It has been observed in practice that the Berry Ratio is used as a PLI for distributors and service providers. The Berry Ratio assumes that there is a relationship between the level of operating expenses and the level of gross profits earned by distributors and service providers in situations where their value-added functions can be considered to be reflected in the operating expenses. Consequently, it may be appropriate to use the Berry Ratio if the selling or marketing entity is a service provider entitled to a return on the costs of the provision of its services. However, some key limitations of the Berry Ratio are: > The Ratio is very sensitive to functions and classifying of cost as operating cost; > It misses values of cost needed to maintain the intangible property of an entity; and > Its reliability diminishes if asset intensities (the efficiency with which assets are used) of the entities differ." 22. Further, the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of Sumitomo Corporation India Private Limited Vs. CIT (Supra) h ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e of the goods are not directly linked to the quantum of profits and the profits are mainly dependent on expenses incurred. The fundamental premise being that the operating expenses adequately represent all functions performed and risks undertaken. For this reason Berry ratio is effectively applied only in cases of stripped down distribution; that is, distributors that have no financial exposure and risk in respect of the goods distributed by them." 23. Further, we refer to the Coordinate Delhi Benches decision in the case of Mitsubishi Corporation India Private Limited Vs. DCIT (Supra) and the relevant discussion and findings are contained at paras 44 to 59 of its order which read as under: Berry ratio: connotations and its background 44. Simply put, berry ratio is ratio of gross profit to the operating expenses. 45. Unlike in Indian TP regulation, wherein no specific ratios are prescribed, US Regulation 4825(b)(ii)(4)(B) accepts this PLI as one of the "financial ratios that may be appropriate" to measure the arm's length price, even though it puts a rider that, "reliability under this profit level indicator also depends on the extent to which the composition of tested par ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... cts distributed, i.e. it is not proportional to sales, and • The taxpayer does not perform, in the controlled transactions, any other significant function (e.g. manufacturing function) that should be remunerated using another method or financial indicator. 2.102 A situation where Berry ratios can prove useful is for intermediary activities where a taxpayer purchases goods from an associated enterprise and on-sells them to other associated enterprises. In such cases, the resale price method may not be applicable given the absence of uncontrolled sales, and a cost plus method that would provide for a mark-up on the cost of goods sold might not be applicable either where the cost of goods sold consists in controlled purchases. By contrast, operating expenses in the case of an intermediary may be reasonably independent from transfer pricing formulation, unless they are materially affected by controlled transaction costs such as head office charges, rental fees or royalties paid to an associated enterprise, so that, depending on the facts and circumstances of the case, a Berry ratio may be an appropriate indicator, subject to the comments above. 47. As evident from the underl ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 's key insight in the case was that distributors should earn a return commensurate to the distribution services performed and that the value of the products being distributed, in other words, was irrelevant. The implicit emphasis was thus on the service element even in trading activity, and in the costs incurred on rendering this service rather than in the value of goods traded. That was a case in which the assessee was simply involved in distributorship function without much risks, though certainly much more risks than in a back to back trading, associated with inventories or with uncertainties of normal trading. The key contribution to the economic activity was recognized as performing the distributorship function rather than the value of goods sold. Accordingly, distributors must achieve a particular gross profit in order to compensate them for their services, the costs of which are accounted for, almost entirely, in their operating expenses. To reflect the reality of distributors' economic significance and to provide an arm's length return to DuPont's Swiss subsidiary, Berry utilized a ratio that has since been named in his honor and is computed as gross profit ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... his ratio. While taking note of the contentions of the assessee in this case, the coordinate bench has, inter alia, observed as follows: 6.4 Ld. counsel then referred to the well recognized Berry ratio in determination of ALP. Berry ratio also propounds that routine distributors should earn a return commensurate to the distribution services performed, measured as a percentage of the value-adding (operating) expenses incurred by them. The value of the products being distributed, in other words, is irrelevant. Distributors must achieve a particular gross profit in order to compensate them for their value-adding services, the costs of which are accounted for in their value-adding (operating) expenses. An excerpt from the article by Dr. Berry on this aspect reads as under:- "Similarly, the cost of goods sold is excluded from the cost base because the measure indicates the value of the merchandise distributed, not the service rendered by the firm that distributes the merchandise. It was for exactly the same reason that I excluded in the case of advertising agencies, the cost of advertisement placement. The placement cost is a measure of the activities of the media carrying the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rs like (a) in terms of functions - processing and value addition to the goods; (b) in terms of assets - fixed assets such as machinery, inventory, debtors and otherwise high assets, including intangible assets; and (c) in terms of risks - risk associated with holding inventories. In a diagram form, this relationship could be as follows: WHERE RELATIOSHIP IN OPERATING COSTS AND OPERATING PROFITS IS DIRECT AND UNDILUATED; APPLICATION OF BERRY RATIO IS JUSTIFIED WHERE RELATIOSHIP IN OPERATING COSTS AND OPERATING PROFITS IS NOT DIRECT AND IS DILUTED BY USE OF MORE FUNCTIONS (SUCH AS PROCESSING), MORE ASSETS (SUCH AS SIGNIFICANT CURRENT ASSETS OR UNIQUE INTANGIBLES) AND MORE RISKS (SUCH AS RISKS ASSOCIATED WITH INVENTORIES); APPLICATION OF BERRY RATIO IS NOT JUSTIFIED 57. In our considered view, to sum up, in a situation in which a business entity does not assume any significant inventory risk or perform any functions on the goods traded or add any value to the same, by use of unique intangibles or otherwise, the right profit level indicator should be operating profit to operating expenses i.e. berry ratio. In such a situation, no other costs are relevant since (a) the cost of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he assessee to be correct. Similarly Berry Ratio cannot be applied to the assessee's case as it is applicable in specific circumstances of a pure distributor where no value added services are rendered. The observation of the TPO that AE had utilized the tangible and intangible assets of the parent company in earning such huge profit in the first year of its activity and cannot be treated as independent shipping service provider is only a presumption without any support. We are of the view that various functions for ship chartering have been outsourced by the AE to one M/s R. M. Martine, since inception of the AE. The AE had its own funds, undertook business risk and many instances of such risk which actually borne by AE pertaining to various vessels have been proved with evidence. The payment of hire charges, bunker charges, port charges have been made by the AE from its own funds evidenced by cash flow statement could not be controverted by revenue. In our studied and considered view the AE has performed proper business functions, assumed business risks by employing its own funds independently without help of appellant and, therefore, in no way AE can be considered as pure dis ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... unctions performed, assets employed and related risk undertaken by it. In this regard, we refer to the Transfer Pricing Report submitted by the assessee before the Transfer Pricing Officer wherein the profile of the assessee company has been described at para 4.1, which reads as under: "4.1 Profile of VGL Vaibhav Global Ltd. ("VGL'') was incorporated in 1989 in Jaipur. VGL is engaged in the business of manufacturing and exports of colored gems stones and studded Jewellery. VGL has presence in USA, Gerrnany, Thailand, Hong Kong, Japan, etc. by way of its subsidiaries. VGL is one of the largest exporters of colored gemstones from India & also one of the largest exporters of studded Jewellery. VGL processes gems and raw materials into rings, bracelets, pendants, etc. and export it to its associated company in U.S.A and other overseas countries, in financial year 2005-06, VGL become an Indian MNC, perhaps the first in the Indian gems and Jewellery sector by extending its operations in more than 10 countries through the acquisition of Companies of STS Group and extending its Retail Stores network at major holiday destination of the world from 12 to 19. It has also la ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tudded jewellery which is sold to unrelated party locally or internationally." 26. It is relevant to note that the TPO while issuing the show cause notice as well as while proposing the adjustment as well as the DRP has not disputed the fact rather there is an categorical affirmation that the assessee is engaged in the business of manufacture and export of colored stones and studded jewellery and has manufacturing units in Jaipur and Mumbai as noted from para 2 of the order so passed by the TPO. 27. In terms of the functions performed, assets employed and the risk undertaken by the assessee while carrying out its manufacturing activities, it is noted from the transfer pricing report and the financial statements placed on record that the assessee performs the functions of purchases, product conceptualization and designing, manufacturing/processing of final product, sales and marketing and after sales services. It has the necessary manufacturing set up with requisite assets and infrastructure in place which are employed. The associated enterprises perform substantial part of marketing, sales and distribution functions. The assessee takes all types of risk such as inventory risk, cr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... from its associated enterprises would be obviously lower than the price prevalent in the industry for similar purchases. Therefore, based on the facts and circumstances of the case, Cost Plus Method (CPM) appears to be the most appropriate method to benchmark VGL's import transactions." 30. Regarding export of gems stones and gems jewellery and adoption of cost plus method, from the transfer pricing report, it is noted as under: "The CPM examines the gross profit mark-up to direct and indirect cost that a taxpayer realizes from a controlled transaction. First, the direct and indirect costs of production incurred by the enterprise in respect of the goods transferred to an associated enterprise are determined. To this, a normal gross profit mark up in the same or similar comparable uncontrolled transactions by the enterprise or an unrelated enterprise is added. The price so arrived at is then adjusted to take into account the functional and other differences between the international transactions and comparable uncontrolled transactions which could materially affect the amount of gross profit margin in the open market to arrive at the ALP. The CPM method is used to test trans ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... (a + b + c) 311.87 Gross Profit (C) = (A) - (B) 48.73 % of Gross Profit to Cost of Production = (C) / (B) 15.62% % of Gross Profit to Total Sales = (C)/(A) 13.51% 32. The assessee thereafter carrying out the search procedure for independent comparable companies and selecting the comparables has determined yearly average gross margin of 8.95% of cost of production (GP/COP) and given its GP/COP of 15.62% has determined its sales transactions to its associated enterprises which constitute 88.34% of total sales at arm's length. The TPO however has not agreed with the PLI so adopted by the assessee company and has adopted OP/VAE as the appropriate PLI. 33. The reasoning adopted by the TPO is that as the assessee is purchasing from related parties and selling to related parties, both cost and revenue sides are tainted and in such a scenario, OP/COP will not be an appropriate PLI and OP/VAE has then been adopted by him. The DRP has upheld the reasoning so adopted by the TPO drawing reference to the decision of Hon'ble Delhi High Court in case of Sumitomo Corporation (Supra) where use of berry ratio in certain situations has been upheld even though the Income Tax Act doesn't speci ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... (to a limited extent), technology risk, general business risk and foreign exchange risk. In terms of cost base for carrying out these functions and related risk, there are material costs, manufacturing expenses and employment/manpower costs which have been incurred by the assessee and therefore, for determining an appropriate return on such costs, these costs have to be necessarily considered and which has been rightly considered by the assessee as part of its "cost of production" and based thereon, has adopted operating profit/cost of production as an appropriate PLI. We failed to understand how the TPO has worked out the value added expenses and quantum thereof in the face of these undisputed facts and circumstances of the case ignoring the manufacturing functions and risk so undertaken and the asset employed by the assessee. We therefore find that the decision of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court doesn't support the case of the Revenue rather its supports the contentions advanced by the ld AR on behalf of the assessee. 35. Now, coming back to the reasoning adopted by the TPO where he says that since the assessee is purchasing from related parties and selling to related parties, both ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... een submitted by the ld AR that where the PLI of GP/COP is applied on the comparable companies so selected by TPO, the transaction of assessee will meet the arm's length test requirement and our reference was drawn to the following figures which are available as part of assessee's paperbook and submitted before the lower authorities: No. Name of comparable companies selected by TPO Weighted Average PLI GP/COP 1 A.B.Jewels Pvt.Ltd. 3.86% 2 Karp Impex Ltd. 9.39% 3 Shantivijay Jewels Ltd. 10.26% 4 Golkunda Diamonds & Jewellery Ltd. 10.70% 5 Asian Star Jewels 15.10% 6 D.Navinchandra 30.87% 7 Jashan Jewels Pvt. Ltd. 34.57% 8 Azure Jouel Pvt. Ltd. 47.49% Average 20.28% 35th Percentile 10.26% Median 12.90% 65th Percentile 30.87% 37. Taking into consideration the comparables so selected by the TPO where the median OP/COP comes to 12.90% and given that the assessee has reported OP/COP of 13.51%, we find that the assessee's transactions with its associated enterprises meets the arms length requirements and no adjustment is warranted. 38. Therefore, in the entirety of facts and circumstances of the case and in light of aforesaid discussions and follow ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
