IN INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH: I-1 NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI PRAMOD KUMAR, VICE PRESIDENT & SHRI K.NARASIMHA CHARY, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA No.6703/Del/2016 Assessment Year: 2012-13 Greaves Travel India Pvt. Ltd., Vs ACIT, Circle-10(2), 4-B, Jangpur-B, New Delhi Mathura Road New Delhi 110014 AABCG9481H Applicant Respondent Assessee by Mr. Satyajeet Goel, CA Revenue by Mr. Sandeep KumarMishra, Sr. DR Date of Hearing 01.08.2019 Date of Pronouncement 02.09.2019 ORDER PER NARASIMHA K. CHARY, JM Aggrieved by order dated 24/11/2016 passed under section 143(3) read with section 144C (13) of Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short Act ), pursuant to directions dated 30/9/2016 issued by Ld. Dispute Resolution Panel (DRP)-I, New Delhi (Ld. DRP), M/s Greaves travel India private limited ( assessee ) filed this appeal mainly contesting rejection of Cost Plus Method (CPM) adopted by assessee as Most Appropriate Method for determination of Arm s Length Price 2 (ALP) and applying TNMM as Most Appropriate Method with OP/TC as PLI. 2. Brief facts of case are that assessee is private limited company engaged in business of providing for operator and travel agents services and it provides comprehensive travel and tourism solutions for individuals and group leisure travels. core business of assessee has been sale of packages for laser travel where two or more components of travel, such as flights, hotels, transportations, transfer and ground handling services are bundled together and/or sold individually to customers, and therefore, in order to support its main business, assessee also provides charter services at specified requests of its customers. In order to support its store operations, assessee bought small aircraft.But due to regulatory requirements by Civil Aviation Authority and in absence of Non-Scheduled Operators Permit licence (NSOP) assessee was unable to operate aircraft and therefore, assessee had inducted aircraft under NSOP license of Air Works Engineering Service Private Limited who have been using aircraft primarily for plying local non-AEs passengers. assessee, however, on some occasions using it for flying passengers. 3. For assessment year 2012-13, assessee filed its return of income on 18/9/2012 declaring loss of Rs. 1,39,08,023/-and in view of international transaction worth more than 15 crores, and by assessee with its AE, determination of arm s-length price was referred to ld Transfer Pricing Officer (TPO). Assessee had desegregated appropriately all flying between AE and non-AE passengers. Ld. TPO by order dated 29/1/2016 held that TNMM is most appropriate method rather 3 than CPM, since TNMM will be method that will take into account all costs relevant to services that are provided by assessee to AE, and suggested upward adjustment to tune of Rs. 3,01,99,649/-. 4. Assessee filed objections before Ld. DRP challenging action taken by Ld. TPO. Ld. DRP by way of impugned order considered suitability of oneKerala Travel Interserve Ltd to be included in final list of comparables and directed Ld. TPO to provide necessary material in respect of that entity to assessee and to recompute Arm s Length Price (ALP). 5. Aggrieved by same, assessee filed this appeal mainly contesting adoption of TNMM as most appropriate method instead of CPM adopted by assessee, and in alternative to consider their contention that Kerala Travel Interserve Ltd is not at all comparable entity with assessee for several reasons canvassed by them. 6. At outset, it is submission of Ld. AR that in respect of earlier assessment year 2010-11 as well as subsequent assessment year 2013-14, authorities below had accepted CPM as most appropriate method and when business model of assessee is same all through these years, strangely authorities adopted TNMM as most appropriate method in respect of assessment years 2011-12 and 2012-13. He also submitted that when matter for assessment year 2011-12 travelled to Tribunal, coordinate Bench of this Tribunal in ITA No. 6722/Del/2015 by order dated 24/10/2018 followed rule of consistency and accepted CPM as most appropriate method. He prayed that since business model of assessee remained same 4 for this year also, similar view may be taken for this year also.The submissions of Ld. AR could not be controverted by Revenue. 7. We have gone through record in light of submissions made on either side. It is not case of Revenue that any change in business model of assessee had taken place between assessment years 2010-11 and 2013-14. For assessment years 2010-11 and 2013-14 Revenue accepted CPM as most appropriate method, whereas for assessment year 2011-12 coordinate Bench of this Tribunal in ITA No. 6722/Del/2015, by order dated 24/10/2018, accepted CPM as most appropriate method. In absence of any change in facts and circumstances of case, we are of considered opinion that rule of consistency demands that consistent view has to be taken. We, therefore, while respectfully following decision of Hon ble Apex Court in case of Radhasoami Satsang vs. CIT (1992)192 ITR 321 accept consistent view taken in assessee s own case for earlier as well as subsequent year and hold that CPM is most appropriate method for determination of ALP in this case. In view of this conclusion reached by us, it is not necessary to consider suitability of M/s Kerala Travels Interserve Ltd. Grounds of appeal of assessee are allowed accordingly. 8. In result, appeal of assessee is allowed. Order pronounced in Open Court on 2nd September, 2019. Sd/- sd/- (PRAMOD KUMAR) (K. NARASIMHA CHARY) VICE PRESIDENT JUDICIAL MEMBER 5 Dated: September, 2019 Copy forwarded to: 1. Appellant 2. Respondent 3. CIT 4. CIT(Appeals) 5. DR: ITAT ASSISTANT REGISTRAR ITAT NEW DELHI Draft dictated on Draft placed before author Draft proposed & placed before second member Draft discussed/approved by Second Member. Approved Draft comes to Sr.PS/PS Kept for pronouncement on Date of uploading order on website File sent to Bench Clerk Date on which file goes to AR Date on which file goes to Head Clerk. Date of dispatch of Order. Greaves Travel India Pvt. Ltd. v. ACIT, Circle-10(2), New Delhi