9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (7) TMI 448X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... TPO are functionally different, entirely a different product, although it is named as valve. Although, it is true that the method adopted is TNMM, under this method the product is broadly compared. However, in the present case, the TPO has sought to compare the valves which is a consumer product with the industrial product of the tested party, which in our view, would not give a true picture of the profit. Under these facts, it would subserve the interest of justice if a TPO conduct a fresh study comparing the same or similar product, so that a fair picture of the profit could be arrived in order to ascertain whether the TP adjustment is required to be made or not. Therefore, we hereby set aside the order of the authorities below and restore these issues before the TPO for conducting a fresh transfer price study for the purpose of finding out the nature of product, its market, geographical location, etc. as given under OECD guidelines regarding the comparability of the comparables. While doing so, the TPO would afford opportunity to the assessee for submitting fresh T.P. study comparables. Disallowance of expenses due to non deduction of TDS - Accordingly, the Assessee claimed a d ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the Dispute Resolution Panel, Ahmedabad dated 26/12/2013 and the order of the Assessing Officer passed u/s.143(3) r.w.s. 92CA r.w.s.144C(1) of the Act dated 08/03/2013 pertaining to Assessment Year (AY) 2009-10. The Assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal :- The Grounds of Appeals to the proposed adjustments of ₹ 4,63,25,722 are as under. All the below mentioned grounds are without prejudice to each other: 1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Learned Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax, Circle-4, Baroda ('the Ld. AC-') under the directions of Honourable Dispute Resolution Panel ('Hon'ble DRP'), erred in making adjustment of ₹ 4,17,26,088/- in relation to the international transaction of sale of goods to Associated Enterprises ('AE'). It is prayed that the additions made by the Ld. AO in relation to the international transaction of sale of goods to AE be deleted. 2. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. AO under the directions of Hon'ble DRP erred in not allowing the benefit of ±5% range as per Section 92C(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ('the Act') ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ted the submissions as were made before the DRP in the form of Appendix-I, II, & III. 4.1. On the contrary, ld.CIT-DR supported the order of the DRP. 5. We have heard the rival contentions and perused the material available on record. We find that before the DRP, the assessee had raised objection and made submission in the form of Appendix-I, II & III. The contents of the Appendix-I, II & III are reproduced hereunder for the sake of clarity:- "Appendix I Weatherford Drilling & Production Services (India) Private Limited Assessment Year: 2009-10 General Backgroun4: *During the year under consideration Weatherford Drilling & Production Services (India) Private Limited ("WOPS") was a subsidiary of Weatherford Lamb Inc., a Weatherford group company, which held 99.99% of the equity capital of the company. WDPS operates vide the following two divisions: Manufacturing Division - This division is engaged in manufacturing of Gas Lift Valves and Packers; and Weatherford Engineered Systems Support ("WESS India") division - WESS India division supports the maintenance & development of softwares developed by Weatherford group, which are used in various ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of the proposed adjustment are provided in Table 1 below: Table 1: Disallowances /Adjustments proposed by Ld. TPO Sr.No. Particulars Amount as per books of Accounts (Rs.) Arm's length Price determined by the Ld.TPO Amount (Rs.) Proposed disallowance/Adjustment by the Ld.TPO Amount (Rs.) 1 Sales made to Associated Enterprises ("AEs") 34,26,77,543 37,29,43,899 3,02,66,356 *Relying on the Ld. TPO's order, the Ld. AO has passed the Draft Assessment Order as provided u/s 143(3) r. 92CA r.w.s. 144C(1) of the Act ("draft order") which was received by the Assessee on March 12, 2013 (Please refer Page Nos. 94.. to 96 of the Paper Book for the same). In the draft order, apart from confirming the additions made by the TPO, the Ld. AO has made following disallowances / additions to the income of for the relevant year: Table 2.: Disallowances /Additions proposed by Ld. AO Sr.No. Particulars Proposed disallowance/Additions by the Ld.AO Amount (Rs.) 1. Disallowance u/s.40(a)(ia) of the Act 45,99,634 II. Grounds of Objections ; The Grounds of Objections against the adjustments proposed by the Ld, TPO/AO vide the draft order is reflected below and the sa ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Date : April 9, 2013 Status of Assessee: Company Appendix II Weatherford Drilling & Production Services (India) Private Limited Assessment Year: 2000-10 Objection 1 : Adjustment proposed to international transaction of Sale to AEs 1. Ground of objection No.l: Sales to AEs The Ld. TPO/ AO has erred in recomputing the arm's length price of the international transaction at ₹ 37,29,43,899 instead of ₹ 34,26,77,543 as determined by the Assessee, thereby computing a TP adjustment of ₹ 3,02,66,356. Ground of objection No.1A; Search process adopted by the TPO The Assessee objects the filters adopted by the Ld. TPO in the search process executed to identify comparables viz. Export filter of 25%, related party filter of 25% etc. and usage of single year data in the search process. Ground of objection No.1B; Choice of comparables The Assessee objects the comparables identified by the Ld. TPO/AO primarily the inclusion of Tyco Sanmar Limited ('Tyco Sanmar") and exclusion of United Drilling Tools limited ("UDTL") as comparables in the fresh search conducted by the Ld. TPO 2. Facts as submitted to Assessing Officer 2.1 The Manufact ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e 1: Assessee's contentions on, the facts modified by the Ld. TPO/AO Sr.No. Ld.TPO/AO's Actions Ld.TPO/AO's Contentions Assessee's Objection (i) The Ld.TPO/AO conducted a fresh search to identify comparables with inappropriate filters, disregarding the search process carried out by the Assessee Export filter adopted by rejecting companies having export sales <25% of total sales. Manufacturing division of WDPS has 100% export sales during the year under consideration. Accepting the companies having equaled to or more than 25% of export sales does not result into near comparables considering Assessee's export sales being 100%. The intention of application of the above filter to identify the comparables, who are engaged into significant export business and application of a 25% filter is not appropriate as 25% does not denote any relevance to the application of filter (Please refer Page Nos.276 to 277 of the Paper Book for the same) Turnover filter adopted by rejecting companies having turnover more than 350 crore The difference in the level of turnover cannot be the sole reason for rejection of comparables having similar functional profile, especially while applying t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ying out such business activities. (Please refer Page Nos.157 & 171 of the Paper Book for the rationale of characterization). Ideally a licensed manufacturer will target to earn a return on sales and not over costs, thus the PLI was chosen to be OP/Sales. Since PLI denotes measurement of the profits earned by any entity in view of its functional profile, the Assessee is of the view that OP/Sales should be considered as PLI. (Please refer Page Nos.271 to 271 of the Paper Book for the same) (iv) Disregarding Assessee's observations on the comparables Application of Import Filter - Two Sanmar The adoption of import filter is as important as the export filter to identify suitable comparables. It can be observed that the comparables identified by the TPO the intensity of imports in each of them is more than 35% subject to Tyco Sanmar, in which case the proportion is just 19.46%. This clearly reflects that, Tyco Sanmar does not observe similar pricing pressures on the cost side as the tested party (imports 36%) and other comparables and hence should be rejected i.e. should not be considered as comparable to be a part of the TPO's fresh search set; (Please refer Section to and refer ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... er of Income-tax (2007) (109 ITD 101) d. Supd of Taxes, Dhubri and Others (1975) (CTR (S.C.) 172) e. South Eastern Coalfields Ltd. V. Joint Commissioner Of Income-tax (260) (TTR 1 -1TAT) f. Income Tax Officer vs. LIC (79 ITD 278) g. ACIT vs. Jindal Irrigation Systems Limited (56 ITD 164(Hyd)) h. Mafatlal Apparel Mfg. Co. Ltd. V. Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax (61 TTJ 323) i. Hon'ble Delhi Tribunal in the case of Sony India Pvt. Ltd vs. DCIT (ITA No.1189/Del 2005,819/Del/2007& 820/Del 2007) j. ITAT Delhi in case of Global Logic India (P.) Ltd. (12 Taxman 295) k. Quark Systems Pvt. Ltd VS DCIT Mohall, (ITA No. 100/CHD/2009) 7. Legal arguments relied upon by the Assessing Officer a. For the purpose of conducting a fresh search rejecting the approach adopted by the Assesses, the Ld. TPO has relied on the provisions of Section 92C(3)(c) read with Section 92CA which provides that if the Ld. TPO is of the opinion that the information or data used in computation of the arm's length price is not reliable or correct, the Ld. TPO may proceed to determine arm's length price in relation to the international transactions in accordance with Section 92C(1) and 92 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ied out by the Assessee. d. The search resulted into set of 4 comparables with an OP/TC of 28.87%. e. In this process Ld.TPO/AO has considered data of FY 2008-09 only, disregarding the multiple year approach of the Assessee for the purpose of identifying the comparables; 10.2 The Assessee would like to submit that the TP Documentation has been maintained by the Assessee as per the requirement of statute. (Please refer Page Nos. 138 to 255 of the Paper Book for the same). The Ld. Ld. TPO/AO conducted a fresh search to identify comparables with inappropriate filters, disregarding the search process carried out by the Assessee. The following provides a quick insight on the approach. 10.2.1 In appropriate Search process adopted by the TPO L Export Filter of 25% : - Manufacturing division of WDPS being 100% export oriented unit, acceptance of companies having export sales to the total sales ratio of 25% or more would not result into identification of suitable comparable. In paucity of comparables the same may rather not be applied, instead of adopting an arbitrary 25% export filter without any basis. (Please refer Page Nos.276 5o 277 of the Paper Book for the same). ii, RPT Fi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... reciating the fact that the past two years clearly have an impact on the current year business pricing approach. The same analogy, the Ld. TPO/AO is accepting without any questions to identify the comparables having diminishing revenues/persistent losses, in the filter mentioned above (Please refer Page Nos.260 to 267 of the Paper Book for the same) 10.2.2 Choice of comparables i. The Ld. TPO/ AO, after disregarding the benchmarking approach and the submissions made by the Assessee, carried out a fresh search identifying a new set of comparables as below: Tables 3: Set of comparables identified by Ld. TPO/AO Sr.No. Database Name of the Company OP/Sales 1. Prowess GTN Engineering (India) Ltd. 32.57% 2. Prowess KAR Mobiles Ltd. 5.27% 3. Prowess Rane Engine Valve Ltd. 5.46% 4. Prowess Tyco Sanmar Limited 72.22% Mean 28.87% ii. The Ld. TPO/AO arrived at a final set of 4 companies by: * Rejecting all the comparables selected by the Assessee in the TP study on the ground that they are engaged in pumps industry, export filter, etc and hence functionally noncomparable; and * Added 4 new companies by carrying out word search of 'valves' without ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... /TC makes the comparable an outlier which should be rejected relying on the same analogy for peculiar economic circumstances; b. On analysis of the financial statement of Tyco Sanmar, it is observed that approximately 48% of tile turnover of the company is from sale of spares and others. c. It is to be noted that in the valves industry the time period between sale of valves and commencement of sale of spares being approximately 4 to 5 years. The replacement market (spares) is characteristically more lucrative than the sale of valves and provides the necessary impetus to a company's bottom line growth. This future potential prompts companies to offer large discounts to customers to often secure an order for valves. d. The profitability of the comparable is thus skewed by the profit on sales of spares. The computation of spares percentage of Tyco Sanmar is shown as under; Table 4: Product profile and composition of spares Description Amount (Rs.) Amount (Rs.) Sales (a) 1,37,40,05,650 Safety Valves 72,14,17,081 Spares and accessories (b) 65,25,88,569 Spares % (b/a) 47.50% Hence, by not applying the import filter and not appreciating the above industry average ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... itrary 25%, with no basis. Further, in such situation, adoption of a comparable with 17% of export would not be inappropriate to bring in a good comparable. c) The Ld. TPO/AO has sighted the arbitrary 25% to reject a comparable, which has 17% exports. d) It is meaningful to note that when it comes to incorporating a good comparable whose export is 17% the difference (between 25 and 17) becomes material to reject the good comparable, A larger difference (19 and 36) on the cost side was not ; material to the Ld. TPO/AO, as discussed while observing Tyco Sanmar. e) The contradiction in the contentions of the Ld. TPO/AO suggests that the selection/rejection of the comparables is erroneous and incorrect. The Hence it can be observed that the Ld. TPO/AO erred in not selecting UDTL as a comparable. 10.4 Closing remarks As discussed above, and various annexure referred there in, the search filters adopted by the Ld. TPO/AO are inappropriate. However, without prejudice to the above, even if the search conducted by the Ld. TPO/AO is adopted after appropriately factoring the discussion on the comparables i.e. Tyco Sanmar is not considered as part of the set of comparables identifi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... considering OP/Sales as PLI. A structured benchmarking process was carried out by the Assessee which is reflected in the TP Study report, identifying 7 comparables having average OP/Sales of 8.85%, whereas OP/Sales of the tested party i.e. Manufacturing division of WDPS was,l6.15%. The Assessee has also filed various submissions time to time to substantiate the arm's length nature of its international transactions and has produced the evidences upon which the Assessee has relied in support of the computation of ALP in relation to its international transactions. The Assessee filed a detailed submission, in response to rejection of TP Documentation by the Ld. TPO on January 22, 2013. Also, Assessee filed a letter to Ld. AO showing factual and legal causes why the upward adjustment proposed by the Ld. TPO should not be made. Facts modified by the Assessing officer The Ld, TPO/AO has rejected the Transfer pricing document by terming the data used by the Assessee as not reliable and correct on the basis of the following: i. Rejected the economic analysis of the Assessee without giving any cogent reason; ii. Disregarded the impossibility of performance for the use of singl ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Mumbai Tribunal in case of Star India Pvt. Ltd. Vs. ACIT (ITA 3585/M/2OO6) ('Star India case') b. DCIT vs Indo American Jewellery Pvt. Ltd. [ITA No. 6194 / Mum, 2008] c. Income-tax Appellate Tribunal (Tribunal), Delhi Bench, in the case of Mentor Graphics (Noida) Pvt. Ltd. V Dy. Commissioner of Income-tax [2007] 109 ITD 101 d. Philips Software Centre Pvt. Ltd. Vs ACIT (119 TTJ 721) e. Supd of Taxes, Dhubri and Others (1975 CTR (S.C.) 172) f. South Eastern Coalfields Ltd, V. Joint Commissioner Of Income-tax (260 ITR 1 - ITAT) g. Income Tax Officer vs. LIC (79 ITD 278), the Hon'ble Tribunal h. ACIT vs. Jindal Irrigation Systems Limited (56 ITD i64(Hyd)) i Mafarlal Apparel Mfg, Co. Ltd. V. Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax (61 TTJ 323) 7. Legal arguments relied upon by the Assessing Officer a. For the purpose of usage of multiple year data by the Assessee, the Ld TPO has relied on the provisions of Section 92C(3)(c) read with Section 92CA which provides that if the Ld. TPO is of the opinion that the information or data used in computation of the arm's length price is not reliable or correct, the Ld. TPO may proceed to determine arm's length pric ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... arm's length price in connection with the impugned international transaction and held that the Assessee's international transaction is not at arm's length. (Please refer Page Nos.257 to 259 of the paper book for the same) Additionally the Assessee would like to furnish the following: The Ld.TPO has passed the adjustment without providing any cogent reasons as per section 92C(3). This particular section specifies a list of 4 criteria based on which the documentation provided by the Assessee can be rejected and thereafter the Ld. TPO may proceed to determine the ALP. Sec. 92C (3) provides that - "(3) Where during the course of ay proceeding for the assessment of income, the assessing officer is, on the basis of material or information or document in his possession of the opinion that - (a) Te price charged or paid i an international transaction has not been determined in accordance with sub-section (1) and (2); (b) Any information and document relating to an international transaction have not been kept and maintained by the assessee in accordance with the provisions contained in sub-section (1) of section 92D and the rules made in this behalf; or (c) the information or ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ce Ii. We would specifically draw your attention to comparables G T N Engineering (India) Ltd. and Tyco Sanmar being two comparables out of total four comparables considered the Ld. TPO/AO. It is submitted in this regard that the financial data of both these companies were not available for consideration on the date i.e. February 27, 2009 for carrying out benchmarking process for TP documentation purpose. iii. Considering the data for F.Y. 2008-09 for captioned companies at the time of TP Documentation clearly falls within the frame of "impossibility of'performance' on the part of the Assessee. Hence, the Ld. TPO/AO has erred in considering single year data for the companies. 10.2.2. Maintenance of Contemporaneous TP documentation. i. We refer to the TP Study submitted vide our submission dated December 22, 2011. For the reasons summarised hereunder, the Assessee submits that the comparable data relied upon by the TP documentation is contemporaneous, existed by the latest data specified by the Rules and is used in accordance with law. 10.2.3. Comparable data relied by the TP Study is contemporaneous i. The Assessee would like o submit that the Assessee is in compliance ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . 10.4. Conclusion and prayer. In view of the above, the Assessee accordingly prays that the Ld. A.O. be directed to accept the Transfer pricing documentation maintained by the Assessee and consider the international transaction of Sales to AEs by the WDPS's manufacturing division to be arm's length, from an Indian TP regulation perspective; The Assessee craves leave to add and submit such further facts, statements, documents and papers as may be considered necessary either before or during the hearing of the objections." 5.1. However, the ld.DRP rejected the objections by observing as under:- " Directions of the DRP: i) The application of each filter has relevance. It represents the effort made by the TPO on the basis of study of the tested party, the international transaction, the conditions existing in case of the international transaction, the tested party, the economy at macro and micro level to identify those features which are relevant and must be identified in the comparables too so that proper comparison may be made of tested party with the uncontrolled comparables and the market price or arm's length price of international transactions may be determined. Ho ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the TPO has applied filter '25 % of operating revenues. Therefore, RPT on cost is not considered a valid criterion to exclude this comparable. Therefore no direction to exclude this comparable can be given by this Panel. iii) The assessee has also requested to include United Drilling Tools Ltd. The reasons given by the assessee while requesting to include it as comparable are not valid reasons. The export percentage of this company is only 17%. Import percentage filter has not been applied by the TPO and therefore, it cannot be used as criterion to include this company. It has already been clarified by the TPO that import percentage filter has not been intended to be included. Therefore no direction is given to the TPO to include it in the set of comparables. 3. Objection 2; Rejection of the Transfer Pricing Documentation Ground of objection No.2; Rejection of the Transfer Pricing Documentation The Ld. TPO/ AO rejected the Transfer Pricing Documentation of the Assessee without giving any cogent reason. The Ld. TPO/AO has, erred in rejecting the Transfer Pricing Document prepared by Assessee by applying the provisions of Sec. 92C(3)(c) read with Sec. 92CA thus being of t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ich has transaction more than 25 percent as the TPO considered this limit as reasonable for identifying uncontrolled comparable companies. TPO has considered that more than this limit will vitiate the comparison as the basic fundamental principle of Transfer Pricing study is that related parties can manipulate the prices. Though there is no sacrosanct limit of related party transactions and different Tribunals have approved different percentage of RPT. In our view applying the filter of 25 percent RPT in this case is absolutely proper and no alteration in it is called for. The TPO has rightly rejected the Transfer pricing analysis of the assessee as the data used by the assessee is not reliable as per the provisions of section 92 C (3) (c) of the Act. ii) The purpose of making fresh search by the TPO after rejection of TP study of the assessee is to refine the search as more companies data is uploaded between the period assessee carried out the search and the TPO carries out the search during TP proceedings. If data was not available when the assessee carried on the study is not a bar for the TPO to carry out search later. Further, the TPO has carried out search to identify bette ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... a fair picture of the profit could be arrived in order to ascertain whether the TP adjustment is required to be made or not. Therefore, we hereby set aside the order of the authorities below and restore these issues before the TPO for conducting a fresh transfer price study for the purpose of finding out the nature of product, its market, geographical location, etc. as given under OECD guidelines regarding the comparability of the comparables. While doing so, the TPO would afford opportunity to the assessee for submitting fresh T.P. study comparables. However, it is made clear that the TPO would restrict his study to the financial year under consideration unless he feels that there are grounds for adopting the data of other two years as prescribed under the Rules. Hence, ground Nos.1 & 2 of assessee's appeal are partly allowed for statistical purposes. 6. Ground No.3 is against the direction of the DRP in respect of disallowance of ₹ 45,99,634/- made u/s.40(a)(i)/(ia) of the Act. The ld.counsel for the assessee reiterated the submissions as were made before the DRP as per Appendix-IV. 6.1. On the contrary, ld.CIT-DR supported the order of the DRP on this issue. We find that ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... December 4, 2008 80158 3,80,410 2009- 10 Sub-total. 4,22,736 2. Legal and Professional Fees 5,95,508 67,471 March 3, 2009. 80143 93,346 2009- 10 Grand Total 45,99,634 4,90,207 2.5 Accordingly, the Assessee claimed a deduction for the expenses as shown in the table referred in para 2.4 above in the financial year in which the taxes have been deducted and deposited in the Government Treasury, i.e., in the Assessment Year 2009-10. The assessee inadvertently mentioned the Assessment Year as A.Y. 2009-10 and not as A.Y. 2008-09, in the challans used for depositing the taxes deducted on the above referred payments. 2.6. The assessee also submitted all corroborating evidences in the form of copies of invoices, and copies of all relevant challans evidencing payment of taxes made in respect of the above referred amounts. Copies of submissions dated February 26, and March 1, 2003 as submitted before the AO are also attached along with all the relevant invoices and challans are attached herewith. (Please refer Page Nos.324 to 383 of the paper book for the same). 3. Facts, if any, modified by the Assessing Officer. The AO observed that on verification of challans fu ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ear 2009-10) along with other payments for financial year 2008-09. Details of the same are shown in the table below. 10.4. Details of the taxes paid in the subsequent years on the amounts so disallowed and dates of payment of the same are given hereunder: Sr.No. Particulars/nature of expense. Amounts claimed Tax deducted Date of payment Challan Nos. Challan amounts (Rs.)(including Other payments for Financial Year 2008- 09 (relevant to A.Y. 2009- 10). AssessmentYear in Which expenses are allowable and taken as such 1. Management Fees. 40,04,126 1,11,906 September 5, 2008. 80532 7,17,895 2009-10 1,97,402 -d0- 80532 7,17,895 2009- 10 1,13,428 December 4, 2008 80158 3,80,410 2009-10 Sub-total. 4,22,736 2. Legal and Professional Fees 5,95,508 67,471 March 3, 2009. 80143 93,346 2009-10 Grand Total 45,99,634 4,90,207 10.5. Accordingly, the Assessee claimed a deduction for the expenses as shown in the table referred in para 2.4 and para 10.4 above, in the financial year in which the taxes have been deducted and deposited in the Government Treasury, i.e., in the Assessment Year 2009-10. 10.6. The assessee also submitted all corroborating evid ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Management fees 40,04,126 4,22,736 2) Legal and professional fees 5,95,508 67,471 Total 45,99,634 4,90,207 Accordingly, the Assessee claimed a deduction for the expenses as shown in the table referred in para 2.4 above in the financial year in which the taxes have been deducted and deposited in the Government Treasury, i.e., in the Assessment Year 2009-10. The Assessee inadvertently mentioned the Assessment Year as A.Y. 2009-10 and not as A.Y. 2008-09, in the challans used for depositing the taxes deducted on the above referred payments. The AO observed that on verification of challans furnished by the Assessee, all the challans were for Assessment Years 2009-10 and 2010-11. Further, the AO also observed that all the TDS payments made by the Assessee during the period under consideration pertains to Assessment Year 2009-10 as per TDS challans produced by the Assessee and that the Assessee has not produced any TDS challan showing Assessment Year 2008-09. The Assessee requests that the AO be directed to allow the deduction claimed amounting to ₹ 45,99,634 being expenses pertaining to Assessment Year 2008-09, but on which, taxes have been deducted and paid for in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
