9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (7) TMI 470X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... annot be assumed as it was only in the cases of lack of enquiries that the jurisdiction under Sec. 263 of Income Tax Act, 1961 can be assumed.In the present case before us the TPO and the Assessing Officer had applied their mind and allowed the entire commission while passing orders under sec. 92CA(3) and 143(3) respectively as claimed by the assessee. Hence we annul the order of CIT passed under sec.263. - Decided in favour of assessee. Transfer pricing adjustment - Disallowance by the AO on the basis of arm’s length price of I.T. Engineering services worked out by the TPO i.e. Add. CIT, Transfer Pricing, Hyderabad vide his order u/s 92CA - main emphasis of the assessee is that the General Motors was a new customer during financial year 2002-03 and the initial services were provided on higher rate, on a trial basis. Further the rates between Venture USA Germany and General Motors should not be compared without making suitable adjustment towards the volume of business as the working hours provided to AE is 40 times more than the hours billed to M/s General Motors - Held that:- CIT (A) has justified the deduction of 5% from the adjusted rate adopted by the TPO while determining the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... gible material’ to come to the conclusion that there is escapement of income from assessment. The entire joint venture agreement understanding between the parties and consideration for making the payment was put forth before the TPO and the AO at the time of original assessment. Since reasons recorded also do not have any link with the formation of belief. In the present case before us the statement of Ramalinga Raju has no connection with the subsidiary of Satyam Group i.e. Satyam Venture Engineering Services, Hyderabad (Assessee herein). - Decided in favour of assessee. X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . 1.6.2007, the TPO's order was not binding on the AO and thus the AO was empowered to alter the TPO's order. The CIT held that since the AO did not exercise his power while passing order u/s 143(3) of the Act, the said order was erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of Revenue. 6. Having held that the order passed by the AO u/s 143(3) was correctly subjected to revision u/s 263 of the Act, the CIT held in para 14 of his order that as regard the method under which commission on sales made to SCSL and its affiliates is to be disallowed, the matter was restored to the AO for verification of record and applying the most appropriate method for determining ALP following TPO's order for subsequent A.Y vis., 2004-05 where the TPO disallowed commission paid on sales made to SCSL and its affiliates. He also directed the AO to invoke the provisions of section 92C(3) and pass the order accordingly. 7. On appeal against the order u/s 263, the ld Counsel for the assessee submitted as follows: • As regards the direction of the CIT, for following TPO's order for subsequent A.Y viz., A.Y 2004-05 it was submitted that the TPO disallowed commission paid on sales made to SCSL and its affi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the reasoning of the TPO in accepting the sales commission as reasonable by adopting the CUP method has found acceptance by the appellate authorities including the jurisdictional bench of the ITAT. Again the method of commercial expediency adopted by the TPO for A.Y 2004-05 which was recommended by the CIT for consideration by the AO has been struck down as totally unacceptable by the appellate authorities including the jurisdictional bench of ITAT. 8. The ld DR relied on the order of the AO. 9. We have heard both the parties. We are of the opinion that the CIT erred in holding that in the absence of section 92CA(4) during the relevant period, it is not binding on the AO to follow the order of TPO. The order of CIT is contrary to the CBDT instruction No.3 of 2003 wherein it is clarified that the AO has to compute the total income of the assessee having regard to the arms length price so determined by TPO. 10. We are also of the view that the CIT ought not to have assumed jurisdiction u/s 263 of the Act in as much as it is merely a change of opinion. We rely on the decision of Malabar Industrial Co Ltd. Vs. CIT 243 ITR 0083 Even assuming that the enquiries made by the Assessing ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... asked for adoption of CUP method and there was no adjustment possible while applying the comparison under CUP method. In view of this, TPO worked out the difference in rate at $ 11.52 per hour and thus computed the arms length price of services made to AEs at ₹ 32,08,47,363 against the price shown by the assessee at ₹ 31,15,64,238, thus working out differential amount of ₹ 92,83,125 to be adopted by the AO for adjustment. 3. AO added the above amount to the income returned by the assessee. However, while working out deduction u/s 10A, the AO has also included the above additions in the business profits on account of which the income has been finally assessed at ₹ 43,17,240. 4. Aggrieved, assessee preferred appeal before the CIT (A). 5. In Ground No.2, assessee disputed the AO's finding that on site services billed to Venture USA and Venture Germany were not at arm's length. Ground Nos. 3 to 5 and ground No.7 are again extension and elaboration of the main ground taken by the assessee against the adjustment made by the TPO/AO by comparison of prices of services rendered to AEs with the prices charged to General Motors (non-AE). 6. Before the CIT (A), the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s internal CUP by the TPO for the purpose of comparison in this case. In view of this, looking to the functional similarity, I uphold the adoption of services given to M/s. General Motors as comparable with the services provided to the AEs by the TPO/AO, on the facts of the case. 6.3 The next important issue requiring consideration is the adjustment/deduction in rates required to be given on account of high difference in volume of transactions, as contended by the Ld ARs of the appellant during the appeal proceedings. I feel that, in view of the provisions contained in rule 108(1 )(a), rule 108(2) as well as rule 108(3), reasonable adjustments should have been made by the TPO/AO to eliminate the effects of such difference in the volume of transactions. There is no dispute about the fact that M/s. General Motors was a new customer for the appellant in F.Y. 2002-03 and the transactions were also on a small scale i.e., only 424 hours of service. However, I feel that even in such circumstances, no assessee will charge a rate which is at great variance with the normal market rate of the services provided, considering the fact that it was a new client with whom the assessee will try to ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d Venture Group are comparable. 6. The ld CIT (A) ought to have considered the fact that M/s General Motors was a new customer during the financial year 2002-03 and that the initial services were provided on a trial basis at a higher rate whereas the work flow from Venture Group is in a continuous basis over a number of years". 10. Ground 1 is general in nature. With respect to ground numbers 2, 3 4 and 6 the ld Counsel for the assessee submitted that the CIT (A) failed to grant necessary adjustment for the price difference on a scientific basis and proceeded on an adhoc basis by granting a deduction @ 5% which is not in accordance with Rule 10B. The ld Counsel further submitted that the assessee worked for nearly 40 times more with AE when compared to non- AE. It was further submitted in addition General Motors is a new customer taken on trial basis and hence the company has quoted higher price as it was not sure whether or not the customer would stay with the company. The ld Counsel for the assessee prays for a downward adjustment of atleast 25% to the price charged to Non-AE. Alternatively the assessee prayed that the General Motors cannot be considered as valid comparable i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the hours billed to M/s General Motors. However, we are in confirmity with the order of the CIT (A) wherein he has applied his mind and discussed elaborately at Para Nos. 6.3 and 6.4. The CIT (A) has justified the deduction of 5% from the adjusted rate adopted by the TPO while determining the ALP by stating that no assessee will charge a rate which is at great variance with the normal market rate of the services provided considering the fact that it was a new client who whom the assessee will try to get more business in future. Hence the CIT observed that despite less transactions, the rates charged by the assessee in case of new client. Therefore, the CIT had rightly directed for an adjustment of account difference in the rate under the TP provisions worked @ US$ 9 per hour. 16. The grievance of the assessee that suitable adjustment have to be made to bring the prices to a comparable level has been satisfied by the CIT (A) by giving a reduction of 5%. The CIT (A) was of the opinion that the reduction of 5% is sufficient with respect to the facts of the case, we also confirm. 17. The ground of the Department is that in Ground No.4, once CUP method is adopted, no adjustment is pos ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... order dated 31.12.2008 U/s.143(3) r.w.s 263 disallowed an amount of ₹ 2.59 Crores out of the total sales commission paid of ₹ 4.26 Crores. The said disallowance represents the commission paid to Venture Global on the sales made to Satyam Computer Services Ltd. and its associates. The entire sales commission paid on the sales received from SCSL was disallowed. Against the revised assessment the assessee filed appeal before CIT(A). 4. The CIT (A) dismissed the appeal. Assessee filed appeal against the CIT's order u/s 263 as well as the order of the CIT (A) on the revised assessment. The 263 order was annulled by our order in ITA No.492 and the appeal against giving effect to order passed by the AO u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 263 in ITA No.196/Hyd was also allowed in favour of the assessee. 5. The AO issued a notice dated 29.03.2010 U/s.148 reopening the assessment and requesting the company to file a return of income. The said notice was received by the company on 31.03.2010. Subsequent to the notice the company requested the AO to consider the return of income filed originally on 28.11.2003 as return in response to the notice U/s.148. The AO provided the reasons for re-opening ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e of any nexus to any of the operations of the assessee. ii) The assessment is finalized without resulting in any addition on account of reason for reopening. 13. The AO reopened the assessment under section 147 beyond the period of four years. Sec.147 permits the reopening /reassessment of assessment finalized under section 143(3) upon satisfaction of the AO that the assessee had failed to disclose fully and truly all material facts necessary for assessment for that assessment year. The reasons given by the AO to reopen assessment in the case of the company would provide a light on his reasoning to conclude failure to disclose fully and truly all material facts necessary for assessment. 14. On 7.1.2009, Chairman, Satyam Computer Services Ltd had written a letter to the Board of Directors of Satyam Computers wherein he elaborately explained various transactions of Satyam Computer Services Ltd which resulted in the financial statements being incorrect. In his statement he categorically stated that these kind of irregularities were limited to Satyam Computers alone and one of the operations of the subsidiaries have been affected. In the light of the said letter written by Mr. Rama ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ishing of information necessary for the completion of the assessment before the TPO and the Assessing Officer with respect to transactions with all the group companies. Reason - II raised by A.O. for reopening The assessment of the assessee company was completed U/s.143(3) and the Assessing Officer is not aware of the likely variations in income and assets and liabilities of SCSL at the time of assessment. The transactions revealed by Mr. Ramalingaraju apparently will have bearing on the affairs of the group companies and their consequence income and assets position in view of the complex and circuitous nature of transactions. Ld. Counsel's argument with respect to second reason for reopening:- • The allegations that the assessment needs to be reopened U/s.147 based on the statement of Mr. Ramalingaraju, Chairman, Sat yam Computers, has no nexus with the financial transactions of the company. The statement by Mr.Ramalingaraju consisted details of certain transactions relating to Sat yam Computers. The said statement of Mr.Ramalingaraju excludes the affairs of any subsidiary compames from the said irregularities pointed out by him. Please refer to Para 2 of Letter by Mr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... to bring out at least a feeble or thin link with the operations of the company. Reason III for reopening as noted by Assessing Officer • The books of front companies and financial statements do not reflect true and fair statement of affairs and thus it is apparent some of the transactions are also not recorded in the books of front companies like that of assessee Company. The claim of exemption U/s.I0A in the case of Satyam Computer Services Ltd was found to be false by CBI, SFIO and the department. Arguments by the Ld Counsel's with respect to Reason III are as follows: • The reasoning under this is vague and general. It is a surmise and guess work of the AO. The AO had not presented any evidence that the financial statements of front companies are not true or fair. This is a conclusion without rational connection with the evidence (Statement of Mr.B.Ramalinga Raju) for formation belief. The claim u/s 10A of SCSL has no relevance with assessment of SVES. • The assessee company objected to the reasons for reopening furnished by the AO, on the similar lines explained above. These objections were repudiated by the AO. The reasoning given by the AO and the jus ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the Transfer Pricing Officer having changed his opinion in respect of determination of the arm's length price of the international transactions. None of the reasons cited by the AO for reopening of the assessment had indicated any possible escapement. The escapement of income contemplated U/s.147 should arise from either non recording of a particular stream of income / expenditure or short or excess recording thereof. Transfer Pricing adjustment are differences arising on account of possible changes in the ALP depending upon the methods adopted. Determination of ALP under transfer pricing mechanism is a process of scientific estimation of an arm's length commercial value. Difference if any arising to the returned income on account of transfer pricing assessment cannot be considered as escapement of income contemplated uls.147. Hence, these two additions do not arise from the reasons for the reopening of the assessment. 18. Apart from the above, adjustment to the retuned income on identical lines had taken place at the time of original assessment proceedings and subsequently during the proceedings U/s.263. 19. The addition made by disallowing a portion of the deduction U/ ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ther, ITA No.1233/Hyd/2011 and other appeals jointly disposed vide order dated 31.12.2013, the issue of Section 147, especially in light of Satyam scam was examined. In these sixteen appeals also, assessments were reopened on sole ground that these companies are Sat yam's group companies and Mr.Ramalinga Raju's letter suggests the possible evasion of tax. The Hon'ble Tribunal held as under. (iv) The reopening was on wrong foundation of reasoning of the financial implication between the assessee-company and M/s Satyam Computer Services Limited, which was no established in the reassessment to justify reopening. 19. Hence, there being no nexus or live-link with the reasons recorded and the ' formation of belief' to come to a conclusion that there was escapement of income and also since the assessment has been reopened beyond the period of 4 years when there is no failure on the part of the assessee to fully and truly disclose all material facts in the original assessment itself, and there being, no tangible material 'for the reopening of the assessment, the CIT(A) erred in confirming the order of the Assessing Officer. We, therefore, hold that the reopening ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 83 in the case of S. Ranjit Reddy (Supra), reads as follows: "Same view was taken by the Third Member Mumbai Bench in the case of Telco Dadajee Dhackajee Ltd vs. Dy. CIT (ITA No.4613/Mum/2005 dated 12th May, 2010). Further same view was taken by Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs. Orient Crafts Ltd (2013) 29 taxmann.com 392 and also by Gujarat High Court in the cazse of Inductotherm India (P) Ltd v. Dy. CIT in Special Civil Application 858 of 2006 dated 6.8.2012. Further Bombay Bench in the case of Delta Airlines Inc. Vs. ITO (International Taxation) (2013) 33 Taxmann.com 192(Mum)." 28. Hence, we are of the opinion that on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the AO erred in law and facts of the case in reopening the assessment u/s 147 of the I.T. Act, 1961 after having assessed and re-assessed u/s 143(3) and section 263. Since we have decided the jurisdictional grounds in favour of the assessee, we are not adjudicating on the other grounds of appeal raised before us. 29. In the result assessee's appeal is allowed. ITA No.1137/Hyd/2013 (A.Y 2004-05) 1. The original assessment U/s.143(3) was finalized by an order dated 28.12.2006 by the Assessing Officer basin ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ice u/s 148 by a letter dated 10.09.2012. 6. The AO proceeded to reassess the income u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 147 accordingly. The AO referred the transactions to the TPO for arm's length price evaluation and also to special audit u/s 142(2A). Nature of addition Amount (Rs. In crores) ALP method by company ALP Method by TPO TPO order (adjustment on account of ALP) Commission and reimbursement of professional charges paid to AE 4.84 Export sales 2.52 CUP TNMM Total 7.36 AO order Section 10A adjustment to export sales under explanation 2(iv) under section 10A 1.64 Total 9.00 7. Based on the Special Auditor's report and TPO's order, AO made a draft assessment order by proposing the above additions which are in dispute in this appeal. 8. Aggrieved by the proposed draft assessment the company filed objection before the DRP by raising in summary the following grounds: 1. Section 147 - The reopening of assessment u/s 147 after completing the assessment u/s 143(3) does not satisfy the conditions laid down u/s 147. 2. The comparables adopted for determining the ALP of export sales is incorrect due to the functional differences between the Company and comparables. 3. Metho ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e major reasons coming out of the reasons recoded by the AO to reopen the assessment U/s.147. The facts relating to these reasons from the assessment record present the validity or otherwise of the reasons. Reasons for re-opening the assessment as given by the Assessing Officer. Reason - I "The assessee, Mrs. Sat yam Venture Engineering Services P Ltd, (PANAAFCS3287D), has filed its return of income for the assessment year'2004-05 on 3110-2004 declaring income of ₹ 1,25,02,860. The assessment under section 143(3) was completed on 28.12.2006 determining an income of ₹ 3,82,09,779, after making adjustment as suggested by the TPO U/s. 92CA in respect of income from export of engineering services and commission payment to one of the AE ie., Venture Global (USA). Subsequently on appeal CIT (A) partly allowed the appeal and on commission payment the learned CIT (A) held that it is not an allowable expense as it is not incurred wholly and exclusively for the purpose of business in terms of section 37(1) of the Income tax Act, in view of the assessee's failure to establish the transaction in question i.e., the commission payment to Venture Global on the evidenc ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rores of Rupees, I have reason to believe that income chargeable to tax has escape assessment, within the meaning of Section 147 read with section 149 of the l. T Act. and there is failure on the part of the assessee to disclose fully and truly all material facts necessary for its assessment for A. Y 2004-05. For the above detailed reasons, it is proposed to issue notice to the assessee under section 148 of the I. T Act to re-open the assessment in the assessee's case for the assessment year 2004-05 for bringing to tax the income chargeable to tax which has escaped assessment. " The Ld Counsel submitted as follows:- 16. The allegations that the assessment needs to be reopened U/s.147 based on the statement of Mr.Ramalingaraju, Chairman, Satyam Computers, has no nexus with the financial transactions of the company. The statement by Mr.Ramalingaraju consisted details of certain transactions relating to Satyam Computers. The said statement of Mr.Ramalingaraju excludes the affairs of any subsidiary companies from the said irregularities pointed out by him. Please refer to Para 2 of Letter by Mr.Ramalinga Raju (page 22 of paper book of AY 2003-04) stating that, " The ga ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... to reopen the assessment. General remarks relating to group companies and the transactions interse cannot be a fresh fact which is relevant to the assessment of the assessee. These facts were not known to the assessee at the time of assessment as they are not germane to any of the transactions of the company. In the absence of knowledge of such transactions of the group companies and because of absence of any link with the said transaction to the company, they are neither relevant to the assessment of the company nor require disclosure. 22. The ld DR relied on the decision in the case of Majinder Singh Kang v. CIT & Anr.(2012) 344 ITR 0358 and argued that reopening u/s 147 is valid. 23. The ld Counsel for the assessee relied on the following judicial precedents: • CIT vs. Jet Airways (I) Ltd (331 ITR 236) • Swarnandhara IJMII Integrated Township Development Company (ITA No.1803/Hyd/2012). • ACIT, Raipur vs. Major Deepak Mehta (24 Taxmann.com 147 Chattisgarh). • Ranbaxy Laboratories Ltd vs. CIT (12 Taxmann.com 74 Delhi) • CIT vs. Mohd. Juned Dadani (30 Taxmann.com I. Guj.) 24. We heard both parties. We rely on the decision of Ranjit Reddy vs. Dy. CIT ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 377; 24,97,979. The company claimed exemption u/s 10A to the extent of ₹ 3,93,35,453. The said return of income was processed u/s 143(1) on 6.2.2003. Subsequently the assessment proceedings were reopened on 26.03.2009 u/s 148. 2. AO reopened the said proceedings u/s 148 by recording reasons for such reopening as required u/s 147. The AO recorded that Mr. S. Ramalinga Raju, Ex-Chairman of Satyam Computer Services Ltd has stated through a letter addressed to the Board of Directors of SCSL that the accounts of SCSL were fudged for the last so many years. Mr. Raju gave similar confession through a sworn statement recorded u/s 131 of the I.T. Act on 21.02.2009 by the Department. 3. AO further recorded that information gathered revealed that the revenues recorded and the expenditure debited in the case of assessee are manipulated to evade income tax. 4. On the strength of the above said reasoning, AO reopened assessment accordingly. It is pertinent to note that in the statement referred above Mr. Ramalinga Raju stated that accounts related to SCSL are not correct. He noted in his statement that the said practices were not carried out with regard to accounts of the subsidiary com ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... CUP method as the most appropriate method failed to bring out comparable entities or comparable transactions. He simply adopted arm's length price as Nil under the CUP method. 9. TPO examined the TP documentation filed by the assessee and identified certain short comings and considered it defective. He observed that the assessee had used multiple year data for arriving at the arithmetic mean of the margins of comparable companies. He accordingly rejected the TP documentation filed. After having carried out analysis, he considered TNMM as the most appropriate method and accordingly applied the same. The PLI of 28.84% determined accordingly was applied as the percentage on operating cost (OP/OC) to ascertain the ALP adjustment. 10. AO had also recomputed the exemption u/s 10A while computing the income of the assessee company. AO had considered the following expenditure incurred in foreign currency as not entitled to be part of eligible export turnover for exemption thereof: Nature of the item Amount (Rs.) Travelling expenses 1,36,94,298 Expenditure incurred at overseas branch 11,45,16,705 Others 1,34,31,415 Total 14,16,42,418 11. Draft assessment order sent to the Depar ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . Mr Ramalinga Raju had also stated in his letter that the subsidiaries are reflecting true performance. ii) Sworn deposition recorded by the Department. Reiteration of the facts mentioned in the above letter. iii). Information gathered revealed that the revenues recorded and the expenditure debited in the case of the assessee are manipulated to evade income tax. The Ld. Counsel submitted as follows:- 20. The statement of Mr. Ramalinga Raju prompted the AO's attention towards SCSL. AO must have presumably considered that the contents of the letter and the statement may not be adequate to reopen assessment of the assessee. Hence, proceeded to the next step and noted that he had gathered information that the income of the assessee company is also manipulated. However, he did not dwell on the nature of the information in his possession to assess whether the said information gave rise to a reason to believe. He also failed to seek clarification regarding the information that gathered during the assessment giving rise to his reason to believe. This gives to conclusion that the said information is either not present or it was not gathered at all. Finally the penultimate test of vali ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... pens the door for reassessment. The first step in process reassessment under section 143(3) read with section 147 is enquiry based on the reason to ascertain the income if any had escaped. None of the reasons recorded by the AO indicates a lead for further inquiry to an area or group of transactions of the appellant Company. It is most important to appreciate at this juncture the routine enquiry carried out by the AO as if i is assessment under section 143(3). He did not refer to the "information gathered" which was recorded as the reason for any further enquiry during the assessment process. Neither the enquiry nor the additions made had any nexus or link with supposed reason for reopening of assessment. The reason to believe as recorded had not left any footsteps on the reassessment. The reassessment u/s 143(3) r.w.s 147 caused normal inquiry that would happen u/sI43(3) leaving undeniable evidence that the reassessment was a normal assessment in guise of reopening u/s 147. 25. The Ld Counsel contended that the reasons to believe must have a rational connection with or relevant bearing on the formation of the belief. The reason recorded must have a rational connection w ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tion under Section 147 is bad in law ad is to be quashed. 28. With respect to the reopening, we have already given our finding at Para.31 in ITA No.1136/Hyd/2013 relying on the decision in the case of Ranjit Reddy vs. Dy. CIT, Hyderabad (2013) 144 ITD 361, wherein it has been held as follows: "One needs to give a schematic interpretation to the words 'reason to believe' failing which, section 147 would give arbitrary power to AO to reopen assessments on the basis of mere change of opinion, which cannot be per se reason to reopen. The AO has no power to review; he has the power to reassess. But reassessment has to be taxed on fulfilment of certain pre-conditions and if the concept of 'change of opinion' is removed, then, in the garb of reopening the assessment, review would take place. One must treat the concept of change of opinion as an inbuilt test to check abuse of power by the AO. Hence, the AO has power to reopen, provided there is 'tangible material' to come to the conclusion that there is escapement of income from assessment. Reasons must have a live link with the formation of the belief". 29. Further, para 32 at page 483 in the case of S. Ranjit Reddy (Supra), reads as ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
