9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (2) TMI 1084X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... taxpayer is entitled for working capital adjustment, the quantum of which is to be checked by the ld. TPO who has to proceed on the lines of the decision rendered by the coordinate Bench of the Tribunal in taxpayer’s own case for AY 2008-09 Deduction u/s 10A of the Act being the interest on FDR and misc. income - Held that:- Following the findings returned by the coordinate Bench of the Tribunal in taxpayer’s own case for AY 2010-11 based on the decision of Hon’ble High Court in Riviera Home Furnishing (2015 (11) TMI 1139 - DELHI HIGH COURT), we are of the considered view that the taxpayer is entitled for deduction u/s 10A on the interest earned on fixed deposit receipts. Pay recoveries from the employees eligible for sec 10A deduction - Held that:- Similar view as to allowing the deduction u/s 10A of the Act on excess provision returned back has been expressed by the coordinate Bench of the Tribunal in Birlasoft (India) Ltd. vs. DCIT [2011 (1) TMI 406 - ITAT, DELHI ]. Following the decision rendered by the coordinate Bench of the Tribunal, we are of the considered view that notice pay recoveries from the employees is also part of the business profit of the taxpayer on which ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the learned Transfer Pricing officer (the learned TPO') proposing a transfer pricing adjustment to the actual value of the international transactions of the Appellant with its associated enterprises and only granting a partial relief thereof. 4. That on the facts and in law, the learned TPO has grossly erred in treating foreign exchange gain/ loss as non-operating item while determining the arm's length price of the international transactions of the Appellant without considering the terms conditions of the inter-company transactions of the Appellant. 5. The learned AO/TPO/DRP has erred by not making appropriate adjustments on account of working capital differences between the Appellant vis-a-vis the comparables companies, without appreciating the fact that the similar adjustment has been allowed to the Appellant in the assessment year 2007-08 assessment year 2010-11. Thus, in the absence of any substantial change in the functional profile of the Appellant and following the principle of res judicata, the benefit of working capital adjustment should be allowed for AY 2009-10 as well. 6. That without prejudice, on the fact and the circumstances of t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ase and in law, the learned TPO/ Hon'ble DRP has erred in selection of functional non comparable companies and application of arbitrary filters for the purpose of determination of arm's length price of the international transactions pertaining to provision of IT and IT enabled services by the Appellant to associated enterprises. 10. That on the facts and the circumstances of the case and in law, the learned TPO / Hon'ble DRP ignored the fact that the Appellant is entitled to a tax holiday under section 10A of the Act on its profits and therefore does not have an ulterior motive of shifting profits outside India. 11. That on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the learned AO/ Hon'ble DRP has erred in not allowing deduction under section 10A of the Act on interest income of ₹ 12,571,932 and miscellaneous income of Rs. INR 1,543,188. 11.1 On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the learned AO has erred in not allowing deduction under section 10A of the Act on 'Excess provision written back', amounting to INR 742,769, despite directions from the Hon'ble DRP to allow the same. 12. That on th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... and facts in accepting the contention of the assessee regarding exclusion of M/s Coral Hub (Provision tor ITES) without appreciating the reasons given by TPO and without considering that the TPO had selected the comparables keeping in view the broad comparability under TNMM. iv. That the Ld. DRP-II erred in law and facts in not appreciating the fact that the assessee had clubbed the two International Transactions - Provision of Claim Processing Services and Provision of Data Analytics Services together, as Provision for ITES, for benchmarking under TNMM in the TP Study Report which was followed by the assessee despite the fact that Provision of Claim Processing Services come under the category of BPO and Provision of Data Analytics Services'' come under the category of KPO and thus the comparables were selected by the assessee as well by the TPO from the entire spectrum (High End services as well as Low End Services) of ITES. v. That the Ld. DRP-II erred in law and facts in not appreciating the fact that when the two International Transactions - Provision of Claim Processing Services - BPO Services and Provision of Data Analytics Services - KPO Se ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... et Margin Method (TNMM) as Most Appropriate Method (MAM) for both the segments and computed its margin at 13.83% and 13.23% in ITES and Software Development services respectively. 6. Ld. Transfer Pricing Officer (TPO), after examining the TP study made by the taxpayer and on the basis of various filters, described in para 3.2 of the TP order made its own TP analysis by selecting 8 comparables for ITES segment and 18 comparables in software development segment and calculated their margin at 34.29% and 28.88% respectively and computed the cumulative adjustment in both the segments to the tune of ₹ 32,04,45,140. 7. Ld. DRP who has given part relief by excluding Bodhtree Consulting, CAT Technologies and Aricent Technologies from the final set of comparables qua software development services and by excluding Coral Hub qua ITES segment for benchmarking the international transaction. Feeling aggrieved, the taxpayer has come up before the Tribunal seeking exclusion of 5 comparables and 3 comparables qua software development services and ITES segment respectively and the taxpayer also sought inclusion of 3 comparables qua ITES segment. The Revenue also challenged exclusion of Bo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... l,12,95,89,650 Arm's length price at a margin of 22.53% Rs.l,38,40,86,198 Price received Rs.l,27,90,79,702 Proposed adjustment u/s 92CA ₹ 10,50,06,496 % of difference with ALP 7.58% Based on this analysis, adjustment amount ₹ 10,50,06,496 isproposed for SWD Segment. 3. ITES Segment S.No. Company Name OP/TC% 1. Accentia Technologies Ltd. 52.52 2. Cosmic Global Ltd. 50.70 3. Crossdomain Solution Pvt. Ltd. 25.63 4. Infosys BPO 24.28 5. Eclerx Services Ltd. 66.01 6. Aditya Birla Minac Worldwide Ltd ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... OSYS TECHNOLOGIES LIMITED (INFOSYS) 13. The taxpayer sought exclusion of Infosys on grounds inter alia that it is functionally dissimilar and incurring significant R D expenses having significant intangibles and a giant company having fully risk bearing profile and relied upon the decision rendered by the coordinate Bench of the Tribunal in taxpayer s own case in ITA No.6312/Del/2012 for AY 2008-09 order dated 28.08.2014 . 14. However, on the other hand, ld. DR for the Revenue relied upon the orders passed by the AO/DRP. 15. Perusal of page 1045 of annual reports compendium Vol.IV goes to prove that Infosys is providing end to end solutions inter alia include business and technology consulting, custom application development, infrastructure maintenance services, maintenance and production support, package enabled consulting and implementation including enterprise solutions, product engineering solutions and product lifecycle management, systems integration, valuation solutions and Software as a Service (SaaS) related solutions. Infosys has developed Finacle universal banking solution empowering 114 banks across 62 countries helping them serve 25,000 branches 244 mill ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... it is a giant risk taking company and has also undergone various acquisition and divestment during the year under assessment; that Tata has been ordered to be excluded as a comparable in AY 2007-08 and 2008-09 in identical cases by the coordinate Bench of the Tribunal viz., SunLife India Services Centre Pvt. Ltd. in ITA No.1489/Del/2014 for AY 2009-10 St. Ericsson India (P.) Ltd. vs. Addl. CIT in ITA No.1672/Del/2014 for AY 2009-10 . 20. However, on the other hand, ld. DR for the Revenue relied upon the orders passed by the AO/DRP. 21. Annual report of the Tata, available at pages 1341 to 1363 of annual report compendium, goes to prove that Tata is into providing diversified operations viz. Tata is into IT Infrastructure Services, BPO, ITES, Engineering and Industrial services; that it is into sale of equipment and software licence with wide client base and has been conferred with numerous awards/recognition. Perusal of Page 1420 of the annual report compendium shows that it is having income from IT and consultancy services, sale of equipment and software licence but having no segmental data. The comparability of Tata has been examined by the coordinate Bench of the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rvices Centre Pvt. Ltd. (supra). WIPRO LIMITED (WIPRO) 26. The taxpayer sought exclusion of Wipro on grounds of functional dissimilarity; being engaged in R D activities having significant intangibles and it is a giant company with differences in risk profile, nature of services, expenditure on R D etc. and relied upon Toluna India Pvt. Ltd. vs. ACIT in ITA No.5645/Del/2011 and CIT vs. Agnity India Technologies Pvt. Ltd. in ITA 1204/2011 (Hon ble Delhi High Court) . However, on the other hand, ld. DR for the Revenue relied upon the orders passed by the AO/DRP. 27. The taxpayer has sought the exclusion of Wipro before the ld. TPO/DRP who have rejected the argument on the ground that the margin of the standalone entity is higher than the consolidated level. However, when we examine annual report of Wipro at page 1604 of the annual report compendium, Wipro is a leading global information technology, or IT, services company, headquartered in Bangalore, India providing a comprehensive range of IT services, software solutions and research and development services in the areas of hardware and software design to leading companies worldwide; using its development centers ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... comparable, as is evident from para 2.2(v) of the TP order. However, the taxpayer has raised objection before ld. DRP that Quintegra passes the export filter but the ld. DRP has not dealt with this issue. 32. Perusal of the submissions made by the taxpayer before ld. DRP are available at pages 413 414 of the paper book II. However, perusal of the profit loss account, available at pages 1747 and 1750 of annual report compendium and schedule forming part of the balance sheet to Quintegra shows that Quintegra s export revenue is 95.06% and as such, passes the taxpayer s export earning filter applied by the ld. TPO. So, ld. TPO is directed to consider the Quintegra accordingly when he has not disputed the functional profile of Quintegra and it has also not failed in other filters applied by the ld. TPO. INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY ENABLED SERVICES (ITES) SEGMENT 33. Method and functional profile of the taxpayer is not in dispute. All the international transactions carried out by the taxpayer during the year under assessment are as per agreement dated 01.01.2007 which is continuing in nature as were applicable in AY 2008-09. To benchmark international transactions, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ection for inclusion of Accenture before the ld. TPO that it is functionally dis-similar and is into diversified business and has acquired Oak Technologies Inc. and, therefore, fails the filter of some peculiar circumstances but TPO has not discussed the objection of functional dis-similarity and has retained Accenture as comparable on the ground that its acquisition was completed by 31.03.2009 and it has no impact on the revenue of the company during the year under assessment. Ld. DRP retained Accenture by simply agreeing with ld. TPO and without considering the objections raised by the taxpayer. 39. Annual report of the Accenture, available at pages 605 to 692, shows that Accenture is into the diversifying activities viz. Knowledge Process Outsourcing (KPO), Legal Process Outsourcing, Data Process Outsourcing, high end software services, whereas the taxpayer is a routine software ITES service provider working on cost plus mark up and fully risk insulated company. 40. Furthermore, Accenture has undergone extra ordinary event during the year under assessment as it has acquired M/s. Oak Technologies Inc. with consideration of US $ 9 million excluding during the cost of acquisi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... le in taxpayer s own case for AY 2008-09 and was ordered to be excluded being functionally dissimilar vide order dated 28.08.2014 passed in ITA No.6312/Del/2012. Cosmic was also ordered to be excluded as a comparable by the coordinate Bench of the Tribunal in ITA No.6803/Del/2013 vide order dated 22.01.2015 vi-a-vis Macquarie Global Services Pvt. Ltd. which was also into providing ITES services to its AE on ground of its functional dis-similarity by relying upon Mercer Consulting (India) Pvt. Ltd. vs. DCIT (ITA No.966/Del/2014) on the ground that Cosmic outsources its major activities. So, we ordered to exclude Cosmic from the final set of comparables. E-CLERX SERVICES (E-CLERX) 47. The taxpayer sought to exclude E-Clerx for benchmarking its international transaction on the grounds inter alia that it is functionally dis-similar; that it has only one segment and has ordered to be excluded in taxpayer s own case for AY 2008-09 and also relied upon Ameriprise India Pvt. Ltd. vs. ACIT in ITA No.2010/Del/2014 for AY 2009-10, Capital IQ Information Systems vs. ACIT in ITA No.124/Hyd/2014 for AY 2009-10 and Macquarie Global Services Pvt. Ltd. vs. DCIT in ITA No.6803/D ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... that Microland passes all the filters applied by the TPO. The ld. DRP have not given any finding on this comparable. In the given circumstances, when Microland passes all the filters applied by the TPO, the TPO is directed to examine its comparability for the purpose of benchmarking the international transactions. CG VAK SOFTWARE EXPORTS LTD. R. SYSTEMS (CG VAK) (R. SYSTEMS) 53. The ld. TPO rejected CG Vak Software Exports Ltd. as a comparable on the ground that significant income of this company is from software development and that income from BPO operation is only ₹ 86,00,000/-. TPO has applied segment while examining the comparable. Perusal of segmental analysis, available at page 879 of the annual report compendium, shows that data is sufficient. In AY 2010-11, CG Vak Software Exports Ltd. was examined as a comparable in taxpayer s own case and the issue was set aside to the TPO to reconsider in the light of the decision rendered in Techbook International Pvt. Ltd. ITA No.240/Del/2015 and Ameriprise India Pvt. Ltd. vs. ACIT ITA No.7014/Del/2014. In case, data is sufficient, CG Vak Software Exports Ltd. may be included in the final set of co ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... cision of ld. DRP in treating the foreign exchange fluctuation gain/loss as nonoperating item, the findings are not sustainable. 60. The coordinate Bench of the Tribunal decided the identical issue in case of Westfalia Separator India Pvt. Ltd. vs. ACIT in ITA No.4446/Del/2002 for AY 2003-04 by returning following findings :- We have heard the rival submissions and perused the relevant material on record. The forex gain or loss is the difference between the price at which an import or export transaction was recorded in the books of account on the basis of rate of foreign exchange then prevailing and the amount actually paid or received at the rate of foreign exchange prevailing at the time of actual payment or receipt. Since such forex loss or gain is a direct outcome of the purchase or sale transaction, it partakes of the same character as that of the transaction to which it relates. The Special Bench of the Tribunal in the case of ACIT vs. Prakash I. Shah (2008) 115 ITD 167 (Mum) (SB) has held that foreign exchange fluctuation gain is a part of export turnover. Though such decision was rendered in the context of section 80HHC, but the same logic applies generally ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e gain/loss as non-operating margin as non-operating items while benchmarking the international transactions. Consequently, ground no.4 is determined in favour of the taxpayer. GROUND NO.5 62. Ld. AO/TPO/DRP have not made appropriate adjustment on account of working capital differences between the taxpayer vis- vis comparable companies, which are under challenge before the Tribunal. Ld. DRP denied appropriate adjustment on account of difference in working capital employed on the ground that the onus is on the taxpayer to demonstrate the reason and calculation of working capital adjustment and the ld. TPO has rightly denied the same to the taxpayer. 63. Identical issue has come up before the coordinate Bench of the Tribunal in taxpayer s own case for AY 2008-09, operative part of which is reproduced as under for ready perusal :- 13.1. Now, we espouse the next contention raised by the ld. AR about the denial of working capital adjustment, which was claimed before the TPO. The DRP echoed the TPO s order on this score by noticing that the assessee took the average of the amount of working capital deployed by the comparables on the first and last day of accountin ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n case for AY 2008-09, Consequently, Ground No.5 is determined in favour of the taxpayer. GROUNDS NO. 6, 7, 8, 9 10 65. Grounds No.6, 7, 8, 9 10 are general in nature more specifically elaborated in the subsequent grounds, need no adjudication. GROUNDS NO.11 11.1 66. The AO in the draft order, available at pages 140 to 147, denied the deduction of ₹ 125,71,932/- and ₹ 22,85,957/- claimed u/s 10A of the Act being the interest on FDR and misc. income respectively on the ground that the same is not related to exports. Ld. DRP also upheld the findings of the AO by observing that the interest income cannot be termed as profit derived from an undertaking and has also not followed the decision rendered by the coordinate Bench in AY 2008-09 on identical issue. 67. Undisputedly, identical issue has come up before the Tribunal in taxpayer s own case for AY 2010-11 and has been decided in favour of the taxpayer by relying upon the decision rendered by the Hon ble Delhi High Court in Riviera Home Furnishing vs. Additional CIT- 65 taxmann.com 287 (Delhi). Operative part of the finding returned by Hon ble Delhi High Court in Riviera Home Furnishing ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... terpreted Section 80HH and the decision of the Madras High Court in CIT v. Menon Impex (P.) Ltd. [2003] 259 ITR 403/128 Taxman 11 which interpreted Section 10A of the Act. The Karnataka High Court in Motorola India Electronics (P.) Ltd. (supra), after noticing the above decisions, held that it is clear that, what is exempted is not merely the profits and gains from the export of articles but also the income from the business of the undertaking . Specific to the question of interest earned by the EOU on the FDRs placed by it and interest earned from the loans given to sister concerns, it was held that although it did not partake the character of profit and gains from the sale of an article it is income which is derived from the consideration realized by export of articles. 11. The decision of the Karnataka High Court in Motorola India Electronics (P.) Ltd. (supra) was followed by this Court in its decision in CIT v. Hritnik Exports (P.) Ltd. (decision dated 13th November 2014 in ITA Nos. 219 and 239 of 2014). This Court also referred to its earlier decision dated 1st September 2014 in ITA No. 438 of 2014 (CIT v. XLNC Fashions). While declining to frame a question of law i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sing Officer as business income. The CBDT Circular No. 564 dated 5th July, 1990 reported in 184 ITR (St.) 137 explained the scope and ambit of section 80HHC and the mode of determination of profits derived by an assessee from the export of goods. I.T.A.T., Special Bench in the case of International Research Park Laboratories v. ACIT, 212 ITR (AT) 1, after following the aforesaid Circular, held that straight jacket formula given in sub-section (3) has to be followed to determine the eligible deduction. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case ofP.R. Prabhakar; 284 ITR 584 had approved the principle laid down in the Special Bench decision in International Research Park Laboratories v.ACIT (supra). In the assessee's own case the I.T.A.T. in the preceding years, after considering the decision in the case of Liberty India held that provisions of section 10B are different from the provisions of section 80IA wherein no formula has been laid down for computing the eligible business profit.' 12. Recently, in a decision dated 6th October 2015 in ITA NO. 392 of 2015 (Principal CIT v. Universal Precision Screws), this Court had occasion to again consider whether interest earne ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ulted. In other words, interest earned on the FDRs would form part of the profits of the business of the undertaking for the purposes of computation of the profits derived from export by applying formula under Section 10B(4) of the Act.' 13. Mr. Ashok Manchanda, learned Senior standing counsel for the Revenue, urged that none of the earlier decisions of the High Courts have considered the effect of Sections 80I, 801A and 801B of the Act which occur in Chapter VIA of the Act. He referred in particular to Section 80A(4) of the Act, which reads as under: '4) Notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in section 10A or section 10AA or section 10B or section 10BA or in any provisions of this Chapter under the heading C-Deductions in respect of certain incomes , where, in the case of an assessee, any amount of profits and gains of an undertaking or unit or enterprise or eligible business is claimed and allowed as a deduction under any of those provisions for any assessment year, deduction in respect of, and to the extent of, such profits and gains shall not be allowed under any other provisions of this Act for such assessment year and shall in no case e ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ot appear to be to deny relief under Section 10B(1) read with Section 10B(4) or to whittle down the ambit of those provisions as is sought to be suggested by Mr. Manchanda. Also, he is not right in contending that the decisions of the High Courts referred to above have not noticed the decision of the Supreme Court in Liberty India. The Karnataka High Court in Motorola India Electronics (P.) Ltd. (supra) makes a reference to the said decision. That decision of the Karnataka High Court has been cited with approval by this Court in Hritnik Exports (P.) Ltd. (supra) and Universal Precision Screws (supra). In Hritnik Exports (P.) Ltd. (supra) the Court quoted with approval the observations of the Special Bench of the ITAT in Maral Overseas Ltd. (supra) that Section 10A/10B of the Act is a complete code providing the mechanism for computing the 'profits of the business' eligible for deduction u/s 10B of the Act. Once an income forms part of the business of the income of the eligible undertaking of the assessee, the same cannot be excluded from the eligible profits for the purpose of computing deduction u/s 10B of the Act. 16. This then brings us to the questions framed ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ) Ltd. vs. DCIT 44 SOT 664 (Delhi). Following the decision rendered by the coordinate Bench of the Tribunal, we are of the considered view that notice pay recoveries from the employees is also part of the business profit of the taxpayer on which the taxpayer is also eligible for deduction u/s 10A of the Act. Consequently, grounds no.11 11.1 are also determined in favour of the taxpayer. GROUND NO.12 70. The AO has not given credit of tax deducted at source of ₹ 58,922/- to the taxpayer. AO is directed to provide the credit to the taxpayer qua the tax deducted at source after due verification. GROUND NO.13 71. The AO has also not given credit of advance tax of ₹ 27,50,000/- deposited by the taxpayer during the year under assessment. The taxpayer is entitled for credit of advance tax subject to verification by the AO. So, the AO is directed to proceed accordingly. GROUND NO.14 72. AO has also not granted set off of Minimum Alternate Tax (MAT) credit of ₹ 216,54,947/- brought forward during the year under assessment u/s 115JAA of the Act. When it is not in dispute that the taxpayer has claimed the credit of ₹ 216,54,947/- be ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Bhd respectively. It is also mentioned that the company has software solutions of its own (Hygia 2.3 Enterprise Data Quality Solution, Busin Essence 4.0 Business Intelligence Dashboard Solution, DigiDoc Document Management framework) and Sevices (Web Services and Customized IT Professional Services. 78. However, TPO retained Bodhtree as a comparable on the ground that the company has shown fixed assets in the form of computer software of ₹ 96,03,610/- only which is insignificant and there is no capitalized expenditure on software development on software products and as such, it does not have any significant product business. 79. However, the ld. DRP excluded Bodhtree on the ground of abnormal results during this year by tabulating the margin of this company of earlier and subsequent years as under :- Company Name 2005-06 2006-07 2007-08 2008-09 2009-10 2010-11 OP/TC Margin Bodhtree Consulting Limited 14.66% 33.20% 20.86% 64.04% ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ount of capitalized expenses in respect of incomplete projects at the end of the year. Apparently, we could not find out any such capitalized value of work-inprogress in the balance sheet of the company on standalone basis. We directed the ld. DR to examine the Annual report of this company and point out the amount of expenses capitalized in respect of incomplete work at the end of the year. On the next date of hearing, the ld. DR failed to specifically point out any amount of such capitalized expenses with the opening or closing balance. This prima facie shows that the expenses incurred in respect of incomplete projects of software development at the end of the year, but billed in the subsequent year, were, in fact, treated as expenses for the current year alone. In the same manner, expenses incurred in the preceding year for the contracts of software development remaining incomplete at the end of the year, also must have been included in the expenses of the last year alone, but, the income getting recognized on the raising of bills in the current year. This albeit, patently deforms the correct profitability on year to year basis, yet, but we cannot help the situation. When the po ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... xpayer has sought exclusion of Coral on ground of functional dis-similarity and low employee cost ratio. Both these objections have been overruled by the ld. TPO. 87. However, the ld. DRP rejected Coral Hub as a comparable on ground of its outsourcing activities. Perusal of annual report, available at page 945 (P L account for the year ending June, 2010), shows that Coral has outsourced its activities to the extent of 90% and its operating expenses on account of data entry charges, vendor payment and expenses on conversion of books into POD titles is to the tune of about ₹ 56 crores. 88. Coral Hub has been ordered to be excluded on ground of functional dis-similarity by the coordinate Bench of the Tribunal in taxpayer s own case for AY 2008-09. The relevant findings returned by the coordinate Bench of the Tribunal are reproduced as under :- 12.2. Having heard the rival submissions and perused the relevant material on record, we find from the Annual report of this company that it is mainly engaged in e-publishing business. It has more than 10,000 classic books to its credit which are also converted into large font titles for visually challenged. Apart from e-pu ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
