9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (4) TMI 79X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... .Y.2007-08) : 3. The first issue that arises for consideration in this appeal by the assessee is with regard to determination of Arms Length Price in respect of an international transaction of rendering software development services by the assessee to its Associated Enterprises. (AE). The assessee rendered software development services to Koninklijke Philips Electronics N.V., Netherlands (KPE NV). As per the agreement the assessee charged KPE NV 10% mark up on cost for rendering software development services. The value of the international transaction with the associated enterprises was a sum of Rs. 329.9 crores. Since the transaction between the assessee and its AE was a international transaction, income from the same has to be determined having to arms length price (ALP) in view of the provision of section 92 of the Act. The assessee to substantiate the price charged by it in international transaction was at arm's length, filed a Transfer Pricing Study (TP Study). The Assessee in its transfer pricing study adopted the Transaction Net Margin Method (TNMM) as the most appropriate method for determining arm's length price. The assessee chose operating margin to operating cost as Pr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ing the operating profit on operating cost percentage as 18.61% as the benchmark, the arm's length price of international transactions representing provision of software development services by the assessee company to its AEs during the assessment year 2007-08 is re-determined as under: - . Operating margin declared by the assessee at 10.23% operating martin percentage Rs. 30.60 crores Operating profit margin taking the operating Margin percentage at 18.61% Rs. 55.68 crores Arm's Length Price Adjustment &nbs ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... perating margin! total cost margin of 18.61 % with respect to its software development activities. 4.2 The TPO, DCIT and DRP erred in facts and in law while rejecting the value of the international transactions as recorded in the books of account as being at arm's length. 4.3 The DRP and TPO erred in rejecting the transfer pricing study conducted by the Appellant. 4.4 The DRP and the TPO erred in arbitrary selection of certain comparable companies which were functionally dissimilar to the Appellant. 4.5 The DRP and the TPO erred in law and on facts in rejecting certain comparable companies based on application of arbitrary turnover filters. 4.6 The DRP and the TPO erred in computing the operating margin! total cost margin of 3i Infotech Limited in the benchmarking analysis. 4.7 The DRP and the TPO erred in law in using data, which was not contemporaneous and which was not available in the public domain at the time of conducting the transfer pricing study by the Appellant. 4.8 The DRP and the TPO erred in law and on facts in not considering the application of multiple-year data while computing the margins of the comparable companies, having regard to the provisions of Rul ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... traordinary in nature given the fact that in earlier years the comparable company was capitalizing this amount. In these circumstances, the Panel is of the view that no interference in this regard in the action of the TPO is called for." 9. As far as Aftek Ltd is concerned this was also a company chosen by the assessee in its TP study as a comparable company. As far as this company is concerned, the assesee had objected to inclusion of this company as a comparable company even before the TPO and the TPO rejected the claim of the assessee with the follows : "10.2. The assessee has requested to remove Aftek Ltd from the list of comparables. It is interesting to note that this company was included in the list of comparables provided in its Transfer Pricing Documentation Report not only for FY 2006-07 but also for 2005-06. Thus, its Report for FY 2006-07 mentions with approval that this company "is a full spectrum technology service provider company which provides IT services to design and deliver projects, products and implements end-to-end solutions to customers in a variety of industries". No functional dissimilarities have been pointed out for consecutive years." 10. When inclus ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... red various companies." 12. It has been mentioned in the application for admitting the additional ground that though these two companies were included as comparable companies in the TP study done of the assessee, it later transpired that these companies were not comparable companies and therefore the same should not be regarded as a comparable company. The assessee has also placed reliance on ITAT Chandigarh Special Bench in the case of Qua Systems Pvt. Ltd. (2010) 4 ITR (Trib) 606 (SB)(Chandigarh). The Special Bench took the view that Transfer Pricing law in India was still an evolving legislation and the judicial trend is being set into motion by decisions and therefore the assessee should not be denied the opportunity of showing as to how a company chosen by it as a comparable company was not comparable. The Special Bench took the view that when the cause of substantial justice and technical consideration are pitted against each other, the cause of substantial justice deserves to be preferred. The ld. DR however opposed the prayer for admission of the additional ground. According to him the assessee having chosen the aforesaid companies as comparable companies cannot be allowed ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... services. However no disclosure on segmental information is available in the standalone financial statements of the company. [Page 119] - Significant Research & Development activity - 11.02% : The company is also involved in significant R & D activities. During the FY 2006-07 the R & D expenditure amounted to 11.02% of the total revenue of the company. [Page- 11 & 5] - Significant Intangibles - 23.80% : The company has intangible assets in the form of goodwill and Business & Commercial rights. The total amount of intangibles is 23.90% of total fixed assets. [Page 95 & 104] - Acquisitions during the year : During the year under consideration the company has taken multiple acquisitions. The company acquired Datacons private limited, Stex Software private limited and others.. Also the company has acquired 51% stake in each US based PA [Page 4] 15. In the following decisions rendered by several Benches of the ITAT (including in Assessee's own case for AY 2009-10), this company has been regarded as not comparable with a software development company such as the Assessee. Sl. No. Relevant case law Assessment Year Broad Reason for Rejection Citation Para & Page No. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 18 (Pg. No. 12 & 13/19) 30 3. Principal Global Services Limited AY 2007- 08 [2016] 69 taxman.com 210 (Pune-Trib) Para 21., (Pg. No. 14&15/16 ) 31 On account of Significant Intangibles 1. Tesco Hindustan Service Centre Pvt. Ltd. 2007-08 [2017] 77 taxman.com 48 (Bangalore-Trib) Para 12.4 (Pg. No.13/34) 7 2. Marlabs Software Pvt Ltd 2007-08 TS-922-ITAT- 2016 (Bang)-TP Para 14.3 (Pg no.17/36) 11 3. Global e-Business Operations Pvt. Ltd. 2007-08 TS-35-ITAT- 2017(Bang)-TP Para 3/7 (Pg no.7,13) 12 4. H&S Software Development and Knowledge Management Centre Pvt. Ltd. 2007-08 TS-31-ITAT- 2017(DEL)-TP Para 34 & 40 (Pg no.17/21) 13 5. Broadcom India Pvt. Ltd. 2006-07 TS-1010-ITAT- 2016 (Bang)-TP Para 18.3.1 (Pg no.25/34) 14 On account of Mergers/Acquisitions 1. M/s Cashedge India Pvt. Ltd. 2010-11 TS-262-HC- 2016(DEL)-TP Para 6, (Pg no.3/4) 15 2. Xchanging Technology Services India Pvt. Ltd. 2009-10 TS-555-HC- 2015(DEL)-TP Para- 3,(Pgno.2/2) 16 3. CES Pvt. Ltd. 2006-07 TS-338-HC-2014(AP)- TP Para-4, (Pg no.2/5) 17 4. M/s ISG Novasoft Technologies Ltd. 2007-08 TS-485-ITAT- 2015(Bang)-TP Par 5, (Pg no.5/10) 18 5. Tesco Hindustan S ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 77 ) 23 5. Telcordia Technologes India (P) Ltd. 2007-08 [2012] 22 taxmann.com 96 (Mum) Para 7.2, (Pg. No.3/16 ) 24 6. M/s NTT Data India Enterprises Application Services Private Limited Hyderbad 2007-08 TS-39 ITAT-2016 (HYD) - TP Para-7.4, (Pg no.9/23) 25 7. M/s. Polaris Consulting & Services Ltd. 2007-08 TS-3 ITAT- 2017(CHNY)-TP Para-8.3, (Pg No. 20/44) 26 8. Sharp Software Development India P. Ltd. 2007-08 [2016] 76 taxman.com 340 (Bangaluru-Trib) Para 17.3, (Pg. No. 17/23) 27 9. CSR India (P) Ltd. 2007-08 [2013] 31 taxman.com 265 (Bangaluru-Trib) Para 3.4.2., (Pg. No. 3 & 11) 28 On account of Mergers 1. M/s Cashedge India Pvt. Ltd. 2010-11 TS-262-HC-2016 (DEL) - TP Para 6, (Pg no. 3/4) 15 2. Xchanging Technology Services India Pvt. Ltd. 2009-10 TS-555-HC-2015(DEL) - TP Para - 3,(Pgno.2/2) 16 3. CES Pvt. Ltd. 2006-07 TS-338-HC-2014 (AP)-TP Para-4, (Pg no. 2/5) 17 4. M/s ISG Novasoft Technologies Ltd. 2007-08 TS-485-ITAT - 2015 (Bang)-TP Par 5, (Pg no. 5/10) 18 5. Tesco Hindustan Service Centre (P) Ltd. 2007-08 [2017] 77 taxmann.com 48 (Bangalore - Trib.) Para 23, (Pg no. 24/34) 7 6. TNS India Private Limited ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e the following observations :- "The assesee also had with it the data required for computation of working capital adjustment but it did not make any such computation. The OECD Guidelines of May 2006, have been cited profusely by the assessee in respect of its arguments pertaining to use of data and various aspects of comparability but the assessee has neither furnished any details in this regard nor used this guidelines for computing the working capital adjustment and therefore it is not allowable. " 20. The ld. Counsel pointed out that the observations of the DRP that the assessee does not give the required data for computation of working capital adjustment was incorrect. In this regard, our attention was drawn to the assessee's letter dated 08.10.2010 addressed to the TPO in which the assessee has made the following submissions : 'Working Capital Adjustment Without prejudice to the submissions made above, it would be relevant to note that the Assessee is a captive service provider rendering software services to its Associated Enterprises (' A Es'). Since, the Assessee is rendering services to its AEs, the latter takes utmost care so that the former's wo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... see in its transfer pricing study and we find that the observations of the DRP in this regard cannot be sustained. We accordingly direct that adjustment of 2% towards working capital adjustment and risk adjustment should be allowed to the assessee as was done in A.Y.2004-05. We hold and direct accordingly." 23. The ld. DR submitted that the working capital adjustment should be based on the formula usually employed in computing the working capital adjustment. His submissions was that the working capital adjustment may be directed to compute by the assessee based on the formula and the TPO should be directed to consider the same. 24. We have considered the rival submissions and are of the view that the submission made by the ld. DR is acceptable. We accordingly direct the assessee to give computation of working capital adjustment as per the formula for calculating the working capital adjustment. The TPO is directed to examine the working capital adjustment so given in accordance with law. 25. In view of the aforesaid conclusion we are of the view that other issues raised in ground nos. 1 to 5 does not require any consideration and are left open. This issue with regard to transfer ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nics goods like television sets, domestic appliances etc. These products carry a warranty period. The warranty period varies from product to product. During the warranty period, the cost of repairs is to be borne by the Assessee including the cost of spare parts to be replaced. The methodology for computation of warranty provision in the case of consumer electronics was furnished by the Assessee. The same is given as Annexure-B to this order. 31. The AO has disallowed the excess of Provision for Replacement Guarantee over actual payment amounting to Rs. 1,45,98,000/- treating the same as excess provision. The assessee has contested the view of the AO relying on the decision of the Apex Court in case of Rotork Controls India (P) LLd reported in 314 ITR 0062. The Assessee pointed out that similar issue also came up before the DRP in the assessee's case for the AY 2006-07. For the AY 2006-07, the Panel directed the AO to examine specifically the record of the assessee in respect of Provision for Replacement Guarantee to ascertain whether the following three conditions laid down by the Hon 'ble Apex Court in the case of Rotork Controls India (P) Ltd. (supra) were satisfied in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... re 66 Rent 72 Power & Fuel 37 Insurance 14 Repairs/Maint: Buildings 24 Travelling & Conveyance 209 Reimbur, of Motor Car Exps 8 Postage/Stationery/Office Exps 113 Packing, Freight & Transport 4 Consultant Fees 200 Miscelleneous 243 Transfer from corporate Total Expenses 2,208 Operating Profit 304 Operating profit % on total cost 13.76 The assessee claimed that the price charged in the international transaction was at arms length as it was higher than the arithmetic mean of profit margin of comparable companies. 36. The Transfer Pricing Officer (TPO) on a reference by the AO chose seven comparable companies whose arithmetic mean of profit margin was 23.18%. The TPO accordingly computed the addition to the total income on account of adjustment of arm's length price as follows : "15. Based on the above, the following comparables are being used on the basis of comparables mentioned in notice u/s 92CA(2) of the Act dated 19.10. on the basis of availability of Annual Reports. This presents ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... an addition of Rs. 20.80 crores to the total income of the assessee in the fair assessment order as addition on account of adjustment to arms length price. The assessee has raised ground nos. 1 to 7 against the fair assessment order of the AO before the Tribunal : "1. Orders bad in law and on facts 1.1. order passed by the Learned AO under section 143(3) read with section read with the order passed by the Learned Transfer Pricing Officer (hereinafter referred to 'TPO ') , under section 92CA(3) of the Act is bad in law and facts and void abinitio . 1. 2. That Learned DRP erred in not holding that the order of TPO and the draft order of the AO (in so far it relates to transfer pricing proceedings) are invalid and void ab initio as the conditions of 92C(3) of the Act have not been satisfied. 2. Determination of arm's length price 2.1. The Learned AO, TPO and DRP erred in making an adjustment to the Arm's Length Price (hereinafter referred as 'ALP') of international transaction relating to software development services rendered by the Appellant and in not accepting the ALP of the international transaction as recorded in the books of account by the Appellant. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ot considering the application of multiple-year data while computing the margins of the comparable companies, having regard to the provisions of Rule 10B(4) of the Rules. 7. Variation of 5% as per second proviso to section 92C(2) of the Act Without prejudice to the aforesaid grounds, the Learned AO, DRP and the TPO erred in law in of +/-5 percent variance as per proviso to section 92C(2) of the Act." 38. We have heard the rival submissions. As in earlier A.Y.2007-08, the assessee seeks exclusion of three comparable companies out of the seven comparable companies ultimately chosen by the TPO in A.Y.2008-09. The three companies which are sought to be excluded by the assessee in this appeal before the Tribunal are Aftek Ltd , 3i Infotech Ltd and Persistent System Ltd. 39. As far as 3i Infotech Lt and Aftek Ltd are concerned these companies were not chosen as comparable companies by the assessee in its TP study. Peristent System Ltd has been chosen as a comparable company by the assessee in its TP study. As far as Aftek Ltd. And 3i Infotech Ltd is concerned the DRP accepted the order of the AO without any discussion. In para-12 of the TPO's order the objection of the assessee for i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... .) Para - 24.12 Pg no.17/30 3. Qualcomm India Pvt. Ltd. AY 2006-07 Functionally different & Significant intellectual property rights [2013] 37 taxmann.com 306 (Delhi-Trib.) Pra 34 & 355 (Pg No.14 of 25) 4. Mentor Graphics (Noida) P. Ltd. AY 2003-04 Holds intellectual property rights & segmental not available TS-83-ITAT- 2015 (DEL)-TP Para 7.4 (Pg no.6 & 7) Sl. No Relevant case Law Assessment Year Citation Para & Page No. Sr. No. of Case Law Binder On account of Significant Intangibles 1. BA Continuum India Private Limited 2008-09 [2017] 79 taxman.com 85 (Hyderabad-Trib) Para 14.2 (Pg. No.12/13) 20 2. Tektronix Engineering Development India Pvt. Ltd. 2008-09 [2016] 75 taxman.com 276 (Hyderabad-Trib) Para 9.4.1, (Pg no.11/20) 21 3. 2008-09 2007-08 TS-220-ITAT- 2017 (Delhi)-TP Para 31.2,31.3 (Pg no. 55, 56/64) 22 4. MSC Software Corporation India Pvt. Ltd. 2008-09 TS-226-ITAT- 2017 (PUN)-TP Para 28, (Pg no. 16/18) 23 5. Tesco Hindustan Service Centre Pvt. Ltd. 2007-08 [2017] 77 taxmann.com 48 (Bangalore-Trib.) Par 12.4, (Pg. no.13/34) 7 6. Marlabs Software Pvt. Ltd. 2007-08 TS-922-ITAT- 2016 (Bang)-TP Para 14.3 (Pg ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... owever no disclosure on segmental information is available in the standalone financial statements of the company. Hence in view of the same, 3i Infotech cannot be considered as a comparable. [Page 121] Has Significant Related Party Transactions - 15% : In the AY 2008-09, 3i Infotech has RPT amounting to 15% on Sales. [Page- 119] Rejected by the Hon'ble ITAT in the Appellant's own case for AY 09-10 : 3i Infotech was rejected in the Appellant's own case of AY 2009-10 on the basis of related party transaction (RPT) Significant Research & Development activity - 8.76% : The company is also involved in significant R & D activities. During the FY 2007-08 the R & D expenditure amounted to 8.76% of the total revenue of the company. [Page 11] -Significant Intangibles - 45.29% : The company has intangible assets in the form of goodwill and Business & Commercial rights. The total amount of intangibles is 43.29%% of total fixed assets. [Page - 97] - Merger & Acquisitions during the year : During the year under consideration the company has completed merger with SDG Software Technologies Limited and Datacons private limited, Further the company has also acquired sta ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... oftware Services (India) Private Limited 2006-07 [2016] 66 taxman.com 296 (Bangalore-Trib) Para 8, , (Pg. No. 6/17) 6 8. Tektronix Engineering Devt. India P. Ltd. 2006-07 [2015] 56 taxman.com 223 (Bangalore-Trib) Para-7.2, 7.3 Pag No. 11 18 9. Agile Software Enterprise Private Limited, C/o Oracle India Pvt. Ltd. 2006-07 [2014] 52 taxmnn.com 517 (Bangalore Trib.) Para-8.11 Pg. no.12 19 On account of Research & Development Activities 1. Caliberated Healthcare Systems India Pvt. Ltd. AY 2007- 08 TS-413-ITAT- 2014(DEL)-TP Para-5, (Pg no. 4/10) 29 2. Element K India Private Ltd. AY 2007- 08 [2015] 54 taxman.com 296 (Delhi-Trib) Para 18 (Pg. No. 12 & 13/19) 30 3. Principal Global Services Limited AY 2007- 08 [2016] 69 taxman.com 210 (Pune-Trib) Para 21., (Pg. No. 14&15/16 ) 31 On account of Significant Intangibles 1 BA Continuum India Private Limited 2008-09 [2017] 79 taxman.com 85 (Hyderabad-Trib) Para 14.2 (Pg. No.12/13) 20 2. Tektronix Engineering Development India Pvt. Ltd. 2008-09 [2016] 75 taxman.com 276 (Hyderabad-Trib) Para 9.4.1, (Pg no.11/20) 21 3. Corporate Executive Board India Pvt. Ltd. 2008-09 TS-220-ITAT- ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ions in relation to software development services rendered by the Appellant to its Associated Enterprise ("AE") for the following specific reasons amongst other reasons: 1.1. It owns significant intangible assets which the Appellant does not own/possesses. 1.2. It is functionally not comparable with the Appellant as it is engaged in the business of software services, software products and embedded solutions; 1. 3. No segmental data is available vis-a-vis its activities of sale of software products and rendering of software services. 2. Re.: The Appellant submits that considering the facts and circumstances of its case and the law prevailing on the subject, '3i Infotech t.td.' cannot be considered as a comparable company while bench marking the international transactions in relation to software development services rendered by the Appellant to its Associated Enterprise ("AE") for the following specific reasons amongst other reasons: - 2.1. It is functionally not comparable with the Appellant as it offers wide range of software products, software development and consulting services, IT enabled service activities, IT infrastructure services and Business Process Outsourcin ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rvices is not separately available. [Page 83, 124] Research & Development activity : The company undertakes research and development activity, whereas the Appellant does not engage in any R&D activity. [Page 25] Sl. No. Relevant case law Assessment Year Broad Reason for Rejection Citation Para & Page No. 1. 3 DPLM Software Solutions Ltd. 2008-09 Functionally different & segmental not available [2014] 42 taxman.com 333 (Bangalore-Trib) Para-17.4 (Pg No.25/28) 2. Agnity India Technologies Pvt. Ltd. 2008-09 Functionally different [2016]73 taxmann.com 102 (Delhi-Trib.) Para-13.2, 13.3(Pg No.17,18/20 ) 3. Pyramid IT Consulting Private Limited 2008-09 Functionally different & segmental not available TS-425-ITAT- 2014 (DEL)-TP Para- 34,50,(Pg No.22,33/34) 4. Open Solutions Software Services 2010-11 Functionally different & segmental not available [2017] 81 taxmann.com 177 (Delhi-Trib.) Para - 9, (Pg No.7/9) 5. NXP Semi Conductors India Pvt. Ltd. 2008-09 Functionally different [2015]56 taxmann.com 140 (Bangalore-Trib.) Para - 19.3.2 (Pg No.23/27) 6. Bearing point Property services Private Limited 2008-09 Segmental not available [2014] 52 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the related party transaction or ownership on intangibles non availability of segmental data and extraordinary events occurred during the relevant previous year. This has been accepted by several decisions of the tribunal filed by the ld. Counsel for the assessee. Nevertheless since these details have not been examined by the TPO we deem it fit and proper to restore this issue to the TPO to enable him an opportunity of examining the claim of the assesse. The TPO shall decide on the comparability of these companies in accordance with law and in the light of the various contentions put forth by the assessee before us and in the light of the decisions rendered by the tribunal cited by the ld. Counsel for the assessee before us. The TPO will also follow directions given in AY 2007-08 in the earlier part of this order. 47. The next grievance of the assessee is with regard to the action of the TPO and DRP in not giving appropriate adjustments to the profit margin of the comparable companies and of the Assessee on account of working capital adjustment. On the question of working capital adjustment the DRP in its order in para-13 rejected the request for adjustment on account of working ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... claimed as deduction. The AO disallowed the claim for deduction. The assessee's contention before the DRP was that i)the AO erred in appreciating the fact that the vehicle under lease was sole and exclusive property of the lessor and the Assessee had no right therein except the right to use the same in accordance with the lease agreement and that the vehicles at all times remained the property of the lessor. ii)Further, it was pointed out that the AO disallowed the total sum of Rs. 36,964,000 disregarding the fact that the Assessee had already disallowed Rs. 2,400,000 on account of non-deduction of tax, and thereby leading to double disallowance to the extent of Rs. 2,400,000. Without prejudice to the above contention, it was submitted that if the lease rentals are regarded as capital expenditure then the AO ought to have allowed depreciation on such lease rent payment. 54. The DRP rejected the plea of the Assessee on the ground that in AY 2003-04, on similar facts the disallowance of lease rentals claimed on vehicles was confirmed by the ITAT too. The ITAT then upheld that the disallowance on the logic that the payments were not revenue in nature. The AO has made the disallow ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hence, is entitled to claim depreciation in respect of additions made to the trucks, which were leased out." The ld AR stated that the assessee herein is a lessee and is entitled for deduction towards lease rentals paid towards cars taken on finance lease. He also stated that the lessor had confirmed that it had claimed depreciation in the relevant Asst year on the said cars which were leased out to the assessee. He further placed reliance on the decision of the Hon'ble Rajasthan High Court in the case of Rajshree Roadways vs UOI reported in 263 ITR 206 (Raj) wherein it was held that the lessee would be entitled to the deduction of rent paid by him and the benefit of the depreciation shall be available to owner of the asset. Further the Special Leave Petition (SLP) filed by the department against the said decision before the Hon'ble Supreme Court has been dismissed . He further placed reliance on the co-ordinate bench decision of this tribunal in the case of The Royal Bank of Scotland N.V. vs DDIT in ITA No. 1738/Kol/2009, 1926/Kol/2010 , 519/Kol/2011 and 1805/Kol/2012) dated 13.4.2016 wherein on identical matter, the issue was decided in favour of the assessee. In response to th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
