9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (6) TMI 1296X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n short 'the Act') in pursuant to the directions of the Dispute Resolution Panel (in short 'DRP') dt.29.9.2011 for the Assessment Year 2007-08. 2. The assessee has raised the following grounds : 'The lower authorities (the learned Assessing Officer, learned Transfer Pricing Officer and Honorable Dispute Resolution Panel) have erred in 1. Passing the Order which is bad in law. 2. passing the order disregarding the principles of natural justice. 3. making a reference to Transfer Pricing Officer for determining arm's length price. 4. passing the order without demonstrating that appellant had motive of tax evasion. 5. Ignoring the fact that the members of Dispute Resolution Panel also being jurisdictional Commissioner/Directors of Income Tax of the appellant, the constitution of the Dispute Resolution Panel is bad in law. 6. not appreciating that the charging or computation provision relating to income under the head "Profits & Gains of Business or Profession" do not refer to or include the amounts computed under Chapter X' and therefore addition under Chapter X is bad in law. 7. adopting a flawed process of issuing notices u/s 133(6) and ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... essment Order. 2. In the order passed under section 143(3) r.w.s 144C, transfer pricing additions were made for transactions with associated enterprises to the total income of the Appellant. 3. The additional grounds of appeal (enclosed herewith) relates to: (a) application of employee cost filter; and (b) application of related party transaction filter at 15%; and (c) rejection of Accentia Technologies Ltd (Seg.), Asit C Mehta Financial Services Limited, Bodhtree Consulting Ltd (Seg.) and Wipro Limited (Seg.) as comparables; The TPO did not apply employee cost filter in the TP analysis conducted by him. Further, the TPO applied RPT filter of 25% for selection of comparables. The TPO has selected the above 4 companies as comparables in the order passed u/s 92CA. The Appellant had selected Wipro Ltd as a comparable in its TP study. With respect to application of filters, the ground pertains to question of law. With respect to rejection of a comparable, the ground pertains to question of law and facts. All the necessary facts for adjudicating this ground are already on record. The Appellant humbly prays that the additional grounds be admitted and adjudicated along with the othe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e objections raised by the assessee in the additional ground cannot be entertained at this stage when the assessee did not raise these objections before the authorities below. The learned Departmental Representative has further submitted that as regards the Related Party filter of 15%, the assessee accepted the RP filter of 25% as applied by the TPO/A.O and therefore the assessee cannot be allowed to change its stand at this stage. The employee cost filter has already been applied by the TPO and therefore without pointing out any specific fault, a vague objection cannot be considered at this stage. He has objected to the admission of the additional ground raised by the assessee. 6. We have considered the rival submissions as well as the relevant material on record. By way of the additional grounds, the assessee is raising objection regarding the application of employee cost filter of 25% of the total cost, application of RP filter at 15% instead of 25% applied by the TPO and exclusion of four comparable companies which was considered by the TPO/A.O for determining the Arm's Length Price ('ALP') As regards the objection raised by the learned Departmental Representative ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... finding body and, therefore, has to take into account all the relevant material and determine the question as per the statutory regulations." "38. Accordingly, on facts and circumstances of the case, we hold that taxpayer is not estopped from pointing out that Datamatics has wrongly been taken as comparable. While admitting additional ground of appeal raised by the assessee to require us to consider whether or not Datamatics should be included in the comparable, we make no comments on merit except observing that assessee from record has shown its prima facie case. Further claim may be examined by the AO. This course we adopt as objection to the inclusion of Datamatics as comparable has been raised now and not before Revenue authorities. Therefore, we deem it fit and proper to remit the matter to the file of the AO for consideration of claim of the taxpayer and make a de novo adjudication of the ALP after providing reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee. We order accordingly."' We note that the comparability of this company i.e. Wipro Ltd. (Seg.) has been examined by this Tribunal in a series of decisions and therefore when no fresh evidence, reco ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... iscussion, we admit the additional ground raised by the assessee. 7. Ground Nos.9 to 16 are regarding Transfer Pricing Adjustment. 7.1 The assessee is a company and 100% subsidiary of Vinciti Networks Inc. USA. The business profile of the assessee is recorded by the TPO in para 2.2 as under : " e4e India renders infrastructure management and technical support services, testing services to Vinciti Inc. and iCelerate Inc. USA. Description Amount (Rs.) Operating Revenue 19,82,17,873 Operating Expenses 17,55,53,439 Operating Profit 2,26,64,434 Operating Profit to Expenses 12.91%" 7.2 The assessee has reported its international transactions as under :- Nature of International transactions Amount (Rs.) Income from network admn. And technical support services. 16,80,79,426 Total amount of International transactions 16,80,79,426 Description IT Enabled Services (Rs.) Revenue 16,80,79,426 Operating Expenses 14,69,64,800 Operating Profit 2,11,14,626 Operating Profit onCost 14.36% Thus it is clear that the dispute is only with respect to the ITES provided by the assessee to its Associated Enterprises (AEs) have operating profit cost at 14.36%. To bench ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... company which was selected by the assessee itself. The 13 companies rejected by the assessee are as under : Sl.No. Name of the Company 1. Accentia Technologies Ltd. (Seg.) 2. Apollo Healthstreet Ltd. 3. Asit C Mehta Financial Services. 4. Bodhtree Consulting Ltd. (Seg.) 5. Caliber Point Business Solutions Ltd. 6. Eclerx Services Ltd. 7. HCL Comnet Systems & Services Ltd. 8. Informed Technologies India Ltd. 9. Infosys BPO Ltd. 10. Mold-tek Technologies Ltd. (Seg.) 11. Vishal Information Technologies Ltd. 12. Wipro Ltd. (Seg.) 13. Accurate Data Converters Pvt. Ltd. At the time of hearing, the learned Authorised Representative of the assessee has submitted that an identical set of 27 comparables was involved in the case of Ariba Technologies India (P.) Ltd. v. ITO [2016] 67 taxmann.com 265 (Bang.-Trib) for the same assessment year which has been decided by this Tribunal vide order dt.2.2.2016. The learned Authorised Representative has pointed out that the functional comparability of the majority of the companies has been examined by the Tribunal in the said decision. Thus the learned Authorised Representative has relied upon the decision of this Tribunal ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... xcluded this company on the ground of 0% RPT filter. In view of our finding of proper RPT tolerance range at 15%, this company is restored back to the set of comparables having only 4.24% of RPT. (iii) Allsec Technologies Ltd. : This company was selected by the TPO/A.O but was not objected by the assessee either before the TPO/A.O or before the CIT(A) and even not before this Tribunal. However, the CIT (Appeals) excluded this company by applying 0% RPT filter. In view of our finding of proper RPT tolerance range at 15%, this company is restored back to the set of comparables having only 11.90% of RPT. (iv) Apex Knowledge Solution Ltd. : This company was selected by the TPO/A.O and the assessee did not contest the inclusion of this company in the list of comparables. Even before the CIT (Appeals) as well as before this Tribunal, the assessee has not contested against the inclusion of this company. The CIT (Appeals) has retained this company as a good comparable. Therefore no specific adjudication or finding was sought in respect of this company either by the assessee or by the revenue. (v) Apollo Health Street Ltd. : This company was selected by the TPO/A.O though the assessee di ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed abnormal profits during the year. We find that high profit margin alone cannot be a ground for inclusion or exclusion of any company / entity in the list of comparables. However, if the high profit margin is due to some abnormal circumstances or event, then, the said company/entity cannot be considered as good comparable due to the reason of abnormal event or circumstances resulting high profit margin. Therefore, in the absence of any abnormal/extraordinary event or circumstances leading to high profit margin this objection of the learned Authorised Representative is not acceptable and hence rejected. Even otherwise, the profit margin at 29.58% cannot be considered as an abnormal when the assessee itself has reported the margin at 19% which is modified to 18.66%. We further note that even in the case of Essential Technologies Ltd. the profit margin before working capital was considered at ₹ 30.61% and the assessee has accepted the said companyas a good comparable. Therefore, this objection of the assessee is without any merit or substance and deserves rejection. As regards the RPT at 38.54%, we find that the assessee raised this objection before the TPO/A.O and it has not ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ther functions of this company. (ix) Caliber Point Business Solutions Ltd. (Seg.) : This company was part of the T.P. analysis of the assessee and also selected by the TPO/A.O. The CIT (Appeals) has also retained this company as a good comparable. The assessee did not object against this company. Accordingly, the comparability of this company is not in dispute before this Tribunal. (x) Datamatics Financial Services Ltd. (Seg.) : This company was selected by the TPO/A.O but was not objected by the assessee either before the TPO/A.O or before the CIT(A), even not before this Tribunal. However, the CIT (Appeals) excluded this company by applying 0% RPT filter. In view of our finding of proper RPT tolerance range at 15%, this company is restored back to the set of comparables having only 7.88% RPT. (xi) Eclerx Services Ltd. : This company was included by the TPO in the list of comparable. The assessee objected to this company on the ground of functional dis- similarity. The CIT (Appeals) has excluded this company on the ground of RPT that this company is having only 9.12% RPT. Therefore in view of our finding on RPT filter, the comparability of this company has to be decided on basi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nd reporting services. It also provides tailored process outsourcing and management services along with a multitude of data aggregation, mining and maintenance services. It is claimed that the company has a team dedicated to developing automation tools to support service delivery. These software automation tools increase productivity, allowing customers to benefit from further cost saving and output gains with better control over quality. Keeping in view the nature of services rendered by M/s eClerx Services Pvt. Ltd. and its functional profile, we are of the view that this company is also mainly engaged in providing high-end services involving specialized knowledge and domain expertise in the field and the same cannot be compared with the assessee company which is mainly engaged in providing low-end services to the group concerns. 83. For the reasons given above, we are of the view that if the functions actually performed by the assessee company for its AEs are compared with the functional profile of M/s eClerx Services Pvt.Ltd. and Mold-Tec Technologies Ltd., it is difficult to find out any relatively equal degree of comparability and the said entities cannot be taken as compara ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... supra) we also direct the Assessing Officer / TPO to exclude both these companies." Thus it is found by the Tribunal in a series of decisions that this company is into product development which is not comparable with the assessee of pure ITES segment. Accordingly, we do not find any error or illegality in the order of the CIT (Appeals) in excluding this company. (xiii) Genesys International Corporation Ltd. : This company was selected by the TPO/A.O but was not objected by the assessee either before the TPO/A.O or before the CIT(A) even not before this Tribunal. However, the CIT (Appeals) excluded this company by applying 0% RPT filter. In view of our finding of proper RPT tolerance range this company having 5.84% RPT is restored back to the set of comparables. (xiv) HCL Comnet : This company was selected by the TPO/A.O though the assessee did not contest the inclusion of this company either before the TPO/A.O or before the CIT (Appeals). However, the CIT (Appeals) excluded this company on RPT filter. We find that the RPT revenue of this company is 21.52%. Therefore this company fails RPT filter of 15% and accordingly, we upheld the exclusion of this company from the list o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Technologies Pvt Ltd ITA No. 3856(Del ITAT)/2010 (AY 2006-07) 24/7customer.com vs DCIT (AY : 2004- 05) ITA No.227/Bang/2010 Agnity India Technologies P. Ltd. (ITA No. 1204/2011)(Del HC) Adaptec India Private Limited (AY : 2007-08) ITA No. 1801/Hyd/09. Misys Software Solutions India Private Limited - IT(TP) A No.1425/Bang/2010 - Turnover Mercedes Benz R & D India Pvt. Ltd. (AY : 2007-08) ITA No. 1222/Bang/2011. Verisign Services India Private Limited IT(TP)A No 1404 bang 2010 - Turnover CSR India Pvt. Ltd. (AY : 2007-08) ITA No. 1119/Bang/2011, [2013] Thoughtworks Technologies (India)Private Limited- IT(TP)A No.1326/Bang/2010 - Turnover Witness Systems Software India Pvt Ltd (AY : 2007-08) ITA No. 1366/Bang/2011. FOR CASES INVOLVING JOINTOPERATION, LARGE INTANGIBLES,HIGH BRAND VALUE, RISK BEARING& HIGH PROFIT MARGIN CASES Agnity India Technologies Pvt Ltd ITA No. 3856(Del)/2010], ITAT Delhi" This ruling has been upheld by the High Court (ITA No. 1204/2011, dated July 2013). Scale of operation, brand value etc. NTT Data India Enterprise Application Services Pvt. Ltd. [ITA No. 1612/Hyd/2010.] Motorola India Electronics Private Limited vs. ACIT ITA No. 1274 & 1413/Ban ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ess than 25% of the revenues of the comparable are from software products and therefore the comparable satisfied TPO's filter of more than 75% of revenues from software development services. Having drawn the above conclusion, the TPO did not bother to quantify the revenues which can be attributed to software product development and software development service but adopted the margin of this company at the entity level. In terms of Rule 10B(3)(b) of the Rules, an uncontrolled transaction shall be comparable to an international transaction if- (i) none of the differences, if any, between the transactions being compared, or between the enterprises entering into such transactions are likely to materially affect the price or cost charged or paid in, or the profit arising from, such transactions in the open market; or (ii) reasonably accurate adjustments can be made to eliminate the material effects of such differences. Neither the TPO nor the DRP have noticed that there is bound to be a difference between the Assessee and Megasoft and the profit arising to the Megasoft as a result of the existence of the software product segment and no finding has been given that reasonably accur ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the CIT (Appeals) on the ground of functional dissimilarity and super normal growth. The CIT (Appeals) has excluded this company form the list of comparables by applying 0% RPT as well as on functional dissimilarity. Before us, the learned Authorised Representative of the assessee has submitted that this company is into engineering services being in the nature of producing design, drawings, detailed structure of engineering drawings using 2D and 3D software. These services are high end in nature and cannot be compared with the software development services provided by the assessee. There is also super normal growth of 200% in this segment. In support of his contention, he has relied upon the following decisions :- Cases Pertaining to Asst. Year Market Tools Research Pvt. Ltd. (ITA No. 2066/Hyd/2011. Capital IQ Information Systems (India) Pvt Ltd. Knoah Solutions Pvt Ltd (ITA No.1407/Hyd/2013 On the other hand, the learned Departmental Representative has submitted that this company is in ITES and the CIT (Appeals) has excluded this company by holding that this company is a KPO and not a BPO. However, mere nomenclature of KPO and BPO cannot be a ground for inclusion or excl ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... in the list of comparables. The assessee objected against the inclusion of this company in the list of comparables on the ground that it fails R&D filter as well as functional dissimilarity. The assessee has also contested the inclusion of this company before the CIT (Appeals). However, the CIT (Appeals) has retained this company in the list of comparables. Before us, the learned Authorised Representative of the assessee has submitted that this company is functionally dissimilar to the assessee as this company is engaged in providing services by way of outsourcing services to the third party vendors. He has referred the relevant part of the Annual Report and submitted that the job work expenditure is significant which shows that this company is outsourcing the services to third party and therefore this company cannot be considered as a good comparable. The learned Authorised Representative has further pointed out that for the Assessment Year 2006-07, this Tribunal has held that this company cannot be considered as a good comparable. He has also relied upon the decisions as under : Zavata India Private Limited (ITA No. 1781/Hyd/2011, TS-156-ITAT-2013(HYD)-TP, ITAT Hyderabad) C ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e Infratech Ltd. (c) Datamatic Financial Services Ltd.(seg) (d) Maple e-Solutions Ltd. (e) Nucleus Netsoft & GIS(India) Ltd. (now known as (Asit C. Mehta Financial Services Ltd.) Vishal Information Technologies Ltd. 9. The assessee's objection with reference to inclusion of this comparable is on the reason that the company is functionally different, also does not satisfy the filters such as employee cost and on-site revenue filter. It was submitted that employee cost forms a major portion of the total cost of BPO services and in the assessee's case employee cost is 62% of the total cost, whereas in the selected company the employee cost is less than 2%, which indicates that most of the work was outsourced and the out-sourcing cost was at 88.64% of the operating cost. It was further submitted that the ITAT Bangalore in the case of First Advantage Off-shore Services (ITA No.1252/Bang/2010) has directed to use employee turnover filter in a consistent manner for selection of comparables and in the case of Maersk Global Services Centre (India) Pvt. Ltd. (14 ITR(Trib) 541) the Mumbai Bench of the Tribunal has analysed and rejected this company as comparable for the reason th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... own case for Assessment Year 2006-07, we direct the A.O/TPO to exclude this company form the list of comparables. (xxv) Wipro Limited (Seg.) : This company was selected by the TPO and included in the list of comparables. The assessee objected the inclusion of this company on the ground of functional dis-similarity. The CIT (Appeals) excluded this company on 0% RPT filter as well as functional dis-similarity. Before us, the learned Authorised Representative of the assessee submitted that this company cannot be compared with the assessee as it has made significant investment in the business acquisition. He has referred the relevant part of the Annual Report and submitted that this company has reported a huge investment in acquisition of the business. This company is also engaged in the business of innovation, technology innovation, process innovation and delivery innovation. It also earns about 8% from innovation activity and also having more than 13 engineering patents, enterprises, business and quality. This company has 55 centres of excellence and 30 innovation products. It has also set up a handset mobile tested lab and engaged in R&D activity. Thus this company cannot be compa ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... did not contest the inclusion of this company in the list of comparables. Even before the CIT (Appeals) as well as before this Tribunal, the assessee has not contested against the inclusion of this company. The CIT (Appeals) has retained this company as a good comparable. Therefore no specific adjudication or finding was sought in respect of this company either by the assessee or by the revenue.' Thus it is clear that certain companies were found as not comparable are directed to be excluded on functional dis-similarity, RPT as well as different business model or having extra- ordinary event : (i) Apollo Healthstreet Ltd. (ii) Asit C Mehta Financial Services. These two companies were found as not good comparables on the ground of RPT filter @ 15%. 8. Bodhtree Consultancy Ltd. 8.1 The learned Authorised Representative of the assessee submitted that this company is engaged in the business of development of software product and highly fluctuating margin, this company is also functionally dis-similar to the assessee as it is engaged in providing open and end-to-end web solution, software consultancy, design and development of solution by using latest technology. This company ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... a cleansing and software development. These services are in the category of software development services and not in ITES. Accordingly, we are of the view that the software development segment cannot be compared with ITES segment and hence this company cannot be compared with the assessee's ITES segment. Accordingly, we direct the A.O./TPO to exclude this company from the list of comparables. 9. e-clerx Services Ltd. We have considered the rival submissions and the relevant material on record. At the outset, we note that the comparability of this company has been considered by the co- ordinate bench of this Tribunal in the case of Ariba Technologies India (P.) Ltd. (supra). From the finding of the co-ordinate bench it is clear that the comparability of this company was also considered by the Special Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Maersk Global Centres (India) (P.) Ltd. v. Asstt CIT [2014] 43 taxmann.com 100/147 ITD 83. Thus in view of the decision of the co-ordinate bench, we find that this company is engaged in providing data analysis and process solutions and recognized as expert in market financial services, retail and manufacturing. Thus this company was providing c ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... basis of the information received under Section 133(6), the TPO has concluded that this company is comparable with the assessee. The co-ordinate bench of this Tribunal in the case of e4e Business Solutions India (P.) Ltd. (supra) has considered this issue in para 30 as under : " 30. The assessee has not raised any specific ground on adopting this company as a comparable before the DRP. Before us, the learned counsel for the assessee has submitted that the TPO did not furnish the information obtained from this company in exercise of his powers u/s.133(6) of the Act. It was further pointed out that even as per the TPO, the annual report of this company for F. Y. 2006-07 was not available. The TPO has gone by the data available on capita line data base. The learned counsel for the assessee therefore made a prayer that the question of considering the aforesaid company as a comparable should be remanded back to the TPO / Assessing Officer for fresh consideration and the issue decided in the light of the published annual report for F. Y. 2006-07 and also on the basis of the information furnished by this company to the Assessing Officer in response to notice u/s.133(6) of the Act. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e has submitted that due to the extra-ordinary event during the year under consideration, this company cannot be considered as good comparable. The learned Authorised Representative has relied upon the decision dt.29.4.2016 of Delhi Bench of ITAT in the case of Sony Mobile Communications International AB Ltd. v. Dy. DIT [2016] 69 taxmann.com 404 in support of his contention. 13.2 On the other hand, the learned Departmental Representative has submitted that the assessee has not raised this issue before the authorities below. Further it is not clear whether the amalgamation of the subsidiaries has changed business profile of this company from its stand alone. He has relied upon the orders of the authorities below. 13.3 We have considered the rival submissions and the relevant material on record. At the outset we note that as per the Directors Report of this company, there was an amalgamation of its two subsidiaries during the year under consideration w.e.f. 1.4.2006 which is reported as under : "Company's business growth and prospects :- During the year Mr. Pradeep Viswambharan took over the management of the company. As per the Business plans to consolidate the company ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... to a situation of inclusion of a probable incomparable. Respectfully following the above referred decisions, we hold that TCS Ltd. cannot be considered as comparable with the assessee. The same is directed to be excluded." Therefore, for limited purpose of considering the said record, we set aside this issue to the record of A.O/TPO and then decide the issue of comparability of this company in the light of the above observations. 14. Vishal Information Technology Ltd. We have considered the rival submissions as well as the relevant material on record. At the outset, we note that the comparability of this company has been examined by this Tribunal in the case of Ariba Technologies India (P.)Ltd. (supra) and it was found that this company was out sourcing its job and therefore it fails the employee cost filter. Even otherwise when this is getting its work done through-out sourcing then the business model of this company is different from the assessee. Accordingly, we direct the A.O./TPO to exclude this company from the list of comparables. 15. Wipro Limited : We have considered the rival submissions as well as the relevant material on record. At the outset, we note that the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ata of this company. We make it clear that if this company is generating revenue from software development activity which is part of the operating revenue / margins of this company considered for the purpose of ALP then this company shall be excluded from the set of comparables. 17. As we have directed the A.O./TPO to exclude certain companies and to examine the comparability, some of the companies therefore after exclusion and reconsideration of the companies as directed in this order, the ALP from the remaining comparable companies as directed to be recomputed. Needless to say the benefit of second proviso to Section 92C(2) of the Act also be considered. 18. Ground No.17 is regarding calculation of deduction under Section 10A after setting off brought forward losses and unabsorbed depreciation. 18.1 The learned Authorised Representative of the assessee has submitted that this issue is covered by the judgment of Hon'ble jurisdictional High Court in the case of CIT v. Yokogawa India Ltd. [2012] 341 ITR 385/21 taxmann.com 154 (Kar.). He has further submitted that in the recent decision of Hon'ble jurisdictional High Court in the case of Wipro Ltd. v. Dy. CIT [2016] 382 IT ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tion 10A to be assessee. Hence, the main substantial question of law is answered in favour of the assessees and against the revenue". 9.4.2 The Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka in its aforesaid decision (supra), has held that deduction under Section 10A of the Act is to be given without setting off the unabsorbed brought forward losses. In the case on hand, the Assessing Officer has computed the eligible deduction under Section 10A of the Act after setting off brought forward unabsorbed business losses. Respectfully following the decision of the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka in the case of Yokogawa India Ltd. (supra), we direct the Assessing Officer to allow the deduction under Section 10A of the Act without setting off the brought forward unabsorbed business loses. Consequently, Ground No.14 raised by the assessee is allowed." We further note that the Hon'ble jurisdictional High Court in the case of Wipro Ltd. (supra) has again decided this issue in favour of the assessee and against the revenue. Accordingly, by following the binding precedent of the Hon'ble jurisdictional High Court, we decide this issue in favour of the assessee and direct the Assess ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
