9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (7) TMI 1314X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... l issue in assessee s own case for AY 2013-14 [ 2019 (2) TMI 1666 - ITAT MUMBAI] and after considering relevant submissions of the assessee and also by following its earlier order in assessee s own case for AY 2012-13 held that CUP is not most appropriate method for benchmarking royalty payment for use of technical know how because of geographical differences. We direct the AO / TPO to delete TP adjustment in relation to payment of royalty for use of technical know how. Payment of interest on external commercial borrowings (ECB) loan - HELD THAT:- As in assessee s own case for AY 2013-14 [ 2019 (2) TMI 1666 - ITAT MUMBAI] had considered an identical issue and by following its earlier decision in the case of ION Exchange India Ltd vs ADIT [ 2014 (2) TMI 1331 - ITAT MUMBAI] held that arm s length price of the interest to be charged on the ECB loan availed from the AE has to be determined at six months USD LIBOR rate (+) 300 points. We direct the AO / TPO to delete TP adjustment made in relation to payment of interest on external commercial borrowing loan. TP adjustment in relation to availing of information systems (IS) services - HELD THAT:- We find that the coordinate ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the order of the AO / TPO passed u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 144C(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 and it pertains to AY 2014-15. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal:- Each of the grounds and/ or sub-grounds of the appeal are independent and without prejudice to the other: 1. Ground No. 1 - Transfer Pricing (*TP') adjustment in relation to export of finished goods 1.1. On the facts and circumstances of the case, and in law, the Hon'ble DRP has erred in upholding the action of the Ld. AO/TPO in determining the Arms' Length Price ('ALP') of the international transaction of export of finished goods at ₹ 10,35,77,048 instead of ₹ 7,16,95,346 thereby, computing a TP adjustment of ₹ 3,18,81,702. 1.2. While doing so, the Hon'ble DRP/ Ld. AO/ Ld. TPO erred in: (a) Disregarding the aggregation approach adopted by the Appellant thereby, rejecting the application of entity level Transactional Net Margin method ('TNMM') as the Most Appropriate Method ('MAM'); (b) Applying Comparable Uncontrolled Price ('CUP') Method as the MAM vis-a-vis the products sold to b ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the ALP of the international transaction of payment of interest on ECB at ₹ 56,10,095 instead of ₹ 1,07,84,304, thereby computing an adjustment of ₹ 51,74,209. 3.2. While doing so, the Hon'ble DRP/ Ld. AO/ Ld. TPO erred in: (a) Not following a structured/ methodical search process in selecting the comparable companies for arriving at the arm's length interest rate; (b) Not appreciating the fact that the interest paid by the Appellant on ECB loan is as per the circular issued by Reserve Bank of India ( RBI ); and (c) Disregarding the fact that the effective rate of interest paid by the appellant is lower than the SBI Prime Lending rate ('PLR') for the relevant year. The Appellant prays that the aforesaid adjustment be deleted. 4. Ground_No_. 4 - TP adjustment in relation to availing of Information Systems ('IS') services 4.1. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Hon'ble DRP erred in upholding the action of the Ld. AO/ Ld. TPO in determining the ALP of the international transaction of payment of IS service charge at ₹ 8,24,93,129 instead o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s that the consequential interest be deleted. 2. The brief facts of the case are that the assessee, M/s Firmenich Aromatics (I) Pvt Ltd, is an Indian company which was incorporated in January 20, 1997. The assessee was engaged in the business of manufacturing and marketing of natural flavours, fragrance and chemical specialities. The manufactured products of the assessee are supplied to various customers within and outside India. During the year under consideration, the assessee had entered into various international transactions and specified domestic transactions with its several AEs, the details of which are as under:- S.No. Nature of International Transactions F.Y. 2013-14 Method used by taxpayer (i) Import of raw materials 883,266,845 Transactional Net Margin Method ( TNMM ) (II) Sale of finished goods 71,695,346 TNMM ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... essee and also by taking note of TP study conducted by the assessee, suggested transfer pricing adjustment in respect of assessee s international transactions with regard to sale of finished goods, payment for technical know how, payment for interest on ECB loan and payment for software charges. The details of TP adjustment made by the TPO are as under:- Sr.No. Adjustment on account of Amount (in INR) a. Sale of finished goods 3,18,81,702 b. Payments for Technical Knowhow 3,96,90,306 c. Payment for interest on ECB loan 51,74,209 d. Payment for software charges 2,21,62,308 Total 9,89,08,525 4. The Ld. AO has passed draft assessment order u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 144C(1) of the I.T. Act, 1961 on 30-11-2017 and made TP adjustment as suggested by ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... er pricing adjustment in relation to export of finished goods. The facts with regard to the impugned dispute are that the assessee has exported finished goods to its AE. The assessee has benchmarked its transactions with AE in respect of sale of finished goods by applying TNMM as most appropriate method. The AO has rejected TP study conducted by the assessee and applied two methods for benchmarking international transactions on export of finished goods. The TPO has applied CUP on common finished goods exported to the AEs and non AEs. The TPO has also employed TNMM on the balance exported goods. According to the assessee, as per section 92C r.w.r.10B, the arms length price in relation to an international transaction shall be determined by adopting any one method thereunder and not by adopting two methods as the most appropriate method. The assessee has also argued for not adopting as most appropriate method, as per which, the price at which finished goods are exported to associated enterprises are not comparable with price at which finished goods are exported to unrelated / third parties for the reason that difference in the geographical markets, difference in volume of both the tra ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... O and rule 10B of I.T. Rules, 1962 and held that while considering the issue of comparability with an uncontrolled transaction, the condition prevailing in the market for which the respective parties to the transaction operate, including the geographical location alongwith other factors relevant to decide which method is suitable for benchmarking transaction. 7.We have considered rival submissions and perused material on record. As far as the primary facts are concerned, there is no dispute that out of the sales turnover of finished products sold to the AE amounting to ₹ 10,13,28,211, benchmarked by the assessee applying TNMM, the Transfer Pricing Officer has accepted a major part of the sales of finished products to the AEs to be at arm's length. He has only raised objections in respect of the turnover relating to specific finished products sold both to AEs and non AEs. Upon verifying the price charged for such products to AEs and non AEs, he has observed that the price charged to non AEs is more than the price charged to AEs. Thus, he has made an upward adjustment of ₹ 73,04,480, to the price charged to AEs for sale of finished products. On a perusal of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ction (India) Pvt. Ltd., in ITA no.7145/ Mum./2017, dated 13th November 2018, had an occasion to deal with identical issue relating to comparability of the price charged to AEs and non AEs situated in different geographical locations. The Tribunal held that in such circumstances CUP cannot be applied as the most appropriate method. In this regard, the detailed finding of the Co ordinate Bench is reproduced here under: 7. We have considered rival submissions and perused material on record. As far as the primary facts are concerned, there is no dispute that out of the sales turnover of finished products sold to the AE amounting to 10,13,28,211, benchmarked by the assessee applying TNMM, the Transfer Rs. Pricing Officer has accepted a major part of the sales of finished products to the AEs to be at arm's length. He has only raised objections in respect of the turnover relating to specific finished products sold both to AEs and non AEs. Upon verifying the price charged for such products to AEs and non AEs, he has observed that the price charged to non AEs is more than the price charged to AEs. Thus, he has made an upward adjustment of 73,04,480, to the price charged to ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... essee s sister concern viz. Firmenich Aromatics Production (India) Pvt. Ltd., in ITA no.7145/ Mum./2017, dated 13th November 2018, had an occasion to deal with identical issue relating to comparability of the price charged to AEs and non AEs situated in different geographical locations. The Tribunal held that in such circumstances CUP cannot be applied as the most appropriate method. In this regard, the detailed finding of the Co ordinate Bench is reproduced hereunder: 8. First of all it is pertinent to consider that the price at which finished products are exported to AEs are not comparable with the domestic prices for the following reasons: * differences in the level of market of the product by either parties (i.e. traders / manufacturers); and * difference in functional and risk profiles; * differences in volume of both the transactions; * differences in the geographic markets; The reasons of difference in prices is tabulated below: Reasons for difference Export to AE Local Sales to third parties Level of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s manufactured are sold to the group companies. However, in the circumstances where the group entities do not want a product then it is sold in the market at a price best negotiated by the assessee. In the table below, the assessee has provided the details of the quantitative differences in respect of Sales made to the AE and the Non-AE. Sr.No in TPO Order Material Description Quantity in KG sold to Non AE s Quantity in KG sold to AE s Addition Value (INR) AE sales times of Non AE sales 59 Neobutenone Alpha 25 32,343 490,680,563 1,294 56 Damascenone Total 25 19,734 490,873,437 789 45 Great Heart 28,080 303,840 95 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Sr.No in TPO s Order Material Description Non AE Country AE Country Adjustment made (INR) 55 Aldehyde Supra India Brazil, China, Singapore 96,920,377 56 Damascenone Total India Switzerland, Singapore 490,873,437 59 Neobutenone Alpha India Switzerland, Singapore 490,680,563 60 Norlimbanol India Brazil, China, Singapore 73,314,292 11. Further, with respect to the DRP observations on geographical differences, we find from the facts of the case that the adjustment made with respect to sales made @ item No 55, the majority of the sales are made to an AE in Switzerlan ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Pvt. Ltd., (ITAT, Pune). DCIT Vs. Quark Systems (P) Ltd. (ITAT No.100/Chd/2009 - AY 2004-05) and Quark Systems (P) Ltd. ITO (ITA No.115/Chd/2009 - AY 2004-05) 3.16 The assessee has submitted that for AY 2006-07, 2007-08 and 2008-09, on similar facts, the then DRP had rejected the objections of the assessee and upheld the order of the TPO. The assessee preferred appeal before the Hon'ble ITAT,Pune. The ITAT, Pune vide its order dated 30th May, 2014 has upheld the stand of the assesse and allowed its appeal against the orders of the DRP. Findings : 3.17 We have considered the submissions of the assessee as well as the findings and order of the TPO. We have also considered the order dated 30th May, 2014 of the ITAT, Pune for the earlier assessment years 2006-07, 2007-08 and 2008-09. In the earlier assessment years, the issues involved before the ITAT were adjustments made by the TPO to some of the transactions in respect of exports and imports and payment of Commission by the assessee to its AE. The ITAT has dealt with all the three issues and given its finding in favour of the assessee. The assessee has submitted before us a note on the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... on ble Bombay High Court, respectfully following the same we delete the addition and allow this issue of assessee s appeal. 9.The principle/ratio laid down by the Co ordinate Bench in the aforesaid decision squarely applies to the facts of the present appeal as well. Therefore, we hold that CUP method applied by the Transfer Pricing Officer to determine the arm's length price of the price charged for sale of finished products to the AEs is invalid. Accordingly, accepting assessee s claim we delete the addition made by the Assessing Officer. Ground raised is allowed. 11. In this view of the matter and consistent with the view taken by the coordinate bench, we are of the considered view that the TPO as well as the Ld.DRP were erred in applying CUP as most appropriate method to determine the arm s length price of transactions of the assessee with its AEs for sale of finished goods. Accordingly, we direct the AO / TPO to delete TP adjustment of ₹ 3,18,81,702 in relation to export of finished goods. 12. The next issue that came up for our consideration from ground 2 is TP adjustment of ₹ 3,96,903,06 in relation to payment of royalties for ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of the assessee and also by following its earlier order in assessee s own case for AY 2012-13 held that CUP is not most appropriate method for benchmarking royalty payment for use of technical know how because of geographical differences. The relevant findings of the Tribunal are as under:- 14. We have considered rival submissions and perused material on record. Factual matrix relating to the disputed issue reveals that the assessee has benchmarked the transactions relating to royalty payment along with other transactions adopting TNMM as the most appropriate method. The Transfer Pricing Officer has rejected the benchmarking of the assessee primarily for the reason that the payment of royalty not being for the purpose of business has to be disallowed under section 37(1) of the Act. However, ultimately, he has allowed, on ad hoc basis, 10% of the amount paid by the assessee to the AE towards royalty. Of course, referring to certain agreements between unrelated parties, which according to him can be used as external CUP, the Transfer Pricing Officer has concluded that 1% of the net value added sales can be determined as the arm's length price of the royalty paid to th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sed doubt / suspicion with regard to payment of royalty basically for the reason of business expediency. The Transfer Pricing Officer has observed, since the assessee was availing the technical knowhow from the AE and paying royalty since 1997, it does not require any further technical help from the AE with regard to its manufacturing activity of industrial flavours and fragrances. Thus, the Transfer Pricing Officer has ultimately concluded that the royalty payment needs to be disallowed under section 37(1) of the Act in the absence of any evidence to suggest transfer of technical knowhow during the year. Having held so, the Transfer Pricing Officer again observed that since the assessee might be getting some technical inputs to run his manufacturing plan, he is required to pay 10% of the royalty paid to the AE during the year. Accordingly, he determined the arm's length price of the royalty payment at ₹ 2,01,19,124 as against the amount of ₹ 18,10,72,120 actually paid by the assessee. Thus, it is evident that the Transfer Pricing Officer has determined the arm's length price of royalty payment by making an ad hoc adjustment purely on estimate basis without foll ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... arm's length price of an international transaction between two related parties by applying any of the methods prescribed under section 92C of the Act r/w rule 10B of the Rules. Thus, there is no provision under the Act empowering the Transfer Pricing Officer to determine the arm's length price on estimation basis, that too, by entertaining doubts with regard to the business expediency of the payment and in the process stepping into the shoes of the Assessing Officer for making disallowance under section 37(1) of the Act. This, in our considered opinion, is not in conformity with the statutory provision, hence, unacceptable. The Transfer Pricing Officer is duty bound to determine the arm's length price of the international transaction by adopting one of the method prescribed under the statute and cannot deviate from the restrictions / conditions imposed under the statute. The Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court in CIT v/s Johnson Johnson Ltd., ITA no.1030/2014, dated 7th March 2017, while dealing with identical issue of determination of arm's length price of royalty by resorting to estimation by the Transfer Pricing Officer has held as under: (d) We ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... fied in the agreement, including any technology or services provided, assessee shall pay to RAK, UAE royalty equivalent to 3% of the net ex-factory sale price of the products on both domestic as well as export sales during the tenure of the royalty agreement. 8. From the clauses of the royalty agreement referred to above, it becomes clear not only RAK, UAE, will provide the technical know-how and assistance for manufacturing products, but, assessee will also have to manufacture by using such technical know-how, assistance in accordance with international standards and guidelines set by RAK, UAE. For using such technical know-how, assistance, etc. assessee is required to pay royalty of 3% to its AE both on domestic and export sales. Department has not denied existence of royalty agreement nor the fact that payment of royalty at 3% is as per the terms of the agreement. TPO has also not disputed the fact that there is transfer of technical know-how and assistance from the AE to assessee. What the TPO disputes is the quantum of royalty paid. As can be seen from the TP report of the assessee as well as other materials on record, assessee has benchmarked ALP of royalty paid to ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ermining ALP. However, even after repeatedly scanning through his order, we failed to find any such analysis being done by him. Similarly, though in para 5.1.1, ld. DRP has observed that TPO has benchmarked intangible transactions by using CUP, but, the order passed by TPO does not support such conclusion. It is an accepted principle of law that TPO has to determine the ALP by adopting any one of the methods prescribed u/s 92C of the Act. Mode and manner of computation of ALP under different methods have been laid down in rule 10B. Even, assuming that TPO has followed CUP method for determining ALP of royalty payment, as held by ld. DRP, it needs to be examined if it is strictly in compliance with statutory provisions. Rule 10B(1)(a) lays down the procedure for determining ALP under CUP method. As per the said provision, TPO at first has to find out the price charged or paid for property transferred or services provided in a comparable uncontrolled transaction, or a number of such transactions. Thereafter, making necessary adjustments to such price, on account of differences between the international transaction and comparable uncontrolled transactions or between the enterprises en ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e to agree with this strange method followed by the TPO to make a TP adjustment in respect of royalty payment which is not sustainable either in law or on the facts of the case. She has neither rejected the method followed by the assessee to bench-mark the transaction in respect of payment of royalty nor has been adopted any recognized method to determine the ALP of the said transactions. The approval of SIA adopted by the TPO as basis to make TP adjustment in respect of royalty payment was untenable and even going by the said basis wrongly adopted by the TPO, no TP adjustment in respect of royalty payment was liable to be made. As per the said basis, the net sales of the assessee after excluding export sale and other income were to the extent of ₹ 1118.70 crores and the royalty paid thereon at ₹ 24.38 crore being less than the rate of 3.5% approved by SIA, there was no case of any excess payment made of royalty by assessee than approved by SIA to justify its disallowance by way of TP adjustment. In our opinion, the ld. CIT (A) could not appreciate these infirmities in the order of the TPO despite the same were specifically brought to his notice on behalf of the assesse ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ee comparables with an average royalty payment of 3.65% as against its own rate of royalty at 3%. Significantly, the TPO rejected these comparable on the ground that they were US based, while the AE of the assessee was UAE based. Having rejected these comparables, it was for the TPO to come up with other comparables, it was for the TPO to come up with other comparables, it was for the TPO to come up with other comparables so as to justify reduction of the royalty payment. However, no such exercise was undertaken by the TPO determined that the reason for the same was increased marketing along with offer of discounts and that there was no justification for payment of royalty at 3% to the AE by the assessee. This reasoning is without legal basis of law as it is not for the TPO to decide the best business strategy for the assessee. In WALCHAND AND CO. PRIVATE LTD. the Supreme Court observed in the context of the Income tax Act, 1922 that when a claim is made for an allowance by the assessee, the income tax authorities have to decide whether the expenditure claimed as an allowance was incurred voluntarily and on grounds of commercial expediency. The Supreme Court pointed out t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... availing technical knowhow for utilization in manufacturing of flavours and fragrances. It is also evident on record, the assessee does not undertakes any research and development activity and all research and development activities are carried out by the AE in Switzerland. All intellectual property right in relation to R D activities remains with the AE. It is also a fact on record that the assessee is paying royalty to the AE for availing technical knowhow from the very inception of its manufacturing activity. Therefore, only because the manufacturing activity is being carried on from past several years, it does not mean that the assessee would not require the technical knowhow of the AE, hence, there is no necessity for paying royalty to the AE. More so, when the Department accepts availing of technical knowhow while allowing a part of royalty even on estimate basis. Therefore, keeping in view the relevant statutory provisions and the principles laid down in the judicial precedents discussed herein above, we hold that determination of arm's length price @ 10% of the amount paid by the assessee on mere assumption and presumption and without any reasonable basis cannot be uph ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... l consideration of facts and material on record, we hold that the adjustment made to the arm's length price of royalty payment is unsustainable; hence, the addition made in this regard is deleted. This ground is allowed. 15. Facts being identical, respectfully following the decision of the Co ordinate Bench in assessee s own case, as referred to above, we delete the addition made on account of transfer pricing adjustment on royalty payment to the AE. This ground is allowed. 16. In this view of the matter and consistent with the view taken by the coordinate bench, we direct the AO / TPO to delete TP adjustment of ₹ 3,96,90,306 in relation to payment of royalty for use of technical know how. 17. The next issue that came up for our consideration from ground 3 is TP adjustment of ₹ 51,74,209 in relation to payment of interest on external commercial borrowings (ECB) loan. The facts with regard to the impugned dispute are that the assessee has availed external commercial borrowings with the permission of RBI. The assessee has paid interest on the basis of LIBOR (+) 300 basis points, and such rate of interest has been determined on the basis ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... g of information systems (IS) services. The brief facts of the impugned dispute are that during the course of TP proceedings, the TPO rejected TP study conducted by the assessee to benchmark its international transactions in relation to information system services by applying TNMM as most appropriate method. The TPO further observed that the assessee has failed to prove with supporting evidences, the fact that the AE has provided services to the assessee. Therefore, he proceeded to determine the arm s length price of the software usage charges paid to the AE on estimate basis by applying man hour rate of ₹ 8,500 per hour for two man hour a day. Accordingly, he determined the arm s length price on IT services rendered by the AE for maintaining software at ₹ 8,24,93,129. Since the assessee has paid an amount of ₹ 10,46,55,347, the differential amount of ₹ 2,21,62,308 has been adjusted in relation to availing of information system services. 22. The Ld.AR for the assessee, at the time of hearing submitted that this issue is also covered in favour of the assessee by the decision of the ITAT, Mumbai Bench K in assessee s own case for AY 2013-14 in ITA ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed rival submissions and perused materials on record in the light of decisions relied upon. Though, the Transfer Pricing Officer has alleged that the assessee failed to furnish any evidence to substantiate its claim that the payment made to the AE for availing Information System Services, however, the material on record reveal that the assessee has not only undertaken a bench marking process for determining the arm's length price of the transaction in the transfer pricing study report which was filed before the Transfer Pricing Officer, but, other relevant and necessary documents like copy of the agreement, invoices raised, certificate from independent Chartered Accountant Firm, KPMG, details of users were also furnished before the Transfer Pricing Officer. Therefore, the allegation of the Transfer Pricing Officer that the assessee has not furnished the necessary details is not totally correct. In any case of the matter, non furnishing of certain documentary evidences, as alleged by the Transfer Pricing Officer, does not empower him to embark upon determining the arm's length price of the international transaction on estimation basis. Further, a reading of the Transfer Pric ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... certain services, there is no reason for not accepting the payment made to the AE to be at arm's length in the absence of any contrary evidence brought on record and by simply applying the benefit test. If the Transfer Pricing Officer did not agree to the arm's length price shown by the assessee it was open for him to determine the arm's length price by applying one of the most appropriate methods being backed by supporting material. Without complying to the statutory provisions, the Transfer Pricing Officer certainly cannot determine the arm's length price on ad hoc / estimation basis. Our reasoning in paragraph 11 to 15 will equally apply to this issue also. Accordingly, we delete the adjustment made to the arm's length price of payment made towards availing information system services from AE. This ground is allowed. Facts relating to the disputed issue being identical in the impugned assessment year, respectfully following the decision of the Co ordinate Bench in assessee s own case, we delete the addition made on account of adjustment to the arm's length price of payment made to the AE towards availing of information system services. Ground ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... on or before the due date of filing return of income u/s 139(1), shall be allowed u/s 43B of the Income-tax Act, 1961. This legal proposition is supported by the decision of Hon ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT vs Ghatge Patil Transport (supra). This legal proposition is further supported by the decision of Hon ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs Jaipur Vidyut Vitran Nigam Ltd 49 taxman.com 560 where the Hon ble Supreme Court has dismissed SLP filed by the revenue against the decision of Hon ble Rajasthan High Court by holding that amount claimed on payment of PF ESI having been deposited on or before due date of filing of return, same cannot be disallowed u/s 43B or u/s 36(1)(viia). In this view of the matter and respectfully following the case laws discussed hereinabove, we are of the considered view that the AO was erred in disallowing employees contribution to PF u/s 43B, even though such payment has been made on or before due date of filing return of income u/s 139(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. Hence, we direct the AO to delete addition made towards disallowance of employees contribution to PF. 29. The next issue that came up for our consideration fro ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
