9911796707
TMI Blog2020 (3) TMI 1133X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... es in services provided to the AE and Non-AEs and explanation in support that TNMM was the most appropriate method to determine the ALP of brokerage earned from AEs. We find merit in the submission that TNMM is the correct method and internal CUP would entail adhoc adjustment to price in so far as broking commission from AE and Non AEs are concerned. Operating model of J P Morgan India Pvt. Ltd. [ 2014 (2) TMI 1215 - ITAT MUMBAI] is not comparable to that of the assessee as majority of the income in the case of J P Morgan India Pvt. Ltd was from related parties, whereas in the case of the assessee significant revenue is from third party FII clients Assessee could not have generated business from FII clients without the support of CLSA group resources, for which it is paying intra group service charges. Hence, in such a case, TNMM could be used as the most appropriate method. In view of these facts and circumstances, we are of the view that assessee has rightly followed the TNMM as the most appropriate method and the decision of the co-ordinate Bench in the case of J P Morgan India Pvt Ltd. [ 2014 (2) TMI 1215 - ITAT MUMBAI] is not applicable to the present set of facts of the asses ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Mumbai, dated 26.11.2015, u/s. 144C(5) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act") relating to A.Y. 2011-12. 2. Ground nos. 1 to 3 are general in nature and require no adjudication. 3. Ground nos. 4 read as under: "Availing of intra-group services 4. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the learned TPO / learned AO / Hon'ble DRP has erred in proposing / upholding an adjustment to the Arm's Length Price ('ALP') determined by the Appellant in respect of the international transactions in connection with availing of intra-group services by the Appellant from its Associated Enterprises ('AEs'). In doing so, the learned TPO / learned AO / Hon'ble DRP has erred in law and in facts by: 4.1.rejecting Transactional Net Margin Method (TNMM') as the Most Appropriate Method ('MAM') for the determination of the ALP. 4.2.not appropriately applying any of the prescribed methods as per Section 92C(1) of the Act. 4.3.not appreciating the voluminous documentary evidence, details of cost incurred by the AEs, details of allocation keys used by the AEs etc filed by the Appellant. 4.4.not considering the benefi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... an adjustment of ₹ 151,68,82,394/- to be made to the transactions value of the transactions of the assessee with its AE. The Assessing Officer has computed the total income of the assessee under sub section (4) of section 92C in accordance with Arms Length Price determined by the TPO u/s. 92CA(3 of the Act. The adjustment comprised the following: Sr No. Particulars Amount 1 Provision of brokerage services 21,73,90,712/- 2 Availing of intra group services 127,38,29,995/- 3 Provision of IT support services 1,57,55,055/- 4 Provision of sub-advisory services 99,06,632/- Total Adjustments 151,68,82,394/- Ultimately, the assessment was framed by the Assessing Officer vide order, dated 28.01.2016, passed u/s. 143(3) r.w.s. 144C(13) of the Act, inter alia, making an addition of ₹ 151,68,82,394/- 5. As stated above, assessee entered into separate agreements with CLSA Limited, Honk Kong (CLSA Hong Kong) and CLSA Singapore Pte Limited (CSLA Singapore), in order to provided services in the nature of international equity sales, sales trading support, dealing support and regional research as well as a range of back office support services to internation ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... group services is closely interlinked with brokerage income. Unless the assessee avails these intragroup services, it cannot earn brokerage income from FII clients. The learned AR submitted that assessee's case is covered by the decision of the Tribunal in its own case for A.Y. 2012-13, wherein the co-ordinate Bench has held that the order of the DRP in upholding the transfer pricing adjustment made by the TPO on estimation basis without following any prescribed method is bad in law. In the light of the said decision, the learned AR submitted that ground no. 4 may therefore be allowed in favour of the assessee by deleting the adjustment made of ₹ 127,38,27,995/- 7. The learned DR, on the other hand, submitted that the issue is not covered by the decision of the co-ordinate Bench for A.Y. 2012-13 as the assessee has not carried out any benchmarking based on foreign AEs as tested party in A.Y. 2011-12. The learned DR submitted that in A.Y. 2012-13 the assessee has considered foreign AE as tested party and, accordingly carried out Benchmarking whereas in A.Y. 2011- 12, the assessee has aggregated all its transactions and chosen itself as the tested party and carried out benchm ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ve been rendered. 8. We have hearing the parties and perusal the material available on record including the decision of the co-ordinate Bench in ITA No. 1182/Mum/2017 for A.Y. 20212-13. We observe that identical issue was involved in that year and that coordinate Bench have decided the issue in favour of the assessee by observing as under: "10. We have heard the rival submissions and also perused the material on record including the cases relied upon the parties. The first issue pertains to the assessee's objection raised before the Ld. DRP on the ground that the Ld. TPO has wrongly rejected the TNMM followed by the assessee in its transfer pricing analysis. Brief facts and material which need necessary mention for the purpose of deciding the issues involved are that the assessee company incorporated under the companies Act 1956, is primarily engaged in the business of equity broking and has membership of Bombay stock exchange and the National stock exchange. The assessee's customers comprise of foreign institutional investors (FIIs) and domestic institutional investors (DIIs). As contended by the Ld. counsel for the assessee, since the assessee had no international sales pres ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ad, Event Marketing, Finance and Accounting, Future & Options Management Support Services, Human Resources, Information Technology, Internal Audit, International Sales and Sales Trading Support, Legal, Management, Market Risk Management, Operational Risk Management, Regional Algorithm Business Support, Regional Research, Tax Planning and Management. 13. To substantiate its claim, the assessee inter alia submitted transfer pricing study report, copy of audited financials, copies of service level agreement entered into with CLSA, Hong Kong and CLSA, Singapore, description of services and summary of benefits, supplementary analysis KPMG benchmarks, documentary evidence to prove services rendered by the intragroup under the heads administration, broking management, client management, communications, compliance, credit risk management, developed squad, events marketing, finance, Human Resources, Information Technology, internal audit, internal sales and sales trading support, legal, Management, Operational Risk Management and Regional Research. The assessee also submitted description of the various services, head-wise breakup of the payments and cost allocati ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e. AUP report from Price Waterhouse Coopers (PWC) which certifies the cost and markup charged by AEs and KPMG benchmarking report, which determines arm's length markup for services availed. So, there is merit in the contention of the Ld. counsel that the assessee has complied with all requirements as prescribed under the Act and the Rules and the TP analysis has been carried out as per the provisions of law. We are therefore of the considered view that the assessee has discharged its onus by demonstrating that the transaction is at the arms length in accordance with the provisions of section 92C of the Act and has maintained the prescribed documentation in support of such compliance. 16. On the other hand the Ld. DRP has upheld the findings of the Ld. TPO rejecting the objections filed by the appellant/assessee. The operative part of the findings of the Ld. DRP read as under: "3.3.1 We have considered the facts of the case and submissions made by the assessee. We find that the issues at hand are squarely covered against the assessee in its own case for A.Y. 2011-12, by the decision of DRP-I (WZ), Mumbai holding as under:- "We have considered the facts of the case and the subm ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... h that though the goods were supplied and/ or the services were rendered by different legal entities they were part of an international transaction pursuant to an understanding between the various members of the group. This would be an issue of fact for the determination of the authorities under the Act." 1.1. The various international transactions of the assessee are: (i) Brokerage (ii) IT support services, (iii) Fees for sub-advisory services,(iv) Payment for intra-groups services (v) Interest (vi) Reimbursement of expenses and (vii) Bank charges. These transactions cannot be said to be closely inter-linked, interrelated, interlaced, inter-wind, inter-connected and inter-dependent and also they cannot be evaluated and adequately compared on aggregate basis. All these transactions are different and independent of each other. They are also provided to different entities. Therefore, they cannot be bunched together for benchmarking by applying TNMM at entity level. Therefore the benchmarking of the assessee is neither scientific nor permitted as per law. Hence, the TPO has rightly rejected the entity level TNMM. The same is hereby upheld. 1.2. All these transactions can be indepe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... on results in the assessee's profit. But the only important aspect which is to be seen is whether the transaction entered into is bona fide or the same has been entered into for the purpose of diverting the profits. The Ld. DRP has further relied on the decision of the ITAT Mumbai in the case of Goldman Sachs (India) Securities Private Limited v ACIT (ITA No. 7724/Mum/2011) and ITAT Bangalore in the case of M/s Fosroc Chemicals India Private Limited in IT (TP) A No. 148/Bang/2014 for AY 2009-10 in which the Tribunal has upheld the application of CUP as MAM for benchmarking of payment for technical and management services. In the light of the above findings of the Ld. DRP the following question arise: (a) whether the Ld. TPO has determined the ALP in this case by following comparable uncontrolled price (CUP) method as the most appropriate method and (b) whether the Ld. DRP has rightly upheld the transfer pricing adjustment made by the Ld. TPO? 18. In order to determine the said questions, it is important to see as to whether the Ld. TPO has determined the arm's length price of the international transactions by following one of the prescribed methods which is the most appropriate ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ssee, the undersigned is constrained to go by estimation to the best judgment, to quantify the value of the services if at all any being rendered by the AE to the assessee. Without prejudice to the contention of the undersigned, regarding the services being rendered by the AE to the assessee. However after considering the evidence filed by the assessee, as a matter of abundant precaution, the undersigned proceeds to make a reasonable estimate, of whatever little services that can be said to have been rendered in the facts and circumstances of this case. Having regard to the nature of services which are claimed to have been rendered in the instant case, the undersigned estimates the salary for such an employer at ₹ 3000 per hour. To the best of my judgment, the number of man hours rendered by the employees towards rendering of these services to the assessee, is estimated earlier at 10,000 Hours at para 5.8.2" 20. From the observations of the Ld. TPO, it is clear that TPO has made the transfer pricing adjustment purely on estimation basis without any supporting material. Though the Ld. TPO has mentioned that arms length price has determined by applying CUP method but in fact ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... case of Knorr Bremse India P. Ltd. vs. AICT 77 taxmann.com 101 (Delhi Tri), has held that payment of intra group services may be benchmarked using TNMM. The observations of the Tribunal are as under:- "18. As regards to the application of method for determining the Arm's Length Price, we are of the view that the method to be used to determine arm's length price for intragroup services should be in accordance with the guidelines in Chapter- I, II & III ÖECD Transfer Pricing Guidelines" which provides the various methods to be applied and the CUP method is likely to be a most appropriate method where there is a comparable service provided between independent enterprises in the recipient's market or by the AEs providing the services to an independent enterprise in comparable circumstances. In the present case, the TPO although applied the CUP method but nothing was brought on record to substantiate that the AE provided the similar services to an independent enterprise in comparable circumstances. He also did not bring on record any instance where comparable services were provided to an independent enterprise in the recipient market. Therefore, in our opinion, in the assessee's ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rsuant to the directions passed by the Ld DRP u/s 144(5) of the Act, is not sustainable in law. 24. Now the issue arises as to whether the legal infirmity in the impugned order can be cured by restoring the issue to the Ld. TPO? On the said issue the Ld. counsel for the assessee heavily relied on the judgment of the Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court, delivered in CIT vs. Kodak India Pvt. Ltd.,(supra) in which the coordinate Bench had declined to restore the issue similar to the present case to the file of TPO holding that the methods as prescribed by the legislature are mandatory and not directory and when the mandatory provision is either superseded or ignored it affects the jurisdiction. Since, the TPO did not adhered to the prescribed methods consciously, another innings to rectify the mistake cannot be allowed. The Hon'ble High court held that the Tribunal has rightly declined to restore the similar issue to Assessing Officer for redetermining ALP by adopting one of the methods as listed out in section 92C of the Act. The relevant paras of the order of the Hon'ble Court reads as under:- "10. We must also record the fact that the ALP was arrived at by the Transfer Pricing Of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e, the Ld. TPO has not determined the arm's length price in accordance with the provisions of law, there is no reason to hold that the TNMM method applied by the assessee is not the most appropriate method within the meaning of section 92C of the Act. 27. We therefore, decide Ground No. 3 to 3.4 of the appeal in favour of the assessee and allow the appeal of the assessee and direct the AO to delete the upward adjustment of ₹ 143,67,42,784/- confirmed by the Ld. DRP." 9. We have considered the facts for A.Y. 2011-12 viz-a-viz A.Y. 2012-13. Only difference in these two years is that in A.Y. 2012-13, the TPO has given allowance on the basis of adhoc rate per hour and in A.Y. 2011-12, the TPO has made it nil on adhoc basis. The assessee has provided evidences in both the years of services received and benefits. Also assessee has provided AEs margin and Bench marking including PWC-AUP report for both the years and used TNMM to justify ELP. However, on the other hand, TPO has followed no prescribed method as envisaged by section 92 C of the Act. Therefore, we are inclined to hold that adjustment made by the TPO is bad in law and, accordingly, deleted. Further the TPO has not de ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 0.25% in line with the brokerage commission received from the overseas non-AEs. The assessee replied to the show cause notice is reproduced as under: "(A) The assessee has submitted that TNMM is the most appropriate method for benchmarking the above transaction. The assessee submitted that it has given due consideration to all the facts and circumstances related to the transactions that it executed for AE and has earned a margin on operating income of 15.44% as compared to the average margin on operating income of 16.27% earned by independent comparable India brokerage houses. (B) A number of functions namely, client origination activities, dedicated sales and sales trading staff in the New York, London and Hong Kong sales offices of CLSA that cover the India market, centralized client support functions, research teams based outside India, corporate access and investor forums and applications software development and IT support are performed by the AEs for non-AE Fll clients of the assessee. (C) The detailed FAR analysis submitted by the assessee highlights the key differences between transactions executed for its AE and non-AE clients and establishes that AEs and non-AE tra ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... clients. In other words, the assessee also receives commission income from its non AE FU clients for functions that it does not perform and hence the internal CUP so identified, needs to be adjusted to reflect the fact that the remuneration received by the assessee from its non AE clients compensates it for functions that are performed offshore for those clients by the AEs. Based on the above argument, the assessee submitted the adjustment working to the comparable CUP. (I) The Assessee further submitted adjustments based on volume, submitting that the average rate of only Top 10 clients in each category should be considered as a CUP or by only considering clients who have had a turnover of higher than 2000 crores." 12. The TPO after considering the reply of the assessee came to the conclusion that the assessee is providing broking services to AEs and Non-AEs. The services provided by the brokers mainly include trade execution. There is a direct internal comparable available in the form of brokerages charged from the third parties. The assessee has argued that the choice of most appropriate method lies with the assessee. The opinion expressed by the assessee is correct to an ext ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ch reports generated by its AEs to prove that the research is provided by the AE. This is not correct as the assessee company has its own research sitting in India. Therefore, it is more likely to prepare research report on Indian market and in fact it must be feeding it AE who may be compiling the research generated by the Indian entity. Even if it is assumed that the research is done by AE even then it is for all the public at large which are used by both Non-AEs and AEs. It is also seen that in all the reports submitted by the assessee company, the research relating to India, has been providing by the assessee company. Therefore there is no direct nexus between the research done by the AE and the benefit accruing to the assessee company. (v) The assessee in TP report, rejected the CUP method citing functional differences. However, as discussed above the functions performed by the assessee company is almost similar for both Non-AEs and AE clients. (vi) In a CUP method, reasonable and accurate adjustments are allowed for better comparability. Instead of working out adjustments at the time of the TP report, it has altogether rejected the CUP method which makes the TP report non ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... in the case of J P Morgan India (P) Ltd. (supra), has no binding precedence despite order of Hon'ble Bombay High Court, as the High Court has refused to admit the appeals and merely affirmed the orders of lower authorities including the CIT(A) and the Tribunal. The learned AR prayed that the TNMM may be adopted as the most appropriate method and, without prejudice, if CUP method is to be adopted as the most appropriate method the adjustments to the cost structure be allowed to iron out the differences between the AE and Non-AE transactions. 15. The learned DR, on the other hand, submitted that the assessee has bench marked the transaction by using TNMM and since the assessee is rendering similar services to overseas AEs, the TPO has rightly proposed the CUP method in place of TNMM. The argument of the assessee that same brokerage services are to be provided to the AEs and Non-AEs though the functions are different, was rejected by the DRP as it failed to demonstrate as to how the functions as brokerage activities are different between AEs and Non-AEs. The learned DR further submitted that in the case of J P Morgan India Pvt. Ltd., (supra), there was difference in the activities in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he co-ordinate Bench in the case of J P Morgan India Pvt Ltd. (supra) is not applicable to the present set of facts of the assessee. Accordingly, we are inclined to set aside the order of the DRP and direct the TPO/AO to delete the adjustment of brokerage income of ₹ 21,73,90,712/-.Ground no.5 is allowed. 17. Ground no.6 reads as under: "Provision of sub-advisory services and information technology ('IT') support services 6. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the learned TPO / learned AO / Hon'ble DRP has erred in proposing/ upholding an adjustment to the ALP determined by the Appellant in respect of provision of sub-advisory services and IT support services by the Appellant to its AEs. In doing so, the learned TPO/learned AO/ Hon'ble DRP has erred in law and in facts by: 6.1. rejecting the TP documentation maintained and the detailed FAR analysis and benchmarking analysis conducted by the Appellant. 6.2. disregarding multiple / prior year data considered by the Appellant in determining the ALP and adopting the financial data for a single year [ie, the Financial Year ('FY') 2010-11] of the comparable companies despite the f ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he subsequent year also. The DRP upheld the rejection of the comparable by the TPO on the ground that there was persistent losses in the comparable software segment and other income included foreign currency income of ₹ 46 lacs, which is unallowable. 20. The learned AR submitted before the Bench that the said comparable is not a persistent loss maker. He referred to page nos. 442 & 781 of the paper-book, which shows the profit margin of 7.46%, 8.80% and 6.42% for the year ending March 2009, 2010 and 2011 respectively. The learned AR further submitted that TPO himself admitted that the margin of this year is 6.42 % by referring to page 41 of the TPO's order. We find merit in the arguments of the learned AR that the company cannot be excluded merely because it has incurred loss. The case is supported by the decision of Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT vs. Welspun Zucchi Textile Limited [2017] 391 ITR 221 (Bom); Pune Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Bobst India Pvt. Ltd. vs. DCIT [2015] 63 taxmann.com 339 and the decisions of Mumbai Benches of the Tribunal in the case of TPG Capital India Pvt. Ltd. vs. DCIT [2017] 79 taxman.com 101 and Walt Disney Co. (India) Pv ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ann.com 105 Similarly, the learned AR relied on the following judgments of Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court wherein it has been held that a company involved in software product cannot be compare to a company providing software development services : * CIT vs. PTC Ltd. [2017] 395 ITR 176 * CIT vs. Principal Global Services P Ltd. [2018] 95 taxmann.com 315 On these facts and ratio laid down by the Tribunal and the Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court, we are of the view that Infosys Ltd. and Zylog System Ltd. are to be excluded from the list of comparables. 23. Wipro Technologies Limited: The TPO has observed that activities of the company comprise of software related support services, primarily information technology software solutions/maintenance and technology support services. Further, he also observed that 94% of its income is export income. The TPO held it to be a valid comparable, which was also upheld by the DRP. The learned AR submitted before the Bench that all transactions of Wipro Technologies Limited are controlled transactions. It was incorporated on 15th Sept. 2004 as Citi Technologies Services Limited as a subsidiary of Citicorp Banking Corporation and later on ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... marking method used by the assessee. However, he did not agree with the assessee's margin, which is 26% on the basis of the following comparables: * Crisil Ltd. * ICRA Management Consulting Services Ltd. * IDC (India) Ltd. * Mecklai Financial Services Ltd. The TPO rejected all the comparable companies and identified only two comparables viz. Motilal Investment Advisors Pvt. Ltd. and Ladderup Corporate Advisory Private Limited and computed an addition of ₹ 99,06,632/- However, the DRP did not agree for the inclusion of comparable companies from assessee's transfer pricing study report and allowed exclusion of one TPO comparable company i.e. Motilal Investment Advisors Pvt. Ltd. According, as per the directions of the DRP the TPO computed the addition at ₹ 67,62,961/-. 26. The learned AR submitted before us that the TPO has himself accepted the fact that Ladderup Corporate Advisory Private Limited is into investment banking business and, hence, comparing the same with non-binding advisory services is wrong. The TPO included the said comparable on the ground that the company is providing similar kind of services as that of the assessee. The learned AR submitted t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... going the material available on record as also the decisions cited, we observe that in the above cases, the co-ordinate Bench has held that Ladderup Corporate Advisors has to be excluded as the said company is into investment banking business and not rendering non-binding investment services. Similarly, Bombay High Court in the case of New Silk Route Advisors P. Ltd General Atlantic Private Ltd. and Goldman Sachhs (India) Securities Pvt Ltd. (supra), has held that merchant banking business cannot be company to nonbinding investment advisory services Respectfully, following the ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court and the co-ordinate Benches, we direct the TPO to exclude Ladderup Corporate Advisory Private Limited from the list of comparables. 29. Similarly, the assessee has argued before us that for the inclusion of Mecklai Financial Services Ltd., ICRA Management Consulting Services Ltd and IDC India Ltd. The learned AR submitted that if these companies are included as comparables by the TPO then the transactions with the AEs would be within the ALP. In the case of Mecklai Financial Services Ltd, the TPO rejected the said comparable by applying the loss makin ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... at the said company is a persistent loss making company, which is clear from pages 561 and 577 of the paper-book. It has incurred loss only during the year. We also find merit in the argument of the learned AR that product similarity is not important when the method selected for benchmarking is TNMM. The case of the assessee is supported by the case laws, which has been discussed above. Accordingly, we direct the TPO to hold Mecklai Financial Services as a valid comparable. 33. In the case of ICRA Management Consulting Services Ltd. the TPO observed that it is in the business of providing management consulting and advisory services to clients, who are corporate, banks, government, multi-lateral agencies, institutional investors etc. According to the TPO, the services provided by this company are in no way related to the services provided by the assessee and, therefore, it was rejected as a comparable. The DRP observed that the company is providing consultancy services and engaged in management consultancy. The learned DRP relied on the decision of the Tribunal in the case of Sandstone Capital Advisors Pvt. Ltd. in ITA NO. 6315/Mum/2012, wherein in has been held to be company that ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of repair and maintenance, of INR 4,43,68,457 by treating the same as capital in nature. 8. Without prejudice to Ground 7, on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the learned AO / Hon'ble DRP has erred in considering the entire repairs and maintenance expenditure amounting to INR 4,43,68,457 towards computers as against INR 3,59,00,484 pertaining to computers. Balance amount of repairs and maintenance expenditure amounting to INR 84,67,973 does not relate to computers. 9. Without prejudice to Grounds 7 and 8 above, on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the learned AO / Hon'ble DRP has erred in allowing depreciation at the rate of 25 percent on repairs and maintenance expenditure, disallowed and accordingly capitalized, amounting tolNR 3,59,00,484 relating to computers as against the applicable rate of depreciation of 60 percent as prescribed under Rule 5 of the Rules read with Section 32 of the Act." 37. The facts in brief are that the assessee has debited a sum of ₹ 4,43,68,457/- on account of repairs and maintenance charges of computers. The AO asked the assessee as to why the expenses should not be treated as capital expenditur ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
