9911796707
TMI Blog2020 (11) TMI 93X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... had not witnessed any change as in comparison to the immediately preceding and succeeding years i.e A.Y.2012-13 and A.Y. 2013-14, therefore, finding no reason to take a different view we respectfully follow the aforesaid order of the Tribunal, and direct the A.O/TPO to include the aforementioned company in the final list of comparables for benchmarking the international transactions of the assessee for the year under consideration. Empower Industrial India Ltd - Include the said company as a valid comparable for the purpose of benchmarking the international transactions of the assessee for the year under consideration. Sonata Information Technologies Ltd. - In the assesses own case for the immediately preceding year i.e. A.Y. 2011-12 had accepted the aforementioned company whose generation of revenue from software distribution during the said year was 97%, as a valid comparable, for benchmarking the international transactions of the assessee for the said preceding year. Also, the aforementioned company was selected as a valid comparable by the Tribunal while disposing off the assessee s appeal for A.Y. 2013-14. Integra Telecommunications Software Ltd. - We are not inspired by the r ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Learned AO, based on the directions of the Hon'ble DRP has: General Ground erred in assessing the total income of the Appellant at ₹ 436,47,34,833 against ₹ 22,51,21,420 as computed by the Appellant in its return of income; 2. erred in making a transfer pricing adjustment of ₹ 413,96,13,415 to the total income of the Appellant on the premise that the international transactions entered by the Appellant with its associated enterprises ('AEs') were not at arm's length; Reference made to the Transfer Pricing Officer 3. erred in referring the Appellant's case to the Learned Transfer Pricing Officer ('TPO') under Section 92CA(1) of the Act, without satisfying the conditions specified therein; TPO erred in characterizing the distribution fee paid by MSMD to its AE as royalty 4. erred in characterizing the distribution fee paid/ payable by the Appellant to its AES to be in the nature of royalty; Rejection of economic analysis undertaken by the Appellant in its transfer pricing study report 5. erred in not following the Appellant's own order for AY 2010-11 whi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... m the subscription revenue in third party segment so as to bring the third party segment on the same footing as AE segment since it is an extra-ordinary item; 13. erred in not appreciating that where internal comparables are considered as suitable comparables, net margins should be considered over gross margins to benchmark the international transaction of distribution fee paid to AEs; 14. erred in computing the net margin earned by the Appellant from distribution of AE channels at 1.32% and non AE channels at 18.53%; 15. erred in not appreciating that turnover' is not an appropriate allocation key to allocate the common overheads; 16. erred in not granting economic adjustments on account of the differences in AE and Non AE segment; Short grant of tax deducted at source (TDS) 17. erred in short granting credit of taxes deducted at source of ₹ 2,64,14,172 while computing the tax liability for the year, Interest under Section 234D 18. erred in levying interest of ₹ 6,56,14,648 under Section 234D of the Act; 19. without prejudice to the above, erred in computing interest under Section 234D at ₹ 6,56,14,648 instead of ₹ 600,30,423; Pena ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 018, dated 14.03.2019 and recalled its order that was passed while disposing off the assesse's appeal for the year under consideration in ITA No. 1935/Mum/2017, dated 02.05.2018. At this stage, we may herein observe that involving identical facts in the assessee's case for the immediately preceding year i.e A.Y 2011-12, the Tribunal that was seized of the same issue, viz. as to whether or not the distribution fees paid by the assessee to its AE's were to be treated as payments in the nature of royalty, had instead of adjudicating the same restored the matter to the file of the TPO for fresh benchmarking of the international transactions of the assessee. Further, the miscellaneous application filed by the assessee in A.Y 2011-12 seeking recall of the order of the Tribunal for adjudication of the aforesaid issue on merits was dismissed. Assailing the order passed by the Tribunal in M.A No. 769/Mum/2016 (arising from ITA No. 971/Mum/2016), dated 13.04.2018, the assessee had filed a Writ Petition with the Hon'ble High Court of Bombay. Observing, that all the facts to decide the issue were available on the record, and also, submissions were advanced by the parties before the Tribunal, t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... channels, viz. general entertainment channels, lifestyle channels, animation channels, kids channels, entertainment channels, knowledge channels, music channels and news channels. The assessee company contracts directly with its AEs for distribution of its channels in India. Under the said distribution agreements the assessee collects subscription revenues and would remit 90% of the same to its AEs as license fee, and retain the balance 10% of the amount 4. The assessee during the year under consideration had e-filed its return of income for A.Y 2012-13 on 28.11.2012, declaring its total income at ₹ 22,51,21,420/-. Subsequently, the case of the assessee was selected for scrutiny assessment under Sec. 143(2) of the Act. As the assessee during the year had entered into international transactions with its AEs, therefore, a reference was made by the A.O to the Transfer Pricing Officer (for short 'TPO') for computing the arm's length price (ALP) of the said transactions. The TPO vide his order passed under Sec. 92CA(3), dated 25.01.2016 suggested an upward adjustment of ₹ 413,96,13,415/- to the ALP of the international transactions of the assessee company. After receiving t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ured the payments as 'license fee paid/payable towards distribution of television channels, the DRP concluded that the payments made to the AEs were in the nature of license fees/royalty for distribution of television channels. Relying on the observations of the panel in the assessee's own case for A.Y. 2011-12, the DRP concluded, that as the assessee had been granted exclusive license rights for distribution of channels in a particular territory, it could thus safely be concluded that it had entered into a license agreement. Further, it was observed by the DRP that a similar claim of the assessee that it had only entered into a distribution agreement and not a license agreement was rejected by the panel in A.Y. 2011-12. Also, it was observed by the DRP, that the panel while disposing off the assessee's objections for A.Y. 2011-12, had held, that the comparable companies identified by the TPO using RoyaltyStat data were functionally comparable to the assessee. Observing, that the facts involved in the year under consideration were identical to those as were there before the panel in A.Y. 2011-12, the DRP followed its view therein taken. Insofar the claim of the assessee that the Ho ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ions, it was the claim of the assessee that the companies which were selected by it in its TP study report, being functionally comparable ought to have been accepted as comparables, viz. (i) Avance Technology Ltd; (ii) Empower Industries India Ltd.; (iii) Sonata Technology Ltd.; and (iv) Integra Telecommunication and Software Ltd. 7. However, the DRP after exhaustive deliberations rejected the claim of the assessee that its international transactions were rightly benchmarked by selecting comparables from the business activity of licensed software distribution. It was observed by the DRP that the business activity of channel distribution was functionally different from that of distribution of license software. It was observed by the DRP that unlike software distribution, as the assessee in the business of channel distribution had to guarantee minimum business running into several crores therefore, the risk in its business of channel distribution was substantially higher as that involved in the business of distribution of licensed software. It was noticed by the DRP that the assessee in its TP study report had selected comparables from the activity of distribution of licensed softwa ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ead of adjudicating the same restored the issue to the file of the A.O/TPO for determining the issue afresh, therefore, the assessee had by way of writ petition i.e CWP No. 3508 of 2018 assailed the said order before the Hon'ble High Court of Bombay. It was submitted by the ld. A.R that the Hon'ble High Court while disposing off the said writ petition had observed, that the Tribunal ought to have decided the issue as to whether the distribution fees was royalty or not as all the facts were available before it rather than remanding the issue to the TPO. Accordingly, the appeal of the assessee for A.Y 2011-12, viz. ITA No. 971/Mum/2016 was restored by the High Court to the file of the Tribunal for fresh disposal in accordance with law. It was submitted by the ld. A.R that the Tribunal pursuant to the aforesaid directions of the Hon'ble High Court had thereafter disposed off the assessee's appeal for A.Y. 2011-12, vide its order passed in ITA No. 971/Mum/2016, dated 13.03.2020. It was submitted by the ld. A.R, that the Tribunal in its aforesaid order while adjudicating the issue as to whether 'distribution fee' is to be treated as royalty, had therein relied on the order of the Hon'bl ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... determined the ALP on the basis of RoyaltyStat search. Apart from that, as stated by the ld. A.R the aforesaid companies were even otherwise held by the TPO as functionally not comparable by observing as under: "1.Advance Technologies Limited: This company is involved in niche segment of mobile value added services and short code services, m tex, web based SMS, SMS API, mobile marketing solutions, campaign audit, Email web integration etc. Whether the company is engaged in sof tware distribut ion or not is also clear from the financials or the website of the company. The Hon'ble DRP has rejected this comparable in AY 2010-11. Accordingly, the same is rejected in this year also. 2. Empower Industries India Limited: Empower lndustries India Limited is engaged in the business of computer electronics, power electronics, and computer hardware/ software development. In the assets it is having computer worth ₹ 9.1 crores. This company is selling hardware and is also involved in HR services and Telecom also. No segmental accounts are available. The sale from software is ₹ 100.91 crores as against total sales of ₹ 150 crores. The margin of this company in FY 2009- ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... and re-compute the TP adjustment afresh. It was submitted by the ld. A.R that the software distribution was the only segment of the aforementioned comparables. Accordingly, it was submitted by the ld. A.R, that considering the observations of the Tribunal in its aforesaid orders passed in the assessee's own case for A.Y. 2011-12 and A.Y. 2013-14 the matter may be restored to the file of the A.O/TPO with a direction to benchmark the international transactions of the assessee after including the aforementioned four companies in the final list of comparables. 11. Adverting to the additional grounds of appeal which were raised by the assesses before us, it was submitted by the ld. A.R that in case if the aforementioned four companies which were into software distribution business were accepted as valid comparables, then the ground of appeal no. 21 would be rendered as infructuous. 12. As regards the additional ground of appeal No. 22, it was submitted by the ld. A.R that as the issue therein involved had already been rectified by the A.O, the same was thus not being pressed. 13. As regards the additional ground of appeal No. 23, it was submitted by the ld. A.R that the assessee had ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s submitted by the ld. A.R that the aforesaid additional ground of appeal was being raised on the basis of the recent judgment of the Hon'ble High Court of Bombay in the case of Sesa Goa Limited vs. Joint Commissioner of Income-tax (2020) 107 CCH 375 (Bom). The ld. A.R submitted that the Hon'ble High Court in its said judgment had observed, that if the legislature intended to prohibit the deduction of amounts paid by an assessee towards "Education Cess" or any other "Cess" and Higher and Secondary Education Cess, then, the legislature could have easily included reference to "cess" in clause (ii) of Sec. 40(a). It was further submitted by the ld. A.R that the High Court had observed, that as the legislature had not included "education cess" or any other "cess" in clause (ii) of Sec. 40(a), therefore, it would mean that there was no prohibition in claiming deduction of the said amounts while computing the income of the assessee under the head "Profits and gains of business or profession". As regards admissibility of the said issue by way of an additional ground of appeal, it was submitted by the ld. A.R, that the Hon'ble High Court in its aforesaid order, had observed, that where the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e objections raised by the ld. D.R to the raising of the aforesaid additional ground of appeal by the assessee and are unable to persuade ourselves to subscribe to the same. Before adverting any further, we shall look into the various judicial pronouncements, on the aspect, that an assessee is vested with a right to raise an additional claim which though might not have been raised in the return of income, and the appellate authorities are entitled to consider and adjudicate the same. We find that the issue as to whether an assessee in the course of the assessment proceedings could be permitted to raise a claim which would lead to exclusion of an income offered by him in his return of income had been deliberated upon at length by the Hon'ble High Court of Bombay in the case of CIT Vs. Pruthvi Brokers & Shareholders (P) Ltd. (2012) 349 ITR 336 (Bom). In its said judgment, it was held by the Hon'ble High Court that an assessee is entitled to raise additional grounds not merely in terms of legal submissions, but also additional claims to wit claims not made in the return filed by it. In the aforesaid case of Pruthvi Broker & Shareholders (Pvt.) Ltd. (supra), the facts before the Hon'bl ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... it can be made before the appellate authorities. As regards the jurisdiction of the appellate authorities to entertain a claim that was not raised by the assessee in its return of income, the Hon'ble High Court after referring to the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Goetze (India) Limited (supra), had made it clear that the issue in the case before the Hon'ble Apex Court was limited to the power of the assessing authority in entertaining a fresh claim raised by an assessee otherwise than by filing of a revised return of income, and the same did not impinge on the powers of the Tribunal. In the case before the Full Bench of the Hon'ble High Court of Bombay in Ahmedabad Electricity Limited v. Commissioner of Income-tax, (1993) 199 ITR 351 (Bom)(FB), the assessee had not claimed deduction in respect of the amounts it was required to transfer to contingencies reserve and dividend and tariff reserve either before the Income Tax Officer or before the Appellate Assistant Commissioner. On further appeal, the assessee raised a new claim and additional grounds before the Tribunal, which however declined to admit the same. On further appeal, the full bench of the Hon'ble H ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... we are of the considered view, that in the case before us as the assessee has by way of the aforesaid additional ground of appeal raised a purely legal issue which would not require any verification of facts, therefore, the same merits to be admitted. 18. We shall now deal with the sustainability of the observations of the lower authorities, and the consequential additions made/sustained by them. As observed by us hereinabove, the ld. A.R at the very outset of the hearing of the appeal had assailed the characterisation of the channel distribution fees paid by the assessee to its AE's, as royalty by the A.O/DRP. We have deliberated at length on the issue under consideration, and find, that the issue that channel distribution fees cannot be held as royalty is squarely covered by the judgment of the Hon'ble High Court of Bombay in the case of CIT Vs. Set India Pvt. Ltd. (ITA No. 1347 of 2013), dated 15.06.2015. The question of law raised by the revenue before the Hon'ble High Court in the aforesaid case read as under: "Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Tribunal has erred in holding that consideration paid by assessee to the non resident comp ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... yalty'. Since, we have held that distribution fee cannot be termed as 'Royalty' thus; discussion on the royalty agreement selected for comparability has become academic." As the facts and the issue involved in the present appeal is squarely covered by the aforesaid order of the Tribunal in the assessee's own case for A.Y 2011-12 in ITA No. 971/Mum/2016, dated 13.03.2020, we therefore respectfully follow the same. Accordingly, we herein vacate the view taken by the lower authorities that channel distribution fees paid by the assessee to its AEs was in the nature of payment of royalty. The Ground of appeal No. 4 is allowed. 19. We shall now advert to the adoption of the aforementioned four companies engaged in the business of software distribution as comparables by the assessee for benchmarking its international transactions. As observed by us hereinabove, both the TPO/DRP had rejected the aforementioned companies as comparables for benchmarking of the international transactions of the assessee. The facts pertaining to the respective comparables, and also, the view taken by the lower authorities as well as our observations as regards the same are culled out as under: ( ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of the assessee for the year under consideration. (B) Empower Industrial India Ltd.: As is discernible from the order of the TPO, we find that the aforementioned company was rejected as a comparable by him for the reasons viz. (i) that the company was engaged in selling hardware, HR and telecom services for which no segmental were available; (ii) that the company was inter alia engaged in software development; (iii) that the company had computer assets of ₹ 9.1 crores; and (iv) that the company had diminishing returns during the year under consideration. As a matter of fact, the aforesaid view was borrowed by the TPO from that arrived at by his predecessor in the immediately preceding year i.e A.Y. 2011-12. (ii) On a perusal of the financial statements of the aforementioned company, we find, that it had during the year under consideration earned revenue of ₹ 148.28 crores from IT product sales (out of total revenue of ₹ 150.45 crores). Accordingly, the aforementioned company had earned more than 98% (approx.) of its revenue from sale of software products, and was thus primarily engaged in distribution of software products. Apart from that, the company had duri ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... iminishing returns arrived at by the TPO. On the basis of the aforesaid observations, we are unable to persuade ourselves to subscribe to the view taken by the TPO/DRP that the aforementioned company could not have been selected as a valid comparable for benchmarking the international transactions of the assessee for the year under consideration. (iii). Independent of our aforesaid observations, we find, that the aforementioned company viz. Empower Industries India Ltd. had been accepted by the Tribunal as a valid comparable in the assessee's own case for the immediately preceding year i.e. A.Y. 2011-12. Also, we find that the aforementioned company had been accepted as a valid comparable by the coordinate benches of the Tribunal in the following cases: (i) Turner International India Pvt. Ltd. VS. ACIT (ITA No. 1204/Del/2018) dated 18th June 2018 [A.Y. 2006-07]; (ii) DCIT Vs. Turner International Pvt. Ltd. (ITA No. 1149/Del/2015) dated 8th October 2018 [A.Y. 2010-11]; and (iii) Star Den Media Services Pvt. ltd. Vs. ACIT (ITA No. 2113/M/2014). Accordingly, on the basis of our aforesaid deliberations we are unable to accept the view taken by the A.O/DRP who had rejected the aforemen ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ing the international transactions of the assessee for the year under consideration. (iv). Independent of our aforesaid observations, we find, that the Tribunal in the assesses own case for the immediately preceding year i.e. A.Y. 2011-12 had accepted the aforementioned company whose generation of revenue from software distribution during the said year was 97%, as a valid comparable, for benchmarking the international transactions of the assessee for the said preceding year. Also, the aforementioned company was selected as a valid comparable by the Tribunal while disposing off the assessee's appeal for A.Y. 2013-14 in ITA 6676/Mum/2017, dated 29.06.2020. In the backdrop of our aforesaid deliberations, as the functionality of the aforementioned company and also the assessee had not witnessed any change during the year under consideration, as in comparison to that for A.Y. 2012-13 and A.Y. 2013-14, we thus find no cogent reason to take a view different from that arrived at by the Tribunal in the aforementioned orders in the case of the assessee. Accordingly, we direct the A.O/TPO to include the aforesaid company as a valid comparable for the purpose of benchmarking the international ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... consideration, therefore, we find no reason in taking a view contrary to that arrived at by the Tribunal while accepting the said company as a valid comparable for benchmarking the international transactions of the assessee in A.Y 2013-14. Accordingly, we herein direct the A.O/TPO to include the aforementioned company as a valid comparable for the purpose of benchmarking the international transactions of the assessee for the year under consideration. On the basis of our aforesaid deliberations, the A.O/TPO is directed to include the aforesaid four companies viz. (i). Avance Technology Limited; (ii). Empower Industries India Limited; (iii). Integra Telecommunication and Software Limited; and (iv). Sonata Information Technology Limited, in the final list of comparables for benchmarking the international transactions of the assessee for the year under consideration. The Grounds of appeal Nos. 5 to 7 are allowed in terms of our aforesaid observations. 20. The assessee has assailed before us the short grant of TDS of ₹ 2,64,14,172/- by the A.O while computing its tax liability for the year under consideration. As the adjudication of the aforesaid issue would require verification ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... issue is squarely covered by the recent order of the Hon'ble High Court of Bombay in the case of Sesa Goa Limited vs. Joint Commissioner of Income-tax (2020) 107 CCH 375 (Bom). In the case before the Hon'ble High Court the following substantial question of law was inter alia raised : "iii. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Education Cess and Higher and Secondary Education Cess is allowable as a deduction in the year of payment." After exhaustive deliberations, the Hon'ble High Court had observed that the legislature in Sec. 40(a)(ii) had though provided that "any rate or tax levied" on "profits and gains of business or profession" shall not be deducted in computing the income chargeable under the head "profits and gains of business or profession", but then there was no reference to any "cess". Also, the High Court observed that there was no scope to accept that "cess" being in the nature of a "tax" was equally not deductible in computing the income chargeable under the head "profits and gains of business or profession". It was further observed that if the legislature would had intended to prohibit the deduction of amounts paid by an asses ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... be deducted in computing the income chargeable under the head "profits and gains of business or profession". However, the Respondent - Revenue contends that "cess" is also included in the scope and import of the expression "any rate or tax levied" and consequently, the amounts paid towards the "cess" are not liable for deduction in computing the income chargeable under the head "profits and gains of business or profession". 18. In relation to taxing statute, certain principles of interpretation are quite well settled. In New Shorrock Spinning and Manufacturing Co. Ltd. Vs Raval, 37 ITR 41 (Bom.), it is held that one safe and infallible principle, which is of guidance in these matters, is to read the words through and see if the rule is clearly stated. If the language employed gives the rule in words of sufficient clarity and precision, nothing more requires to be done. Indeed, in such a case the task of interpretation can hardly be said to arise : Absoluta sententia expositore non indiget. The language used by the Legislature best declares its intention and must be accepted as decisive of it. 19. Besides, when it comes to interpretation of the IT Act, it is well established t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... gislature has not done so means that the legislature did not intend to prevent the deduction of amounts paid by a Assessee towards the "cess", when it comes to computing income chargeable under the head "profits and gains of business or profession". 24. The legislative history bears out that the Income Tax Bill, 1961, as introduced in the Parliament, had Section 40(a)(ii) which read as follows : "(ii) any sum paid on account of any cess, rate or tax levied on the profits or gains of any business or profession or assessed at a proportion of, or otherwise on the basis of, any such profits or gains" 25. However, when the matter came up before the Select Committee of the Parliament, it was decided to omit the word "cess" from the aforesaid clause from the Income Tax Bill, 1961. The effect of the omission of the word "cess" is that only any rate or tax levied on the profits or gains of any business or profession are to be deducted in computing the income chargeable under the head " profits and gains of business or profession". Since the deletion of expression "cess" from the Income Tax Bill, 1961, was deliberate, there is no question of reintroducing this expression in Section 40( ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the Select Committee recommended the omission of expression "cess" and consequently, this expression finds no place in the final text of the provision in Section 40(a)(ii) of the IT Act, 1961. The effect of such omission is that the provision in Section 40(a)(ii) does not include, "cess" and consequently, "cess" whenever paid in relation to business, is allowable as deductable expenditure. 29. In Kanga and Palkhivala's "The Law and Practice of Income Tax" (Tenth Edition), several decisions have been analyzed in the context of provisions of Section 40(a)(ii) of the IT Act, 1961. There is reference to the decision of Privy Council in CIT Vs Gurupada Dutta 14 ITR 100, where a union rate was imposed under a Village Self Government 15 TXA17&18-13 dt.28.02.2020 Act upon the assessee as the owner or occupier of business premises, and the quantum of the rate was fixed after consideration of the 'circumstances' of the assessee, including his business income. The Privy Council held that the rate was not 'assessed on the basis of profits' and was allowable as a business expense. Following this decision, the Supreme Court held in Jaipuria Samla Amalgamated Collieries Ltd ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... , learned Standing Counsel for the Revenue was unable to say whether the Revenue had instituted the appeals in the aforesaid matters. Mr. Ramani, learned Senior Advocate for the Appellant submitted that to the best of his research, no appeals were instituted by the Revenue against the aforesaid decisions of the ITAT. 33. The ITAT, in the impugned judgment and order, has reasoned that since "cess" is collected as a part of the income tax and fringe benefit tax, therefore, such "cess" is to be construed as "tax". According to us, there is no scope for such implications, when construing a taxing statute. Even, though, "cess" may be collected as a part of income tax, that does not render such "cess", either rate or tax, which cannot be deducted in terms of the provisions in Section 40(a)(ii) of the IT Act. The mode of collection, is really not determinative in such matters. 34. Ms. Linhares, has relied upon M/s Unicorn Industries Vs Union of India and others, 2019 SCC Online SC 1567 in support of her contention that "cess" is nothing but "tax" and therefore, there is no question of deduction of amounts paid towards "cess" when it comes to computation of income chargeable under the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... dgments and orders and therefore, the same, warrants no interference. 38. Although, it is true that the Appellant - Assessee did not claim any deduction in respect of amounts paid by it towards "cess" in their original return of income nor did the Appellant - Assessee file any revised return of income, according to us, this was no bar to the Commissioner (Appeals) or the ITAT to consider and allow such deductions to the Appellant - Assessee in the facts and circumstances of the present case. The record bears out that such deduction was clearly claimed by the Appellant - Assessee, both before the Commissioner (Appeals) as well as the ITAT. 39. In CIT Vs Pruthvi Brokers & Shareholders Pvt. Ltd. 349 ITR 336, one of the questions of law which came to be framed was whether on the facts and circumstances of the case, the ITAT, in law, was right in holding that the claim of deduction not made in the original returns and not supported by revised return, was admissible. The Revenue had relied upon Goetze (supra ) and urged that the ITAT had no power to allow the claim for deduction. However, the Division Bench, whilst proceeding on the assumption that the Assessing Officer in terms of l ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
