9911796707
TMI Blog2020 (11) TMI 741X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... enal interest. It is not possible to decipher whether the penal interest is compensatory in nature or not. In view of the above, we set aside the order of the Ld. CIT(A) on the above ground and restore it to the file of the AO for deciding it afresh. TDS u/s 195 - payment to non-resident vendors for purchasing standard software products - HELD THAT:- We hold that the Ld. CIT(A), following the order of the Tribunal in assessee s own case for AY 2005-06, has rightly held that the expenditure on software acquired for internal use is a capital expenditure and the assessee is entitled to depreciation on this amount. In the context of payments made on software for resale, having examined the relevant documents and rival submissions, we arrive at a finding that the facts in the impugned year on the above matter are identical to the AY 2009-10 in assessee s own case [ 2019 (11) TMI 408 - ITAT MUMBAI] . Facts being identical, we follow the above order of the Co-ordinate Bench and restore the matter to the file of the AO for fresh adjudication in terms of the observations made therein. The AO would decide the issue after providing reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... I] we direct the AO to charge guarantee commission @0.5% per annum both on performance / lease guarantee as well as financial guarantee. In this context , we direct the AO to examine the contentions of the assessee that (i)part of the activity with respective performance guarantee, was performed by the assessee itself, while the remaining services are rendered by the AE and thus, if the performance guarantee is treated a chargeable services, the charges should be levied only on the component of services performed by the AE (ii) part of the premises i.e. 40% during the year under consideration was occupied by the assessee and thus, if lease guarantee is treated as chargeable services, the charge should be levied only for the balance i.e. 60% during the year under consideration. Adopt guarantee fee rate @0.5% per annum for the performance guarantee. Addition u/s 40(a)(ia) on education cess - HELD THAT:- It is held in Sesa Goa Limited v. JCIT [ 2020 (3) TMI 347 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT] that education cess and higher and secondary education cess are liable for deduction in computing income chargeable under the head profits and gains of business or profession. - IT(TP)A No. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tion 40(a)(ii) of the Act. In appeal, the Ld. CIT(A) dismissed the above ground by following the order of the ITAT in assessee s own case for AY 2005-06 (ITA No. 7513/M/2010) dated 04.11.2015, wherein it is held that : 6. Since admittedly, the Tribunal has decided this issue against the assessee in the case of Tata Sons Ltd. (supra), and the said decision has not been stated to have been stayed on appeal, respectfully following the same, this issue is decided against the assessee. Ground No. 1 stands dismissed. 4. Before us, the Ld. counsel for the assessee submits that the claim for deduction of overseas tax was made by the assessee, based on the following ground: Relying on the decision of the Tribunal in the case of Tata Sons (ITA No. 89 of 1989) Provisions of section 40(a)(ii) r.w.s. 2(43) disallow deduction for payment of taxes paid overseas which are eligible for relief of taxes u/s 90 and 91 of the Act. Taxes paid overseas to the local states of USA and Canada are not eligible for relief u/s 90/91 of the Act. The CIT(A) vide his order for AY 2005-06 has upheld the assessee s contention that provisions of section 40(a)(ii) do not apply to the state t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e had suffered tax in both the countries i.e. where the project is executed and also in India and in the instant case, the amount claimed by way of deduction under section 80HHB and section 35B was not suffering any tax in India for the purposes of section 91. On further appeal, the Tribunal dismissed the appeal of the assessee holding that the sum of ₹ 47.31 lakhs being the amount deducted under section 80HHB and ₹ 5.59 lakhs being the weighted deduction allowed under section 35B were to be excluded in arriving at the figure of doubly taxed income for the purpose of computing the double income tax relief under section 91. On appeal to the High Court, the applicant assessee claimed that it should be allowed a deduction of the tax paid in Saudi Arabia, if it is held that the benefit of Section 91 of the Act is not available. This deduction is claimed only to the extent tax has been paid in Saudi Arabia on the income which has accrued/arisen in India. This claim was made on the basis of real income theory . The Hon ble Bombay High Court held as under: (h) Before dealing with the rival contentions, it would be useful to reproduce the statutory provision arising for ou ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... cepted as both the orders being relied upon by the applicant was rendered not at the final hearing but on applications under Section 256(2) of the Act and at the stage of admission under Section 260A of the Act. This unlike the judgment rendered in a Reference by this Court in S. Inder Singh Gill (supra). Moreover, the decision in South East Asia Shipping Co. (supra) is not available in its entirety. Therefore, it would not be safe to rely upon it as all facts and on what consideration of law, it was rendered is not known. Similarly, the decision of this Court in Tata Sons (supra) being Income Tax Appeal No.209 of 2001 produced before us, dismissed the appeal of the Revenue by order dated 2nd April, 2004 by merely following its order dated 23rd March, 1993 rejecting the Revenue's application for Reference under Section 256(2) of the Act. Thus, it also cannot be relied upon to decide the controversy. Moreover, the order of this Court in Tata Sons Ltd. (supra) as produced before us for Assessment Year 1985-86 had not noticed the decision of this Court in S. Inder Singh Gill (supra) on a Reference. Therefore, it is rendered per incuriam. (j) This Court in S. Inder Singh Gill (s ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... quently, the tax paid on income/profits and gains of business/profession anywhere in the world would not be allowed as deduction for determining the profits/gains of the business under Section 10(4) of the Indian Income Tax Act, 1922. Therefore, on the state of the statutory provisions as found in the Indian Income Tax Act, 1922 the decision of this Court in S. Inder Singh Gill (supra) would be unexceptionable. However, the ratio of the aforesaid decision in S. Inder Singh Gill (supra) cannot be applied to the present facts in view of the fact that the Act defines tax as income tax chargeable under the provisions of this Act. Thus, by definition, the tax which is payable under the Act alone on the profits and gains of business are not allowed to be deducted notwithstanding Sections 30 to 38 of the Act. (m) It therefore, follows that the tax which has been paid abroad would not be covered with in the meaning of Section 40(a) (ii) of the Act in view of the definition of the word 'tax' in Section 2(43) of the Act. To be covered by Section 40(a)(ii) of the Act, it has to be payable under the Act. We are conscious of the fact that Section 2 of the Act, while defining the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... xcludes income which is deemed to accrue or arise in India. Thus, the benefit of the Explanation would now be available and on application of real income theory, the quantum of tax paid in Saudi Arabia, attributable to income arising or accruing in India would be reduced for the purposes of computing the income on which tax is payable in India. (p) It is not disputed before us that some part of the income on which the tax has been paid abroad is on the income accrued or arisen in India. Therefore, to the extent, the tax is paid abroad on income which has accrued and/or arisen in India, the benefit of Section 91 of the Act is not available. In such a case, an Assessee such as the applicant assessee is entitled to a deduction under Section 40(a)(ii) of the Act. This is so as it is a tax which has been paid abroad for the purpose of arriving global income on which the tax payable in India. Therefore, to the extent the payment of tax in Saudi Arabia on income which has arisen/accrued in India has to be considered in the nature of expenditure incurred or arisen to earn income and not hit by the provisions of Section 40(a)(ii) of the Act. (q) The Explanation to Section 40(a)(ii) of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... y. Thus, it is ineligible for any relief under section 90 of the Act. The aforesaid submissions of learned Sr. Counsel for the assessee, prima facie, is acceptable if one has to strictly go by the meaning of tax , defined under section 2(43) of the Act, as it only refers to tax paid under the provisions of the Act. It is also worth mentioning, the State taxes paid by the assessee in DTAA countries are not eligible for relief under section 90 of the Act. Therefore, the issue which arises is, whether it can be allowed as deduction under section 37 of the Act. No doubt, in assessee's own case in assessment year 2005-06, the Tribunal in the order referred to above following its own decision in DCIT v/s Tata Sons Ltd., [2011] 43 SOT 27 (Mum.), has held that the State taxes paid overseas cannot be allowed as deduction in view of the provisions of section 40(a)(ii) of the Act. However, the aforesaid legal position has substantially changed after the decision of the Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court in Reliance Infrastructure Ltd. (supra). While interpreting the provisions of section 2(43) of the Act, vis-a- vis section 40(a)(ii) of the Act, the Hon'ble Court held that the tax ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nterest thereon cannot be an allowable deduction. 9. Before us, the Ld. counsel submits that as per section 40(a)(ii) r.w.s. 2(43) of the Act, deduction for only those taxes paid overseas is allowable which are not eligible for any relief as per the provisions of section 90 or 91 of the Act. It is thus explained that accordingly, provisions of section 40(a)(ii) are not applicable to the penal interest . Further, it is stated that the payment made by the Company on account of interest or penalty for delay in payment of federal or state taxes overseas which is compensatory in nature should be allowable as business expenditure u/s 37(1) of the Act. It is also explained that the last para to Article 2(1) of DTAA between India- USA clearly removes any amount payable in respect of any default or omission in relation to the above taxes or which represent a penalty imposed relating to those taxes. 10. On the other hand, the Ld. DR supports the order passed by the Ld. CIT(A) on the reason that once the taxes itself have been held to be disallowable in the hands of the assessee, it is clear that any payment of interest thereon cannot be an allowable deduction. 11. We have hear ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... software for third party sale, the AO concluded that these licenses were in the nature of royalty and since no TDS has been made by the assessee u/s 195, the consideration was liable to be disallowed u/s 40(a)(i) of the Act. 14. In appeal the Ld. CIT(A), following the order of the Tribunal in assessee s own case for AY 2005-06, held that the expenditure on software acquired for internal use is a capital expenditure and the assessee is entitled to depreciation on this amount. In the context of payments made on software for resale, the Ld. CIT(A) observed that this is not a case of mere purchase and its subsequent sale of software as a reseller. The assessee s software package will not be complete without the software. The assessee is prohibited by the agreement to sell these software independently. These can only be supplied as a part of the package and hence, the claim of the assessee that it is operating as a third party reseller cannot be accepted. Further, it is noted by the Ld. CIT(A) that the reseller agreement between the two parties clearly reveals that the assessee cannot distribute the purchased software independent of its own software package; the purchased software ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 06 (arising out of MA in ITA No. 7513 of 2010), AY 2009-10 (ITA No. 5713/M/2016) and the judgment of the Supreme Court in Tata Consultancy Services v. State of Andhra Pradesh (Civil Appeal No. 2582 of 1998 with CA No. 2584, 2585 2586 of 1998). 16. On the other hand, the Ld. DR submits that the software purchased by the assessee has been acquired for use in its products, which are then sold to clients with rights and licenses being given to the clients and such a case squarely falls within the ambit of Article 13(3) of the India-US DTAA. Further, it is stated by him that the assessee cannot be said to be trading in software and this is not a case of mere purchase and its subsequent sale of software as a reseller. Thus the Ld. DR supports the order passed by the Ld. CIT(A). 17. We have heard the rival submissions and perused the relevant materials on record. Similar issue arose before the Tribunal in assessee s own case for AY 2005-06 and AY 2009-10. For immediate reference, we refer to the order of the Tribunal for AY 2009-10, wherein the following is held:- 15. We have considered rival submissions and perused the material on record. We have also applied our mind t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... a case of mere purchase and subsequent sale of software as a re-seller / trader. He observed, assessee's software package will not be complete without the software acquired for trading purpose. In other words, the software acquired by the assessee is a necessary ingredient of the package being developed and supplied to the client and the assessee is prohibited by agreement to sell the software independently and they can only be supplied as a part of the package. As per section 9(1)(vi) of the Act, income in the nature of royalty shall be deemed to accrue or arise in India even in respect of a non-resident where the royalty is payable in respect of any right, property or information used or services utilized for the purpose of a business or profession carried on by a person in India or for the purpose of making or earning any income from any source in India. Pertinently, the expression royalty as per section 9(1)(vi) of the Act in its initial form did not specifically define computer software. By virtue of Explanation-3 to section 9(1)(vi) of the Act inserted by Finance Act w.e.f. 1st April 2010, computer software was defined to mean any computer program recorded on any di ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... section 9(1)(vi) of the Act, the contention of the assessee that it could not have withheld tax anticipating the change in law brought with retrospective effect, has to be considered keeping in view the decision of the Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court in NGC Network India Pvt. Ltd. (supra). Further, assessee's contention that Explanatino-4 to section 9(1)(vi) of the Act cannot be brought into play while applying section 40(a)(i)of the Act as it only refers to Explanation-2 to section 9(1)(vi) of the Act for the definition of royalty also has to be examined keeping in view the ratio laid down in NGC Networks India Pvt. Ltd. (supra). In case, the payment made by the assessee does not fit into the definition of royalty as provided under the relevant tax treaty, the assessee certainly would get the benefit of the tax treaty and in that event the liability under section 195 of the Act cannot be fastened on the assessee. Since, all these issues have not been properly examined and deliberated upon by the Departmental Authorities, we are inclined to restore the issue to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication in terms with our observations hereinabove. The Assessing Officer ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... own case for AY 2009-10. 20. On the other hand, the Ld. DR relies on the order of the CIT(A) and explains that the Hon ble Karnataka High Court in Wipro Ltd (supra) has devided the Indian DTAAs with various countries into two categories- DTAAs with countries like Canada, U.K DTAA with countries like U.S. In respect of DTAAs with countries like Canada U.K, the Court has ruled that tax credit will be available only if the income is actually taxed in both the states. Further, it is argued that as per the above decision, the claim of DTAA benefit with respective taxes paid in other tax jurisdiction is not unfettered even in India-U.S DTAA, but is governed by the limitation clause incorporated in Article 25 which limits the scope of such benefit to the amount of tax attributable to the income, which has been taxed in other tax jurisdiction and hence, in all such cases, the tax deducted/paid on income in the foreign territory, which is tax exempt in India, being covered by section 10A/10B, the appellant shall not be entitled to treaty relief. Also, it is argued by the Ld. DR that similarly, in case of taxes paid in countries with which India does not have any agreement (cases cov ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... le to other DTAA countries and non-DTAA countries. On a careful reading of the decision of the Hon'ble Karnataka High Court in Wipro Ltd. (supra), it is noted, while dealing with identical issue the Hon'ble Court held that in the cases covered under section 90(1)(a)(ii) of the Act, it is not the case of income being subjected to tax or the assessee has paid tax on the income. The provision applies to a case where the income of the assessee is eligible to tax under the Act as well as in the corresponding law in force in the other country. The Court observed, though, income tax is chargeable under the Act, it is open to the Parliament to grant exemption under the Act from payment of tax for any specified period, normally, to incentivize the assessee the to carry on manufacturing activities or providing services. The Court thereafter referring to the treaty provisions with USA held that it is not the requirement of law that the assessee before he claims credit under the Indo-US convention or under the provision of the Act must pay tax in India on such income. The Court observed, as per the embargo placed in the DTAA, the assessee is entitled to such tax credit only in respe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nd unsustainable on the basis of the following grounds taken singly or cumulatively. 5.2.1 The transfer pricing adjustments are contrary to the principles laid down by the Hon'ble Mumbai Tribunal in the appellant s own case for the A.Y. 2005-06 (DCIT vs Tata Consultancy Services Limited) and therefore are required to be quashed and deleted. 5.2.2 a) The AO has failed to comply with the mandatory conditions stipulated in section 92C(3) of the Act and has failed to record his satisfaction before making the reference to the Transfer Pricing Officer (TPO). b) The TPO has failed to prove that any of the conditions laid down in section 92C(3) of the Act had been satisfied which made out a case for tax evasion. 5.2.3 The AO/TPO has failed to arrive at a finding that the intention of the assessee was to evade tax and shift profits outside of India which is a condition precedent for making the Transfer Pricing Adjustment. 5.2.4 On facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in not holding the proceedings initiated by the Ld. TPO as void authorities below initio since the Ld. AO erred in making the reference to the Ld. TPO without proper applicatio ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ca International Corp. 8,155.15 7,345.81 809.34 9.92% 9.62% Yes (after +/-5% working) 2 Tata consultancy Services Sverige AB 76.92 71.15 5.77 7.50% 29.31% Yes 3 Tata Consultancy Services Belgium S.A. 65.06 60.18 4.88 7.50% 29.31% Yes 4 Tata Consultancy Servcies, Netherlands BV 197.79 182.96 14.83 7.50% 29.31% Yes 5 Tata Consultancy Servcies Asia pacific Pte.Limited 139.86 132.87 6.99 5.00% 8.59% Yes 6 Tata Consultancy Services De Mexico S.A.De C.V. 3.87 2.90 0.97 25.00% 9.62% ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 0.13 15.00% Europe 16.53% Yes Finally, the Ld.CIT(A) held:- 13.16.8 the TPO/AO is directed to compute adjustments, if any, in line with the variation in ALP as per the margins computed in the above table. It is clarified that the margins have been computed by the appellant and the same have been relied on by this office. The TPO is free to examine the veracity of the computation of margins in respect of comparables selected by the appellant as this issue has not been looked into by the TPO at the time of TP proceedings. The TPO/AO will allow the appellant benefit of proviso to section 92C(2) if admissible. The various grounds taken by the appellant on this issue are decided accordingly. 13.16.9 At ground No.8.12, the appellant has also raised the issue of use of multiple year data. The issue of multiple year data is no longer res integra. The issue stands concluded in favour of Revenue through a number of judgments from High court and Tribunals. The language of the Rules are also specific on this issue. Only the data relating to the year under benchmarking can be adopted for computation ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 2003-04 2004- 05, the TPO/AO erred in taking a different view for AY 2007-08, completely ignoring the fact that there was neither any change in the facts of the case nor in the nature of operations or terms of the business of the assessee in AY 2007-08. 26. On the other hand, the Ld. DR submits that the TPO has rightly held TCS America and the other AEs of the assessee to be the tested parties; TNMM as the most appropriate method for determining the ALP. 27. We have heard the rival submissions and perused the relevant materials available on record. Similar issue arose before the ITAT in assessee s own case for AY 2009-10. The Tribunal, at para 20(page 59-62) held as under:- 20. We have considered rival submissions and perused the material on record. We have also applied our mind to the decisions relied upon. From the grounds raised by the Revenue, the following three issues arise for consideration - (i) what should be the appropriate PLI; (ii) whether cost of outsourcing / subcontracting to the TCS should be considered for computing the margin; and (iii) whether the alternative benchmarking furnished by the assessee by treating the AEs as tested party with comparable ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... xclude such costs while computing the margin of the AEs is incorrect. When similar cost incurred by the comparables were not excluded while computing their margin, a different treatment cannot be given to such costs in case of the AEs. Certainly, the aforesaid approach of the Transfer Pricing Officer has resulted in distorting the correct PLI of the AEs. In the aforesaid context, the observations of learned Commissioner (Appeals) are appreciable, wherein, he has observed that the PLI of the AEs and PLI of comparables have not been computed on similar lines by the Transfer Pricing Officer, hence, comparability condition fails. It is further relevant to observe, the alternative benchmarking furnished by the assessee before the Transfer Pricing Officer by considering the AEs in different geographic locations as tested parties with the comparables selected on the basis of the respective geographic locations furnished before the Transfer Pricing Officer were not properly considered. However, in course of appeal proceedings, the learned Commissioner (Appeals) examined them in detail and after a detailed analysis approved some comparables selected by the assessee and also added some ne ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... fer pricing proceeding itself the assessee has taken a stand that loans and advances to the AEs are in the nature of quasi equity, hence, cannot be treated as loan simpliciter. It is relevant to observe, the transfer pricing adjustment made on account of interest is in respect of loans advanced to four overseas AEs. From the details available on record, it is noticed that major portion of loans advanced to TCS Ibero America, is for acquisition of downstream subsidiary and about 20% of the advance was for working capital. Money advanced to TCS FNS Pty. Ltd., Australia, was purely for acquisition of downstream subsidiary. Similarly, advance to TCS Asia Pacific Pty. Ltd., is for acquisition of downstream subsidiary. Only the advance made to TCS Morocco is for working capital requirement. It is further noted, major part of advances made to TCS Ibero America, TCS FNS Pty. Ltd. and TCS Morocco have been converted to equity subsequently. It is also a fact on record that before learned Commissioner (Appeals), the assessee has filed a detailed written submission on 27th March 2014, elaborately discussing the nature of advance made to the AEs and the purpose for which such advances were made ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... allowed for statistical purposes. 31. Facts being identical, we restore the matter to the file of the AO to make an order afresh as per the above direction given by the Co-ordinate Bench for AY 2009-10, after giving reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee. 32. The 8th ground of appeal 8.1 The Ld. CIT(A) erred in law and on facts, in holding that the provision of various guarantees by the appellant to third parties on behalf of its AEs were international transactions and in making an upward adjustment in this regard. 8.2 The Ld. CIT(A) erred in law and on facts, in not appreciating the fact that provision of guarantee is a shares holder activity and no income is generated from the same. 8.3 Without prejudice to the above, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in law and on facts in disregarding the appellant s contention that the guarantee fee should be charged based on the effective rate of insurance premium paid by the appellant as a percentage of group revenue. 8.4 Without prejudice to above, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in law and on facts in not considering guarantee fees to be charged on actual rent, for which the guarantee was provided. 33. The Ld. Counsel submits ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rmance / lease guarantee as well as financial guarantee. In this context , we direct the AO to examine the contentions of the assessee that (i)part of the activity with respective performance guarantee, was performed by the assessee itself, while the remaining services are rendered by the AE and thus, if the performance guarantee is treated a chargeable services, the charges should be levied only on the component of services performed by the AE (ii) part of the premises i.e. 40% during the year under consideration was occupied by the assessee and thus, if lease guarantee is treated as chargeable services, the charge should be levied only for the balance i.e. 60% during the year under consideration. We direct the assessee to file the relevant documents/evidence on the above contentions before the AO. 36. The 9th ground of appeal:- 9.1 The Ld. CIT(A) erred in law and on facts in holding that the provision of undertaking by the appellant on behalf of its AE Financial Network Services Pty. Ltd. Australia is an international transaction and making an upward adjustment in this regard. 9.2 The Ld. CIT(A) erred in law and on facts, in holding that the provision of undertaki ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld.CIT(A) has erred in allowing claim u/s 10A of IT Act on units which deduction u/s 80HHE of IT Act was being claimed. 45. The Hon ble Bombay High Court in assessee s own case in ITA.No.1778 of 2016 vide order dated 18/03/2019 has held that: 10. Coming to the revenue s contention in relation to the computation of benefit of section 10A of the Act, this issue is squarely covered by the judgment of Supreme Court in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax vs. HCL Technologies, reported in 404 ITR 719, in which the Court held that the total turnover for the purpose of section 10 of the Act cannot be understood as defined for the purpose of section 80HHE. It was further held that thus the expenses which are to be excluded from the export turnover, would also have to be excluded for the purpose of computing total turnover. Following the above decision, the second ground of appeal is dismissed. 46. The 3rd 4th ground of appeal 3. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld.CIT(A) has erred in not upholding the order of the AO on the method of computation of deduction u/s 10A of IT Act. 4. On the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
