9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (5) TMI 1828X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... The TPO, vide order dated 6th January, 2015, proposed upward adjustment of Rs. 35,31,33,463/- to the value of the international transactions entered into by the assessee company. The Assessing Officer, accordingly passed the draft order making addition of the same. The assessee filed objections against the draft order passed by the Assessing Officer. The DRP, vide order dated 12th August, 2015, directed the TPO to verify the correctness of the computation of the operating margin of the comparable companies and the assessee for determining the ALP of the international transaction of the assessee in accordance with the provisions of the Act. Subsequently, the TPO, vide order dated 14th September, 2015, rectified the computation as per the corrected margin of the comparables as per the direction of the DRP and made an upward adjustment of Rs. 26,32,08,740/-. The Assessing Officer accordingly made addition of the same in the final assessment order. The Assessing Officer further held that the purchase of time licence of computer software of Rs. 69,45,581/- is a capital expenditure as against the claim as revenue expenditure made by the assessee. After allowing depreciation @ 60% on the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... pellant, thereby including in the final comparable set certain companies with completely different functional profile; 2.4 erroneously introducing companies having abnormal margins in the final comparable set that signify high element of entrepreneurial risk as opposed to the Appellant who is a captive service provider bearing limited risk; 2.5. excluding certain comparables considered by the Appellant in its TP documentation/ fresh search on arbitrary/frivolous grounds even though they are comparable to the Appellant in terms of functions performed, assets employed and risks assumed; 2.6. resorting to arbitrary rejection of loss making companies based on erroneous and inconsistent reasons on account of declining revenue/ persistent loss; 2.7. the Ld. DRP erred in confirming the Ld. AO/TPO's approach in relying on completely new facts without giving the Appellant any opportunity of being heard. 3. Ld. DRP erred in confirming the Ld. AO/Ld. TPO's approach of considering bank charges, provision for doubtful debts and Provision no longer required written back as non-operating expenditure/income while computing the operating margins of the Appellant and comparable companies. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the facts and in law in computing excess interest under section 234D of the Act of Rs. 56,805. 13. That on facts of the case and in law, the Ld. AO has grossly erred in initiating penalty proceedings under section 271(l)(c) of the Act. The above grounds of appeal are mutually exclusive and without prejudice to each other. The Appellant craves leave to add, alter, amend, vary or rescind any of the above grounds either before or at the time of hearing in the interest of natural justice." 4. The assessee has also filed an application under Rule 11 of the ITAT Rules for filing an additional ground. The additional ground reads as under:- "On the facts and in the circumstances of the case the ld.A.O./DRP were not correct in including the following entities in the list of appropriate comparable:- i) Larsen & Toubro Infotech Limited; ii) Sasken Communications Technologies Limited; iii) Persistent Systems Limited; iv) Persistent Systems and Solutions Limited; v) Thirdware Solutions Limited; and vi) Tata Elxsi Limited." 5. The ld. counsel for the assessee, relying various decisions, submitted that it is the settled law that there is no estoppel against the statute. For t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... omparables and the average arithmetic mean of the comparables was 8.68% whereas the arithmetic mean of the assessee was 5.43%. It was accordingly submitted before the TPO that the ALP of the international transaction is at arm's length price. However, the TPO disregarded the same and used 19 comparables with average OP/OC at 21.49% and determined an adjustment of Rs. 35,31,33,463/-. The assessee objected the comparables before the DRP and the DRP, vide order dated 7th August, 2015, directed the TPO to treat the foreign exchange loss/gain as operating item, directed amortization of goodwill to be treated as non-operating item, directed the exclusion of Infosys Ltd. and Zylog Systems Ltd. from the list of comparable companies and directed the TPO to verify and rectify net margins of the company. The rest of the filters applied by the TPO were upheld by the DRP. Accordingly, as per the directions issued by the DRP, the following 17 companies were finally considered as comparables: ' Particulars Working Capital OP/TC (%) 1 Acropetal Technologies Limited (Segmental) 18.21% 2 Akshay Software Technologies Limited 0.46% 3 Celstream technologies Pvt. Limited 11.70% ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... on the specification provided by the STE Group for the implementation of 1C design, its maintenance, verification and software development. So, the role of STE is that of a contract captive design centre and as such, the findings of the TPO in this regard cannot be interfered with.." ITA Nos.609& 168/Del/2015 for A.Y. 2010-11 (P.B. page 1861, Vol.V) "9. Undisputedly the facts of the case under consideration are identical to that of AY 2009-10. In an order passed by the Tribunal in assessee's own case in 1TA No.l672/Del/2014 for AY 2009-10 order dated 22.02.2017, available at pages 1966 to 2001of Vol. 5 of the paper book, relevant page 1982, assessee has been treated as a captive service provider involved at the design and development stage only with a limited scope of work and is not involved in the process of conceptualization of any product or works and works only on the specification provided by the STE Group for the implementation of 1C design, its maintenance, verification and software development. So, for the purpose of benchmarking the international transactions, the assessee is to be treated as a contract captive design centre." 14. He submitted that the function ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... comparable in the case of Philips India Ltd. vide ITA No.863 & 539/Kol/2016, order dated 15th December, 2017 and also by the Madras Bench of the Tribunal in the case of M/s Symantec Software & Services India Pvt. Ltd. vide ITA No.614/Mds/2016, order dated 20th January, 2017. Referring to the various other decisions of the Tribunal, he submitted that this company was excluded from the list of comparables. 19. So far as E-infochips Limited is concerned, he submitted that this company should also be excluded since it operates as a full-fledged risk taking entrepreneur whereas the assessee company operates at minimal risk as 100% services are provided to its AEs only and is a captive unit and is remunerated on a cost plus basis. He submitted that E-infochips has income from the following:- a) Software Services; b) Hardware; and c) Consultancy charges. 20. However, the assessee is mainly engaged in provision of software development services related to design, implementation, maintenance with respect to ICs as per the specifications prescribed by the AEs. Further, E-infochips bears entrepreneurial risks and other business risks whereas no risk is undertaken by the assessee in thi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... to specific segment as the underlying services are used interchangeably. The company has also research and development activities whereas the assessee does not have such R&D. He submitted that the TPO himself did not select this company as a comparable for assessment year 2012-13 and 2013-14 and accordingly had accepted the assessee's approach of rejection of this company in its TP studies. Referring to the decision of the Delhi Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Alcatel-Lucent India Ltd. (supra), he submitted that this company was excluded from the list of comparables and on appeal by Revenue, the Hon'ble High Court upheld the order of the Tribunal on this issue.. He accordingly submitted that this company should be excluded from the list of comparables. 23. So far as Larsen & Toubro Infotech Limited (L&T) is concerned, he submitted that there is material difference in the FAR analysis between the two companies. While L&T operates as a full-fledged risk taking entrepreneur, the assessee company operates at minimal risk as the 100% services are provided to AEs and is remunerated on a cost plus basis. L&T has got software development services and products whereas the assesse ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... taking entrepreneur, the assessee company operates at minimal risk as 100% services are provided to AEs and is remunerated on a cost plus basis. Persistent Systems Ltd. is predominantly engaged in outsourced software development services. It has got income from sale of software services and products whereas the assessee is mainly engaged in software development related to design, implementation and maintenance with respect to ICs as per specifications provided by the AE. He submitted that Persistent had entered into acquisition of OPD business of Infospectrum India Pvt. Ltd. and has entered into JV with Sprint Nextel Corporation which has benefitted the company to grow its operations. However, the assessee company has not entered into any such extraordinary activity during the year. Therefore, on this issue alone, this company should be excluded from the list of comparables. He submitted that Persistent has huge intangibles whereas the assessee dos not own brand/proprietary products. While Persistent bears entrepreneurial risk and other business risk, the assessee has not undertaken any risk in this behalf. Referring to the decision of the Tribunal in assessee's own case for assess ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the ground of its financial year being calendar year. Referring to the decision of the Tribunal in assessee's own case for assessment year 2010-11, he submitted that the Tribunal in the said decision has held that the comparables cannot be rejected merely on the ground that financial year followed is different. Referring to the decision of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of Mckinsey Knowledge in ITA No.217/2014, order dated 27th March, 2015 and in the case of Baxter India Pvt. Ltd., ITA 260/2018, order dated 27th February, 2018, he submitted that this company was directed to be included on the ground that if from the available data on record, the results for financial year can reasonably be extrapolated, then, the companies cannot be excluded. He accordingly submitted that R. Systems International Ltd. should be directed to be included in the list of comparables. 30. So far as CG VAK Software & Exports Ltd. is concerned, he submitted that the TPO has rejected this company as it is making persistent losses in software services segment. He submitted that this company is not making persistent losses and has earned profit in one of the two preceding years. Further, this c ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the various decisions including that of Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of Mckinsey Knowledge Centre India (P) Ltd., ITA No.217/2014, he submitted that this company should be retained as a comparable since from the available data on record, the results for F.Y. can reasonably be extrapolated. 34. So far as Maveric Systems Ltd. is concerned, he submitted that the TPO rejected the same on the ground that this company has incurred higher indirect cost in this year and also incurred cost on establishing delivery mechanisms. He submitted that the TPO has not demonstrated that any indirect cost is involved and its impact on the net margin. He submitted that the revenue of the company has increased in the year over the previous year. Further, the company passes all the filters applied by the TPO himself and, therefore, this company should be taken as a comparable. He submitted that the TPO himself in assessee's own case for assessment year 2010-11 has accepted Maveric Systems Ltd. as a comparable. He accordingly submitted that this company should be accepted as a comparable company. 35. So far as benefit of risk adjustment is concerned as per ground of appeal No.4, he submitted ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... #39;ble Supreme Court in Goetze (India) Ltd. reported in 284 ITR 323, rejected the claim of the assessee on the ground that the assessee did not claim such depreciation on goodwill in its return of income. He submitted that the Tribunal in assessee's own case for assessment year 2009-10 and 2010-11, has decided the issue regarding the non-applicability of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Goetze (India) Ltd. and has restored the issue to the file of the Assessing Officer with a direction to re-examine the issue afresh after providing an opportunity of being heard. He accordingly submitted that he has no objection if the issue is restored to the file of the Assessing Officer with similar directions. 39. The ld. DR, on the other hand, strongly supported the order of the Assessing Officer/TPO/DRP. He submitted that the DRP, after considering the various arguments advanced by the assessee during the course of hearing has given categorical findings as to why certain comparables are to be included or to be excluded. So far as the other issues are concerned, the ld. DR heavily relied on the order of the DRP and submitted that they have given justifiable reasons for rejecting v ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ider each comparable. 42. So far as Persistent Systems Ltd. is concerned, we find from the details produced by the assessee in the paper book that this company operates as a fullfledged risk taking entrepreneur and is predominantly engaged in outsourced software product development services. It has got income from sale of software services and products and the company has disclosed segment information only on the basis of the consolidated financial statements which are presented together with the unconsolidated financial statements. Further it has acquired the OPD business of Infospectrum India Pvt. Ltd. and has entered into JV with Sprint Nextel Corporation. The above company further holds huge intangibles and also bears entrepreneurial risk and other business risks. However, the assessee company operates at minimal risk as the 100% services are provided to AEs and is remunerated on a cost plus basis. Further, the assessee is mainly engaged in software development related to design, implementation and maintenance with respect to ICs as per specifications provided by the AE. It has not entered into any extraordinary activity and does not own any brand or proprietary products. Furt ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... re development, implementation and support services are various sub-segments of software development services only and require employment of software engineers and retained this company as a comparable for benchmarking international transactions. 48. However, perusal of the annual report of this company, available at page 1735 to 1782 of the Paper Book Vol.IV, goes to prove that the substantial revenue of this company is from sales and operating sales of licence; software services, export from SEZ unit, export from STPI unit and revenue from subscription. It is also apparently clear that software services segment accounts for Rs. 8.91 crores out of the total sales of Rs. 77 crores whereas segmental results are not available. So, when this company's substantial revenue is from other various business segments like sale of licence, software services and segmental results are not available, this company cannot be a valid comparable for benchmarking the international transaction, hence ordered to be excluded." 48. In view of what has been discussed above, in the face of the fact that Thirdware is having substantial revenue from sales and operating sales of licence; software serv ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... gy Services goes, it was part of the Citi Group and was during the financial year in question acquired on 21.01.2009 by the Wipro Ltd. as a subsidiary. As a part of the arrangement, the existing contracts pertaining to the work of the Citi Group continued to be with the newly created entity, i.e., Wipro Technology Services. Equally importantly, is that there was no published segmented data as far as software development or its finances were concerned with respect to Wipro Technology Services. In these circumstances, the findings of the ITAT are purely factual and cannot be gone into as no substantial question of law arises for consideration." 39. Similarly, coordinate Bench of the Tribunal in case cited as Open Solutions Software Services Pvt. Ltd. (supra) examined the comparability of Wipro avisavis Open Solutions Software Services Pvt. Ltd. engaged in software development, research and other related services and found the same to be invalid comparable in the light of the provisions contained u/s 92B(2) of the Act by returning following findings :- "The aforesaid provision clearly envisages that, if a transaction has been entered into by an enterprise with unrelated party, the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Further, the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of Agnity India Technologies Pvt. Ltd. vide ITA No.447/2018, order dated 13.04.2018, has observed as under:- "The question of law urged by the Revenue with respect to the exclusion of a comparable i.e. Wipro Technology Services Limited in the Arm's Length Price (ALP) determination, of the assessee is that the said entity reported abnormally high profits and had a large turnover and had the benefit of strong brand presence. It is also found that the entity (Wipro Technology) had undergone restructuring which had a significant impact upon its return and profitability. Learned counsel sought to rely upon the decision of this Court in Chryscapital Investment Advisors (India) Pvt. Ltd. v. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax ( 2015) 376 ITR 183 Del. This Court is of the opinion that the ITAT conclusions were reasonable and justified. A strong brand presence and unusual events such as amalgamation, merger, etc. - which can have a miserable impact and are discerning from the record, are reasonable grounds for excluding a particular comparable; which was a case of Wipro Technology. The Tribunal also noted that in such cases the issue of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rformed by the assessee. From the details on record, we find that while the assessee is into software development services, this company i.e. e-Zest Solutions Ltd., is rendering product development services and high end technical services which come under the category of KPO services. It has been held by the co- ordinate bench of this Tribunal in the case of Capital IQ Information Systems (India) (P) Ltd. Supra) that KPO services are not comparable to software development services and are therefore not comparable. Following the aforesaid decision of the co-ordinate bench of the Hyderabad Tribunal in the aforesaid case, we hold that this company, i.e. e-Zest Solutions Ltd. be omitted from the set of comparables for the period under consideration in the case on hand. The A.O. / TPO is accordingly directed." 57. In view of what has been discussed above, we are of the considered view that E-Zest cannot be a valid comparable on ground of functional dissimilarity being into three segments with no segmental information available. So, we ordered to exclude E- Zest from the final set of comparables. 50. In view of the above discussion, we are of the considered opinion that E-Zest solutio ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... onsultancy charges. It bears entrepreneurial risks and other business risks whereas the assessee company operates at minimal risk as the 100% services are provided to AEs only. The assessee is a captive unit and is remunerated on a cost plus basis. Further, the assessee is mainly engaged in provision of software development services related to design, implementation, maintenance with respect to ICs as per the specifications prescribed by the AEs. The assessee also does not undertake any business risk. Further, the TPO himself has not selected this company as a comparable for assessment year 2012-13 and 2013-14 and accepted the rejection of the company in the transfer pricing study report. We find the Delhi Bench of the Tribunal in Alcatel-Lucent India Ltd. vs. DCIT vide ITA No.6856/Del/2015, order dated 24th August, 2016 for assessment year 2011-12 has observed as under:- "11.1 As far as ground no. 3.6 of the assesse's appeal is concerned, the comparables are being taken up one by one as under - (ii) E-lnfochips Ltd. - The Id. AR has submitted that E-lnfochips is engaged in diversified services like IT Enabled Services, Development of Software Products and Solutions for Product ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... shore (47%) and it holds intangible assets such as software business right, capital work-in-progress amounting to Rs. 103.83 crore. The company during the current financial year has acquired a transfer agency business for Canadian Dollar 62.3 million from a globally reputed bank servicing local clients represented by asset management companies, banks, insurance companies, etc. However, we find the assessee does not bear entrepreneurial risk and other business risks. Further, the assessee company operates at a minimal risk as the 100% services are provided to AEs and is remunerated on a cost plus basis. The assessee is mainly engaged in software development related to design, implementation and maintenance as per specifications provided by AE. The assessee does not own any brand or proprietary produces and has no on site operations. The assessee company has not acquired any business during the impugned assessment year nor has undertaken any risk. We find the Tribunal in assessee's own case for assessment year 2010-11 has discussed the issue of exclusion of L&T as a comparable and has restored the issue to the file of Assessing Officer/TPO for deciding the issue afresh. Respectfully ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... y is functionally different since it provides support in software development, consultancy and systems integration services to Persistent group of companies and also enjoys the benefit being a part of the Special Economic Zone Scheme in India. It has incurred huge expenditure on account of Research &Development activities and has abnormal profit during the year since its turnover has increased by 184% and the net profit has increased by 250% for the year ending 2011. This company was excluded by the Delhi Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Alcatel-Lucent India Ltd. by observing as under:- "10.9 We heard both the parties and perused the records. This company is engaged in software product and is dealing in outsourcing of Software Product Development. But, the assessee company is engaged in the business of digital switching equipment and related software, cellular exchange / transmission equipment and provides related services, intelligent network and broadband solutions, equipment and related services. Thus, the functions of both the companies are different. In fact in earlier Assessment Year the ITAT already excluded this company as comparable in assessee's own case on account ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... oftware; and xiii) Logitek G 25 Maming Wheel. 62. We further find the expenses such as depreciation and interest which form a significant component of total expenses, are not specifically allocated to specific segment as the underlying services are used interchangeably. It has incurred huge research and development expenses. Further, the TPO himself has not selected this company as a comparable for assessment year 2012-13 and 2013-14 and accordingly has accepted the assessee's approach of rejection of this company in the TP study report. The Delhi Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Alcatel-Lucent India Ltd. (supra), has excluded this company from the list of comparables by observing as under:- "(vii) Sankhya lnfotech Limited (Service Segment) - It is seen that this company is a leading simulation and training solutions provider which provides end to end simulation solutions. This company also develops customizable products for training purposes. It is further seen that the schedule pertaining to segment reporting in the annual report, to which the TPO has also referred to, is incomplete because depreciation and interest have not been specifically allocated to any specific se ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r proprietary products. It has not incurred any R&D and does not bear any entrepreneurial risk and other business risks. The various benches of the Tribunal has excluded Sasken from the list of comparables on account of material FAR differences. In view of the above discussion we hold that Sasken cannot be considered as a comparable with that of the assessee company and has to be excluded from the list of comparables. We hold and direct accordingly. 65. The next grievance of the assessee is regarding exclusion of certain comparables by the A.O./TPO/DRP which were considered as comparable by the assessee. 66. So far as R. Systems International Ltd. is concerned, we find that this has been excluded by the TPO solely on the ground of its financial year being calendar year. We find the Tribunal in assessee's own case for assessment year 2010-11, has held that the comparables cannot be rejected merely on the ground that financial year followed is different. The Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of Mckinsey Knowledge in ITA No.217/2014, order dated 27th March, 2015 and in the case of Baxter India Pvt. Ltd., ITA 260/2018, order dated 27th February, 2018, directed to include this ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rable. Similar view has been taken by the Bangalore Bench of the Tribunal in the case of M/s Marvell India Pvt. Ltd., ITA No.384/Bang/2016, order dated 28th June, 2017 for assessment year 2011-12. Further, this company is accepted by the TPO as a comparable for assessment year 2010-11. In view of the above discussions, we direct the A.O./TPO to include this company as a comparable. 70. So far as Caliber Point Business Solutions Ltd. is concerned, we find the TPO rejected this company from the list of comparables on the ground that it provides BPO services and, therefore, is not comparable. Further, this company does not pass the different financial year ending filter. We find the Tribunal in assessee's own case for assessment year 2010-11 has held that the comparable cannot be rejected merely on the ground that financial year followed is different. We find the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of Mckinsey Knowledge Centre India (P) Ltd., ITA No.217/2014, has held that this company should be retained as a comparable since from the available data on record, the results for F.Y. can reasonably be extrapolated. We, therefore, restore this issue to the file of the A.O./TPO to de ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... afresh after giving due opportunity of being heard to the assessee. The Assessing Officer/TPO shall decide the issue as per fact and law. We hold and direct accordingly. Ground of appeal No.3 of the assessee is accordingly allowed for statistical purposes. 75 Ground of appeal No.4 relates to risk adjustment. After hearing both the sides, we find identical issue had come up before the Tribunal in assessee's own case for assessment year 2010-11 and the issue was restored to the file of the TPO with the following directions:- "21. So, following the decision rendered by the coordinate Bench of the Tribunal, we are of the considered view that the assessee is entitled for risk adjustment to the net margin of the comparables for bringing them at par with the taxpayer on supplying the complete data by the assessee. So, ground no. 12 is determined in favour of the assessee for statistical purposes." 76. Respectfully following the decision of the Tribunal in assessee's own case for the immediately preceding assessment year, this ground is restored to the file of the A.O./TPO for deciding this issue afresh and in accordance with the law, after giving due opportunity of being heard to the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ly one year or less than one year. 58. In the given circumstances, when the aforesaid fixed licences were rented for a limited period only which is less than one year, no enduring benefit accrues to the assessee nor any ownership right vests in the assessee. Issue in controversy has already been dealt with by the Hon'ble jurisdictional High Court in Director of Income-tax vs. Infrasoft Ltd. (supra), the ratio of which is that :- "what is transferred is neither the copyright in the software nor the use of the copyright in software, but what is transferred is the right to use the copyrighted material or article which is clearly distinct from the right in the copyright which is too for only limited period." 59. So, these expenses, to our mind, are in the nature of revenue expenses incurred for the purpose of business. Moreover, one time expenditure to purchase time based software licenses cannot be deferred and as such, are revenue expenses to run the business. So, the AO is directed to re-examine the issue accordingly and as such, this ground is determined in favour of the assessee. 79. We find, following the above decision, the Tribunal in assessee's own case for assessme ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . (supra) rendered by Hon'ble Delhi High Court is that :- "when the training of the personnel of the assessee was imperative to run the business and is in the nature of technical support to the assessee it will certainly enhance the profit of the company on which it will pay the taxes, such expenditure cannot be treated as capital in nature rather they are revenue in nature." 63. We are of the considered view that in the light of the judgment in case of Commissioner of Income-tax-II vs. Munjal Showa Ltd. (supra), the AO is directed to re-examine the issue afresh after providing an opportunity of being heard to the assessee." 73. Since, undisputedly, the taxpayer has not undergone any change in its business model and the issue is identical, the expenses of Rs. 13,84,084/- are ordered to be treated as revenue in nature by following the decision of the coordinate Bench of the Tribunal rendered in taxpayer's own case in AY 2009-10 (supra). Hence, ground no.18 is determined in favour of the taxpayer." 82. Respectfully following the decision of the Tribunal in assessee's own case and in absence of any contrary material brought to our notice against the order of the Tribuna ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
