9911796707
TMI Blog2021 (10) TMI 1140X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ntical except for the assessment years and amounts involved and therefore submitted that the submissions made by him for one appeal would be applicable to the other appeal also. Ld. DR did not controvert the aforesaid submissions of Ld. AR. In view of the aforesaid submissions of the Counsel, we for the sake of convenience proceed to dispose of both the appeals by a consolidated order but for the sake of reference refer to the facts for A.Y. 2013-14 (ITA No. 2987/Del/2018). 3. The relevant facts as culled from the material on records are as under: 4. Assessee is a company stated to be engaged in the business of providing management consultancy and advisory services in India. Assessee filed its return of income for A.Y. 2013-14 on 27.11.20 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of the assessee by not bringing out and establishing what precise services were actually provided by the assessee company to GPI group companies. Without such an analysis it cannot be concluded if the secondment costs were undertaken wholly and exclusively for business purposes and hence are valid business expenditure u/s. 37 of the Act or if they were reasonable and not excessive within the meaning of section 40A(2)(a) of the Act. (iv) That the ground of appeal are without prejudice to each other. (v) That the appellant craves to add, alter amend or forego any ground(s) of the appeal raised above at the time of hearing." 5. Before us, at the outset, Learned DR submitted that though the Revenue has raised various grounds but the sole ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... a real and economic employer of the seconded employees as according to him assessee did not have effective control over the seconded employees. He accordingly considered 50% of the total secondment cost of Rs. 14,33,55,806/- i.e. Rs. 7,16,77,903/- to be not allowable and accordingly disallowed the same. 7. Aggrieved by the order of AO, assessee carried the matter before the CIT(A) who after considering the submissions of the assessee deleted the addition made by AO. While deleting the addition, CIT(A) has given a finding that the conclusion of the AO of the secondment agreement being not a genuine agreement and the seconded employees to be not working wholly and exclusively for the assessee was not convincing for the reason that seconded e ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed on any material on record to demonstrate that the seconded employees were not working wholly and exclusively for the assessee. He thus supported the order of CIT(A). 10. We have heard the rival submissions and perused the materials available on record. The issue in the present ground is with respect to the deleting the addition of Rs. 7.16 crore (rounded off) that was made by AO but deleted by the CIT(A). Before us, Learned AR has pointed out that in A.Y. 2011-12, assessee had taken on seconded employees who were originally employee in the flagship group company i.e. Godfrey Philips India (P) Ltd. and then seconded to the assessee on cost to company basis, without any mark-up. It has been further pointed by the Learned AR that no disall ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
