9911796707
TMI Blog2021 (10) TMI 1140X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... owed by the AO in earlier years. The aforesaid contention of the Learned AR has not controverted by the Revenue. We find that AO on one hand had held the secondment agreement to be not a genuine agreement but on the other hand had disallowed only 50% of the expenditure which according to us appear to be contrary. We further find that CIT(A) for the reasons stated in the order has deleted the addition. Before us, Revenue has not pointed any fallacy in the findings of CIT(A). In such a situation, we find no reason to interfere with the order of CIT(A) and thus the ground of Revenue is dismissed. - ITA Nos. 2987 & 2988/Del/2018 - - - Dated:- 14-10-2021 - Anil Chaturvedi, Member (A) And Suchitra Kamble, Member (J) For the Appellant : ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e CIT(A) who vide order dated 08.02.2018 in Appeal No. 61/17-18 decided the issue in favour of the assessee. Aggrieved by the order of CIT(A), Revenue is now in appeal before us and has raised the following grounds: (i) That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred by not appreciating the fats available on record and in deleting the addition made on account of Claims of amount paid for employees taken on Secondment amounting to ₹ 7,16,77,903/-. (ii) That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred by not appreciating that 86% of the revenue of the Assessee is attributable to its Associates Company, GPI to which it is also billing 99% of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... count is ₹ 14.43 crore (rounded off) and the total payment made to secondment was ₹ 14.33 crore (rounded off) which worked out to ₹ 99.28% of the total salary. He also noted that the company operated from rental premises which was taken from Godfrey Philips India (P) Ltd. (GPI) to which it had paid rent, which included for the use of all facilities of office equipments. Assessee was therefore asked to show-cause as to who was the real and economic employer of the secondment and why the proportionate expenses claimed by the assessee and paid by Godfrey Philips India (P) Ltd. (GPI) on account of secondment should not be attributable to the business of Godfrey Philips India (P) Ltd. Assessee made the detailed submissions whic ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d by GPI. CIT(A) also noted that as against the salary paid to the seconded employees, the assessee had received professional fee aggregating to ₹ 22.74 crore for providing management consultancy and advisory services and the TDS was also deducted on the payment made to GPI. She further noted that seconded employees was taken on seconded in A.Y. 2011-12. She for all the reasons stated in her order deleted the addition made by AO. Aggrieved by the order of CIT(A), Revenue is now before us. 8. Before us, Learned DR took us to the finding of AO and supported the order of AO. 9. Learned AR on the other hand reiterated the submissions made before the AO and CIT(A) and further submitted that the assessee was rendering management consu ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e secondment agreement to be not a genuine agreement but on the other hand had disallowed only 50% of the expenditure which according to us appear to be contrary. We further find that CIT(A) for the reasons stated in the order has deleted the addition. Before us, Revenue has not pointed any fallacy in the findings of CIT(A). In such a situation, we find no reason to interfere with the order of CIT(A) and thus the ground of Revenue is dismissed. 11. In the result, appeal of the Revenue in ITA No. 2987/Del/2018 for A.Y. 2013-14 is dismissed. 12. As far as ITA No. 2988/Del/2018 for A.Y. 2014-15 is concerned, before us, both the parties have submitted that the issue raised in the present appeal for A.Y. 2014-15 is identical to that of ITA ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
