9911796707
TMI Blog2022 (4) TMI 1271X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 1 (hereinafter referred to as "Act"). The computation of income of insurance company would be prepared on these accounts subject to the adjustments that are provided in Rule 2 and Rule 5 of the first schedule of the Act. In effect as per Rule 5 of the first schedule to the Act, the assessee"s income would be profits as disclosed in the profit and loss account prepared as per the Insurance Act, 1938 excluding the amounts disallowable u/s. 30 to 43B of the Income Tax Act. This has been duly followed by the assessee in the instant case. 3. The ground Nos. 3 & 4 raised by the assessee are challenging the disallowance of re-insurance premium paid to non-resident reinsurers, who do not have a place of business / branch in India, u/s.37(1) of the Act. The alternative disallowance that was made by the ld. AO in this regard was u/s.40(a)(i) of the Act for payments made without deduction of tax at source. 3.1. We have heard rival submissions and perused the materials available on record. We find that assessee is in the business of general insurance. During the year, the assessee paid an amount of Rs. 681,13,22,176/- to non-resident companies (foreign reinsurers) as reinsurance premium. The ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t and consequently whether the provisions of Explanation to Section 37(1) of the Act after 26/12/2014 could be brought into force ? b) Whether reinsurance payment made would be in violation of provisions of Section 40(a)(i) of the Act ? 3.4. We find that the ld. AO had heavily placed reliance on the decision of the Co-ordinate Bench of Chennai Tribunal in the case of DCIT vs. Cholamandalam MS General Insurance Co. Ltd where the provisions of Section 2(9) r.w.s. 101A(7) of the Insurance Act, 1938 were dealt with and the issue in dispute was decided against the assessee. In this regard, it would be relevant to reproduce the provisions of Section 2(9) and Section 101A of the Insurance Act, 1938 as under:- (9) "Insurer" means- (a) any individual or unincorporated body of individuals or body corporate incorporated under the law of any country other than India, carrying on insurance business not being a person specified in sub-clause (c)of this clause which- (i) carries on that business in India, or (ii) has his or its principal place of business or is domiciled in India, or (iii) with the object of obtaining insurance business, employs a representative, or maintains a place ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... mean the period from the 1st April to the 31st December of that year. (4) A notification under subsection (2) may also specify the terms and conditions in respect of any business of re-insurance required to be transacted under this section and such terms and conditions shall be binding on Indian re-insurers and other insurers. (5) No notification under sub-section (2) shall be issued except after consultation with the Advisory Committee constituted under Section 101B. (6) Every notification issued under this section shall be laid before each House of Parliament, as soon as may be, after it is made. (7) For the removal of doubts, it is hereby declared that nothing in subsection (I) shall be construed as preventing an insurer from reinsuring with any Indian re-insurer or other insurer the entire sum assured on any policy or any portion thereof in excess of the percentage specified under sub-section (2)." 3.5. Further w.e.f. 26/12/2014, Insurance Laws (Amendment) Act, 2015 was brought into force wherein the erstwhile Section 2(9) of the Insurance Act, 1938 was amended. The amended definition of "insurer" as per Section 2(9) of the Insurance Act is as under:- (9) "insurer" ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... surer the entire sum assured on any policy or any portion thereof in excess of the percentage specified under sub-section (2)." 3.8. From the aforesaid provision, the expression "other insurer" assumes significance. Whether the aforesaid expression "other insurer" would include foreign re-insurers? If the answer is in the affirmative, then the assessee has not violated any provisions of the Insurance Act, 1938 and consequently there cannot be any disallowance in terms of Explanation 1 to Section 37(1) of the Income Tax Act. If the answer is in the negative, then the assessee had violated the provisions of Insurance Act and consequently would be liable for disallowance in terms of Explanation 1 to Section 37 of the Income Tax Act. 3.9. As stated earlier, the provisions of Insurance Act i.e. Section 2(9) and Section 101A(7) were subject matter of adjudication by the Chennai Tribunal in the case of Cholamandalam MS General Insurance Co. Ltd referred to supra which was heavily relied upon by the ld. AO. The relevant operative portion of the said judgement as reproduced in the order of the ld. CIT(A) is reproduced herein for the sake of convenience:- " The question now arises for co ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... epartment or the Appellant? (ii) Whether the ITAT erred in holding that the IRDA (General Insurance - Reinsurance) Regulation, 2000 is contrary to section 101A of the Insurance Act, 1938 when it does not have the power to decide the validity of regulations made by the IRDA? (iii) Whether the ITAT erred in holding that reinsurance payments to non-residents are prohibited by law and therefore hit by Explanation 1 to section 37 of the Act? (iv) Whether the ITAT erred in failing to follow co-ordinate bench decisions on the very question of reinsurance payments to non-residents when it ought to have referred the matter to a larger bench if it disagreed with such judgments?" 3.11. The Hon"ble Madras High Court considered Cholamandalam MS General Insurance Co. Ltd case in TCA No.754 of 2018 as the lead case. Out of the aforesaid four questions, the question Nos. 2 & 3 would be relevant for our adjudication in the instant case. The aforesaid questions were addressed by the Hon"ble Madras High Court by observing as under:- "12.The sum and substance of the conclusion of the Tribunal is that the entire reinsurance arrangement of the assessee-company is in violation and contrary to th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... as made any such endeavour, but the Tribunal has done such an exercise which, in our considered opinion, was without jurisdiction. Nevertheless, as we have heard elaborate arguments on the side of the assessees as well as the Revenue, we are constrained to test the correctness of the order passed by the Tribunal in this regard. Thus, we have to decide as to whether there is a prohibition under law for insurance payments to non-residents so as to attract the rigour of Explanation 1 to Section 37 of the Act. 16.In this regard, we may straightaway refer to the statement of objects and reasons for the Insurance (Amendment) Bill, 1961, which was introduced in the Lok Sabha on 14th February, 1961. This Bill was passed and the Insurance Act stood amended. The Hon'ble Finance Minister for the Union of India would state that re-insurance is an essential part of general insurance business and at present (1961), insurance companies, operating in India, are dependent on companies outside India for a very large part of their requirements in this connection and more often than not enter into dis-advantageous arrangements. Moreover, re-insurance with companies outside India results in loss ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ation .-For the purposes of this sub- section, the year 1961 shall be deemed to mean the period from 1st April to the 31st December of that year. (4) A notification under sub-section (2) may also specify the terms and conditions in respect of any business of re-insurance required to be transacted under this section and such terms and conditions shall be binding on Indian re-insurers and other insurers. (5) No notification under sub-section (2) shall be issued except after consultation with the Advisory Committee constituted under section 101B. (6) Every notification issued under this section shall be laid before each House of Parliament, as soon as may be, after it is made. (7) For the removal of doubts, it is hereby declared that nothing in sub-section (1) shall be construed as preventing an insurer from re-insuring with any Indian re-insurer or other insurer the entire sum assured on any policy or any portion thereof in excess of the percentage specified under sub-section (2). (8) In this section,- (i) "policy" means a policy issued or renewed on or after the 1st day of April, 1961, in respect of general insurance business transacted in India and does not include a re ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nd 26 of the Insurance Regulatory and Development Authority Act, 1999, the Central Government framed the Insurance Regulatory and Development Authority Regulations pertaining to General Insurance - Reinsurance called Insurance Regulatory and Development Authority (General Insurance - Reinsurance) Regulations, 2000. Chapter II of the said Regulations deals with procedure to be followed for re-insurance arrangements and it would be beneficial to refer to the said provision, which reads as follows:- "Chapter II:- 3. Procedure to be followed for Reinsurance Arrangements:- (1) The Reinsurance Programme shall continue to be guided by the following objectives to: a) maximise retention within the country; b) develop adequate capacity; c) secure the best possible protection for the reinsurance costs incurred; d) simplify the administration of business. (2) Every insurer shall maintain the maximum possible retention commensurate with its financial strength and volume of business. The Authority may require an insurer to justify its retention policy and may give such directions as considered necessary in order to ensure that the Indian insurer is not merely fronting for a forei ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r. Where it is necessary in respect of specialised insurance to cede a share exceeding such limit to any particular reinsurer, the insurer may seek the specific approval of the Authority giving reasons for such cession. (10) Every insurer shall offer an opportunity to other Indian insurers including the Indian Reinsurer to participate in its facultative and treaty surpluses before placement of such cessions outside India. (11) The Indian Reinsurer shall retrocede at least 50% of the obligatory cessions received by it to the ceding insurers after protecting the portfolio by suitable excess of loss covers. Such retrocession shall be at original terms plus an over-riding commission to the Indian Reinsurer not exceeding 2.5%. The retrocession to each ceding insurer shall be in proportion to its cessions to the Indian Reinsurer. (12) Every insurer shall be required to submit to the Authority statistics relating to its reinsurance transactions in such forms as the Authority may specify, together with its annual accounts." The above Regulations are Statutory Regulations, which bind the stakeholders. 20.A conjoint reading of Regulation 3 and sub-Regulations (1) to (10) will clearly ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s and regulation and there is no corresponding regulation in India, as a result of which, foreign re-insurance companies can accept re-insurance business without taking any licence and without opening any branch in India. Thus, the suggestion was there is a need for regulation for any foreign country coming into India and doing re-insurance business. Ultimately, the Standing Committee on Finance noted that there is no bar on foreign re-insurance business companies carrying on re- insurance business in the country without any licence or opening a branch, nor there was a regulation to control the transaction of foreign re-insurers. This ultimately, led to the amendment to the Insurance Act by amending the definition of "insurer" in Section 2(9) of the Insurance Act to mean a foreign company engaged in re-insurance business through a branch established in India. The Tribunal was of the view that unless and until a branch is opened by the foreign re- insurance company, the question of conducting re-insurance business in India cannot be done. In our considered view, this conclusion of the Tribunal is not sustainable. The answer lies not in any recent proceedings but, a circular issued b ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s and IRDA is to be kept informed. ADs designated by these insurance companies are now permitted to make remittances falling under such approved reinsurance arrangements without reference to the bank. 24.The above will clearly show that re-insurance arrangement with a foreign insurance company is permissible. Thus, it is evidently clear that on and after the introduction of Section 101A to the Insurance Act, there is a mandatory requirement for other insurer to re-insure with the Indian re-insurers and such percentage is put to a maximum of 30% and the language of Section 101A nowhere prohibits the re-insurance with foreign re-insurance companies above the percentage specified by the authority with previous approval by the Central Government. That apart, the Tribunal erred in drawing a presumption regarding prohibition of re-insurance with foreign re- insurance companies. This presumption is erroneous for the simple reason that the statement of objects of the Insurance Act itself clearly stipulates wherever there is a prohibition. By way of illustration, we can refer to Sections 2(c), 2(c)(b), 2(9), 32(a), 40, 41, 42(a) and 52(a). Therefore, no inference could have been drawn, as ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n 40(a)(i). This finding is not supported with any reasons. Therefore, the Tribunal misdirected itself, exceeded the scope of remand as ordered by the Division Bench and ventured into a jurisdiction, which is wholly prohibited in the light of the plain language of Section 254(1) of the Act. 27.Thus, for the above reasons, we are of the clear view that the order passed by the Tribunal calls for interference. Accordingly, the appeals, filed by the assessee are allowed and the substantial questions of law framed are answered in favour of the assessee. 28.In the light of the above, the matter stands remanded to the Tribunal to take a decision on the following points:- (i) Whether the Assessing Officer was right in disallowing the re-insurance premium under Section 40(a)(i) of the Act; (ii) Whether the CIT(A) was right in rejecting partially the appeal filed by the assessee; and (iii) Whether the CIT(A) was justified in restricting the claim of the assessee to 15% instead of confirming the order passed by the Assessing Officer. 29.We make it clear that the Tribunal shall decide the above questions alone and nothing more and the decision shall be taken based on the available ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... foreign reinsurers outside India who do not have any business presence in India, was permitted in law and was permitted activity under the insurance Act 1938 and IRDA (General Insurance-Reinsurance) Regulations issued by the authority. It was also mentioned in the said letter that the regulations issued by the authority i.e. IRDA are subordinate legislation which are also placed before both the Houses of Parliament. Hence, in view of the above, it could be safely concluded that the payment of reinsurance premium by the assessee to foreign reinsurers could not be construed as payment made in violation of provisions of Insurance Act and IRDA regulations. 3.14. We find that the ld. CIT(A) had considered the entire issue in dispute before us by applying the amended definition of Section 2(9) of the Insurance Amendment Act, 2015 which came into force from 26/12/2014 wherein, it was mentioned that insurer means foreign insurance company having a branch established in India. The ld. CIT(A) observed that since the foreign reinsurer in the instant case does not have a branch or place of business in India, the amended definition of Section 2(9) of the Act w.e.f. 26/12/2014 would go against ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... no TDS was deducted by the appellant company. Income-tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) in the case of DCIT vs. Cholamandalam Ms General insurance Company Ltd held that the profit of non-resident reinsurance company or the person in India who has standing contract with underwriters, who are members of the Lloyds, is taxable in India. Accordingly, it was held that the insurance companies had to necessarily deduct tax on the premium paid to foreign companies for reinsurance. Appellant has not deducted TDS on the ground that income related to reinsurance with non residents is not deemed to accrue or arise in lndia. As per the appellant there are certain treaties which provides that insurance business except reinsurance business would be deemed to be a PE of the non resident in the other contracting state. AO has allowed reinsurance premium ceded to such non resident where there is a specific exclusion for the insurance companies from the purview of PE. As a corollary implies that where there is no specific exclusion, the reinsurance business would be deemed to be a PE in the other contracting state. The business gets generated in the contracting state and independent brokers scout for bus ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... this question to the Tribunal to decide whether the ld. AO was right in disallowing the reinsurance premium u/s. 40(a)(i) of the Act. Hence, that question needs to be decided by the Tribunal. Accordingly, the issue of applicability of provisions of section 40(a)(i) of the Act is adjudicated by us independently. We find that the Co-ordinate Bench of this Mumbai Tribunal in the case of DCIT vs. ICICI Lombard General Insurance Co. Pvt. Ltd., in ITA Nos. 6837 & 6832/Mum/2014 for A.Y. 2005-06 and 2009-10 vide order dated 04/10/2016 had adjudicated the very same issue in respect of payments made to M/s. Odyssey America Reinsurance Corporation, Singapore for providing reinsurance business, without deduction of tax at source and applicability of provisions of Section 40(a)(i) of the Act. We find that the Tribunal in the aforesaid case placed reliance in assessee"s own case for A.Y.2004-05 reported in 152 ITD 855 and also in yet another case rendered in the context of revision proceedings u/s.263 of the Act in ITA No.5777/Mum/2011, had quashed the revision proceedings u/s.263 of the Act by observing as under:- "2.3. Thus, the Tribunal by the aforesaid order held that invocation of revisi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ppellant before us that in such situations, the onus is on the Revenue to establish that the foreign company has a 'business connection' or a PE in India so as to invite any tax liability under the Indian tax laws. Ostensibly, the aforesaid is supported by the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of E funds IT Solution Inc vs ADIT, (2017) 86 taxmann.com 240. Therefore, in this background, we may now examine the facts of the instant case as to whether such an onus has been discharged by the Revenue or not." 17. It has been asserted before us that the instant year is the first year when the assessee has filed a return of income as it had some taxable income, while in the past years there was no taxable income. In the past, there was no income other than premium on reinsurance business, yet the existence of LO since 2007 is in the knowledge of the assessing authority and no steps have been taken in any of the earlier years to construe the activities of the LO as constituting a 'business connection' or a PE of assessee in India. The learned representative asserted that it is only in this year that the function of the LO (for part of the year) has been ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... fficer. On this aspect, we have carefully examined the contentions put forth by the Revenue as well as the material on record, namely, the Master Service Agreement and the Addendum to the Master Service agreement between assessee and the Indian subsidiary and find that the approach of the Assessing Officer is quite misdirected. In fact, the services that have been provided by the Indian subsidiary are support services in the field of actuarial and underwriting functions undertaken by the assessee and not services of actuarial or underwriting of insurance risks per se. We have already quite succinctly noted the nature and scope of the services rendered by the Indian subsidiary in the earlier paras 12 and 13 above. In fact, the Assessing Officer is grossly wrong in holding in para 9.7.8 of his order that all the functions with respect to the claim settlement are carried out by the Indian subsidiary itself; rather, it is a case where the Indian subsidiary provides support functions and assists the assessee in such matters. The privity of contract is between the assessee and the Indian insurance companies and, it is abundantly clear from the terms of engagement between the assessee and ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... teria to determine whether there existed a fixed place PE or not. Similarly, the manner and mode of carrying on of transaction was also not found to be a proper test to determine as to whether there existed a fixed place of business or not. Taking a cue from the reasoning approved by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, in the present case too, the mere rendering of support services in connection with actuarial or underwriting services cannot be a ground to say that there exists a fixed place or a PE of the assessee in India. Therefore, on parity of reasoning which prevailed with the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of E funds IT Solution Inc (supra), in the present case too, the arguments of the Revenue do not deserve any indulgence. Accordingly, the same are rejected. 20. So far as the case of the Revenue that there is a dependent PE in India is concerned, herein also, the Revenue has merely brushed aside the claim of the assessee that the Indian subsidiary does not have any authority to secure contracts or solicit business on its behalf in India independent of the assessee. According to the Revenue, the Indian subsidiary uses brand name of the assessee while carrying out its ac ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... our co-ordinate Bench. It was the case of a reinsurance company based in Switzerland which was receiving income for providing reinsurance to various insurance companies in India. Swiss re-Insurance company had a wholly owned subsidiary in India which was rendering administrative, market intelligence and other risk assessment services, which is quite similar to the services being rendered to assessee before us by its Indian subsidiary. Therein also, the appellant was remunerating its Indian subsidiary on the basis of cost plus mark-up. Therein also, the Assessing Officer had sought to tax the income by invoking 'business connection' in terms of Sec. 9(1)(i) of the Act as well as treating the Indian subsidiary as a PE in India. In nutshell, the facts as well as the dispute before our co-ordinate Bench in the case of Swiss re-Insurance Co. Ltd. (supra) stood on a similar footing as is the case before us. Our co- ordinate Bench considered the provisions of Explanation-2 to Sec. 9(1) of the Act as well as the provisions of India-Switzerland DTAA, which was the subject matter before it, and concluded that the foreign company therein did not have any 'business connection' ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... India in the hands of the foreign reinsurer in terms of Section 195(1) of the Income Tax Act. Hence, there is no obligation on the part of the assessee payer to deduct tax at source thereon. Reliance in this regard is placed on the decision of the Hon"ble Supreme Court in the case of GE India Technology Centre Pvt. Ltd., vs CIT reported in 327 ITR 456. Accordingly, the provisions of Section 40(a)(i) of the Act would not come into operation at all. Moreover, these decisions were duly quoted by the assessee before the ld. CIT(A) vide its submission dated 25/02/2020 which was completely ignored by the ld. CIT(A) while adjudicating the issue. 3.21. We further find that the Co-ordinate Bench decision of this Tribunal in Swiss Reinsurance Co. Ltd., vs. DDIT International Taxation, Mumbai reported in 55 taxmann.com 520 (Mumbai Trib.) dated 13/02/2015 for A.Y.2010-11 had also addressed the very same issue. The relevant operative portion of the said order is reproduced hereunder:- "5.3 Assuming that conditions of (i) & (ii) mentioned herein above are fulfilled, we do not find that the employees of SRSIPL are providing services to the assessee as if they were the employees of the assessee ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... being a payer, to deduct tax at source and consequently there cannot be any disallowance u/s.40(a)(i) of the Act. Accordingly, assessee succeeds on this ground also. 3.25. Accordingly, in view of the aforesaid observations the ground Nos.3 & 4 raised are allowed. 4. The ground No.10 raised by the assessee is with regard to claim of depreciation. 4.1. We have heard rival submissions and perused the materials available on record. We find that assessee had debited depreciation in its profit and loss account and also claimed depreciation as per the provisions of Section 32 of the Act in the return of income. The ld. AO placed reliance on the decision of the Co-ordinate Bench of this Tribunal in the case of New India Assurance Company Ltd., vs. Additional CIT reported in 12 taxmann.com 465 and disallowed the claim of depreciation as per Section 32 of the Act by holding that no deductions are permissible from the profits as per the profit and loss account while assessing insurance companies as per Rule 5 of the first schedule to the Act read with Section 44 of the Act. We find that the assessee had added back the book depreciation while filing its return of income. Hence by this proc ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... necessary to remember that language is at best an imperfect instrument for the expression of human intention. It is well to remember the warning administered by judge, the learned hand that one should not make a fortress out of dictionary but remember that statutes always have some purpose or object to accomplish and sympathetic and imaginative discovery is the surest guide to their meaning." 4.2. We would like to make it clear that the aforesaid purposive interpretation of the provisions are being considered in the instant case only to avoid unjust and absurd results that would otherwise prevail in the event of assessee not getting even statutory deductions / allowances while computing the taxable income. The production of unjust and absurd results could never be the intention of the legislature and we are not inclined to make the computation provisions of Rule 5 of first schedule to the Income Tax Act unworkable. Hence, in order to prevent that gross injustice, we are inclined to give purposive interpretation of the provisions instead of literal interpretation. 4.3. We also find that the Finance Act 2020 had addressed the very same anomaly by amending the Rule 5 of the first s ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... er clause (c) of the said rule 5 to provide that any sum payable by the assessee which is added back under section 43B in accordance with clause (a) of the said rule shall be allowed as deduction in computing the income under the rule in the previous year in which such sum is actually paid. This amendment will take effect from 1st April, 2020 and will, accordingly, apply in relation to the assessment year 2020-21 and subsequent assessment years." 4.4. From the logical reading and understanding of the aforesaid Explanatory Memorandum of Finance Bill 2020, it could be safely inferred and concluded that the legislature never wanted to deny any deduction or allowance that was otherwise allowable to the assessee under the very same provisions of Sections 30 to 43B of the Income Tax Act. It also impliedly mentioned that by this process, the double disallowance that would occur shall be avoided. There would be cases where assessee while making certain provision for certain expenses or provision for certain reserves would add it back voluntarily in the return of income even though the same is an item of legitimate expenditure in the P & L account. When the very same expenditure is actua ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ale of fixed assets would also have to be as per the provisions of Income Tax Act, hence, this ground No.5 becomes consequential in nature. (b) Ground No.6 is challenging the action of the ld. CIT(A) not excluding the reversal of expenses credited by the assessee to its profit and loss account which had been disallowed in the previous years. (c) Ground No.7 is challenging the action of the ld. CIT(A) disallowing the claim of expenses u/s.40(a)(ia) of the Act which was disallowed in the preceding previous year and on which tax had been deducted at source and paid to the credit of the Central Government in the previous year under appeal. (d) Ground No.8 is challenging the disallowance of deduction of bonus and leave encashment paid during the year under appeal which was disallowed in earlier years u/s.43B of the Act. (e) Ground No.9 is challenging the disallowance of reversal of provision of doubtful debts which was disallowed by the assessee in earlier years. 5.1. We find that all the aforesaid items from (b) to (e) above are to be granted deduction and excluded from the total income of the assessee in order to avoid double disallowance. The amendment brought in Finance Act ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
