9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (7) TMI 704X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... on and therefore, bad in law. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Maxopp Investments [ 2018 (3) TMI 805 - SUPREME COURT ] as given a finding that the AO needs to record satisfaction that having regard to the kind of the assessee suo-moto disallowance under section 14A is not correct. Thus, AO is not correct in invoking the provisions of section 14A without recording any satisfaction as to why the suo-moto disallowance computed by the assessee is not correct. Accordingly, we delete the disallowance made by the AO and direct the AO to restrict the disallowance to the suo-moto disallowance made by the assessee. Disallowance of ESOP expenses - non admission of additional claim before the Appellate - Authority HELD THAT:- we hold that the CIT(A) is not correcting in not admitting the claim of the assessee with regard to ESOP expenses. As relying on Biocon Ltd. [ 2020 (11) TMI 779 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ] we hold that the ESOP expenses claimed by the assessee an allowable expenditure u/s 37(1) of the Act. Accordingly, we direct the AO to allow the claim of the assessee. This ground of the assessee is allowed. Disallowance u/s 14A - as per DR Explanation inserted by the Finance A ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... charges has held that the amount of fees retained by the Bank is a fee charged by them for having rendered the banking services and cannot be treated as commission or brokerage. Combined reading of the RBI Circular and the decisions of the Hon'ble High Court and the Co-ordinate Bench leads us to the conclusion that the bad debts arising out of the business of credit card services is part of the banking activities and the loss arising on account of un-recovered balance is arising out of the normal course of banking business. Accordingly, the same shall be allowed as a deduction under section 36(1)(vii) of the Act. We, therefore, uphold the decision of the CIT(A) in allowing the claim of the assessee. The ground raised by the Revenue in this regard is dismissed. Disallowance towards provision for debit and credit card reward points - AO held that the provision made is a book entry and is not a real expenditure incurred by the assessee - CIT(A) deleted the disallowance stating that the assessee has followed a scientific basis for arriving at the provision and therefore, the same is not a contingent liability - HELD THAT:- We noticed that the AO has made the disallowance based on ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ut has only re-computed the amount of claim based on the fresh data made available with respect to the classification of branches into Rural and Urban. Therefore, we are inclined to agree with the decision of the CIT(A) and accordingly, direct the AO to verify the revised claim and allow the same in accordance with law. It is ordered accordingly. This ground of the revenue is dismissed. - SHRI KULDIP SINGH, JM MS PADMAVATHY S, AM For the Appellant : Shri Yogesh Thar a/w Shri Chaitanya Joshi Ms. Vidhi Salot, CA For the Respondent : Shri Biswanath Das, CIT-DR ORDER Per Bench: These cross appeals by the assessee and the Revenue are against the separate orders of the Commissioner of Income Tax/National Faceless Appeal Centre [in short the CIT(A) ] all dated 27.03.2023 for the Assessment Years (AY) 2016-17, 2017-18 and 2018-19. The issues contended in all these appeals are identical and therefore, these appeals are heard together and disposed of through this common order. The issues against which the assessee and the Revenue have raised grounds are tabulated as under: Assessee's Appeal Issue AY 2016-17 AY 2017-18 AY 2018-19 Disallowance under section 14A Disallowance to be restric ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... re A amount of expenditure by way of = interest other than the amount of interest included in clause (i) incurred during the previous year: B the average of value of investment, = income from which does not or shall not form part of the total income, as appearing in the balance sheet of the assessee, on the first day and the last day of the previous year; 3451,64,41,000 C the average of total assets as = appearing in the balance sheet of the assessee, on the first day and the last day of the previous year; 2853,36,51,839 15,15,95,974 649674,31,91,000 (iii) an amount equal to one-half per cent of the average of the value of investment, income from which does not or shall not form part of the total income, as appearing in the balance sheet of the assessee, on the first day and the last day of the previous year 14,26,68,259 14,26,68,259 Total Disallowance under Section 14A 29,42,64,233 3. Accordingly, the AO had arrived at disallowance of Rs. 29,42,64,233/-. Aggrieved the assessee filed further appeal before the CIT(A). Before the CIT(A), the assessee had contended both the disallowance made under Rule 8D(2)(iii) and 8D(2)(ii). With regard to disallowance under section 14A r.w.r. 8D(2 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... recording of satisfaction has held that having regard to the language of Section 14A(2) of the Act, read with Rule 8D of the Rules, before applying the theory of apportionment, the AO needs to record satisfaction that having regard to the kind of the assessee, suo moto disallowance under Section 14A was not correct. It will be in those cases where the assessee in his return has himself apportioned but the AO was not accepting the said apportionment. In that eventuality, satisfaction would have to be recorded to this effect. Attribution of Top Managerial Expenses Step 1: The detailed workings are attached as Annexure 5 to this report. In these workings, we have identified from the recorded minutes of the Board meeting of the HDFCBL's agendas pertaining to subsidiary companies. These agendas include adoption of the accounts, evaluation of the progress of the subsidiary companies, additional infusion of capital, if any for the year under consideration and several other items. Step 2: Thereafter, we proceed to identify the total cost incurred in the Board meeting. The total cost includes sitting fees paid to non-executive directors, salary cost of the executive directors and other ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... een identified by dividing the total CTC with 365 days i.e. the entire year. Such per day cost of all the employees has been attributed for the purpose of disallowance u/s. 14A of the Act. Further, these employees have also attended the Board meeting of HDFCBL. The cost per day for attending the Board meeting is identified and the same is thereafter allocated in the ratio of agenda pertaining to the subsidiary companies and the total agenda. 5. The ld. AR also took the Bench through the actual calculation workings which are done as per the process stated above. To summarise that the assessee has used a scientific method in order to arrive at the suo-moto disallowance, the ld. AR submitted that the lower authorities have completely ignored the suo-moto disallowance working done by the assessee and has proceeded to arrive at the disallowance under section 14A r.w.r. 8D(2)(iii). The ld. AR also raised a legal contention that the AO while invoking the provisions of section 14A r.w.r. 8D(2)(iii) did not record any satisfaction. The ld. AR further submitted that the AO while arriving at the disallowance did not record any findings as to why the suo-moto disallowance calculated by the ass ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ance made by the assessee before the AO, it is noticed that the CIT(A) has relied on the order of the Co-ordinate Bench in assessee's own case for AY 2008-09 to hold that no disallowance under Rule 8D(2)(ii) is warranted and also that for the purpose of Rule 8D(2)(iii) only those investments yielding exempt income should be considered for the purpose of disallowance. The CIT(A) had not given any finding with regard to the plea of the assessee that the disallowance should be restricted to the suo-moto disallowance made by the assessee. The contention of the assessee in this regard is two fold. One the suo-moto disallowance has been arrived at on the basis of a scientific method wherein all the relevant costs incurred towards strategic investments in subsidiaries have been considered and proportionate disallowance is arrived at. The alternate contention of the assessee is that the AO failed to record satisfaction before invoking the provisions of section 14A. 8. On the first contention of the assessee, we noticed that the assessee has followed a scientific method as explained in the Accountant's report which is extracted in the earlier part of this order for arriving at the d ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... th regard to the way in which the assessee has computed the suo-moto disallowance. Considering the fact that the investments made are in subsidiaries companies and that there is no movements in the investments during the year under consideration. We do not see merit in the findings given by the AO that the assessee should have incurred indirect expenses such as market report, telephone stationary, etc. for the purpose of investments. We are also of the view that the observations of the AO as extracted above cannot be considered to be recording of satisfaction, since the AO has not stated anything as to why the calculation of suo-moto disallowance is not acceptable by the AO and why he is not satisfied about the correctness of the said calculation. Therefore, there is merit in the alternate contention of the assessee that the AO has invoked section 14A without recording satisfaction and therefore, bad in law. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Maxopp Investments (supra) while considering the similar issue and have given a finding that the AO needs to record satisfaction that having regard to the kind of the assessee suo-moto disallowance under section 14A is not correct. I ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... l claim before the Appellate Authority and held that 22. It was then submitted by Mr. Gupta that the Supreme Court had taken a different view in Goetze (India) Ltd (supra). We are unable to agree. The decision was rendered by a Bench of two learned judges and expressly refers to the judgment of the Bench of three learned judges in National Thermal Power Comp Ltd. (supra). The question before the Court was whether the appellant- assessee could make a claim for deduction, other than by filing a revised return. After the return was filed, the appellant sought to claim a deduction by way of a letter before the Assessing Officer. The claim, therefore, was not before the appellate authorities. The deduction was disallowed by the Assessing Officer on the ground that there was no provision under the Act to make an amendment in the return of income by modifying an application at the assessment stage without revising the return. The Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) allowed the assessee's appeal. The Tribunal, however, allowed the department's appeal. In the Supreme Court, the assessee relied upon the judgment in National Thermal Power Co. Ltd. (supra) contending that it was open ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nt services of the employees and therefore, the same cannot be construed as short receipt of capital. The tribunal therefore, in paragraphs 9.2.7 and 9.2.8 has rightly held that incurring of the expenditure by the assessee entitles him for deduction under section 37(1) of the Act subject to fulfillment of the condition. 11. The deduction of discount on ESOP over the vesting period is in accordance with the accounting in the books of account, which has been prepared in accordance with Securities and Exchange Board of India (Employee Stock Option Scheme and Employee Stock Purchase Scheme) Guidelines, 1999. 12 So far as reliance place by the revenue in the case of Infosys Technologies Ltd.(supra) is concerned, it is noteworthy that in the aforesaid decision, the Supreme Court was dealing with a proceeding under section 201 of the Act for non-deduction of tax at source and it was held that there was no cash inflow to the employees. The aforesaid decision is of no assistance to decide the issue of allowability of expenses in the hands of the employer. It is also pertinent to mention here that in the decision rendered by the Supreme Court in the aforesaid case, the Assessment Years in qu ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... y stating that the concerned AO was not in good health and therefore, could not carry out his duty fully which resulted in the delay in filing the appeal. The ld. DR accordingly prayed that there is reasonable cause for the delay which needs to be condoned. 20. The ld. AR on the other hand vehemently opposed the condonation of delay. 21. We have heard the parties and perused the material on record. From the perusal of the letter of condonation filed by the ld. DR, we noticed that the concerned officer Shri Nitin Kumar Deshkar was not in good health and ultimately opted for VRS for the said reason. Therefore, there is merit in the claim that the AO could not fully focused on the official duties which resulted in the delay in filing the appeal by the Revenue. In our considered opinion there is reasonable cause for the delay in filing the appeal by the Revenue and therefore, following the decision of the Hon ble Supreme Court decision in the case of Collector, Land Acquisition Vs. MST.Katiji Ors., (167 ITR 471) (SC) we condone the delay of 120 days in filing the appeal and admit the appeal for adjudication. ITA.No.3375/Mum/2023 Disallowance under section 14A Ground No.1 22. The conten ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of Clauses 4, 5, 6 7 of the Memorandum of Finance Bill, 2022 are reproduced here-in-below. 4. In order to make the intention of the legislation clear and to make it free from any misinterpretation, it is proposed to insert an Explanation to section 14A of the Act to clarify that notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in this Act, the provisions of this section shall apply and shall be deemed to have always applied in a case where exempt income has not accrued or arisen or has not been received during the previous year relevant to an assessment year and the expenditure has been incurred during the said previous year in relation to such exempt income. 5. This amendment will take effect from 1st April, 2022. 6. It is also proposed to amend sub-section (1) of the said section, so as to include a non- obstante clause in respect of other provisions of the Income-tax Act and provide that no deduction shall be allowed in relation to exempt income, notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in this Act. 7. This amendment will take effect from 1st April, 2022 and will accordingly apply in relation to the assessment year 2022-23 and subsequent assessment years. (emphasis ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ceded and succeeded by services rendered in India and forms part of the service contract of employment, shall be regarded as income earned in India. The Finance Act, 1999 which followed the Bill incorporated the substituted Explanation to Section 9(1)(ii) without any change. 13. The Explanation as introduced in 1983 was construed by the Kerala High Court in CIT V. S.R. Patton [(1992) 193 ITR 49 (Ker.)] while following the Gujarat High Court's decision in S.G. Pgnatale [(1980) 124 ITR 391 (Guj.)] to hold that the Explanation was not declaratory but widened the scope of Section 9(1)(ii). It was further held that even if it were assumed to be clarificatory or that it removed whatever ambiguity there was in Section 9(1)(ii) of the Act, it did not operate in respect of periods which were prior to 1-4-1979. It was held that since the Explanation came into force from 1-4-1979, it could not be relied on for any purpose for an anterior period. 14. In the appeal preferred from the decision by the Revenue before this Court, the Revenue did not question this reading of the Explanation by the Kerala High Court, but restricted itself to a question of fact viz. whether the Tribunal had correc ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... , 354; CIT v. Podar Cement (P.) Ltd., (1997) 5 SCC 482, 506). But if it changes the law it is not presumed to be retrospective, irrespective of the fact that the phrases used are it is declared or for the removal of doubts (emphasis supplied) 7. The aforesaid proposition of law has been reiterated by the Supreme Court in M.M. Aqua Technologies Ltd. v. CIT [20211 129 taxmann.com 145/282 Taxman 281/436 ITR 582. The relevant portion of the said judgment is reproduced here-in-below:- 22. Second, a retrospective provision in a tax act which is for the removal of doubts cannot be presumed to be retrospective, even where such language is used, if it alters or changes the law as it earlier stood. This was stated in Sedco Forex International Drill inc. v. CIT, (2005) 12 SCC 717 as follows: 17. As was affirmed by this Court in Goslino Mario [(2000) 10 SCC 165] a cardinal principle of the tax law is that the law to be applied is that which is in force in the relevant assessment year unless otherwise provided expressly or by necessary implication. (See also Reliance Jute and Industries Ltd. v. CIT [(1980) 1 SCC 1391) An Explanation to a statutory provision may fulfil the purpose of clearing up ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... to the decision of the Co-ordinate Bench in assessee's own case for AY 2012-13 (ITA No. 5672 5660/Mum/2017 dated 16.07.2021) has considered the same issue where it is held that 19. We have given a thoughtful consideration to the aforesaid issue, and find, that the Tribunal in the assessee's own case for the immediately preceding year ie A.Y. 2011-12 in ITA No. 6187/Mum/2016 had decided the said issue in favour of the assessee and had dismissed the revenues appeal. It was observed by the Tribunal that the issue pertaining to allowability of broken period interest had been decided by the Hon'ble jurisdictional High Court and the Tribunal in the assessee's own case for A.Y. 2008-09, .Y. 2009-10 and A.Y. 2010-11 in ITA No.s 375,722,3465,4367/Mum/2012 and ITA No. 1795/Mum/2010, dated 12.11.2014. It was observed by the Tribunal that in all the aforementioned decisions it was held that the broken period interest paid by the assessee was allowable as a deduction while computing its total income. Observing, that the issue was covered in the assessee's own case by various decisions of the Tribunal and that of the Hon'ble jurisdictional High Court, the order of the CI ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rightly vacated the disallowance of the broken period interest on HTM securities of Rs. 165,60,89,890/-, uphold the same. The Ground of appeal No. 5 raised by the revenue is dismissed. 27. The ld. DR fairly conceded that the issues covered by the above mentioned decision of the Jurisdictional High Court. 28. We have heard the parties and perused the material on record. Considering that the facts for the year under consideration being identical, we are of the view that the issue of allowance of broken period interest on securities is covered by the decision of Co-ordinate Bench in assessee's own case for AY 2012-13 is applicable for the year under consideration also. Accordingly we see no reason to interfere with the decision of the CIT(A). This ground of the Revenue is dismissed. Disallowance of bad debts on credit cards Ground No.3 29. During the year under consideration, the AO noticed that the assessee has claimed Rs. 375,10,36,088/- as write off of bad debts towards credit card. The AO did not allow the claim of the assessee for the reason that the credit card bad debts were never taken into account for computing the income of the assessee and that the same does not repres ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... by EMI with interest and service charges. From the above description, it is clear that the banks by issuing credit card does not carry out the business of money lending, but acts only as service provider or as agent of the card issuer companies such as Visa or master card. Therefore, the bad debts incurred with regard to issuance and services of credit cards are neither related to banking business or business of money lending. (iv) Hence, the deduction claimed u/s 36(1)(vii) regarding bad debt on credit cards is not allowed and Rs. 375,10,36,088/- is added back to the total income of the assessee. Penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act are initiated for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. 30. The CIT(A) allowed the claim of the assessee stating that the services provided by the assessee is a banking service which is part of the lending activity . The CIT(A) placed reliance on the decision of the Delhi High Court in the case of JDS Apparels Pvt. Ltd. 370 ITR 454 (Del. HC) and the decision of the Jurisdictional Bombay High court in the case of PCIT Vs. Hotel Leela Ventures Ltd. (ITA No. 847 954 of 2016 dated 18.12.2018). 31. The ld. DR relied on the order of the AO to ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he said business, Rs. 8.34 Crores had turned bad which assessee had claimed as bad debts u/s.36(1)(vii) of the Act. It is not in dispute that assessee had indeed offered income from credit card business as income under the head profits and gains of business or profession ‟ and which has been taxed as such by the ld. AO. Hence, the income derived from credit card business has been accepted as business income by the ld. AO. The satisfaction of requirement of offering of income in terms of Section 36(2) of the Act has been done by the assessee in the instant case. Hence, if any of the debts in respect of income already offered to tax by the assessee bank had become bad, and the same is written off as bad debt by the assessee in its books of accounts, the assessee would certainly be entitled for deduction u/s.36(i)(vii) of the Act. It need not be routed through provision for bad and doubtful debts account. Moreover, we find that RBI has issued a master circular dated 01/07/2013 which provides for credit card / debit card and rupee denominated co-branded prepaid card portions of the banks. The said circular clearly establishes the fact that credit card business is part and parcel ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... h leads us to the conclusion that the bad debts arising out of the business of credit card services is part of the banking activities and the loss arising on account of un-recovered balance is arising out of the normal course of banking business. Accordingly, the same shall be allowed as a deduction under section 36(1)(vii) of the Act. We, therefore, uphold the decision of the CIT(A) in allowing the claim of the assessee. The ground raised by the Revenue in this regard is dismissed. Disallowance towards provision for debit and credit card reward points Ground No.4 36. During the year under consideration, the assessee has made a provision of Rs. 179.5 crores towards credit card and debit card reward points. The AO held that the provision made is a book entry and is not a real expenditure incurred by the assessee. Therefore, the AO held the provision to be an ascertained liability. The AO based on the perusal of annual reports for the subsequent financial year was of the view that the assessee is utilizing only Rs. 65-70 crores out of the provision made and accordingly disallowed a sum of Rs. 106.29 crores. 37. The CIT(A) deleted the disallowance stating that the assessee has followe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... liability since the actuarial valuation takes into consideration various factors such as discount available to the Bank on purchase, customer leaving the credit cards is without redeeming the points, customer losing eligibility to redeem points, etc. In this regard we noticed that a similar issue has been considered by the Co-ordinate Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Shoppers Stop Ltd. where it has been held that 10. The Commissioner (Appeals) has dealt with the issue of allowability of the claim of assessee on reward points from para-3.3 to 3.3.2 of his order, which is reproduced below for ready reference:- 3.3 I have considered the assessment order and the submissions of the appellant. As I see, the Assessing Officer has disallowed the claim as an unascertained expenditure in view of the fact that the appellant is recognizing redemption of the FCC point only when gift vouchers or points are actually redeemed by a customer. The Assessing Officer has been Led to this view by the Auditor's Notes to Financial Statement reproduced by him in the assessment order. As against this, the main plank of appellant's defence is that the claim is being made in sync with the concept ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... points also includes gross profit margin for the purpose of quantification of liability, the appellant- reduces the estimated gross profit margin of 30%. I find this process of quantification scientific as it is based on past trends and further, I also find it reasonable since the final liability debited also takes into account the trend of redemption and the gross profit margins. In this view of the matter, the ascertainment of the FCC points is found to be based on sound and reasonable quantification. This being so, the claim cannot be disallowed on the ground that it is an unascertained expenditure. In this respect, the decision 9f1 the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case Rotork Controls India (P) Ltd. Vs. CIT bears special mention. In this decision, in the context of allowability of provision for warranty on account of warranty claims likely to arise on the sales, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that if historical trend indicates that in past, large number of sophisticated goods were being manufactured and the defects existed in some of the items manufactured and sold, then provision made for warranty in respect of army of such sophisticated goods would be entitled to ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e time of checking in for a flight based on this information available in the system, the miles are then updated-in each members account. The total number of miles earned is ascertained in the above manner and a provision for the cost of tickets to be issued in future for the unutilized redeemable miles is made in the books of accounts as a liability. Such liability is claimed as revenue expenditure. In our view, the claim of the assessee is based on the liability it has undertaken under the frequent flyer programme. It is not the case of the revenue that the liability provided by he assessee is not in accordance with the scheme operated by the assessee. The liability provided is in respect of variable cost of flying the aircraft. That is also based on the minimum cost. In our view, these provisions are based on the experience of the airline and the actual miles accumulated by the passengers. If one were to go through the entire scheme it cannot be said that provision made by the assessee is in respect of a contingent liability. The principle laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Bharat Earth Movers (supra), equally applies to the scheme in question and the clai ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... towards reward points on credit and debit cards should not be limited to the points expected to be redeemed in a particular period such as next year and that the actuarial report based on which the provision is made takes into consideration all the relevant factors with regard to the reward points, in our considered view there is merit in the claim of the assessee that the provision made towards reward points on credit and debit cards should be allowed as a deduction. Accordingly, we hold that there is no infirmity in the decision of the CIT(A) in allowing the claim of the assessee with regard to the provision for reward points on credit and debit cards. This ground of the Revenue is dismissed. Disallowance of revised claim for deduction under section 36(1)(viia) Ground No.5 42. The assessee vide letter dated 24.12.2018 stated that at the time of filing the return of income the census data was not fully available and since the data is now available the deduction with respect to Rural Branches have been revised on the basis of such data. The assessee revised the claim under section 36(1)(viia) r.w.r. 6ABA from Rs. 245,25,02,963/- to Rs. 358,31,63,918/-. The AO did not allow the revi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... uction claimed under section 36(1)(viia) before the AO is not bonafide and that the assessee should have made the claim by filing the revised return of income. Accordingly, the ld. DR supported the order of the AO. 44. The ld. AR on the other hand submitted that the assessee has not made a fresh claim but has only revised the quantum of deduction claim and therefore, the CIT(A) correctly allowed the claim. The ld. AR accordingly prayed that the decision of the CIT(A) be upheld. 45. We have heard the parties and perused the material on record. It is a settled position that when the assessee has not made a fresh claim but has only revised the claim which is already made in the return of income, the disallowance cannot be denied on the ground that the additional claim is not made by filing the revised return of income. In assessee's case it is an admitted position that the assessee has not made a fresh claim under section 36(1)(viia) but has only re-computed the amount of claim based on the fresh data made available with respect to the classification of branches into Rural and Urban. Therefore, we are inclined to agree with the decision of the CIT(A) and accordingly, direct the AO ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
