9911796707
TMI Blog2023 (3) TMI 1546X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... (2) are fulfilled and even as per the learned DR of the revenue, clause (j) of sub section (2) of section 92A is attracted but this claim is also devoid of merit because he could only point out that one director of the assessee company and of GLATIPL is common but this fact alone does not establish that the said common director is controlling GLATIPL when the said company is a subsidiary of ILSGL and the assessee company or its directors are not having any relationship with ILSGL or director of ILSGL. Hence, by respectfully following the Tribunal s order, that since the parameters laid down in sub section (1) and (2) of section 92A are not fulfilled, there is no relationship of AE between the Assessee Company and GLATIPL and therefore, the provisions of Chapter X of the I.T. Act has no application. Disallowance of Transportation charges, Disallowance of Expenses under Explanation to section 37 (1) and Addition made on account of sale of Land - In line with the tribunal order in A.Y. 2010-11 in assessee's own case [ 2016 (7) TMI 1435 - ITAT BANGALORE] we delete first two disallowances i.e. 1) Disallowance of Transportation charges, and 2) Disallowance of Expenses under Explanat ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... and paid-up shares of the company (of the value of 1 Singapore dollar), which was hitherto held by Sri. Arangannal, was transferred to M/s. GJR Holdings International Ltd., another company registered in the Isle of Man of which Sri. Gali Janardhana Reddy is one of the Directors as confirmed by Sri. Gali Janardhana Reddy, in his statement recorded on 29.12.2009, before the Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-1 (3), Bengaluru. It was seen that the entire issued and paid-up share capital of M/s.GLA Trading International Pvt. Ltd., was held by M/s.GIR Holdings International Company (M/s. GJR Holdings International), where he had control over the activities and management of the said company. In brief, these facts clearly established that the assessee respondent company and M/s.GLA Trading Pvt. Ltd., Singapore, are AEs. within the meaning of section 92A of the income Tax Act, 1961. 6. It is further stated that the matter was referred to the Transfer Pricing Officer and subsequently an order under Section 92CA came to be passed on 23.01.2013 making the following adjustment to the admitted value of international transactions. (a) In respect of sale of iron ore 111,48,68,440 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... logy and Forest authorities. The enquiries made with the transporters to whom the assessee respondent is claimed to have paid transportation charges and deducted TDS, stated that they have not rendered any services to the assessee. It was found that some of them never owned any transportation vehicles and some of them did not have any means. Further, some of the vehicles were not transport vehicles but were autos, scooters, ambulances and school buses etc. However, on an examination of the bank accounts of the alleged transporters, it was also found that the amounts deposited in their accounts had been immediately withdrawn in cash. And finally, the expenditure claimed against the name of the parties, wherein enquiries had been done came to be disallowed by the assessing authority while completing the assessment. However, the Tribunal granted relief to the assessee by deleting the additions made on this issue by following its earlier order in the case of assessee for the assessment year 2010-11 on the ground that the assessing authority had not made available the persons for cross examination of the assessee despite its request. The Tribunal while granting relief had relied upon th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of fact made out by the Commissioner of Income Tax in his order dated 30.03.2012 passed under u/s 263 of the Act in the case of the respondent assessee for the assessment year 2008-09 identical to the facts of the present year, wherein it was clearly established that M/s. GLAT International Pvt. Ltd., is an associated enterprise of the assessee company. 12. The Tribunal ought to have appreciated that, in order to determine whether an entity is an associate enterprise, control is not merely in terms of shareholding but participation in management and decision making, as held in the following decisions: i) 52 Taxmann.Com 520(Delhi) (2015) - First American securities (P) Ltd., Vs. Addl. CIT. ii) 57 Taxmann.Com 62 (Mumbai Trib) (2015) - Kaybee (P) Ltd., V. ITO. iii) 13 Taxmann.Com 62 (Mumbai) (2011) - Diageo India (P) Ltd. V.DCIT. 13. It is further contended that on the issue of claim of bogus transportation expenses, the Tribunal has grossly erred in rejecting various findings of fact gathered by the assessing authority before arriving at the conclusion to disallow a portion of the claim of transportation expenses as bogus. 14. Further, the Tribunal has grossly erred in relying upon t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ation the judgment of the Hon ble High Court of Delhi in the case of Nath International Sales vs. UOI, JAIR (1992 (Del) 295) HC) wherein the Hon'ble Court has clearly held that right of cross-examination is not an absolute right. Further, in the case of State of J K vs. Bakshi Gula Mahammad [AIR 1967 SC 122] the Hon'ble Apex Court has held that the right of hearing does not necessarily include right of cross-examination. 19. It is further contended that on the issue of Disallowance under Section 37 (1), the Tribunal has grossly erred in deleting the addition made by the Assessing Authority under section 37 (1) of the Act towards the expenses claimed on its illegal mining activity. The Tribunal has grossly erred in rejecting the finding of facts on record relied upon by the Assessing Authority while making this addition. 20. Based upon the facts and the order passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Bengaluru including the order passed by the Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle 1 (3), Bengaluru, this appeal was admitted on 15.03.2019 to consider following substantial question of law: 1. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Tribu ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ng Counsel Sri. Y.V. Raviraj has facilitated the order of the ITAT in IT(TP) A No.182 (Bang) 2014 of the assessment year 2009-10 , wherein the ITAT has held that the assessee s appeal directed against the assessment order passed by the A.O. under Section 144C (13) as per the directions of the DRP for the assessment year 2008-09. Before the ITAT, learned AR of the assessee submitted that even if the allegation of the A.O. is accepted that this company i.e. M/s (GLAITPL) is an AE of the assessee company for this reason that entire share capital i.e. one Share of M/s (GLAITPL) was transferred by Shri Arangannal to M/s (GJRHIL) on 21.12.2007, then also it is an AE of the assessee company for two days only because the said one share of GLATIPL was transferred by GJRHIL to Inter Link Services Group Ltd. ILSGL on 22.12.2007 and with this company or its directors, the assessee company or its directors has no relationship. It was submitted by the learned AR of the assessee that regarding TP issues, this is the submission that TP provisions cannot be applied in the present case because the parameters specified u/s 92A (2) of the I.T. Act are not attracted, where reliance was placed on the tr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 2, 92B, 92C, 92D, 92E and 92F, associated enterprise , in relation to another enterprise, means an enterprise- (a) which participates, directly or indirectly, or through one or more intermediaries, in the management or control or capital of the other enterprise; or (b) in respect of which one or more persons who participate, directly or indirectly, or through one or more intermediaries, in its management or control or capital, are the same persons who participate, directly or indirectly, or through one or more intermediaries, in the management or control or capital of the other enterprise. 22. The ITAT took note of the objections of the A.O., assessee's explanations and relevant facts in this regard. The objections of the A.O. as reproduced above are these that Shri GJR, one of the directors of the assessee company was appointed a director of (GLATIPL) also on 19.12.2007 and on 21.12.2007, the entire share capital of (GLATIPL) being one equity share was transferred to (GJRHIL) in which, Shri GJR is one of the directors. Hence, as per the objections of the A.O., the entire share capital of (GLATIPL) is held by (GJRHIL) on 21.12.2007 and on that date, Shri GJR, one of the directo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n 144C(8) of the I.T. Act for the assessment year 2009-10, wherein the grounds of objections raised where the A.O. ought not to have made the reference to the TPO under Section 92CA of the Act since the assessee has not entered into any international transactions defined under Section 92B of the Act and the A.O. and also the TPO ought to have appreciated that the assessee company is not an associated enterprise of M/s. GLA Trading International Pvt. Ltd., as defined in Section 92A of the Act. The Dispute Resolution Panel accordingly held that, the assessee has entered into a complicated arrangement whereby a helicopter owned by an AE at Singapore is shown to be leased out to two Indian charter companies which in turn hire out the same helicopter to the assessee itself. By this mechanism, the hire charges, though apparently paid to the charter companies actually and practically benefitted to the AE which owned the helicopter. It is a kind of circular transaction wherein the veil of obfuscation of the actual transactors has been lifted by the TPO who has rightly treated the transaction as an international transaction and benchmarked the same. Here too, the ratio of the Mcdowell case ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ere the assessee had repeatedly produced the creditors before the Income-tax Officer and had filed affidavits in support of the credit entries and also filed confirmations and given names and addresses of the concerned parties as well as proved repayment of the amounts by account payee cheques and done all that was within his power to prove the genuineness of the loans, the finding arrived at by the appellate authority on the basis of such reliable material could not have been so cursorily dealt with by the Tribunal for the purpose of giving one more innings to the Assessing Officer. It was the duty of the Tribunal to ascertain the reasons which were given by the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) in whose order the order of the Assessing Officer had merged and not to base its decision merely on a bit of negligence of the Assessing Officer in not cross-examining the parties who were produced before him four to five times. In our opinion, the Tribunal has reached the conclusion which cannot reasonably be reached by anyone, and there is no warrant for restoring the matter to the Assessing Officer on such specious grounds as are given by the Tribunal. 27. Learned counsel Sri. Mayank ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... were provided u/s 141 of the IT Act, 1961, which contemplated provisional assessment for the purpose of computing advance tax. This provision came up for interpretation before the Hon'ble Supreme Court, in the case of Jaipur Udyog Ltd., Anr., Vs. CIT Anr., reported in (1969) 71 ITR 799 (SC) wherein it was held as under: 10. We are unable to accept the opinion of the High Court if it be assumed that provisional assessment has to be made in accordance with and subject to the provisions of the Act, distinction between a provisional assessment and a regular assessment gets completely blurred. The scheme of s. 141 is to call upon the assessee to pay tax provisionally at the appropriate rate on what he admits is his taxable income, subject to the benefit of the ounces under subs (2) The section by the assessee exceeds the amount admitted by him, nor whether the allowances or deductions claimed are admissible. If there be a discrepancy between the return made and the accounts and documents accompanying the return, the ITO may ask the assessee to explain the discrepancy. but he must make a professional assessment on the basis of the return initially made or clarified and the accounts ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Trading International PTE Ltd. with Accounting and Corporate Regulatory Authority (ACRA), Singapore, it is seen that Shri Gali Janardhan Reddy is a Director of the said company with effect from 19.12.2007. At this point, it may not be out of place to explain a little about ACRA. ACRA is the International Regulator of Business Entities and Public Accountants in Singapore. ACRA also plays the role of a facilitator for the development of business entities and the public accountancy profession. ACRA was formed as a Statutory Board on 1 April, 2004, following the merger of the then Registry of Companies and Business (RCB) and the Public Accountants Board (PAB). This authority is responsible to administer various Acts of Singapore including Accounting and Corporate Regulatory Authority (ACRA) Act, Accountants Act, the Companies Act, the Business Registration Act etc. The companies registered in Singapore are required to lodge/file reports regarding the changed particulars regarding Company's Directors, Managers, regarding change of name, change of registered office etc., to the ACRA. It is seen from one of such reports lodged with ACRA on 01.02.2008 by GLA Trading International PTE ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 3 of 2003, dated 20/5/2003 has not been followed. As per Ld. C.I.T. wherever the aggregate value of international transaction exceeds Rs.5 crore (now raised to 15 crore), the case should be selected for scrutiny and reference under section 92CA be made to the transfer pricing officer for determination of arms- length price (ALP). The copy of above instruction has not been provided to the assessee. (b) Referring to Section 92CA (1), the assessee's representative contends that nowhere in the Act it is stated that the matter has to be referred to the Transfer Pricing officer mandatorily. The Assessing officer in his wisdom has applied provisions of Sec. 40A (2) of the Act. Thus the AO has followed the law both in letter and spirit. (c) As per the Act the CBDT can issue instructions under section 119 of the Act. Sub-section (1) of Section 119 of the Act provides that the Board may, from time to time, issue such orders, instructions and directions to other income tax authorities as it may deem fit for the proper administration of this Act, and such authorities and all other persons employed in the execution of this Act shall observe and follow such others, instructions and direction ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... o be prejudicial to the interest of revenue, the loss of revenue should be glaring in the assessment order. In the above case it is said that, the invoking of jurisdiction under section 263 of the Act by the Commissioner of income tax for revising the return without recording a specific finding regarding the extent to which the order passed by the AO was prejudicial to the interest of revenue and rather asking the AO to conduct further inquiry to verify the net commission transferred to P L Account afresh when the AO had already examined this aspect merely amounted to change of opinion which is not permissible u/s.263 of the Act Accordingly the order passed by the and hence, the order passed by the Commissioner of income tax 263 of the Act requires to be canceled. under section 263 of the Act is hereby canceled and the grounds of appeal taken by the assessee stand allowed. (g) In the case of Malabar Industrial Company V/S CIT 243 ITR 83 , honorable Supreme Court has held that a bare reading of this provision makes it clear that the prerequisite to the exercise of jurisdiction by the Commissioner Suomoto under it, is that the order of the Income tax is erroneous in so far as it is p ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... er to initiate proceedings by revision, re-examining the matter and directing fresh on his own whim for change or having a different view. He has been conferred with a quasi-judicial power and the same is hedged with limitation and therefore, it has to be exercised within the parameters of the provisions. When the commissioner is himself not able to form an opinion, he cannot direct another inquiry by the assessing officer u/s 263 of the Act. (j) In the case of CIT V/S. Arvind Jewellers Honourable Gujarat High Court has held that, Section 263 of the Act does not empower him to take action on these facts to arrive at the conclusion that the order passed by the Income tax Officer is erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the revenue. Since the material was there on record and the said material was considered by the Income tax Officer and a particular view was taken, the mere fact that a different view can be taken, should not be the basis for an action u/s 263 of the Act and it cannot be held to justified (k) In the case of CIT V/S Gabrial India Ltd Honourable Bombay High Court has held that, if there are no materials on record on the basis of which it can be said that the comm ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... eld that the Assessing Officer was bound to refer the matter to the Transfer Pricing Officer. Therefore, the order passed by the Commissioner was upheld. Consequently, both the orders of the tribunal were set aside. 39. The subject matter of this appeal for the Assessment Year 2008-09 is whether the Assessing Officer can suo-moto decide the issue regarding transfer pricing by himself or the matter has to be referred to the Transfer Pricing Officer. Answering this question, the Hon'ble High Court held that the matter should be referred to the Transfer Pricing Officer. It is submitted that this finding of this Hon'ble Court for the Assessment Year 2008-09 has absolutely no connection to the subsequent Assessment Year 2009-10. Hence, the revenue cannot trace any reliance on the order for the year 2008-09. 40. It is contended that there is incomplete order - Hon'ble High Court for Assessment Year 2008-09 has set aside both the orders of the tribunal. It has also upheld the order of the commissioner referring the matter to the Transfer Pricing Officer. However, the subject matter of controversy was jurisdiction . In respect of Whereas, the question on merits whether the quan ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... relevant to refer to the written submission of the learned counsel for the respondent, the merits regarding valuation of helicopter rentals that the rentals were paid to Indian Companies. Further there is no computation made regarding the arms length price as to the actual rentals to be paid. What is disallowed is the rental actually paid to the Indian companies. There is no foreign transaction involved. Further Chapter X itself is not attractive. The charge regarding domestic transactions, helicopter rental in this case was applicable by Finance Act, 2012 w.ef. 01.04.2013. Therefore, for the current Assessment Year 2009-10, domestic transactions of helicopter rentals cannot be made applicable. These are all the contentions made by the learned counsel for the respondent/assessee and on these premises, learned counsel submitted that no interference is required in the order passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal and seeks to dismiss the appeal as being devoid of merits. 43. Having heard the learned Standing Counsel Sri. Y.V. Raviraj for the appellant/revenue and the learned counsel Sri. Mayank Jain for the respondent / assessee, it is relevant to peruse the order passed by the I ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... g of goods or articles or business carried out by one enterprise is wholly dependent on the use of know-how, patents, copyrights, trade-marks, licenses, franchises or any other business or commercial rights of similar nature, or any data, documentation, drawing or specification relating to any patent, invention, model, design, secret formula or process, of which the other enterprise is the owner or in respect of which the other enterprise has exclusive rights, or (h) ninety per cent or more of the raw materials and consumables required for the manufacture or processing of goods or articles carried out by one enterprise, are supplied by the other enterprise, or by persons specified by the other enterprise, and the prices and other conditions relating to the supply are influenced by such other enterprise; or (i) the goods or articles manufactured or processed by one enterprise, are sold to the other enterprise or to persons specified by the other enterprise, and the prices and other conditions relating thereto are influenced by such other enterprise, or (j) where one enterprise is controlled by an individual, the other enterprise is also controlled by such individual or his relative ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... pecified in sub section 2 of section 92A is being satisfied. On a specific query put to learned DR of the revenue in this regard by the ITAT, in reply, he stated that the condition specified in clause (j) of sub section (2) is satisfied in the present case. But ITAT found that even this clause is not applicable because there is no common director or common shareholding in the case of the Assessee Company and ILSGL. Admittedly, there is a common director of the assessee company and GLATIPL i.e. Shri Gali Janardhan Reddy but in view of this fact that the entire share capital being one share of GLATIPL is held by ILSGL and there is no link or relationship between the assessee company and ILSGL or between the directors of the assessee company and directors of ILSGL, it cannot be said that GLATIPL is controlled by Shri Gali Janardhan Reddy merely because he is a director of GLATIPL without any shareholding in that company or without any relationship with the directors of holding company of GLATIPL i.e. ILSGL or with the director of ILSGL. 46. In the light of the facts, ITAT examined the applicability of the tribunal order rendered in the case of Page Industries Limited vs. DCIT (Supra). ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ook should be eschewed. If more than one construction is possible, that which preserves its workability and efficacy is to be preferred to the one which would render it otiose or sterile. In that view of the matter, courts should not adopt construction which would upset or even impair the purpose in introducing a particular provision in the statute [ Calcutta Jute Manufacturing Co. v. CTO, (1997) 106 STC 433, 439 (SC)]. Therefore, following this principle, we hold that since the parameters laid down in sub-section (1) are not fulfilled, there is no relationship of AE between assessee-company and JII and therefore, the provisions of chapter X of the Act have no application. 11.2 In the result, the transfer pricing adjustment made by the TPO is not valid in law. 47. In the facts of the case, the ITAT order is squarely applicable because as per the revenue, only because one of the directors of the assessee company and of GLATIPL is common, section 92CA is applicable but it was held by the tribunal in this case that in order to constitute relationship of an AE, the parameters laid down in both sub sections (1) and (2) should be fulfilled. As per the explanation, amendment carried out i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nes. Learned DR of the revenue supported the orders of the authorities below but he could not point out any difference in facts. 49. On consideration of the rival submissions and first of all, Paragraph Nos. 8, 14, 15 and 21 of the tribunal order are extracted below for the sake of reference. The same reads as under:- 8. In the next judgment of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court rendered in the case of CIT Vs Pradeep Kumar Gupta (Supra) also, it was held by the Hon'ble Delhi High Court that it was mandatory for the revenue to produce A for cross examination by the assessee on the specific demand in this regard and thereafter, it was held that the violation of the revenue to produce A for cross examination by the assessee assumes fatal consequences. Hence, as per these two judgments, for this reason alone that the revenue has not made available these persons for cross examination of the assessee despite such request by the assessee before the AO, these statements cannot be used against the assessee and without taking help from these statements of the transporters, the disallowance made by the AO out of transportation charges is not sustainable as per these two judgments relied upo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of the present case. In view of our above discussion, ground No. 3 of the assessee is allowed. 21. We have heard the rival submissions. We find force in the submission of the ld. AR of the assessee because we find that the amount of Rs.86,60,079/- for which addition has been by the AO is the amount of assessee's share in the sale consideration for sale of land and hence, even if it is held that income on this account is to be taxed in the present year, the same cannot be to the extent of gross amount of sale proceeds and income has to be assessed after allowing deduction regarding cost of acquisition, if any incurred by the assessee but since there is no discussion on this aspect in the orders of the authorities below, we feel it proper that this issue should be restored back to the file of the AO for a fresh decision in the light of the above discussion after providing adequate opportunity of being heard to the assessee. We order accordingly. This ground is partly allowed for statistical purposes. 50. With reference to the aforesaid reasons, the ITAT held that the learned DR of the revenue could not point out any difference in facts and hence we find no reason to take a contra ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ssments have been passed in the hands of the transporters, wherein it is quantified that no transportation has taken place. Therefore, it is deemed that the assessee has not transported the iron ore during the current assessment year. In order to substantiate this claim, the revenue has produced certain orders dated 28.03.2012, 12.07.2012 14.12.2012. Admittedly the assessment order passed by the assessing officer, Ananthapura is provisional/protective assessment and this order is passed without authority of law as contemplated under Article 265 of the Constitution of India, which stipulates that no tax shall be levied except authority of law. Whereas, the learned counsel for the respondent/assessee contended that the provisional/protective assessment order passed by the assessing officer, Ananthapura which was confirmed by the Appellate Commissioner is without jurisdiction and has no legs to stand and cannot be enforced. Further, it is without authority of law as contemplated under Article 265 of the Constitution of India. This contention is made by the learned counsel for the respondent/assessee for consideration and for dismissal of the appeal as being devoid merits. 53. It is fu ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t the cost of repetition, it is relevant to state that the counsel for the respondent / Assessee had relied the judgment of THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX AND ORS. Vs. MANJUNATHA COTTON AND GINNING FACTORY AND ORS. (MANU / KA/ 2416/2012), wherein a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court has extensively addressed the issues relating to the provisions of the IT Act, 1961 and more particularly, has addressed the issues relating to Section 271 (1) (c) of the IT Act, 1961, by referring to so many reliances. 56. Similarly, another Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in the case of PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX ANR vs. M/S. ENNOBLE CONSTRUCTION (I.T.A.No. 383 OF 2016) dated 20.07.2022 , has addressed the issues relating to the provisions of Section 260A of the IT Act, 1961 referring to various reliances to arrive at a conclusion relating to the response to the substantial question of law in the given facts and circumstances of the case and so also relating to the concept of Section 37 of the IT Act, 1961 as well as the burden of proof and impossibility of its discharge and so also relating to Legal maxim Lex Non Cogit Ad Impossibilia (Co.Litt. 231 b.) The law does not compel a man to do that which ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... od as well as the degree of comparability between the international transactions. Even the company had similar contemporaneous transactions with other unrelated parties as well price date of such uncontrolled transactions (INTERNATIONAL CUP) can be applied to determine the arms length nature of your international transaction with your AE. Iron ore being a widely traded commodity, data relating to the same are available in public domain. These are all the observations that have been made to the arrival of conclusion keeping in view the provision of Section 144(c)(5) of the I.T. Act. Even the order passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax, Director of Income Tax (International Taxation Transfer Pricing), Ahmedabad and Director of Income Tax (International Taxation Transfer Pricing), Kolkata communicated to the respondent/assessee namely M/s. Obulapuram Mining Company Pvt. Ltd., therefore, this appeal even raises substantial questions of law based upon the grounds as urged but the same has been considered by the ITAT extensively. Therefore, keeping in view of the ratio of reliance which facilitated by the learned counsel for the respondent/assessee and even the reliance placed by the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
