Revision u/s 263 - whether the AO has made enquiries about issue under consideration? - CIT noticed that the assessee has debited in the Profit & Loss Account toll Plaza expenses which included expenses of computer expenses and on weigh bridge expenses - HELD THAT:- Pr.CIT has not specified that which enquiries were ought to have made. The assessee further submitted that the Pr.CIT in his notice himself mentioned that the assessee examination of records showed the discrepancies, which means that the details were on record and were examined by the AO. Explanation 2 to section 263 was inserted with effect from 01.06.2015, hence, same is not applicable for the assessment year under consideration as it is not retrospective in nature.
The assessment order passed after verification and enquiry is not erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue. Merely just because the view taken by the AO was not found acceptable does not mean that the AO has failed to make requisite enquiries. If the answer is affirmative then second question arises whether the acceptance of the claim by the AO was a plausible view or on the facts of the finding on the facts that the said finding of the AO can be termed as sustainable in law.
We find that vide questionnaire, the assessee was asked regarding Toll Plaza expenses consisting computer and weigh bridge expenses, court fee expenses, which were appropriated in new contractor account, the court fee expenses and recovery suit expenses were relating to business of the assessee licence fee, Ahatas income is duly shown as para copy of ledger account filed. The assessee had furnished his reply, which is found placed in the Paper Book Pages as referred above.
AO had made enquiries under Limited scrutiny assessment. We find that the AO has made due enquiries and had taken a plausible view, hence, same, cannot be disturbed by Pr.CIT in the name of further, verification and framing fresh assessment. Since the AO has made during enquiry and examined the issues, hence, invocation of Explanation 2 of section 263 is not justified no it is applicable for the assessment year under consideration as it was inserted with effect from 01.06.2015.
Pr. CIT has not done any enquiry and not suggested what enquiries were to be carried out. In view of this matter, and relying on above mentioned judicial pronouncements, we find that twin condition were not satisfied for invoking the jurisdiction under section 263 of the Act. Therefore, in absence of the same the Ld. Pr. CIT was not correct in exercise the jurisdiction under section 263 of the Act and setting aside assessment for making denovo and accordingly, we quash the impugned order passed under section 263 of the Act and allow the appeal of the assessee. Appeal of the assessee stands allowed.
Maintainability of application - initiation of CIRP - Corporate Debtor failed to make repayment of its dues - Operational Creditors - existence of debt and dispute or not - time limitation - HELD THAT:- The Agreement under Clause 7 (e) clearly says that the payment for services should be made immediately failing which it carries interest at the rate of 15% p.a. will be charged until the date of settlement. The invoices issued also contains a condition that the payment should be made immediately, and it did not refer the element of interest in the bills. However, the Petitioner charged @ 18% p.a., which is also contrary to the term and conditions of the Agreement and also invoices in question. It is also relevant to point out here that, there are 36 invoices starting from 22.02.2018 to 12.11.2018 for total 36 invoices amounting to ₹ 52,94,136.38/- which includes principal amount of ₹ 39,52,469/- and interest of ₹ 13,41,667.38/-. Therefore, the Petitioner failed to point out that whether the Agreement in question, which is valid for period of 2 years was further extended or not.
The Petitioner without resorting correlates the claims and Statutory Demand notice in question. The Statutory notice cannot give cause of action unless it's supported by debt, which is legally payable by the other party. Therefore, the Petitioner failed to make out any case with regard to the alleged outstanding amount, which is under dispute, and it is based on invalid Agreement. Therefore, the Tribunal cannot go roving enquiry with regard to the alleged claim, under the provisions of the Code, which is summary in nature.
The claim made in the instant Petition is not only contrary to the terms of Agreement but also in serious dispute. The Petitioner failed to respond to various emails sent by the Respondents and to correlate the bills.
It is not in dispute that the Agreement in question has already expired during 2017 itself, and there is a refundable security deposit of ₹ 12,00,000/- which is stated to have forfeited in lieu of outstanding amount. Even as per Agreement, rate of 15% p.a. will be charged until the date of settlement. However, the Petitioner has claimed 18% p.a. - The Adjudicating Authority should be satisfied before initiating CIRP that all extant provisions of Code in the light of object of Code stand fulfilled. As stated supra, initial debt it is based on lapsed Agreement and the claim also in serious dispute. Therefore, the instant Company Petition is filed in order to recover the alleged disputed outstanding amount, instead of seeking to initiate CIRP on justified reasons.
It is a settled position of law that the provisions of Code cannot be invoked for recovery of outstanding amount but it can be invoked to initiate CIRP for justified reasons as per the Code. Un-disputed claim is sine qua non for initiating CIRP - The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of MOBILOX INNOVATIONS PRIVATE LIMITED VERSUS KIRUSA SOFTWARE PRIVATE LIMITED [2017 (9) TMI 1270 - SUPREME COURT], has inter alia, held that IBC, 2016 is not intended to be substitute to a recovery forum.
The instant Company Petition is filed other than the object of the Code with intention to recovery of the alleged outstanding amount - the Petitioner has failed to make out any case so as to initiate CIRP as prayed for and thus, it is liable to be dismissed.
Scheme of Amalgamation - seeking holding, convening as well as dispensation with various meetings - Section 230-232 of the Companies Act, 2013 - HELD THAT:- Various directions regarding holding, convening and dispensation of various meetings issued - directions regarding issuance of various notices also issued.
Sanction of Scheme of Amalgamation - Sections 230 to 232 of the Companies Act, 2013 - HELD THAT:- The objections/observations to the Scheme have been received only from Official Liquidator, Regional Director, Registrar of Companies and the shareholder P.P. Jibi Jose, Dlip Kumar Surana & Hanuman Share and Stock Brokers P. Ltd. and their objections/observations are adequately replied to by the Petitioner Companies and hence there is no impediment in the sanction of the Scheme. Therefore, the Scheme (Annexure P-1) is approved. While approving the Scheme, it is clarified that this order should not be construed as an order in any way granting exemption from payment of any stamp duty, taxes or any other charges, if any, and payment in accordance with law or granting permission.
It is directed that the Petitioner Companies shall comply with the provisions of FEMA/RBI Act. With the sanction of the Scheme, the Transferor Company shall stand dissolved without undergoing the process of winding up resulting in increase in the share capital of the Transferee Company as per the terms of Scheme.
Maintainability of application - initiation of CIRP - applicant/respondent, seeking another opportunity to the to put forth its stand on admission of the application moved under Section 7 of the Code effectively - Financial Creditors - it was averred that the application was incomplete and as the OTS process was on, thus, default could not have been alleged and there is need to espouse the plea so raised and bring it home by putting forth the oral submissions - HELD THAT:- The right to hearing was given and availed by the learned counsel for the applicant/respondent in CP(IB) No. 250/Chd/Pb/2018. Therefore, reopening of the proceedings is not necessary.
The terms of the sanction letter dated 27.12.2018 were not complied with by the applicant/respondent in CP(IB) No. 250/Chd/Pb/2018 and therefore, the sanction letter dated 27.12.2018 granting OTS was automatically cancelled. The novation of contract, if any, does not therefore arise in the present case where the OTS proposal is not complied with and automatically cancelled.
The prayer for granting another opportunity to the applicant/respondent to put forth its stand on admission of the application moved under Section 7 of the Code effectively is denied - application dismissed.
Seeking order for liquidation of Corporate Debtor - section 33(2) of I & B code, 2016 - HELD THAT:- In the instant case, the contention of the Suspended Director cannot be taken into consideration in view of the aforesaid amended provisions of Section 33(2) of IB Code, 2019. Thus, in view of the facts and circumstances recorded by RP, this Adjudicating Authority did not receive any Resolution Plan under Sub-Section (6) of Section 30 and the CoC resolved to liquidate the Corporate Debtor with required majority. Therefore, in exercise of powers conferred under Sub-Clauses (i), (ii) and (iii) of Clause (b) of Sub-Section (1) of Section 33 of the I&B Code, 2016, the liquidation order is passed.
Income received or deemed to be received in India - Business Income OR Royalties OR Fees for technical services - proof of business connections in India - payment pertains to business proposed to be carried out outside India -liability of withholding tax on premium payments - proposed payments by the applicant to VIVO for the grant of exclusive right to offer ring back tone Services to VIVO's customers in Brazil would be considered to be received or deemed to be received in India - applicant submits that the taxability of the amount of premium paid by the applicant to VIVO is required to be examined under the provisions of the Income-tax Act, 1961 and the provisions of the applicable Double Taxation Avoidance Agreements (DTAA "Tax Treaty"), whichever is more beneficial - HELD THAT:- Applicant received information and contents from VIVO, and thereupon value added products were developed by the applicant. The above replies of the applicant and flow chart submitted by the learned authorised representative confirms in unequivocal terms that the software and content development and customisation of services and testing of products were to be carried out by the applicant in India.
Applying the logic of CIT v. Havells India Ltd. [2012 (5) TMI 449 - DELHI HIGH COURT] to our facts we conclude that the source of premium payment is based in India as all value-added activities are located in India. The case of the applicant does not fall under the second limb of exclusion under section 9(1)(vi)(b). Thus, under the Income-tax Act, the payments are taxable as royalty in the hands of VIVO under the deeming provisions of section 9.
The applicant has kept a database, nurtured by commercial experience, relating to its mobile services which was being made available to the applicant and this valuable right has been shared with the applicant on exclusive basis and this is clearly in the nature of commercial information and experience which is shared with the applicant and the consideration paid is thus covered under article 12(3) of the treaty.
Since we have held that the payments are in the nature of royalty, we are not commenting on the pleas raised by either side for inclusion/exclusion of premium payment as fee for technical services. Suffice it to say that in relation to premium payments no services were rendered by VIVO in India or in Brazil and thus the captioned payment cannot be treated as fees for technical services.
Ruling:
(a) and (b). The payment of ₹ 12.70 million by the applicant to VIVO for the grant of exclusive right to offer ring back tone services to VIVO's customers in Brazil is income deemed to accrue or arise in India in terms of section 9(1)(vi)(b) as royalties.
(c) The amount payable by the applicant is taxable in India under the provisions of the India-Brazil tax treaty as royalties.
Order passed by CIT u/s 264 - rejecting the prayer of the petitioner, on the ground, that the petitioner has not filed the copy of the Auditor Statement under Section 80 JJAA - HELD THAT:- As petitioner submitted that the issue can be decided by the respondents in the light of the decision of the Madras High Court in The Commissioner of Income Tax vs. AKS Alloys P.Ltd.[2011 (12) TMI 39 - MADRAS HIGH COURT] and in The Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Punjab Financial Corporation [2001 (12) TMI 50 - PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT] and the decision of GM Knitting Industries P. Ltd [2015 (11) TMI 397 - SC ORDER]. Since the issue was covered by the aforesaid decisions, the impugned order is set aside. This case is remitted back to the Commissioner of Income Tax to pass appropriate orders after considering the aforesaid decisions.
Revision u/s 264 - Deduction u/s 80JJAA denied - rejecting the prayer of the petitioner, on the ground, that the petitioner has not filed the copy of the Auditor Statement under Section 80 JJAA - HELD THAT:- Issue can be decided in the light of the decision of AKS Alloys P.Ltd. [2011 (12) TMI 39 - MADRAS HIGH COURT] the decision of the Full Bench of High Court of Punjab and Haryana in The Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Punjab Financial Corporation [2001 (12) TMI 50 - PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT] and the decision of GM Knitting Industries P. Ltd [2015 (11) TMI 397 - SC ORDER] Since the issue was covered by the aforesaid decisions, the impugned order is set aside. This case is remitted back to the Commissioner of Income Tax to pass appropriate orders after considering the aforesaid decisions.
Rejection of challenge of direction to stop local purchase from the appellant - impugned letter/notice was issued by the Principal Secretary to the Government of U.P. stating that a first information report (FIR) had been lodged against Daffodills alleging that it had committed offences, and that the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) was inquiring into the issue - HELD THAT:- In the present case, even if one assumes that Surender Chaudhary, the accused in the pending criminal case was involved and had sought to indulge in objectionable activities, that ipso facto could not have resulted in unilateral action of the kind which the State resorted to- against Daffodils, which was never granted any opportunity of hearing or a chance to represent against the impugned order. If there is one constant lodestar that lights the judicial horizon in this country, it is this: that no one can be inflicted with an adverse order, without being afforded a minimum opportunity of hearing, and prior intimation of such a move. This principle is too well entrenched in the legal ethos of this country to be ignored, as the state did, in this case.
The High Court, in the opinion of this court, fell into error in holding that in matters of award of public contracts, the scope of inquiry in judicial review is limited. Granted, such jurisdiction is extremely circumscribed; no doubt the court had refused to grant relief to Daffodils against its plea of wrongful rejection of its tender.
The Supreme Court of India condoned the delay in refiling the appeal and directed the registry to proceed further. (2019 (12) TMI 1519 - Supreme Court)
Deprecation on purchase of goodwill or any other business or commercial rights in view of the amendment of Section 32(1)(ii) - Whether rights acquired for acquisition of Customer Contracts falls within the expression “any other business or commercial rights of similar nature” as defined in Explanation 3 to Section 32(1)(ii)? - HELD THAT:- In view of the above factual aspects and legal position and the co-ordinate Bench decision in assessee’s own case in . [2018 (8) TMI 2049 - ITAT MUMBAI] for AY 2012-13, we are of the view that the contracts which are part of Slump sale agreement i.e. business purchase agreement form part of intangible assets in term of explanation 32(1)(ii) of the Act. Hence, we find no infirmity in the order of CIT(A) allowing the claim of depreciation of the assessee, we confirm the order of CIT(A).
Addition made while computing book profit u/s 115JB - HELD THAT:- Assessee has made claim of exclusion of amortization of intangible assets, including goodwill, fee paid to consultants and expenses incurred for acquisition of business of DC Gupta construction Pvt. Ltd while computing book profit under section 115JB of the Act. We noted that the AO made addition in the book profit of the assessee but the facts are that the provisions of Sec. 115JB of the Act requires that net profit should be prepared in accordance with Part II and III of Schedule VI to Companies Act.
In the instant case, because of specific accounting treatment followed by the assessee pursuant to High Court order, the financial statements are not showing true and fair view and are contrary to Accounting Standards, provisions of Companies Act and Schedule VI thereto. In the instant case, what has been done pursuant to High Court scheme is not affect the accounting to be made as per companies Act while arriving at the true profit as per Part II of Schedule VI and hence, the assessee is entitled to make necessary adjustment in order to incorporate the impact of the said observation to the Profit as shown in the profit & Loss account to arrive at correct Book Profit under section 115JB of the Act. Hence, the CIT(A) has rightly deleted the addition made by the AO. This ground of Revenue’s appeal is dismissed.
Reimbursement of expenses - AO disallowed the claim of reimbursement expenses by stating that the assessee has not filed the details including bills and vouchers by observing - HELD THAT:- We noted that the assessee has filed details of reimbursement of expenses and this issue is covered by the decision in the case of Vazirani Lani Developers Pvt. Ltd. [2009 (2) TMI 904 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT]. Hence, we find no infirmity in the order of CIT(A) and the same is confirmed. This issue of Revenue’s appeal is dismissed.
Maintainability of application - initiation of CIRP - Financial Creditors or Operational Creditors - pre-existing dispute or not - Appellant submits that already a Summary Suit has been filed by Ms. Rupa Gaur therefore no application under Section 9 of I&B Code is maintainable their being a pre-existing dispute - HELD THAT:- In view of the fact that the ‘Committee of Creditors’ have not been constituted, which is also accepted by Mr. Atul Tandon, Interim Resolution Professional and also has reached settlement with both the creditors, as discussed above and it is a going concern, we exercise power conferred to us under Rule 11 of NCLAT Rule, 2016 and set aside the impugned order dated 4th July, 2019 passed by the Adjudicating Authority (National Company Law Tribunal), New Delhi Bench and dispose of the application under Section 9 filed by ‘M/s Famous Innovations Digital Creative Pvt. Ltd.’ (1st Respondent) as withdrawn.
The Corporate Debtor - ‘M/s Famous Innovations Digital Creative Pvt. Ltd.’ is released from the rigour of Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process. The Appellant is directed to pay the rest of the amount to the Interim Resolution Professional within three weeks - Appeal allowed.
Fixation of professional fee and cost of 'Resolution Professional' - HELD THAT:- The Adjudicating Authority taking into consideration the fact that main claim of the 'Operational Creditor' against the 'Corporate Debtor' was ₹ 20,50,136/- and parties settled the matter, fixed professional fee and cost of 'Resolution Professional' at ₹ 2,50,000/- and allowed a sum of Rs. one lakh to be paid in favour of the Appellant.
The Appellant is unhappy with such amount but we are not inclined to interfere with such amount - Appeal dismissed.
Condonation of delay in filing appeal - exclusion of time as per Section 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 - delay of 189 days from the 90 days that were given under Article 116 of the Limitation Act - HELD THAT:- The matter is no longer res integra. In UNION OF INDIA VERSUS M/S VARINDERA CONST. LTD [2018 (9) TMI 2037 - SUPREME COURT] it was held that any delay beyond 120 days in the filing of an appeal under Section 37 from an application being either dismissed or allowed under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 should not be allowed as it will defeat the overall statutory purpose of arbitration proceedings being decided with utmost despatch.
What is done in the aforesaid judgment is to add to the period of 90 days, which is provided by statute for filing of appeals under Section 37 of the Arbitration Act, a grace period of 30 days under Section 5 of the Limitation Act by following Lachmeshwar Prasad Shukul and Others [1940 (12) TMI 26 - FEDERAL COURT], as also having regard to the object of speedy resolution of all arbitral disputes which was uppermost in the minds of the framers of the 1996 Act, and which has been strengthened from time to time by amendments made thereto. The present delay being beyond 120 days is not liable, therefore, to be condoned.
Proclamation for person absconding - petitioner was not afforded the requisite period of 30 days for causing his appearance after publication of proclamation notice - HELD THAT:- In the present case while publication was effected on 31.5.2018, the accused was required to appear on 1.6.2018. This Court in ASHOK KUMAR VERSUS STATE OF HARYANA AND ORS. [2013 (8) TMI 1146 - PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT] while interpreting the provisions of Section 82(1) has held that a clear period of 30 days is required to be furnished to the accused and that even in case, the Court subsequently adjourned the matter, such adjournment beyond 30 days cannot be treated as compliance of provisions of Section 82(1) Cr.P.C.
In view of the factual position, wherein a period of only 1 day was afforded for causing appearance after the proclamation was effected and in light of ratio of Ashok Kumar's case, the petition is accepted and the impugned order dated 4.7.2018 passed by learned Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Kalka (Annexure P-2) is hereby set aside - Petition allowed.
Interest on Delayed Payments to Small Scale and Ancillary Industrial Undertaking Ordinance - suit filed by appellants were within time limitation or not - it is contended that Act, 1993 is retroactive and further any outstanding amount at the time of commencement of the Act ought to attract interest under The interest on Delayed Payments to Small Scale and Ancillary Industrial Undertaking Act, 1993.
HELD THAT:- Section 3(1) of the Limitation Act, 1963 makes it clear that in event, a suit is instituted after the prescribed period, it shall be dismissed although limitation has not been set up as a defence. The Court by mandate of law, is obliged to dismiss the suit, which is filed beyond limitation even though no pleading or arguments are raised to that effect. The provisions of Sections 4 to 20 are exceptions when suit beyond the period of limitation as prescribed in the Schedule shall not be dismissed as required by Section 3.
Order VII Rule 6 uses the words "the plaint shall show the ground upon which exemption from such law is claimed". The exemption provided Under Sections 4 to 20 of the Limitation Act, 1963 are based on certain facts and events. Section 19, with which we are concerned, provide for a fresh period of limitation, which is founded on certain facts, i.e., (i) whether payment on account of debt or of interest on legacy is made before the expiration of the prescribed period by the person liable to pay the debt or legacy, (ii) an acknowledgement of the payment appears in the handwriting of, or in a writing signed by, the person making the payment.
A perusal of the plaint indicates that there is no pleading as to exception of limitation by running any fresh period of limitation as per Section 19. In paragraph 10, the details of delivery challans have been given, last challan being dated 04.10.1993 has been mentioned by which supply was made. In paragraph 12, details of payments received have also been mentioned, in which last being made on 05.03.1994 has been mentioned, but for the last payment made on 05.03.1994, there was no pleading of an acknowledgment on the part of the Respondents, which could result in start of fresh period of limitation - There being no specific pleading by the Plaintiffs claiming any start of fresh period of limitation, there was no occasion for Defendants to raise any reply in reference to Section 19.
The scope of review is limited and under the guise of review, Petitioner cannot be permitted to reagitate and reargue the questions, which have already been addressed and decided. The scope of review has been reiterated by this Court from time to time - review petition dismissed.
Rectification of mistake - error apparent on the face of record or not - HELD THAT:- Review judgment does not grant interest under Act, 1993 since the High Court in the review judgment did not interfere with the earlier finding that Petitioner is not entitled for benefit under Act, 1993. The review on the ground on which liberty was sought was in essence not accepted by the High Court in its review judgment - there are no ground to review the petition.
Non-speaking order - unsecured financial creditor or not - HELD THAT:- The ‘Resolution Professional’ and the ‘Committee of Creditors’ noticed that the Appellant’s claim of ‘Secured Creditor’ rests on movable properties and not on any immoveable properties as there is no security interest on immovable properties and pledge in respect of immoveable properties cannot be claimed. The ‘Resolution Professional’ and the ‘Committee of Creditors’ held that the Appellant - ‘Financial Creditor’ is not a ‘secured creditor’.
Whether the Appellant is a ‘secured creditor’ or not, is a question of fact and it can be decided by the ‘Resolution Professional’ and any decision further can be taken by the ‘Committee of Creditors’. The Adjudicating Authority (National Company Law Tribunal) or ‘National Company Law Appellate Tribunal’ cannot sit over the decision of the ‘Resolution Professional’ or ‘Committee of Creditors in this regard.
Deduction U/s 10A/10B - proportionate allocation of the head office expenses made by the A.O. while computing the profits of the units eligible for deduction U/s 10A/10B - HELD THAT:- As decided in own case [2017 (10) TMI 233 - ITAT MUMBAI] assessee is having four units based at various locations which were controlled through its headquarter. The expenditure incurred by head office like travel and conveyance, communication expenses, legal and professional charges and rates and taxes definitely is having relevance to its total business. Therefore, we are of the view that the AO was right in allocating head office expenses to the units eligible for claiming exemption u/s 10A / 10B of the Act. We further observe that there is merit in the argument of the assessee that only net expenses of head office should be allocated to the units claiming exemption u/s 10A / 10B, because the assessee is generating other income like interest on fixed deposit and rent which may have some bearing on the functioning of its units claiming exemption u/s 10A / 10B. Therefore, we are of the view that the issue needs to be re-examined by the AO in the light of the submissions of the assessee. Hence, we set aside the issue to the file of AO and direct him to consider the issue afresh after affording opportunity of hearing to the assessee.
TPA - Comparable selection - HELD THAT:- Respectfully following the order of the Tribunal in assessee’s own case for the A.Y. 2010-11 [2019 (10) TMI 1241 - ITAT MUMBAI], we do not find any infirmity in the order of the ld. CIT(A) for directing exclusion of companies namely M/s Infosys Ltd. and M/s Larsen & Turbo Infotech Limited from the final set of comparables.
M/s Zylog Systems Limited, the ld CIT(A) has directed for exclusion after recording a finding to the effect that it is a giant in its area of operation and assumes greater risks translating into higher profitability. Thus, this giant sized company with advantages such as brand, intangibles etc. cannot be compared to a company such as the assessee company which is a captive unit of his AE assuming only limited risks. After recording a similar finding, the ld. CIT(A) also excluded Infosys Lt., which is already covered by the order of the Tribunal. The ld DR could not place on record any material so as to persuade us to deviate from the finding of the ld. CIT(A).
Functional comparability M/s Thirdware Solutions Ltd. and M/s Kals Information Systems Ltd. with the software development service segment of the assessee - We had carefully perused the order of the Tribunal [2019 (10) TMI 1241 - ITAT MUMBAI] and found that exactly on the similar facts and circumstances, the Tribunal have confirmed the action of the ld. CIT(A) for exclusion of these companies from the set off final comparables. The ld DR has fairly conceded the fact that the issue is covered by the order of the Tribunal - we do not find any infirmity in the order of the ld. CIT(A) for excluding these comparables.
Working capital adjustment while determining the arm’s length price of the international transaction in the nature of provision of software development services - HELD THAT:- As the facts and circumstances during the year under consideration are pari materia, accordingly, we direct the A.O. to grant working capital adjustment while determining the ALP for international transaction in terms of direction given by the Tribunal in [2019 (10) TMI 1241 - ITAT MUMBAI]
Permission for withdrawal of application - applicants-petitioners submits that the matter stands preponed from 21.12.2019 and is fixed for today vide order dated 17.12.2019 therefore, prays for withdrawal the present application - HELD THAT:- The application dismissed as withdrawn.
9911796707
