TMI Blog2017 (8) TMI 1457X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... red by the decision of Hon’ble Kerala High Court in the case of N.Radhakrishnan [1999 (10) TMI 33 - KERALA HIGH COURT]. Respectfully following the same, we set aside the orders of lower authorities and delete the disallowance of ₹ 1,74,85,684/- made u/s.40A(9) of the Act and allow the ground of appeal of the assessee. Disallowing the claim of post-retirement medical benefit - fresh claim acceptance - Held that:- CIT(A) held that the issue of claim of post retirement medical benefit has not been discussed by the Assessing Officer in the assessment order. There is no evidence to support the contention that the fresh claim was made during the assessment proceedings, which has not been made in the return of income. In view of the same, the CIT(A) held that the claim of ₹ 1,37,82,763/- on account of post retirement medical benefit cannot be entertained at the appellate stage and dismissed the ground of appeal of the assessee. Before us also, ld AR also failed to produce any evidence to show that fresh claim was made during the assessment proceedings for deduction - ITA No.289/CTK/2014, ITA No.264/CTK/2015 - - - Dated:- 4-8-2017 - S/SHRI N.S SAINI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... as failed to discharge its obligations to deduct tax at source u/s.195(1) for which the provisions of section 40(a)(i) is attracted. Since the assessee has not deducted tax u/s.195(1) of the Act from the said amounts, the Assessing Officer disallowed the same by invoking section 40(a)(ia) of the accordingly addition of ₹ 2180,04,41,000/- was made by him. 4. On appeal before the CIT(A) the assessee submitted as under: (1) The Company is engaged in the business of manufacturing and sale of fertilizers. (2) For manufacture of fertilizers, the Company mostly imports raw Materials under CFR (Cost + Freight) basis and makes the payment for such supply of materials. The Company's Transfer Pricing (TP) assessment for the AY 2010-11 has been completed on 30.01.2014 with NIL Adjustment after going through in detail, the transactions of imports from various parties being associated enterprises within the meaning of Section 92 (C) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. Copy of the aforesaid Order is enclosed and marked as Annexure-1 for your kind reference. The Statutory Audit and the Tax Audit of the Company have been carried out by M/s. S.P. Batliboi Associates, Kolkata and ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ference. On the same issue for AY 2010-11, the AO has adjudicated that withholding tax should have been levied on such imports and has disallowed the same. In this regard, it may be noted that there has not been any change in the law other than number of judicial pronouncements holding that no tax is to be deducted at source where the amount payable is not chargeable to tax in India. The AO has not followed the well settled judicial principle of consistency which holds that unless there is a material change in facts and circumstances of the case, the revenue authority will not depart from its previous decisions at their own sweet will. This principle was upheld by Gauhati High Court in case of Dhansiram Agarwalla v Commissioner of Income Tax (217 ITR 4), where it was held that: .. having upheld in identical circumstances and accepted the explanation furnished by the assessee, consistency demanded and dictated that the Tribunal should not have rejected the explanation for the subsequent year which has been rejected simply because the second/alternative explanation regarding the mode of conveyance was not found to be acceptable... ..Although it is true that neither th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... CBDT is enclosed and marked as Annexure-5 for your kind reference. For the current assessment in progress, the very same issue has been raised by the Ld. AO in the personal hearing held on 10th February' 2014. In this regard, it may be mentioned here that during the AY 2010-11, payment on account of import purchases was ₹ 218004.41 lac. In this regard, the copy of the Annual Report is enclosed and marked as Annexure-6 for your kind reference. Details of purchases of raw materials, trading goods, capital goods and components and spares are shown hereunder for your kind reference: The Ld. AO even disallowed the purchase of Capital Goods which is not routed through the Profit and Loss Account. (8) In regards to the applicability of the section 195 relating to import purchases and disallowances of the same in the pretext of non-deduction of tax at source from the remittances under Sec 40(a)(i), our submission is stated below alongwith relevant case laws of Hon'ble Supreme court and other judicial pronouncements: (8.1) The aforesaid amount of ₹ 218004.41 lacs are in respect of purchase of materials from non-resident (foreign suppliers) for import of good ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tware included a licence to use the same, payments made by the assessee to the foreign suppliers constituted royalty, which was to be deemed to have accrued or arisen in India and, therefore, tax at source was liable to be deducted under section 195. The said finding of the ITO(TDS) was upheld by the Commissioner (Appeals). In second appeal, the Tribunal, however, held that the amount paid by the assessee to the foreign software suppliers was not 'royalty' and the same did not give rise to any income taxable in India and, therefore, the assessee was not liable to Deduct Tax At Source (TAS). On appeal to the High Court, the revenue for the first time, raised the contention that unless the payer made an application to the ITO(TDS) under section 195(2) and obtained a permission for non-deduction of the TAS, it was not permissible for the payer to contend that the payment made to the non-resident did not give rise to 'income' taxable in India and, therefore, there was no need to deduct any TAS. That argument of the department was accepted by the High Court vide the impugned judgment, by placing strong reliance on the judgment of the Supreme Court in Transmission Corp ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Supply Item 2 Components and 220.31 No Supply Item 3. Raw materials 173048.96 No Supply items 4. Capital goods 23.84 No Supply items 5. Trading goods 44597.97 No Supply items Total 218004.41 The Ld. AO even disallowed the purchase of Capital Goods which is not routed through the Profit and Loss Account. (8) In regards to the applicability of the section 195 relating to import purchases and disallowances of the same in the pretext of non deduction of tax at source from, the remittances under Sec 40(a)(1), our submission is stated below alongwith relevant case laws of Hon'ble Supreme court and other judicial pronouncements; (8.1) The aforesaid amount of ₹ 218004.41 lacs are in respect of purchase of materials from non-resident ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . The ITO(TDS) held that since the sale of software included a licence to use the same, payments made by the assessee to the foreign suppliers constituted royalty, which was to be deemed to have accrued or arisen in India and, therefore, tax at source was liable to be deducted under section 195. The said finding of the ITO(TDS) was upheld by the Commissioner (Appeals). In second appeal, the Tribunal, however, held that the amount paid by the assessee to the foreign software suppliers was not 'royalty' and the same did not give rise to any income taxable in India and, therefore, the assessee was not liable to Deduct Tax at Source (TA5). o On appeal to the High Court, the revenue for the first time, raised the contention that unless the payer made an application to the ITO(TDS) under section 195(2) and obtained a permission for non-deduction of the TAS, it was not permissible for the payer to contend that the payment made to the nonresident did not give rise to 'income' taxable in India and, therefore, there was no need to deduct any TAS. That argument of the department was accepted by the High Court vide the impugned judgment, by placing strong reliance on the jud ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s from the words used in section 195(1), namely, 'chargeable under the provisions of the Act'. It is for this reason that vide Circular No. 728, dated 30-10- 1995, the CBDT has clarified that the tax deductor can take into consideration the effect of the DTAA in respect of payment of royalties and technical fees while deducting TAS. It may also be noted that section 195(1) is in identical terms with section 18(3B) of the 1922 Act. In CIT v. Cooper Engg. Ltd. [19681 68 ITR 457 (Bom.) it was pointed out that if the payment made by the resident to the non-resident is an amount which is not chargeable to tax in India, then no tax is deductible at source even though the assessee may not have made an application under section 18(3B) [now section 195(2)]. The application of section 195(2) pre-supposes that the person responsible for making the payment to the non-resident is in no doubt that tax is payable in respect of some part of the amount to be remitted to a non-resident but is not sure as to what should be the portion so taxable or is not sure as to. the amount of tax to be deducted. In such a situation, he is required to make an application to the ITO(TDS) for determining th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... o be deducted at source to be paid to the revenue by the payer who makes payment to a non-resident. Therefore, section 195 has to be read in conformity with the charging provisions, i.e., sections 4, 5 and 9. This reasoning flows from the words 'sum chargeable under the provisions of the Act' in section 195(1). The fact that the revenue has not obtained any information per se cannot be a ground to construe section 195 widely so as to require deduction of TAS even in a case where an amount paid is not chargeable to tax in India at all. One cannot read section 195, as suggested by the department, namely, that the moment there is remittance the obligation to deduct TAS arises. If such a contention is accepted, it would mean that on mere payment income would be said to arise or accrue in India, If the contention of the department is accepted, it would mean obliteration of the expression 'sum chargeable under the provisions of the Act' from section 195(1), While interpreting a section one has to give weightage to every word used in that section. While interpreting the provisions of the Act, one cannot read the charging sections of that Act de hors the machinery sectio ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... to make a declaration before the ITO(TDS) of payments made to non- residents. In other words, according to the department section 195(2) is a provision by which paver is required to inform the department of the remittances he makes to the non-resident by which the department is able to keep track of the remittances being made to non-residents outside India. There was no merit in those contentions. Section 195(1) uses the expression sum chargeable under the provisions of the Act. One needs to give weightage to those words. In Transmission Corpn. of A.P. Ltd.'s case (supra), it was held ,that TAS was liable to be deducted by the payer on the gross amount if such payment included in it an amount which was exigible to tax in India. It was held that if the payer wanted to deduct TAS not on the gross amount but on the lesser amount on the footing that only a portion of the payment made represented income chargeable to tax in India , then it was necessary for him to make an application under section 195(2) to the ITO(TDS) and to obtain his permission for deducting TAS at lesser amount. Thus, it was held bv the Court that if the paver had a doubt as to the amount to be deducted as ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t the moment there is remittance, an obligation to deduct TAS arises, which view stood overruled, o Since the High Court did not go into the merits of the case on the question of payment of royalty, the impugned judgment of the High Court was to be set aside and cases were to be remitted back to the High Court for de novo consideration of the cases on merits. A copy of the aforesaid Judgment in the said case of GE India Technology Cen.(P) Ltd. Vs CIT is enclosed and marked as Annexure-7 for your kind reference. It is pertinent to mention that as per Article 141 of the Constitution of India the law declared by the Supreme Court shall be binding on all courts within the territory of India. Therefore, the law pronounced by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the aforesaid case of GE India Technology is squarely applicable to PPL's aforesaid payments to foreign suppliers for import of materials / goods. o Further, a law which is settled in the country through the highest Court ought not to be interfered with to unsettle the same through improper interpretation of the Law. Hence, our prayer before your Honour to allow the entire imported purchase by deleting the addition made ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f taxes and it's non applicability in the present case The AO has held that the provisions of section 195(1) of the Act were applicable to the Assessee and in the event that certificates under section 195(2) or 195(3) or section 197 of the Act were applied for by neither parties, the Company has failed to discharge its obligations for tax deduction. It has already been decided in the matter of GE Technology that the provisions of section 195 are applicable to any payments to non residents only when they are chargeable to tax in India. The Supreme Court in case of GE Technology (supra) has already settled the matter wherein, it was held that any sum remitted to the non resident which is not taxable under the provisions of the Act does not require the payer to withhold tax at source. The said case was also relied on by us in our submissions before the AO, however, the AO has completely disregarded the submissions and has plainly resorted to disallowing the import payments on the premise that PPL should have applied for a withholding tax order for determining the tax rate of such withholding before making payment. In doing so, he has completely disregarded the fact that thes ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... arium Chemicals Ltd. (175 ITR 243) In the facts of this case, the assessee-company, Barium Chemicals Limited, Ramavaram, entered into an agreement with a foreign company, viz. Chemicals and Technical Service limited, on July 9, 1967, where under, the assessee-company undertook to remit certain amount to the foreign company. No tax was deducted at source by the assesseecompany as required under section 195 of the Act. For that reason, the Income Tax officer added the tax component and worked out the total taxable income at a particular figure. On appeal, the Appellate Assistant Commissioner determined the income accruing to the non-resident company at 2,000 and held and directed the Income Tax Officer to value the perquisite on this basis (taking it as tax on tax and including this amount) and computing the business income and allow relief accordingly. ) In the above facts, a portion of income taxable in India had been determined and there was no dispute, as whether such income needed to be grossed up for the purpose of withholding taxes. Whereas in PPL's case, the basic issue, in dispute is whether the payments for imports are taxable in India or not. It is also relev ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ce on such decision is totally misplaced. The issue before the Court was to decide whether TDS provisions were applicable on payments made to the non resident Appellant whose global income was a loss. There was no dispute on the fact that tax was deductible on such commission income. However, in PPL's case, the basic issue to decided is whether tax is deductible on import payments, i.e., whether payments made by PPL to the non resident suppliers are chargeable to tax in India or not. CIT Andhra Pradesh - III vs Superintending Engineer Uper Sileru (SC) The Andhra Pradesh State Electricity Board (for short 'the Electricity Board'), the respondent in these references, made certain payments to non-residents against the purchase of machinery and equipment and also against the work executed by the non-residents in India if erecting .and commissioning the machinery and equipment. The question arose whether the Electricity Board was under an obligation to deduct tax at Source from these payments under section 195 of the Act. The payments were made by the Electricity Board without deduction of tax at source. The Income Tax Officer held that the Electricity Board was under ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ant was liable to deduct tax at source u/s.195(1), detailed submissions of the appellant, relevant decisions and various facts on record. The dispute has arisen when the appellant purchased machinery, raw materials, components spares, capital goods and traded goods from non-resident concerns for a total cost of ₹ 2180,04,41,000/- (including all other expenses, duty and taxes)' out of which the total cost of raw materials is ₹ 1730,48,96,000/-. The issue was decided by me in the appellant's own case under similar facts and circumstances for earlier assessment year 2009-2010 as under: 3.2 ... As per provisions of sec.195(1) of the Act, any person responsible for paying (Payer) to a Non- Resident or Foreign Company (Payee) any interest or 'any other sum chargeable under the provision of the Act', is required to deduct tax at source. The provision applies to all the Payers, including individual and HUF. The only specific exclusion provided is in respect of payment of dividend which is exempt by virtue of payment of Dividend Distribution Tax. The scope of the provision is wide and therefore, the implications thereof have far-reaching effect in Large num ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... income) question of making any TDS should not arise. However, because of the interpretation that it is not for the assesses to decide whether the income is chargeable in the hands of the Payee or not, the litigation on the obligation to make TDS continues, even after the decision of the Apex Court in Transmission Corporation of A.P. Ltd and particularly in view of interpretation of this judgement by the Hon'ble Karnataka High Court in the case of CIT (International Taxation) v. Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd, [2009] 185 Taxman 313 (Kar.)/ [2010] 320 ITR 209 in the case of M/s. Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd. and other cases in the context of obligation to make TDS in respect of payments made to Non-Resident Payees for supply of shrink wrapped standardised software. The Hon'ble Karnataka High Court held as under: 66. If one is allowed the liberty of giving a rough and crude comparison to the manner in which the provisions of section 195 of the Act operates on a resident payer who makes payment to a non-resident recipient and if the payment bears the character of a semblance of an income receipt in the hands of the non-resident recipient, then the obligation on the part of the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ). However, as per the High Court's decision the obligation of the assessee is limited to deduct tax u/s.195 on the appropriate portion of the income chargeable under the Act in respect of sums paid under the contract. Accordingly, tax was deductible in respect of income imbedded in the contract amount. In the Instant case, the appellant has purchased raw materials from non-resident business entities and no income can be said to have accrued in India in respect of cost of raw materials. The income, if any, earned by the non-resident seller of the raw materials is earned in foreign soil and not taxable under the Indian Income Tax Law. Further, application u/s.195(2) was required to be made in case the appellant was having any doubt about the proportion of income embedded in the remittance and in case the income itself was not assessable in India, there was no requirement to make any application u/s.195(2). In any case, not making an application u/s.195(2) before remittance could at best be considered as a violation and would not attract the provisions of section 40(a)(i). It was held by the Hon'ble ITAT, Hyderabad, in the case of SOL Pharmaceuticals Ltd. v. ITO [2002] 83 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... (2), the TDS is required to be made on any other sum chargeable under the provisions this Act . Changeability is relevant in this case. As per decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CWT Vellis Bridge Gymkhan (1998) 229 ITR 1 (SC), if a person has not been brought in the ambit of Section by clear words, he cannot taxed at all. 2. In this case, the above payments are made towards purchase of goods on principal to principal basis. Assessee has not entered into any contract with foreign parties rather assessee has procured the goods at its own cost like payment of customs duty, freight, handling charges etc. i.e. on CIF basis. 3. In case of CIT vs. R.D. Agrawal Co. (1965) 56 ITR 20(SC), Hon'ble Apex Court has stated that 'In the case of assessee company the purchases are made by placing the purchase order and delivery are made on CIF basis, payment is remitted to foreign sellers in advance, hence, question the taxing the foreign exporters do not arise in India'. Thus, in the case of the assessee, when the sum paid to foreign companies are not chargeable to tax in India, applicability of section 195(1) 195(2) is not sustainable. 4. Trading activit ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... have been referred by the TTAT in appellant's own case for the AY 2007-08 and by the AO for AY 2006-07, it is clear that no tax is deductible u/s,195(l) in respect of remittance made by the appellant for purchase of raw materials amounting to ₹ 4491,86,39,189/- 3.2.4 The case of the appellant is squarely covered by the judgment of e Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of GE India Technology Cen. (P) | /. v. CIT (2010) 327 ITR 456 (SC) which has been quoted by the appellant in its submissions. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in GE India technology Cen. (P) Ltd. has also considered the judgment in the case of Transmission Corporation of AP Ltd. (supra), support of which was taken 'by the AO in holding that assessee was required to deduct tax u/s. 195(1). The Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed that every remittance would not result in deduction of tax but only in respect of the amount taxable under the provisions of the Income Tax Act. The application u/s. 195(2) is required only when the remitter has no doubt that tax is deductible but not sure of the amount of tax to be deducted. In case no tax is deductible on the remittance, no application u/s. 195(2) or no c ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ome-tax Act, i.e., chargeable under sections 4, 5 and 9 of the Income-tax Act. In the instant case, the amounts have been paid towards purchase of raw material on principal to principal basis and the appellant has procured the goods from the non-resident seller at its own cost after making payments of custom duty, freight, handling charges etc. on CIF basis. The raw material is sold by the non-resident seller in foreign soil, hence, no income accrues to the non-resident seller in the Indian territory. The AO has not brought any facts on record nor it is apparent that income in respect of transactions arises in favour of the nonresident sellers in the Indian territory or that the income of such non-residents in respect of transactions is assessable under Indian Income tax Law. 3.2.5 In view of the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of GE India Technology Cen. (P) Ltd. v. CIT (supra), it is the clear that if the payment is made to a non-resident, which is not a taxable income in India, then no tax is required to be deducted u/s.195. Accordingly, the addition u/s.40(a)(i) made by the AO is hereby deleted, Ground No.2 is thus allowed. Since the addition made u/s.40(a)(i) ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... expenses as the assessee was not maintaining its account on mercantile basis. 13. Before the CIT(A), the assessee has submitted as under: The learned AO has disallowed an amount of ₹ 26,55,760/- under the nomenclature Prior period adjustments solely on the ground of assessee is maintaining books of accounts on mercantile basis. In every mercantile system of accounting, the Prior. Period Expenses are bound to be there as because every expenses can not be accurately measured and provided in the accounts. The term PPE is only applicable in a mercantile system of accounting as because the difference in provision at one stage and finalization of the actual expenditure at a later stage. The term PPE is not applicable in cash system of accounting, where expenses as and when incurred are debited in the accounts irrespective of the year to which it relates. Even if the accounts are maintained on mercantile system, certain expenses are bound to be incurred in subsequent years, which can not be anticipated in which it relates due to various reasons like estimated liability differing from actual liability, crystallization of a liability during the subsequent /period, enac ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... uantity vis-a-vis receipt quantity. Since IOCL is a Central Govt. PSU and PPL, wholly dependent on IOCL for uninterrupted supply of FO, both the organizations went for a reconciliation for the period 1.4.2005 to 31.03.2009 and arrived at a figure of ₹ 26,54,640/- to be payable by PPL to IOCL. Copy of the signed reconciliation statement is attached and marked as Annexure-8 for your kind reference. This expense was never claimed in any of the Return of Income filed for past years. Since the expense is relating to past period, the statutory auditors insisted to book the same under 'Prior Period Expenses'. Since the expense has been crystallized during the AY 2010-11, the entire amount is allowable as business expenses. 14. The CIT(A) after considering the submissions of the assessee held as under: I have gone through the submissions of the appellant and facts on record. The disallowance made by the AO on account of prior period adjustment consists of items as under: Price difference on account of IOCL : Rs.26,54,640/- Others ₹ 1,120/- Total : Rs ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Officer disallowed ₹ 1,74,85,684/- u/s.40A(9) of the Act being amount paid to DAV School by the assessee for running the School in the plant premises. The assessee before the Assessing Officer submitted that payment of DAV school management was neither falling under setting up nor formation of nor under as contribution to any fund/trust etc, and, therefore, the same was allowable as business expenditure which was not accepted by the Assessing Officer. According to the Assessing Officer, the claim was covered under the provisions of section 40A(9) of the Act and, accordingly disallowed the same. 21. Before the CIT(A), the assessee submitted as under: In this regard it may be mentioned here that, the learned AO on irrelevant considerations and presumptions has disallowed/ added an amount of ₹ 1,74,85,684/- towards school expenses by invoking Sec 40A (9) of the IT Act in holding that the same is not eligible as expenses . The aforesaid amount of ₹ 1,74,85,684/- is for the welfare of employees being the expenses of the school (DAV school), which has been established within the the Ld. AO disallowed the plant premises and all the expenses are wholly me ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... se of business. It may be mentioned here that the Hon'ble ITAT Delhi Bench in the case of CIT V Gujarat Guardian Ltd [2006] 152 Taxman 37 (Delhi) (Mag) held that school expenses can not be disallowed u/s 40 A (9) of the IT Act, Copy of the aforesaid judgement along with detail of school expenditure is enclosed and marked as Annexure-9 for your kind consideration. 22. After considering the submissions of the assessee, the CIT(A) confirmed the disallowance by observing as under: I have considered the matter carefully. The appellant's submissions are that the amounts spent in running the school is business expenditure since the school is run for staff welfare. The appellant is entitled to look after welfare of its employees which helps in running the business smoothly and also to raise profit and productivity. However, the staff welfare cannot be an excuse to justify running of a school or college and claiming expenditure as business expenses. There has to be a reasonable basis for expenditure on staff welfare activity. Under the guise of staff welfare activities, the employer could not take over every aspect of an employee's private life and day-to-day existence. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ing the above expenditure towards contribution for the running of the FACT School, as an expenditure for the smooth functioning of the business of the assessee and an expenditure wholly and exclusively for the welfare of the employees of the assessee and thus, allowable under section 37(1) as well as section 40A(10) of the Act. 25. Ld D.R. though relied on the orders of lower authorities but could not cited any contrary decisions before us. 26. After considering the rival submissions and perusing materials available on record, we find that the issue at hand is squarely covered by the decision of Hon ble Kerala High Court in the case of N.Radhakrishnan quoted above. Respectfully following the same, we set aside the orders of lower authorities and delete the disallowance of ₹ 1,74,85,684/- made u/s.40A(9) of the Act and allow the ground of appeal of the assessee. 27. In Ground No.3 of the appeal, the grievance of the assessee is that the CIT(A) erred in confirming the order of the Assessing Officer in disallowing the claim of post-retirement medical benefit of ₹ 1,37,82,763/-. 28. The brief facts of the case are that the CIT(A) observed that it was submitted b ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
