TMI Blog2020 (8) TMI 323X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ing the deduction in Assessment Year 2009-10. TDS u/s 195 - Disallowance u/s 40(a)(i) - payments in respect of certain amounts, such as, technology service, fee charge out, receipt of services, professional charges and relocation expenses - HELD THAT:- It is true that most of the relocation expenses are in respect of salary paid to employees of the assessee who travelled abroad for business of the appellant. However, in our considered opinion, these details need verification. We, accordingly, restore this issue to the file of the AO and is directed to very details and examine whether the payments have been made by the assessee to its own employees who travelled abroad and decide the issue afresh after giving reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee. Grant of TDS - HELD THAT:- We direct the Assessing Officer to give credit of TDS as per provisions of law. - ITA No. 355/DEL/2016 - - - Dated:- 13-8-2020 - Shri N.K. Billaiya, Accountant Member, And Ms. Suchitra Kamble, Judicial Member For the Assessee : Shri Nageshwar Rao, Adv, Shri S. Chakrabarty, Adv For the Revenue : Shri Anupam Kant Garg, CIT-DR ORDER PER N.K. BILLAIYA, ACCOUNTANT MEM ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... es Ltd.; 4. Infosys Ltd. on the ground that the same were included by the Tribunal in Assessment Year 2010-11. 11. The ld. counsel for the assessee further stated that the TP adjustments have subsumed the interest on receivables as working capital and, therefore, no further adjustment is required. 12. Per contra, the ld. DR strongly supported the orders of the authorities below. 13. We have carefully perused the orders of the authorities below and the decision of the Tribunal in assessee s own case for Assessment Year 2010-11. We find force in the contention of the ld. counsel for the assessee. The co-ordinate bench in assessee s own case in ITA No. 1426/DEL/2015 order dated 17.07.2019 has considered the exclusion of Infosys BPO and TCS E serve Ltd. The relevant findings of the coordinate bench read as under: For the reasons discussed in the preceding paragraphs, we are of the considered opinion that because of the extraordinary events that took place in the period under consideration, Infosys BPO limited, Accentia technologies limited, TCS E-Serve limited and TCS EServe international Ltd are not good comparables and are liable to be excluded from the list of com ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nd services is separately mentioned and was also at page 26, the segment revenue and segment results are also provided. In these circumstances, we are of the considered opinion that in the absence of any finding that this company is functionally dissimilar, ld. TPO should have considered these figures to identify whether CG Vak Software is a suitable comparable with the assessee. We, therefore, direct ld. TPO to consider this entity for benchmarking the international transaction. 35. The other two companies are M/s Informed Technologies Ltd. and M/s Micro genetics Systems Ltd. Ld. TPO rejected the same on the ground that both the Companies sales are below ₹ 5 Crores.In tune with our findings in respect of M/s CG Vak Software, while placing reliance on the decision of the jurisdictional High Court in the case of Chris Capital (supra), we hold that so long as a company is functionally similar to the assessee merely because it does not match with the turnover, it cannot be rejected. We, therefore, direct ld. TPO to include Informed Technologies Ltd. in the list of comparables. Further, we consider the fact that in assessee s own case for the Assessment Years 2004-05, 2005- ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed in favour of the assessee in assessee s own case by the Tribunal in the earlier years. On the other hand, ld. DR strongly relied upon the order of the AO. 34. From the perusal of the impugned order as well as the earlier order of the Tribunal, we find that in AY 2003-04, the Tribunal has upheld the order of ld. CIT(A) allowing the deduction u/s 10A. In AY 2008-09, again in revenue s appeal this Tribunal following the earlier decision of the Tribunal held that assessee was entitled for deduction u/s 10A on the ground that it has established a new unit. Once already deduction u/s 10A on the same unit has been allowed in the earlier years by the Tribunal, therefore, no different view can be taken for the same unit on similar set of facts for denying the deduction in Assessment Year 2009-10. Accordingly, we direct the AO to allow deduction u/s 10A in respect of the said unit. 41. In view of the above, while respectfully following the same, we direct the learned AO to allow the deduction u/s 10A of the Act for the Asstt. Year 2010-11 to the tune of ₹ 49,93,98,378/- in respect of AEGSC(STP) Unit set up by the assessee during the Financial Year 2002-03. 21. The next ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
