TMI Blog2022 (11) TMI 1139X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... scheme of the ultimate holding company, whereby the shares of the ultimate holding company are granted to the employees of the assessee on satisfying certain conditions - HELD THAT:- In assessee's group case, namely, EIT Services India Pvt. Ltd. v. DCIT [ 2022 (8) TMI 1309 - ITAT BANGALORE] had held that the ESOP expenditure is to be allowed as a deduction u/s. 37 of the I.T. Act. The Tribunal had followed the judgment of the Hon'ble jurisdictional High Court in the case of CIT v. Biocon Limited [ 2020 (11) TMI 779 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT] TDS u/s 195 - The assessee has raised grounds with regard to the issue that the assessee is not liable for TDS u/s. 195 of the I.T. Act - We are of the view that these grounds need not be adjudicated, since, on perusal of the final assessment, it is clear that the disallowance of ESOP expenses has made under the provisions of section 37 of the I.T. Act (though there was some discussion in the draft assessment order with reference to disallowance u/s. 40(a)(i). Payment towards leave encashment - HELD THAT:- In the light of the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Exide Industries [ 2020 (4) TMI 792 - SUPREME ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... RP). The DRP vide order dated 25.02.2021 granted partial relief to the assessee, whereby the transfer pricing adjustment was reduced to Rs. 30,29,80,250. The DRP, however, confirmed the A.O.'s view on corporate tax disallowance. Pursuant to the DRP's directions, the impugned final assessment order was passed on 30.03.2021 computing the total income as under:- Computation of Income Returned income 286,32,76,090 Add: TP adjustment 30,29,80,250 Add: Disallowance u/s 37 7,28,99,000 Total taxable income 323,91,55,340 4. Aggrieved by the final assessment order, the assessee has filed this appeal before the Tribunal, raising grounds with regard to the transfer pricing adjustment as well as corporate tax disallowance. However, during the course of hearing, as regards the transfer pricing adjustment is concerned, the learned AR had only pressed ground 1.12, namely, f ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nditure and making false allegation that the ESOP expenditure is a colorable device adopted for avoidance of tax which is totally inappropriate and misdirected. Further, learned AO/Honorable DRP has considered the ESOP cross charge by the Ultimate holding company as fictional and notional in nature which is totally misplaced. 2.7. The Honorable DRP has erred in law and on facts by placing reliance on the case laws decided in different context and not applicable to the facts of the Appellant. 2.8. The Honorable DRP has erred in law and on facts by stating that the ESOP is uncertain by not appreciating the fact that the ESOP expenses are actual expenses claimed by the Appellant, based on actual invoices issued and actual payments made. Non-Applicability of section 195 of the Act 2.9. The learned AO has erred in law and on facts by disregarding that the ESOP expense is liable to TDS under section 192 of the Act as perquisite in the hands of the employees and appropriate taxes are deducted and remitted by the Appellant, which is evidenced by sample Form 16 copies furnished before the honorable DRP. 2.10. The learned AO has erred in law and on facts by stating that the pr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n not appreciating the fact that the Appellant was eligible for the deduction towards leave encashment although the same was not claimed in the return of income filed by the Company for the AY 2016-17, owing to its claim of deduction of provision for leave encashment made in AY 2007-08 and AY 2013-14 (based on the decision of Hon'ble Calcutta High Court in the case of Exide Industries Limited v. Union of India [2007] (164 taxman 9]), which was subsequently rejected. 3.3. The Learned AO while assessing the total income of the Appellant for the year under consideration, have erred in not allowing a deduction for education cess and secondary higher education cess (collectively known as education cess ), although not claimed as a deduction by the Appellant in its return of income. 4. Other matters 4.1. The Learned AO has erred, in law and on facts, in initiating penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c) of the Act. 4.2. The Learned AO has erred in law and on facts, in erroneous consideration of taxable income in assessment order vis a vis Computation sheet while calculating the taxable income and tax thereon. The appellant craves leave to add, alter, vary, omit ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... One Teoch Solutions(India) Private Limited 12.23% 14.87% 18.29% 15.33% 3. Tech MahindraBusiness ServicesLimited 19.71% 29.53% 13.33% 20.44% 4. Infosys BPM Ltd 25.34% 26.80% 27.43% 26.44% 5. SPI Technologies IndiaPvt.Ltd. 40.70% 32.18% 42.48% 37.77% 6. Eclerx Services Ltd. 57.75% 44.39% 70.72% 56.44% 35th Percentile 20.44% Median 23.44% 65th Percentile 26.44% 8. The determination of the ALP and the TP adj ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Median 20.44 65th Percentile 26.44 ALP adjustment ITeS Segment Particulars Formula Amount (in(Rs.) Taxpayers operating revenue OR 1355,42,03,000 Taxpayers operating cost OC 1150,54,66,000 Taxpayers operating profit OP 204,87,37,000 Taxpayers PLI PLI=OP/OC 17.80 Median Margin ofc comparable set M 20.44% Arm s Length Price ALP=(1+M)*OC 1385,71,83,250 Price Received OR 1355,42,03,000 Shortfall being adjustment ALP-OR 30,29,80,250 10. As mentioned earlier, the limited submission of the assessee before the Tribunal as per ground 1.12 is seeking exclusion of three companies f ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... both horizontal and vertical focus areas. 12. The DRP was of the view that just because the company is providing cloud based services over various mainframe computers, the company would not be functionally different as claimed by the assessee and rejected this plea of the assessee. 13. Regarding the plea of the assessee that this company is into high end ITES service provider, and hence not comparable, the DRP held that under TNMM, there is no requirement that the comparables should render the same or identical services. It would be sufficient, if the services fall under the broad industry segment ITES. In this regard the DRP relied on the Bangalore Tribunal decision in the case of GE India Technology Centre (P.) Ltd. v. Dy. DIT [2013] 30 taxmann.com 249/141 ITD 245 and other decisions wherein it was observed that TNMM requires only broad comparability. 14. The contention of the assessee that Infosys BPO has various Revenue Models and its revenues are generated principally on time and material basis, transaction basis and fixed price contracts and therefore, it should not be compared with the assessee, the DRP observed that as the assessed failed to demonstrate as to how ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 18. The assessee's contention that this comparable has incurred significant selling and marketing expense was also not accepted by the DRP, since from the perusal of the annual report, the DRP noted that the expenses on this count is only 4.56% of the total expenditure and which is not at all significant to affect the profitability of the comparable. 19. Thus, in view of the discussions held above, all the grounds raised by the assessee were rejected and the action of the AO/TPO was upheld by the DRP. 20. We have heard both the parties and perused the material on record. This comparable has been considered as not comparable in SwissRe Global Business Solutions India (P.) Ltd. v. Dy. CIT [2020] 116 taxmann.com 716 (Bang. - Trib.) wherein it was observed as under:- We have perused submissions advanced by both sides in light of records placed before us. We note that this company is providing services in various areas of sourcing and procurement, customer services, finance and accounting legal process outsourcing, sales and fulfilment, analytics, business platforms, business transformation services, human resource outsourcing and technology solution optimisation. It i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ng margin of the company, which is beneficial to the assessee. He, therefore, submitted that the TPO/DRP has rightly included this company as comparable. 16.3 We have considered the rival submissions and perused the material on record as well as the orders of TPO/DRP. We find that the co-ordinate bench in assessee's own case ADP (P.) Ltd. (supra) has excluded this company as comparable by observing as under: '38. Having regard to the rival contentions and the material on record, we find we find that the Co-ordinate Bench of this Tribunal in the assessee's own case not only for the A.Ys 2009-10 for the A.Y 2010-11 has also considered this issue at Paras 6 to 9 in ITA No. 221/Hyd/2015 which reads as under: 6. The TPO has selected many comparables and among them M/s. Infosys BPO Ltd., TCS E-serve Ltd., and Eclerx Services Ltd., were objected to on the reason of high turnover and functionally different. With reference to Infosys BPO, the objection was that the said company renders vide array of services and has high brand value and turnover is also very high. With reference to TCS E-serve Ltd., there was exceptional event as the company was taken over by Tata Cons ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... and hence, has to be excluded on this count also. 11.2.2 We find that the assessee's contentions about the presence of 'brand value' and owning of 'intangibles' is supported by the evidence on record. However, as regards the extraordinary event or exceptional circumstance there is no material placed before us by the Ld. Counsel for the assessee. Therefore, merely because the TPO in another case has held that there is an extraordinary event for which this company has to be excluded from the list of comparables, it cannot be excluded. Such claim has to be supported by evidence on record. As regards the functional dissimilarity and huge turnover and brand value is concerned, we find that this Tribunal in assessee's own case for A.Y. 2009-10 while considering the comparability of the assessee with Infosys BPO Ltd., has taken note of the possession of the brand value and intangibles which influenced the financial results of this company. The Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT v. Agnity India Technologies (P.) Ltd., [2013] 219 Taxman 26 (Del.), held that huge turnover companies like Infosys and Wipro cannot be considered as comparable to smaller c ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... onsistent view in this regard that if an extraordinary event has taken place by way of amalgamation that company cannot be considered as a comparable one and following the same parity of reasoning, we direct the Assessing Officer/TPO to exclude SPI Technologies India Pvt. Ltd. from the final set of comparables while computing international transactions in respect of the Assessee in ITes segment. 14.2 In view of the above-mentioned reasons, Ld. A.R. requested to direct the TPO to exclude this comparable from the final list of ITeS Segment. 14.3 Ld. D.R. relied on the order of Ld. DRP. 14.4 We have heard the rival submissions and perused the materials available on record. This company has been considered as not a comparable in the case of Entercoms Solutions Pvt. Ltd. in assessment year 2015-16 in ITA No. 1826/Pune/2019 dated 25.10.2021 wherein held as under:- 8. We find the Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. PTC Software (I) (P) Ltd. : (2019) 101 taxmann.com 117 (Bombay) has held that in case the assessee rendering ITES services to AE, a company in whose case extraordinary event of amalgamation took place during relev ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e before the Tribunal had first claimed that Accentia Technologies Ltd. cannot be selected in the final list of comparables as during the year under consideration, there was an extraordinary event of amalgamation. Thereafter, the Tribunal has analyzed how and what extraordinary event took place in that case and in such scenario, the company cannot be considered as comparable one and the relevant extracts in this regard are as follows: 13. ...................... The learned Authorized Representative for the assessee has pointed out that though the CIT(A) says that there is no such amalgamation but his finding is totally incorrect. In this regard, reliance was placed on the ratio laid down by Pune Bench of Tribunal in Dover India (P.) Ltd. v. Dy. CIT: [2017] 88 taxmann.com 115 (Pune - Trib.), wherein for assessment year 2010-11 itself, the said concern Accentia Technologies Ltd. was excluded being high end KPO service provider. Further, the Tribunal in BNY Mellon International Operations (India) (P.) Ltd. (supra) have noted the extraordinary event of acquisition and also amalgamation of another concern and held that the said concern could not be selected as comparable. The releva ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he assessee. 11. The TPO has noted the aforesaid objections of the assessee in para 18.1 of his order and has rejected the same by merely noticing that 75% of the revenue/income of the said concern is from ITES and therefore it is to be considered as a comparable. Before us, the Ld. Representative for the assessee has reiterated the submissions put-forth before the TPO in order to justify exclusion of the said concern from the list of comparables. In particularly, it has been pointed out that for the very same assessment year, the Bangalore Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Symphony Marketing Solutions India Pvt. Ltd. v. ITO,: (2013) 38 taxmann.com 55 (Bang.) has excluded the said concern from the list of comparables in a similar situation following the decision of the Hyderabad Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Capital IQ Information Systems (India) Private Limited v. DCIT,: (2013) 32 taxmann.com 21 (Hyd.). 15. We have considered the submissions of the Ld. Representative for the assessee and also the stand of the Revenue as emerging from the order of the TPO. In our view, the ratio laid down by the Hyderabad Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Capital IQ Information S ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... x Services Limited has been excluded in the case of Swiss Re Global Business Solutions India (P.) Ltd. [2022] 137 taxmann.com 417 (Bangalore - Trib.) AY 2016-2017 (Refer Page 163 of the Case Law Compilation, Para 22-30). Below is the relevant extract from the order for ready reference: 22. Regarding exclusion of Eclerx Services Ltd., the assessee argued that this company is a KPO company and hence, it is not a good comparable. The DRP observed that there is a thin line of difference between BPO and KPO services. KPO is termed as an upward shift of the BPO industry in the value. chain. Thus, BPO trying to upgrade itself as KPO is likely to render both BPO as well as KPO services in the process of evolution and therefore, such an entity cannot be considered strictly as either BPO or KPO. In view of the above, ITeS service's cannot be further classified as BPO and KPO services for the purpose of comparability analysis. Under the TNMM, functional similarity is more relevant than product similarity. The DRP noted that the functional profile of this company was similar to the assessee. 23. Regarding the amalgamation of wholly owned subsidiary Agilyst Consulting Pvt. Limited has ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ected. 28. Thus, the DRP upheld the rejection of this company as a comparable. 29. We have heard both the parties on the issue. This company has also been considered as not comparable in assessee's own case for A.Y. 2014-15 in IT(TP)A No. 3181/Bang/2018 dated 21-5-2020 wherein it was observed as under:- It is noted that this company is involved in high-end KPO services whereas assessee is providing IT enabled services by rendering remote data processing in the field of reinsurance. In our opinion functions performed by this company is not similar to that of assessee even though assessee before us also carries out certain services on contract basis. Ld. AR has placed reliance upon decision of Hon'ble Delhi High Court in case of Rampgreen Solutions (P.) Ltd. v. CIT: [2015] 60 taxmann.com 355/234 Taxman 573/377 ITR 533 Hon'ble Court had held that once a company falls into the category of high-end KPO, it cannot be functionally comparable with a BPO service provider like that of assessee. Applying this reissue in the present case, we direct Ld. AO to eliminate this comparable from final list. 30. In view of the above order of the Tribunal, we are inclined t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e considered the rival submissions and perused the material on record as well as the orders of TPO/DRP. We find that the coordinate bench in assessee's own case for AY 2014-15 cited supra has excluded this company as comparable by observing as under: 38. Having regard to the rival contentions and the material on record, we find we find that the Co-ordinate Bench of this Tribunal in the assessee's own case not only for the A.Ys 2009-10 for the A.Y 2010-11 has also considered this issue at Paras 6 to 9 in ITA No. 221/Hyd/2015 which reads as under: 6. The TPO has selected many comparables and among them M/s. Infosys BPO Ltd., TCS e-serve Ltd., and Eclerx Services Ltd., were objected to on the reason of high turnover and functionally different. With reference to Infosys BPO, the objection was that the said company renders vide array of services and has high brand value and turnover is also very high. With reference to TCS E-serve Ltd., there was exceptional event as the company was taken over by Tata Consultancy Services in the year 2008-09 and heavy turnover is due to its takeover. Further, it was submitted that the company was functionally different as it has three dif ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tangibles' is supported by the evidence on record. However, as regards the extraordinary event or exceptional circumstance there is no material placed before us by the Ld. Counsel for the assessee. Therefore, merely because the TPO in another case has held that there is an extraordinary event for which this company has to be excluded from the list of comparables, it cannot be excluded. Such claim has to be supported by evidence on record. As regards the functional dissimilarity and huge turnover and brand value is concerned, we find that this Tribunal in assessee's own case for A.Y. 2009-10 while considering the comparability of the assessee with Infosys BPO Ltd., has taken note of the possession of the brand value and intangibles which influenced the financial results of this company. The Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs. Agnity India Technologies P. Ltd.,: (2013) 219 Taxman 26 (Del.), held that huge turnover companies like Infosys and Wipro cannot be considered as comparable to smaller companies like assessee therein. In the case before the Hon'ble High Court (supra), the turnover of the assessee was about Rs. 15.79 crores as against the turnover ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the international transaction. Ground No. 1.13 (assessee is seeking inclusion of three companies) 12. Insofar as Informed Technologies India Limited and Crystal Voxx Limited are concerned, we find that the Tribunal in assessee's group case in the case of EIT Services Private Limited v. DCIT (supra), had restored the matter to the TPO to examine whether the above two companies can be considered as comparable company. The relevant finding of the Tribunal in this regard reads as follows:- 16. Assessee wants inclusion of Informed Technologies India Ltd. Ld. A.R. submitted that the Ld. TPO has alleged that the business of the company is not purely in ITES service and that the company is engaged in the diversified business (page 16 of TP order). However, upon perusal of the Annual report of Informed, it is seen that the Company is into business process outsourcing services, content development and data management techniques and caters to the securities and financial research industry. These services would classify under the nature of ITeS and therefore it is submitted that Informed is engaged in providing ITeS and is comparable to the Assessee. (He referred page 2062 of the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . 10.4.1 We have considered the rival submissions and carefully perused the material on record. On a perusal of the Annual Report of this company 'Informed', it is seen that at page 12 thereof it is stated that this company is engaged in and operating as an ITES provider. A perusal of the TPO's order also indicates that the TPO has not disputed that this company is functionally comparable to the assessee in the case on hand; which is rendering back office ITES. From a perusal of the profit and loss account at page 30 of the Annual Report of 'Informed' it is seen that the total revenue is shown as Rs. 3,81,38,665/- and 'other income' of Rs. 1,22,85,303/-. As can be seen from Schedule 19 on page 40 of the Annual Report, the 'other income' comprises of non-operating income, interest, dividend, sale of current investments and miscellaneous income and evidently these incomes cannot be considered as operating income. The percentage of 67.7% worked out by the TPO is after considering these other income as service income; which is factually incorrect. It is evident from a perusal of the profit and loss account of 'Informed' that the service ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he case of CGI Information Systems Management Consultants (supra) wherein this company 'Informed' was held to be comparable to companies rendering ITES. It was prayed that, in the light of the above, this company 'Informed Technologies Ltd.,' be included in the final set of comparables in the case on hand. 10.3 Per contra, the learned DR for Revenue supported the orders of the authorities below. 10.4.1 We have considered the rival submissions and carefully perused the material on record. On a perusal of the Annual Report of this company 'Informed', it is seen that at page 12 thereof it is stated that this company is engaged in and operating as an ITES provider. A perusal of the TPO's order also indicates that the TPO has not disputed that this company is functionally comparable to the assessee in the case on hand; which is rendering back office ITES. From a perusal of the profit and loss account at page 30 of the Annual Report of 'Informed' it is seen that the total revenue is shown as Rs. 3,81,38,665/- and 'other income' of Rs. 1,22,85,303/-. As can be seen from Schedule 19 on page 40 of the Annual Report, the 'other income&# ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... y reference: 11. Crystal Voxx Ltd., ('Crystal') 11.1 This company, 'Crystal' was proposed by the assessee before TPO as an additional comparable to be included in the final set of comparables. The TPO, however, rejected the assessee's proposal on the ground that this company had not reported any earnings from export of services and therefore it is not possible to determine as to whether 'Crystal' has exports/foreign earnings more than 75% of total sales/turnover. The DRP concurred with the finding of the TPO; observing that while it is stated that income from foreign currency is Rs. 3,23,08,386/-, it is not clear whether this relates to export of services as this information is not available and therefore this company 'Crystal' is rejected. 11.2 Before us, it was contended that this company 'Crystal' is functionally comparable to the assessee in the case on hand as it is operating as a BPO Company which is a ITES provider. According to the learned AR, it is very evident from a perusal of the Annual Report of this company 'Crystal' that the income in foreign currency amounting to Rs. 3,23,08,386/- is out of export of se ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... foreign earnings more than 75% of total sales/turnover. The DRP concurred with the finding of the TPO; observing that while it is stated that income from foreign currency is Rs. 3,23,08,386/-, it is not clear whether this relates to export of services as this information is not available and therefore this company 'Crystal' is rejected. 11.2 Before us, it was contended that this company 'Crystal' is functionally comparable to the assessee in the case on hand as it is operating as a BPO Company which is a ITES provider. According to the learned AR, it is very evident from a perusal of the Annual Report of this company 'Crystal' that the income in foreign currency amounting to Rs. 3,23,08,386/- is out of export of services. In support of this contention, the learned AR took us through the relevant pages of the Annual Report of this company, 'Crystal', which is placed at pages 474 to 497 of the paper book. 11.3 Per contra, the learned DR for Revenue supported the orders of the authorities below in not including this company, Crystal Voxx Ltd., in the final set of comparables. 11.4 We have considered the rival contentions/submissions and perus ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... as eligible to participate in share based compensation scheme of the ultimate holding company, whereby the shares of the ultimate holding company are granted to the employees of the assessee on satisfying certain conditions. As per Note 28 of the financial statement, the assessee had two types of share based compensation scheme operational, namely, Employee Stock Purchase Plan (ESPP) and Employee Stock Incentive Plan (ESIP) (hereinafter referred to as ESOP Scheme). It was stated that the shares were issued below market price and the discounted value was treated as perquisite u/s. 17(2) of the I.T. Act in the hands of the employees and assessee had deducted appropriate TDS u/s. 192 of the I.T. Act. It was stated that to the extent of discount, the holding company had cross charged the assessee. It was stated that it is in respect of cross charges incurred towards options exercised and shares purchased by employees of the assessee, the same was claimed as deduction u/s. 37 of the I.T. Act. The A.O., however, held that ESOP expenditure booked by the assessee and reimbursed to the holding company is a fictitious expenditure and notional in nature. Though the A.O. had mentioned about th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Section 2(15A) of the Companies Act, 1956, defines employees stock option to mean option given to whole time directors, officers or the employees of the company, which gives such directors, officers or employees, the benefit or right to purchase or subscribe at a future rate to securities offered by the company at a pre-determined price. In an employees stock option plan a company undertakes to issue shares to its employees at a future date at a price lower than the current market price. The employees are given stock options at a discount and the same amount of discount represents the difference between market price of shares at the time of grant of option and the offer price. In order to be eligible for acquiring shares under the scheme, the employees are under an obligation to render their services to the company during the vesting period as provided in the scheme. On completion of the vesting period in the service of the company, the option vests with the employees. The expression expenditure also includes a loss and therefore, issuance of shares at a discount where the assessee absorbs the difference between the price at which they are issued and the market value of the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ssessee had not claimed the payment towards leave encashment in the return of income by the assessee for the reason that during the FY 2006-07 to FY 2012-13, the assessee by placing reliance on the judgment of Hon'ble Calcutta High Court in case of Exide Industries v. Union of India [2007] [164 taxman 9], had claimed deduction towards provision of leave encashment on accrual basis despite specific provisions of section 43B(f) of the Act which provides for deduction only on the basis of actual payment. Accordingly, the payments made in subsequent years were not claimed since the claim of accrual was already made and the litigations were pending, as detailed below. 23. The A.O. during the assessment proceedings did not accept the claim in FY 2006-07 and FY 2012-13 relevant to the assessment years 2007-08 and 2013-14. Accordingly, the AO made an adjustment of INR 6,83,81,220 and INR 11,66,67,733 -respectively, to the total income in the assessment order under section 143(3) of the Act, for the said AY's. The ITAT in case of assessee for AY 2007-08 and AY 2013-14, has remitted the issue back to the file of the AO through order dated 16 January 2017 in I.T(TP).A No. 1092/Bang ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
