TMI Blog2022 (12) TMI 168X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... preciation claimed on assets vested to CIBA Specialty Chemicals (India) Ltd pursuant to Demerger - HELD THAT:- As the assets in the block has to be evaluated every assessment year and as per provision 43(6)(C)(B), it clearly indicates that the value has to be reduced of the moneys payable in respective of any assets falling within that block which is sold/discarded/demolished or destroyed. In the given case, the block does not consist the assets, which are transferred in the demerger in the A.Y. 1997-98. However, these particular assets are not in existence in the beginning of the year and it can be considered as discarded in the provisions with NIL value. This issue needs to end some point of time. In that case, the value of the assets has to be written off this year and to be claimed as loss in the statement of income (instead of depreciation). Therefore, we are inclined to direct the Assessing Officer to treat the opening balance of the assets to the extent of assets, which was already transferred to the demerged company as loss of assets or discarded. Accordingly, this ground of appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed. Disallowance of expenditure on incurred on pr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the case of Rotork Controls India (P) Limited [ 2009 (5) TMI 16 - SUPREME COURT] the ground raised by the assessee is allowed. Disallowance under section 14A read with rule 8D - AR submitted that Assessing Officer has not recorded satisfaction even though assessee has suomoto disallowed certain expenditure - HELD THAT:- We observe from the Assessment Order that Assessing Officer has clearly considered the submissions of the assessee relating to the 14A. AO has clearly discussed the issue relating to 14A disallowance and discussed specifically why he has imposed 14A in this case. There is no specific format for recording satisfaction. In the case of Mak Data P. Ltd. [ 2013 (11) TMI 14 - SUPREME COURT] held that Assessing Officer is not required to record his satisfaction in a particular manner or reduce it with writing (even though on the issue of section 271(1)(c) of the Act). In our considered view, as per the Assessment Order, the reasons recorded by the Assessing Officer for invoking Rule 8D are proper satisfaction and the cases relied by the assessee are distinguishable. Accordingly, this ground is dismissed. Short grant of TDS Credit - assessee has filed rectifi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ly different from the Appellant for the international transaction of provision of Security support services (d) by erroneously computing the margins of some of the comparable companies identified by the learned TPO (e) By not adding the comparable companies identified by the Appellants with comparable companies identified by the learned TPO (f) By not considering the +/- 5% variation from the arm's length price permitted to the Appellant under the proviso to section 92C(2) of the Act. (g) By ignoring the provisions of Rule 10B(3) of the Income-tax Rules, 1962, which envisage usage of multiple year data of comparable companies for the purpose of determination of the arm's length price and using single year data for computing arms length price. GROUND NO. 2 (a) The learned AO erred in holding that the appellant would not be eligible for depreciation on assets that stood vested in Ciba Specialty Chemicals (India) Ltd., (CSCIL) pursuant to the scheme of demerger. (b) The learned AO erred in holding that a consideration had flowed to the appellant for the transfer of the assets to CSCIL (c) Without Prejudice to above, in the event it i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Rs 2,92,95,739/ being the amount of actual payment on account of Pension as consistently done in the past (c) Without prejudice to the above, the appellants submit that the learned AO be directed to allow actual payment out of Rs. 2,92,95,739/- to the extent it relates to the provision created during the year ended 31 March, 1993, but disallowed in assessment as per assessment order for A.Y 1993-94. GROUND NO. 9 (a) The learned AO erred in disallowing amount of Rs. 1,94,42,427/- on the ground that year end estimates of expenses are excess provision. (b) Without prejudice to the above, the appellants submit that consistent with the department's stand, the AO ought to have held that the deduction be allowed in assessment year 2009-10 being the year in which the same were written back and credited to Profit and Loss account in that assessment year and offered to tax GROUND NO. 10 The Learned AO erred in making a further disallowance of an amount of Rs 6,43.513 under section 14A read with rule 8D of the Act, holding the same as expenditure incurred on earning tax free interest/dividend income without appreciating the fact that the appellants ha ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... services: (c) The learned TPO/ learned AO have erred in law and in facts by including the following additional companies which are not comparable to the Appellant: Tamil Nadu Ex-Servicemen's Corpn. Ltd; Apitco Ltd., Rites Ltd., Vapi Waste Effluent Mgmt. Co. Ltd. WAPCOS Ltd., (Seg) Additional Ground No 16 - Deduction of Education Cess paid on Income-tax: 16. The Appellant prays that the liability for education cess on Income-tax paid for the current year ought to be allowed as business expenditure under Section 37(1) of the Act while computing the business income. 5. Ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that the above additional grounds and modified grounds of appeal are purely legal grounds and do not require any fresh examination of facts. Therefore, Ld. Counsel for the assessee prayed it may be admitted. 6. Ld. DR objected for admission of the additional grounds as they were never raised before lower authorities and therefore cannot be admitted. 7. Considered the rival submissions and material placed on record, we observe that as the said additional grounds are legal grounds, wherein, the facts are on record and fact ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 7 ICRA Online Limited 26.78% 8 IDC India Limited 15.31% 9 India Cements Capital Ltd 42.46% 10 Indus Technical Financial Consultants 14.05% 11 Mecon Ltd 11.80% 12 NIS Sparta Ltd 1.84% 13 Informatics Ltd 6.54% 14 Rites Ltd 31 52% 15 Sanco Trans Ltd 20.62% 16 Technicom-Chemie (India) Ltd 13.43% 17 Vapi Waste Effluent Management Co. Ltd 47.53% 18 WAPCOS Ltd 58.98% Arithmetic mean 22.49% 9. TPO proposed an adjustment of ₹.1,91,754 based on difference between ALP @ 22.49% and entity level margi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tion and instalments received from its members) and the Government of India. The company receives major portion of the income as receipts from its members and is hence not comparable to the Assessee. From the Schedule G of the audited financial statements, it can be seen that the company operates an effluent treatment plant in Vapi. Further schedule G also states that the company has been approved as a special purpose vehicle by the Government for the upgradation project under the Infrastructure Upgradation scheme WAPCOS limited (Operating margin as per TPO - 58.98%) (Refer page 130-143 of the Factual Paper-book) Functionally different- WAPCOS provides consulting in the domestic and international water and power sectors. From the perusal of the website of the company, www.wapcos.gov.in. it can be seen that Wapcos Ltd is a government company with a Mini-Ratna I status. Further the vision statement of the company reads as 'to be a premier consultancy organisation recognized as a brand in water, power and infrastructure development for total project solutions in India and abroad. 11. In this re ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... mpanies are held to be functionally different to the assessee by the Coordinate Bench in the group concern of the assessee in Novartis Healthcare Pvt. Ltd., (supra). The relevant findings are as under: - 8. It is settled proposition that while testing the international transaction of the assessee with the comparable uncontrol price, the margin of the transactions with the AE has to be taken into consideration and not the entity level margin of the assessee. The margin of the assessee from the international transaction is undisputedly 15% as charged by the assessee as cost + 15% marker from the AE. Accordingly, we direct the AO/TPO to compare the assessee s margin at segmental level and not at entity level. The assessee claimed that the segmental level margin is at 15.50%. The assessee has disputed only three comparables selected by the TPO and seeking exclusion of these three from the set of comparables of the TPO. We will discuss these three comparables as under: i) Rites Ltd. The Revenue has not disputed that Rites Ltd. is a government company established under the Ministry of Indian Railways and is providing the services in the field of architecture and planning, bridg ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rs, therefore the price of this company cannot be treated as an independent and uncontrol price when the majority of the Revenue is earned from the members who have contributed to the capital of the company. Even otherwise the business profile of the company is entirely different from the assessee as this company has been approved as special purpose vehicle by the government for road upgradation project under the infrastructure upgradation scheme. Apart from this, the company is providing a comprehensive environment and management programme for Vapi Industrial Estate. In case of Actis Advisors Pvt. Ltd. (supra) Delhi Benches of this Tribunal have considered the functional comparability of this company in para 6.1 as under: 6.1. Coming back to the issue of comparability the inclusion/ exclusion of Vapi and WAPCOS, the ITAT in the cases of M/s MCI Com India P. Ltd. and M/s Verizon India P. Ltd. (supra) has held that companies like EIL, Rites, Wapsos and TCE are engineering companies and provide end to end solutions and therefore they cannot be compared with those assessee who were into providing marketing support services to the parent company. They were held to be functional ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... regards the objections of the Ld. D.R. that all other companies should also be rejected on the same criteria, it is pertinent to note that the DRP has not issued any direction of exclusion of the comparables selected by the TPO on the ground of functional non comparability, therefore we cannot go into the issue which has not been raised before us either by the assessee or by the department. Even otherwise the comparable selected by the TPO and confirmed by the DRP cannot be disputed by the department at this stage, therefore we do not propose to go into the issue of a functional comparability of the other companies which are not disputed by the assessee before us. 9. In view of the above observations and findings, we direct the TPO/AO to recompute/determine the arms length price after exclusion of three companies as discussed above. The assessee has claimed that after the exclusion of these three companies the mean margin of the remaining comparables comes to 18.03% in comparison to the segmental level margin of the assessee at 15.50% which is in the tolerance range of + 5%, therefore it is claimed that no adjustment is called for. The TPO/AO is directed to consider this aspec ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... own value under the Act from the respective blocks. 19. In support of the above contention that Novartis India is eligible to claim depreciation on asset vested to CIBA Specialty pursuant to Demerger, Ld. AR relied on following case laws: - ITAT order in Appellant's own case for AYS 1997-00 dated 25 January 2016. ITAT Order in own case for AY 2000-01 dated 7 July 2017 read with Third member ruling dated 27 September 2019. ITAT Order in own case for AY 2001-02 dated 30 April 2021. 20. Ld.DR relied on the orders of the Authorities below. 21. Considered the rival submissions and material placed on record, we observed that similar issue was considered and adjudicated by the Coordinate Bench in assessee s own case for the Assessment Years 1997-98 to 2001-02. The Coordinate Bench in ITA.No. 3379/Mum/2009 dated 30.04.2021 for the A.Y. 2001-02 decided the issue in favour of the assessee, while holding so the Coordinate Bench held as under: - 3.7 We find that this issue has been adjudicated in Tribunal s order for AY 2000-01, para nos. 22 to 24. In para-24, the bench observed that newly inserted explanation 2A by Finance Act, 1999 w.e.f. 01/04/2000 to S ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ling within that block, acquired during the year. (B) by the reduction of the moneys payable in respect of any asset falling within that block, which is sold or discarded or demolished or destroyed during that previous year together with the amount of the scrap value, if any, so, however, that the amount of such reduction does not exceed the written down value as so increased; and (C) .. From the above provision, it is clear that every year the block of assets has to be adjusted in case if there are any changes in the composition of the assets within the block. This exercise has to be done every assessment year. In the given case, it is fact on record that the impugned assets are not in existence with the organization. The ITAT has come to the conclusion in A.Y.2000-01 interpreting the provisions as applicable at that point of time. In our view the assets in the block has to be evaluated every assessment year and as per provision 43(6)(C)(B), it clearly indicates that the value has to be reduced of the moneys payable in respective of any assets falling within that block which is sold/discarded/demolished or destroyed. In the given case, the block does not consist th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Co Ltd (315 ITR 0134) (Bombay High Court); and g) Proctor Gamble Home Products Ltd (377 ITR 0066) (Bombay High Court) 25. Ld. DR vehemently supported orders of the authorities below. 26. Considered the rival submissions and material placed on record, we have perused the Hon'ble Bombay High Court ruling in the case of Geoffrey manners Co. (supra). We further observe that on identical issue Coordinate Bench decided the issue in favour of the assessee in assessee s own case for the A.Y. 2001-02 in ITA.No. 3379/Mum/2009 dated 30.04.2021. For the sake of clarity, relevant ratio is reproduced below: - 4.3 We find that this issue has been adjudicated in paras 26 27 of Tribunal s order for AY 2000-2001 order dated 07/07/2017. The bench, noting the decision of Hon ble Bombay High Court in assessee s own case for AY 1997-98, decided this issue in assessee s favor. Facts being identical, respectfully following the consistent stand of Tribunal, we dismiss ground no.2 of revenue s appeal which makes ground no.1 of assessee s cross-objection as infructuous. 27. On a careful reading of the above order of the Tribunal, we observe that Coordinate Bench decided the i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... case, expenditure on incurred on computer software/ license fees ought to be allowed as revenue expenses. 31. Ld.DR vehemently supported the orders of the authorities below. 32. Considered the rival submissions and material placed on record, we have perused the various case laws relied on by the assessee. We further observe that on identical issue Coordinate Bench decided the issue in favour of the assessee in assessee s own case for the A.Y. 2001-02 in ITA.No. 3379/Mum/2009 dated 30.04.2021. For the sake of clarity, relevant ratio is reproduced below: - 8.1 The assessee incurred an amount of Rs.27.31 Lacs towards purchase of various computer software packages as detailed in the assessment order. Majority of the expenses consisted of license fee or use of Microsoft packages (excel sheet, word document, power point presentation etc.) and Oracle software for developing accounting software at C F locations. The assessee submitted that software expenses were for software packages which get frequently outdated and have to be replaced and therefore, the expenditure was revenue in nature. The assessee further stated that operating software is treated as capital expenditure wh ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... losing stock of Financial Year (FY) 2007-08 is ₹.42,32,548. However, the Assessing Officer has taken a contrary position for previous years and added the expense to the closing stock. Ld. AR submitted that the same position has been followed for the captioned AY wherein the Assessing Officer has made additions net of secondary freight on opening stock of ₹.37,95,776/-. In support of the assessee s contention that freight expenses should be allowed as revenue expenses and not form part of valuation of closing stock, Ld. AR relied on various orders of ITAT in assessee s own case for the Assessment Years 1997-98 to 2001-02. 35. Ld.DR vehemently supported the orders of the authorities below. 36. Considered the rival submissions and material placed on record, we have perused various orders of the Coordinate Bench in assessee s own case for the Assessment Years 1992-93 to 2001-02. We further observe that on identical issue Coordinate Bench decided the issue in favour of the assessee in assessee s own case for the A.Y. 2001-02 in ITA.No. 3379/Mum/2009 dated 30.04.2021. For the sake of clarity, relevant ratio is reproduced below: - 5.3 We find that this issue is squa ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Bench decided the issue in favour of the assessee in assessee s own case for the A.Y. 2000-01 in ITA.No. 6226/Mum/2004 dated 07.07.2017. For the sake of clarity, relevant ratio is reproduced below: - 6. The next issue in this appeal of assessee in ITA No. 6226/Mum/2014 for AY 2000-01 is as regards to the order of CIT(A) confirming the action of the AO and disallowing the expenses of foreign travel. For this assessee has raised following ground No. 2: - Ground No. 2 a. The CIT(A) erred in disallowing Rs.41,14,400/- being 20% of total foreign traveling expenses. b. Without prejudice to above, the appellants submit that in case foreign travel expenses are held as capital in nature, depreciation should be allowed on such expenditure. 7. At the outset, the learned Counsel for the assessee took us through the Para 9 of the assessment order which reads as under: - 9. The assessee has claimed foreign travelling expenses as part of its total travelling expenditure. In the assessment orders for A.Y 93-94 onwards, 25% of foreign Travelling expenses incurred by the assessee have been disallowed on the ground that the assessee has not proved that the time and e ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ssee and against the Revenue. Respectfully following the Tribunal s decision in assessee s own case in earlier years, we allow the claim of the assessee. 42. On a careful reading of the above order of the Tribunal, we find that this issue is squarely covered in assessee s favor by the various decisions of Tribunal right from AYs 1996-97 to AY 2000-01. Since the issue is exactly similar and grounds as well as the facts are also identical, respectfully following the above decision in assessee s own case for the A.Y. 2000-01, we allow the ground raised by the assessee. 43. Coming to Ground No. 7 which is in respect of disallowance of hotel and air fare expenses of foreign visitors for an amount of ₹.3,91,564/-. Ld. AR submitted that the assessee receives foreign visitors coming to India for attending board meetings, management specialists, etc. These personnel are either from group companies or are third parties who come to India in order to conduct discussions on the company's business, finance, technical matters, etc. However, since AY 1995-96 and onwards, said expenses have been disallowed by the Assessing Officer during the assessment proceedings on the grounds t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the purposes of company's business. However, the assessee has not been able to furnish any evidence whatsoever in support of its above claim. In the assessment orders for A.Y. 1995-96, 1996- 97;1997-98, 1998-99 and 99-2000 the expenditure on foreign visitors was held to be on account of the business of the parent foreign company M/s. Ciba Geigy, Basle / M/s Novartis AG Baste. However, since the facts for this year are similar to that of earlier years, in view of the fact that the assessee has not proved that the expenses were wholly and exclusively for the purpose of its business and considering the reasons recorded in earlier assessment years, the total amount of Rs.1,54,201/- is disallowed as being non-business expenditure. 12. The learned Counsel for the assesse, in view of the above observation of the AO argued that this being a historic issue, the revenue is consistently disallowing this expense from AYs 1995-96 to 1999-2000 and the Tribunal allowed the claim of foreign visitors expenses consistently in all these years and he similarly referred to the order of Tribunal in ITA No.498/Mum/2003 whereby vide Para 40 41 of the Tribunal s order the issue was allowed as u ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the facts are also identical, respectfully following the above decision in assessee s own case for the A.Y. 2000-01, we allow the ground raised by the assessee. 48. Coming to Ground No. 8 of grounds of appeal which is in respect of disallowance of incremental liability on account of pension payable under the erstwhile Voluntary Retirement Scheme of FY 1992-93. (Disallowance: Rs.22,17,950 and Relief: Rs. 1,94,75,828). Ld. AR submitted that during the captioned assessment year, the assessee has claimed incremental VRS pension liability of ₹.22,17,950 in connection with its Bhandup unit. Payments made in relation to the VRS Scheme during the captioned AY amounted to Rs.2,92,95,739. The claim of the assessee is being disallowed by the Assessing Officer during the assessment proceedings since A.Y. 1993-94 onwards on the ground of it being an unascertained contingent liability. The same position has been followed for the captioned assessment year wherein the Assessing Officer has disallowed the Assessee s claim for incremental VRS pension liability. The Assessing Officer has further made reference to the provisions of section 35DDA of the Act, introduced with effect from 1st Ap ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... placed on record, we have perused various orders of the Coordinate Bench in assessee s own case for the Assessment Years 1993-94 to 2001-02 and also other case laws relied on by the assessee. We further observe that on identical issue Coordinate Bench decided the issue in favour of the assessee in assessee s own case for the A.Y. 2001-02 in ITA.No. 3379/Mum/2009 dated 30.04.2021. For the sake of clarity, relevant ratio is reproduced below: - 6.1 The assessee claimed an amount of Rs.253.73 Lacs towards incremental VRS (Voluntary Retirement Scheme) for Bhandup unit which was on the basis of actuarial valuation. As held in earlier years, the liability was a contingent liability. Similar disallowance made in AY 199394 was confirmed by Ld. CIT(A). Similar disallowance was in assessment order for AYs 1994-95 to 2000-01. However, actual payment of VRS payment made during relevant year was to be allowed. In this year, assessee made payment of Rs.417.76 Lacs which was to be allowed whereas the claim of Rs.253.72 Lacs as per actuarial valuation was to be disallowed. The said adjustment resulted into net relief of Rs.164.04 Lacs to the assessee. 6.2 The Ld. CIT(A) noted that in appe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ar-end provision, Ld. AR submitted that the assessee makes provisions in its books of accounts based on various services/benefits received by it. Thus, in reality there is no excess provision except for the normal under or over accrual. During the AY 2007-08, total provisions of ₹.21,88,24,077 have been created for expenses which inter-alia include employee related payables, Central Sales Tax/ VAT expenses, Annual Awards Function, etc. Payments against the provisions during the captioned AY amount to INR 18,76,66,388. From the balance, excess provision for Central Sales Tax/ VAT expenses, provident fund contribution and bonus amounting to ₹.1,51,22,225 have been suo-moto disallowed by the assessee. The remaining excess provision of ₹.1,60,35.464 (representing meager 7.33% of the total provisions) has been disallowed by the Assessing Officer during the assessment proceedings. Further, the Assessing Officer has allowed relief of ₹.2,39,05,469 being excess provision disallowed in AY 2007-08 reversed in the captioned AY and made further disallowance of ₹.48,269 being short provision of AY 2007-08 paid in the captioned AY but allowed in AY 2007-08. The Asse ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s India (P) Limited (supra), the Hon'ble Supreme Court held as under:- Held, reversing the decision of the High Court, that the valve actuators, manufactured by the assessee, were sophisticated goods and statistical data indicated that every year some of these were found defective: that valve actuator being a sophisticated item no customer was prepared to buy a valve actuator without a warranty. Therefore, the warranty became an integral part of the sale price; in other words, the warranty stood attached to the sale price of the product. In this case the warranty provisions had to be recognized because the assessee had a present obligation as a result of past events result ing in an outflow of resources and a reliable estimate could be made of the amount of the obligation. Therefore, the assessee had incurred a liability during the assessment year which was entitled to deduction under section 37 of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The present value of a contingent liability, like the warranty expense, if properly ascertained and discounted on accrual basis can be an item of deduction under section 37. The principle of estimation of the contingent liability is not the normal ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... le 8D but without recording satisfactory reasons establishing the incorrectness of its suo-moto disallowance. 63. Ld.AR contended that disallowance u/s 14A cannot be made where no satisfaction has been recorded by the Assessing Officer as to the incorrectness of the claim of the Assessee that no expenditure has been incurred for earning exempt income and he relied on following case laws for the above contention: (i). Maxopp Investment Limited (402 ITR 640) (SC); (ii). Godrej Boyce Manufacturing Company Ltd. (394 ITR 449) (SC); (iii). Reliance Capital Asset Management Ltd. (ITA No 487 of 2015) (dated 19 September 2017) (Bombay HC) affirmed by SC (98 Taxmann.com 361 (SC); (iv). Sociedade De Fomento Industrial (P.) Ltd. (ITA No 34 of 2014); (v). Bombay Stock Exchange Ltd. (ITA No 1017 of 2017) (Bombay HC); (vi). Tata Industries Limited (ITA 67, 68, 278 and 299/Mum/2018) (Mumbai Tribunal) 64. Ld. AR further submitted that no additional disallowance under section 14A is warranted, since, Assessing Officer has failed to record satisfaction for making disallowance under section 14A of the Act. 65. Ld.DR vehemently supported the orders of the author ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d by the apex court in Rajasthan State Warehousing Corporation Vs. CIT (2000) 1242 ITR 451], the principle of apportionment of expenditure will apply. Moreover section 14A introduced with retrospective effect specifically provides that the expenditure incurred on earning exempt income is not allowable. 67. Assessing Officer has clearly discussed the issue relating to 14A disallowance and discussed specifically why he has imposed 14A in this case. There is no specific format for recording satisfaction. However, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Mak Data P. Ltd., v. CIT [(2013) 358 ITR 593 (SC)] held that Assessing Officer is not required to record his satisfaction in a particular manner or reduce it with writing (even though on the issue of section 271(1)(c) of the Act). In our considered view, as per the Assessment Order, the reasons recorded by the Assessing Officer in Para No. 11.3 and 11.4 for invoking Rule 8D are proper satisfaction and the cases relied by the assessee are distinguishable. Accordingly, this ground is dismissed. 68. Coming to Ground No. 11 of grounds of appeal which is in respect of addition of unutilized CENVAT credit to the closing stock u/s ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
