TMI Blog2022 (4) TMI 1514X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... arantee commission adjustments - Both parties have quoted a catena of case law wherein various learned co-ordinate benches have adopted different rates. Faced with this situation, we deem it appropriate in these peculiar facts and circumstances that a lumpsum commission rate of 0.5% qua the extent of amount of assessee s corporate guarantee(s) actually utilized only in all these four assessment years; would be just and proper. This second substantive ground is partly allowed in very terms. ALP adjustments of interest as trading receivables assessment year-wise - Both the learned representatives reiterated their respective stands regarding the impugned ALP adjustment made going by the bank s short term deposit interest rates. So far as the legal question as to whether such interest on outstanding receivables forms an international transaction or not, we note that the same also comes under Section 92B Explanation (I)(c) which has been already as applicable with retrospective effect - We thus uphold the learned lower authorities impugned action interest on outstanding receivables as international transactions to this limited extent. No merit in the Revenue's instan ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... mpt income as well but with prospective effect only from 01.04.2022 onwards. We reiterate that we are in A.Ys. 2014-14 to 201718 only. We thus find no merit in Revenue s stand and direct the Assessing Officer to delete the impugned disallowance. Disallowing sales, promotions and business marketing expenses - HELD THAT:- We prima facie find merit in the assessee s claim as DRP s findings have nowhere made it clear as to in what manner the assessee had offered freebies to the doctors which are covered under the Medical Council of India Act s guidelines. We also take note of the hon ble apex court s recent landmark decision M/s. Apex Laboratories (P.) Ltd [ 2022 (2) TMI 1114 - SUPREME COURT] upholding disallowance of freebies offered by pharmaceutical companies to doctors associations. We next note that there is not even a single observation in the DRP s directions that the assess had incurred the impugned expenditure for any such freebies to doctors and their associations. We reiterate that it has not even manufactured the final products to be sold in market as well. We accordingly conclude that the impugned disallowance is not sustainable. The same stands deleted. Disallo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the CIT(A) s lower appellate findings in principle. We therefore adopt the foregoing detailed discussion mutatis mutandis to accept the assessee s foregoing legal arguments in principle and direct AO to decide its corresponding section 80IC claim in light of all the statutory conditions as per law after necessary factual verification. Nature of receipt - treatment to subsidy amounts received - as in the nature of industrial promotions assistance, under the West Bengal Incentive Scheme, 2000, as revenue items or capital receipts - HELD THAT:- We find no merit in Revenue s instant arguments as the tribunal s latest decision DCIT Vs. M/s. Ankit Metal and Pvt. Ltd. [ 2021 (11) TMI 49 - ITAT KOLKATA] holds the very incentive scheme as giving rise to a capital receipt not liable to tax. Validity of the impugned assessments for want of incriminating material found or seized during the course of search - HELD THAT:- We find that the tribunal s order in assesses s case [ 2022 (4) TMI 1503 - ITAT HYDERABAD] has quashed the assessment proceedings stating that the instant plea hardly carries any substance since the question framed therein was not regarding lack of incriminating ma ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... iled copies of corresponding share allotments before the learned lower authorities. We note that this has been very much a recurring issue between the parties wherein the learned co-ordinate bench s earlier order involving assessee s appeal ITA No.212/Hyd/2016 for A.Y. 2011-12 has restored the matter back to the Transfer Pricing Officer TPO as follows : 5. As regards ground no.3, the brief facts are that during the transfer pricing proceedings, in the T.P. documentation of assessee, the AO found that the assessee had stated that it had provided working capital advance of Rs.252.06 million to Vivimed Hong Kong and also of Rs.8.41 millions to Vivimed, US i.e. total amount outstanding was Rs.26,01,90,000/- and it was stated that the advance is for administrative convenience and there was no interest accrued during the year and hence determination of ALP is not warranted. AO noticed that assessee had not charged interest from it s A.E. though interest @ 6% was charged from Vivimed Hongkong in the earlier year, and also that there is no interest charged in this year. Therefore, he proposed to charge interest on the outstanding balances and the taxpayer was issued a letter accordi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f AO/TPO with a direction to consider the evidence filed by assessee to the effect that assessee had invested money in equity shares of its subsidiaries and has not given working capital advances and if it is found that these transactions were in fact investments in equity shares of the subsidiaries, then no T.P. adjustment shall be made. However, if it is found that the funds transferred by the assessee to its subsidiaries during the year were working capital advances, which were later decided to be treated as investments, then the T.P. adjustment already made by the AO shall be revived and the assessment shall be completed accordingly. 3. Mr. Sai fails to pin-point any distinction on the relevant facts involved in all these assessment years since the learned lower authorities have adopted consistency in making the impugned adjustment. We therefore adopt the foregoing detailed discussion mutatis mutandis to restore the assessee s instant first and foremost substantive grievance back to the TPO in all these four years in very terms. Ordered accordingly. This first issue is accepted for statistical purposes. 4. Next comes the 2nd common issue of corporate guarantee fees ALP ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r-wise; respectively. Both the learned representatives reiterated their respective stands regarding the impugned ALP adjustment made going by the bank s short term deposit interest rates. So far as the legal question as to whether such interest on outstanding receivables forms an international transaction or not, we note that the same also comes under Section 92B Explanation (I)(c) which has been already as applicable with retrospective effect (supra). We thus uphold the learned lower authorities impugned action interest on outstanding receivables as international transactions to this limited extent. 8. Next comes the adjudication of the impugned issue on merits. We notice with the able assistance of both the parties that the TPO in these four assessment years has not given any comparable instance in the very segment whilst charging the impugned interest on the assessee's receivables since he had adopted the SBI's short term deposit rates only for benchmarking purposes. 9. The Revenue's endeavor before us supports the lower authorities' action on the pretext that such receivables are very much akin to a financial transaction to be benchmarked as per the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... involving figures of Rs.7,85,08,308/-, Rs.12,56,73,713/-, Rs.10,54,93,832/- and Rs.8,90,58,358/-; respectively. Learned counsel submitted during the course of hearing that the lower authorities have not considered even the closing figure of the corresponding fixed assets in A.Y. 2013-14 forming opening balance figure as on 01.04.2014. He further referred to the Assessing Officer s remand report to this effect as well. Mr. Sai placed a very strong reliance on the learned lower authorities discussion that the assessee itself had classified an amount of Rs.2,64,96,184/- as entitled for 15% depreciation than 100%; as the case may be. There is no rebuttal to the fact of the Assessing Officer having submitted the foregoing remand report as well as the issue regarding closing balance as on 31.03.2013 and the corresponding opening balancing figure as on 01.04.2013 relating to the first assessment year herein i.e. 2014-15. Faced with this situation, we are of the opinion that instant depreciation issue requires afresh adjudication at the Assessing Officer s level in all these four assessment years so as to enable him to go by the foregoing closing figure(s) which cannot be disbursed a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the assessee only on presumption, without making the addition to the income of the assessee only on presumption, without bringing any corroborative evidence on record to substantiate the claim of alleged payment of sales expenditure. Objection No.11.1.2: The AO ought to have to appreciate the fact that assessee has maintained all the documents / vouchers / bills and same has also been submitted. Objection No.11.1.3: The AO erred in not considering the material and relevant evidence in respect of sale promotion expenses submitted by assessee during the scrutiny proceeding. Objection No.11.1.4: The AO ought to have appreciated the fact that the expenditure on account of Sales Promotion expenditure incurred is wholly and exclusively for the purpose of business. Objection No.11.1.5: The AO ought to have to appreciate the fact that all the payments for the expenses are made through the banking channels. Objection No.11.1.6: The AO erred in making an assessment by disallowing the allowable expenditure incurred for the purpose of business which allowable expenditure u/s 37 of Income Tax Act. Objection No.11.1.7 : The Ld. AO erred in making the addition towards disa ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s so as to encourage them to attend the seminar or conferences. This can be seen as the incentive to make them prescribe the medicines manufactured or marketed by them which has to be held to be not allowable in view of the CBDT Circular cited supra and section 37(1). Another argument put forward is that it is disallowable under the hands of the medical professionals but not in the hands of Pharma Companies. the intention of the prohibition imposed by the Medical council of India (statutory body) in exercise of its statutory powers amended the Indian Medical Council (Professional Conduct, Etiquette and Ethics) Regulations, 2002 (the Regulations) on 10.12.2009 imposing a prohibition on the medical practitioner and their professional associations from taking any gift travel facility, hospitality, cash of monetary grant from the pharmaceutical and allied health sector industries and it was affirmed by CBDT in the form of the circular cited supra. This practice cann't stop unless these expenses are also disallowed in the hands of the pharma companies otherwise they will have to disclose the names of the doctors and full address so as the sum equivalent to value of freebies enjoyed ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... any such freebies to doctors and their associations. We reiterate that it has not even manufactured the final products to be sold in market as well. We accordingly conclude that the impugned disallowance is not sustainable. The same stands deleted. 16. The assessee s eighth substantive grievance in A.Ys. 2014-15 to 2015-16 and 2017-18 pleads that the learned lower authorities have erred in law and on facts in disallowing its section 35(2AB) weighted deduction claim of Rs.27,69,82,420/-, Rs.22,12,04,186/- and Rs.16,82,72,664/-; respectively. The DRP s detailed discussion affirming the Assessing Officer s action to this affect reads as follows : 2.5. Ground of objection No.5 : Relating to disallowance of weighted deduction u/s 35(2AB) of Rs.27,69,82,420/-. Objection No.5.1.1 The Ld. AO erred in disallowing the deduction claimed by the assessee under section 35(2AB) without appreciating the facts and explanations given by the assessee. Objection No.5.1.2.: The Ld. AO erred in making the addition towards disallowance without there being any incriminating material found in this regard during the course of search proceedings. Objection No.5.1.3. : The Ld. AO erred in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ntific and Industrial Research (DSIR) as per form No 3CL. The matter needs to be examined by a competent authority specified by the Central Govt. namely, Department of Scientific and Industrial Research (DSIR) and they have to decide the amount allowable tor weighted deduction. There will not be any scope to decide all the expenditure to be allowed towards R D as stipulated in the Act by any other authority. It is an admitted fact that the competent authority has not determined the quantum by issuing Form 3CL and Form 3 CM. Accordingly, we do not find merit in the contention of the assessee that weight deduction u/s 35(2AB) @ 200% to be granted based on the application made by the assessee to the competent authority. It is the duty of the assessee to obtain the approvals before claiming this deduction. Therefore, this objection is rejected. 17. Suffice to say, the Revenue s sole substantive argument before us in light of the DRP s findings as well as case law Electronic Corporation of India 140 ITD 221 is that the impugned deduction claim has nowhere been quantified in light of Form 3CL and 3CM having not got approved by the prescribed authority i.e. DSIR. We find no merit in t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... dertaking as per Part C of Form No. 3CK to maintain separate accounts for each R D centre approved under Section 35(2AB) by the Prescribed Authority, and to get the accounts duly audited every year by an Auditor as defined in sub- section (2) of section 288 of the IT Act 1961. (The statutory auditors of the Company should audit the R D accounts. To facilitate this audit separate books of accounts for R D should be maintained. Also, the statutory auditors should sign the auditors' certificate in the details required to be submitted as per annexure- IV of the guidelines to facilitate submission of Report in Form 3CL). (ii) As per guideline 5(vi) of the guidelines, the audited accounts for each year maintained separately for each approved centre shall be furnished to the Secretary, Department of Scientific Industrial Research by 31st day of October of the succeeding year, along with information as per Annexure-IV of the Guidelines. (iii) As per guideline 5(ix) Expenditures, which are directly identifiable with approved R D facility only, shall be eligible for the weighted tax deduction. However, expenditure in R D on utilities which are supplied from a common source which ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sue as to whether deduction u/s.35(2AB) of the Act can be denied for absence of Form No.3CL by the DSIR was subject matter of several judicial decisions rendered by various Benches of ITAT. (i) The Pune ITAT in the case of Cummins India Ltd. Vs. DCIT in ITA No.309/Pun/2014 for AY 2009-10 order dated 15.5.2018 had an occasion to consider a case where part of the claim for deduction u/s.35(2AB) of the Act was claimed supported by Form No.3CL but part of it was not supported by Form No.3CL. The Pune ITAT held as follows:- 45. The issue which is raised in the present appeal is that whether where the facility has been recognized and necessary certification is issued by the prescribed authority, the assessee can avail the deduction in respect of expenditure incurred on in-house R D facility, for which the adjudicating authority is the Assessing Officer and whether the prescribed authority is to approve expenditure in form No.3CL from year to year. Looking into the provisions of rules, it stipulates the filing of audit report before the prescribed authority by the persons availing the deduction under section 35(2AB) of the Act but the provisions of the Act do not prescribe any meth ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... IT(A) confirmed the order of the AO. The Tribunal held that the assessee would be entitled to weighted deductions of the aforesaid expenditure incurred by the assessee in terms of the s. 35(2AB) of the Act and in coming to this conclusion, the Tribunal relied upon the judgment of Gujarat High Court in CIT vs. Claris Lifesciences Ltd. 326 ITR 251 (Guj). In its decision the Hon'ble Gujarat High Court held that the cut-off date mentioned in the certificate issued by the DSIR would be of no relevance. What is to be seen is that the assessee was in indulging in R D activity and had incurred the expenditure thereupon. Once a certificate by DSIR is issued, that would be sufficient to hold that the assessee fulfils the conditions laid down in the aforesaid provisions. The Hon'ble Delhi High Court followed the decision of the Hon'ble Gujarat High Court and upheld the decision of the Tribunal. The Hon'ble Delhi High Court quoted the following observations of the Hon'ble Gujarat High Court and agreed with the said view: 7. ... The lower authorities are reading more than what is provided by law. A plain and simple reading of the Act provides that on approval of the rese ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 6(7A)(b) of the Rules, that the quantification of the weighted deduction u/s.35(2AB) of the Act has significance. In the present case there is no difficulty about the quantum of deduction u/s.35(2AB) of the Act, because the AO allowed 100% of the expenditure as deduction u/s.35(2AB)(1)(i) of the Act, as expenditure on scientific research. Deduction u/s.35(1)(i) and Sec.35(2AB) of the Act are similar except that the deduction u/s.35(2AB) is allowed as weighted deduction at 200% of the expenditure while deduction u/s.35(1)(i) is allowed only at 100%. The conditions for allowing deduction u/s.35(1)(i) of the Act and under Sec.35(2AB) of the Act are identical with the only difference being that the Assessee claiming deduction u/s.35(2AB) of the Act should be engaged in manufacture of certain articles or things. It is not in dispute that the Assessee is engaged in business to which Sec.35(2AB) of the Act applied. The other condition required to be fulfilled for claiming deduction u/s.35(2AB) of the Act is that the research and development facility should be approved by the prescribed authority. The prescribed authority is the Secretary, Department of Scientific Industrial Research, Govt ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ection 80IC requiring a return to be filed u/s 139(1) of the Act. We find no merit in Revenue s stand in light of the tribunal s decision in M/s.GKC Projects Limited, Hyderabad (ITA Nos.1029 to 1032/Hyd/2018 order dt.22.02.2022). 21. We have given our thoughtful consideration to the foregoing rival pleadings and find no merit in the Revenue s stand in principle. We make it clear that the assessee had not claimed the impugned Section 80-IC deduction relief in its original returns filed u/s.139(1) of the Act. There is further no dispute that the department had carried out the search in issue on 09.11.2016 in assessee s case wherein the time limit for filing Section 139(1) return for including Section 80-IA deduction had very well elapsed. The Assessing Officer thereafter initiated Section 153A proceedings thereby asking for assessee s returns. 22. We now proceed to deal with the Revenue s issue (s) raised herein as to whether the assessee could raise a fresh claim of Section 80-IC deduction in a return filed u/s.153(1)(a) of the Act for the first time or not even if it had chosen not to do so in Section 139(1) regular return submitted before search. We wish to reiterate here th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... in Section 153A return can very well raise such a new claim of deduction. 25. Mr.Sai at this stage sought to distinguish the foregoing judicial precedent that it only deals with an instance of abated assessment wherein the Assessing Officer is empowered to decide all the issues emanating therefrom even other than those confined to a search assessment. We find no merit in the Revenue s instant technical argument as Section 153A nowhere draws any distinction of an abated or un-abated assessment so far as an assessee s eligibility to raise a new deduction claim under Chapter-VI therein is concerned. We thus uphold the CIT(A) s lower appellate findings in principle. 26. We therefore adopt the foregoing detailed discussion mutatis mutandis to accept the assessee s foregoing legal arguments in principle and direct the learned Assessing Officer to decide its corresponding section 80IC claim in light of all the statutory conditions as per law after necessary factual verification. Ordered accordingly. 27. The assessee s 11th substantive grievance in A.Y.s 2015-16 and 2016-17 seeks to reverse the learned lower authorities action treating its subsidy amounts received; is the na ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... olicy Scheme was to encourage the assessee to set up a new unit or expand the existing unit for overall economic development of the State and not to enable the assessee to run the business more profitably. In this case the assessee had invested in Sponge Iron Plant and Mega Project (Induction manufacturing units Sponge Iron, Power, Billet) as per the Scheme, which made the assessee eligible for subsidy / sanction under the scheme given by West Bengal Industrial Development Corporation dated 5 January 2010 found placed at page 172 PB and Registration and Eligibility Certificate as per the Scheme is found placed at pages 173 to 183 PB] under the Scheme taken out by the Government of West Bengal for making 'capital investment' in the State. We find that the intent and purpose of the Industrial Policy of State of West Bengal, 2004 was for establishing/substantial expansion of manufacturing units located in backward areas of State of West Bengal and generate employment for the local people, and therefore the nature of subsidy received under the State Industrial Scheme was in the capital field not exigible to tax. This subsidy was remitted through two modes viz., power subsidy an ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... est contained in both Sahney Steel as well as Ponni Sugar, we are of the view that the object, as stated in the statement of objects and reasons, of the amendment ordinance was that since the average occupancy in cinema theatres has fallen considerably and hardly any new theatres have been started in the recent past, the concept of a Complete Family Entertainment Centre, more popularly known as Multiplex Theatre Complex, has emerged. These complexes offer various entertainment facilities for the entire family as a whole. It was noticed that these complexes are highly capital intensive and their gestation period is quite long and therefore, they need Government support in the form of incentives qua entertainment duty. It was also added that government with a view to commemorate the birth centenary of late Shri V. Shantaram decided to grant concession in entertainment duty to Multiplex Theatre Complexes to promote construction of new cinema houses in the State. The aforesaid object is clear and unequivocal. The object of the grant of the subsidy was in order that persons come forward to construct Multiplex Theatre Complexes, the idea being that exemption from entertainment duty for a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... make no difference. (emphasis supplied) 34. It is further noted that this exact same issue regarding taxability of subsidy received under the West Bengal State Industrial Scheme has been adjudicated in assessee's own case for the earlier A.Y. 2010-11. In the instant case, the Hon'ble jurisdictional Calcutta High Court (supra) upheld the order of this Tribunal holding the subsidies to be capital in nature and therefore not exigible to income- tax. The relevant extracts of the judgment are as follows:- ..We have heard both sides at length on the issues involved in the instant appeal, considered their submission and perused the relevant record. The first issue which requires adjudication is whether incentives 'Interest subsidy' and 'Power subsidy' received by the assessee under the schemes in question are capital receipt not liable to the taxed or 'Revenue receipt' and is liable to be taxed and the key question which arises for determination of this issue is what is the character of the incentive subsidies under the said schemes in question and in judging the character of incentives, the purpose test is a great factor. 20. On this issue ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... at the apex court had applied the above quoted dictum to determine the purpose, which the two schemes had intended to achieve by the incentive subsidies, permissible under the schemes in question in those cases. 22. It was, therefore, in the context of respective subsidy incentive schemes in the two cases, that the subsidy in Sahney Steel Press Works Ltd. (supra) was held to be revenue receipt whereas the subsidy in Ponni Sugars Chemicals Ltd. (supra) was held as capital receipt. 23. On a careful look into these decisions it appears that the law is settled that the nature of incentives/subsidies granted by the Government under any Scheme to any enterprise would totally depend upon the salient features of the said Scheme. The purpose for which the incentive/subsidy is given under the Scheme is the determining factor to lay down the nature of the incentive/subsidy. If an incentive/subsidy is given as a general assistance to the assessee to carry on his business or trade, it would be an operational incentive and thus a trading receipt in the hands of the assessee. However if the object of the subsidy, irrespective of its source, is to enable the assessee to acquire new plan ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... le to be taxed in relevant assessment year 2010-11 on the basis of discussion made above and further taking into consideration the definition of Income under Section 2(24) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, where sub-clause (xviii) has been inserted including 'subsidy' for the first time by Finance Act, 2015 w.e.f. April, 2016 i.e assessment year 2016-17. The amendment has prospective effect and had no effect on the law on the subject discussed above applicable to the subject assessment years. 26. Now the second issue which requires adjudication is as to whether the aforesaid incentive subsidies received by the assessee from the Government of West Bengal under the schemes in question are to be included for the purpose of computation of book profit under Section 115 JB of the Income Tax Act, 1961 as contended by the revenue by relying on the decision in the case of AppolloTyres Ltd. (supra). 27. In this case since we have already held that in relevant assessment year 2010- 11 the incentives 'Interest subsidy' and 'Power subsidy' is a 'capital receipt' and does not fall within the definition of 'Income' under Section 2(24) of Income Tax Act, 19 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... o 10 per cent of the capital investment calculated on the basis of the quantum of investment in capital and, therefore, receipt of such subsidy was on capital account and not on revenue account. It was also urged in that case that subsidy granted on the basis of refund of sales tax on raw materials, machinery and finished goods were also of capital nature as the object of granting refund of sales tax was that the assessee could set up new business or expand his existing business. The contention of the assessee in that case was dismissed by the Tribunal and, therefore, the assessee had come to this Court by way of a special leave petition. It was held by this Court on the facts of that case and on the basis of the analyses of the Scheme therein that the subsidy given was on revenue account because it was given by way of assistance in carrying on of trade or business. On the facts of that case, it was held that the subsidy given was to meet recurring expenses. It was not for acquiring the capital asset. It was not to meet part of the cost. It was not granted for production of or bringing into existence any new asset. The subsidies in that case were granted year after year only after ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... that the learned lower authorities have erred in law and on facts in treating the assessee s impugned subsidy receipts as revenue items. The same is directed to be deleted. 29. We further note that the assessee s former three years 2014-15 to 2016-17 also raise an identical legal ground challenging validity of the impugned assessments for want of incriminating material found or seized during the course of search. It prima facie emerges from a perusal of these appeals ITA Nos. 186 to 188/Hyd/2021 that the assessee had interalia not filed a valid return submitted no return and furnished a valid return before search in former three appeals, respectively. There is no further denial to the fact that the DRP has prepared an annexure of socalled seized documents in A.Y. 2016-17 s directions which turn out to be the assessee s regular books of accounts and documents only. That being the case, we find that the tribunal s order in assesses s case ITA Nos.184 and 185/Hyd/2021 for preceding two assessment years 2012-13 and 2013-14 dated 07.04.2022 has quashed the assessment proceedings on the very issue as follows : 4. We have given our thoughtful consideration to rival pleadings and f ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rial during the search assessment. The instant plea hardly carries any substance since the question framed therein was not regarding lack of incriminating material but the Assessing Officer s jurisdiction to take all other material into account in a search assessment which is not the issue before us. We thus accept the assessee s instant legal ground to quash both these assessments thereby rendering all other pleadings on merits to have been become infructuous. Ordered accordingly. We therefore decline the assessee s instant legal ground in A.Y.s. 2014-15 and 2015-16 and accept the same in A.Y. 2016-17 s appeal i.e. ITA 188/Hyd/2021. The impugned assessment stands quashed in this last assessment year i.e. 2017-18 therefore. 30. The assessee s 12th substantive grievance in A.Y. 2016-17 is that the learned lower authorities have erred in law and on facts in making section 43B disallowance of Rs.19,17,38,828/- despite the fact that the DRP s corresponding directions deciding its objections had granted substantive relief. That being the case, we direct the learned Assessing Officer to verify the necessary factual position and allow the impugned relief as per law in light of DRP ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
