TMI Blog2022 (8) TMI 1371X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... malgamating company under amalgamation continues uninterruptedly by the amalgamated company, the benefit of such carry forward and set off earned by the business of the amalgamating company has to be allowed as per the mandate of section 74 to the amalgamated company, more so, when the Scheme of amalgamation as approved by the Hon ble High Court specifically declares that benefits, inter alia, under tax laws `shall be transferred and vest in the Transferee Companyas if the Transferee Company was originally entitled to all benefits . The term the assessee as used in sub-section (1) of section 74, which was originally referring to the amalgamating company which suffered the loss, shall now substitute the amalgamated company to be considered as the assessee entitled to set off of the brought forward long term capital loss not only because of the Scheme of amalgamation so providing but also because of the assessee becoming a successor-in-interest of such loss. Going with the phraseology of section 74, the sequitur is that the long term capital loss of the amalgamating company is available for set off in the hands of the assessee-amalgamated company. This ground is, thus, allowed. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... reign tax credit - HELD THAT:- CIT(A) directed to allow deduction u/s. 37(1) in respect of Inhabitant tax, Enterprise tax etc., paid in Japan. Since such a deduction is in respect of taxes for which no benefit of foreign tax credit has been allowed in terms of section 90/91 of the Act, the same has been rightly allowed u/s. 37(1) of the Act in view of Explanation 1 to section 40(a)(ii) of the Act as discussed supra in the context of Fringe benefit tax paid in Australia. The grievance of the Revenue on this count is, ergo, repelled. Objection of the Revenue is against allowing foreign tax credit in respect of sales made by the assessee which were eligible for deduction u/s. 10AA - The assessee paid foreign tax in six countries, viz., Australia, Belgium, Canada, Japan, Switzerland and Malaysia. India has entered into DTAAs with all such countries. As such, section 90 governs the allowability or otherwise of foreign tax credit in the extant case and as a corollary, section 91 goes out of reckoning, leaving the reliance of the ld. DR on Reliance Infrastructure ( 2016 (12) TMI 1293 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT] superfluous. Out of tax paid by the assessee in six countries, it is entitl ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... MAT credit earned by the amalgamating company has to be allowed in the hands of the amalgamated company. We, therefore, hold that the MAT credit of the amalgamating company has to be allowed in the hands of the amalgamated company. Claim of deduction u/s. 10AA of the Act in respect of three undertakings - HELD THAT:- In view of the clear decision of the Tribunal holding that the erstwhile 3 units of the amalgamating company were newly established units and hence, eligible for deduction u/s. 10AA, we do not find any infirmity in the impugned order in granting such deduction in the hands of the assessee, as the very foundation, being, the three units were not newly established, does not exist in view of the orders passed by the Tribunal in earlier years in the hands of the amalgamating company. Deduction u/s. 10AA for Pune unit - such deduction was not claimed in the original return of income but was claimed in the revised return of income and further Form No. 56F was uploaded at the time of filing of the revised return - HELD THAT:- It is clear from the command of sub-section (5) of section 10A that the assessee is required to furnish the audit report in the prescribed for ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... unt of finance lease charges was reduced by the assessee by means of credit to the account, the same ought to have been reduced for the purpose of claiming deduction as well, unless proved otherwise. AR fairly admitted that no detail of re-classification of Rs. 71.65 lakh was available. In such circumstances, we uphold the impugned order in not allowing deduction of Rs. 71.65 lakh as finance lease charges. This ground is not allowed. Disallowance u/s 14A - Suo-moto addition by assessee - HELD THAT:- More recently the Hon ble jurisdictional High Court in Pr. CIT VS. Kohinoor Projects Pvt. Ltd. [ 2020 (1) TMI 1161 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT] has held that in the absence of any exempt income, there cannot be any disallowance of expenses u/s 14A of the Act. Thus the disallowance has to be restricted to the extent of exempt income - As the assessee has suo motu offered disallowance we sustain the further disallowance less suo moto addition made - This ground is, therefore, partly allowed. Depreciation on goodwill - HELD THAT:- Similar view has been followed by the Tribunal in the immediately preceding assessment year, namely, 2012-13 [ 2021 (11) TMI 362 - ITAT PUNE] by remitting th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the Act ) at Rs. 7,08,45,55,209/-. Thereafter, the return was revised twice. The assessee claimed deduction u/s. 10AA. The assessment was completed by determining the total income, under the regular provisions of the Act, at Rs. 766,09,96,530/-. I. SET OFF OF LONG TERM CAPITAL LOSS OF AMALGAMATING COMPANY 3. The first major issued raised by the assessee, through ground no. 9, is against not allowing brought forward long term capital loss of Rs. 104,46,39,309/- in respect of erstwhile iGATE Computer Systems Limited (ICSL), which amalgamated with the assessee company w.e.f. 01-04-2012 under the Scheme approved by the Hon ble High Court. 4. The factual matrix anent to this ground is that the assessee claimed brought forward long term capital loss of Rs. 109.86 crore. On perusal of the details, the AO observed that a sum of Rs. 104,46,39,309/- was long term capital loss of the erstwhile ICSL which got amalgamated with the assessee company on the first day of the financial year under consideration. On being called upon to explain as to how such long term capital loss could be allowed set off against the assessee s income, it was submitted that the amalgamation took place w.e ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . On going through the approved Scheme of amalgamation, it is discernible that all the assets and liabilities of the amalgamating (transferor) company vested in the assessee-amalgamated (transferee) company, which shall be claimed by the Transferee Company and these shall relate back to the appointed date as if the Transferee Company was originally entitled to all the benefits . It has further been provided that any exemption which was benefit by way of set off or carry forward, as the case may be, of any unabsorbed depreciation/investment allowance or other allowance or loss which is available to the Transferor Company shall be available to the Transferee Company. On an analysis of the relevant clauses of the Scheme, it is overt that any loss which was available to amalgamating company shall become available to the amalgamated company for necessary set off. 6. Even otherwise, the law of succession puts the successor in the shoes of the predecessor, as a result of which all the liabilities and assets of the predecessor fall upon or vest in the successor subject to the specific stipulations under the relevant statutes. The liabilities of the predecessor under the Income-tax A ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the amalgamating company is now continued by the amalgamated company. Thus, it is evident that the per se existence of the business of the amalgamating entity does not extinct in amalgamation in contrast to the business coming to an end in the winding up. It is imperative to draw a line of distinction between `business of an entity and the `entity itself. When the business of the entity continues despite the closure of the entity or divesting of the business, then all the obligations and privileges attached to the business of the erstwhile entity, must go along with the business in the hands of the new entity carrying on such business, save as otherwise provided under the Act. 9. Adverting to the facts of the extant case, it is seen that the amalgamating company had long term capital loss of Rs. 104.46 crore which vested in the assessee company along with all other assets and liabilities of ICSL. The assessee claimed set off of such long term capital loss of the amalgamating company, which the AO denied by relying on section 72A of the Act. 10. Section 72A with the heading: Provisions relating to carry forward and set off of accumulated loss and unabsorbed depreciation al ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... titled to claim deduction under the section in respect of such undertaking to the same extent and in respect of residual period as it would have been allowable to the amalgamating company on such amalgamation not taking place. This provision is clarificatory qua preliminary expenditure reiterating the-ever existing position of law on this score that all the benefits and privileges etc. available to the predecessor-amalgamating company pass on to the successoramalgamated company. Though sub-section (3) has been inserted w.e.f. 01-04-2000, the Pune Tribunal in Kirloskar Oil Engines Ltd. Vs. JCIT (ITA Nos. 1039 and 1040/PUN/2000) has held for the assessment years 1995-1996 and 1996-97 that the amalgamated company is entitled to deduction in respect of the residual period of expenditure on know-how incurred by the amalgamating company de hors sub-section (3) of section 35AB. 12. Similarly, the Tribunal in several decisions has held that MAT credit of the amalgamating company is to be allowed in the hands of the amalgamated company after amalgamation. The Chennai bench of the Tribunal in ACIT Vs. M/s. Caplin Point Laboratories Ltd. (ITA No.667/Mds/2013) has held, vide order dated 31- ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... mation as approved by the Hon ble High Court specifically declares that benefits, inter alia, under tax laws `shall be transferred and vest in the Transferee Company .. as if the Transferee Company was originally entitled to all benefits . The term the assessee as used in sub-section (1) of section 74, which was originally referring to the amalgamating company which suffered the loss, shall now substitute the amalgamated company to be considered as the assessee entitled to set off of the brought forward long term capital loss not only because of the Scheme of amalgamation so providing but also because of the assessee becoming a successor-in-interest of such loss. Going with the phraseology of section 74, the sequitur is that the long term capital loss of the amalgamating company is available for set off in the hands of the assessee-amalgamated company. This ground is, thus, allowed. II. FRINGE BENEFIT TAX PAID IN AUSTRALIA 15. Ground No.6 of the assessee s appeal is against not allowing deduction towards Fringe Benefit Tax (FBT) paid in Australia. The facts apropos this ground are that the assessee claimed deduction of Rs. 9,84,270/- in respect of FBT paid in Australia b ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... aid in Australia is eligible for deduction under the normal provisions of the Act. 18. Our view is fortified by the judgment of Hon ble Bombay High Court in Reliance Infrastructure Ltd. Vs. CIT (2017) 390 ITR 271 (Bom.) holding that income tax paid in Saudi Arabia was allowable as deduction in computing the income under the provisions of the Act as the same was not taken benefit of by the assessee either under section 90 or 91 of the Act. This position stands accepted by the legislature as is manifest from the insertion of Explanation 1 to section 40(a)(ii) of the Act declaring: `that for the purposes of this sub-clause, any sum paid on account of any rate or tax levied includes and shall be deemed always to have included any sum eligible for relief of tax under section 90 or, as the case may be, deduction from the Indian income-tax payable under section 91. This implies that the deduction of income tax paid outside India will be admissible if no benefit of such tax has been availed either u/s 90 or 91. 19. The assessee in the instant case has not taken any benefit of the FBT paid in Australia and further unlike section 40(a)(ic) of the Act, it is also not hit by any specifi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... bunal on their respective stands. 22. We have heard both the sides and gone through the relevant material on record. The AO computed the amount of foreign tax credit available to the assessee as under: Table No.1: (in Rs. ) Total claim by the assessee as per the submission made 13,05,33,028/- Less : Reduction in respect of Japan taxes: Yen 5,15,69,314 less Yen 3,55,02,000/- x conversion rate of 0.66 1,06,04,427/- Revised amount 11,99,28,601/- Less : 8.90% in respect of 10AA units 1,06,73,645/- Balance claim 10,92,54,956/- 23. The detail of foreign tax credit claimed by the assessee during the year, is as under: Table No.2: Branch Tax payable on converted income in India Amount of tax paid in foreign currency Credit available being lower of two Australia 1,14,58,119 1,87,730 1,05,94,642 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Remarks Corporation taxes 35,502,000 Taxes are based on the taxable income (@30% on JPY 118 Mio) Local Corporation taxes 4,954,700 Taxes are based on the taxable income (4.19% on JPY 118 Mio) Inhabitant taxes Surcharge 7,348,914 This is in the nature of surcharge on the taxes (@20.7% on the corporation taxes of JPY 35.5 Mio) Enterprise taxes income based 3,763,700 Taxes are based on the taxable income (3.18% on JPY 118 Mio) 51,569,314 25. On going through Table No.2, it can be seen that the total amount of credit on foreign taxes paid by the assessee in six countries totals up to Rs. 13,05,33,028/-, which is the opening figure taken by the AO in Table No.1. The AO did not allow credit of foreign tax totaling to Rs. 2.13 crore (Rs. 13.05 crore Rs. 10.92 crore), which has two parts. 26. The first part is a sum of Rs. 1,06,04,427/-, being, foreign tax credit paid in Japan in respect of Loca ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... u/s. 37(1) of the Act in view of Explanation 1 to section 40(a)(ii) of the Act as discussed supra in the context of Fringe benefit tax paid in Australia. The grievance of the Revenue on this count is, ergo, repelled. 31. The second objection of the Revenue is against allowing foreign tax credit in respect of sales made by the assessee which were eligible for deduction u/s. 10AA of the Act, which has been discussed above as the second part of foreign tax credit allowed by the ld. CIT(A). The AO did not allow foreign tax credit of Rs. 1.07 crore, computed at 8.90% of the remaining foreign tax credit in respect of the sales made from the 10AA eligible units on the ground that since such income did not suffer tax in India because of its deduction u/s 10AA, the foreign tax credit to that extent could not be allowed. The ld. CIT(A) allowed the benefit of such foreign tax credit by following the judgment of Hon ble Karnataka High Court in Wipro Ltd. (supra). 32. The ld. AR relied on the case of Wipro Ltd. (supra) to support the impugned order granting relief. This judgment has been rendered in the context of section 90 of the Act. It would be apposite to consider the relevant parts ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d be subjected to tax both in India and Canada . It is, thus manifest that Wipro Ltd. (supra) is confined to the interpretation of section 90. 34. Au Contraire, the ld. DR heavily relied on the judgment of the Hon ble jurisdictional High Court in Reliance Infrastructure (supra) to contend that the ld. CIT(A) erred in following Wipro Ltd. (supra) and allowing benefit of foreign tax credit despite the fact that income was not chargeable because of the availability of deduction u/s 10AA of the Act. This judgment has been rendered in the context of section 91 of the Act, relevant part of which reads as under: ' 91. (1) If any person who is resident in India in any previous year proves that, in respect of his income which accrued or arose during that previous year outside India (and which is not deemed to accrue or arise in India), he has paid in any country with which there is no agreement under section 90 for the relief or avoidance of double taxation, income-tax, by deduction or otherwise, under the law in force in that country, he shall be entitled to the deduction from the Indian income-tax payable by him of a sum calculated on such doubly taxed income at the Indian rate ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... DTAA exists. To the extent of section 91 providing for relief on doubly taxed income , this language is somewhat similar to section 90(1)(a)(i) which also talks of income on which tax has been paid both in India and the other country and in contrast to the language of section 90(1)(a)(ii) which provides for allowing relief in respect of income tax chargeable under this Act, whether or not actually paid. Whereas income-tax may be chargeable on certain income under the Act but not actually payable because of certain deductions/exemptions, an income is said to be doubly taxed only when the income is both chargeable to tax as well as subjected to tax in India. - Even the extent of relief of foreign tax credit is different in both the sections. Section 5 provides that the scope of total income of a resident covers his world income, whether accruing or arising etc. in or outside India. Section 91 provides a limited credit for doubly taxed income `which is not deemed to accrue or arise in India . In other words, it stipulates two things so as to qualify for relief, first, that the income should be doubly taxed in both the countries and second, that the income accruing or arising ou ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... een India and Australia, it is amply borne out that the India is obligated to eliminate double tax by allowing relief in respect of taxes paid in Australia only in respect of income which has been subjected to tax both in India and Australia . This case falls u/s 90(1)(a)(i) of the Act, which talks of granting relief in respect of `income on which have been paid both incometax under this Act and income-tax in that country . As the assessee did not pay any tax in India in respect of 10AA units sales made to Australia, the benefit of tax paid in Australia cannot be allowed against the Indian income tax liability of the assessee under Article 24. 41. The second country in which the assessee paid tax is, Belgium. Article 23 of the DTAA between the India and Belgium deals with elimination of double taxation. Para 2(a) of the Article reads as under: (a) Where a resident of India derives income which, in accordance with the provisions of the Agreement, may be taxed in Belgium, India shall allow as a deduction from the tax on the income of that resident an amount equal to the income-tax paid in Belgium whether directly or by deduction. Such deduction shall not, however, exceed t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... has been subjected to tax both in India and Canada. The language of this DTAA is similar to the treaty between India and Australia as discussed above. As the income from Canada in respect of 10AA units has not been subjected to tax in India because of the deduction, no benefit of tax paid in Canada thereon can be allowed under Article 23 of the DTAA. 45. The next three countries in which the assessee paid foreign tax are Japan, Swiss Federation and Malaysia. We have gone through the relevant Articles of the DTAAs between India and the three countries dealing with elimination of double taxation by India in respect of taxes paid in such countries. Article 23(2)(a) of the DTAA between India and Japan provides for elimination of double taxation. Language of such para is similar to DTAA between India and Belgium. Similarly, Article 23 of the DTAA between India and Swiss deals with elimination of double taxation. The language of para 1(a) of Article 23, dealing with India providing relief of tax paid in Switzerland, is almost similar to the language of the DTAA between India and Belgium. Similar is the position regarding DTAA between India and Malaysia. Article 24 deals with eliminati ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ing set off of long term capital loss in the hands of amalgamating company in terms of section 72A of the Act, the AO held that, in the absence of any specific provision entitling the amalgamated company to avail MAT credit of amalgamating company, no such credit could be allowed in the hands of the amalgamated company. The ld. CIT(A) concurred with the view expressed by the AO. 49. We have heard the rival submissions and scanned through the relevant material on record. The AO has denied the claim, at the threshold, on the ground that the MAT credit of the amalgamating company is not covered u/s 72A of the Act. He has not referred to the non-fulfillment of any other eligibility condition for claiming such credit. 50. The facts of this ground are materially similar to the ground of not allowing set off of long term capital loss available in the hands of the amalgamating company discussed supra. While allowing such ground above, we have found that the eligible business of the amalgamating company continued and thus got transferred to the amalgamated company. The business, as such, did not cease to exist. All the benefits and privileges available to the amalgamating company have ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f the amalgamated company. We, therefore, hold that the MAT credit of the amalgamating company has to be allowed in the hands of the amalgamated company. This ground is, therefore, allowed. V. OTHER ISSUES 52. Ground No.3 of the Revenue s appeal is against allowing assessee s claim of deduction of Rs. 85,89,36,700/- u/s. 10AA of the Act in respect of three undertakings. The AO observed that the assessee claimed deduction u/s. 10AA in respect of three undertakings belonging to the erstwhile ICSL. He noticed that the matter regarding the eligibility for deduction u/ss.10A/10AA was subject matter of dispute in the assessment of the erstwhile ICSL since A.Y. 2004-05, in which it was held that it was a case of mere expansion or sub-letting of the existing business and hence, the benefit u/s. 10A was not available. The ld. CIT(A) overturned the assessment order on this score. 53. Having heard both the sides and gone through the relevant material on record, we find that this issue came up for consideration in the hands of erstwhile iGATE Global Solutions Ltd. for earlier assessment year, including, A.Y. 2012-13. The Tribunal, following its decision for earlier years, held t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s in the prescribed form, along with return of income, the report of an accountant, as defined in the Explanation below sub-section (2) of section 288. It is clear from the command of sub-section (5) of section 10A that the assessee is required to furnish the audit report in the prescribed form along with the return of income. There is no reference to the filing of such return u/s. 139(1) or u/s. 139(5) of the Act. The Finance Act, 2020 has carried out an amendment to sub-section (5) of section 10A by providing that the report of the auditor in the prescribed form should be filed before the specified date referred to in section 44AB, which, in turn, refers to section 139(1) of the Act. Thus, for the period anterior to the amendment carried out by the Finance Act, 2020, the only requirement was to furnish the audit report in the prescribed form along with the return of income. Such return of income may be u/s. 139(1) or u/s. 139(5). Since the assessee claimed deduction by filing the revised return u/s. 139(5) and also uploaded the requisite audit report in Form No. 56F along with that, no infirmity can be found in the impugned order in accepting the assessee s claim in this regard. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... were incurred by the assessee in relation to the delivery of its software abroad, which it did not exclude from the export turnover as well as total turnover in the computation of deduction u/s 10AA. The AO reduced the amount of telecommunication expenses from the export turnover only. The ld. CIT(A) directed to exclude such amount - both from export turnover as well as total turnover. Whereas the assessee is aggrieved by the exclusion of such costs from both the turnovers, the Revenue wants their inclusion only in the total turnover. 60. Having heard both the sides and gone through the relevant material on record, it is seen that similar issue came up for consideration before the Tribunal in assessee s own case for the immediately preceding assessment year, namely, 2012-13. Vide order dated 09-11-2021, the Tribunal in ITA No. 1043/PUN/2017 and ITA No.1116/PUN/2017 has upheld the view point of the ld. CIT(A) on this score. Respectfully following the precedent, we countenance the impugned order on this score and dismiss the grounds raised by the assessee as well as by the Revenue in this regard. 61. Ground No.2 of the assessee as well as the Revenue is against the exclusion o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... wed. 67. Ground No.7 of the assessee s appeal is against not allowing deduction of Rs. 28,20,289/- in respect of provision for doubtful advances written back while computing total income as well as book profit u/s. 115JB of the Act. 68. The facts of this ground are that the assessee company wrote back a sum of Rs. 28,20,289/- on account of provision for doubtful advances. Such amount was claimed as deduction under the normal provisions of the Act as well as in the computation of book profit u/s. 115JB. On being called upon to explain as to how the amount was eligible for deduction, the assessee submitted that this amount was in respect of erstwhile iGATE Computer Systems Ltd., which had made provision for doubtful loans and advances in earlier years and such provision was suo motu added back in the computation of total income as well as book-profit u/s. 115JB. As the assessee wrote back the amount of provision in the year under consideration by means of credit to its Profit and loss account by a sum of Rs. 28.20 lakh, the same should not be charged to tax. The AO jettisoned the claim of the assessee on the ground that it could not correlate the figures of provision created in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ss proved otherwise. The ld. AR fairly admitted that no detail of re-classification of Rs. 71.65 lakh was available. In such circumstances, we uphold the impugned order in not allowing deduction of Rs. 71.65 lakh as finance lease charges. This ground is not allowed. 72. Ground No.6 of the Revenue s appeal is against the deletion of addition made by the AO u/s. 14A of the Act. 73. The facts of this ground are that the assessee earned exempt income from mutual funds amounting to Rs. 9,80,400/-. The assessee suo motu disallowed a sum of Rs. 1,72,539/- u/s. 14A of the AO. The AO, after recording proper satisfaction, applied rule 8D to work out the amount disallowable at Rs. 2.55 crore. After reducing the amount earlier offered by the assessee as disallowable u/s. 14A, the AO made an addition of Rs. 2,53,65,287/-. The ld. CIT(A) deleted the addition. 74. We have heard the rival submissions and gone through the relevant material on record. It is seen that the AO has recorded proper satisfaction before making the disallowance u/s. 14A. This view accords with the similar view taken by the Tribunal in assessee s own case for the A.Y. 2011-12. Further, it is pertinent to note that t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... deduction in respect of listing expenses and not the delisting expenses. The ld. CIT(A) accepted the assessee s contention by relying on the order passed by the Delhi Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Eicher Motors Ltd. Vs. DCIT (ITA No.207/Del/2013 dated 12-12-2014. 78. Having heard both the sides and gone through the relevant material on record, it is seen that the deductibility of delisting expenses has been decided by the Delhi Bench of the Tribunal in assessee s favour in Eicher Motors Ltd. (supra). No contrary view has been placed on record by the ld. DR. Respectfully following the Tribunal order, we uphold the impugned order on this score. 79. Ground No.5 of the assessee s appeal is against the treatment given by the authorities to the amount of foreign exchange fluctuation gain of Rs. 3,33,88,214/- of overseas branches credited to Reserves. The AO treated such amount as part of total income. The ld. CIT(A) restored the matter to the file of the AO for following the direction given in the appellate order for the A.Y. 2010-11. 80. After considering the rival submissions and perusing the relevant material on record, it is seen that the Tribunal for the A.Y.2011-12 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
