TMI Blog2023 (7) TMI 1082X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... frastructure facility for the purpose of provisions of section 80IA(4) of the Act. Since the issue is covered by the case of Ennore Cargo Container Terminal [ 2017 (4) TMI 615 - MADRAS HIGH COURT] we dismiss this issue of Revenue's appeal. Disallowance made on business development expenses - This business expenditure claimed to be on account of tamil film produced by the Chairman of assessee company Sattam Oru Iruttarai and there was a request from the staff of the clients for tickets and accordingly, the same were provided - HELD THAT:- This expenses of tickets for staff of clients was for the purpose of maintaining good relations with the clients and hence, this being business expenditure was allowed by CIT(A). We find no infirmity in the order of CIT(A) and hence, the same is confirmed. This issue of Revenue's appeal is dismissed. Addition u/s 36(1)(va) 2(24)(x) - Payment made on account of provident fund and ESI being employees contribution beyond the due dates as prescribed under the respective statutes - HELD THAT:- As noted that this issue is now stands covered by the decision of Checkmate Services P. Ltd [ 2022 (10) TMI 617 - SUPREME COURT] wherein ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... led by Dr. S. Palanikumar against the order of CPIO, ITAT, Chennai, there is 'conflict of interest'. Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Accountant Member is the CPIO, ITAT, Chennai. The letter dated 26.04.2023 has specifically raised three issues. The contents of the letter and the issues raised therein read as under:- F. No. /CIT-DR/DITAT/RTI Matter/2023-24 Date : 26-04-2023 To Asst. Registrar ITAT Chennai Sir, Sub: Appointment of private counsels in connection with CIC proceedings-'conflict of interest'-submission-reg; Ref: F No. CIC/ITCHN/A/2022/135678 135399 dated 29-03-2023 Kind reference is invited to the above-mentioned subject. In connection with my two RTI applications and the appeal before CIC, the case was posted for personal hearing on 19-04-2023 at 01.15 PM in the premises of NIC Studio, District Informatics Officer, Collectorate, 62, Rajaji Salai, Chennai. On 17-04-2023, the undersigned was in receipt of a written submission submitted by the counsel before CIC on behalf of CPIO, ITAT. The counsel name was mentioned as Shri Dinesh Inbavadivu. On the day of hearing, it was surprised to see Shri Dinesh Inba ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... it will become direct case of ''conflict of interest'' for Revenue. It was contended by ld.CIT-DR that RTI appeal filed by him before CIC against dismissal of RTI application by CPIO, ITAT, Chennai and in the proceedings before CIC, New Delhi, representation on behalf of ITAT, Chennai by Shri Dinesh Inbavadivu of M/s. Ramachandran Advocates and Shri Arjun of Sriraman Advocates along with CPIO was narrated before the Bench. The written submissions dated 01.05.2023 filed by Senior AR, Shri P. Sajit Kumar, ITAT, Chennai in connection with appeal in ITA No. 195/CHNY/2018 posted for hearing on 01.05.2023 in 'C' Bench was also brought to the notice of Bench. The ld. Senior DR in the letter vide para 6 has raised the issue that if the Tribunal has given vakalath to these counsels namely Shri Dinesh Inbavadivu and Shri Arjun, then in the interest of upholding the dignity, neutrality and the independence of the Tribunal, the above two mentioned counsels may be excused from presenting the cases of their clients before the existing Members of ITAT. Further, if the vakalath of these counsels have been given in the capacity of the individual Members of the Tribunal, then ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... red before CIC on 19.04.2023 along with the CPIO, ITAT Chennai Benches and only these two advocates have argued the case on behalf of CPIO, ITAT, Chennai. He stated that when the appellant and his other colleague Shri P. Sajit Kumar, Senior AR, entered the court of CIC at Chennai on 19.04.2023 at 1.18 p.m., the hearing already commenced and both Shri I.Dinesh and Shri Arjun were found presenting the case of ITAT. Both the counsel argued before CIC that the ITAT did not record any of the proceedings conducted through virtual hearing by using Cisco Webex and hence, the information sought under RTI by Dr. S. Palanikumar, cannot be given as it is not being maintained. The ld.CIT-DR argued that being human, a natural moral obligation seeps-in while one's own counsels present their clients cases before ITAT to decide. The concept of 'conflict of interest' is a moral value which is purely conscious-based and to demonstrate the neutrality in taking decision as well as to uphold the dignity of office. Every responsible authority is morally required to recuse oneself from such situation arising. If not avoidable, voluntarily recuse oneself based on conscious or atleast recuse one ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... terest' was brought to the notice of Asst. Registrar, ITAT. The email dated 18.04.2023 addressed by Sri. Dinesh Inbavadivu is evident that he has been authorized to appear on behalf ITAT Chennai benches. The ld.CIT-DR stated that he was afraid that if ITAT, Chennai once again proceeds to decide this issue of 'conflict of interest' raised, this will again violate principles of Nemo judex in cas ua sua. Apart from above arguments, Revenue also filed written submissions vide F. No. /CIT-DR/D/ITAT/RTI matter/2022-23/03 dated 30.05.2023 and F. No. CIT-DR/D/ITAT/RTI matter/2022-23/04 dated 31.05.2023. 3. On the other hand, the ld.Advocate Shri G. Baskar submitted that the application No. CIT-DR/D/ITAT/RTI Matter/2022-23 dated 26.04.2023 filed by ld.CIT-DR is obnoxious, contemptuous and just filed to obstruct the judicial proceedings and hence, not at all maintainable. The learned Advocate Shri Baskar stated that when he is appointed as an Advocate/Chartered Accountant, the assessee gives all powers to him and he is substituting the assessee, whereas role of the Departmental Representative is slightly different. The DR can only appear and argue on behalf of the AO and he ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f the mistake is brought to its notice by the assessee or the AO. Therefore the Representative of the assessee contended that the Misc. Application is to be filed either by the assessee or by the AO as the case may be and since, in this case the Misc.Petition is filed by the Ld. Departmental Representative, the same is not maintainable. After considering the submissions of both sides and upon perusing section 254(2) of the Act, the Tribunal observed that we are satisfied that since the Misc. Application is filed by the Ld.DR and not by the Assessing Officer, the same is not maintainable. Hence, we hold that the department is at liberty to file Misc.Application by the competent authority within the time limit prescribed under the Act. In this view of the matter, we are not inclined to consider merit of the application. The ld.counsel stated that, from the above, it is very clear that the Ld.DR is incompetent to file present Misc. Application before the Tribunal. Therefore, in this Interlocutory Application also, the Ld.CIT DR is not competent to file such application before the Tribunal. At best, it should have been filed by the AO. The AO suo motu cannot file applicati ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ocedures followed by the Hon'ble High Court for instance, as per their cause lists, wherein is mentioned that xxxx Vs. Registrar General of High Court, wherein Senior Advocate Shri Karthik Ranganathan is appearing on behalf of the Registrar General and defending the Registry. In case, if Shri K.Ranganathan appears for the Registrar General for administrative side, can it be possible to say he will be barred from appearing in High Courts in India or for limited purposes before Madras High Court. Similarly, Supreme Court also there are two sides one is judicial side and other is administrative side. Only because an advocate is appearing on administrative side, is it possible to bar him from practising anywhere in India. Further, the department itself appoints standing counsel. Once the case handled by them is over, are they not appearing before the Departmental authorities? Are you putting any condition/clause that once a particular case is over, you are ceased to become standing council or Departmental Representative. Even in the ITAT, which is more than 80 years old Institution, a good number of Accountant Members were posted from the Revenue Department. For instance, Shri Geor ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... exceptional circumstances warranting emergent action in public interest . Therefore, exigency of the situation warranted immediate engagement of Shri I Dinesh as counsel, and ITAT has nominated as counsel on the administrative side in the public interest, because four days in advance only hearing notice of CIC was received, for which it cannot be cited as reason to be barred virtually from practising of Shri I Dinesh before the ITAT. Does it not an infringement of Article 19 under the Constitution of India? The Ld.Counsel also stated that the Ld.CIT-DR wants the matter to be referred to Ministry of Law Justice. As per sub-section (5) of section 255 of the Act, subject to the provisions of the Act, the ITAT shall have power to regulate its own procedure in all matters arising out of the exercise of its powers or of the discharge of its functions including places at which the Benches shall hold their sittings. The ITAT shall for the purpose of discharging its functions have all powers which are vested in the income tax authorities referred to in section 131 of the Act and any proceeding before the ITAT shall be deemed to be judicial proceeding within the meaning of section 193 22 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the ITAT was put in the charge of Legislative Department, the predecessor of Ministry of Law Justice. As stated by the then Secretary of Ministry of Law, Shri R.S.Gae, the ITAT is functioning as an independent authority without any interference by any Ministry or Department of Govt. of India in discharge of functions entrusted to it. This was affirmed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of ITAT Vs. V.K.Agarwal wherein it was observed that Tribunal's functioning was under administrative control of executive wing of the Government i.e. Ministry of Law Justice Company Affairs was not accepted and it was held that Union Law Secretary has no control over judicial functioning of the Tribunal. On the independence of the Tribunal, Hon'ble Shri Justice Amal Kumar Sarkar, the then Chief Justice of India has stated that as under:- There may be people who feel that the Tribunal is not in the full sense a judicial body. I venture to think that none of them is an assessee. I also venture to think that such a notion is superficial and stems from the want of knowledge of the actual working of the Tribunal . The judges who preside over the Tribunal are capable men, men ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ts regional jurisdiction. It would be the fact finding authority. Learned counsel submitted that instead of finding of facts merely on suspicion, Misc. Application has been filed by the ld.CIT-DR without any facts and his arguing on the same point for tenth time. The ld.counsel has concluded his argument by saying that this application is absolutely frivolous and not only needs to be rejected but also exemplary cost has to be awarded, so that this case sets as precedent and a copy of this order has to be forwarded to Chairman of the CBDT, New Delhi. 3.8. He submitted that he is not discharging his duties as CIT-DR as he bunked the Tribunal by taking adjournment on the ground that he is going to attend some other official duty, but even before the CIC he has not appeared which is apparent from record. Therefore, the Misc. Application filed by the CIT-DR is mischievous and lack of bonafide and hence, exemplary cost has to be awarded. The learned counsel also referred to Central Civil Service (Conduct) Rules, 1964 in regard to the application filed by Senior DR, Shri P.Sajit Kumar, which reads as under:- 2. (i)Every Government servant holding a supervisory post shall ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... by Revenue before the Benches on various dates in different cases. He submitted that the 'conflict of interest' alleged by Dr. S. Palanikumar, CIT-DR Chennai 'D' Bench on Shri N. Arjun Raj, CA appearing on behalf of his clients and further on behalf of the Counsel on Record is completely absurd and not tenable in law. He submitted that Shri N. Arjun Raj assisted Shri Dinesh Inbavadivu, Advocate who was the Counsel on Record for the ITAT under the RTI Act, 2005 and hence the distinction between engagement of a lawyer for making representation on behalf of a client and assisting a lawyer by a Chartered Accountant in a proceeding is completely overlooked and brushed aside by not bringing the full facts before this Bench while making the objections. 4.1. Moreover, CPIO, ITAT is an authority created under the said statute and hence there cannot be any presumption of 'conflict of interest' with an institution/statutory body when Shri N. Arjun Raj is appearing in the captioned case namely M/s Kerry Indev Logistics P Ltd as an authorised representative. Further, the objections raised by ld.CIT-DR, Dr. S Palanikumar is presumably in his individual capacity and n ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Act, the said professional function undertaken by him is only limited to the said matter and therefore, the presumption of 'conflict of interest' based on the wrong further presumption of Shri N. Arjun Raj, CA holding General POA (Retainer) on behalf of the ITAT is factually mis-leading and not correct on the factual matrix of the case. In one of the cases Dr. S Palanikumar in the capacity of CIT-DR of D' Bench sought for an adjournment in a stay granted matter represented by the undersigned which was posted for hearing on 19.04.2023 by stating that he was in another official assignment connected with Tribunal before another authority, which according to the undersigned is a misleading/false statement inasmuch as the information sought for under the RTI Act is basically for protecting his personal interest and hence the consistency in his approach for blocking the judicial proceedings is explicit. The 'conflict of interest' alleged by Dr S Palanikumar is baseless, incorrect, erroneous, wrong, completely absurd and Dr. SPalanikumar has miserably failed to understand that this Bench is part of a statutory body inasmuch as his objection should also presumed to be e ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... re was e-mail received from Shri I Dinesh at 11.39 saying that written submissions filed along with reference and the above appeal was posted for hearing before CIC on 19.04.2023 and Shri I Dinesh has been authorized to appear on behalf of ITAT, Chennai and written submissions were attached thereto. The Ld.DR submitted that he do not know who is Shri I Dinesh, when he went to CIC, he found both Shri I Dinesh and Shri Arjun, Advocates were representing the case along with written submissions. The Bench clarified that Shri I Dinesh, appeared in the case before CIC, at Chennai through VC on behalf of ITAT Chennai. 5.1. The ld.CIT-DR further stated that the learned counsel for the assessee made false allegation that the he is blocking judicial proceedings in this appeal by way of filing Misc. Application, but he is not at all blocking the proceedings of appeal. Further, referring to the argument made by the counsel in regard to order of the ITAT, Cochin Bench reported in 73 TTJ 741, the ld.CIT-DR submitted that the same is not at all relevant to this issue and present facts and circumstances of the case. The Ld CIT-DR also submitted that in this regard, the Bench of this Tribunal ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e DR was not recorded and therefore, video recording footage was sought for. In that case, first CPIO had taken one decision and therefore, we went to CIC because the CPIO has given a reply that entire judicial proceedings were not recorded. For this purpose, the ITAT has engaged two counsels and was given SOP and contract agreement entered into vendor. The Ld.CIT-DR asked who has engaged Shri I Dinesh as counsel, for which they don't have any data so far. 8. Now, on coming to the issue of assumed bias, the ld.CIT DR stated if the same counsel appeared before the CIC on behalf of the ITAT and the same counsel is appearing before the same bench of ITAT, this may lead to 'conflict of interest'. In regard to Office Memorandum dated 16.01.2015, as per Annexure-5, in regard to para no.3, the CIT-DR submitted that no exceptional circumstances warranted for engagement of Shri I Dinesh to appear before CIC, and there was no emergency arose because notice was issued on 29.03.2023 by the CIC and case was posted for hearing on 19.04.2023. The CIT-DR submitted that for this reason only, the CIT DR has given letter dated 26.04.2023 which may lead to 'conflict of interest&# ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ng, not to continue with hearing of Shri I Dinesh in order to prevent any further damage. 10.1. The Bench posed a query to the Ld.DR as to whether CPIO has given vakalath in his personal case in individual capacity or as CPIO in dual capacity? The Govt. of India has appointed him CPIO of ITAT under RTI Act and he is also discharging duties as Accountant Member of the ITAT, Chennai, for which the Ld.DR replied that they are not computers and he has already addressed the issue. 11. We have heard ld.CIT-DR Dr. S.Palanikumar and ld. Senior DR Shri P. Sajit Kumar on the preliminary issue of 'conflict of interest' regarding objection for appearance of advocate Shri I. Dinesh of Shri V. Ramachandran, Advocates in appeals filed by him and Shri N Arjun Raj, Chartered Accountant before ITAT. First of all, we have to clarify the background of the case. Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal is appointed as CPIO, ITAT, Chennai Benches by President ITAT to decide the RTI applications filed before ITAT Chennai RTI Cell vide order dated 15.12.2021. He is also performing judicial functions as an Accountant member of ITAT. He has dual capacity on administrative side as well as judicial side of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... at as the said counsels have been appointed by CPIO, ITAT and they have represented CPIO, ITAT before CIC, there is a direct case of 'conflict of interest' as they being counsel of the ITAT, Chennai cannot present their clients case before the Members of ITAT, who were again their clients. According to him, it is direct case of 'conflict of interest' and it will jeopardize the interest of Revenue in income-tax proceedings before ITAT, Chennai. 11.2. For this we have to go to the Principles of Administrative Law, where the issue of 'conflict of interest' is discussed. The 'conflict of interest' in the context of lawyer refers to a situation where the lawyers personal or financial interest conflicts with their professional obligation to their clients. The lawyers have a duty to provide competent and zealous representation to their clients while maintaining their independence and loyalty. Any litigation or disputes over profession, lawyers conduct most frequently involves 'conflict of interest', a subject to be addressed by disciplinary rules. These disciplinary rules are made by Bar Counsel of India in India to govern the legal profession. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nterest, personal interest between the client or any of the Member constituting the Bench neither it is the case of the Ld.CIT-DR that any of the Member of ITAT constituting the Bench has represented the client during their professional services. This is a simple case of lawyer Shri I. Dinesh has been appointed by President, ITAT to represent CPIO by virtue of power vested in him u/s. 255(5) and 255(6) of the Act, who happens to be a Member of ITAT. Ld.Counsel before us filed few of instances by filing a judgment of Hon'ble Madras High Court in W.P No. 7215 of 2020 and W.M.P. Nos. 8626 20587 of 2020 in the case of Shri N.R.S. Ganesan vs. 1. Union of India, 2. Income Tax Appellate Tribunal others wherein for ITAT, Shri R. Sankara Narayanan, Additional Solicitor General of India assisted by Mr.K.Srinivasamurthy, Senior Panel Counsel for Central Government appeared before Hon'ble High Court and the same Additional Solicitor General of India is appearing for Income-tax Department to argue their appeals before the Benches of ITAT particularly one example is of Cognizant Technology Solutions India Private Limited V ACIT LTU-1 Chennai in ITA 269/Chennai/2022, appeared on 28.03 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... al Capacity of Ld. CIT-DR Dr. S. Palanikumar and not official. It is not known whether Dr. S. Palanikumar has filed this appeal before CIC in his individual capacity or as CIT-Dr. It is neither explained nor replied by Dr. S. Palanikumar, whether any prior approval from competent authority is obtained or not? Whether the AO has consented in filing of this RTI or not? This has not been answered by Dr. S. Palanikumar despite queries raised from Bench. In case, the appeal before CIC is filed by Dr. S. Palanikumar in personal capacity, he has no business to raise this objection before Tribunal on the issue of 'conflict of interest'. In case, he is raising as CIT-DR in official capacity whether any permission is obtained from competent authority of the income tax department, nothing is on record. Even it seems that the AO has not been authorized to file this petition. 11.7. We noted that there is a procedure for filing petitions before ITAT and for that there are functions of the DR as enshrined in office procedure of the Department. The Department has filed copy of Manual of Office Procedure Volume-I Administrative, issued on February, 2003, where functions of Departmental ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nother official duty and hence, all the appeals fixed on 19.04.2023 before 'D' bench and assigned to him be adjourned. But it is noted that and fact brought before the Bench that Dr. S. Palanikumar was to attend the hearing before CIC, Delhi through VC at Chennai at 1.15 p.m. but, he did not attend that hearing also as is evident from the order of CIC. It means that Ld.CIT-DR in the capacity of DR of 'D' Bench sought for an adjournment of 'D' Bench listed cases including stay granted matters, which were posted for hearing on 19.04.2023 by stating that he was on another official assignment connected with Tribunal before another authority. Going by the order of CIC, it seems that the adjournment petitions filed for 19.04.2023 is misleading and false statement made in adjournment petitions by CIT-DR, Dr. S. Palanikumar. This fact is ascertained from records and CBDT can take cognisance of the same. 11.9. Another objection raised by ld.CIT-DR, Dr. S. Palanikumar that the matter may be referred to Ministry of Law and Justice, we want to clarify that ITAT is a quasi judicial authority and it is an independent Tribunal that hears appeals against the orders of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ication the functioning of the bench has been disrupted and obstructed. We are of the view that it is imperative and it is compelling that functioning of the bench should not be put to mockery by means of such frivolous, mischievous, illegal and baseless applications which has successfully stalled a judicial proceeding without any substance. If application of such nature is entertained and if such application could stand as an impediment to the tribunal functioning than it would result in untold misery to the tax payers and therefore it is just and expedient to hear the present application as a preliminary issue to the appeal intended for hearing and obstructed by the ld.CIT-Dr. In our view, in case, ld.CIT-DR, Dr. S. Palanikumar seems to be aggrieved personally either from the counsels or from the Bench, he should have sat with the Bar and Bench and could have resolved the issue and should not have put the functioning of Bench on hold. This application is on account of narrow, parochial and sedentary approach to a sensitive matter involving bar and bench. The application only exposes the lack of knowledge on the part of the person who files it. It is unfortunate that we have to de ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sing a cost, but we are refraining ourselves from imposing any cost as income tax department will take everything into consideration. We further direct the Registry to send a copy of this order to the Chairman, Central Board of Direct Taxes, New Delhi, and also to the Principal Chief Commissioner of Income Tax of Tamil Nadu Puducherry, for necessary information. Accordingly, the preliminary objection raised by ld.CIT-DR, Dr. S. Palanikumar is rejected. 3. We agree to the finding of facts recorded and decision in the case of Daechang Seat Co. Ltd., supra. Accordingly, the preliminary objection raised by ld.CIT-DR, Dr. S. Palanikumar is rejected. Revenue's Appeal 4. The first issue in this appeal of Revenue is against the order of CIT(A) deleting the addition of management support fee made by the Assessing Officer. For this, Revenue has raised the following grounds:- 2. The ld. CIT(A) erred in directing the Assessing Officer (AO) to delete the addition of Rs. 80,32,102/-made by the A towards Management Support Fees in the order u/s.144C r.w. sec 143(3) r.w.sec 153A of the IT Act, 1961 for the AY 2013-14. 2.1.Having regard to the reason that the Deputy commi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hen these services were requisitioned from the AE were submitted by the assessee, also not able to substantiate for what purpose the said payment has been made. (d) Details and evidences of the cost incurred by the AE for the provision of each type of service purported to have been received by the assessee and on what basis the said cost was placed upon the assessee was not provided by the assessee. (e) The assessee has also not submitted how much amount was paid for receiving services under various head. The TPO noted that the ALP for management services calculated on an international transaction has not been determined by the assessee company in accordance with the provisions of section 92C(3) of the Act and hence, in the absence of any supporting evidence and documents and failed to prove the service rendered, the TPO made downward adjustment in respect of management support fee for the relevant AY for an amount of Rs. 80,32,102/-. 6. The assessee carried the matter before CIT(A) and the CIT(A) without going into the exercise of appraisal of evidences for services rendered just relying on the nature of business theoretically and also relying on the decision of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... evidence for the services of the AE. Considering the above, I am of the view that the need for utilising the services of the AE-and the consequent incurrence of such expenses is essential in order to sustain the business of International Freight Forwarding and hence, this disproves the finding of the Transfer Pricing Officer absence of supporting documents and evidence and failed to prove the need of such services . Hence, the AO is directed to delete the disallowance. This ground of appeal is allowed. Aggrieved, now Revenue is in appeal before the Tribunal. 7. Before us, the ld.CIT-DR made submissions that a sum of Rs. 80,32,102/-was proposed as adjustment by the TPO. On this aspect, the TPO examined each and every parameter by issuing a detailed show cause notice. This is discussed from page Nos. 6 to 10 of the T.P order. He further submitted that the order of the Ld. CIT(A) is very cryptic and not a speaking order. It is also not clear how he has differentiated the facts relied on by the TPO. Whereas the TPO has brought out the need benefit analysis and relied on many case laws supporting his stand. He had categorically come to a logical conclusion bringing out ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Bangalore in the case of Volvo India P Ltd vs DCIT (2018) 89 Taxmann.com 79 (iii) Hon'ble ITAT Bangalore in the case of Saffron Engineering Services P Ltd vs ACIT (2018) 89 Taxmann.com 77 (iv) Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in the case of Akzonobel India (P) Ltd. vs ACIT (2022) 145 Taxmann.com 468 In view of the above, he submitted that the issue of determination ALP of Management Fees may kindly be ruled in the favour of revenue. 8. On the other hand, the ld. Senior Counsel Shri S. Sridhar only made submission that now that assessee has submitted all the evidences before the Tribunal in its paper-book consisting of pages 1 to 59 i.e., copy of Air Freight Agency Agreement, Sea Freight Agency Agreement, Client-wise business info through the agents for the assessment years 2013-14, 2014-15 2015-16 and the details of services rendered. He stated that the issue can be remitted back to the file of the Assessing Officer referring the matter to the TPO to examine the issue of management fee but it cannot be assessed at nil value. 9. We have gone through the evidences filed before us and noted that these evidences need to be examined by the Assessing Officer/ T ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e Revenue in its ground has accepted that the issue is covered by the decision of Hon'ble Madras High Court in the case of PCIT vs. Ennore Cargo Container Terminal P. Ltd., in TCA Nos. 105 and 106 of 2017. The brief facts related to this issue are that the assessee's one of the undertaking is engaged in the business of container freight station and assessee has claimed deduction of its profits and gains from the operations emanating from CFS services u/s.80IA(4) of the Act. The assessee claimed before the AO that the said operations were in the nature of infrastructure facility being operated by it and to be categorized as inland port. The assessee before AO relied on the Explanation to Section 80IA of the Act, the term 'infrastructure facility' is defined as under:- As per explanation to sec. 80-IA, the term infrastructure facility is defined as under: Explanation: For the purposes of this clause, infrastructure facility means- (a) a road including toll road, a bridge or a rail system; (b) a highway project including housing or other activities being an integral part of the highway project; (c) a water supply project, water treatment syst ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
