9911796707
TMI Blog2023 (12) TMI 205X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Transfer Pricing Officer ("TPO"), Learned AO/ Hon'ble DRP erred in rejecting the economic analysis performed by the Appellant in the transfer pricing documentation and adjusting the transfer price of the Appellant by an amount of INR 55,055,083/- under Section 92CA of the Act. 3. The Learned TPO/ Learned AO/ Hon'ble DRP erred in rejecting the comparability analysis undertaken by the Appellant in the TP documentation and in conducting a fresh comparability analysis by applying additional filters to determine the arm's length margin in the services segment. 4. The learned TPO/ Learned AO/ Hon'ble DRP has grossly erred in not rejecting the following companies from the list of comparable companies: * Bodhtree Consulting Limited * Infosys Limited * Larsen & Toubro Infotech Limited * Mindtree Limited * Persistent Systems Limited * Sasken Communication Technologies Limited * Tata Elxsi Limited * KALS Information Systems Limited 5. The learned TPO/ Learned AO/ Hon'ble DRP grossly erred in rejecting companies that ought to have been included as comparable companies: * VMF Softech Limited 6. The learned TPO/ Learned AO/ Hon'ble DRP erred in n ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... differences between the Appellant and the comparable companies. 17. The learned TPO/ Learned AO/ Hon'ble DRP erred in not allowing appropriate adjustment towards to the risk differential between the Appellant vis-à-vis independent comparable companies. Corporate tax grounds Disallowance of provision for warranty: 18. The learned Assessing officer ("learned AO") and the Hon'ble Dispute Resolution Panel ("Hon'ble DRP") have erred in disallowing the provision for warranty considering it to be a contingent/ unascertained liability, without appreciating that the Appellant has consistently recognized provision for warranty and the same is in accordance with the principles laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Rotork Controls India (P) Ltd. ([2009] 180 TAXMAN 422 [SC]), hence, ought to be allowed as deduction under section 37 of the Act. 19. The learned AO having stated that the Appellant has provided calculation of methodology for creating provision for warranty, has erred in contending that Appellant has failed to furnish the details. Further, the Hon'ble DRP erred in contending that the provision created is not scientific, without p ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d and maintained by the group companies). 26. The learned AO has erred in concluding that there is no rationale for making royalty payment in addition to capital expenditure incurred on technical know-how provided by the AE, without appreciating that these two are distinct transactions and the Appellant has substantiated the business rationale for payment of royalty expenses through evidences and submissions. 27. The Hon'ble DRP erred in contending that Appellant has been granted license to manufacture and sell the products, and further erred in making other related contentions, without appreciating the fact that license was granted for use of EP or technical know-how, by the group companies. 28. The Hon'ble DRP has erred in contending that Appellant has been given right on patent/ technical know-how, patents, drawings and other rights mentioned in the agreement, without appreciating that Appellant has been granted only the license to use such technical know-how and it does not have any rights over such technical know-how and there is no absolute transfer of ownership of technical know-how to the Appellant. 29. The Hon'ble DRP has erred in contending that the kn ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ve GmbH, Germany. It is engaged in the manufacturing of components and systems for vehicles. It filed its return of income for AY 2009-10 on 30.09.2009, declaring the loss at Rs. 56,47,88,366/-. The return of income was selected for scrutiny assessment and reference was made to the TPO. Thereafter, a draft assessment order was passed on 11.03.2013 u/s. 143(3) r.w.s. 144C of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ("the Act"). 3. The Appellant filed its objections before the DRP which issued its directions on 30.12.2013. In line with the DRP directions, the Assessing Officer ('AO') passed the final assessment order u/s. 143(3) r.w.s.144C of the Act on 30.01.2014 computing the loss at INR 48,29,16,189/-. Aggrieved, both the assessee and the revenue preferred appeals before this Tribunal. The Tribunal remanded the matter back to the file of the AO/ TPO. 4. In the second round of proceedings, the TPO passed an order dated 24.09.2019 under Section 92CA of the Act determining the TP adjustment of Rs. 5,04,05,469/- with respect to SWD services segment. Thereafter, a draft assessment order dated 31.12.2019 came to be passed by the AO in which the aforesaid TP adjustment was incorporated, apart from the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d its arithmetic mean is as follows:- Sl. No. Name of the company Weighted Average margin (%) 1. CSS Technergy Ltd. 17.36 2. Chakkilam Infotech Ltd. 7.39 3. Geometric Ltd. 8.26 4. HDO Technologies Ltd. 10.11 Arithmetical Mean 10.78 11. The final comparables after the DRP directions are as follows:- SI. No. Name of the Company Margin 1. Kals Information Systems Ltd. 13.89% 2. Akshay Software Technologies Ltd. 8.11% 3. Bodhtree Consulting Ltd. 62.27% 4. RS Software (India) Ltd. 9.97% 5. Tata Elxsi Ltd. (seg) 20.28% 6. Sasken Communication Technologies Ltd. 27.91% 7. Persistent Systems Ltd. 41.40% 8. Mindtree Ltd. 5.52% 9. Larsen and Toubro Infotech Ltd. 24.72% 10. Infosys Ltd. 45.61% AVERAGE 25.97% 12. The computation of arm's length price and the TP adjustment made by the revenue is as under:- Arm's Length Mean Mark-up 23.65% Operating Cost 28,17,94,808 Arm's Length Price @129.40% of cost 35,03,27,305 Price Received 29,99,21,836 Shortfall being adjustment u/s. 92CA 5,04,05,469 13. The assessee has taken 36 grounds of appeal, but the during the course of hearing ld AR of the assessee has filed written ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the said company is engaged in Outsourced Product Development services for independent Software Vendors and enterprises. It offers complete product lifecycle services from end-to-end. It is mainly engaged in licensing of products and sale of products and no segmental information is available. The website of the company also mentions that the company is specialised in developing and distributing its own software products and technology innovation. The company also has substantial intangibles. In contrast, the Assessee is a captive software development service provider and provides services to its AEs based on requirement analysis and directions provided by the AEs. The Assessee does not undertake development or sale of software products and in turn does not own intangible assets. The said company is also being consistently excluded from the list of comparables in the case of other assessees similar to the Assessee. Also, Persistent has a huge turnover of 520 crores whereas the Appellant's turnover is only 29.99 crores. Thus, the company is not comparable to the Appellant. Detailed submissions in this regard are placed at pages 288-292 of the paperbook. Infosys Ltd. 15.3 The ld. A ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ng-Tribunal). The said decision was also in relation to AY 2009-10. In the aforesaid decision the issue raised was against including the aforesaid five companies as comparable companies. The plea of the Assessee was that the aforesaid five companies are not functionally comparable with the Assessee who was engaged in the business of providing SWD services to AE. It is also not in dispute before us that the functional profile of the Assessee in this appeal and the Assessee in the decision rendered in the case of Infinera India (P.) Ltd. (supra) are identical. In the case of Infinera India (P.) Ltd. (supra) this Tribunal held that the aforesaid 5 companies are not functionally comparable with a company rendering SWD services. The learned DR could not point out any difference in facts. Hence, we hold these 5 companies be excluded from the list of comparable companies as functionally not comparable with the Assessee company. 11. Similarly one of the comparable company chosen by the TPO and retained by the DRP viz., Sasken Communication Technologies Ltd. was held to be functionally dissimilar with an Assessee who was engaged in the business of providing SWD services to AE such as the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ta Elxsi Ltd.:- As far as this company is concerned, it is not in dispute before us that in assessee's own case for the A.Y. 2007-08, this company was not regarded as a comparable in its software development services segment in ITA No. 1076/Bang/2011, order dated 29.3.2013. Following were the relevant observations of the Tribunal:- II. UNREASONABLE COMPARABILITY CRITERIA : 19. The learned Chartered Accountant pleaded that out of the six comparables shortlisted above as comparables based on the turnover filter, the following two companies, namely (i) Tata Elxsi Ltd; and (ii) M/s. Flextronics Software Systems Ltd., deserve to be eliminated for the following reasons : (i) Tata Elxsi Ltd., : The company operates in the segments of software development services which comprises of embedded product design services, industrial design and engineering services and visual computing labs and system integration services segment. There is no sub-services break up/information provided in the annual report or the databases based on which the margin from software services activity only could be computed. The company has also in its response to the notice u/s. 133(6) stated that it cannot ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ompanies chosen by the TPO'. The ld. DR of the revenue supported the orders of the authorities below; 16. We have considered the rival submissions. We find that in this case, the Tribunal has followed another Tribunal order rendered in the case of Yodlee Infotech Ltd. v. ITO [IT(TP) Appeal No. 108 (Bang) of 2014]. The relevant portion of that Tribunal order is re- produced above and as per the same, this company i.e. M/s Persistent Systems Ltd., was in product designing services and into software product development. Since the present assessee company is only providing software development services to the AE, this company cannot be considered as a comparable in the present case. Since the ld. DR of the revenue could not point out any difference in facts, by respectfully following this Tribunal order, we direct the AO/TPO for exclusion of this company from the final list of comparable. 16.1 M/s Infosys Technologies Ltd., For exclusion of this company, reliance has been placed on the judgment of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court rendered in the case of CIT v. Aginity India Technologies (P.) Ltd. [2013] 36 taxmann.com 289/219 Taxman 26 (Delhi) and in particular, our attention ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the services rendered by the Assessee. It develops and owns several patents and earns returns on the same while the Assessee neither develops nor owns any patents. Moreover, the company incurs significant expenditure on research and development activities and hardware. However, the Assessee is a captive software development service provider and does not undertake development or sale of software products and in turn does not own intangible assets. The company is therefore not comparable to the Assessee. Also, Sasken has a huge turnover of 480 crores whereas the Appellant's turnover is only 29.99 crores. Thus, the company is not comparable to the Appellant. Detailed submissions in this regard are placed at pages 286-288 of the paperbook. 18.1 The ld. AR placed reliance on the decision of this Tribunal in assessee's own case for AY 2014-15 and Sonus Networks India Pvt. Ltd. (supra) for AY 2009-10. 19. The ld. DR relied on the orders of the lower authorities. 20. After hearing both the sides and perusing the material on record, we note that the assessee has argued that this company has high turnover of Rs. 480 crores, whereas the assessee's turnover is only Rs. 29.99 Crores which i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... that the TPO has applied a lower turnover filter of Rs. 1 crore, but has not chosen to apply any upper turnover limit. In this regard, it was submitted by him that under rule 10B(3) to the Income-tax Rules, it was necessary for comparing an uncontrolled transaction with an international transaction that there should not be any difference between the transactions compared or the enterprises entering into such transaction, which are likely to materially affect the price or cost charged or paid or profit arising from such transaction in the open market. Further it is also necessary to see that wherever there are some differences such differences should be capable of reasonable accurate adjustment in monetary terms to eliminate the effect of such differences. It was his submission that size was an important facet of the comparability exercise. It was submitted that significant differences in size of the companies would impact comparability. In this regard our attention was drawn to the decision of the Special Bench of the ITAT Chandigarh Bench in the case of Dy. CIT v. Quark Systems (P.) Ltd. [2010] 38 SOT 207, wherein the Special Bench had laid down that it is improper to proceed on t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . Having heard both the parties and having considered the rival contentions and also the judicial precedents on the issue, we find that the TPO himself has rejected the companies which are (sic) making losses as comparables. This shows that there is a limit for the lower end for identifying the comparables. In such a situation, we are unable to understand as to why there should not be an upper limit also. What should be upper limit is another factor to be considered. We agree with the contention of the learned counsel for the assessee that the size matters in business. A big company would be in a position to bargain the price and also attract more customers. It would also have a broad base of skilled employees who are able to give better output. A small company may not have these benefits and therefore, the turnover also would come down reducing profit margin. Thus, as held by the various benches of the Tribunal, when companies which arc loss making are excluded from comparables, then the super profit making companies should also be excluded. For the purpose of classification of companies on the basis of net sales or turnover, we find that a reasonable classification has to be made ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ) iGate Global Solutions Ltd. 747.27 crores (3) Mindtree Ltd. 590.39 crores (4) Persistent Systems Ltd. 293.74 crores (5) Sasken Communication Technologies Ltd. 343.57 crores (6) Tata Elxsi Ltd. 262.58 crores (7) Wipro Ltd. 961.09 crores. (8) Infosys Technologies Ltd. 13149 crores. In present facts, assessee contests following comparables for exclusion by using turnover filter; Tata Elxsi 378.43 crores Sasken Communication 405.30 crores Mindtree Ltd 793.22 crores Larson&Tubro Infotech 1950.83 crores Infosys Technologies Ltd 20264 crores Zylog Systems Ltd. 734.94 crores Respectfully following the view taken by this Tribunal in assessee's own case for assessment year 2007-08, and decisions relied by the Ld.AR herein above, we direct exclusion of these comparables final list of comparables for failing turnover filter.' 20.1 Respectfully following the above decision of the Tribunal, we direct the AO/TPO to exclude this company from the comparables because this company fails the turnover filter. L&T Infotech Ltd. 21. The ld. AR submitted that this company is not functionally comparable to the Assessee given that it is engaged in application develo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... SONABLE COMPARABILITY CRITERIA : 19................ 16. .............. Regarding assessee's request for exclusion of Larsen & Toubro Infotech Ltd., we find that regarding this comparable company, page No. 24 of the DRP directions is relevant. We find that on page No. 24 of its directions, it is noted by DRP that this was the claim of the assessee before DRP that turnover of this company is Rs. 2081.49 Crores whereas the assessee's turnover is Rs. 33.94 Crores. It was also the objection before DRP that about 55% of total exports of this company are from onsite services whereas in the present case, the transactions with the AE are on offshore model. Regarding high turnover of this company Larsen and Toubro Infotech Ltd. of Rs. 2081.49 Crores as against turnover of assessee company of Rs. 33.94 Crores and in view of this fact that 55% of total exports in that case are from onsite services whereas in the present case the export to AE is on offshore model, we find force in the contention of ld. AR of assessee that this is not a good comparable and therefore, we direct the AO/DRP to exclude this comparable Larsen and Toubro Infotech Ltd. also. Hence these six comparables are ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 94,97,052 2,61,22,163 3,75,10,000 (1,66,25,111) 2015-16 3,75,12,432 4,10,30,636 3,84,30,238 4,01,12,830 26,00,398 2016-17 4,01,12,831 8,46,53,034 9,04,03,141 3,43,62,723 (57,50,107) 2017-18 3,43,62,723 15,42,67,415 6,62,43,531 12,23,86,607 8,80,23,884 2018-19 12,23,86,607 5,92,84,235 10,89,18,707 7,27,52,135 (4,96,34,472) 2019-20 7,27,52,135 1,38,44,824 2,93,18,763 5,72,78,196 (1,54,73,939) 24.1 For the year under consideration, the amount debited to the profit and loss account included actual warranty expenses to the extent of Rs. 98,57,982. The AO disallowed the provision for warranty contending the same to be contingent liability/ created on estimate basis. The DRP upheld the disallowance proposed by the AO and rejected the Appellant's objections. 24.2 The ld. AR submitted a note on the method of provision for warranty as follows:- 24.3 The ld. AR submitted that the warranty provided by the Appellant is for 24 months and the company considers the data relating to past 24 months. It is submitted that the Appellant creates provision for warranty on the percentage on sales as fixed by the quality centre for each product. The quality centre based ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d by the assessee, the figures arrived are not on any scientific method, it is only estimated by the assessee on the basis of turnover made and hence the AO has rightly allowed the actual expenditure incurred. The provision for warranty created by the assessee are not in terms of the sales made by the assessee and unutilised provisions are not adjusted/recorded in the books of the assessee. 25. After hearing both the sides and perusing the entire material on record, we note that this is second round of proceedings. During the year the assessee has debited to P&L account Rs. 1,09,46,000 towards warranty expenses provision and the actual expenditure incurred is Rs. 98,68,481 and there was opening balance of Rs. 1,77,16,481 resulting in the closing balance of provision of warranty of Rs. 1,87,94,000. The assessee produced copy of ledger account of actual warranty expenses incurred which is also placed in the PB at pages 639 to 677 which has been allowed by the AO. In the first round of proceedings, the Tribunal directed the assessee to provide the basis of making the provision for warranty, but the assessee failed to establish it before the AO. During the course of DRP proceedings, t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... , the AO has accepted the provision for warranty expenses debited into profit & loss account. Further in assessee's own case the co-ordinate bench of the Tribunal has decided the issue in ITA No. 129/Bang/2019 for the AY 2014-15 in which it has been held as under :- 107. We have carefully considered the submissions and are of the view that provision for warranty created is based on past experience and historical trend of each product and at a percentage. The claim made by the Assessee that the method followed for creating provision for anticipated liability on account of warranty stands vindicated by the fact that the actual liability on account of warranty expenses is always on the higher side. The reasons given by the DRP for not accepting the claim of the Assessee is that the provision is created as a percentage of sale, ignoring the fact that past experience is also the basis for creation of provision for warranty. We are therefore of the view that the provision for warranty has to be allowed as a deduction, as the provision created satisfies the requirements for claiming provision as a liability, as laid down in the judicial precedents referred to above. We hold and order ac ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... utomotive products. Compensation for the aforementioned license has been agreed to be paid by the Appellant as an annual royalty of 3% of net sales on account of use of intellectual property generated from basic R&D and 2% on net sales (which shall decrease by 0.25% during every calendar year after 2009) on account of use of intellectual property generated from old application R&D. [Basic R&D is Product related research and development for the general benefit of the company in manufacturing of the automotive products and Application R&D is Customer specific product related research and development]. 26.2 Further, it is submitted that the term "R&D" was just a nomenclature used by the Appellant for the purpose of accounting such expenditure and the nature of expense as clearly laid out in the agreements was royalty. The Appellant submits that the annual license fee incurred by it was for the use of technology of the Continental Group for manufacturing and sales of the products. 26.3 It is submitted that the annual license fee is payable for making use of licensed intellectual property and/ or technical information owned by the Continental Group. Such payments are made only towards ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... is placed on following decisions: * Kanpur Cigarettes (P.) Ltd. v. CIT 147 Taxman 428 (Allahabad High Court) * CIT v. Kirloskar Tractors Ltd [1998] 231 ITR 849 (Bombay HC) * Alembic Chemical Works Co. Ltd. v. CIT [1989] 43 Taxman 312 (SC) * J.K. Synthetics Ltd. v. CIT[2009] 176 Taxman 355 (Delhi High Court) * DCIT v. Honda SIEL Power Products Ltd I.T.A .No. 1579/DEL/2017 (A.Y 2012-13) & S. A No. 217/Del/2017 in ITA No. 1579/Del/2017 * CIT v. Luwa India Ltd. ([2012] 18 taxmann.com 365 (Kar.)) 26.4 Based on above judicial decisions, the factors to be considered and conditions to be satisfied are summarized below: Factors to be considered Conditions to be satisfied License period and termination License period and termination Restriction on creation of further rights/ assignment The licensee has restricted rights to create further rights/ assign the license in favor of third parties Confidentiality The arrangement prohibits parting with confidential information Confidentiality The arrangement prohibits parting with confidential information Nature of royalty Royalty paid as a percentage of sales is linked to sales achieved by the assessee and hence, is consider ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e and support. (c) Some of the key benefits out of the above support to the Appellant includes timely business planning, optimum resource utilization, and meeting customer's requirements where the expectation is always to deliver as per global standards, gaining competitive advantage, and running the business smoothly and efficiently. (d) Corporate Project Management Manuals and Standards - CPMMs and CPMS provided by Continental global aid in project management. Further, the Appellant refers to the standard document provided by Continental global in planning introduction of a new product, which provides basic guideline for innovation introduction. Continental group provides the latest updates relating to development of key manufacturing technologies. This helps the Appellant to upgrade its business including the manufacturing process to the latest available technology. (e) Relevant Snapshots of the manuals, emails and standard documents demonstrating the rendering of these services are produced before this Hon'ble Tribunal at pages 777-929 of the paperbook. Access to various tools/platforms (f) There are numerous tools/ software platforms that are made available by Conti ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tinental global for management of manufacturing floor space, logistics floor space etc. This helps the Appellant in planning as well as optimum utilization of available resources. 5 Manufacturing execution systems ("MES") MES is an auxiliary bundle of software that work hand- in-hand with Camline software/ platform and provides real time production monitoring. MES is integrated with the SAP system in a way that MES provides automatic data to SAP. It counts automatically how many units were built, how many tests failed, how many units were shipped, what product routing (recipe) was used. These provide basic information for cost absorption calculation. It's a smart software that makes machines closer to Industry 4.0 smart equipment (industry standard). Assistance in sourcing: (a) Continental global has a global strategic sourcing approach i.e. strategy for obtaining raw material/ resources across the world in a standardized manner, which can achieve economic advantages in terms of obtaining significant discounts. Continental global locates suppliers, seeks samples from them and tests their products. Upon satisfaction about the quality of the product, Continental global provid ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . (c) Sometimes, the technical support would be provided through emails. These are facilitated by the experts and generally entails steps and action points for the Appellant. Sample email communications are also part of the application for additional evidence. Problem resolution (a) The Appellant seeks the help of Continental global to resolve issues in cases where the Appellant is unable to do so. Continental global provides the appellant with necessary technical support on call and through emails. (b) Continental global also voluntarily takes initiatives to mitigate the issues at every plant location across the world. If the issues are highly vulnerable and needs personal monitoring by the experts, the global team send experts to that particular location to address the specific and routine issues and bring down the occurrence of quality incidents. Other assistance (a) Continental global enters into centralized agreements for procuring certain techniques, technical services. This helps the Appellant to improve the product quality. The aforesaid assistance received from Continental group helps in improving the technological performance of the Appellant's operations in t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 733 (Delhi - Trib.) CIT vs. Dalmia Cement (P.) Ltd. [2002] 254 ITR 377 (Delhi) - this was affirmed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court [2007] 288 ITR 1 (SC) 27.1 Based on the above, the Appellant submits that the impugned expense is revenue in nature and the same is allowable under section 37 of the Act. 27.2 Without prejudice, it is submitted that the DRP on treating the said expenses as being capital in nature, had allowed depreciation in terms of Section 32 of the Act. However, the Assessing Officer failed to follow the directions issued by the DRP. It is therefore submitted that the Assessing Officer be directed to grant depreciation in terms of the directions issued by the DRP. 27.3 It is therefore prayed to allow the appeal and set aside the final assessment order, in the interests of justice and equity. 28. The ld. DR strongly supported the order of the ld. DRP. The ld. DR further referred to the order of the DRP at para 2.19.13 and strongly supported that the Hon'ble jurisdictional High Court in the case of Telco Construction Co. Ltd. v. ACIT (TS-628-HC-2020(KAR) (supra) has decided similar issue in favour of revenue and the ld. DRP has examined this issue in detail in line wi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ixed rate of 3% of all net sales per year from sales of automotive products for making use of IP generated from basis R&D and it was in the first year 2% of all net sales and it will be decreased in the amount of 0.25% every year. The royalty payment shall be paid to the end of June of each current year in the full amount of a full year forecast for the current year and at the end of the year if there is any difference it shall be adjusted. The currency was in Euro. We further note from pg. 204 of PB, the following services were obtained by the assessee from its group companies:- (a) Standard practices (b) Access to various tools/platforms (c) Assistance in sourcing. (d) Provisions of design, procedure and layouts. (e) Training (f) Validation, (g) Testing (h) Problem resolution; and (i) Other assistances. 29.1 The agreement was made on 1st January, 2009 for one year and it was automatically renewable unless terminated. This is the second round of proceedings. There is nothing to show that there is termination of the agreement and hence the agreement is still in force. Further on perusal of the order of the ld. DRP at para 2.19.5 the assessee could produce only th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
