TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2013 (12) TMI 1590
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ed the matter before DRP. DRP vide order dated 24.09.2010 issued directions u/s. 144C(1) of the Act. Pursuant to the directions of DRP, assessment u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 144C(5) was framed vide order dated 08.10.2010. Aggrieved by the aforesaid order, Assessee is now in appeal before us and has raised the following grounds:- 1. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the learned Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax, Circle1(2), Baroda ("DCIT") has erred in concluding the assessment under section 143(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ("the Act"), in pursuance to the directions of the Learned Dispute Resolution Panel ("Ld. DRP") under section 144C(5) of the Act. 2. The Learned DCIT erred on facts and in law in confirming the addition of Rs. 17,37,400/- to the income of the Appellant by determining the arm's-length price of the Appellant's international transaction of provision of marketing support services at Rs. 1,48,13,649 instead of Rs. 1,30,76,249/- as determined by the Appellant as follows:- 2.1 in rejecting the contemporaneous documentation maintained by the Appellant as required under the Indian TP regulations; 2.2 not allowing the use of multip....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....BIT (Profit Before Interest and Tax) on Cost was taken as Profit Level Indicator (PLI) and it was accordingly worked at 5.12%. TNMM method chosen by the Assessee was also accepted by the Transfer Pricing Officer (TPO). In addition to the companies chosen as comparables, TPO considered 4 more companies namely KALS Info Systems Ltd, Lucid Software Ltd, Bodhtree Consulting Ltd and Accel Transmatics Ltd as comparables and after considering the 8 companies (4 selected by Assessee and 4 selected by TPO) noted that the average PLI of the companies worked out to 20.76% and the Assessee was therefore show caused and asked as to why the PLI of 20.76% not be adopted and the Arm's Length Price (ALP) of services rendered to AE be recomputed accordingly. Assessee inter alia submitted that the activities of the 4 companies selected by TPO were not comparable with that of the Assessee as they were engaged in the business of software development. It was further submitted that for selection of company by the Assessee, it had applied quantitative filter of turnover/gross profit of not more than Rs. 50 crores. It was further submitted that Vakrangee Software Ltd, though selected by the Assessee sh....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e, the TPO proposed an addition of Rs. 19,45,136/-. From the order of the TPO, it is noticed that the TPO has not rejected the transfer pricing analysis of the assessee, but added additional 4 comparables and applied arithmetic mean of the operating profit to cost, as PLI to compare that of the Assessee (Indian Party) to arrive at the above referred adjustment of Rs. 19,45,136/-. 5. It is seen that the TPO has not provided the assessee with the search process carried out by him to arrive at the final 8 comparable companies, which consisted of 4 companies selected by the assessee and the other 4 companies selected by the TPO and considered as comparable companies. During the course of DRP proceedings, the TPO was specifically asked to point out the search process through which those 4 companies were selected as it was stated hy him in the TP order that those 4 additional comparables were identified on independent search. The TPO showed his inability to do so. It was verified by the TPO from the Transfer Pricing Report submitted by the assessee during the course of TP proceedings that these additional 4 companies have not been selected out of the companies rejected in the qualitati....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....the application of similar assets, similar or almost similar sales are achieved. The quantitative filter applied for selection of comparables even out the comparables using similar assets. However, in ITES industry, these quantitative filters have no role to play as the rates are charged per hour, in any case, if an adhoc upper filter of 50 crores is applied, the mere difference in receipt of 1 or 2 crore would not make any difference, if the comparable is, otherwise, functionally similar. As the assessee has himself selected this comparable as functionally similar, it cannot be rejected merely because it does not fall in assessee's own ad hoc filter. 9.4 In. view of the above, the final set of comparables which is now directed to be taken for benchmarking the international transaction following TNMM are as under. The PLIs (Operating Profit/Operating expenditure) of these comparables for F.Y. 2005-06 as computed by the assessee, itself have also been mentioned hereunder. Sr. No. Name o the Company PLI (OP/OC) (%) 1 Ace Software Exports Ltd. 7.81 2 CSS Technergy Ltd 19.84 3 Vakrangee Software Ltd. 29.62 Arithmetic Mean 19.09% 10. The assessee h....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ratory in nature. He further submitted that ALP was computed by Assessee as per the provisions of section 92 to 92F of the Act, which requires the computation to be based on the information available in the public domain upto the date of filing of return. He further submitted that Assessee for the purpose of computation of average net margins of the comparable companies had considered multiple year data i.e. data pertaining to prior two years for the reason that the data for the relevant year was not available at the time of conducting search process. He further submitted that the TPO considered only the data pertaining to the financial year in which the international transactions were entered by the Assessee i.e. financial year ending 31st March 2006 as being the data that is contemporaneous and appropriate for computing the margin of the comparable companies. He further submitted that if single year data (i.e. for year ended 31st March 2006) was considered for benchmarking, then Vakrangee Software Ltd, as a comparable company should have been excluded as it did not meet the quantitative criteria for the reason that its turnover for year ending 31.3.2006 was Rs. 51.15 crore which ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ional transaction or specified domestic contained in sub-section (1) of section 92D and the rules made in this behalf; or (c) the information or data used in computation of the arm's length price is not reliable or correct; or (d) the assessee has failed to furnish, within the specified time, any information or document which he was required to furnish by a notice issued under sub-section (3) of section 92D, the Assessing Officer may proceed to determine the arm's length price in relation to the said international transaction [or specified domestic transaction] in accordance with sub-sections (1) and (2), on the basis of such material or information or document available with him:" 2.1.2 From perusal of the above provisions, it is clear that if the AO/TPO is in possession of material/information/documents, on the basis of which is of the opinion that one of the four conditions as mentioned in the above section are not fulfilled then the AO/TPO is empowered to determine the arm's-length nature of international transactions on the basis of such material/information/document j available with him. During the course of proceedings, the TPO was in possession of the info....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e assessee. In this respect it is pertinent to note the following proposition held in the case of Kodiak Networks (India) (P.) Ltd. (15 ITR 610) (51 SOT 191) (Bangalore Tribunal) (2012) and Genisys Integrating Systems (India)(P.) Ltd. v. Dy. CIT (ITA No. 1231) (Bangalore Tribunal)(2019) where this issue is discussed in details by the Hon'ble benches: "12.1 As far as the data to be used by the TPO while determining the ALP is concerned, we find that it is covered by the provisions of Rule 10D sub-rule (4) of the IT Rules, 1962. Sec.92C provides the method for computation of ALP and prescribes five methods for computing the ALP and also any other method as may be prescribed by the Board. Sec.92D provides that every person who has entered into an international transaction shall maintain and keep such information and documents in respect thereof and the Board may also prescribe the period for which the information and documents shall be kept and maintained and the AO and the CIT(A) may in the course of any proceedings under the Act, require any person who has entered into an international transaction to furnish any information and documents in respect thereof Thus, it can be seen....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....r the assessee. The ALP has to be determined by the TPO in accordance with law and the Act provides that the TPO shall take into consideration the contemporaneous data. The assessee is only required to maintain the information and documents as may be necessary relating to the international transactions so that it can be made available to the TPO or the AO or any other authority in any proceedings under the Act. By providing a specified date in the Act, the obligation is cast upon the assessee to keep and maintain the documents for that period. But, it does not restrict the TPO from making enquiries thereafter, for determining the correct ALP. Having held so, we come to the next question, as to whether the TPO can make his own research and call for information from various entities without the knowledge of the assessee. Under sub-sec(3) & (7) of sec.92CA, the TPO is entrusted with all the powers under clauses (a) to (d) of sub-sec.(l) of sec.(3) or sub-sec.(6) of sec.133 to call for and gather any information as may be required. When he is making the search for a relevant comparable, the TPO can issue notices to the parties whom he considers as relevant to gather requisite informati....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....us the TPO was right in considering the new comparable entities. It is also seen that there is no bar on the power of the TPO to select any entity as comparable, even when the same may or may not have been available to the assessee while carrying out its TP documentation. 2.1.7 As far as the issue regarding the selection of comparables found by the TPO is concerned, it can be seen that OECD guidelines 2010 prescribe two different kind of approaches for selecting potential comparables. One of such approach is called "additive approach"in which the person carrying out search process make list of third parties which are believed to carry out potential comparable transactions. The information is then collected on such transactions to determine their comparability. In the guidelines, it is also acknowledged that such an approach gives well focused results. The guidelines further go on to suggest that the additive approachor other approach being deductive approachmay not be preferable over each other and the key requirement should be identification of potential comparable. By its very nature the "additive approach" is bound to face allegations of "cherry picking". However, it must also....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... also be considered if such data reveals facts which could have an influence on the determination of transfer prices in relation to the transactions being compared. 2.2.1 The use of the word "shall", in the main provision of the Rule, makes it clear, in no uncertain terms that the use of current financial year data (i.e. the financial year in which international transaction was actually entered into) is a mandatory requirement of law in the comparability analysis under the Indian Transfer Pricing regulations. The proviso to the said Rule makes it an exception in allowing the use of data for the preceding two years, if and only if, it is proved that such data reveals facts, which could have an influence on the determination of transfer price. Therefore, the exception comes into play only when proof of such influence is brought on record. 2.2.2 The mandatory requirement under law to use, contemporaneous documentation has a solid economic sense in the way that contemporaneous transactions reflect similar economic conditions. Therefore, the use of current financial year data is more relevant and appropriate for ensuring a higher degree of comparability of uncontrolled transactions ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....f a record of the analysis performed to evaluate comparability as well as a record of the actual working carried out for determining the ALP. Rule 10D (4) of the Rules, requires that the information and documentations to be maintained under rule 10D (1), should be contemporaneous as far as possible and should exist latest by the due date of filing of the Income-tax Return. Hence, even in terms of the relevant section of the Income Tax Act and Rules the importance and pedestal assigned to the initial documentation in contemporary parlance prepared at the time of settling the price of the international transaction is clearly brought out. It needs to be appreciated that the requirement of the existence of information and documentation by the due date of filling of return, does not override the provisions of Rule 10B (4) of the rules regarding mandatory use of current financial year data for conducting comparability analysis. 2.2.5 Notwithstanding anything contained in the discussion above, multiple year data cannot be encouraged as a matter of rule and is only to be used under well documented circumstances. There is nothing in the Act that prohibits the analysis of the transfer pric....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rmation furnished by the taxpayer, the authorities have ample power to determine the same and make suitable adjustments. The responsibility of determination of ALP is shifted to the revenue authorities who are to determine the same in accordance with statutory regulations. [Para 127] There is criticism that the Legislature is not justified in placing onerous burden on the taxpayer to maintain detailed documents and to justify that transaction was carried at ALP. It is contended that this is like insisting upon production of self-incriminating evidence and is uncalled for. This criticism, is without any valid basis. It is to be remembered that international transactions carried by taxpayer are cross-border transactions. The departmental authorities in India are required to deal with and determine ALP of transactions carried in Asia, Europe, America, Australia, other developed and under-developed countries in Africa, etc. It is very difficult, if not impossible for them to find relevant data of an exact or of a similar transaction or that profit is made not only by the taxpayer, but also by other similarly situated uncontrolled enterprises. Knowledge of economic conditions prevaili....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....eaffirmed by the Delhi Bench of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal in the case of Mentor Graphics (P.) Ltd. [2007] 109 ITD (101) which stipulated that the comparability analysis is to be conducted on the basis of current year data. Other cases where it was held so are: i. Honeywell limited 2009-TIOL-104-ITAT-Pune ii. Customer Services India Pvt limited 2009-TIOL-424-ITAT-Delhi iii. Schefenacker motherson limited 2009-TIOL-376-ITAT-Delhi iv. Panasonic India Pvt limited 2010-TII-47-ITAT-Del-TP v. Geodis Overseas P Limited 201l-TII-34-ITAT-Del-TP vi. Haworth India Pvt limited ITA No. 5341/Del/2010 vii. TNT India Pvt limited 2011TII-39-ITAT-BANG-TP viii. NGC Network India Pvt Limited 2011-TII-45-ITAT-Mum-Intl ix. ADP Private Limited 201 l-TII-44-ITAT-Hyd-TP x. Deloitte Consulting India Pvt Ltd. 1082 and 1084/Hyd/2010. xi. Asstt. CIT v. Birlasoft Ltd. [2011] 47 SOT 437 (Delhi) Whether expression 'shall' has been employed in this rule 10B(4), which make it abundantly clear that current year data of an uncontrolled transaction is to be used for purpose of comparability, while examining international transactions with associate enterprises - Held, yes xii....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....#39;s length price shall be taken to be the arithmetical mean of such prices, or, at the option of the assessee, a price which may vary from the arithmetical mean by an amount not exceeding 5% of such arithmetical mean. 2. The Transfer Pricing provisions were brought on the statute by the Finance Act, 2001 w.e.f. 1.4.2002. It is with a view to avoid hardship to the tax payers in the initial years of implementation of these provisions, the government of India, through a press note issued by the Ministry of Finance (Dept. of Revenue) on 22.08.2001, expressed its intention of not making any adjustment if the price adopted by the assessee was up to 5% less or up to 5% more than the arm's length price determined by the A.O. Immediately thereafter, the Central Board Of Direct Taxes (CBDT) issued the Circular No.12 dtd.23.08.2001 specifying that the A.O. shall not make any adjustment to the price shown by the assessee if such price was up to 5% less or up to 5% more than the arm's length price determined by the A.O. and in such cases, the price declared by the assessee may be accepted. In the present case it is seen that the ALP of the international transactions undertaken by th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ly and not retrospectively. Whereas the learned Departmental Representative objected to the above proposition and submitted that under the proviso, no standard deduction has been provided to the assessee company. In our considered view, the tolerance band provided in the aforesaid provision is not to be taken as a standard deduction. If the arithmetic mean falls within the tolerance band, then there should not be any ALP adjustment. If it exceeds the said tolerance band, then ALP adjustment is not required to be computed after allowing the deduction at 5%. That means, actual working is to be taken for determining the ALP without giving deduction of 5%. Our view is supported by the recent decision of the Delhi Bench of the Tribunal in the case of M/s. ST Microelectronics Private Limited vs. CIT (A) XX, New Delhi and others (supra). We also find that the issue is covered in favour of the revenue by the decision of co-ordinate Bench in the case of ADP Private Limited,Hyderabad v. Dy. CIT, Hyderabad (ITA No.l06/Hyd/2009 and ITA No.l55/Hyd/2009 dated 25-2-2011, to which one of us was a party of that order and the same is binding on us. Since the decision of co-ordinate Bench is binding ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e amendment made under section 92C of the Act would be applicable prospectively and not retrospectively. Whereas the learned Departmental Representative objected to the above proposition and submitted that under the proviso, no standard deduction has been provided to the assessee company. In our considered view, the tolerance band provided in the aforesaid provision is not to be taken as a standard deduction. If the arithmetic mean falls within the tolerance band, then there should not be any ALP adjustment. If it exceeds the said tolerance band, then ALP adjustment is not required to be computed after allowing the deduction at 5%. That means, actual working is to be taken for determining the ALP without giving deduction of 5%. Our view is supported by the recent decision of the Delhi Bench of the Tribunal in the case of M/s. ST Microelectronics Private Limited v. CIT (A) XX, New Delhi and others (supra). We also find that the issue is covered in favour of the revenue by the decision of co-ordinate Bench in the case of ADP Private Limited, Hyderabad v. DGIT, Hyderabad(ITA No.l06/Hyd/2009 and ITA No.l55/Hyd/2009 dated 25-2-2011, to which one of us was a party of that order and the s....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....w 95% of the ALP so that profit from the transaction is not understated beyond the tolerance level of (-) 5%. Whenever there is an international transaction involving purchase of a product or import of services, there would be a debit entry in the profit and loss account. By allowing a margin of (+) 5% under such a transaction, a taxpayer is permitted to have a debit entry which is not above 105% of the ALP so that profit from the transaction is not understated beyond the tolerance level of (+) 5%. 11.18.3 The decision rule contained in the proviso to the sec. 92C(2) of the Act containing a tolerance band is akin to a similar decision rule of confidence interval used in the theory of statistical inference. Under that theory, a 5% level of significance would provide for a tolerance band consisting of 95% & 105% of the arithmetical mean and these points are known as "Critical Values". The rule is one of "All" or "Nothing" kind of a situation. If a computed value falls within the tolerance band, a favorable inference is drawn. The decision rule contained in the proviso to section 92C(2) of the Act thus is a "All" or "Nothing" kind of rule. After all in the transfer pricing analysi....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e are of the view that this tolerance band provided in the proviso is not to be construed as a standard deduction. In this case, the TPO has adopted the arithmetic mean of several comparables for taking out a PLI which would be tested with the PLI of the assessee. If that arithmetic mean falls within the range of tolerance band then there may not be any adjustment but if it exceeds then ultimate adjustment is not required to be computed after reducing the arithmetic mean by 5%. The actual working is to be taken into consideration. Considering all these facts, the appeal of the assessee is also dismissed on this ground. " 8. It is also pertinent to note the amendment carried out in the Finance Act 2012 wherein the issue is clearly dealt with. It was held in some of the judgments delivered by Hon'ble Tribunals that the amendment carried out by Finance Act 2009 is only prospective in nature and thus is applicable only for AY 2009-10 onwards. However by carrying out the below mentioned amendment, the dispute has been laid to rest. The relevant portions of the amendment in section 92C is produced below: "(2A) Where the first proviso to sub-section (2) as it stood before its amen....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....can be learnt from the assessee's side. 4. Before parting it is also important to note the observations made by the Hon. Special Bench in the case of Aztec Software & Technology Services Ltd 107 ITD 141(Bangalore) (SB). The relevant portion of the same is reproduced below: "Having regard to the purpose of the legislation and application of similar enactment world over, it must further be held that adjustments made on account of ALP by tax authorities can be deleted in appeal only if the appellate authorities are satisfied and record a finding that ALP submitted by the assessee is fair and reasonable. Merely by finding faults with the transfer price determined by the revenue authorities (A.O./TPO), addition on account of adjustments' cannot be deleted.This is because the mandate of section 92(1) is that in every case of international transaction, income has to be determined having regard to ALP. Therefore, unless ALP furnished by the taxpayer is specifically accepted, the appellate authorities on the basis of material available on record have to determine ALP themselves. Subject to statutory provisions, appellate authorities can direct lower revenue authorities to carry ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ables selected by the TPO on the basis of same FAR. We find that before the Sp. Bench of Tribunal in the case of Quark Systems (P.) Ltd. (supra), the Assessee had raised an issue that one of the independent comparable which was included by the Assessee as also by the TPO had wrongly been included in the comparable and therefore should be excluded. The relevant portion of the order of the Hon. Special Bench on the aforesaid is as under: '21. Shri S.D. Kapila, learned Special counsel for the assessee vehemently opposes the admission of the additional ground regarding excluding of Datamatics Technologies Ltd at this stage. He submits that Datamatics Technologies Ltd was included in the list of comparable given by the assessee himself, therefore, there is no good reason for the assessee to back out from the same. In all fairness, he did accept that the computation of operating profits of Datamatics Technologies Ltd is indeed vitiated in as much as operating profits of 5.79 cores have not been taken into account to arrive at correct figure of operating profits As a result of this error, the net operating profit to cost ratio which is actually 93 06% as against 138.46% adopted by t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....not a particular comparable can be taken into account or not. 30. Learned Special counsel for the revenue Shri Kapila has vehemently argued that "Datamatics" was taken as one of the comparables by the taxpayer and no objection to its inclusion was raised before the TPO or before the learned CIT (Appeals) in appeal. Therefore, the taxpayer should not be permitted to raise additional ground and ask for exclusion of the above enterprise in the determination of the average margins. We are unable to accept above contention. In the first place, these are initial years of implementation of Transfer Pricing Legislation in India and taxpayers as well as tax consultants were not fully conversant, with this new branch of law when proceedings were initiated or even at appellate stage. Besides, Revenue authorities, including TPO were required to apply statutory provisions and consider for purposes of comparison functions, assets and risks (turnover), profit and technology employed by the tested party and other enterprises taken as comparable Statutory duty is cast on them to undertake above exercise. This has not been done in this case. We would only say that prima facie, as per the material,....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ction 26(1) ought to have been made. Now, there cannot be an estoppel against statute. If in fact the procedure adopted by the Income-tax Officer was incorrect, the defect is not cured by the attitude taken up by the assessee " 33 In the case of CIT v. C. Parakh & Co. (India) Ltd. 29 ITR 661, their Lordship of Supreme Court made the following observations: 'On the question of the admissibility of the deduction of Rs. 1,23,719, the contention of the appellant is that as the respondent had itself split up the commission of Rs. 3,12 699 paid to the managing agents, and appropriated Rs. 1,23,719 thereof to the profits earned at Karachi and had debited the same with it, it was not entitled to go back upon it, and claim the amount as a deduction against the Indian profits. We do not see any force in this contention. Whether the respondent is entitled to a particular deduction or not will depend on the provision of law relating thereto, and not on the view which it might take of its rights, and consequently, if the whole of the commission is under the law liable to be deducted against the Indian profits, the respondent cannot he estopped from claiming the benefit of such deduction....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....h other, the cause of substantial justice deserves to be preferred. For the other side cannot claim to have a vested right in injustice being done due to some mistakes on its part. 38. Accordingly on facts and circumstances of the case, we hold that taxpayer is not estopped from pointing out that Datamatics has wrongly been taken as comparable. While admitting additional ground of appeal raised by the assessee to require us to consider whether or not Datamatics should be included in the comparable, we make no comments on merit except observing that assessee from record has shown it's prima-facie case. Further claim may be examined by the Assessing Officer. This course we adopt as objection to the inclusion of Datamatics as comparable has been raised now and not before revenue authorities. Therefore, we deem it fit and proper to remit the matter to the file of the Assessing Officer for consideration of claim of the taxpayer and make a de novo adjudication of the arm's length price after providing reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee. We order accordingly.' 10. Thus it is seen that Respected Sp. Bench of the Tribunal after relying on various decisions ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e is no legal liability to make such, payments cannot be considered to be expenditure for the purposes of business. Reliance in this respect is placed on the decision of the Hon'ble SC in the case of C1T v. Birla Bros. ( P.) Ltd. 77 ITR. 751, whereby the Hon. SC held as under. "Neither under custom nor under any statutory provision or any contractual obligation was the assessee bound to guarantee the loan advanced by the bank to the selling agent. It is difficult to see how it was in the interest of the assessee's business that the guarantee was given. There -was even no material to establish that the managed company was under any legal obligation to finance the selling agent or to guarantee any loans advanced to the selling agent by a third party. It is incomprehensible in what manner the guaranteeing of the loan advanced to the selling agent indirectly facilitated the carrying on of the assessee's business. It is equally difficult to appreciate the observations of the High Court that it was in the larger interest of the assessee's business that the guarantee was given. In our opinion the view of the Appellate Tribunal was based on a complete misapprehension of t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... that school. He further submitted that existence of contractual obligation is not a prerequisite for allowability of expenditure u/s 37(1) of the Act. He also placed reliance on the decisions which were cited before DRP. The ld. D.R. on the other hand supported the order of A.O. 14. We have heard the rival submissions and perused the material on record. It is an undisputed fact that the expenses have been incurred for the construction of school building and toilet block in the village. The incurring of expenditure has not been doubted or has been held to be bogus by the Revenue. The submission of the assessee that the expenses has been incurred for better relationship with the workers and employees of the assessee has not been controverted by Revenue by bringing any contrary material on record. 15. In the case of Mysore Kirloskar Ltd. v. CIT [1987] 166 ITR 836 one of the question before the H'ble High Court was whether the amount donated by the Assessee to the education trust was allowable as deduction?. The H'ble High Court held as under: "There is yet one more thing to be remembered while applying s. 37(1). The expenditure claimed therein need not be "necessarily" sp....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ges were in the nature of refund of excess amount paid to insurance company and claimed as deduction. He further submitted that the aforesaid transactions were reduction in actual expenses incurred in connection with the business of export of manufactured goods and therefore should not be reduced from the amount of profit for working out deduction u/s 10B. He further placed reliance on the Special Bench decision in the case of Maral Overseas Ltd. v. Addl. CIT [2012] 136 ITD 177. The ld. D.R. on the other hand relied on the order of AO and DRP. 19. We have heard the rival submissions and perused the material on record. Before us the nature of income as submitted by the Assessee has not been controverted by Revenue. The contention of the Revenue is that the income cannot be said to be derived from the eligible undertaking and hence is not allowable. We find that before Special Bench in the case of Maral Overseas Ltd. (supra) one of the question was as to whether the undertaking is eligible for deduction on export incentive received by it. The Special Bench has decided the issue by holding as under:- "It is clear from the plain reading of section 10B(1) of the Act that the said sec....