TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2021 (4) TMI 581
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....stems Ltd., Persistent Systems Ltd., M/s. Tata Elxsi Ltd., Sasken Communication Tech. Ltd., R.S.Software India Ltd. as comparables without appreciating the fact that the TPO had discussed regarding comparables and included the companies as rule 1OB(3) requires that not only the transactions but the enterprises should also be comparable in TNMM. 3. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case the Dispute Resolution Panel erred in appreciating that the directions issued are beyond the mandate of the provisions of Sec. 144C of the IT Act. 4. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case the Dispute Resolution Panel erred in super imposing the decision of other benches of FIAT in the case of assessee to reject these comparables when selection of comparables in a case depends in transfer pricing on assessee specific FAR analysis. 5. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case the Dispute Resolution Panel erred in relying on decision of other benches of FIAT and ought to have decided the comparability of these companies on the basis of specific facts brought on record by the TPO in the case of the assessee. 6. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case the D....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he Income-tax Act, 1961 to the Arm's Length Price ('ALP') of the international transactions entered into by the Appellant with its Associated Enterprises ("AEs") with respect to the software development services. 2. The Appellant aggrieved by the TPO order further appealed before the Honorable Dispute Resolution Panel ("DRP") against the TPO order and subsequently, the learned Assessing Officer ("learned AO") issued the final assessment order with a transfer pricing ("TP") adjustment of INR 4,77,30,553/-. 3. The learned AO/learned TPO/ Hon'ble DRP erred in not acknowledging the voluntary payment of true-up adjustment offered suo-moto for tax by the assessee. 4. The learned AO / learned TPO / Hon'ble DRP erred in rejecting the TP documentation maintained by the Appellant on invoking provisions of sub-section (3) of 92C of the Act contending that the information or data used in the computation of the ALP is not reliable or correct. In doing so, the learned AO/ learned TPO has grossly erred in: a. Rejecting comparability analysis carried in the TP documentation and in conducting a fresh comparability analysis by introducing various filters in determining th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s from Business'. 2.2 In case your Honour allows the loss of the Noida unit to be set off against the income chargeable to tax under the head 'Profits and Gains from Business' after claim of deduction under section 1 OA for the Bangalore and Pune units., the learned AO be directed to allow carry forward of the loss under the head 'Income from other Sources' amounting to Rs. 2, 16,017 for set off against income in subsequent years. 3. Interest under section 234B The learned AO has erred in levying interest under section 234B of the Act amounting to Rs. 8,802,484. 4. Interest under section 234C The learned AO has erred in levying interest under section 234C of the Act amounting to Rs. 60,382. The appellant craves to leave/ to add to ! to alter/ to amend/ to rescind/ to modify the grounds herein above or produce further documents, facts and evidence before or at the time of hearing this appeal." 2. At the outset the Ld.Counsel submitted that, following additional grounds has been raised by assessee vide application dated 25/03/2018 before this Tribunal. "Based on the facts and circumstances of the case, MIs. Harman Connected Services Corporation Indi....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....reported in 244 CTR 542. 4. The next issue raised in the additional ground is regarding computation of negative working capital adjustment. She submitted that the Ld.TPO computed negative working capital adjustment for the comparable companies by using the standard template of computation, without appreciating the fact that assessee is a captive service provider funded by its associated enterprises. She submitted that, this issue was not contested before the DRP, however several subsequent rulings of various benches of this Tribunal has held that negative working capital cannot be effected and therefore assessee wishes to raise this issue by way of additional ground. 5. The next issue raised in the additional ground is regarding the expenditure not disallowed by the Ld.AO against the sublease income. The Ld.Counsel submitted that the contentions of assessee were accepted by the DRP and directed the Ld.AO to delete the addition. However the Ld.AO allowed the expenditure in computing the income under other sources thereby loss of Rs. 3 crores was not set off while computing the total income in the hands of assessee. Alternatively, she submitted that the entire rental income to be t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....on that exceeded Rs. 15 crores, and accordingly, a reference was made to the Transfer Pricing officer to determine the arm's length price of such international transaction. 11. Upon receipt of reference, the Ld.TPO called for economic details of the international transaction in Form 3 CEB. The Ld.TPO observed that assessee had following international transaction with its associated enterprises: Particulars Amount in Rs. Outcome of TP Order Software Development Services (Core US) 33,90,53,318 Adjustment of Rs. 6,04,40,428/-. Software Development Services (CoreObjects UK Ltd.) 3,11,05,603 Accepted to be at arm's length Advances (receipt) 10,29,02,306 Accepted to be at arm's length Reimbursement (receipt) 61,90,674 Accepted to be at arm's length 12. The Ld.TPO noted that, assessee computed the net margin on cost as under: Operating Income Rs. 37,01,58,923/- Operating Cost Rs. 34,91,72,357/- Operating Profit (Op. Income - Op. Cost) Rs. 2,09,86,566/- Operating/Net margin (OP/OC) 6.01% 13. The Ld.TPO noted that assessee adopted TNMM as most appropriate method, and OP/TC as PLI, thereby computing its margin at 6.01%. For purposes of computing the a....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Ltd. 19.33 21.55 5 Mindtree Ltd. (seg) 14.83 14.89 16. The Ld.TPO thus computed the proposed adjustment at Rs. 6,04,40,428/- being shortfall in arms length price. The Ld.TPO also worked out working capital adjustment at (-)0.61% to the average margin of the comparables. It has been submitted that the Ld.TPO while computing the shortfall did not consider the additional income voluntarily offered by assessee. 17. On receipt of the Transfer Pricing order with the proposed adjustment, the Ld.AO passed draft assessment order on 24/03/2013 under section 144C(1) of the Act. In the draft assessment order so passed the Ld.AO:- * disallowed depreciation on computer software at Rs. 7,46,162/- for non-deduction of TDS; * disallowed payments on which TDS was not deducted under section 40(a)(ia) of the Act at Rs. 7,46,162/-; * disallowed professional charges for non-deduction of TDS under section 40(a)(ia) of the Act amounting to Rs. 51,00,689/-; * disallowed a sum of Rs. 21,73,081/- under the head income from other sources which was set off against the rental expenditure by assessee; * recomputed the deduction under section 10A of the Act thereby reducing the deduction to Rs. 46....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....U.S. and UK. As per transfer pricing report, assessee has entered into Master Consulting Agreement with the USA associated enterprises regarding the services rendered. The report also states that the functions performed by assessee during financial years 2001-0 to 2 2008-09 are similar and identical. At page 4 to 8 of the paper book assessee has been characterised as you routine contract service provider undertaking software development and support services for its AE. Assets Owned: 23. It has been stated in the report that assessee do not own any intellectual property rights arising out of its functions and assessee do not develop any valuable, nonroutine intangibles in its business and licenses all technology required for its functions from its AE. Risk assumed: 24. In terms of the risks assumed, the report states that assessee is not a complex entity that engages in full-fledged product development/system consulting services covering the complete software development cycle. The AE undertakes all these activities and therefore all the significant business and enterprise in real risk including product development performance of the market, financial risk etc., are born by the ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....me filed in respect of revised return, and perused the submission before the TPO dated 20.11.2013, filed in Vol.2 of the objections filed on 24.04.2014. In the submission dated 20.11.2013, it has been stated that, "Based on the above Bench marking approach, the assessee did search for external companies that are comparable to the FAR profile of the Assessee in prowess and Capitaline databases through applying various quantitative and qualitative filters, The databases were updated up to September 3, 2010. This search resulted in selection of 12 companies as comparable to the FAR profile of the assessee, with average operating profit mark-up of 9.46%. Since the operating profit mark-up of 9.46% earned by the assessee during the year was equal to the average operating profit mark-up on cost earned by the comparable companies, it was concluded that the transfer pr/ce of the Assessee is at arm's length." In our view, the statement is factually incorrect and misleading. The statement that the assessee received price of Rs. 3821,89,008/- in the international transactions with AEs as against Rs. 370158,923/, considered by the TPO is false and contrary to the facts emerging from the au....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....transactions of the assessee was at arm's length price. The alleged offer of additional income to tax is without any legal sanctity, within the meaning of Rule 10D of IT Rule r.w.section 92C, 920 and 92E of the IT Act 1961. More so, in view of the anent to proviso to Section 92C by Finance Act2009 which has taken aw the option earlier available to the assessee. Therefore, the TPO and Assessing Officer have rightly rejected the TP documentation, while making TP adjustment to total income of the assessee. We have also noted that the TP adjustment of Rs. 12046446/ worked out by the assessee, has not been added to the total income, but allocated among the three STP units and deduction u/s 10A has been claimed as profits of the undertakings, which is not Correct in our view. 3.1.1.4 While filing the revised return on 15.10.2010, the assessee has allocated the alleged TP adjustment of Rs. 120,30,1641- as income/profits among three of the STPI units at Bengaluru, Noida & Pune and claimed deduction u/s.10A. We have perused the auditor's report in Form 56 (Rule 160) for the computation of deduction LI/S 10A as under: Particulars STP Bengaluru STP Noida STP Pune STP Total Inc....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....y the AE on cost plus mark-up basis. 3.1.1.52 It is relevant to refer to clause (I) of sub-Rule IOD(1) reproduced as under: "(1) Every person who has entered into an international transaction shall keep and maintain the following information and documents, namely- (a) ........... (1) details of the adjustments if any, made to the transfer prices to align them with arm's length prices determined under these rules and consequent adjustment made to the total income for tax purposes." (emphasis supplied) As may be seen from the said sub-rule that any adjustment determined (by an assessee or by the AO) under these rules shall be made to the total income of an assessee for tax purposes, and not to the profits of any particular undertaking belonging to the assessee. Since the deduction u/s.10A is based on books of accounts and compliance to the requirement of bringing in foreign exchange for the profits to be eligible for deduction, the TP adjustment amount cannot be said to be profits or income of an undertaking for the purpose of deduction. Further, the TP adjustment has to be made only after being determined under the Rules (1OB, 10C & 10D), and not other-wise. It is cl....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Tribunal in case of DCIT vs. EYBGS India (P) Ltd reported in (2020) 117 taxmann.com 294 * Decision of Hon'ble Delhi Tribunal in case of DCIT vs. G.S.Engineering & Constructions India (P.) Ltd. reported in (2018) 100 taxmann.com 66; * Decision of Hon'ble Pune Tribunal in case of Apporva Systems (P.) Ltd. vs. DCIT reported in (2018) 92 taxmann.com 82. 35. On the contrary, Ld.CIT.DR relied on the observations of authorities below. He submitted that, there was no need to make voluntary adjustment. He submitted that these were not reflected in the computation of ALP and therefore Ld.TPO was correct in not considering it. He also submitted that, assessee has claimed deduction under section 10A on such voluntary adjustment as a part of export turnover. 36. We have perused submissions advanced by both sides in light of records placed before us. The issues that needs to be considered for purpose of this ground are two: (1) Whether Ld.TPO erred in not considering the additions of voluntary adjustment for computing proposed adjustments. (2) Whether Ld.AO erred in ignoring the additional voluntary income for purpose of computing 10A of the Act? Issue 1 : 37. Admittedly, assessee i....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....luntary TP adjustment has been treated as profits of the business of the undertaking, the same has been reduced from export turnover for purposes of computation of deduction under section 10A. The assessee thus claimed deduction under section 10A amounting to Rs. 6,95,45,969/- which was subsequently denied by the DRP. The DRP denied such allocation to STPI undertaking, and thereby inflate the profits of such units for claiming deduction. 39.2 DRP was of the opinion that since deduction u/s.10A is based on the books of accounts, and compliance to requirement of brining in foreign exchange for the profits to be eligible for deduction, the voluntary TP adjustment cannot be said to be profits or income of the undertaking for the purpose of deduction. DRP thus held that, where the consideration has not been earned by the undertaking or accounted in its books of account as export receivables nor the consideration is received in or brought into India by assessee, the same cannot be included in the export turnover of undertaking for computing the deduction. DRP also excluded the same from total income. The DRP further held that; 3.1.1.7 ................................. It would be a....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....with associated enterprise. The assessee company determined arm's length price and accordingly made adjustment to the income because arm's length price determined was more than the consideration, at which the transactions were shown in the books of account. The deduction under s. 10A has not been allowed as per proviso to s. 92C(4). As per this proviso, no deduction under s. 10A or 10B or under Chapter VI-A is to be allowed in respect of amount of income, by which the total income of the assessee is enhanced after computation of income under the sub-section. The learned Authorized Representative during the course of proceedings has referred to the word 'enhanced'. In case the income is enhanced, then deduction is not permissible. However, in the instant case, income has not been enhanced because the same was already returned by the assessee. In the Memo Explaining the Provisions of Finance Bill, 2006, it has been mentioned as under: "Under sub-s. (4), it has been provided that on the basis of arm's length price so determined, the A.O. may compute the total income of an assessee. The first proviso to sub-s. (4) provides that where the total income of the assess....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e High Courts and the coordinate Benches of the Tribunal have allowed revised enhanced deduction u/s 10A of the Act on the additions to the income made during the revised return/course of assessment. Further, we also note that, if the legislature intended to treat the adjustments made by the Assessing Officer at par with the voluntary adjustment made by the assessee, the same would have been expressed, and section 92C(4) would not have referred to computation of income made by the Assessing Officer in terms of the ALP determined u/s 92C(3) based on 'enhanced' income. We therefore find merit in the arguments advanced by the Ld.Counsel in this regards. 45. The Ld.Counsel before us submitted that assessee does not have any other income other than the income generated from the units that is eligible for deduction under section 10A of the Act. It is also been submitted that the assessee has excluded voluntary TP adjustment from 'export turnover' in line with the computation mechanism prescribed in section 10A, however, the voluntary transfer pricing adjustment made by the assessee to forms part of the 'profits of the business' for the purposes of claiming deduction u/s.10A of ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....arsen and Toubro Infotech Ltd. 49. It was submitted that Larsen and Toubro Infotech Ltd. included without considering the fact that, these comparables are functionally not similar with that of assessee and also that they fail the turnover filter. The Ld.AR submitted that applying the upper limit for turnover filter while carrying out the benchmarking analysis is necessary as asked Ld.TPO has excluded comparables which is less than Rs. 1crore turnover. He submitted that, Larsen and Toubro Infotech Ltd., having high turnover of more than 200 crores deserves to be excluded by applying an upper turnover limit. 50. The Ld.Councel submitted that for the same year under consideration this Tribunal excluded this comparables for having high turnover. He submitted that coordinate bench of this Tribunal in case of Genesis Integrating systems vs.DCIT reported in (2012) 20 taxmann.com 715, suggested guideline regarding considering turnover filter and the categorisation of software companies. This Tribunal took view that the Dunn and Bradstreet study to be adopted as a method of classification of companies by size. It was submitted that the 3 categories of firms were identified that is small w....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....companies on the basis of turnover in Transfer Pricing cases. The decision was rendered as early as 5.8.2011. The decisions rendered by the ITAT Mumbai Benches cited by the learned DR before us in the case of Willis Processing Services (supra) and Capegemini India (P.) Ltd. (supra) are to be regarded as per incurium as these decisions ignore a binding co-ordinate bench decision. In this regard the decisions referred to by the learned counsel for the Assessee supports the plea of the learned counsel for the Assessee. The decisions rendered in the case of NTT Data (supra), Societe Generale Global Solutions (supra) and LSI Technologies (supra) were rendered later in point of time. Those decisions follow the ratio laid down in Willis Processing Services (supra) and have to be regarded as per incurium. These three decisions also place reliance on the decision of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of Chriscapital Investment (supra). We have already held that the decision rendered in the case of Chriscapital Investment (supra) is obiter dicta and that the ratio decidendi laid down by the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of Pentair (supra) which is favourable to the ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....for which no segmental information is available and therefore, the objection of the assessee is found acceptable. Accordingly, Assessing Officer is directed to exclude the above company from the comparables." 15. We find that the facts recorded by the DRP in respect of business activity of this company are not in dispute. Therefore, when this company is engaged in diversified activities of software development and consultancy, engineering services, web development & hosting and substantially diversified itself into domain of business analysis and business process outsourcing, then the same cannot be regarded as functionally comparable with that of the assessee who is rendering software development services to its AE. 16. In view of the above facts, we do not find any error or illegality in the findings of the DRP that this company is functionally not comparable with that of a pure software development service provider 60. The assessee before us is a captive service provider who performs software development services only for its AE under a specified contract the comparable alleged for exclusion is in diversified activities for which segmental details are not available. Under ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ble ease to be included in the finalist. Accordingly ground 4 (c) stands allowed for statistical purposes. 69. Ground no.10& Additional Ground No.2 raised by assessee is on negative working capital adjustment granted by Ld. AO. 70. The Ld.Counsel submitted that the Ld.AO while discussing working capital adjustment erred in adding to the average arithmetic profit margin of the comparable companies negative working capital adjustment of (-) 0.61%. The Ld.Counsel submitted that, assessee do not bear any working capital risk since it is been fully funded by its AE from its inception and has no working capital contingencies. She also submitted that assessee is a captive service provider and does not stand to lose anything as it is compensated on the total cost plus basis. However it has been submitted by her that, though assessee is working without any working capital risk, the comparable companies have such risk for them. It has thus been submitted by her that if at all any working capital adjustment is to be made only a positive adjustment could to be made to the comparables so that they are brought on par with the assessee. 71. On the contrary the Ld.CIT DR placed reliance on or....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....by Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of CIT vs Yokogawa, (supra), by observing as under: 16. From a reading of the relevant provisions of Section 10A it is more than clear to us that the deductions contemplated therein is qua the eligible undertaking of an assessee standing on its own and without reference to the other eligible or non-eligible units or undertakings of the assessee. The benefit of deduction is given by the Act to the individual undertaking and resultantly flows to the assessee. This is also more than clear from the contemporaneous Circular No. 794 dated 9.8.2000 which states in paragraph 15.6 that, "The export turnover and the total turnover for the purposes of sections 10A and 10B shall be of the undertaking located in specified zones or 100% Export Oriented Undertakings, as the case may be, and this shall not have any material relationship with the other business of the assessee outside these zones or units for the purposes of this provision." 17. If the specific provisions of the Act provide [first proviso to Sections 10A(1); 10A (1A) and 10A (4)] that the unit that is contemplated for grant of benefit of deduction is the eligible undertaking and that is also h....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e for a period of ten consecutive assessment years beginning with the assessment year relevant to the previous year in which the undertaking begins to manufacture or produce articles or things or computer software, as the case may be, shall be allowed from the total income of the assessee. Section 10B(5) The deduction under sub-Section (1) shall not be admissible for any assessment year beginning on or after the 1st day of April 2001, unless the assessee furnishes in the prescribed form, along with the return of income, the report of an accountant, as defined in the Explanation below sub-Section (2) of section 288, certifying that the deduction has been correctly claimed in accordance with the provisions of this section. Section 10B(6)(ii) Notwithstanding anything contained in any other provision of this Act, in computing the total income of the assessee of the previous year relevant to the assessment year immediately succeeding the last of the relevant assessment year, or of any previous year, relevant to any subsequent assessment year- (i) Xxxxx (ii) no loss referred to in sub-section (1) of section 72 or subsection (1) or sub-section (3) of section 74, in so far as s....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....is not a provision in the nature of an exemption but provides for a deduction of such profit and gains as are derived by 100% export oriented undertaking from the export of articles or things or computer software for 10 consecutive assessment years beginning with the assessment year relevant to the previous year in which the undertaking begins to manufacture or produce. section 10B does not contain any prohibition to prevent an assessee from setting off losses from one source against income from another source under the same head of income as prescribed under section 70 of the Act. section 10B(6)(ii) of the Act restricts carry forward and set off of loss under sections 72 and 74 of the Act but does not provide anything regarding intra-head set off under section 70 and inter-head set off under section 71 of the Act. The business income can be computed only after set off of business loss against the business income in the year as per provisions of section 70 of the Act. section 10A of the Act is a code by itself and it is pertinent to note that section 10A(6)(ii) does not preclude the operation of Sections 70 and 71 of the Act. Para 5.2 of the Circular issued by the Central Board of ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....t. It is pertinent to mention here that decision of the Supreme Court in Yokogawa, supra is not an authority for the proposition that an assessee cannot claim set off under section 70 of the Act and therefore, the aforesaid decision has no application to the facts of the case. Since we have dealt with the issues involved in this appeal with reference to the return filed for the assessment year 2008-09 on 30-8-2009, therefore, it is not necessary for us to deal with the contention raised by the learned counsel for the revenue that the return had filed beyond prescribed period and therefore, has no legal sanctity. In view of preceding analysis, the substantial question of law framed by this Court are answered in favour of the assessee and against the revenue. In the result, the order of the income tax appellate tribunal date 12-10-2012 in so far as it contains the finding against the Assessee is hereby quashed". Respectfully following the aforesaid views, we are of the opinion that assessee has to be allowed inter-unit set off of loss. Accordingly this ground raised by assessee stands allowed. Now coming to transfer pricing issues in the appeal filed by revenue Ground No.2-5 ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....4 by order dated 12/02/2020 as under: "42. As far as ground No.4 is concerned, the issue is whether depreciation can be denied on software on the ground that there has been no tax deduction at source while making payment to the seller. The facts are that during the assessment year, the assessee had purchased software for Bangalore and Pune Unit for Rs. 287,823I and Rs. 26,000Irespectively. The assessee capitalized the same and claimed depreciation @ 60% on the same. The AO disallowed the depreciation claimed amounting to Rs. 1,72,693 and Rs,15,600 on purchase of computer software in respect of the units located at Bangalore and Pune respectively on account of non-deduction of taxes at source in respect of such payments. He held that the payments for the purchase of computer software comes within the purview of 'royalty' as defined in Explanation 2 to section 9(1)(vi) of the Act and are liable to tax deduction at source. The DRP has held that depreciation being a statutory allowance, cannot be disallowed under section 40(a)(i)I(ia) of the Act. Accordingly the DRP directed the learned AO to delete the disallowance in this regard. 43. At the time of hearing, it was brought....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ing the income under the head profit and gain of business or profession on which tax is deductible at source; but such tax has not been deducted. The expression 'amount payable' which is otherwise an allowable deduction refers to the expenditure incurred for the purpose of business of the assessee and therefore, the said expenditure is a deductible claim. Thus, section 40 refers to the outgoing amount chargeable under this Act and object to TDS under Chapter XVII-B. There is a difference between the and other kind of deduction. The other kind of deduction which includes any loss incidental to carrying on the business, bad debts etc., which are deductible items itself not because an expenditure was laid out and consequentially any sum has gone out; on the contrary the expenditure results a certain sums payable and goes out of the business of the assessee. The sum, as contemplated under sec. 40(a)(i) is the outgoing amount and therefore, necessarily refers to the outgoing expenditure. Depreciation is a statutory deduction and after the insertion of Explanation 5 to sec. 32, it is obligatory on the part of the Assessing Officer to allow the deduction of depreciation on the e....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....t DRP directed assessee to file the details in respect of the same before the Ld. AO for due verification, based on which the Ld.AO was consider the claim of assessee. He submitted that, the details were actually filed before the DRP which is placed at page 181-185 of the paper book regarding the TDS having deducted in respect of the payments made. The Ld.AO while passing the final assessment order carried out verification in respect of the same and granted relief to assessee. 97. We have perused the submissions advanced by both sides in light of records placed before us. We do not find any infirmity in the order of the Ld.AO as relief granted to assessee is based on verification of materials/evidences produced by assessee before the DRP. Accordingly this ground raised by revenue stands dismissed. 98. Ground No. 8 is raised by revenue against the direction by DRP to the Ld.AO to grant the sublease expenses as deduction under section 57 (iii) from the sublease income under the head "income from other sources". 99. The Ld.Counsel submitted that assessee has a part of space in the leased building for the STPI unit at Bangalore which was not utilised by assessee and therefore was s....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....0. This Tribunal vide order dated 12/02/2020 observed and held as under: "25. As regards ground No.5, the facts are that the assessee sublet a portion of the premises of which it was a lessee and earned rental income of Rs,1,31,20,320. The income so earned was offered by the assessee under the head 'income from other sources'. Against the aforesaid income, the assessee claimed deduction u/s. 57(iii) of the Act of the lease rent which the assessee paid to its lessor viz., a sum of Rs,1,81,11,130. It is the plea of the assessee that the proportionate rent of the portion of the sub-lease was not claimed as deduction while computing its income under the head 'profits & gains of business or profession'. In this background, the AO examined the claim of assessee and rejected the claim of assessee for deduction on rents paid to the landlord observing as follows:- "12.1 As seen from computation of total income, the assesee has received rental income of Rs. 1,31,20,320/- but set it off against rental expenditure of Rs. 1,81,1 1,130/- resulting in loss under the head House Property of Rs. 49,90,810/-. In this regard it may be noted that the rental income of the assessee in....