TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2023 (7) TMI 1082
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Y/2018, wherein we discussing the facts held as under:- "2. When these two appeals were called for hearing, the ld.CIT-DR, Dr. S. Palanikumar along with ld. Senior DR, Shri P. Sajit Kumar raised preliminary objection on ''conflict of interest'' in case these two appeals will be argued by Shri Dinesh Inbavadivu belonging to M/s. V. Ramachandran Advocates. The ld.CIT-DR referred to one letter F. No. CIT-DR/D/ITAT/RTI Matter/2023-24 dated 26.04.2023 whereby they have raised this issue in connection with RTI appeal before Central Information Commissioner(in short 'CIC') [appeal filed by Dr. S. Palanikumar] was fixed for hearing on 19.04.2023 at 1.15 p.m., in the premises of NIC Studio, District Informatics Officer, Collectorate, 62, Rajaji Salai, Chennai. The contention of the ld.CIT-DR is that since Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, who is Accountant Member and also CPIO, Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (in short 'ITAT') RTI Cell, Chennai engaged one Shri Dinesh Inbavadivu, Advocate and one more Advocate Shri Arjun to represent him in the proceedings before CIC in regard to appeal filed by Dr. S. Palanikumar against the order of CPIO, ITAT, Chennai, there is &....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....pardize the interest of revenue in Income tax appeal proceedings before ITAT, Chennai. c). To maintain the neutrality and impartiality it is brought on record that the above-mentioned advocates cannot represent their clients before ITAT, Chennai from date of appointment of these counsels by ITAT, Chennai. Yours sincerely, Sd/- (S. Palanikumar) Commissioner of Income-tax (DR) D' Bench, ITAT, Chennai Copy submitted to, 1. Chief Commissioner of Income Tax-1, Chennai for kind information 2. CIT-DR, ITAT-1, 2 and 3, Chennai for kind information 3. Sr. AR, ITAT-1,2,3 and 4, Chennai for kind information 2.1. The ld.CIT-DR before us argued, on the issue of ''conflict of interest'', that in the present case Shri Dinesh Inbavadivu and Shri Arjun are the advocates appearing on behalf of their clients in Income-tax appeals pending in ITAT and they are representing their assessee on day to day basis against Revenue and if ITAT engages these two advocates for representing its case before CIC, naturally, it will become direct case of ''conflict of interest'' for Revenue. It was contended by ld.CIT-DR that RTI appeal filed by him before CIC....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... that he has been authorized to appear on behalf of CPIO ITAT, RTI Cell, Chennai Benches before CIC. This one document is sufficient, according to him, that he is the counsel for ITAT, Chennai Benches and hence, representation of appeals of his assessees cases will be direct case of 'conflict of interest' for the Revenue. He stated that Shri I.Dinesh also filed a detailed written submission before CIC on behalf of CPIO, ITAT, Chennai Benches. He argued that there is no dispute that Shri I.Dinesh and Shri Arjun appeared before CIC on 19.04.2023 along with the CPIO, ITAT Chennai Benches and only these two advocates have argued the case on behalf of CPIO, ITAT, Chennai. He stated that when the appellant and his other colleague Shri P. Sajit Kumar, Senior AR, entered the court of CIC at Chennai on 19.04.2023 at 1.18 p.m., the hearing already commenced and both Shri I.Dinesh and Shri Arjun were found presenting the case of ITAT. Both the counsel argued before CIC that the ITAT did not record any of the proceedings conducted through virtual hearing by using Cisco Webex and hence, the information sought under RTI by Dr. S. Palanikumar, cannot be given as it is not being maintained....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Sri. Dinesh Inbavadivu in his written submission filed on 18.04.2023 with CIC just one day prior to the date of hearing. This proves the 'conflict of interest' once again. He further stated that the issue of 'conflict of interest' is a fallout of this RTI proceedings where ITAT authorized the private advocates on behalf of Chennai ITAT benches who are regularly representing various assessees against Revenue before the same ITAT. As these counsels represented ITAT before CIC, the issue of 'conflict of interest' was brought to the notice of Asst. Registrar, ITAT. The email dated 18.04.2023 addressed by Sri. Dinesh Inbavadivu is evident that he has been authorized to appear on behalf ITAT Chennai benches. The ld.CIT-DR stated that he was afraid that if ITAT, Chennai once again proceeds to decide this issue of 'conflict of interest' raised, this will again violate principles of Nemo judex in cas ua sua. Apart from above arguments, Revenue also filed written submissions vide F. No. /CIT-DR/D/ITAT/RTI matter/2022-23/03 dated 30.05.2023 and F. No. CIT-DR/D/ITAT/RTI matter/2022-23/04 dated 31.05.2023. 3. On the other hand, the ld.Advocate Shri G. Baskar s....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... was whether that Misc. Application, filed by DR, can be entertained or not. The ITAT, Cochin Bench had answered this in the case of DCIT vs. Saraj Trading Corporation, 73 TTJ 741 (2001). In that case, according to the AR of the assessee, as per sub-section (2) of section 254 of the Act is to the effect that the ITAT may, at any time within four years from the date of the order, with a view to rectify any mistake apparent from the record, amend any order passed by it under sub-section (1), and shall make such amendment if the mistake is brought to its notice by the assessee or the AO. Therefore the Representative of the assessee contended that the Misc. Application is to be filed either by the assessee or by the AO as the case may be and since, in this case the Misc.Petition is filed by the Ld. Departmental Representative, the same is not maintainable. After considering the submissions of both sides and upon perusing section 254(2) of the Act, the Tribunal observed that "we are satisfied that since the Misc. Application is filed by the Ld.DR and not by the Assessing Officer, the same is not maintainable. Hence, we hold that the department is at liberty to file Misc.Applicat....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....al as an institution. There is a clear distinction between administrative functions and judicial functions of the Tribunal. The ld.counsel further stated that proceedings before the CIC is purely on administrative side and is nothing to do with the quasi-judicial functions. Therefore, since the engagement of Shri I Dinesh before the CIC by the ITAT purely comes under administrative side and nothing to do with quasi-judicial function which Shri I Dinesh has defended. The ld.counsel also drew our attention to the procedures followed by the Hon'ble High Court for instance, as per their cause lists, wherein is mentioned that xxxx Vs. Registrar General of High Court, wherein Senior Advocate Shri Karthik Ranganathan is appearing on behalf of the Registrar General and defending the Registry. In case, if Shri K.Ranganathan appears for the Registrar General for administrative side, can it be possible to say he will be barred from appearing in High Courts in India or for limited purposes before Madras High Court. Similarly, Supreme Court also there are two sides one is judicial side and other is administrative side. Only because an advocate is appearing on administrative side, is it poss....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....going to affect the powers or function or remedies under the Act. Therefore, it is a frivolous petition filed by the Ld CIT-Dr. 3.4. The learned counsel refers to Office Memorandum dated 16.01.2015 issued by Ministry of Law & Justice as stated in the written submissions of Ld.CIT-DR to say that engagement of the counsel Shri I Dinesh itself is wrong. But, Shri I Dinesh went before CIC and succeeded. The Ld.counsel reiterated last sentence of the said Office Memorandum wherein it is mentioned as "except in exceptional circumstances warranting emergent action in public interest". Therefore, exigency of the situation warranted immediate engagement of Shri I Dinesh as counsel, and ITAT has nominated as counsel on the administrative side in the public interest, because four days in advance only hearing notice of CIC was received, for which it cannot be cited as reason to be barred virtually from practising of Shri I Dinesh before the ITAT. Does it not an infringement of Article 19 under the Constitution of India? The Ld.Counsel also stated that the Ld.CIT-DR wants the matter to be referred to Ministry of Law & Justice. As per sub-section (5) of section 255 of the Act, subject to the p....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....because these proceedings arose on administrative side and in fitness of things, contempt proceedings may be initiated against the Ld. CIT-DR for filing of such frivolous Misc. Application. 3.6. The learned counsel for the assessee also refers 'Independent functioning of Tribunal' wherein it is stated that to begin with Finance Department of the Government of India (Central Board of Revenue), was initially in-charge of the ITAT. However from 30.05.1942 in deference of public opinion, the ITAT was put in the charge of Legislative Department, the predecessor of Ministry of Law & Justice. As stated by the then Secretary of Ministry of Law, Shri R.S.Gae, the ITAT is functioning as an independent authority without any interference by any Ministry or Department of Govt. of India in discharge of functions entrusted to it. This was affirmed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of ITAT Vs. V.K.Agarwal wherein it was observed that Tribunal's functioning was under administrative control of executive wing of the Government i.e. Ministry of Law & Justice & Company Affairs was not accepted and it was held that Union Law Secretary has no control over judicial functioning of ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he Ministry of Law." 3.7. The learned counsel also drew our attention to the 115th report of Law Commission while examining the necessity and expediency of setting up National Tax Court vis-a-vis a Tribunal under Article 323B complimented working of the Tribunal in the following words:- "There is near unanimity of opinion that Income Tax Appellate Tribunal has immensely justified its existence and largely vindicated the trust reposed in it. It has, therefore, to be retained with its regional jurisdiction. It would be the fact finding authority." Learned counsel submitted that instead of finding of facts merely on suspicion, Misc. Application has been filed by the ld.CIT-DR without any facts and his arguing on the same point for tenth time. The ld.counsel has concluded his argument by saying that this application is absolutely frivolous and not only needs to be rejected but also exemplary cost has to be awarded, so that this case sets as precedent and a copy of this order has to be forwarded to Chairman of the CBDT, New Delhi. 3.8. He submitted that he is not discharging his duties as CIT-DR as he bunked the Tribunal by taking adjournment on the ground that he is going to at....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....and extrajudicial activities only on assumption of bias, which is not so in this application. 4. Another Senior Counsel Shri S Sridhar Advocate also interjected for the reason that ld.CIT-DR, Dr. S. Palanikumar and ld. Senior DR Shri P. Sajit Kumar, is objecting to appearance of Shri Arjun, Advocate. He submitted that his name is N. Arjun Raj, Chartered Accountant and he is not advocate as alleged by revenue. He referred to various correspondence filed by Revenue before the Benches on various dates in different cases. He submitted that the 'conflict of interest' alleged by Dr. S. Palanikumar, CIT-DR Chennai 'D' Bench on Shri N. Arjun Raj, CA appearing on behalf of his clients and further on behalf of the Counsel on Record is completely absurd and not tenable in law. He submitted that Shri N. Arjun Raj assisted Shri Dinesh Inbavadivu, Advocate who was the Counsel on Record for the ITAT under the RTI Act, 2005 and hence the distinction between engagement of a lawyer for making representation on behalf of a client and assisting a lawyer by a Chartered Accountant in a proceeding is completely overlooked and brushed aside by not bringing the full facts before this Benc....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... is an act of Parliament and Shri N. Arjun Raj is holding the Certificate of Practise under the said Central Act. Therefore, he has every right to appear before this Bench as he is entitled to legally and the objections are accordingly baseless, absurd, mis-directed, motivated and not sustainable both on facts and in law. Moreover, Shri N. Arjun Raj, even on the presumption, is one of the Counsels represented CPIO, ITAT before the CIC under the RTI Act, the said professional function undertaken by him is only limited to the said matter and therefore, the presumption of 'conflict of interest' based on the wrong further presumption of Shri N. Arjun Raj, CA holding General POA (Retainer) on behalf of the ITAT is factually mis-leading and not correct on the factual matrix of the case. In one of the cases Dr. S Palanikumar in the capacity of CIT-DR of D' Bench sought for an adjournment in a stay granted matter represented by the undersigned which was posted for hearing on 19.04.2023 by stating that he was in another official assignment connected with Tribunal before another authority, which according to the undersigned is a misleading/false statement inasmuch as the informat....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....CIC has posted the case for hearing by mentioning appellant's name and CPIO's name. On 29.03.2023 when he has received the notice( stated by DR S Palanikumar but not fact. Fact is that the notice is dated 29.03.2023 but received on 10.04.2023), it required to file some written submissions in support of that case and accordingly he has filed and a copy was served on the CPIO on 15.04.2023 in connection with RTI matter. On 18.04.2023 there was e-mail received from Shri I Dinesh at 11.39 saying that written submissions filed along with reference and the above appeal was posted for hearing before CIC on 19.04.2023 and Shri I Dinesh has been authorized to appear on behalf of ITAT, Chennai and written submissions were attached thereto. The Ld.DR submitted that he do not know who is Shri I Dinesh, when he went to CIC, he found both Shri I Dinesh and Shri Arjun, Advocates were representing the case along with written submissions. The Bench clarified that Shri I Dinesh, appeared in the case before CIC, at Chennai through VC on behalf of ITAT Chennai. 5.1. The ld.CIT-DR further stated that the learned counsel for the assessee made false allegation that the he is blocking judicial p....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....n application submitted under RTI Act, the officer on 19.04.2023 accompanied the colleague officer to the venue fixed for hearing through video conferencing just to have an experience as to how the proceedings before CIC are conducted. When a colleague officer can go along with DR, then why not Shri Arjun could go along with Shri I Dinesh. But, the ld.CIT-DR stated that the crux of the issue was "in two of the appeals, arguments of the DR was not recorded" and therefore, video recording footage was sought for. In that case, first CPIO had taken one decision and therefore, we went to CIC because the CPIO has given a reply that entire judicial proceedings were not recorded. For this purpose, the ITAT has engaged two counsels and was given SOP and contract agreement entered into vendor. The Ld.CIT-DR asked who has engaged Shri I Dinesh as counsel, for which they don't have any data so far. 8. Now, on coming to the issue of assumed bias, the ld.CIT DR stated if the same counsel appeared before the CIC on behalf of the ITAT and the same counsel is appearing before the same bench of ITAT, this may lead to 'conflict of interest'. In regard to Office Memorandum dated 16.01.20....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....uthorized Shri I Dinesh, then the CPIO should recuse himself from hearing wherever Shri I Dinesh is appearing before ITAT. He argued that because of vakalath has been given by the CPIO, ITAT to Shri Dinesh, some sort of relationship has happened, so, the concerned Member has to recuse himself from hearing Shri I Dinesh in the ITAT and it is purely conscious issue. He also argued that since the administrative issue is pending, not to continue with hearing of Shri I Dinesh in order to prevent any further damage. 10.1. The Bench posed a query to the Ld.DR as to whether CPIO has given vakalath in his personal case in individual capacity or as CPIO in dual capacity? The Govt. of India has appointed him CPIO of ITAT under RTI Act and he is also discharging duties as Accountant Member of the ITAT, Chennai, for which the Ld.DR replied that they are not computers and he has already addressed the issue. 11. We have heard ld.CIT-DR Dr. S.Palanikumar and ld. Senior DR Shri P. Sajit Kumar on the preliminary issue of 'conflict of interest' regarding objection for appearance of advocate Shri I. Dinesh of Shri V. Ramachandran, Advocates in appeals filed by him and Shri N Arjun Raj, Cha....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....1. Now the question arises, whether application dated 26.04.2023 objecting appearance, before Tribunal, of Shri I. Dinesh belonging to Sri Ramachandran Advocates and others of his group and Shri N Arjun Raj(Chartered Accountant not an Advocate) of Sriram Advocates is a direct case of 'conflict of interest' as they appear before ITAT in their clients cases. The allegation of Dr. S. Palanikumar, CIT-DR is that as the said counsels have been appointed by CPIO, ITAT and they have represented CPIO, ITAT before CIC, there is a direct case of 'conflict of interest' as they being counsel of the ITAT, Chennai cannot present their clients case before the Members of ITAT, who were again their clients. According to him, it is direct case of 'conflict of interest' and it will jeopardize the interest of Revenue in income-tax proceedings before ITAT, Chennai. 11.2. For this we have to go to the Principles of Administrative Law, where the issue of 'conflict of interest' is discussed. The 'conflict of interest' in the context of lawyer refers to a situation where the lawyers personal or financial interest conflicts with their professional obligation to thei....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ed manner but in the present case before us none of the situation is prevalent either from lawyers representing their cases or the Members of Tribunal conducting the Benches. In the instant case, Shri I. Dinesh as authorized representative of APIO, ITAT Chennai represented ITAT before CIC and he also represents his clients before ITAT Benches. It is not the case of the Ld.CIT-DR that there is any financial interest, personal interest between the client or any of the Member constituting the Bench neither it is the case of the Ld.CIT-DR that any of the Member of ITAT constituting the Bench has represented the client during their professional services. This is a simple case of lawyer Shri I. Dinesh has been appointed by President, ITAT to represent CPIO by virtue of power vested in him u/s. 255(5) and 255(6) of the Act, who happens to be a Member of ITAT. Ld.Counsel before us filed few of instances by filing a judgment of Hon'ble Madras High Court in W.P No. 7215 of 2020 and W.M.P. Nos. 8626 & 20587 of 2020 in the case of Shri N.R.S. Ganesan vs. 1. Union of India, 2. Income Tax Appellate Tribunal & others wherein for ITAT, Shri R. Sankara Narayanan, Additional Solicitor General of....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....PIO/APIO of ITAT, Chennai Benches, RTI Cell and for this purpose, ITAT have engaged advocate Shri I. Dinesh of Shri V. Ramachandran Advocates and which was successfully defended by him. APIO after taking due permissions from the Competent Authority i.e., President of ITAT has appointed Shri I. Dinesh as counsel to argue before CIC in RTI appeal filed by one Dr S. Palanikumar. 11.6.1. The personal Capacity of Ld. CIT-DR Dr. S. Palanikumar and not official. It is not known whether Dr. S. Palanikumar has filed this appeal before CIC in his individual capacity or as CIT-Dr. It is neither explained nor replied by Dr. S. Palanikumar, whether any prior approval from competent authority is obtained or not? Whether the AO has consented in filing of this RTI or not? This has not been answered by Dr. S. Palanikumar despite queries raised from Bench. In case, the appeal before CIC is filed by Dr. S. Palanikumar in personal capacity, he has no business to raise this objection before Tribunal on the issue of 'conflict of interest'. In case, he is raising as CIT-DR in official capacity whether any permission is obtained from competent authority of the income tax department, nothing is o....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....sonal capacity as an aggrieved party for the reasons known to him. Hence, for this reason also this petition is dismissed as not-maintainable. 11.8. One more fact is noted here, that on 19.04.2023 Dr. S. Palanikumar, Ld.CIT-DR filed adjournment petitions en bloc in Bench 'D', which is his assigned Bench by the Department, for the reasons stated that he is assigned another official duty and hence, all the appeals fixed on 19.04.2023 before 'D' bench and assigned to him be adjourned. But it is noted that and fact brought before the Bench that Dr. S. Palanikumar was to attend the hearing before CIC, Delhi through VC at Chennai at 1.15 p.m. but, he did not attend that hearing also as is evident from the order of CIC. It means that Ld.CIT-DR in the capacity of DR of 'D' Bench sought for an adjournment of 'D' Bench listed cases including stay granted matters, which were posted for hearing on 19.04.2023 by stating that he was on another official assignment connected with Tribunal before another authority. Going by the order of CIC, it seems that the adjournment petitions filed for 19.04.2023 is misleading and false statement made in adjournment petitions ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ssential example of obstruction of justice. While it is a undisputed fact that Shri I.Dinesh has been appointed to represent ITAT, duly authorised by the President of the Tribunal through the registry, in discharging his administrative function, the present application is preferred to obstruct the judicial function of the Bench in disposing off the appeals. By this application the functioning of the bench has been disrupted and obstructed. We are of the view that it is imperative and it is compelling that functioning of the bench should not be put to mockery by means of such frivolous, mischievous, illegal and baseless applications which has successfully stalled a judicial proceeding without any substance. If application of such nature is entertained and if such application could stand as an impediment to the tribunal functioning than it would result in untold misery to the tax payers and therefore it is just and expedient to hear the present application as a preliminary issue to the appeal intended for hearing and obstructed by the ld.CIT-Dr. In our view, in case, ld.CIT-DR, Dr. S. Palanikumar seems to be aggrieved personally either from the counsels or from the Bench, he should h....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ering the justice delivery system. We, therefore, deprecate this kind of behaviour of Dr. S.Palani Kumar and advise the Revenue to give proper training to him before he is posted in any judicial forum. Since, he has obstructed judicial functioning of the Tribunal by filing frivolous application and letters, we are of the considered view that it is a fit case for imposing a cost, but we are refraining ourselves from imposing any cost as income tax department will take everything into consideration. We further direct the Registry to send a copy of this order to the Chairman, Central Board of Direct Taxes, New Delhi, and also to the Principal Chief Commissioner of Income Tax of Tamil Nadu & Puducherry, for necessary information. Accordingly, the preliminary objection raised by ld.CIT-DR, Dr. S. Palanikumar is rejected. 3. We agree to the finding of facts recorded and decision in the case of Daechang Seat Co. Ltd., supra. Accordingly, the preliminary objection raised by ld.CIT-DR, Dr. S. Palanikumar is rejected. Revenue's Appeal 4. The first issue in this appeal of Revenue is against the order of CIT(A) deleting the addition of management support fee made by the Assessing Office....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....the documentary evidences to substantiate its claim of receipt of services and benefits accrued. (b)The assessee has not substantiated the actual need for the services. Also, the assessee has its own well organized management structure with experienced personnel managing different departments. (c) No documentary evidences of how and when these services were requisitioned from the AE were submitted by the assessee, also not able to substantiate for what purpose the said payment has been made. (d) Details and evidences of the cost incurred by the AE for the provision of each type of service purported to have been received by the assessee and on what basis the said cost was placed upon the assessee was not provided by the assessee. (e) The assessee has also not submitted how much amount was paid for receiving services under various head. The TPO noted that the ALP for management services calculated on an international transaction has not been determined by the assessee company in accordance with the provisions of section 92C(3) of the Act and hence, in the absence of any supporting evidence and documents and failed to prove the service rendered, the TPO made downward adjustm....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....fore the operation and after gaining consciousness will be difficult to prove. The very fact that the patient was alive will be a proof of the services rendered by an Anaesthetist and the same way the success achieved by the company in such a short time of commencing the business of International Freight Forwarding is the evidence for the services of the AE. Considering the above, I am of the view that the need for utilising the services of the AE-and the consequent incurrence of such expenses is essential in order to sustain the business of International Freight Forwarding and hence, this disproves the finding of the Transfer Pricing Officer "absence of supporting documents and evidence and failed to prove the need of such services". Hence, the AO is directed to delete the disallowance. This ground of appeal is allowed. Aggrieved, now Revenue is in appeal before the Tribunal. 7. Before us, the ld.CIT-DR made submissions that a sum of Rs. 80,32,102/-was proposed as adjustment by the TPO. On this aspect, the TPO examined each and every parameter by issuing a detailed show cause notice. This is discussed from page Nos. 6 to 10 of the T.P order. He further submitted that the ord....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ut any evidence on record to suggest that services were actually rendered" The ld.CIT-DR stated that the following decisions have been ruled in favour of the revenue:- (i) The Hon'ble ITAT Chennai in the case of M/s Infac India Pvt. Ltd. vs DCIT (2015) 64 Taxmann.com 437 (ii) Hon'ble ITAT Bangalore in the case of Volvo India P Ltd vs DCIT (2018) 89 Taxmann.com 79 (iii) Hon'ble ITAT Bangalore in the case of Saffron Engineering Services P Ltd vs ACIT (2018) 89 Taxmann.com 77 (iv) Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in the case of Akzonobel India (P) Ltd. vs ACIT (2022) 145 Taxmann.com 468 In view of the above, he submitted that the issue of determination ALP of Management Fees may kindly be ruled in the favour of revenue. 8. On the other hand, the ld. Senior Counsel Shri S. Sridhar only made submission that now that assessee has submitted all the evidences before the Tribunal in its paper-book consisting of pages 1 to 59 i.e., copy of Air Freight Agency Agreement, Sea Freight Agency Agreement, Client-wise business info through the agents for the assessment years 2013-14, 2014-15 & 2015-16 and the details of services rendered. He stated that the issue can be remit....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ct 2001. After the amendment, the term any other public facility was deleted from the definition of Infrastructure facility. Hence, from 01.04.2002 onwards income from CFS is no-more eligible for deduction u/s.80IA of the IT Act, 1961. 11. At the outset, it is noticed that the Revenue in its ground has accepted that the issue is covered by the decision of Hon'ble Madras High Court in the case of PCIT vs. Ennore Cargo Container Terminal P. Ltd., in TCA Nos. 105 and 106 of 2017. The brief facts related to this issue are that the assessee's one of the undertaking is engaged in the business of container freight station and assessee has claimed deduction of its profits and gains from the operations emanating from CFS services u/s.80IA(4) of the Act. The assessee claimed before the AO that the said operations were in the nature of infrastructure facility being operated by it and to be categorized as inland port. The assessee before AO relied on the Explanation to Section 80IA of the Act, the term 'infrastructure facility' is defined as under:- As per explanation to sec. 80-IA, the term "infrastructure facility is defined as under: Explanation: For the purposes of thi....