Predict Technologies (I) Private Limited, Hyderabad V. ACIT, Circle-16(3), Hyderabad, Hyderabad

ITA 1735/HYD/2014

• Counselvise Citation: [2016] 133 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 5980 (ITAT-HYDERABAD)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 3 month(s) 23 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 04-03-2016
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Next Hearing Date: 29-02-2016
• Assessment Year: 2007-2008
• Appeal Filed On: 11-11-2014
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: M SITARAM
• Assessee Lawyers: K A SAI PRASAD
• Keywords: Business income; Principle of natural justice; Fair market value
• Section: 143(3); 14A; 263

Judgement Text

1 ITA.NOS.1735 TO 1738/H/2014 PREDICT TECHNOLOGIES (INDIA) P. LTD., HYDERABAD. IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL HYDERABAD BENCHES A : HYDERABAD BEFORE SMT. P. MADHAVI DEVI, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI B. RAMAKOTAIAH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA.NO. A.Y. APPELLANT RESPONDENT 1735/H/2014 2007 - 08 PREDICT TECHNOLOGIES (INDIA) P. LTD., HYDERABAD. PAN AABCP4294K ACIT, CIRCLE-16(3) HYDERABAD. 1736/H/2014 2008 - 09 1737/H/2014 2009 - 10 1738/H/2014 2010 - 11 FOR ASSESSEE : MR. K.A. SAIPRASAD FOR REVENUE : MR. M. SITARAM DATE OF HEARING : 29 .0 2 .2016 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 0 4 .0 3 .2016 ORDER PER BENCH : ALL OF THESE APPEALS ARE ASSESSEES APPEALS FOR THE A.YS. 2007-08 TO 2010-2011. FOR THE A.Y. 2007-0 8, THE ASSESSEE HAS RAISED THE FOLLOWING PRCISE GROUN DS OF APPEAL : 1. THE ORDER OF THE HONOURABLE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS)-V, DATED 07-072014 IS CONTRARY TO LAW AND TO FACTS. 2. THE HONOURABLE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS)-V IN ITA 0179/2009-10 ERRED IN ALLOWING A DEDUCTION OF RS.5,17,314 TOWARDS COMMISSION PAYMENTS AGAINST A CLAIM OF RS.10,34,627 2 ITA.NOS.1735 TO 1738/H/2014 PREDICT TECHNOLOGIES (INDIA) P. LTD., HYDERABAD. TOWARDS COMMISSION PAID AS PER AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE ASSESSEE AND M/S SPM INSTRUMENT PVT. LIMITED U/S.40A(2)(B) WITHOUT LAYING OUT THE GROUND OR FRAMEWORK OR THE BASIS ON WHICH THE CLAIM WAS CONSIDERED AS BEING EXCESSIVE OR UNREASONABLE. 3. THE HONORABLE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX( APPEALS)-V IN ITA 0179/2009-10, AND THE ASSESSING OFFICER ERRED IN NOT CONSIDERING THE BUSINESS MODEL OF THE COMPANY AND ITS PRACTICAL NEED TO OUTSOURCE ITS MARKETING EFFORT IN THE VAST MAJORITY OF AREAS IT OPERATED IN, AND IN NOT CONSIDERING THE VALUE OF THE INVOICES ON WHICH THE COMMISSION IS PAID PRIOR TO UNJUSTLY DISALLOWING THE SAME. 4. THE APPELLANT CRAVES LEAVE TO ADD, AMEND, OR ALTER ANY OF THE AFORESAID GROUNDS AS MAY ARISE DURING THE COURSE OF PROCEEDINGS IN THIS REGARD. 2. BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT THE ASSESSEE COMPANY WHICH IS ENGAGED IN THE BUSINESS OF TRADING AND SERVICING OF ELECTRONIC INSTRUMENTS AND FERRO GRAPH IC ANALYSIS, FILED ITS E-RETURN FOR THE A.Y. 2007-08 O N 29.10.2007 ADMITTING TOTAL INCOME OF RS.37,30,453. DURING THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS UNDER SECTION 143 (3) OF THE I.T. ACT, VARIOUS DETAILS WERE CALLED FOR BY THE A.O. AND FURNISHED BY THE ASSESSEE. THE A.O., ON PERUSAL OF THE SAID DETAILS AND SCHEDULE-16 TO THE P & L ACCOUNT OBSERVED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS CLAIMED EXPENDITURE 3 ITA.NOS.1735 TO 1738/H/2014 PREDICT TECHNOLOGIES (INDIA) P. LTD., HYDERABAD. TOWARDS COMMISSION ON SALES OF RS.10,34,627. HE ASK ED THE ASSESSEE TO FILE DETAILS ALONG WITH THE AGREEME NT COPY, IF ANY, FOR THE COMMISSION PAYMENTS. IN RESPONSE TO THE SAME, THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD HIRED THE SERVICES OF M/S. SPM INSTRUMENT INDIA P. LTD., (M/S. SPMIIPL ) FOR THE BUSINESS OF THE ASSESSEE UNIT AN D THEREBY, REDUCED THE ADDITIONAL COSTS INVOLVED IN EMPLOYING AND MAINTAINING MORE STAFF AND ALSO IN ME ETING TRAVELLING AND OTHER EXPENSES. AS A PROOF OF SERVIC E RENDERED BY M/S. SPMIIPL, THE ASSESSEE FURNISHED CO PIES OF PAYMENT ADVICE IN COVERING LETTERS WHERE STATUTO RY FORMS IN C WERE SENT BY THE CUSTOMERS OF THE ASSE SSEE COMPANY AND PRAYED THAT THE SAID LETTERS ARE ADDRES SED TO THE BRANCHES OF M/S. SPMIIPL, WHO IN TURN, FORWARDE D THE SAME TO THE ASSESSEE COMPANY AND ACCORDINGLY, THE ASSESSEE COMPANY PAID COMMISSION TO M/S. SPMIIPL. T HE ASSESSEE ALSO FILED THE COPY OF THE AGREEMENT WITH M/S. SPMIIPL DATED 03.04.2006. ON PERUSAL OF THE SAID AGREEMENT AS WELL AS THE DETAILS FURNISHED BY THE ASSESSEE, THE A.O. OBSERVED THAT EXCEPT FOR SOME CORRESPONDENCE BETWEEN M/S. SPMIIPL AND THE CLIENTS OF THE ASSESSEE REGARDING PENDING PAYMENTS AND RECEIPT OF PAYMENTS, ASSESSEE HAS NOT FILED ANY EVIDENCE IN RE SPECT OF ITS CLAIM WITH M/S. SPMIIPL WHICH COLLECTED ORDE RS FOR THE ASSESSEE. HE OBSERVED THAT AFTER RENDERING OF S ERVICES BY THE ASSESSEE TO THE CLIENTS, THERE IS NOTHING LE FT TO A COMMISSION AGENT OR A MEDIATOR EXPECT TO COLLECT TH E BILLS ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE AND THEN FORWARD THE SAME TO THE ASSESSEE. HE FURTHER OBSERVED THAT EVEN IF SUCH 4 ITA.NOS.1735 TO 1738/H/2014 PREDICT TECHNOLOGIES (INDIA) P. LTD., HYDERABAD. SERVICES ARE RENDERED, THE ASSESSEE NEED NOT INCUR THE EXPENDITURE OF COMMISSION @ 10% WHICH IS UNUSUALLY VERY HIGH WHEN COMPARED TO THE PREVAILING MARKET RA TE. HE HAS ALSO TAKEN INTO CONSIDERATION THE FACT THAT THE MANAGING DIRECTOR OF M/S. SPMIIPL IS NONE OTHER THA N THE SON OF THE MANAGING DIRECTOR OF THE ASSESSEE COMPAN Y AND THEREFORE, HE OBSERVED THAT THE COMMISSION PAYM ENTS ATTRACT THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 40A(2B) OF THE I. T. ACT. A SHOW CAUSE NOTICE WAS, ACCORDINGLY, ISSUED TO THE ASSESSEE COMPANY AS TO WHY THE SAID PROVISIONS ARE NOT ATTRACTED. THE ASSESSEE FURNISHED ITS LETTER DATED 08.12.2009 EXPLAINING THAT AS PER THE AGENCY AGREEM ENT FOR COMMISSION WITH M/S. SPMIIPL, THE AGENT HAS TO OBTAIN ORDERS AND ALSO COLLECT PAYMENTS IN THE NAME OF THE PRINCIPAL. CERTAIN OTHER INFORMATION IN THE FOR M OF COPIES OF THE ORDERS RECEIVED, IN WHICH ATTENTION O F A REPRESENTATIVE, WHO IS EMPLOYEE OF THE AGENT, IS DR AWN BY THE CUSTOMERS, WHICH PROVES THAT THE ASSESSEES AGE NT HAS REALLY REPRESENTED THE PRINCIPAL WAS ALSO FILED. ON VERIFICATION OF THE INFORMATION FILED BY THE ASSESS EE, THE A.O. OBSERVED THAT IT CANNOT BE SAID THAT THE NON- RETURNABLE MATERIAL GATE PASSES FILED AS EVIDENCE R ELATE TO THE BUSINESS OF THE ASSESSEE COMPANY WHICH WAS DONE THROUGH M/S. SPMIIPL AS IT MIGHT HAVE BEEN FOR THE BUSINESS OF M/S. SPMIIPL ITSELF. FURTHER, HE OBSER VED THAT IN SIMILAR LINE OF BUSINESS, THE RATE OF COMMI SSION PAID TO A FOREIGN AGENT IS IN THE RATIO OF 1% TO 2% . HE ACCORDINGLY ALLOWED 1% AS COMMISSION AND DISALLOWED THE 5 ITA.NOS.1735 TO 1738/H/2014 PREDICT TECHNOLOGIES (INDIA) P. LTD., HYDERABAD. BALANCE OF RS.9,31,164 UNDER SECTION 40A(2B) OF THE I.T. ACT AND BROUGHT IT TO TAX. 3. SUBSEQUENTLY, THE LD. CIT ASSUMED JURISDICTION UNDER SECTION 263 OF THE I.T. ACT AND SET ASIDE THE ASSESSMENT WITH A DIRECTION TO COMPLETE THE ASSESSMENT DENOVO AFTER FOLLOWING HIS DIRECTIONS. CONSEQUENT THERETO, THE A.O. COMPLETED THE ASSESSME NT UNDER SECTION 143(3) READ WITH SECTION 263 OF THE I .T. ACT MAKING DISALLOWANCE OF INTEREST UNDER SECTION 14A A ND OF LOSS ON SALE OF INVESTMENT. AGGRIEVED, ASSESSEE PRE FERRED AN APPEALS BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A) BOTH AGAINST THE ASSESSMENT UNDER SECTION 143(3) AND ALSO AGAINST TH E ASSESSMENT ORDER UNDER SECTION 143(3) READ WITH SEC TION 263 OF THE ACT. 4. ITA.NO.1735/HYD/2014 IS FILED AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A) IN THE ASSESSEES APPEAL AG AINST THE ASSESSMENT COMPLETED UNDER SECTION 143(3) OF THE AC T MAKING THE DISALLOWANCE OF RS.9,31,164 AS COMMISSIO N PAYMENT UNDER SECTION 40A(2B) OF THE ACT. THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE, SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESS EE HAD MADE DETAILED SUBMISSIONS BEFORE THE A.O. AS WELL A S THE LD. CIT(A) JUSTIFYING THE COMMISSION PAID TO M/S. S PMIIPL AND ALSO THE RATE OF COMMISSION PAID THEREON. HE HA S DRAWN OUR ATTENTION TO PARA 4.3 OF CIT(A)S ORDER W HEREIN HE HAS REPRODUCED ASSESSEES SUBMISSIONS DURING THE APPEAL PROCEEDINGS. HE HAS DRAWN OUR ATTENTION TO T HE FACT THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS MADE THE PAYMENT OF 6 ITA.NOS.1735 TO 1738/H/2014 PREDICT TECHNOLOGIES (INDIA) P. LTD., HYDERABAD. COMMISSION @ 10% OF THE RECEIPT AND THE A.O. HAS ACCEPTED THE SAME DURING THE SCRUTINY PROCEEDINGS U NDER SECTION 143(3) FOR THE A.YS. 2005-06 AND 2006-07 AN D IT IS ONLY DURING THE A.YS. 2007-08 TO 2009-10 THAT THE A .O. HAS RESTRICTED IT TO 1%. HE HAS FURTHER DRAWN OUR ATTENTION TO THE FACT THAT FOR THE SUBSEQUENT ASSES SMENT YEAR I.E., A.Y. 2010-2011, THE A.O. HAS RESTRICTED IT TO 5%. THUS, ACCORDING TO HIM, THERE IS NO CONSISTENCY IN THE ORDER OF THE A.O. IN MAKING THE DISALLOWANCE OF THE COMMISSION PAID BY THE ASSESSEE. THE LD. COUNSEL FO R THE ASSESSEE FURTHER JUSTIFIED THE PAYMENT OF COMMISSIO N TO M/S. SPMIIPL AND FURTHER ARGUED THAT THE ONUS IS ON THE A.O. TO PROVE THAT THE PAYMENT IS EXCESSIVE OR UNREASONABLE AS COMPARED TO FAIR MARKET VALUE OF SE RVICES FOR WHICH THE PAYMENT IS MADE. IT WAS ALSO SUBMITTE D THAT THE COMMISSION PAYMENT DISALLOWED IN THE HANDS OF T HE ASSESSEE COMPANY, IS IN TURN, OFFERED TO TAX IN THE RETURN OF INCOME FILED BY M/S. SPMIIPL AND AS SUCH, THERE IS NO LOSS TO THE REVENUE AND THEREFORE, THE DISALLOWANCE IN THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE RESULTS IN DOUBLE TAXATION OF THE COMMISSION IN THE HANDS OF THE ASSESSEE AS WELL AS THE RECIPIENT. AFTER TAKING THE SAME INTO CONSIDERATION , THE LD. CIT(A) AT PARA 4.4 OF HIS ORDER HAS HELD AS UNDER : 4.4. I HAVE CAREFULLY CONSIDERED THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE APPELLANT AND THE ASSESSMENT ORDER AND FIND FORCE IN ITS CONTENTIONS. THE A.O., FOR VARIOUS ASSESSMENT YEARS HAD ALLOWED THE COMMISSION PERCENTAGE OUT OF TOTAL SALES AT DIFFERENT RATES, 7 ITA.NOS.1735 TO 1738/H/2014 PREDICT TECHNOLOGIES (INDIA) P. LTD., HYDERABAD. RANGING FROM 10% (AS CLAIMED BY THE APPELLANT) FOR A.Y.2005-06 & 2006-07, 1% FOR A.YS 2007-08 TO 2009-10 AND 5% FOR A.Y. 2010-11, ON THE SAME FACTS OF THE CASE, WHICH IS NOT CONSISTENT AND UNIFORM. T HE A.O. ALSO REASONED THAT THE COMMISSION PAYMENT IS EXCESSIVE WITHOUT COMPARING THE SAID SERVICE TO A COMPARABLE SERVICE COST AND INSTEAD COMPARED THE SAME TO A TEXTILE COMMISSION AGENCY AND THAT TOO ON EXPORT SALES. HE ALSO DID NOT PROVIDE SUFFICIENT DETAILS AS TO THE BASIS ON WHICH HE ARRIVED AT HIS DECISION, PRECLUDING THE ASSESSEE FROM MAKING A COUNTER TO THE SAID OPINION, THUS DENYING THE PRINCIPLES OF NATURAL JUSTICE. THEREFORE, CONSIDERI NG THE SUBMISSIONS AND NATURE OF BUSINESS OF THE APPELLANT, I HOLD THAT IT WOULD BE JUSTIFIED IF THE COMMISSION PAYMENTS OUT OF TOTAL SALES IS ALLOWED A T 5% TO MAINTAIN THE CONSISTENCY AND UNIFORMITY, AS AGAINST 10% CLAIMED BY THE APPELLANT. HENCE, THE A.O. IS DIRECTED TO ALLOW COMMISSION PAYMENTS @ 5% ON THE TOTAL SALES OF RS.1,03,46,274, WHICH COMES T O RS.5,17,314. THE ASSESSEE CLAIMED 10% COMMISSION PAYMENTS @ RS.10,34,627 ON THE TOTAL SALES. HENCE, THE A.O. IS DIRECTED TO ADD THE BALANCE 5% OF RS.5,17,314 TO THE TOTAL INCOME IN THE PLACE OF RS.9,31,164. 5. AGAINST THIS FINDING OF THE LD. CIT(A), ASSESSE E IS IN SECOND APPEAL BEFORE US. THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE, SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS BEEN FOLL OWING 8 ITA.NOS.1735 TO 1738/H/2014 PREDICT TECHNOLOGIES (INDIA) P. LTD., HYDERABAD. THE REGULAR METHOD OF ACCOUNTING AND THEY HAVE BEEN REGULARLY CLAIMING COMMISSION PAID AT 10% OF THE SA LES TO M/S. SPMIIPL FOR THE SERVICES RENDERED BY THE SAID COMPANY TO THE ASSESSEE COMPANY. HE FURTHER SUBMITT ED THAT THE A.O., DURING THE SCRUTINY PROCEEDINGS FOR THE A.YS. 2005-06, 2006-07 HAS ACCEPTED 10% AS A REASONABLE COMMISSION PAID. HE HAS SUBMITTED THAT A UNIFORM AND CONSISTENT METHOD SHOULD BE FOLLOWED BY THE A.O. IN RESPECT OF THE SAME ASSESSEE ON SAME SET OF FACTS UNLESS THE FACTS ARE DIFFERENT IN ANY PARTICULAR YE AR. HE HAS SUBMITTED THAT WITHOUT BRINGING OUT ANY DISTINGUISHING FACTS, THE A.O. AND THE LD. CIT(A), CANNOT DISALLOW THE COMMISSION PAID BY THE ASSESSEE. HE FU RTHER SUBMITTED THAT THE REASONABLE COMMISSION TO BE PAID BY THE ASSESSEE SHOULD BE LEFT TO THE ASSESSEES WISDO M AS THE BUSINESSMAN ALONE CAN DECIDE ON THE REASONABLEN ESS OF THE COMMISSION TO BE PAID FOR THE SERVICES RENDE RED TO IT. HE ALSO DRAWN OUR ATTENTION TO THE FACT THAT TH E LD. CIT(A) ALLOWED THE COMMISSION AT 5% OF THE RECEIPTS TO MAINTAIN A UNIFORM AND CONSISTENT METHOD AND SUBMIT TED THAT TO MAIN A CONSISTENT AND UNIFORM STAND, 10% OF THE SALES OUGHT TO HAVE BEEN ALLOWED AS COMMISSION PAYMENTS AS DONE IN THE A.YS. 2005-06 AND 2006-07. 6. THE LD. D.R. SUPPORTED THE ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW. 7. HAVING REGARD TO THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS AND THE MATERIAL ON RECORD, WE FIND THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS B EEN 9 ITA.NOS.1735 TO 1738/H/2014 PREDICT TECHNOLOGIES (INDIA) P. LTD., HYDERABAD. INTO THE BUSINESS OF COMMISSION IN THE EARLIER ASSE SSMENT YEAR AS WELL AND ALSO HAS BEEN MAKING PAYMENT OF COMMISSION ON SALES TO M/S. SPMIIPL EVEN IN THE EAR LIER YEARS @ 10% OF THE SALES. THE ASSESSMENT FOR THE A. YS. 2005-06 AND 2006-07 WERE ADMITTEDLY COMPLETED UNDER SECTION 143(3) OF THE ACT ACCEPTING 10% OF SALES AS COMMISSION TO M/S. SPMIIPL. WE FIND THAT FOR THE RE LEVANT ASSESSMENT YEARS BEFORE US ONLY, THE A.O. HAS THOUG HT IT FIT TO RESTRICT THE COMMISSION @ 1%. HAVING GONE TH ROUGH THE ASSESSMENT ORDER, WE FIND THAT THE A.O. HAS DOU BTED WHETHER ANY SERVICES WERE RENDERED BY M/S. SPMIIPL TO THE ASSESSEE HEREIN BUT HAS HOWEVER, THE SUBSEQUENT PART OF HIS ORDER, RESTRICTED THE RATE OF COMMISSION PAI D TO THE M/S. SPMIIPL AT 1% OF THE SALES. THUS, IT IS EVIDEN T THAT THE A.O. HAS ACCEPTED THAT M/S. SPMIIPL HAS RENDERE D CERTAIN SERVICES TO THE ASSESSEE, BUT SINCE THE MAN AGING DIRECTOR OF M/S. SPMIIPL IS THE SON TO MANAGING DIR ECTOR OF THE ASSESSEE COMPANY, HE HAS APPLIED THE PROVISI ONS OF SECTION 40A(2B) OF THE ACT. SINCE THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN THE MANAGING PARTNERS OF BOTH THE COMPANIES IS ESTABLISHED, WE ARE ALSO IN AGREEMENT WITH THE FIND ING OF THE A.O. THAT THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 40A(2B) ARE ATTRACTED. BUT IN ORDER TO DECIDE THE REASONABLE COMMISSION ON PAYMENTS, WE ARE OF THE OPINION THAT THE A.O. OUGHT TO HAVE CARRIED OUT THE EXERCISE OF BRIN GING ON RECORD COMPARABLE CASES AND DETERMINING THE ARMS LE NGTH COMMISSION PAYABLE FOR SUCH SERVICES. THE A.O. AS W ELL AS THE LD. CIT(A) ARE FAILED TO CARRY ON ANY SUCH EXER CISE. FURTHER, WE ALSO FIND THAT IN EARLIER ASSESSMENT YE AR ALSO, 10 ITA.NOS.1735 TO 1738/H/2014 PREDICT TECHNOLOGIES (INDIA) P. LTD., HYDERABAD. M/S. SPMIIPL HAS RENDERED SIMILAR SERVICES TO THE ASSESSEE AND THE REVENUE AUTHORITIES HAVE ACCEPTED 10% OF SALES AS REASONABLE COMMISSION TO BE PAID. EVEN IN THE SUBSEQUENT ASSESSMENT YEAR ALSO, THE A.O. HAS ACCEP TED 5% AS REASONABLE COMMISSION. THEREFORE, WE ARE OF T HE OPINION THAT THE REVENUE AUTHORITIES HAVE TO FOLLOW A UNIFORM AND CONSISTENT METHOD AND CANNOT ARBITRARIL Y DECIDE THE RATE OF COMMISSION TO BE PAID FOR THE SE RVICES RENDERED TO THE ASSESSEE. THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF S.A. BUILDERS LTD. VS. CIT(A) AND ANOTH ER, [2007] 288 ITR 1 (SC) HAS HELD THAT THE REVENUE OFFICIALS CANNOT SIT IN THE CHAIR OF A BUSINESSMAN TO DECIDE THE REASONABLENESS OF A DECISION TAKEN BY THE BUSINESSM AN. IN THE CASE BEFORE US, AS THE SERVICES RENDERED BY THE M/S. SPMIIPL IS NOT DOUBTED BY THE REVENUE AUTHORIT IES, BUT HAS ONLY RESTRICTED THE RATE OF COMMISSION, WE DEEM IT FIT AND PROPER TO DIRECT THE A.O. TO ACCEPT THE COM MISSION @ 10% OF SALES AS DONE IN THE EARLIER ASSESSMENT YE ARS. 8. IN THE RESULT, APPEAL FOR THE A.Y. 2007-08 IS ALLOWED. 9. IN APPEALS FOR THE A.YS. 2008-09, 2009-10, 2010-11, THE ASSESSEE HAS RAISED AS MANY AS 8 GROUN DS OF APPEAL. HOWEVER, AT THE TIME OF HEARING, THE LD. CO UNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE, HAS SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE D OES NOT WISH TO PRESS GROUND NOS. 4, 5 AND 7 AND THESE GROU NDS ARE ACCORDINGLY REJECTED AS NOT PRESSED. AS REGARDS GROUND NOS. 2, 3 AND 6, WE FIND THAT THESE ARE AGAI NST THE 11 ITA.NOS.1735 TO 1738/H/2014 PREDICT TECHNOLOGIES (INDIA) P. LTD., HYDERABAD. CONFIRMATION OF THE DISALLOWANCE OF THE COMMISSION PAYMENTS MADE BY THE ASSESSEE TO M/S. SPMIIPL UNDER SECTION 40A(2B) OF THE I.T. ACT. THESE GROUNDS ARE SIMILAR TO THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE FOR THE A.Y. 2007-08 AND THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES LEADIN G TO THE DISALLOWANCE ARE ALSO SAME. FOR THE DETAILED RE ASONS GIVEN BY US IN THE FOREGOING PARAS FOR THE A.Y. 200 7-08, WE HOLD THAT THE RATE OF COMMISSION PAID BY THE ASS ESSEE TO SPMIIPL BE ACCEPTED AT 10% OF THE SALES AS DIREC TED IN THE EARLIER ASSESSMENT YEAR. 10. IN THE RESULT, APPEALS FOR THE A.YS. 2008-09, 2009-10, 2010-11 ARE TREATED AS PARTLY ALLOWED. 11. TO SUM-UP, APPEAL FOR A.Y. 2007-08 (ITA.NO.1735/H/2014) IS ALLOWED AND APPEALS FOR THE A.YS. 2008-09, 2009-10, 2010-11 (ITA.NOS. 1736, 173 7 & 1738/H/2014) ARE TREATED AS PARTLY ALLOWED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 04.03.2016. SD/- SD/- (B. RAMAKOTAIAH) (SMT. P. MADHAVI DEVI) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER HYDERABAD, DATED 04 TH MARCH, 2016 VBP/- COPY TO 1. PREDICT TECHNOLOGIES (INDIA) P. LTD., HYDERABAD. C/O. MR. PRATURI & SRIRAM, FLAT NO.202, SAPTAGIRI R ESIDENCY, 1-10-98/A, CHIKOTI GARDENS, BEGUMPET, HYDERABAD 5 00 016. 2. THE DCIT, CIRCLE-16(3), HYDERABAD. 3. CIT-IV, HYDERABAD. 4. ADDL. CIT, RANGE-16, HYDERABAD. 4. D.R. ITAT A BENCH, HYDERABAD 5. GUARD FILE