HINDUJA GLOBAL SOLUTIONS LTD, MUMBAI V. DCIT CIR 7(1), MUMBAI

ITA 2228/MUM/2015

• Counselvise Citation: [2016] 132 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 4011 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 11 month(s) 27 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 13-04-2016
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Bench Allotted: Not Allotted
• Assessment Year: 2010-2011
• Appeal Filed On: 16-04-2015
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: N K CHAND
• Assessee Lawyers: F V IRANI SHRI PARAS SAVLA
• Keywords: Transfer pricing; Opportunity of being heard; International transaction; Source of fund
• Section: 234B; 14A; 115JB; 90

Judgement Text

, , K, IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCHES K, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI SAKTIJIT DEY, JUDICIAL MEMBER, AND SHRI ASHWANI TANEJA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO.2228/MUM/2015 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2010-11 HIND UJA GLOBAL SOLUTIONS LTD. HINDUJA HOUSE, 171, DR. ANNIE BESANT ROAD, WORLI, MUMBAI, MUMBAI-400018 / VS. DC IT CIRCLE 7(1), MUMBAI- (ASSESSEE ) (REVENUE) P.A. NO. AAACT1763A / ASSESSEE BY SHRI F.V. IRANI SHRI PARAS SAVLA (AR) / REVENUE BY SHRI N.K. CHAND (DR) / DATE OF HEARING : 23/03/2016 / DATE OF ORDER: 13/04/2016 / O R D E R PER ASHWANI TANEJA (ACCOUNTANT MEMBER): THIS APPEAL HAS BEEN FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AGAINST THE FINAL ASSESSMENT ORDER OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER (IN SHORT AO) PASSED IN PURSUANCE TO ORDER OF THE DISPUTE RESOLUT ION PANEL - I, MUMBAI {(IN SHORT DRP}, DATED 22.12.2014 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2010-11, ON THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS: HINDUJA GLOBAL SOLUTIONS LTD. 2 1. ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND I N LAW, THE LEARNED TRANSFER PRICING OFFICER ('TPO') AND TH E LEARNED ASSESSING OFFICER ('AO') ERRED IN MAKING THE ADDITI ONS AND HON'BLE DISPUTE RESOLUTION PANEL ('DRP'), FURTHER E RRED IN PARTLY UPHOLDING THE ADDITIONS MADE BY TPO/AO TO TH E APPELLANT'S INCOME BASED ON THE PROVISIONS OF THE I NCOME- TAX ACT, 1961 ('THE ACT') AND THE SAID ADDITIONS BE ING WHOLLY UNJUSTIFIED ARE LIABLE TO BE DELETED. DISALLOWANCE OF DEDUCTION UNDER SECTION 10A OF RS. 84,95,90,523/- 2. ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN LAW, THE LEARNED AO ERRED IN DISALLOWING AND THE HO N'BLE DRP FURTHER ERRED IN NOT DELETING THE SAID DISALLOW ANCE MADE BY THE AO ON ACCOUNT OF THE APPELLANT'S CLAIM OF DEDUCTION UNDER SECTION 10A OF THE ACT FOR UNIT NO. II AND UNIT NO. III (COLLECTIVELY REFERRED TO AS 'UNITS') OF RS. 70,13,01,393/- AND RS. 14,82,89,130/- RESPECTIVELY. RE-ALLOCATION OF CERTAIN COMMON HO EXPENSES 3. ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN L AW, THE LEARNED AO FAILED TO APPRECIATE THAT THE APPELLANT HAD ALLOCATED CERTAIN COMMON EXPENSES AMONGST ALL THE U NITS ON A REASONABLE BASIS AND BASED ON THE DIRECTIONS OF T HE DRP, THE LEARNED AO ERRED IN RE-ALLOCATING THESE EXPENSE S ON THE BASIS OF TURNOVER OF THE UNITS AND IN RE-COMPUTING THE PROFITS OF THE UNITS OF THE APPELLANT. DISALLOWANCE UNDER SECTION 14A OF RS. 2,00,000/- 4. ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN LAW, THE LEARNED AO ERRED IN DISALLOWING AND THE HO N'BLE DRP FURTHER ERRED IN NOT DELETING THE SAID DISALLOW ANCE OF RS.2,00,000/UNDER SECTION 14A OF THE ACT. 5. ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN LAW, THE LEARNED AO ERRED IN MAKING AN ADDITION AND THE HON'BLE DRP FURTHER ERRED IN NOT DELETING THE SAID ADDITION OF RS.2,00.000/WHILE COMPUTING BOOK PROFIT OF THE A PPELLANT UNDER SECTION 115JB OF THE ACT. TRANSFER-PRICING ADDITION OF RS. 31,44,380/- 6. ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN LAW, THE LEARNED TPO ERRED IN RECOMMENDING AN ADJUSTMENT AND THE HON'BLE DRP FURTHER ERRED IN NOT DELETING THE SAID ADJUSTMENT ON ACCOUNT OF INTEREST RECEIVED ON LOAN GIVEN TO AE. HINDUJA GLOBAL SOLUTIONS LTD. 3 7. ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CAS E AND IN LAW, THE LEARNED TPO ERRED IN RECOMMENDING AN ADJUSTMENT AND THE HON'BLE DRP FURTHER ERRED ILL THE ADJUSTMENT WITHOUT CONSIDERING THE ECONOMIC AND COMMERCIAL BENEFIT ACCRUING TO THE INDIAN ENTITY. ERRONEOUS GRANT OF FOREIGN TAX CREDIT 8. ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND ILL THE LEARNED AO ERRED IN NOT GRANTING CORRECT FOREIGN TAX CREDIT UNDER SECTION 90 OF THE ACT IN R ESPECT OF MANILA BRANCH IN TERMS OF ARTICLE 24 OF THE INDIA-P HILIPPINES TAX TREATY. ERRONEOUS AMOUNT CONSIDERE(I AS AMOUNT REFUNDED TO THE APPELLANT 9. ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CAS E AND IN LAW, THE LEARNED AO ERRED IN CONSIDERING AN AMOUNT OF RS. 2,98,84,512/- (EXCLUDING INTEREST UNDER SECTION 244 A) AS REFUNDED TO THE APPELLANT, WHEREAS ONLY AN AMOUN T OF RS. 2,17,61,189/- (EXCLUDING INTEREST UNDER SECTION 244A) IS RECEIVED BY THE APPELLANT. LEVY OF INTEREST UNDER SECTION 234B AND 234D 10. THE LEARNED AO ERRED IN LEVYING INTEREST UNDER SECT ION 234B AND 234D OF RS. 9,02,90,768/- OF RS. 54,76,872 RESPECTIVELY ON THE APPELLANT. THE APPELLANT CRAVES LEAVE TO ADD TO, ALTER, AMEND OR WITHDRAW ALL OR ANY OF THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL HEREIN ABOVE AND TO SUBMIT SUCH STATEMENTS, DOCUMENTS AND PAPERS AS MAY BE CONSIDERED NECESSARY EITHER AT OR BEFORE THE HEARING OF THIS APPEAL AS PER LAW. 2. DURING THE COURSE OF HEARING, ARGUMENTS WERE MADE B Y SHRI F.V. IRANI & SHRI PARAS SAVLA, AUTHORISED REPR ESENTATIVE (AR) ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE AND BY SHRI N.K. CHA ND, DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE (DR) ON BEHALF OF THE R EVENUE. 3. GROUND NO.1: THIS GROUND IS GENERAL AND DOES NOT REQUIRE ANY SPECIFIC ADJUDICATION, AND THEREFORE DISMISSED. HINDUJA GLOBAL SOLUTIONS LTD. 4 4. GROUND NO.2: IN THIS GROUND THE ASSESSEE HAS CHALLENGED THE ACTION OF LOWER AUTHORITIES IN DENYING THE BENE FIT OF DEDUCTION CLAIMED BY IT U/S 10A PERTAINING TO UNITS NO.2 & 3 OF THE ASSESSEE. 4.1. DURING THE COURSE OF HEARING, IT WAS STATED THAT A T THE OUTSET BY THE LD. COUNSEL THAT THIS ISSUE WAS COVER ED IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE WITH THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL IN A SSESSEES OWN CASE FOR A.Y. 2005-06 VIDE ORDER DATED 21.01.2015 I N ITA NO.6394/MUM/2014. ON THE OTHER HAND, LD. DR HAS REL IED UPON THE ORDERS OF THE LOWER AUTHORITIES. 4.2. WE HAVE GONE THROUGH THE ORDERS OF THE LOWER AUTHO RITIES AND THE TRIBUNAL FOR A.Y. 2005-06. IT IS NOTED BY U S THAT WHILE REJECTING THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE, THE AO HAD REL IED UPON THE ASSESSMENT ORDER FOR A.Y. 2005-06. IT IS FURTHER N OTED THAT IN A.Y. 2005-06, THE MATTER REACHED BEFORE THE TRIBUNA L, WHEREIN COMPLETE FACTS WERE ANALYSED AND FOLLOWING ORDER WA S GIVEN BY THE TRIBUNAL: 10. WE HAVE CAREFULLY GONE THROUGH THE LETTER FROM DIRECTOR, STPI ISSUED TO THE AO DATED 10-12-2010; L ETTER TO DIRECTOR, STPI INTIMATING FORMATION OF UNIT II; LET TER TO DIRECTOR, STPI SEEKING PERMISSION FOR BONDING FACIL ITY FOR UNIT II; APPROVAL FROM DIRECTOR, STPI FOR UNIT II; LETTER TO DIRECTOR, STPI INTIMATING FORMATION OF UNIT III; LE TTER TO DIRECTOR STPI SEEKING PERMISSION FOR BONDING FACILI TY FOR UNIT III AND APPROVAL FROM DIRECTOR, STPI FOR UNIT III AS PLACED ON RECORD. AFTER CONSIDERING THE CORRESPONDE NCE THROUGH ABOVE LETTERS WITH DIRECTOR STPI AND CONCLU SION DRAWN BY THE AO IN HIS REMAND REPORT AND AFTER APPL YING THE PROPOSITION OF LAW LAID DOWN IN THE JUDICIAL PRONOUNCEMENTS REFERRED BY LD. AR DURING THE COURSE OF HEARING BEFORE US, THE IRRESISTIBLE CONCLUSION IS T HAT HINDUJA GLOBAL SOLUTIONS LTD. 5 ASSESSEE IS ELIGIBLE FOR CLAIM OF DEDUCTION U/S.10A IN RESPECT OF UNIT II & II. ACCORDINGLY, WE DIRECT THE AO TO ALLOW ASSESSEES CLAIM FOR DEDUCTION U/S 10A(2) OF THE ACT IN RESPECT OF UNIT II AND III. 4.3. IT IS NOTED THAT IN THIS YEAR ALSO CLAIM OF DEDUCT ION U/S 10A PERTAIN TO UNIT II AND III OF THE ASSESSEE. FUR THER NO DISTINCTION HAS BEEN MADE BETWEEN THE FACTS OF ASSE SSMENT YEAR A.Y. 2005-06 AND IMPUGNED ASSESSMENT YEAR I.E. A.Y. 2010-11, THEREFORE, KEEPING IN VIEW THE FACTS OF TH E CASE AND RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL, W E DIRECT THE AO TO ALLOW THE ASSESSEES CLAIM FOR DEDUCTION U/S 10A(2) OF THE ACT IN RESPECT OF UNIT II & III. THUS, THIS GRO UND IS ALLOWED. 5. GROUND NO.3: IN THIS GROUND, THE ASSESSEE HAS CHALLENGED THE ACTION OF LOWER AUTHORITIES IN MAKING DISALLOWA NCE BY RELOCATING HEAD OFFICE EXPENSES ON THE BASIS OF TUR NOVER OF THE UNITS AND IN RE-COMPUTING THE PROFITS OF THE UNITS OF THE ASSESSEE. 5.1. DURING THE COURSE OF HEARING, IT WAS STATED THAT T HIS ISSUE CAME UP BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL IN ASSESSEES OWN CASE IN A.Y. 2008-09, WHEREIN VIDE ORDER DATED 5 TH JUNE 2013 IN ITA NO.254/MUM/2013, THE TRIBUNAL HAD RESTORED THIS ISS UE BACK TO THE FILE OF THE AO. ON THE OTHER HAND, LD. CIT-D R RELIED UPON THE ORDERS OF THE LOWER AUTHORITIES. WE HAVE G ONE THROUGH THE FACTS OF THE CASE AS WELL AS ORDERS OF THE TRIBUNAL REPORTED AT 35 TAXMANN.COM 348. IT IS NOTED THAT ID ENTICAL ISSUE CAME UP BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL WHICH HAS BEEN SE NT BACK TO THE FILE OF THE AO WITH FOLLOWING DIRECTIONS: HINDUJA GLOBAL SOLUTIONS LTD. 6 11. WE HAVE CAREFULLY CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISS IONS AND PERUSED THE RECORD. AT THE OUTSET IT MAY BE NOT ICED THAT GROUND NO. 3 OF THE APPEAL RAISED BEFORE US CO NTAINS 3A & 3B; GROUND NO. 3A IS NOT PRESSED. EVEN GROUND NO. 3B IS WITHOUT PREJUDICE TO THE CLAIM OF DEDUCTION U NDER SECTION 10A OF THE ACT I.E., THE REALLOCATION OF EX PENDITURE SHOULD BE DONE ONLY AFTER ADDING BACK THE COMMON EXPENSES AS ORIGINALLY ALLOCATED BY THE ASSESSEE. I T APPEARS THAT THE AO HAS NOT PROPERLY APPRECIATED TH E ISSUE. SINCE GROUND NO. 2 IS ALREADY SET ASIDE, WE DEEM IT FAIR AND REASONABLE TO SET ASIDE THIS ISSUE ALSO WI TH A DIRECTION TO THE AO TO RECONSIDER THE MATTER IN ACC ORDANCE WITH LAW. NEEDLESS TO OBSERVE THAT THE ASSESSEE SHA LL BE GIVEN AN OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD AND IF THE ASSE SSEE HAS ALREADY ALLOCATED THE EXPENDITURE THE SAME HAS TO BE ADDED BACK TO THE PROFITS OF THE UNITS AND THEN ONL Y THE REALLOCATION PROCESS SHOULD BEGIN. IN THIS REGARD T HE ASSESSEE SHALL BE GIVEN AN OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEA RD. WITH THESE OBSERVATIONS GROUND NO. 3 IS DISPOSED OF . 5.2. BOTH THE PARTIES AGREED THAT FACTS IN THIS YEAR AR E ALSO IDENTICAL, AND THEREFORE, THIS ISSUE IS SENT BACK T O THE FILE OF THE AO. THE AO IS DIRECTED TO FOLLOW THE DIRECTIONS AS GIVEN BY THE TRIBUNAL IN A.Y. 2008-09. THIS GROUND MAY BE TR EATED AS PARTLY ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. 6. GROUND NOS. 4 & 5: THESE GROUNDS DEAL WITH DISALLOWANCE U/S 14A AND RESULTANT ADJUSTMENT IN THE BOOKS PROFI T OF THE ASSESSEE UNDER SECTION 115JB OF THE ACT. 6.1. DURING THE COURSE OF HEARING IT WAS STATED BY THE LD. COUNSEL THAT BECAUSE OF SMALLNESS OF THE AMOUNT OF DISALLOWANCE THESE GROUNDS MAY BE TAKEN AS NOT PRES SED. IN VIEW OF SUBMISSION OF THE ASSESSEE, THESE GROUNDS A RE HINDUJA GLOBAL SOLUTIONS LTD. 7 DISMISSED AS NOT PRESSED. 7. GROUND NOS. 6 & 7: THESE GROUNDS DEAL WITH THE GRIEVANCE OF THE ASSESSEE FOR ACTION OF THE LOWER AUTHORITIES IN MAKING TRANSFER PRICING ADJUSTMENT BY SUGGESTING INTEREST RATE OF RS.12.83% PER ANNUM ON THE LOAN GIVEN TO AE OF THE ASESSEE NAMELY C CUBED NV NETHERLANDS (ANTILLES) AS AGAINST INTEREST RATE OF 6% P. A. CHARGED BY THE ASSESSEE FROM THE S AID AE. IT HAS BEEN STATED DURING THE COURSE HEARING BY THE LD . COUNSEL, AT THE VERY OUTSET, THAT WHILE UPHOLDING THE ADJUST MENT MADE BY THE TPO, THE DRP HAD FOLLOWED ITS OWN ORDER FOR A.Y. 2009- 10 IN ASSESSEES OWN CASE, WHICH IN TURN WAS PASSED ON THE BASIS OF ANOTHER ORDER OF THE DRP IN ASSESSEES OWN CASE FOR A.Y. 2008-09. THE ORDER OF THE DRP FOR A.Y. 2008-09 HAD REACHED BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL WHEREIN THE TRIBUNAL HA D DELETED THE ADJUSTMENT. IT WAS SUBMITTED THAT FACTS IN THIS YEAR ARE IDENTICAL AND THEREFORE, ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL SHOU LD BE FOLLOWED. 7.1. ON THE OTHER HAND, LD. CIT-DR SUBMITTED THAT SOME FURTHER ADDITION SHOULD BE MADE ON LIBOR PLUS BASIS . IN REPLY LD. COUNSEL STATED THAT LIBOR RATE IN THIS YEAR WAS 3.79% (AS NOTED AT PAGE 35 OF OBJECTIONS BEFORE DRP) AND THE ASSESSEE HAD CHARGED INTEREST @ 6% P.A. FROM THE SAID AE, AN D THEREFORE, THE RATE CHARGED IS MUCH MORE THAN THE L IBOR PLUS RATE AND THEREFORE, NO FURTHER ADJUSTMENT WAS NOTED AND IN VIEW OF ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL IN ASSESSEES OWN CAS E FOR A.Y. 2008-09, THE ADJUSTMENT MADE BY THE TPO WAS LIABLE TO BE HINDUJA GLOBAL SOLUTIONS LTD. 8 DELETED. 7.2. WE HAVE GONE THROUGH THE FACTS OF THIS YEAR WITH T HE ASSISTANCE OF BOTH THE PARTIES. THE UNDISPUTED FACT BEFORE US IS THAT THE AE IS SAME AS WAS IN A.Y. 2008-09, OTHE R RELEVANT FACTS ALSO REMAIN THE SAME. NO OTHER DISTINCTION HA S BEEN BROUGHT OUT IN FACTS OR IN POSITION OF LAW. UNDER T HESE CIRCUMSTANCES, WE RESPECTFULLY FOLLOW THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL FOR A.Y. 2008-09. THE RELEVANT PORTION OF THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL IS REPRODUCED HEREUNDER FOR THE SAKE OF RE ADY REFERENCE: 17. WE HAVE CAREFULLY CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISS IONS AND PERUSED THE RECORD. THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE WA S THAT LIBOR AS ON 31.03.2008 WAS 2.49% AGAINST WHICH THE ASSESSEE HAS CHARGED INTEREST @ 6% P.A. IN OTHE R WORDS, INTEREST CHARGED BY THE ASSESSEE IS MUCH HIG HER THAN THE CORRESPONDING ARMS LENGTH LIBOR EVEN FROM AN INDIAN TRANSFER PRICING PERSPECTIVE. IT IS NOT IN D ISPUTE THAT THE LOAN HAS BEEN DENOMINATED IN US DOLLARS. THOUGH THE LEARNED D.R., FOR THE FIRST TIME, RAISED A CONTENTI ON THAT THE ASSESSEE MIGHT HAVE TAKEN LOAN IN THE EARLIER YEAR TO ADVANCE THE SAME TO ITS AE IN THE EARLIER YEAR, IN FACT NEITHER THE TPO NOR THE DRP HAS CONSIDERED THE ASPE CT FROM THAT ANGLE AND THE ASSESSEE CONSISTENTLY PRAYE D BEFORE THE TAX AUTHORITIES THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS NO T INCURRED ANY INTEREST COST ON FUNDS GIVEN TO THE AE AS THE SOURCE OF FUND IS SURPLUS AVAILABLE WITH THE ASSESS EE. IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY MATERIAL TO PROVE TO THE CONTRAR Y, MERELY BECAUSE SOME INTEREST HAS BEEN PAID IN THE IMMEDIATELY PRECEDING YEAR, IT CANNOT BE ASSUMED TH AT THE ASSESSEE BORROWED FUNDS IN THE IMMEDIATELY PRECEDING YEAR WAS THE SOURCE FOR THE PURPOSE OF ADVANCING LOANS TO ITS AE. HAVING REGARD TO THE OVE RALL CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT T HE ISSUE STANDS SQUARELY COVERED BY THE DECISION OF TH E ITAT DELHI BENCH IN THE CASE OF COTTON NATURALS (I) P. L TD. HINDUJA GLOBAL SOLUTIONS LTD. 9 WHEREIN THE BENCH OBSERVED THAT THE CUP METHOD IS T HE MOST APPROPRIATE METHOD IN ORDER TO ASCERTAIN ARMS LENGTH PRICE OF THE INTERNATIONAL TRANSACTION I.E., WHERE THE LENDING OF MONEY WAS IN FOREIGN CURRENCY TO ITS AE THE DOMESTIC PRIME LENDING RATE WOULD HAVE NO APPLICABI LITY AND THE INTERBANK RATE FIXED SHOULD BE TAKEN AS BENCHMARK RATE FOR INTERNATIONAL TRANSACTIONS. WE, THEREFORE, HOLD THAT LIBOR RATE HAS TO BE ADOPTED I N THE INSTANT CASE SINCE THE INTEREST CHARGED BY THE ASSE SSEE FROM ITS AE IS HIGHER THAN THE LIBOR RATE IN THE YE AR UNDER CONSIDERATION NO TRANSFER PRICING ADJUSTMENT IN THAT REGARD IS WARRANTED. WE THEREFORE SET ASIDE THE ORD ER OF THE AO IN THIS REGARD AND ALLOW THE GROUNDS URGED B Y THE ASSESSEE. 7.3. IT IS FURTHER NOTED BY US THAT AS CONTENDED BEFORE US, THE LIBOR RATE IN THIS YEAR WAS 3.87%. THE ASSESSEE IS ALREADY CHARGED INTEREST @ 6%. THUS, ASSESSEE HAS ALREADY C HARGED MORE THAN LIBOR RATE. IN VIEW OF THESE CIRCUMSTANCE S WE ARE BOUND BY THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL WHEREIN CHARGING OF INTEREST @ 6% P.A. HAS BEEN UPHELD AS PER LAW AND F ACTS OF THIS CASE. THUS, RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING THE ORDER O F THE TRIBUNAL, WE DIRECT THE AO TO DELETE THIS ADJUSTMEN T. THESE GROUNDS ARE ALLOWED. 8. GROUND NO.8: THIS GROUND WAS NOT PRESSED AND THEREFORE, DISMISSED. 9. GROUND NO.9: IN THIS GROUND, THE ASSESSEE HAS MADE A REQUEST FOR SENDING THIS ISSUE BACK TO THE FILE OF THE AO WITH THE DIRECTION TO ALLOW THE CLAIM AFTER VERIFICATION OF REQUISITE FACTS. NO SERIOUS OPPOSITION WAS DONE BY THE LD. CI T-DR AND THEREFORE, WE DIRECT THE AO TO VERIFY THE REQUISITE FACTS AND HINDUJA GLOBAL SOLUTIONS LTD. 10 GRANT APPROPRIATE AMOUNT OF REFUND AS PER LAW AND F ACTS. THUS, THIS GROUND MAY BE TREATED AS PARTLY ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. 10. GROUND NO.10: THIS GROUND IS CONSEQUENTIAL AND THEREFORE, DISMISSED. 11. IN THE RESULT, APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS PAR TLY ALLOWED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 1 3 TH APRIL, 2016. SD/- (SAKTIJIT DEY) SD/- (ASHWANI TANEJA) ! / JUDICIAL MEMBER '! / ACCOUNTANT MEMBER MUMBAI; DATED : 13/04 /2016 CTX? P.S/. .. # $%&'&($ / COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. / THE APPELLANT 2. !'# / THE RESPONDENT. 3. $# $# % ( ) / THE CIT, MUMBAI. 4. $# $# % / CIT(A)- , MUMBAI 5. ()* # !+ , $# # +- , / DR, ITAT, MUMBAI 6. *. / / GUARD FILE. / BY ORDER, '#( ! //TRUE COPY// / (DY./ASSTT. REGISTRAR) , / ITAT, MUMBAI