Hind Airlink Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi V. DCIT, New Delhi

ITA 2634/DEL/2015

• Counselvise Citation: [2016] 121 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 4106 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 3 month(s) 5 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 10-08-2016
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: SMC 3
• Next Hearing Date: 25-07-2016
• Assessment Year: 2011-2012
• Appeal Filed On: 05-05-2015
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Keywords: Transfer pricing; Maximum Marginal Rate; Fair market value; Onus to prove
• Section: 143(3)

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH SM C - 3 , NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI J. SUDHAKAR REDDY, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO. 2634 /DEL/201 5 AY: 2011 - 12 HIND AIRLINK P.LTD. VS. DY.CIT, CIRCLE 12(1) A - 1, OKHLA INDUSTRIAL AREA NEW DELHI PHASE I, NEW DELHI 110 020 (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY : SH. M.P.RASTOGI, ADV. RESPONDENT BY : NONE (ADJOURNMENT APPLICATION REJECTED). O R D E R TH IS IS AN APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE LD.CIT(A) - 15 , NEW DELHI DATED 27.3.2015 PERTAINING TO THE ASSESSMENT YEAR (A.Y.) 2011 - 12 ON THE FOLLOWING SOLE GROUND. THAT THE DISALLOWANCE OF RS.15,00,000/ - BEING THE 50% OF SALARY PAID TO MRS. KIRAN QURESHI, DIRECTOR U/S 40A(2)(B) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 A S MADE BY THE AO AND SUSTAINED BY CIT(A) IS ARBITRARY, UNJUST AND AT ANY RATE VERY EXCESSIVE. 2. NO PERSON IS PRESENT IN THE COURT ON BEHALF OF THE REVENUE. THE REVENUE HAS FILED AN APPLICATION FOR ADJOURNMENT OF ALL THE CASES WHICH ARE ON BOARD TODAY ON THE GROUND THAT SR.D.R. IS NOT AVAILABLE . I AM INFORMED THAT, FOR THE ENTIRE WEEK, THE DEPARTMENT WOULD BE SEEKING ADJOURNMENTS IN ALL THE CASES POSTED BEFORE THIS SMC BENCH ON THE SAME GROUND. UNDER THE CIRCUMSTANCES, AS THE BENCH CANNOT BE ALLOWE D TO COLLAPSE, I REJECT SOME OF THESE APPLICATIONS FILED BY THE REVENUE FOR ADJOURNMENTS AND DISPOSE OF THE CASE EX PARTE QUA THE REVENUE ON MERITS. 3. HEARD SHRI M.P.RASTOGI, LD.COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE. 2 4. I FIND THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER (A.O.) IN THI S CASE HAS NOT BROUGHT OUT ANY COMPARABLES BEFORE DISALLOWING 50% OF REMUNERATION PAID TO SMT.KIRAN QURESHI ON ADHOC BASIC U/S 40A(2)(B) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 (THE ACT). THE ASSESSEE JUSTIFIED THE PAYMENT BY DEMONSTRATING THAT, SMT.KIRAN QURESHI IS HAVING MORE THAN TWO DECADES OF EXPERIENCE IN THE JOB AND SHE IS WELL EDUCATION AND WIDELY TRAVELLED. IT WAS FURTHER POINTED OUT THAT SHE HAS WIDE EXPOSURE TO DIFFERENT ASPECTS OF IMPORT, EXPORT AND AVIATION BUSINESS AND IS A PROMOTER DIRECTOR OF THE ASS ESSEE COMPANY AND THAT SHE IS ALSO ON THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF M/S HIND INDUSTRIES LTD. AND M/S HIND AGRO INDUSTRIES LTD. IT WAS FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT SMT.KIRAN QURESHI PAYS TAX AT THE MAXIMUM MARGINAL RATES AND HENCE THERE IS NO DIVERSION OF TAXABLE I NCOME. 5 . IN THIS CASE THERE IS NO EVASION OF TAX. TH E CO - ORDINATE BENCH OF THE DELHI TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF AMSERVE CONSULTANTS LTD. IN ITA 6059/DEL/13 AND ITA 6090/DEL/2013 IN THE CASE OF AMSURE INSURANCE AGENCY LTD. FOR THE A.Y. 2009 - 10 VIDE ITS ORDER DT. 29 TH JUNE, 2016 HAS DEALT WITH THE SAME ISSUE AND HELD AT PARAS 12.3 TO 12.9 AS FOLLOWS. 12.3. ON THESE FACTS WE SHOULD EXAMINE THE CORRECTNESS OF DISALLOWANCE MADE U/S 40A(2) OF THE ACT. SEC.40 A OF THE INCOME TAX ACT READS AS FOLLOWS. EXPENSES OR PAYMENTS NOT DEDUCTIBLE IN CERTAIN CIRCUMSTANCES. 40A. (1) THE PROVISIONS OF THIS SECTION SHALL HAVE EFFECT NOTWITHSTANDING ANYTHING TO THE CONTRARY CONTAINED IN ANY OTHER PROVISION OF THIS ACT RELATING TO THE COMPUTATION OF INCOME UNDER THE HEAD 'PROFITS AND GAINS OF BUSINESS OR PROFESSION'. (2)(A) WHERE THE ASSESSEE INCURS ANY EXPENDITURE IN RESPE CT OF WHICH PAYMENT HAS BEEN OR IS TO BE MADE TO ANY PERSONREFERRED TO IN CLAUSE (B) OF THIS SUB - SECTION, AND THE [ASSESSING] OFFICER IS OF OPINION THAT SUCH EXPENDITURE IS EXCESSIVE OR UNREASONABLE HAVING REGARD TO THE FAIR MARKET VALUE OF THE GOODS, SERV ICES OR FACILITIES FOR WHICH THE PAYMENT IS MADE OR THE LEGITIMATE NEEDS OF THE BUSINESS OR PROFESSION OF THE ASSESSEE OR THE BENEFIT DERIVED BY OR ACCRUING TO HIM THERE FROM, SO MUCH OF THE EXPENDITURE AS IS SO CONSIDERED BY HIM TO BE EXCESSIVE OR UNREASO NABLE SHALL NOT BE ALLOWED AS A DEDUCTION. 3 12.4. THE CENTRAL BOARD OF DIRECT TAXES VIDE ITS CIRCULAR NO.6 - B DATED 6 TH JULY, 1968 AT PARA 74 AND 75 STATED AS FOLLOWS. 74 . IT MAY BE NOTED THAT THE NEW PROVISION IS APPLICABLE TO ALL CATEGORIES OF EXPENDITURE INC URRED IN BUSINESSES AND PROFESSIONS, INCLUDING EXPENDITURE ON PURCHASE OF RAW MATERIALS, STORES OR GOODS, SALARIES TO EMPLOYEES AND ALSO OTHER EXPENDITURE ON PROFESSIONAL SERVICES, OR BY WAY OF BROKERAGE, COMMISSION, INTEREST, ETC. WHERE PAYMENT FOR ANY EX PENDITURE IS FOUND TO HAVE BEEN MADE TO A RELATIVE OR ASSOCIATE CONCERN FALLING WITHIN THE SPECIFIED CATEGORIES, IT WILL BE NECESSARY FOR THE INCOME - TAX OFFICER TO SCRUTINIZE THE REASONABLENESS OF THE EXPENDITURE WITH REFERENCE TO THE CRITERIA MENTIONED IN THE SECTION. THE INCOME - TAX OFFICER IS EXPECTED TO EXERCISE HIS JUDGMENT IN A REASONABLE AND FAIR MANNER. IT SHOULD BE BORNE IN MIND THAT THE PROVISION IS MEANT TO CHECK EVASION OF TAX THROUGH EXCESSIVE OR UNREASONABLE PAYMENTS TO RELATIVES AND ASSOCIATE CONCERNS AND SHOULD NOT BE APPLIED IN A MANNER WHICH WILL CAUSE HARDSHIP IN BONA FIDE CASES. (EMPHASIS OURS). FROM THIS CIRCULAR OF THE CBDT, IT IS CLEAR THAT THE PROVISION WAS MADE SPECIFICALLY TO CHECK TAX AVOIDANCE. THUS WHEN THERE IS NO TAX AVOIDANCE, THE APPLICABILITY OF THIS SECTION WOULD NOT BE APPROPRIATE. 12.5. THE HON BLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT - IV, NEW DELHI VS. M/S GLAXO SMITHKLINE ASIA P.LTD. (SUPRA) HELD AS FOLLOWS. THE LARGER ISSUE IS WHETHER TRANSFER PRICING REGULATIONS SHOULD B E LIMITED TO CROSS - BORDER TRANSACTIONS OR WHETHER THE TRANSFER PRICING REGULATIONS BE EXTENDED TO DOMESTIC TRANSACTIONS . IN DOMESTIC TRANSACTIONS, THE UNDER - INVOICING OF SALES AND OVER - INVOICING OF EXPENSES ORDINARILY WILL BE REVENUE NEUTRAL IN NATURE, EXCEPT IN TWO CIRCUMSTANCES HAVING TAX ARBITRAGE SUCH AS WHERE ONE OF THE RELATED ENTITIES IS (I) LOSS MAKING OR (II) LIABLE TO PAY TAX AT A LOWER RATE AND THE PROFITS ARE SHIFTED TO SUCH ENTITY; COMPLICATIONS ARISE IN CASES WHERE THE FAIR MARKET VALUE IS REQUIRED TO BE ASSIGNED TO TRANSACTIONS BETWEEN RELATED PARTIES U/S 40A(2). THE CBDT SHOULD EXAMINE WHETHER TRANSFER PRICING REGULATIONS CAN BE APPLIED TO DOMESTIC TRANSACTIONS BETWEEN RELATED PARTIES U/S 40A(2) BY MAKING AMENDMENTS TO THE ACT . THE AO CAN BE EMPOWERED TO MAKE ADJUSTMENTS TO THE INCOME DECLARED BY THE ASSESSEE HAVING REGARD TO THE FAIR MARKET VALUE OF THE TRANSACTIONS BETWEEN THE RELATED PARTIES AND CAN APPLY ANY OF THE GENERALLY ACCEPTED METHODS OF DETERMINATION OF ARM S LENGTH PRICE, INCL UDING THE METHODS PROVIDED UNDER TRANSFER PRICING REGULATIONS. THE LAW CAN ALSO BE AMENDED TO MAKE IT COMPULSORY FOR THE TAXPAYER TO MAINTAIN BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS AND OTHER DOCUMENTS ON THE LINES PRESCRIBED IN RULE 10D AND OBTAIN AN AUDIT REPORT FROM HIS CA T HAT PROPER DOCUMENTS ARE MAINTAINED; 4 THOUGH THE COURT NORMALLY DOES NOT MAKE RECOMMENDATIONS OR SUGGESTIONS, IN ORDER TO REDUCE LITIGATION OCCURRING IN COMPLICATED MATTERS, THE QUESTION OF EXTENDING TRANSFER PRICING REGULATIONS TO DOMESTIC TRANSACTIONS REQUIRE EXPEDITIOUS CONSIDERATION BY THE MINISTRY OF FINANCE AND THE CBDT MAY ALSO CONSIDER ISSUING APPROPRIATE INSTRUCTIONS IN THAT REGARD . ( EMPHASIS OURS). THE HON BLE APEX COURT HAS LAID DOWN THAT FAIR MARKET VALUE OF A TRANSACTION BETWEEN ASSOCIATE DOMESTIC ENTERPRISES CAN BE DETERMINED BY USING TRANSFER PRICING METHODOLOGIES AND STUDY. 12.6. THE HON BLE BOMBAY HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. INDO SAUDI SERVICES (P) LTD. (2009) 219 CTR 562 BOMBAY AT PARA 4 HELD AS FOLLOWS. 4. WE HAVE HEARD THE LEARNED ADVOCATES APPEARING FOR BOTH SIDES. W 7 E HAVE ALSO PERUSED THE ORDER PASSED BY THE TRIBUNAL DATED 21ST OCT., 1999 WHICH IS IMPUGNED BY THE REVENUE IN THE PRESENT APPEALS. WE FIND THAT THE FOLLOWING FACTS WERE ESTABLISHED BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL AND THE SAME HAVE BEEN ACCEPTED BY THE REVENUE EVEN BEFORE US. ( I ) THAT THE ASSESSEE APART FROM PAYING HANDLING CHARGES @9 1/2 PER CENT TO ITS SISTER CONCERN, HAVE PAID HANDLING CHARGES AT THE SAME RATE TO OTHER AGENTS VIZ., M/S A.K.TRAVELS, M/S OM TRAVELS AND M/S JE T AGE TRAVELS. ( II ) FOR ASST. YRS. 1986 - 87 AND 1987 - 88 THE ASSESSEE HAD PAID THE HANDLING CHARGES @ 10 PER CENT TO THE SISTER CONCERN OF THE ASSESSEE AND SUCH CHARGES PAID WERE CONSIDERED TO BE REASONABLE BY THE APPELLANT. ( III ) FOR ASST.YRS. 1989 - 90 AND 1990 - 91 TH E ASSESSEE HAD REDUCED THE PAYMENT OF HANDLING CHARGES TO 9 1/2 PER CENT TO ITS SISTER CONCERN. THE AO HAS CONSIDERED THE PAYMENT OF COMMISSION TO THE SISTER CONCERN IN THE ASST. YR. 1989 - 90 AND ALLOWED THE CLAIM AFTER DUE SCRUTINY. FOR ASST. YR. 1990 - 91 ALSO THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE @9 1/2 PER CENT HAS BEEN ALLOWED THOUGH THE S AME HAS NOT BEEN DEALT WITH BY THE AO SPECIFICALLY IN THE ORDER. ( IV ) FOR ASST.YRS. 1993 - 94 AND 1994 - 95 THE ASSESSMENT HAS BEEN MADE BY THE AO UNDER SECTION 143(3) AND HANDLING CHARGES PAID TO THE SISTER CONCERN @ 9.5 PER CENT HAVE BEEN CONSIDERED TO BE REASON ABLE AND ALLOWED. ( IV ) THE SISTER CONCERN OF THE ASSESSEE M/S MIDDLE EAST INTERNATIONAL IS ALSO ASSESSED TO TAX AND INCOME ASSESSED FOR THE ASST. YR. 1991 - 92 IS RS. 9,38,510 AND FOR ASST.YR. 1992 - 93 IS RS. 14,65,880 AND THE SAID ASSESSMENT ORDERS HAVE BEEN PLA CED ON RECORD. ( V ) UNDER THE CBDT CIRCULAR NO. 6 - P, DATED 6TH JULY, 1968 IT IS STATED THAT NO DISALLOWANCE IS TO BE MADE UNDER SECTION 40A(2) IN RESPECT OF THE PAYMENTS - MADE TO THE RELATIVES AND SISTER CONCERNS WHERE THERE IS NO ATTEMPT TO EVADE TAX. 5 5. IN VIEW OF THE AFORESAID ADMITTED FACTS WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT THE TRIBUNAL WAS CORRECT IN COMING TO THE CONCLUSION THAT THE CIT(A) WAS WRONG IN DISALLOWING HALF PER CENT COMMISSION PAID TO THE SISTER CONCERN OF THE ASSESSEE DURING THE ASST. YRS. 1991 - 9 2 AND 1992 - 93. THE LD.ADVOCATE APPEARING FOR THE APPELLANT WAS ALSO NOT IN A POSITION TO POINT OUT HOW THE ASSESSEE EVADED PAYMENT OF TAX BY ALLEGED PAYMENT OF HIGHER COMMISSION TO ITS SISTER CONCERN SINCE THE SISTER CONCERN WAS ALSO PAYING TAX AT HIGHER R ATE AND COPIES OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDERS OF THE SISTER CONCERN WERE TAKEN ON RECORD BY THE TRIBUNAL. (EMPHASIS OURS). 12.7. THE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF HIVE COMMUNICATIONS P.LTD. VS. CIT REPORTED IN 353 ITR 200 (DELHI) REFERRED TO THE CBDT CIRCULAR NO.6P DATED 6.7.1968 AT PARA 11 AS UNDER. 11. WE MAY ALSO REFER TO THE SCOPE OF S.40A(2) AS EXPLAINED BY CBDT IN CIRCULAR NO.6P, DATED 6.7.1968. THE CBDT CLARIFIED THAT WHILE EXAMINING THE REASONABLENESS OF EXPENDITURE THE AO IS EXPECTED T O EXERCISE HIS JUDGEMENT IN A REASONABLE AND FAIR MANNER. IT SHOULD BE BORNE IN MIND THAT THE PROVISION IS MEANT TO CHECK EVASION OF TAX THROUGH EXCESSIVE OR UNREASONABLE PAYMENTS TO RELATIVES AND ASSOCIATE CONCERNS AND SHOULD NOT BE APPLIED IN A MANNER W HICH WILL CAUSE HARDSHIP IN BONA FIDE CASES. THEREAFTER IT WAS HELD AS FOLLOWS. 7. THE QUESTION WHETHER THE EXPENDITURE IS EXCESSIVE OR UNREASONABLE IN A GIVEN CASE HAS TO BE EXAMINED KEEPING IN MIND THE SERVICES (WITH WHICH WE ARE CONCERNED IN THE PRESE NT CASE) FOR WHICH PAYMENT IS MADE. IN THE PROCESS THE LEGITIMATE NEEDS OF THE BUSINESS OR PROFESSION OF THE ASSESSEE OR THE BENEFIT DERIVED BY OR ACCRUING TO THE ASSESSEE FROM SUCH SERVICES IS ALSO TO BE KEPT IN MIND. AFTER APPLYING THIS TEST IF IT IS FOU ND THAT THE EXPENDITURE IS EXCESSIVE OR UNREASONABLE EXCESS, EXCESS OR UNREASONABLE PORTION OF THE EXPENDITURE IS TO BE DISALLOWED. WE HAVE ALSO KEPT IN MIND THE PROVISIONS OF SUB SECTION 2 (B) OF SECTION 40 - A OF THE ACT AS PER WHICH THE BURDEN IS UPON THE ASSESSEE TO ESTABLISH THAT THE PRICE PAID BY IT IS NOT EXCESSIVE OR UNREASONABLE AS IN THIS CASE MR.SUSHILPANDIT WAS HOLDING SUBSTANTIAL PORTION OF SHARE NAMELY 65 PERCENT IN THE ASSESSEE COMPANY. WHEN WE APPLY THE AFORESAID PRINCIPLE IN THE FACTS OF THIS CASE, WE FIND THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS BEEN ABLE TO DISCHARGE THE BURDEN THAT THE PRICE PAID BY IT TO MR. SUSHILPANDIT IS NOT EXCESSIVE OR UNREASONABLE. 6 12. IT WILL ALSO BE USEFUL TO REFER TO THE JUDGMENT OF ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT IN ABBAS WAZIR (P.) LTD. V. CIT [2004] 265 ITR 77/[2003] 133 TAXMAN 702 WHEREIN THE HIGH COURT HELD THAT EVEN WHILE INVOKING THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 40A(2) OF THE ACT, THE REASONABLENESS OF THE EXPENDITURE FOR THE PURPOSE OF BUSINESS HAS TO BE JUDGED FROM THE POINT OF VIEW OF A BUSINESSMAN AND NOT THAT OF THE REVENUE. THE APPROACH HAS TO BE THAT OF A PRUDENT BUSINESSMAN AND THE REASONABLENESS MUST BE LOOKED INTO FROM BUSINESSMAN POINT OF VIEW. SIMILAR VIEW IS HELD BY THE MADRAS HIGH COURT IN CIT V. COMPUTER GRAPHICS LTD. [2006] 285 ITR 84/155 TAXMAN 612. IN CIT V. EDWARD KEVENTER (P.) LTD. [1972] 86 ITR 370 , THE CALCUTTA HIGH COURT CONSIDERING IDENTICAL PROVISION IN 1922 ACT, IT WAS HELD THAT THE SECTION PLACES TWO LIMITATIONS IN THE MATTER OF EXERCISE OF THE POWER. THE SECTION ENJOINS THE ASSESSING OFFI CER IN FORMING ANY OPINION AS TO THE REASONABLENESS OR OTHERWISE OF THE EXPENDITURE INCURRED MUST TAKE INTO CONSIDERATION (I) THE LEGITIMATE BUSINESS NEEDS OF THE COMPANY AND (II) THE BENEFIT DERIVED BY OR ACCRUING TO THE COMPANY. THE LEGITIMATE BUSINESS N EEDS OF THE COMPANY MUST BE JUDGED FROM THE VIEW POINT OF THE COMPANY ITSELF AND MUST BE VIEWED FROM THE POINT OF VIEW OF A PRUDENT BUSINESSMAN. IT IS NOT FOR THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO DICTATE WHAT THE BUSINESS NEEDS OF THE COMPANY SHOULD BE AND HE IS ONLY TO JUDGE THE LEGITIMACY OF THE BUSINESS NEEDS OF THE COMPANY FROM THE POINT OF VIEW OF A PRUDENT BUSINESSMAN. THE BENEFIT DERIVED OR ACCRUING TO THE COMPANY MUST ALSO BE CONSIDERED FROM THE ANGLE OF A PRUDENT BUSINESSMAN. THE TERM 'BENEFIT' TO A COMPANY IN RELATION TO ITS BUSINESS, IT MUST BE REMEMBERED, HAS A VERY WIDE CONNOTATION AND MAY NOT NECESSARILY BE CAPABLE OF BEING ACCURATELY MEASURED IN TERMS OF POUND, SHILLINGS AND PENCE IN ALL CASES. BOTH THESE ASPECTS HAVE TO BE CONSIDERED JUDICIOUSLY, DISPASS IONATELY WITHOUT ANY BIAS OF ANY KIND FROM THE VIEW - POINT OF A REASONABLE AND HONEST PERSON IN BUSINESS. THE AFORESAID JUDGMENT OF CALCUTTA HIGH COURT WAS AFFIRMED BY THE APEX COURT IN CIT V. EDWARD KEVENTER (P.) LTD. [1978] 115 ITR 149 . IN THE SAME LINE IS THE JUDGMENT OF BOMBAY HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT V. SHATRUNJAY DIAMONDS [2003] 261 ITR 258/ 128 TAXMAN 759. (EMPHASIS OURS). 12.8. IN THIS JUDGEMENT AT PARA 7, THE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT HAS 7 LAID DOWN THAT THE BURDEN IS UPON THE ASSESSEE TO ESTABLISH THAT THE PRICE PAID TO A RELATED PARTY BY IT, IS NOT EXCESSIVE OR UNREASONABLE. THUS THE ARGUMENT OF THE LD.COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE THAT THIS BURDEN OF PROOF IS ON THE REVENUE IS CONTRARY TO THE PROPOSITIONS OF LAW LAID DOWN BY THE JURISDICT IONAL HIGH COURT. 12.9 . IN THE CASE ON HAND THE REVENUE DOES NOT DISPUTE THE FACT THAT M/S AMWAY INDIA ENTERPRISES AS WELL AS THE ASSESSEE ARE BOTH ASSESSED AT THE MAXIMUM MARGINAL RATE. THE TRANSACTION IS TAX NEUTRAL. UNDER THESE CIRCUMSTANCES IT HAS T O BE HELD ON FACTS THAT THIS PAYMENT IS NOT MADE WITH AN INTENTION TO EVADE TAX. IN FACT THE INCOME OF THE PAYEE COMPANY IS MUCH MORE THAN THAT OF THE ASSESSEE. THUS THE CIRCULAR NO.6P DT. 6 TH JULY,1968 READ WITH THE DECISION OF THE HON BLE BOMBAY HIGH C OURT IN THE CASEOF INDO SAUDI SERVICES (P) LTD. (SUPRA) APPLY TO THE FACTS OF THIS CASE. WHAT IS THE AMOUNT THAT SHOULD HAVE BEEN PAID FOR THESE SERVICES IS TO BE DECIDED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER BY KEEPING IN VIEW THE REQUIREMENTS OF BUSINESS AND THE POI NT OF VIEW OF THE BUSINESS MAN 6. APPLYING THE PROPOSITIONS LAID DOWN THEREIN TO THE FACTS OF THE CASE ON HAND, I DELETE THE ADDITION AND ALLOW THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE. 7. IN THE RESULT ASSESSEE S A PPEAL IS ALLOWED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 1 0 T H AUGUST , 2016 . S D / - (J. SUDHAKAR REDDY) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER DATED: THE 1 0 T H AUGUST, 2016 M ANGA 8 COPY FORWARDED TO: - 1 . APPELLANT 2 . RESPONDENT 3 . CIT 4 . CIT(A) 5 . DR, ITAT - TRUE COPY - BY ORDER, ASSISTANT REGISTRAR