LINTAS INDIA PVT. LTD.,MUMBAI vs. ACIT, CIRCLE- 16(1), MUMBAI

आदेश / O R D E R PER PADMAVATHY S. (A.M): This appeal is against the final order of assessment passed by the Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax, Circle 15(1), Mumbai under section 143(3) read with section 144C(13) for A.Y. 2018-19 dated 16/06/2020.

2. On facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the learned TPO and the learned AO, under the directions of the Hon'ble DRP have erred in not following Hon'ble Tribunal's ruling in Appellant's own case for AY 2010-11 to AY 2013-14 in relation to above international transactions, more so considering that there is no change in . facts as compared to the said years.

3. On facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the learned TPO and the learned AO, under the directions of the Hon'ble DRP have erred in not appreciating the factual details, submissions and various documentary evidences which demonstrate receipt of services by the Appellant.

4. On facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the learned TPO and the learned AO under the directions of Hon'ble DRP have erred in rejecting the benchmarking analysis undertaken by the Appellant using Transactional Net Margin Method (TNMM), as the most appropriate method and computing the transfer pricing addition without undertaking any comparable analysis and applying Other Method (Need Evidence Benefit Test method) which is not a prescribed methods as provided under section 92C (1) of the Act.

5. On facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the learned TPO and the learned AO under the directions of Hon'ble DRP, have erred in computing the Arm's Length Price (WALPV) of the transaction at NIL, and not following one of the prescribed methods under section 92C(1) of the Act, thereby making an ad-hoc disallowance.

6. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the learned TPO and the learned AO under the directions of Hon'ble DRP have erred in questioning the commercial wisdom and expediency of the Appellant lor receiving GIS services.

7. On facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the learned TPO and the learned AO under the directions of Hon'ble DRP, erred in rejecting the benchmarking analysis undertaken by the Appellant on the ground that the Appellant considered overseas AEs as the tested party, even though the said approach is within the provisions enshrined under Chapter X of the Act.

8. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the learned TPO and the learned AO erred in considering the aforesaid services to be in the nature of shareholder / stewardship / duplicative / incidental / passive / on-call services without appreciating the underlying nature of the services Management Service Fee ('MSF') Services - INR 4,85,66,173 & Multinational Client Co- ordination OMNC') Services - INR 1,71,25,298 9. On facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the learned TPO and the learned AO, under the directions of the Hoirble DRP have erred in not following Hon'ble Tribunal's ruling in Appellant own case for AY 2010-1 1 to AY 2013-14 in relation to above international transactions, more so considering that there is no change in fact as compared to the said years.

10. On facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the learned TPO and the AO, under the directions of the Hon'ble DRP erred in not following Hon'ble DRP's directions for previous years in relation to above international transactions, in-spite of there being no change in facts.

11. On facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the learned TPO and the AO, under the directions of the Hon'ble DRP have erred in not appreciating the factual details, submissions and various documentary evidence's which demonstrate receipt of services by the Appellant.

12. On facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the learned TPO and the AO. under the directions of the Hon'ble DRP have erred in rejecting the Transaction Net Margin Method (TNMM') method, as the most appropriate method for benchmarking this transaction and computing the transfer pricing addition without undertaking any comparable analysis and applying Other Method (Need Evidence Benefit Test method) which is not a prescribed methods as provided under section 92C (1) of the Act.

13. On facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the learned TPO, the AO and the Hoivble DRP have erred in computing the ALP of these transaction at NIL, and not following one of the prescribed methods under section 92C( 1) of the Act, thereby making an ad-hoc disallowance.

14. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the learned TPO and the learned AO under the directions of Hon'ble DRP have erred in questioning the commercial wisdom and expediency of the Appellant for receiving MSP and MNC services. ri 5. On facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the learned TPO and the learned AO under the directions of Hon'ble DRP. erred in rejecting the benchmarking analysis undertaken by the Appellant considering overseas AEs as the tested party, even though the said approach is within the provisions enshrined under Chapter X of the Act. 16. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the learned TPO and the learned AO erred in considering the aforesaid services to be in the nature of shareholder / stewardship / duplicative / incidental / passive / on-call services without appreciating the underlying nature of the services Corporate Tax Grounds Disallowance made on account of details reflected in reconciliation of income as per books vis-a-vis Form 26AS amounting to INK 4,98,556 17. On the facts and circumstances of the case, and in law, the learned AO has erred in making an addition of INI 4,98,556 to the total income on the basis of details reflected in reconciliation of income as per books vis-a-vi Form 26AS. Disallowance under Section 14A of INR 91,87,398 18. On the facts and circumstances of the case, and in law. the learned AO has erred in not accepting the claim o the Appellant (made during the course of the assessment proceedings), that no disallowance is warranted uncle Section 14A of the Act inter-alia, on account of the following: a. the Appellant did not earn any exempt income during the year under consideration: and b. the investments made by the Appellant were mainly in growth oriented mutual funds which do not yielc any dividend i.e., exempt income. Total income as per revised computation filed by the assessee during the course of assessmen proceedings not considered,. 19. On the facts and circumstances of the case, and in law, the learned AO has erred in not considering the claim: and / or disallowances made in the revised computation of income filed by the assessee during the course o assessment proceedings Other Grounds 20. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the learned AO has erred in initiating penalty proceeding: u/s. 270Aofthe Act. Each of the above grounds of appeal is without prejudice to and independent of one another TheAppellant prays that the additions made by the learned AO / TPO and upheld by the Hon'ble DRP be deleted and consequential relief be granted.‖

4. Transfer Pricing Adjustments (Grounds No.2 to 16) 4.1 The assessee is a Lowe Worldwide Group entity. Lowe Worldwide is part of the Lowe Group and is an international creative advertising agency headquartered in London. Interpublic group of Companies (IPG) has five primary agency network: McCan World group ('MWG'), Foote, Cone & Belding ('FCB'), the Mullen Lowe group ('MLG'), the Consistency Management Group ('CMG') and IPG Media brands. The Agency is a unit of the Interpublic Group (IPG), one of the world's largest advertising agency holding companies. Lowe Worldwide is a community of modern, creativity driven, multidisciplinary agencies in vital global centres. The assessee is one of the largest and oldest advertising agencies. Its advertising business operates under the trade name of 'LOWE LINTAS'. In order to carry out its business operations the assessee avails the benefit of centralized functional services available within the group.

4.2 During the year under consideration, the assessee has paid the following amounts to its Associated Enterprise (AE) towards intra group services which are divided into the three categories – Sl.No Category of Services Amount - INR 1 Global Information services – GIS 6,58,85,932 2 Management Services – MSF 4,85,66,173 3 Multinational Client Coordination Services – MNC 11,71,25,298 Total 13,15,77,403 The details of the nature of services rendered under each of these categories of services and the bench marking done by the assessee are as described below

5. Global Informaiton Services (GIS) 5.1. The services provided to the assessee under GIS mainly include enterprise infrastructure service (EIS), enterprise application services (EAS) and strategic management and administrative and corporate I.T. services. The assessee had only 5 experienced / qualified members in its India I.T. Team to serve and assist the needs of its staff of more than 646 employees. Accordingly, in order to manage the massive support required by employees of the assessee, it received GIS from its AE. The assessee, for availing the services, has entered into inter-company agreement whereby the AE can charge the assessee the actual cost incurred along with mark up in accordance with group standard policy and procedure. However, no mark up has been charged for the year under consideration. The AE follows a cost pooling mechanism in respect of such services and the same is consistently followed across all entities within the group. The assessee in the TP study has submitted a detailed note on the benefit from these services (page 225 of paper book). The assessee also provided the evidences to substantiate the rendition of group services by the AE. For the year under consideration, the AE has allocated the cost using various allocation keys towards providing the GIS services. The costs are pooled together and apportioned to various group entities based on appropriate allocation key such as number of employees, number of mail boxes, active directory, number of user accounts, number of licences, etc. (page 2269 of paper book) The assessee submitted before the TPO that the services were for the benefit of various group entities and not only for the assessee. The working of cost allocation was supported by a certificate from Group CFO, confirming the fact that service fee mechanism adopted by Lowe group has been consistently applied across all the Lowe group entities, the same has been scrutinized and accepted by the tax authorities across the world. The pricing of the transaction using an indirect charge method was considered to be an appropriate basis for calculating the arm’s length charges. The assessee further submitted that the allocation keys based on which the costs are allocated, were prudently collected and consistently applied to all entities including the assessee. The assessee has selected the transaction under net margin method (TNMM) as the most appropriate method and considering no mark up has been charged by the AE to assessee, the payment of GIS services by assessee was considered to be in accordance with the arm’s length standards under Indian TP regulation. The assessee to support the claim submitted the relevant agreement, the calculation of GIS services charges allocated for AE to assessee along with relevant allocation key and sample evidences to substantiate the receipt of services.

6. Management Services – MSF Services 6.1 The services provided by the AE to the assessee under management service agreement are in the nature of client co-ordinating, corporate communication, digital executive, finance, human resources, information technology, new business targeting and strategic planning and research. The AE allocated the total cost of such services along with a markup of 5% based on the preparation of the assessee’s revenue from the respective division to the total venue of ITG from these divisions i.e. the costs incurred by the AE shall be allocated on the basis of assessees total revenue as a proportion of total group revenue. In the TP Study the Assessee has benchmarked this transactions using TNMM as the most appropriate method, considering AE as tested party and Operating Profit/Total Operating Cost (OP/TC) as the Profit Level Indicator (PLI). During the year, the Assessee paid to the AE, the actual cost incurred by the AE for rendition of MSF services plus a mark-up of 5 percent. The assessee chose comparables from Europe (72 comparables), North America (14 comparables) and Asia Pacific (20 comparables) the median margin of which was at Europe – 7.10%, North America – 3.99% and Asia Pacific – 4.91%. According the assessee concluded the transactions to be at arms length. During the course of the transfer pricing scrutiny proceedings, the Assessee submitted multiple evidences in the form of email communications, video advertisements, creative ideas in the form of power point presentation to demonstrate receipt of various services from the AEs. The assessee further submitted that the AE has been considered as a tested party for the purpose of determining the ALP using TNMM as the most appropriate method for the reason that AEs are the service providers performing less complex functions and bearing less significant risk and reliable information of AE reflecting cost of providing services is available. It is also submitted that there is availability of independent service providers with similar functions to that is of AE in the respective jurisdiction and, therefore, the AE has been considered as the tested party. The Assessee also submitted a detailed working of the cost allocation for MSF services demonstrating how the individual cost items were allocated by the AE to assessee. The working of the cost allocation was also supported by a certificate from an independent Chartered Accountant viz. BDO LLP, confirming that the costs incurred by the AE (including 5 percent mark-up) have been appropriately allocated to assessee in accordance with the agreement. Further, a detailed search process including the search strings applied, databases used, accept/reject matrix and margin computation of the comparable companies was submitted before the ld. TPO during the scrutiny proceedings.

7. Multinational Client Coordination Services – MNC 7.1 The services rendered by the AEs to assessee under MNC agreement are in the nature of centrally developed worldwide client specific strategies and account plans, worldwide account management, centralized creative directions and co- ordination, centralized commission and fee negotiation, assistance in managing and planning local account and targeting, winning new business, in assessees target market. The details such as the nature of each , service, services received during the year and the benefits derived there from have been documented by assessee in the TP study. According to the agreement, the AE has to be compensated with a mark-up of 5 percent on the costs incurred for rendering the said services. Further, the costs incurred by the AE shall be allocated on the basis of assessees revenue from relevant clients as a proportion of total group revenue from such clients. In the TP Study, the Assessee has benchmarked this transaction using TNMM as the most appropriate method, considering the AE as tested party and Operating Profit/Total Operating Cost (OP/TC) as the Profit Level Indicator (PLI). During the year, the Assessee paid to the AE, the actual cost incurred by the AE for rendition of MSF services plus a mark- up of 5 percent. The assessee chose comparables from Europe (72 comparables), North America (14 comparables) and Asia Pacific (20 comparables) the median margin of which was at Europe – 7.10%, North America – 3.99% and Asia Pacific – 4.91%. According the assessee concluded the transactions to be at arms length. During the course of the transfer pricing scrutiny proceedings, the Assessee submitted multiple evidences to demonstrate receipt of various services from the AEs. Further, the Assessee also submitted a detailed working of the cost allocation for MNC services demonstrating how the individual cost items were allocated by the AE to assessee on the basis of revenue from relevant MNC clients. The working of the cost allocation was also supported by a certificate from an independent Chartered Accountant viz. BDO LLP, confirming that the costs incurred by the AE (including 5 percent mark-up) have been appropriately allocated to assessee in accordance with the agreement. Further, a detailed search process including the search strings applied, database used, accept/reject matrix and margin computation of comparable companies was submitted before the ld. TPO.

7.2 The TPO rejected the bench marking done by the assessee. The TPO held that the assessee failed the need – evidence – benefit test by not providing adequate of proof of rendering of services by the AE, the proof of receipt of services and the proof of cost claimed to have been incurred by the AE in rendering the said services. The Ld. TPO alleged that the GIS agreement is for namesake purpose only and almost no activity has taken place as a part of GIS. With regard to MSF and MNC services the Ld. TPO after evaluating various evidences and the details filed, concluded that these services cannot be said to have been rendered to the assessee warranting any payment by the assessee. The ld TPO Rejected the benchmarking analysis undertaken by the Assessee stating that the assessee failed to provide the search process, databases used, accept/reject matrix, filters used, etc. The TPO questioned the need of the Assessee to avail such services from its AE and the quality/creativity/commercial value of the creative inputs received from the AE. The TPO also remarked that the Assessee failed to provide the rationale for charging a mark-up of 5% on the costs Stated that the Assessee failed to furnish a direct co-relation between the inputs from global team and the corresponding benefits. The TPO also did not accept the submission of the assessee that the issue is covered by the decision of the Hon’ble Tribunal in assessee’s own case for A.Y. 2010-11 to 2013-14 for the reason that the findings of TPO and the justifications are applicable for the respective assessment year. Accordingly, the TPO determined the ALP of the payments made towards all three services as Nil and made an adjustment of Rs.13,15,77,403/-. The DRP upheld the adjustment by relying on its own order for A.Y. 2015-16.

10. The Ld. AR further submitted that these services are rendered as per the agreement entered into between the assessee and the other parties. Accordingly, the Ld.AR submitted that when substantial evidence have been submitted before the lower authorities, it is clearly evidenced that the services have been rendered by the AEs which has benefitted the assessee and that the AEs have been accordingly remunerated as per the terms of agreement. It is, therefore, argued that the lower authority cannot reject the entire expenses without showing any infirmity in them. With regard to MSF and MNC services also, the ld AR took the bench through the agreements, evidences supporting the rendition of services and the basis on which the cost is allocated including the allocation key etc. The ld AR accordingly submitted that the assessee has given all the evidences including the benefits received before the lower authorities which have not been considered. The ld AR also submitted that the TPO is not correct in determining the ALP at NIL without doing any bench marking analysis.

11. The Ld.DR, on the other hand, submitted that the assessee has failed to show the rendition test and the benefit test and, therefore, the TPO has correctly arrived at the ALP of the international transaction to be at Nil. With regard to the contention of the Ld.AR that the ALP cannot be determined at Nil, the Ld.DR submitted that the TPO has applied CUP method and has accordingly arrived at the ALP to be Nil for the reason that no independent party would have paid for such services. The Ld.DR further submitted that the evidences produced by the assessee in the form of email, etc. does not substantiate anything so that the determination of ALP of assessee can be accepted. Accordingly, th Ld.DR supported the orders of the lower authorities.

17. Firstly, we do not agree with the assessee that the learned Transfer Pricing Officer has not adopted any method. We hold that the learned Transfer Pricing Officer has determined the nil value of this services adopting comparable uncontrolled price method. This is so because unless above four basic specific tests are fulfilled, no independent party would have paid such as sum to the Associated Enterprises. Accordingly, as nobody has paid for these services, the comparable uncontrolled price as per the learned Transfer Pricing Officer of these services is ₹ nil. Therefore, there is a definite method adopted by the learned Transfer Pricing Officer which is one of the prescribed methods under Indian transfer pricing legislation. 018. However, any payment for intra group services, the payer of such services definitely maintained a robust documentation to show that those services are required for the business of the assessee, therefore, they were requisitioned by the assessee from its Associated Enterprises. The Associated Enterprises has rendered those services as agreed upon as per agreement between the parties. On rendition of such services, assessee has been benefited. There is no standard requirement of providing manner of maintenance of documentation. The basic document would be the services agreement between the parties which will demonstrate the right and obligation of the parties, nature of services, nature of reporting, the manner of billing along with documentary evidences. Further, when the assessee would be requiring such services, according to agreement he would be asking the provider of services to provide such services, on provision of such services there would be time sheets, log sheets, the job cards, etc. This would have been signed off by the recipient of the services and the provider of the services. Naturally, if the respondent of the services is not benefited by receipt of such services, in the ordinary course of business, nobody would have paid any sum to the associated enterprises. Therefore, the benefit test is a necessary ingredient of determination of Arm‟s Length Price of intra group services. Nobody will pay to anybody for any services which does not benefit the recipient of services. In view of this, it is required to be examined whether the assessee has fulfilled the above criteria or not. It is always necessary to maintain a full proof document of every business activity, however, if the document is not available of particular business activity, there is nothing wrong as whole world will presume that it is not done. If that be the case, the determination of arm‟s-length price at Rs. nil is proper. 019. However, in the case of the assessee We find that the documentation of the assessee clearly shows the description of the categories of services provided, the resultant benefit arising therefrom, the rational for provision of such services, the reasonable description of the benefits or expected benefits of the services, the reasonableness of adoption of the allocation keys and reasons justifying that such allocation keys produce outcomes that reasonably reflect the benefit received. There are written contracts for the provision of services with respective obligations and rights of both the parties, describing the nature of services therein, manner of computing the remuneration was also documented. The description of the documentation provided by the assessee which has been described by the learned authorized representative clearly shows that assessee has maintained a reasonably sound documentation of intra group services. The learned transfer pricing officer and learned dispute resolution panel has heavily relied on their findings in the earlier years which have already been negated by the ITAT. We are not in agreement with the lower authorities by following the decisions taken by them in earlier years in determination of arm‟s-length price of intra group services at Rs. nil. This is so because for each year test of rendition of services, need of such services, benefits derived from the services and those services are not duplicative or shareholder services is required to be established by assessee based on proper documentation. Therefore, decisions rendered in earlier years by the authorities either in favour of the assessee or against the assessee does not help the case of the either party because these tests are required to be satisfied every year and also needs to be examined every year.

by the revenue also on the technical aspect. Similarly for assessment year 2011 – 12, 2012 – 13 and 2013 –

14. As per order dated 7/8/2019. The ITA T followed the order in the case of the assessee for assessment year 2010 – 11. In the present case before us, there is no disallowance made by the learned transfer pricing officer, we have categorically held that the learned transfer pricing officer in determining the arm‟s-length price at Rs. nil of the services has adopted cup method, therefore, all those decisions are not of relevance for deciding the issue before us.

14. From the perusal of records, we notice that for the year under consideration also the assessee has maintained reasonably sufficient documentation of all the three categories of services rendered by the AE. We will now analyse the reasonableness of the documents maintained with regard to each of the services and whether the various tests for determination of ALP are satisfied.

20. Corporate Issues 20.1. Ground 17 is with respect to the addition made by the Assessing Officer based on the difference between the amount as per the books of account vis-à-vis Form 26AS. 20.2 During assessment proceedings, the assessee was asked to reconcile the amount appearing in Form 26AS with the income offered to tax as per the books of account. On verification of the reconciliation submitted by the assessee, the Assessing Officer observed that in respect of six entries, the revenue of which aggregating to Rs.4,98,556/- could not be reconciled. The Assessing Officer, therefore, added the non-reconciled amount to the income of the assessee. Aggrieved, the assessee filed its objection before the DRP and the DRP rejected the objections and sustained the addition.

20.3 Before us, the Ld.AR submitted that the assessee is carrying on the businss of advertising agency with works on principal to agent basis with its clients where the assessee is engaged in the activities of release of advertisement on behalf of its clients and production of advertisement for clients. The revenue earned by the assessee is in the form of commission for services which is a specified percentage of gross billing. It is submitted that the clients of the assessee reflected the gross amount paid to the assessee which include the media cost and the income component thereon. It was further submitted that the assessee has already submitted the reconciliation with respect to major part of its clients and that the details could have been verified by calling details under section 133(6) by the Assessing Officer. The DRP, on further objection, has simply relied on its earlier years’ orders without considering the merits.

20.4 The Ld.DR relied on the orders of the authorities below.

20.5 We heard the parties and perused the materials on record. We notice that the co-ordinate bench of the Tribunal in assessee’s own case (supra), has considered a similar issue and held that – “026. On careful consideration of the rival contentions and orders of the lower authorities. We find that if there is a difference in the annual information return about the gross income included by the assessee in its financial statements, this is the first trigger point for investigation. Merely because there is a difference, the addition cannot be made. Further, the argument of the assessee also cannot be accepted that merely because assessee has disclosed more income, the difference between the annual information return and the books of account of the assessee can be ignored. Therefore, we set-aside this ground of appeal back to the file of the learned assessing officer with a direction to the assessee to show conclusively that what are those income which have been included in the computation of total income of the assessee in the earlier year and what are those receipts included in annual information return which are pertaining to the cost of the material and not the commission income of the assessee. Unless, this information is available, it cannot be ascertained that whether assessee has offered commission income correctly or not. Accordingly ground number 11 of the appeal is set aside to the file of the learned assessing officer for proper examination. Necessary enquiries, if possible, may also be carried out.”

21 During the course of hearing, the Ld.AR drew our attention to the reconciliation statement submitted before the lower authorities, which is reproduced as below:-

22 Respectfully following the decision of the co-ordinate bench, and considering the facts of the present case, we remit the issue back to the Assessing Officer with a direction to verify the reconciliation statement submitted by the assessee and call for necessary details as required. Needless to say that the assessee be given a proper opportunity of being heard.

23. Ground 18 with regard to the deletion of suo motu disallowance done by the assessee while filing the return of income.

24 The assessee had made a suo motu disallowance of Rs.91,87,398/- while filing the return of income. The assessee submitted before the Assessing Officer that the investments in subsidiaries made by the assessee are strategic investments to supplement the business of the assessee and, therefore, investments in mutual funds were made out of surplus funds. The assessee, therefore, submitted that it had not incurred any expenditure during the year for the purpose of earning any tax free income. It was, therefore, prayed before the Assessing Officer that the suo motu disallowance inadvertently made by the assessee may be allowed. It was also submitted before the Assessing Officer that for the year under consideration, the assessee did not earn any exempt income, and therefore, no disallowance is warranted. The Assessing Officer did not consider the submissions of the assessee and did not allow the expenses disallowed. The assessee raised objections before the Ld.DRP on the same grounds which have again been not allowed by the DRP.

7. This amendment will take effect from 1st April, 2022 and will accordingly apply in relation to the assessment year 2022-23 and subsequent assessment years." (emphasis supplied) 6. Furthermore, the Supreme Court in Sedco Forex International Drill. Inc. v. CIT [2005] 149 Taxman 352/279 ITR 310 has held that a retrospective provision in a tax act which is "for the removal of doubts" cannot be presumed to be retrospective, even where such language is used, if it alters or changes the law as it earlier stood. The relevant extract of the said judgment is reproduced hereinbelow: '9. The High Court did not refer to the 1999 Explanation in upholding the inclusion of salary for the field break periods in the assessable income of the employees of the appellant. However, the respondents have urged the point before us.

29.1 The Ld.AR, in this regard, submitted that the assessee, during the course of assessment proceedings found certain errors in the statement of computation and accordingly revised the computation wherein the total income returned was enhanced (page 2565 of paper book). The Ld.AR also submitted that the disallowance under section 14A inadvertently made in the return of income was also revised in the revised statement of income. The Ld.AR further submitted that the Assessing Officer did not consider the changes made to the total income and has proceeded to assess the income based on the original return and accordingly prays for a direction in this regard.

29.2 We heard the parties and perused the material on record. We notice that the total income of the assessee was enhanced from Rs.68,86,37,199/- to Rs.74,49,25,167/-. We also notice that the Assessing Officer in the final order of assessment has considered the total income as per the ITR and did not consider the revised statement of computation filed during the course of assessment. We, therefore, direct the Assessing Officer to take into account the additional income offered by the assessee as per the revised computation filed, while giving effect to the other directions given in this order. The Assessing Officer is also directed to consider the suo motu disallowance made by the assessee which has been treated as allowed in the revised computation.

Ground no.1 is general and Ground No.20 is consequential not warranting separate adjudication.