NTT DATA GLOBAL DELIVERY SERVICES PVT LTD,BANGALORE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-5(1)(1), BANGALORE

At the outset, we note that the assessee, through the learned AR submitted to keep this issue open. Hence, we are not adjudicating the same.

13.1 Regarding M/s Persistent Systems Ltd, the assessee argued that the impugned company has several intangible properties, so it is an inappropriate comparable. Similarly, the impugned company is engaged in product development, so it is functionally different. Besides, this company has incurred substantial expenses on R & D. Further the impugned company has substantial onsite revenue and having foreign currency expenditure which amounts to around 13.72% of the Revenue whereas assessee is captive service provider. They have also substantially high related party transaction. Accordingly, the assessee prayed to the learned DRP to exclude the company i.e. M/s Persistent Systems Ltd from the comparables.

13.2 The assessee also requested the learned DRP to include certain companies as comparables which are detailed as under: 1. Akshay Software Technology 2. Cigniti Technologies Ltd 3. Evoke Technologies Pvt Ltd 4. Calibar Point Business Solutions Limited 5. CAT Technologies Ltd 6. Helios & Mathehson Information Technologies Ltd 7. R Systems International Ltd 8. Sasken Communication Technologies Ltd 9. Thinksoft Global Services Ltd, etc 13.3 The learned DRP after due consideration accepted the assessee’s contention with respect to the exclusion of M/s ICRA Techno Analytics Ltd and M/s Tech Mahindra Ltd from the list of comparables and directed the TPO to exclude the same.

13.4 However, the learned DRP rejected the assessee’s contention for the exclusion of M/s Persistent Systems Ltd from the comparable. The learned panel observed that the assessee first argued that Persistent Systems owns several intangibles and therefore should not be considered comparable. The ld. DRP noted that the assessee did not bring any material to contradict the findings of the TPO. On examining the annual report of Persistent Systems, the ld. DRP observed that the intangible assets mainly represent software license purchased and contractual rights acquired, which are valued based on purchase price. There is no indication of self-generated intangibles. These assets, like . those of the assessee, are used for software development. Therefore, the ld. DRP held that this objection is not acceptable.

13.5 The assessee then argued that Persistent Systems is a software product company and is functionally different. The ld. DRP rejected this argument as well. After checking the annual report and the TPO’s discussion, the ld. DRP found that Persistent Systems is engaged in software development for its customers, and the group also performs software development for its associated enterprises. The revenue is earned mainly from software services, either on a fixed-price or time- and-material basis. Although, the company uses terms such as “product life cycle services”, “technology innovation”, and “software products”, the financial statements clearly show that income is recognized from software services. Thus, the ld. DRP concluded that the company is also providing development services just like the assessee and therefore remains functionally comparable.

13.6 The assessee further argued that the company incurs substantial Research & Development expenditure. The ld. DRP examined this and found that the R&D expenditure of Persistent Systems is less than 0.35% of its operating expenditure. Thus, the ld. DRP held that the assessee’s claim is exaggerated and unsupported by evidence. Therefore, this objection was also rejected.

13.7 The assessee also claimed that Persistent Systems has substantial onsite revenue and foreign exchange expenditure. The ld. DRP noted that the foreign currency expenditure is around 13.72% of revenue, which does not make the company incomparable. The ld. DRP relied on . the decision of the ITAT Mumbai in Capgemini India Pvt. Ltd. Vs ACIT in where onsite revenue was not considered a valid ground for exclusion. The assessee did not produce any evidence to show that onsite work results in higher margins. Hence, this objection was also rejected.

14.1 The learned DRP also rejected the assessee request for inclusion of certain companies in the list of comparables. The ld. DRP examined each company that the assessee wanted to include in the list of comparables.

14.2 For Akshay Software Technologies Ltd., the ld. DRP noted that the company is engaged in professional services, procurement, installation, implementation, support and maintenance of ERP products. These activities include multiple types of support functions, and the annual report does not provide any clear data showing software development as the main activity. The revenue recognition policy also refers to services, maintenance contracts and sale of software licenses. No segmental data is available to confirm that software development alone is the primary business. Since the company operates in several service segments and proper segmental results are not available, it . cannot be treated as comparable to a pure software development service provider. Therefore, the assessee's request was rejected.

14.3 For Cigniti Technologies Ltd., the learned DRP agreed with the TPO that the company is engaged primarily in software testing, validation and verification services. It does not undertake software development activities, because testing is only one part of the software development cycle and cannot be equated with development services. The ld. DRP relied on ITAT decisions which held that software testing companies are not comparable with software development companies. Since Cigniti is functionally different, the learned DRP rejected its inclusion.

14.4 For Evoke Technologies Ltd., the learned DRP observed inconsistencies in the export earnings disclosed in various parts of the annual report. The figures in the director’s report, notes to accounts and balance sheet did not match. Due to the contradictory information and lack of reliable export data, the company could not be considered as a proper comparable. Therefore, the objection was rejected.

14.5 For Caliber Point Business Solutions Ltd., the learned DRP found that the financial data for the relevant financial year was not available in the public domain during the TP proceedings. The assessee did not provide evidence to show that the annual report was available when the TPO carried out the analysis. The ld. DRP also held that financial information becoming available at a later stage cannot be considered, as this would make ALP determination a never-ending exercise. Therefore, the company could not be included.

14.6 For Helios & Matheson Information Technologies Ltd., the learned DRP found that the company failed the export earnings filter and had a different financial year ending. The ld. DRP held that companies must have the same financial year ending as required under the Act for contemporaneous data. Because these conditions were not satisfied, the company could not be included.

14.7 For R Systems International Ltd., the learned DRP held that the company follows a different financial year ending of 31st December. Using data from two different financial years is not acceptable because economic conditions may vary. Since, the relevant data was also unavailable during the TP proceedings, the ld. DRP rejected its inclusion.

14.8 For Sasken Communication Technologies Ltd., the learned DRP found that the company operates in multiple business segments, including research and development consultancy, wireless software products, and software services. The segmental details for these separate business lines were not fully available. Since the company is involved in diversified activities and not limited to software development, and proper segmental data is missing, it was held to be not comparable.

14.9 For Thinksoft Global Services Ltd., the learned DRP noted that the company failed the RPT filter of 25%. Further, the company is engaged only in software testing and validation services, which is functionally different from software development. As such, it cannot be considered comparable and the request for inclusion was rejected.

14.10 For Spry Resources India Pvt. Ltd., the company was not part of the assessee’s TP study and was proposed only during the DRP stage. The annual report showed that the company earns revenue from software development services and licensing software products. Since it is also involved in sale of software products and segmental information is not available, it was considered unsuitable as comparable. Hence, the ld. DRP rejected it.

16.1 The ld. AR further pointed out that no proper segmental information is available in the annual report of Persistent Systems Ltd. The revenue from software services, software products, licensing, and innovation-related activities are all merged. Due to lack of break-up between product revenues and service revenues, it is impossible to . determine the margins attributable to software development services alone. In the absence of segmental data, a company with such mixed functions cannot be compared with the assessee whose operations are limited to a single segment.

16.2 The ld. AR also emphasised that Persistent Systems has a strong IP-led business model. The company has consistently expanded its intellectual property portfolio and invested heavily in R&D. During the relevant year, it acquired new technologies such as 'rCloud' and entered into a strategic agreement with HP for licensing automation software. It has also acquired IBM’s TNPM product roadmap under a long-term multi- year deal, strengthening its position in IP-driven product development. These features demonstrate that Persistent Systems operates as a high- risk, IP-creating company, whereas the assessee bears no IP risk and performs only low-risk, routine development functions.

16.3 The ld. AR submitted that the company’s annual report itself highlights “continuous growth in IP-led business” throughout the year. This alone shows that the business model of Persistent Systems is fundamentally different from that of the assessee. A company engaged in creation, ownership and exploitation of intellectual property cannot be compared with a captive service provider that does not develop or own any IP.

16.4 The ld. AR argued that the presence of significant intangibles, R&D activities, IP ownership, licensing income and product-based operations make Persistent Systems functionally incomparable. The assessee does not carry out any of these functions nor does it assume . such risks. Therefore, comparing the margins of an entrepreneurial product-based company with a low-risk captive unit would lead to distorted and unfair benchmarking.

16.5 In support of exclusion, the learned AR also relied on judicial precedents such as decision of this tribunal in the case of the CSG Systems International (India) Pvt Ltd reported in TS-784-ITAT-2019 and TS-14-ITAT-2021 and also places reliance on the decision of Hyderabad ITAT in case of EPAM Systems India Pvt Ltd in ITA No. 2122/Hyd/2017.

16.6 The learned AR further submitted that the following companies should be included in the comparable list.

16.7 The learned AR submitted that Akshay Software Technologies Ltd. is a valid comparable because the company is engaged in IT and IT- enabled software development services, which is the same line of activity as the assessee. The company’s own reply to notice under section 133(6) confirms that it is involved in software-related services and development work. The ld. AR pointed out that software service income constitutes 99.45% of the total revenue for the relevant year, which shows that the company is predominantly a software service provider and not a product company. The export earnings from software services account for 94% of the operating revenue, demonstrating that Akshay Software satisfies the export filter used by the TPO. The ld. AR argued that the company passes all quantitative filters applied by the TPO, including turnover, employee cost, and service income filters. In . addition, judicial precedents such as NXP India Pvt. Ltd. (IT(TP)A Nos. 692 & 2861/Bang/2017) have recognized Akshay Software as a proper comparable for software development service providers. Therefore, the ld. AR submitted that Akshay Software Technologies Ltd. should be included in the final list of comparables.

16.8 The AR argued that Cigniti Technologies Ltd. is also a suitable comparable because it is engaged in computer programming, consultancy services and software services, which fall within the broader field of software development. Cigniti’s financials show that 100% of its revenue is from software-related services during the relevant year. The export earnings from software services constitute 98.36% of total revenue, clearly satisfying the export revenue filter. The ld. AR submitted that the TPO rejected this company only on the grounds that it performs software testing; however, software testing is an integral part of the software development life cycle. It cannot be separated from development activities and is routinely performed by companies providing development services. Therefore, the functional profile of Cigniti cannot be considered different. The ld. AR supported the inclusion by relying on judicial precedents such as NXP India Pvt. Ltd. in IT(TP) No. 692/ & 2861/Bang/2017, where Cigniti has been accepted as a comparable. The ld. AR argued that since the company passes all filters and performs essential software development–related functions, it should be included.

16.9 With respect to Evoke Technologies, the ld. AR submitted that the company is engaged exclusively in software development services, as evident from its annual report. Export earnings constitute 99.98% of the total operating revenue, and software development services account for 100% of revenue, which meets every filter adopted by the TPO. The TPO rejected this company only on the ground that certain data was not available in the public domain; however, the ld. AR clarified that upon review of database such as MCA, complete financial information was indeed available. The ld. AR submitted that the TPO has not demonstrated any functional difference or any failure of quantitative filters. Since Evoke Technologies Pvt. Ltd. is a pure software development service provider operating under conditions identical to the assessee, and since data is reliably available, it should be included as a comparable. The ld. AR further relied on judicial precedents including Mercedes Benz Research & Development India Pvt. Ltd. (IT(TP)A No. 1497/Bang/2017) supporting inclusion of companies engaged in similar software development activities.

16.10 The learned AR concluded that all three companies viz Akshay Software Technologies Ltd., Cigniti Technologies Ltd. and Evoke Technologies Pvt. Ltd. are functionally similar to a captive software development service provider like the assessee. They satisfy all filters applied by the TPO, are engaged in software development or closely related services, and have been accepted as comparables in various judicial decisions. Therefore, their inclusion is justified and necessary for a fair and balanced determination of the arm’s length price.

18.1 In this regard first, we note that the assessee is a captive software development service provider. It operates on a cost-plus model and assumes only limited risks. It performs routine development activities for its associated enterprise. The business model is low-risk and without ownership of any intellectual property.

18.2 On the other hand, the materials placed before us clearly show that Persistent Systems Ltd operates in a completely different functional environment. The company is engaged in full-fledged outsourced product development, technology innovation, and end-to-end product life-cycle services. It develops products, creates and enhances IP, designs technology platforms, and earns licensing / royalty income. These activities are not comparable to the assessee’s restricted functions.

18.3 Second, as seen from the documents, the company has a strong IP-led business model. It has entered into product and technology acquisition arrangements, such as acquisition of IBM’s TNPM product roadmap and licensing deals with HP. It has also expanded its portfolio of proprietary technologies such as “rCloud”. These features establish that the company is an entrepreneurial, IP-creating entity, which bears significant technology and business risks whereas the assessee bears none of these risks.

18.4 Third, no segmental information is available in the financial statements of Persistent Systems. The revenues from software services, product sales, licensing, R&D-driven activities and platform development are all combined. Without segmental break-up, it is impossible to isolate margins attributable to pure software development services. In transfer pricing, a functionally diversified company without segmental accounts cannot be compared with a single-segment captive service provider.

18.5 Fourth, although the ld. DRP rejected arguments relating to intangibles and R&D on the ground of low percentages, we note that the existence of intangibles and the nature of activities are more important than the quantum of R&D spent. The company’s model itself revolves around constant creation, ownership and exploitation of IP, which places it in an entirely different economic position. The assessee does not own or develop IP and therefore cannot be benchmarked against such an entity.

18.6 Further, we found that in identical facts and circumstances the coordinate bench of Hyderabad ITAT in case of EPAM Systems India Pvt .

Page 17 of 28 Ltd (ITA No. 2122/Hyd/2017) held that the M/s Persistent System Ltd is not comparables to captive SWD service provider. The relevant finding of the bench is extracted as under: 10. The first company which is challenged by the assessee is Persistent Systems Ltd. The assessee has challenged this company on the ground that this company specializes in software products, services and technology innovation and also offers complete life-cycle services and that the company has also revenue from products as well as services, but, there is no segmental data available. It was also submitted that the company’s business is divided into three lines viz., (i) product engineering services (ii) platforms & solutions and (iii) IP and related business which are not comparable to the functions and business lines of a captive service provider. It was also brought to the notice of the TPO that this company is engaged in Outsourced Product Development (OPD) which is different from software development services and it has been recognised and awarded as a leading global OPD vendor. The fact that the company has huge intangible assets and various contractual rights worth 240.48 millions and thus cannot be compared to the captive service provider who does not have any intangible assets was also not considered by the TPO. It was submitted that during the year, the RPT of this company was at 19.47% to total sales. In favour of the above argument that this company is not a comparable to the assessee-company, the Learned Counsel for the Assessee placed reliance on the following decisions: ===--- 11. Learned Departmental Representative, on the other hand, supported the orders of the authorities below and placed reliance upon the decision of the TPO at para 6.7 of his order in particular.

12. Having regard to the rival contentions and the material on record, we find that the assessee is into software development services, whereas Persistent Systems Limited is into both the software products, services and technology innovation; and the segmental details are not available. This is evident from the financials of Persistent Systems Limited and the report of the Director at page 918 of the paper book. At page 1039, it has been clearly mentioned that the Persistent Systems Limited is a global company specializing in software products, services and technology innovation. From the list of intangible assets at page 1051 of the paper book, we find that the assessee has been claiming depreciation both on tangible and intangible assets for the periods ending 31.03.2012 and 31.03.2013. From page 1059 of the paper book, we find that the final segmental results of each segment is not available and therefore, we are of the opinion that the TPO ought to have excluded this company from the final list of comparables. We find that in the case of PCIT vs. Cashedge India P Ltd (supra), the Hon’ble Delhi High Court vide its order dated 04/05/2016, has considered the TP study in the case of Cashedge India P Ltd for the A.Y. 2010- 11 and the comparables therein and at para 6 of its order the Hon’ble High Court has discussed the financial results of Persistent Systems Ltd and held as under: ==-- 13. In the case of Pr. CIT vs. Saxo India (P.) Ltd for the A.Y. 2011-12 the Coordinate Bench of the Tribunal at Delhi has considered the very same facts .

Page 18 of 28 to hold that it is not a comparable company as segmental information is not available with regard to the products and services. Learned Departmental Representative has not been able to bring out any dissimilarity of facts between the A.Ys 2010-11 & 2011-12 and the assessment year before us. Therefore, respectfully following the decision of the Coordinate Bench of the Tribunal and also the decision of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of PCIT vs. Cashedge India P Ltd (supra), we hold that this company is not a comparable to the assessee-company and has to be excluded from the final list of comparables. A.O is directed accordingly. We find this decision relevant because the factual matrix is similar involved a captive development service provider vis-à-vis a functionally diversified, IP- driven software product company. The judicial view is consistent that such companies cannot be compared under TNMM.

18.7 Considering all these aspects functional differences, presence of IP, product-based revenues, lack of segmental data, risk profile mismatch, and supporting judicial precedents we hold that Persistent Systems Ltd fails the test of comparability. Accordingly, we direct the exclusion of M/s Persistent Systems Ltd from the list of comparables.

18.8 Now moving ahead to dispute regarding the inclusion of the certain companies namely Akshay Software Technologies Ltd., Cigniti Technologies Ltd., and Evoke Technologies Pvt. Ltd as comparables.

18.9 Regarding the Akshay Software Technologies Ltd, we note that the learned DRP rejected this company on the ground that the annual report contained references to multiple service segments such as procurement, installation, implementation, and maintenance of ERP products, and that segmental data was not clearly available. However, the assessee has placed on record convincing material to demonstrate that software service income constitutes 99.45% of the company’s total revenue. This is supported by the company’s own response to the notice .

Page 19 of 28 under section 133(6) of the Act, which confirms that it is engaged in software-related development services.

18.10 We also note that the export earnings constitute 94% of the operating revenue, which satisfies the export revenue filter applied by the TPO. The company also passes the turnover, employee-cost, and service-income filters. No evidence has been brought by the Revenue to contradict these factual assertions. When the company’s financials show predominantly software development service income and it satisfies all quantitative filters, denial of inclusion merely because it provides ancillary support services is not justified.

18.11 Further, judicial precedents such as NXP India Pvt Ltd (IT(TP)A Nos. 692 & 2861/Bang/2017) have accepted Akshay Software Technologies Ltd. as a valid comparable for software development service providers. The relevant finding of the Tribunal in case of NXP India Pvt Ltd reads as under: 32. It was rejected by the TPO for the reason that the function of this company appears to be more in the nature of support services and I.T. enabled services. However, this company is engaged in providing professional services, implementation, support and maintenance of ERP products and other services. These are nothing but software development services, as is evident from Notes forming part of the financial statement, which is placed at paper book page No.1825. Further, the revenue from software services accounts for 99.45% of the total revenue of the company as evident from the financial statement placed on record at paper book page No.1831. Being so, we direct the TPO to consider this company as comparable to the assessee’s case while selecting the comparables.

18.12 We therefore hold that Akshay Software Technologies Ltd. is functionally comparable to the assessee and should be included.

Page 20 of 28 18.13 Coming to the issue of inclusion of Cigniti Technologies Ltd. The learned DRP rejected this company on the ground that it is engaged in software testing, and that testing is different from software development. We are unable to accept this reasoning. Software testing is an integral and inseparable part of the software development life cycle. It is not an independent or unrelated activity. A company engaged in testing and quality assurance cannot be treated as functionally different from a company engaged in development work, unless there is evidence of a diversified business model which is not the case here.

18.14 The assessee has demonstrated that 100% of Cigniti’s revenue is from software-related services, and 98.36% of its revenue comes from software service exports. The company thus satisfies all the quantitative filters accepted by the TPO.

18.15 The learned AR also relied on judicial decisions such as NXP India Pvt. Ltd. (supra), where Cigniti Technologies Ltd. was found to be a valid comparable for a captive software development service provider. These rulings recognize that software testing falls within the broader domain of software development services. The relevant findings of the Tribunal are read as follows: 34.This company was rejected by the TPO for the reason that this company was engaged in software testing service. This company is also into computer programming, consultancy and related activities. According to the TPO, it was functionally different from assessee-company. As seen from the revenue from operations, which is as follows:- 34.1 In our opinion, software testing is a part of software development life cycle and being so, this company should be considered as a comparable. Accordingly, we direct the TPO to include Cigniti Technologies Limited as a comparable to the assessee-company, while selecting the comparables.

18.16 There is no contrary material brought by the Revenue to show functional dissimilarity. Hence, we are satisfied that Cigniti Technologies Ltd. qualifies as comparable.

18.17 Coming to the issue of inclusion of Evoke Technologies Pvt. Ltd. to the list of comparables. The ld. DRP rejected this company solely due to certain inconsistencies in export earnings disclosed in different parts of the annual report. The assessee has explained that complete financial information is available from reliable public-domain sources such as MCA, and that the company is engaged exclusively in software development services.

18.18 The financials show that export earnings constitute 99.98% of operating revenue, and 100% of the company’s revenue is from software development services. These facts demonstrate that the company passes every filter applied by the TPO, including turnover and export filters.

18.19 Importantly, the learned DRP has not identified any functional difference between this company and the assessee. The rejection is based only on perceived inconsistencies, which stand adequately clarified by the assessee. When reliable financial data is available and the company is engaged purely in software development services, its exclusion leads to an incomplete comparability set.

18.20 The AR has also relied on decisions such as Mercedes Benz Research & Development India Pvt. Ltd. (IT(TP)A No. 150/Bang/2016) involving A.Y. 2011-12, where Evoke Technologies was accepted as a . comparable. This strengthens the assessee’s contention. We therefore hold that Evoke Technologies Pvt. Ltd. is a proper comparable and should be included.

18.21 Regarding the other companies namely Calibar Point Business Solutions Limited, CAT Technologies Ltd, Helios & Mathehson Information Technologies Ltd, R Systems International Ltd, Sasken Communication Technologies Ltd and Thinksoft Global Services Ltd which were taken as comparable by the assessee but rejected by the TPO and learned DRP, we find that the learned AR of the assessee has not pressed the issue of inclusion of these companies to the list of comparable. Hence, we dismiss the same as not pressed. In view of the above detailed discussion, the ground of appeal raised by the assessee is hereby partly allowed.

19. The revised Ground Nos. 16 & 17 of the assessee’s appeal pertains to the computation of operating margins of comparables companies and exercising power under section 133(6) of the Act.

26.1 The availability of foreign tax credit is a matter of fact and depends on supporting documents such as tax withholding certificates, proof of foreign income offered to tax in India, and compliance with Rule 128 of the Income-tax Rules.

26.2 In our view, the issue requires proper verification by the AO. The assessee must be given an opportunity to furnish all relevant evidence in support of its claim. Accordingly, we set aside this issue to the file of the AO. The AO is directed to verify all supporting documents, including Form 67, foreign tax payment proofs, and corresponding income offered to tax, and thereafter allow the foreign tax credit strictly in accordance with section 90 of the Act and Rule 128 of the Income Tax Rule. The assessee shall cooperate and provide all required details. The AO shall . grant eligible credit after such verification. Hence, the ground of appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.

27. The revised Ground Nos. 21 and 22 of the assessee’s appeal pertain to levy of interest under section 234B of the Act and initiation of penalty proceeding under section 272(1)(c) of the Act. The issues raised in these grounds are either consequential or premature to decide. Hence, we dismiss the same as infructuous.

Coming to IT(TP)A No. 2062/Bang/2017, in case of NTT Data Information Processing Services Pvt Ltd for A.Y. 2013-14

The assessee vide submission dated 7th November 2025 has filed 29. revised grounds of appeal. As per the revised grounds, the assessee has raised 25 grounds of appeal, which, for the sake of brevity, are not reproduced herein.

31. At the outset, we note that these grounds have been withdrawn vide order sheet entry dated 15th September 2025 in pursuance to .

& 2062/Bang/2017 Page 25 of 28 Mutual Agreement Procedure (MAP) resolution dated 7th May 2025. Accordingly, these grounds are dismissed as withdrawn.

38.1 At the outset the ld. DR requested to issue a direction to allow the adjustment in the working capital adjustment as per the provisions of law. On the contrary, the ld. DR raised no objection on issuing such a direction. Accordingly, we direct the TPO to provide the necessary adjustment qua the working capital after necessary verification and as per law. Hence, the ground of appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.

39. The revised ground No. 22 of the assessee’s appeal is that the AO erred in not providing the credit under section 90 of the Act for Rs. 2,03,90,347/- only.

IT(TP)A No. 1720/Bang/2017 shall also be applicable for the ground of appeal raised by the appellant assessee. The appeal of the group concern in IT(TP)A No. 1720/Bang/2017 has been decided by us vide paragraph No. 26 of this order in favour of the assessee subject to verification. The learned AR and the DR also agreed that whatever the findings in IT(TP)A No. 1720/Bang/2017 shall also be applied for present appeal. Hence, the ground of appeal filed by the assessee is hereby allowed subject to verification.

41. The revised ground No. 23 of the assessee’s appeal is that the AO erred in levying the notional interest of 39,30,643/- only.