JOSHI TECHNOLOGIES INTERNATIONAL INC INDIA PROJECTS,AHMEDABAD vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE(INT.TAXN.)-1, AHMEDABAD

3. The learned AO erred in law by not allowing depreciation of Rs. 80,739/- on amount paid in AY 2004-05 for acquiring participating interest in Joint Venture termed as 'goodwill) which is business or commercial right of similar nature as envisaged u/s 32 of the Act, to keep the issue alive since the department is in appeal before ITAT, It is submitted it be so held now. 3.1 The learned AO erred in not appreciate the fact that no payment made during the year nor any right is acquired during the year and therefore following the blocs of asset principle the deprecation should be allowed on Opening Written Down Value of the Block of Asset as claimed by the appellant. It is submitted it be so held now.

4. The learned AO erred in not allowing depreciation on oil well and field equipment at her rate of 60% applicable for mineral oil concerns as per Appendix 1 to the Income Tax Rules, 1962. It is submitted it be so held now.

, 81 & 244/Ahd/2022 Joshi Technologies International Inc India Projects, A.Y. 2017-18,2019-20 & 2019-20 4.1 The learned AO has erred in not taking proper cognizance of the decision of Ahmedabad ITAT in appellant's case and decision of the Gujarat High Court in case of Niko Resources on the ground that Department has not accepted said decisions. The learned AO ought to have appreciated that Tribunal's decision in appellant’s own case is accepted by the Department and Department's appeal before Supreme Court in case of Resources has been dismissed. It is submitted it be so held now. 4.2 Without prejudice to the above in the assessment order, the AO erred in granting depreciation of Rs 1,50,58,654/- instead of correct depreciation of Rs. 15,78,62,118/- 5. The AO has erred in not granting additional depreciation on the addition to oil well and oil field equipment on ground of maintaining consistency with earlier years, it is submitted it be so held now.

6. The learned AO erred in law and facts in disallowing claim of weighted deduction of Rs. 70,00,000/- relying on CBDT advisory for claim of bogus donations, it be so held now. 6.1 The learned AO has erred in law and in facts in not appreciating that the donation was given by the appellant based on the notarized approval of registration u/s 35(1(ii) of the Act given by the trust and appellant had no reason to disbelieve the operation of approval and notification of the trust it be so held now. 6.2 Without prejudice to the above, the appellant ought to be granted deduction of amount paid to the trust of Rs 40,00,000 as business loss u/s 28 of the Act. It is submitted it be so held now.

7. The Ld. AO/TPO erred in law and on facts, in making an upward adjustment of Rs. 35,19,439 to the total income of the Appellant in respect of international transaction of allocation of General and Administrative ("G&A") costs permissible as per Production Sharing Contracts (PSC) by determining the arm's length price (ALP) of the international transaction as Nil. 7.1 The Ld. AO/TPO endorsed that the PSC is a self-serving document but erred in not allowing the expenses which were restricted in PSC to 1% of the total contract cost on the ground that cost benefit analysis was not done. It is submitted that prescribing 1% of contract cost in PSC satisfies cost benefit analysis and no separate satisfaction is required. It is submitted it be so held now. 7.2 The Ld. AO/TPO erred in law and on facts in arbitrarily referring that the costs incurred by Joint Venture (V) are allocated to the Appellant through the Head Office, without appreciating the fact that there is no JV in case of the Appellant. 7.3 The Ld. AO/TPO erred in law and on facts, in alleging that the expenditure of 1% of the total contract cost claimed by the Appellant as per the provisions of PSC does not represent actual expenditure

7.4 The Ld. AO/TPO erred in law and on facts, in regarding the submission of appellant that the expenses as per PSC does not form part of HO allocation of common general and administrative costs. 7.5 The Ld. AO/TPO erred in law and on facts, in making addition of Rs. 15,19,419/- on ground that assessee has made claim of same type of 3 , 81 & 244/Ahd/2022 Joshi Technologies International Inc India Projects, A.Y. 2017-18,2019-20 & 2019-20 expenses under two different heads each bring under HO expenses and being as per PSC. It is submitted it be so held now. 7.6 The Ld. AO/TPO erred in law and on facts, in alleging that the expenses as per PSC have already been claimed by the Appellant under the allocation of HO expenses under section 44 of the Act and the allowance of expenses as per PSC would amount to double reimbursement to HO. 7.6 Without prejudice to the above, the Ld. AO/TPO failed to appreciate that out of the total HO expenditure of Rs. 555,31,914/ only Rs. 226,13,981/- could be claimed due to restrictions u/s 44C of the Act and thus Rs. 1,29,17,933/-(555,31,914/- less 2,26,11,981/-) were unclaimed which is much higher than eligible claim of 1% of contract cost as per PSC which works out to Rs. 35,19,433/-. In view of this, no disallowance was warranted it be so held now.

8. The learned AO has erred in fact and in law in not allowing set off of brought forward MAT credit u/s. 115JAA of the Act as per return as claimed by the appellant, it is submitted that it be so held now. 8.1. The learned AO erred in not appreciating that the assessment orders for Ay 2016-17, to which MAT credit pertains, is in appeal and the disputed issues have not reached finality. It is submitted that it be so held now.

9. The learned AO has erred in granting short credit of tax deducted at source of Rs. 56,56,881/- in the assessment order. It is submitted it be so held now.

10. The learned AO has erred in charging excess interest u/s 234B of the Act. Your appellant prays for leave to add to alter and/or to amend any of the grounds before the final hearing of the appeal.”

A.Y. 2018-19 “Your Appellant being dissatisfied with the order passed by the Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle Intl Taxn 1), Ahmedabad (hereinafter referred to as "AO"), u/s 143(3) rws 144C(13) of the Income Tax Act ("the Act presents this appeal against the same on the following amongst other grounds of appeal which are without prejudice to each other.

1. The order passed by the Assessing officer u/s 143(3), in pursuance of the order of Dispute Resolution Panel u/s 144C, is erroneous and requires to be modified. It is submitted that it be so held now.

2. The learned AO erred in disallowing claim of deduction u/s 80IB(9) of Rs. 12,72,67,825/- without taking proper cognizance of the order of the Gujarat High Court and not following the same on the ground that Department has filed appeal to the Supreme Court. It is submitted it be so held now. 2.1 The learned AO has erred in stating that amended Explanation to 80IB(9) can be applied prospectively from FY 2009-10 without appreciating that Gujarat High Court has struck down the Explanation in appellant's own case. It is submitted it be so held now. 2.2 The learned AO ought to have granted benefit u/s 80IB(9) in respect of oil wells considering them as separate undertaking as claimed by the appellant as it fulfills all the requirements of that section to be eligible to get such deduction. It is submitted that it be so held now.

, 81 & 244/Ahd/2022 Joshi Technologies International Inc India Projects, A.Y. 2017-18,2019-20 & 2019-20 2.3 The learned AO ought to grant deduction u/s 80IB(9) without set off of brought forward loss since those losses are already absorbed against the profits of company in earlier years. It is submitted that it be so held now. 2.4 The learned AO, without enquiring appellant to furnish any details in assessment proceedings, erred in stating that the commencement of commercial production for each well was not certified by any regulatory agency without appreciating that there is no such legal requirement, it is submitted it be so held now. 2.5 The learned AO erred in referring to provisions of section 801A(8) and 801A(10) even though the same are not applicable. It is submitted it be so held now. 2.6 The learned AO, without requiring appellant to furnish any details in assessment proceedings, erred in observing that apportionment of expenses has been done on mechanical basis & no actual expenses are accounted on wells. It is submitted that the actual expenses are charged to each well as incurred and common expenses are allocated on the basis of production ratio. It is submitted it be so held now.

3. The learned AO erred in law by not allowing depreciation of Rs. 60,555/-on amount paid in AY 2004-05 for acquiring participating interest in Joint Venture (termed as 'goodwill) which is business or commercial right of similar nature as envisaged u/s 32 of the Act, to keep the issue alive since the department is in appeal before ITAT. It is submitted it be so held now.

3.1. The learned AO erred in not appreciating the fact that payment was made during the year nor any right acquired during the year and therefore the principle the depreciation should be allowed on Opening Written Down Value of the block of Asset as claimed by the appellant. It is submitted it be so held now.

4. The learned AO erred in not allowing depreciation on oil well field and equipment at higher rate of applicable for mineral oil concerns as per Appendix I to the Income Tax Rules, 1962. It is submitted it be so held now. 4.1 The learned AO has erred in not taking proper cognizance of the decision of Ahmedabad ITAT in appellant's own case and decision of the Gujarat High Court in case of Niku Resources on the ground that Department has not accepted said decisions. The learned AO ought to have appreciated that Tribunal's decision in own case is accepted by the Department and Department's appeal before Supreme Court in case of Niko Resources has been dismissed. It is submitted it be held now. 4.2 Without prejudice to the above, in the assessment order. AO erred in granting depreciation of 1,97,85,366/- instead of correct depreciation of Rs. 14,83,36,988/- 5. The AO has erred in not granting additional depreciation on the addition to oil well and oil field equipment on ground of maintaining consistency with earlier years. It is submitted it be so held now.

6. The learned AO erred in law and facts in disallowing claim of weighted deduction of Rs. 3,15,00,000/- relying on CBDT advisory for claim of bogus donations, it be so held now.

, 81 & 244/Ahd/2022 Joshi Technologies International Inc India Projects, A.Y. 2017-18,2019-20 & 2019-20

6.1 The learned AO has erred in law and in facts in not appreciating that the donation was given by the appellant based on the notarized approval of registration u/s. 35(1) (ii) of the Act given by the trust and appellant had no reason to disbelieve the operation of approval and notification of the trust. It be so held now. 6.2 Without prejudice to the above, the appellant ought to have granted deduction of amount paid to the trust of Rs. 2,10,00,000/- in bona fide belief as business loss u/s 28 of the Act. It is submitted it be so held now 7. The learned AO has erred in charging excess interest u/s. 234D of the Act. Your appellant prays for leave to add to alter and/or to amend any of the grounds before the final hearing of the appeal.”

A.Y. 2019-20 “Your Appellant being dissatisfied with the order passed by the Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle (Int. Taxn 1) Ahmedabad (hereinafter referred to as "AO") u/s. 144(3) r.w.s. 144C of the Income Tax Act (“the Act”), presents this appeal against the same on the following amongst other grounds of appeal which are without prejudice to each other.

1. The order passed by the Assessing officer u/s 143(3), in pursuance of the order of Dispute Resolution Panel u/s 144C, is erroneous and requires to be modified. It is submitted that it be so held now.

2. The learned AO erred in disallowing claim of deduction u/s 80IB(9) of Rs. 9,00,00,350/- without taking proper cognizance of the order of the Gujarat High Court and not following the same on the ground that Department has filed appeal to the Supreme Court. It is submitted it be so held now. 2.1 The learned AO has erred in stating that amended Explanation to 80IB(9) can be applied prospectively from FY 2009-10 without appreciating that Gujarat High Court has struck down the Explanation in appellant's own case. It is submitted it be so held now. 2.2 The learned AO ought to have granted benefit u/s 801B(9) in respect of oil wells considering them as separate undertaking as claimed by the appellant as it fulfills all the requirements of that section to be eligible to get such deduction. It is submitted that it be so held now. 2.3 The learned AO ought to have grant deduction u/s. 801B(9) without set off of brought forward loss since those losses are already absorbed against the profits of company in earlier years. It is submitted that it be so held now. 2.4 The learned AO erred in holding that the commencement of commercial production for each well was not certified by any regulatory agency without calling for data & appreciating that there is no such legal requirement. It is submitted it be so held now. 2.5 The learned AO erred in referring to provisions of section 801A(8) and 801A(10) even though the same are not applicable. It is submitted it be so held now. 2.6 Without calling for data the learned AO erred in holding that there is mechanical apportionment of expenses & no actual expenses are accounted on wells. It is submitted that the actual expenses are charged to each well and , 81 & 244/Ahd/2022 Joshi Technologies International Inc India Projects, A.Y. 2017-18,2019-20 & 2019-20 only common expenses are allocated on the basis of production ratio. It is submitted it be so held now. 3 The learned AO erred in law by not allowing depreciation of Rs. 45,416/ on amount paid in AY 2004-05 for acquiring participating interest in Joint Venture (termed as goodwill) which is business of commercial right of similar nature as envisaged u/s 32 of the Act, to keep the issue alive since the department is in appeal before ITAT. It is submitted it be so held now. 3.1 The learned AO erred in not appreciating the fact that no payment was made during the year, nor any right is acquired during the year and therefore following the block of asset principle, the depreciation should be allowed on Opening Written Down Value of the Block of Asset as claimed by the appellant. It is submitted it be so held now.

4. The learned AO erred in not granting depreciation on oil well and oil field equipment at higher rate of 40% applicable for mineral oil concerns. It is submitted it be so held now. 4.1 The learned AO has erred in net appreciating that the Tribunal's decision in appellant's own case is accepted by the Department and Department's appeal before Supreme Court in case of Niko Resources has been dismissed. It is submitted it be held now. 4.2 Without prejudice to the above, in the assessment order, AO erred in granting depreciation of Rs. 3,97,71,406/- instead of correct depreciation of 15,67,82,419.

5. The AO has erred in not granting additional depreciation on the addition to oil well and oil field equipment on ground of maintaining constancy with earlier years. It is submitted it be so held now.

6. The learned AO erred in not granting deduction u/s 42 of the of the Act of Rs. 11,20,70,905/- as claimed It is submitted it be so held now. 6.1 The learned AO erred in not following directions of DRP and concluded that appellant is not eligible for deduction u/s 42 of the Act. It is submitted it be so held now. 6.2. Though directed by the Hon'ble DRP to quantify the deduction eligible u/s 42, the learned AO erred in deciding eligibility and concluded that appellant is not eligible for deduction u/s 42 of the Act. It is submitted it be so held now. 6.3 The learned AO erred in relying on Supreme Court decision in appellant's own case for rejecting the claim u/s 42 disregarding the fact that the said decision is not applicable for year under reference as the Hon'ble DRP has dealt with the same and concluded that the applicant is eligible for deduction u/s 42.

7. The learned AO has erred in charging excess interest u/s 234B of the Act. Your appellant prays for leave to add to alter and/or to amend any of the grounds before the final hearing of the appeal.”

, 81 & 244/Ahd/2022 Joshi Technologies International Inc India Projects, A.Y. 2017-18,2019-20 & 2019-20 Thus total income was passed at 48,81,37,180/-.

“17.1 In view of the above, we hold that each well maintained by the assessee represents the separate undertaking and therefore the profit of each undertaking is eligible for deduction under Section 80IB(9) of the Act.”

The applicability of Section 80IB(9) of the Act to assessee’s case is affirmed by the following decisions in assessee’s own case:

, 81 & 244/Ahd/2022 Joshi Technologies International Inc India Projects, A.Y. 2017-18,2019-20 & 2019-20 i) ITAT Order dated 21.12.2019 A.Y. 2005-06 para 9 to 17.3 ii) ITAT Order dated 25.10.2021 A.Y. 2006-07 para 12 to 17.1 iii) ITAT Order dated 19.05.2023 A.Y. 2007-08 para 15-16 iv) ITAT Order dated 19.05.2023 A.Y. 2008-09 ITA No. 3195/Ahd/2011 para 44 v) ITAT Order dated 27.10.2023 A.Y. 2009-10 ITA No. 767/Ahd/2014 para 11-14 (MA Order dated 24.01.2025 paras 1 to 3) vi) ITAT Order dated 27.10.2023 A.Y. 2010-11 ITA NO. 766/Ahd/2014 para 46 vii) ITAT Order dated 27.10.2023 A.Y. 2011-12 ITA No. 242/Ahd/2012 para 64 The Ld. AR further submitted that the assessee has filed Form 8 dated 24.05.2024 under Section 158A of the Act stating that the question of law regarding Section 80IB of the Act is pending adjudication before the Hon’ble Supreme Court. The Department vide report dated 14.06.2024 has accepted this. Accordingly, the Ld. AR prayed that the Assessing Officer be specifically directed to take cognizance of order of Hon’ble Gujarat High court/Hon’ble Supreme Court and grant deduction under Section 80IB of the Act.

The Ld. AR submitted that since the facts of the present assessment years are same as in the earlier assessment years, the assessee prayed that the similar direction in the present assessment year be given.

, 81 & 244/Ahd/2022 Joshi Technologies International Inc India Projects, A.Y. 2017-18,2019-20 & 2019-20 Department preferred appeal before the Hon’ble High Court and Hon’ble Supreme Court which were dismissed, upholding order of the Tribunal in favour of the assessee. ii) Niko Resoureces vs. ACIT 395 ITR 301 (Gujarat HC) iii) ITAT order dated 21.12.2019 in assessee’s own case for A.Y. 2001-02, 2002-03 and 2005-06 (ITA No. 904 & 905/Ahd/2009 and 3988/Ahd/2008 para 18.1 to 24) iv) ITAT order dated 19.05.2023 in assessee’s own case for A.Y. 2007-08 (ITA No. 3456/Ahd/2010 para 8-9) v) ITAT order dated 19.05.2023 in assessee’s own case for A.Y. 2008-09 (ITA No. 3195/Ahd/2011 para 43) vi) ITAT order dated 27.10.2023 in assessee’s own case for A.Y. 2009-10 (ITA No. 766/Ahd/2014 para 7-9 and MA order dated 24.01.2025 para 8-10) vii) ITAT order dated 27.10.2023 in assessee’s own case for A.Y. 2010-11 (ITA No. 767/Ahd/2014 para 45) viii) ITAT order dated 27.10.2023 in assessee’s own case for A.Y. 2011-12 (ITA No. 242/Ahd/2015 para 65)

Therefore, the Ld. AR submitted that this position has been settled in assessee’s favour by the Hon’ble Supreme Court and High Court and thus, not disputed by the Assessing Officer in subsequent years such as A.Y. 2022-23.

, 81 & 244/Ahd/2022 Joshi Technologies International Inc India Projects, A.Y. 2017-18,2019-20 & 2019-20

i) ITAT order dated 17.08.2022 for A.Y. 2006-07 para 11-14.1 post MA order dated 23.03.2022 A.Y. 2006-07 – MA No. 149/2021 in para 8 ii) ITAT order dated 19.05.2023 A.Y. 2007-08 para 10-11.2 iii) ITAT order dated 19.05.2023 A.Y. 2008-09 ITA No. 3195/Ahd/2011 para 42-43 iv) ITAT order dated 27.10.2023 A.Y. 2009-10 ITA No. 767/ahd/2014 para 9-10 MA order dated 24.01.2025 para 11- 12 , 81 & 244/Ahd/2022 Joshi Technologies International Inc India Projects, A.Y. 2017-18,2019-20 & 2019-20 v) ITAT order dated 27.10.2023 A.Y. 2010-11 para 53 vi) ITAT order dated 27.10.2023 A.Y. 2011-12 ITA No. 242/Ahd/2015 para 65

The Ld. AR submitted that there is no evidence that the amount of expenditure incurred was received back by the assessee, unless the same can be proved, the said expenditure cannot be held to be bogus expenditure.

, 81 & 244/Ahd/2022 Joshi Technologies International Inc India Projects, A.Y. 2017-18,2019-20 & 2019-20

The assessee claimed following deductions for the administrative expenses incurred: i) The HO incurred various expenses on behalf of the assessee company, out of which, expenses qualifying within definition of ‘HO expenses’ as per explanation (iv) to Section 44C of the Act were allocated to the assessee (i.e. debited to P&L account as HO expenses) and balance expenses, being notional expenses did not fit within definition of ‘HO expenses’ were not allocated. The nature of these expenses are salaries and wages, health insurance costs for employees, payroll services, rent expense, telephone expenses and , 81 & 244/Ahd/2022 Joshi Technologies International Inc India Projects, A.Y. 2017-18,2019-20 & 2019-20 automotive expenses amounting to Rs. 2,26,13,981/- (i.e. 5% of the adjusted total income as per Section 44C of the Act). ii) As per para 2.6 of Section 2 ‘Classification, Definition and Allocation of costs and Expenditure’ of the Appendix C ‘Accounting Procedure’ in the PSC, overhead charges for services rendered by company inside and outside India in relation to Dholka and Wavel oilfields were debited to Profit & loss account as G&A expenses. These expenses were not allocated to the assessee under ‘HO expenses’. The nature of these expenses are overhead charges as per PSC includes financial, legal, charges for manuals, journals, periodicals, relating to the oil industry and employee relation services. Therefore, these expenses were not covered within the ambit of ‘HO expenses’ under Section 44C of the Act. The said expenses incurred amounting to Rs. 35,19,439/- (i.e. 1% of total contract costs as per para 2.6 of Section 2 of Appendix C to the PSC).

Thus, in light of the above, the Ld. AR submitted that it is clear that even though amount of Rs. 5.55 Crore was reported in the TP Study/Form 3CEB as international transaction, no occasion arises with the TPO to determine ALP on the notional expenses amounting to Rs. 35.19 lakhs claimed as deduction under Section 37 of the Act. Thus, expenditure amounting to Rs. 35.19 lakhs has been incurred by HO being part and parcel of PSC which are not cross charged to the assessee. Therefore, 1% of the contract amount claimed as overhead expenses does not amount to double reimbursement to HO. The Ld. AR relied upon the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of CIT vs. Enron Oil & Gas India Ltd. (2008) 305 ITR 75 (SC) wherein it was held that PSC is a code in itself. Moreover, as per Article 15 read with Appendix D to PSC, the assessee company is subject to all fiscal legislations in India and provisions of the Act shall apply to computation of income of the assessee. Therefore, overhead charges incurred by HO and charged to P&L of the assessee can be said to be expenses incurred for purpose of business of appellant and should be 20 , 81 & 244/Ahd/2022 Joshi Technologies International Inc India Projects, A.Y. 2017-18,2019-20 & 2019-20 allowable as deduction in computation of income under Section 37(1) of the Act. In the present case, the TPO has gone beyond his jurisdiction and erred in treating the ALP of these cost allocation to be Nil without identifying any method for ALP determination and comparable price. In his regard, reliance is placed on CBDT Instruction No. 3/2016 dated March 10, 2016 (F.No. 500/9/2015- APA-II) which clearly states that the role of the TPO is limited to determination of the ALP. The Ld. AR relied upon the following decisions wherein it has been held TPO can’t question the business decision of the assessee as his role is limited to determine the arm’s length price of the transaction: i) CIT vs. A.T. Kearney Ltd. (2024) 165 taxmann.com 494 ii) Avery Dennison (India) Pvt. Ltd. vs. ACIT & 4933/DEL/2014 and & 4934/DEL/2014 (Del. Tri.) upheld by the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in ITA 386/2016 and followed in subsequent AYs iii) PCIT vs. R.A.K. Ceramics India Ltd. (2017) 293 CTR 361 (Andhra Pradesh) iv) CIT vs. Lever India Exports Ltd. (2017) 292 CTR 393 (Bombay) v) CIT vs. EKL Appliances Ltd. (2012) 345 ITR 241 (Delhi) vi) Marathon Electric India (P) Ltd. vs. ACIT (2020) (Mum.Tri.) vii) DCIT vs. Rabo India Finance Ltd. (2021) 189 ITD 420 (Mum. Tri.) viii) Cadila Healthcare Ltd. vs. DCIT (2021) 133 taxmann.com 500 (Ahd. Tri.)

The Ld. AR also relied upon the following cases wherein it was categorically held that the TPO cannot hold the value of a transaction to be ‘Nil’: i) CIT vs. Lever India Exports Ltd. (2017) 292 CTR 393 (Bombay) ii) CIT vs. Johnson & Johnson Limited (2017) 247 Taxman 136 (Bombay)

, 81 & 244/Ahd/2022 Joshi Technologies International Inc India Projects, A.Y. 2017-18,2019-20 & 2019-20 iii) Emerson Climate Technologies (India) Ltd. vs. DCIT (2018) 90 taxmann.com 125 (Pune Tri.)

Thus, the Ld. AR submitted that the approach of re-computing the ALP without identifying price of comparable uncontrolled transactions is unwarranted and ought to be rejected. Thus, the TPO/AO have not proceeded in consonance with the provisions of Section 92C of the Act, thereby making the adjustment on this account is completely devoid of merit. The Ld. AR relied upon the following decisions wherein it has been held that adjustment made against the mandate of Section 92C of the Act cannot be sustained: i) Frigoglass India (P) Ltd. vs. DCIT (2016) 68 taxmann.com 370 (Del. Tri.) upheld by the Hon’ble Delhi High Court vide ITA No. 123/2017. SLP filed by the Revenue authorities has been dismissed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court vide SLP (civil) No. 41702/2017 ii) CIT vs. Lever India Exports Ltd. (2017) 292 CTR 393 (Bombay) iii) CIT vs. Johnson & Johnson Limited (2017) 247 Taxman 136 (Bombay) iv) Emerson Climate Technologies (India) Ltd. vs. DCIT (2018) 90 taxmann.com 125 (Pune Tri.)

Accordingly, the Ld. AR prayed to direct the Assessing Officer to allow expenses claimed as annual overhead charge of Rs. 35,19,439/- as deduction under the Act.

, 81 & 244/Ahd/2022 Joshi Technologies International Inc India Projects, A.Y. 2017-18,2019-20 & 2019-20

, 81 & 244/Ahd/2022 Joshi Technologies International Inc India Projects, A.Y. 2017-18,2019-20 & 2019-20

, 81 & 244/Ahd/2022 Joshi Technologies International Inc India Projects, A.Y. 2017-18,2019-20 & 2019-20

Thus, the Ld. AR submitted that the Assessing Officer has violated the mandatory provisions of Section 144C of the Act and such order in violation of the Act is liable to be quashed.

Order pronounced in the open court on 12-12-2025.