DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S DHARAMPAL SATYAPAL LTD.,, DELHI

Dharampal Satyapal Ltd Vs, DCIT ITA No. 3738, 3739/Del/2016 (A) & ITA No. 3882 & 3883/Del/2016(R) Assessment Year: 2010-11 & 2011-12 INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH ―I-1‖: NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI H. S. SIDHU, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI PRASHANT MAHARISHI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No. 3738, 3739/Del/2016 (Assessment Year: 2010-11, 2011-12) Dharampal Satyapal Ltd, Vs. DCIT, 1711, S. P. Mukherjee Marg, Central Circle-29, Delhi New Delhi PAN: AAACD0132H (Appellant) (Respondent)

ITA No. 3882 & 3883/Del/2016 (Assessment Year: 2010-11 & 2011-12) DCIT, Vs. Dharampal Satyapal Ltd, Central Circle-29, 1711, S. P. Mukherjee Marg, New Delhi Delhi PAN: AAACD0132H (Appellant) (Respondent)

Assessee by : Shri R. S. Singhvi, CA Shri Satyajit Goel, CA Revenue by: Shri Sanjay I Bara, CIT DR Date of Hearing 13/02/2019 Date of pronouncement 18/04/2019

O R D E R PER PRASHANT MAHARISHI, A. M. 1. These are four cross appeals filed by Assessing Officer i.e. Deputy Commissioner of Income tax, Central Circle – 4, New Delhi [ Ld AO] and assessee, M/S Dharampal Styapal Limited for two assessment years i.e. AY 2010-11 and 2011-12, involving similar issues. Therefore, arguing counsels of both sides argued them together and hence, for sake of convenience, all these four appeals are disposed of by this common order.

Dharampal Satyapal Ltd Vs, DCIT ITA No. 3738, 3739/Del/2016 (A) & ITA No. 3882 & 3883/Del/2016(R) Assessment Year: 2010-11 & 2011-12 2. Coming to assessment year 2010 – 11, in ITA number 3738/Del/2016 is preferred by Assessee against consolidated order passed by learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) – 44, New Delhi dated 29/2/2016 for assessment year 2005 – 06 to 2011 – 12 raising following grounds of appeals 1 (i) That on facts and circumstances of case, Ld. CIT(A) has erred in upholding validity of issue of notice u/s 153A of I.T. The Act, 1961 and consequential assessment even though it is not based on any incriminating material seized during course of search. (ii) That on similar facts, reassessment proceedings u/s 147 for AY 2004-05 were quashed by Hon‘ble ITAT vide its order dated 8th January 2016 on ground that there was no tangible/incriminating material and as such on parity of reasoning and principle laid down, there is no legal basis for assuming jurisdiction u/s 153 A of I.T. Act, 1961. (iii) That scope of proceedings u/s 147 being wider than 153A, in absence of any incriminating material, proceedings u/s 153A are illegal and invalid. (iv) That in absence of pending assessment proceedings and existence of tangible material, there is no case of abatement of completed proceedings and assumption of jurisdiction u/s 153 A of I.T. Act, 1961. (v) That reference to special auditor u/s 142(2A) is illegal and uncalled for and report of special auditor cannot be a basis for any addition and disallowance as scope of section 153 A is confined to incriminating material. (vi) That even otherwise, various additions and disallowances in relation to proceedings u/s 153A were merely on basis of change of opinion and reappraisal of facts existed and examined during original assessment proceedings, same are beyond jurisdiction and Page | 2

Dharampal Satyapal Ltd Vs, DCIT ITA No. 3738, 3739/Del/2016 (A) & ITA No. 3882 & 3883/Del/2016(R) Assessment Year: 2010-11 & 2011-12 scope of assessment u/s 153 A of The Act since impugned additions and disallowances are not based on any incriminating material. (vii) That in absence of any incriminating material, it is not open to disregard settled issues as per original assessment and appellate proceedings in context of scope and scheme of section 153A of The Act. 2(i). That on facts and circumstances of case, Ld. CIT(A) was not justified in confirming disallowance of Rs. 33,90,712/- u/s 40A(3) of I.T. The Act, 1961. (ii). That even otherwise, payment is covered under exception in clause (k) of Rule 6DD and as such there is no case of any default of u/s 40A(3) of I.T. Act, 1961. 3(i). That on facts and circumstances of case, Ld. CIT(A) was not justified in confirming disallowance of Rs. 25,000/- on ground of non-deduction of TDS u/s 40(a)(ia) of I.T. Act, 1961. (ii) That there is no case of applicability of TDS provisions on nature of payments and as such disallowances u/s 40(a)(ia) is illegal, arbitrary and without any ground or basis. (iii) That in any case, impugned disallowance is without appreciating proviso to section 201(1) of I.T. Act, 1961. 4. That finding of conclusion of CIT(A) in respect of value of work in progress is illegal and arbitrary as valuation of work in progress is based on regular system of accounting and based on legal and accounting principles. 5(i) That CIT(A) having accepted claim of assessee that there is no case of any disallowance of interest paid on borrowed funds to extent of Rs. 2,02,14,239/- u/s 36(l)(iii), it is not open to issue direction for charge of interest on notional basis in respect of advances to sister concerns for purpose of business. Page | 3

Dharampal Satyapal Ltd Vs, DCIT ITA No. 3738, 3739/Del/2016 (A) & ITA No. 3882 & 3883/Del/2016(R) Assessment Year: 2010-11 & 2011-12 (ii) That these directions are illegal, arbitrary and beyond jurisdiction. 6(i). That on facts and circumstances of case, Ld. CIT(A) was not justified in restricting disallowance to Rs. 4,37,504/- u/s 14A without appreciating that impugned disallowance is without recording satisfaction in terms of provisions of section 14A(2) of The Act. (ii) That appellant has not incurred any expenditure for earning of exempt income and as such provisions of section 14A are not applicable to facts of case. 7(i). That on facts and circumstances of case, Ld. CIT(A) was not justified in confirming disallowance of Rs. 17,58,546/- on account of excess claim of deduction u/s 80IB/IC on alleged ground that appellant had violated provisions of section 80IA(5) in as much as business losses pertaining to financial year 2001-02 and 2002-03 had not been taken into account while computing deduction under section 80IB/IC of The Act. (ii) That action of lower authorities is illegal, arbitrary and without jurisdiction as same is not in conformity with provisions of section 153 A of The Act. 8(i). That on facts and circumstances of case, Ld. CIT(A) was not justified in upholding disallowance of deduction u/s 80IB/80IC on ground that fair market value of goods transferred from Noida division to eligible units is higher in terms provisions of section 80IA(8) read with 80IB( 13) and 80IC(7) of The Act as follows : a. In respect of unprocessed goods, by restricting profit markup to extent of 2% instead of 10% as computed by assessing officer. b. In respect of processed Kathha (Catechu), by confirming valuation done by assessing officer and upholding mark up of

Dharampal Satyapal Ltd Vs, DCIT ITA No. 3738, 3739/Del/2016 (A) & ITA No. 3882 & 3883/Del/2016(R) Assessment Year: 2010-11 & 2011-12 manufacturing expenses and profit rate @ 37.85% and 10% respectively. c. In respect of processed Cardamom (Elaichi), by confirming valuation done by assessing officer and upholding mark up of manufacturing expenses and profit rate @ 37.85% and 10% respectively. (ii) That AO and CIT(A) have erred in attributing direct and indirect manufacturing costs to cost of goods procured and transferred to eligible units. (iii) That AO and CIT(A) were not justified in applying mark up rate of profit @10% on value of goods so transferred and same is highly arbitrary and without any basis. (iv) That adjustment of cost and consequential claim of deduction u/s 80IB/80IC is illegal, arbitrary and based on conjectures and surmises. (v) That action of lower authorities is illegal, arbitrary and without jurisdiction as same is not in conformity with provisions of section 153 A of The Act. 9(i). That on facts and circumstances of case, Ld. CIT(A) was not justified in confirming disallowance of deduction under section 80IB/IC by applying provisions of section 80IA(8) read with 80IB(13) and 80IC(7) of The Act, on ground that rate of technical know- how fee on value of goods transferred from perfumery division to eligible unit should be @2.75% as against 2.5% declared by appellant. (ii) That adjustment of cost and consequential claim of deduction u/s 80IB/80IC is illegal, arbitrary and based on conjectures and surmises.

Dharampal Satyapal Ltd Vs, DCIT ITA No. 3738, 3739/Del/2016 (A) & ITA No. 3882 & 3883/Del/2016(R) Assessment Year: 2010-11 & 2011-12 (iii) That action of lower authorities is illegal, arbitrary and without jurisdiction as same is not in conformity with provisions of section 153 A of The Act. 10(i). That on facts and circumstances of case, Ld. CIT(A) was not justified in upholding disallowance of deduction u/s 80IB/80IC to extent of Rs 3,50,357/- by increasing value of goods transferred from Canpack division to eligible units on ground that fair market value of goods transferred is higher in terms provisions of section 80IA(8) read with 80IB(13) and 80IC(7) of The Act. (ii) That profit mark up rate of 10% is highly arbitrary and without any valid basis or justification. (iii) That adjustment of cost and consequential claim of deduction u/s 80IB/80IC is illegal, arbitrary and based on conjectures and surmises. (iv) That action of lower authorities is illegal, arbitrary and without jurisdiction as same is not in conformity with provisions of section 153 A of The Act. 11(i). That on facts and circumstances of case, Ld. CIT(A) was not justified in restricting disallowance of deduction under section 80IB/IC by applying provisions of section 80IA(8) read with 80IB(13) and 80IC(7) of The Act, on account of re-computation of profits of eligible undertaking, by increasing value of common costs incurred at corporate office, depots, branches, etc. and allocated to such units in an appropriate ratio, with profit margin of 10% as against 26.14% applied by AO. (ii) That Ld. CIT(A) was not justified in holding that various corporate services rendered by corporate office, depots, branches, etc. to eligible undertakings, should have been allocated to eligible units at fair market price/cost plus appropriate mark-up for

Dharampal Satyapal Ltd Vs, DCIT ITA No. 3738, 3739/Del/2016 (A) & ITA No. 3882 & 3883/Del/2016(R) Assessment Year: 2010-11 & 2011-12 purposes of computing deduction under section 80IB/IC read with section 80IA(8) of The Act. (iii) That Ld. CIT(A) has failed to appreciate that no services were rendered by other divisions, viz., corporate office, depots, branches, etc., to eligible undertakings, but expenses were incurred by such divisions on behalf of eligible undertakings, which was subsequently allocated to such eligible units. (iv) That adjustment of cost and consequential claim of deduction u/s 80IB/80IC is illegal, arbitrary and based on conjectures and surmises. (v) That action of lower authorities is illegal, arbitrary and without jurisdiction as same is not in conformity with provisions of section 153 A of The Act. 12(i). That on facts and circumstances of case, Ld. CIT(A) was not justified in confirming disallowance of deduction u/s 80IB/80IC to extent of RS.3,95,71,939/- by applying provisions of section 80IA(8) read with 80IB(13) and 80IC(7) of The Act on ground that eligible undertakings should have paid royalty to Head Office for using brand ‗Rajnigandha‘, allegedly owned by Head Office. (ii) That Ld. CIT(A) was not justified in holding that brand ‗Rajnigandha‘ was owned by head-office and not by eligible undertakings and as such eligible units should pay royalty for usage of same. (iii) That adjustment of royalty and consequential claim of deduction u/s 80IB/80IC is illegal, arbitrary and based on conjectures and surmises. (iv) That action of lower authorities is illegal, arbitrary and without jurisdiction as same is not in conformity with provisions of section 153 A of The Act. Page | 7

Dharampal Satyapal Ltd Vs, DCIT ITA No. 3738, 3739/Del/2016 (A) & ITA No. 3882 & 3883/Del/2016(R) Assessment Year: 2010-11 & 2011-12 13(i). That Ld. CIT(A) erred on facts and in law in sustaining disallowance of purchase of sandalwood oil to extent of Rs 54,94,24,290/- holding same to be bogus. (ii) That Ld. CIT(A) erred on facts and in law in endorsing allegation of assessing officer that bogus bills were obtained by appellant from two companies, viz., M/s. SurvaVinayak Industries Limited (in short ‗SVIL‘) and M/s. Allied Perfumery Private Limited (in short ‗APL‘) , in order to inflate purchase of sandalwood oil. (iii) That Ld. CIT(A) erred on facts and in law in endorsing allegation of assessing officer that cash was received by appellant from above two concerns, that too, on basis of erroneous inferences/ assumptions on basis of certain seized documents. (iv) That Ld. CIT(A) erred on facts and in law in relying upon ex- parte statements/ materials collected behind back of appellant, without allowing cross-examination and/ or confronting same to appellant, in gross violation of principles of natural justice. (v) That Ld. CIT(A) erred on facts and in law in endorsing allegation of assessing officer that appellant obtained bogus bills towards purchase of sandalwood oil in order to reduce taxable income. 14(i). That on facts and circumstances of case, LD. CIT(A) was not justified in confirming transfer pricing adjustment of Rs. 5,95,51,686/- to arm‘s length price of interest received from loan advanced to associated enterprise by relying on TPO‘s order. (ii) That CIT(A), assessing officer and TPO has erred on facts and in law in applying interest rate of 16.31% p.a. on basis of SBI prime lending rate + 400bps on loan advanced by appellant to its wholly owned subsidiary, namely, DS Business AG as against interest at rate of 3% p.a. charged by appellant.

Dharampal Satyapal Ltd Vs, DCIT ITA No. 3738, 3739/Del/2016 (A) & ITA No. 3882 & 3883/Del/2016(R) Assessment Year: 2010-11 & 2011-12 (iii) That CIT(A), assessing officer and TPO has erred on facts and in law in considering average Prime Lending Rate of SBI as arms length rate of interest without appreciating that such rate is applicable on loans availed in India in domestic currency. (iv) That loan was advanced by appellant to its associated enterprise in foreign denominated currency and accordingly LIBOR rates prevailing in international market should be considered for benchmarking and not SBI prime lending rate. 15(i) That lower authorities have erred in charging interest u/s. 234A, 234B & 234C of The Act without application of mind. (ii) That charge of interest is not justified on facts and under law.‖

Dharampal Satyapal Ltd Vs, DCIT ITA No. 3738, 3739/Del/2016 (A) & ITA No. 3882 & 3883/Del/2016(R) Assessment Year: 2010-11 & 2011-12 and expenses of depots) of Rs. 3,27,04,671/- incurred by businesses of assessee for providing services to eligible undertakings which has not been allocated to eligible undertakings and by reducing deduction u/s 80IB/80IC of The Act, to that extent. 4. Whether on facts & in circumstances of case, Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law & on facts in deleting reduction of claim u/s 80IB/80IC of Rs. 15,08,36,977/- made by AO by taking into consideration fair market value of services obtained by eligible undertakings from corporate offices, depot, and branches etc. thereby re-computing profits of eligible undertakings resulting in reducing of deduction 80IB/80IC to that extent. 5. Whether on facts & in circumstances of case, Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law & on facts in deleting reduction of claim u/s 801B/801C of Rs. 6,90,85,390/- thus ignoring fact that royalty payment @3% which was made to sister concern taken by AO was rate approved by Regional Director. 6. Whether on facts & in circumstances of case, Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law & on facts in deleting reduction of claim u/s 80IB/80IC of Rs. 22,95,045/- made by AO on account of processing charges of betel nut @3% in place of 2.5% taken by assessee, thus ignoring fact that processing-charges (2)3% which was made to sister concern taken by AO was rate approved by Regional Director. 7. Whether on facts & in circumstances of case, Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law & on facts in allowing amount of Rs.il,46,248/- on account of excise duty refund for computation of deduction u/s 801C. 8. Whether on facts & in circumstances of case, Ld. CIT(A) has erred in ^ law & on facts in deleting addition of Rs. 19,34,839/- made by AO on account of prior period expenses. Page | 10

Dharampal Satyapal Ltd Vs, DCIT ITA No. 3738, 3739/Del/2016 (A) & ITA No. 3882 & 3883/Del/2016(R) Assessment Year: 2010-11 & 2011-12 9. Whether on facts & in circumstances of case, Ld. CIT(A) has erreu in law & on facts in deleting addition of Rs. 2,63,45,007/- made on account of foreign exchange fluctuation, thus ignoring provision of AS-11. 10. Whether on facts & in circumstances of ease, Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law & on facts in deleting disallowance of Rs.4,98,31,329/- made by AO on account section 14A of Income Tax The Act, 1961 and thus restricting disallowance to extent of exempt income. 11. Whether on facts & in circumstances of case, Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law & on facts in directing to take basis of calculation from lowest purchases from third party, thus ignoring facts and evidences of bogus purchases unearthed during course of search and post search proceedings. 12. Whether on facts & in circumstances of case, Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law & on facts in deleting addition of Rs. 3,87,876/- made on account of lesser rate of job work charged from sister concerns in comparison to other related parties. 13. Whether on facts & in circumstances of case, Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law & on facts in holding that profit arising out of sale of shares of M/s Coastal Project (P) Ltd. pertains to M/s S.R. Credits (P) Ltd. and not to assessee company, thus, ignored colourable device adopted by assessee to avoid taxes. 14. That order of CIT(A) is perverse, erroneous and is not tenable on facts and in law. 15. That grounds of appeal are without prejudice to each other.” 4. Narrating facts, assessee appellant is a company engaged in business of manufacturing and trading in pan masala, Guthkha, zarda , perfumery compounds and herbs, mouth freshener, salt, spices, snack food, natural spring water and processing of silver etc. assessee filed Page | 11

Dharampal Satyapal Ltd Vs, DCIT ITA No. 3738, 3739/Del/2016 (A) & ITA No. 3882 & 3883/Del/2016(R) Assessment Year: 2010-11 & 2011-12 its return of income on 31/9/2010 declaring total income of INR 34,12,08,416/– however since minimum alternate tax liability u/s 115JB of The Act was higher, assessee paid tax on book profit of INR 1,37,77,57,881/–. Meanwhile search and seizure operations in terms of provisions of section 132 of The Act were carried out at premises of appellant company and other group concerns on 21/1/2011. Therefore, consequent to search, AO issued notice under section 153A of The Act on 9/1/2012. On 22/2/2012, assessee offered original return filed under section 139 (1) of The Act as return of income under section 153A of The Act. learned AO noted that there is a complexity in books of accounts of appellant and therefore he passed an order u/s 142 (2A) of The Act pointing a special auditor to conduct audit of books of accounts of assessee. Such special audit was conducted an audit report was filed with AO on 15/1/2013. Consequently, AO issued questionnaire based on audit report on 10/12/2013, which was replied by assessee. Hence after considering replies of assessee learned AO passed an order u/s 153A of The Act on 26/5/2014 determining total income of appellant at INR 1, 89, 55, 39, 637/– under normal computation provisions and determined book profit u/s 115JB of The Act at INR 1, 37, 77, 57, 881/– making various disallowances and additions. assessee aggrieved with order of learned AO preferred an appeal before learned CIT – A, who passed an order on 29/2/2016 for assessment year 2005 – 06 to 2011 – 12 by way of a consolidated order partly allowing appeal of assessee and partly confirming certain additions/disallowances. Therefore, AO as well as assessee aggrieved with his order, have filed these appeals before coordinate bench. 5. We come to appeal of assessee where ground number 1 of appeal challenges validity of issuance of notice u/s 153A of The Act and consequential assessments made by learned assessing officer. As per this ground, assessee says that when 147 for assessment year 2004 – 05 were quashed by coordinate benches jurisdiction u/s 153A of Page | 12

Dharampal Satyapal Ltd Vs, DCIT ITA No. 3738, 3739/Del/2016 (A) & ITA No. 3882 & 3883/Del/2016(R) Assessment Year: 2010-11 & 2011-12 The Act also does not survive. It was further mentioned that in absence of any incriminating material, proceedings under section 153A are illegal and invalid , assessee also challenged audit under section 142 (2A) of The Act and further stated that even otherwise various additions and disallowances in relation to proceedings under section 153A were merely made on basis of change of opinion and reappraisal of same facts which existed and examined during original assessment proceedings. 6. At time of hearing learned authorised representative did not press ground number 1 of appeal. Hence, it is dismissed. 7. Second ground of appeal is with respect to disallowance u/s 40A (3) of The Act amounting to Rs 33,90,712/–. learned assessing officer noted that special auditor has reported that expenses aggregating to INR 33,90,712/– have been made in violation of provisions of section 40A (3) of The Act. In submission of assessee, there was no denial of fact that cash expenditure in excess of INR 20,000/- has been made. However assessee submitted that said payment have been made which are covered under rule 6DD of income tax rules as expenditure was incurred by staff and later on adjusted reimbursed to payee. As per detailed produced by assessee, said expenditure has been incurred which does not fall in any of exceptions provided under rule 6DD of IT rules and therefore learned assessing officer disallowed same applying provisions of section 40A (3) of The Act holding that there is a contravention of above provision. 8. Learned CIT – A dealt with above disallowance as per para number 6.3 of his order. He confirmed disallowance holding that employees are not agent of assessee company therefore; reimbursement of such expenses to employee of travelling etc. cannot be said that payment is made through an agent. 9. Learned Authorised representative vehemently stated before us that cash payments have been made for purpose of purchase of Silver from MMTC to extent of Rs. 24,24,212/- and balance payment of Rs. Page | 13

Dharampal Satyapal Ltd Vs, DCIT ITA No. 3738, 3739/Del/2016 (A) & ITA No. 3882 & 3883/Del/2016(R) Assessment Year: 2010-11 & 2011-12 9,66,500/- is towards reimbursement of travel expenses to employees of company. Details of cash payment are placed at Page 1 of Supplementary paper book 2. Disallowance is merely on ground that payments have been made in contravention of section 40A(3) of The Act. It is relevant to submit that aggregate cash payment of Rs. 24,24,212/- has been made to MMTC which is Government of India undertaking for purchase of silver and as such provisions of section 40A(3) read with Rule 6DD are not applicable. It may be appreciated that since payment is directly made to Central government undertaking, same is to be considered as legal tender. He further relied up on judicial precedents of M.R. Soap (P.) Ltd. v. IAC [1988] 32 TTJ (Delhi) 505, Kamta Prasad Mittal v. DCIT (ITAT Lucknow) (ITA No.1 45/LKW/15)(dated 21/02/18) where cash Payment made to BSNL cannot be disallowed u/s 40A(3). CIT v. Devendrappa M. Kalal [2013] 219 Taxman 122 (Kar) . Hence he submitted that this being well established principle, there is no case of any disallowance u/s 40A(3) read with rule 6DD(b) of The Act. 10. With regards to reimbursement of expenses to extent of Rs. 9,66,500/- to employees, it is submitted that such reimbursement was towards accumulated bills of tour and travels and individual bills being less than Rs. 20,000/-, there is no case of breach of provisions of section 40A(3) of The Act. In this connection, reference may be made to decision of Delhi tribunal in case of ACIT v. Nirman Associates (Del ITAT) (ITA No. 4272/D/11). In light of facts and legal position clarified above, disallowance u/s 40A(3) is not sustainable and may kindly be deleted.

Dharampal Satyapal Ltd Vs, DCIT ITA No. 3738, 3739/Del/2016 (A) & ITA No. 3882 & 3883/Del/2016(R) Assessment Year: 2010-11 & 2011-12 The Act and therefore lower authorities has correctly applied provision of law in considering disallowance. 12. We have carefully considered rival contention and perused orders of lower authorities. We have also perused audit report u/s 142 (2A) of The Act. Assessee has made cash payment in excess of INR 20,000/- on 11 occasions for purchase of silver from Mineral And Metal Trading Corp (MMTC) amounting to INR 2424212/– and also made reimbursement to various employees of INR 9 66500/–. Therefore assessee has made a total payment of Rs 3390712/- in excess of INR 20,000 each and therefore auditor reported same as disallowable u/s 40 A (3) of The Act. claim of assessee is that payment of INR 2424212/– has been made to a government agency and therefore it cannot be disallowed, as there is no doubt about genuineness of payment. payment is supported by receipt from mineral and metal trading Corp for purchase of silver to be used in business of assessee. However, on careful consideration of details of payment made we find that mineral and metal trading Corp is though a government undertaking but a public listed company, therefore it cannot be said that payment is made to government. Further, no business exigency or any other situation falling in to exception of rule 6DD was shown. Further the question of genuineness does not determine the disallowance u/s 40A (3) of the Act. Non genuine expenses as such are not allowable u/s 28 of the Act and therefore same cannot be question u/s 40A (3) of the Act. In view of this we do not find any infirmity in confirming disallowance of INR 2424212/– u/s 40A (3) of The Act. 13. With respect to amount reimbursed to various employees, it was stated that this is reimbursement of tour bill of employees however, none of amount of bill is in excess of INR 20,000. It was stated that payment is made to various employees on that particular date which is in excess of INR 20,000/- , however, none of bills which has been supported for expenditure exceeds INR 20,000. For purpose of disallowance u/s 40 A (3) of The Act both expenditure and payment Page | 15

Dharampal Satyapal Ltd Vs, DCIT ITA No. 3738, 3739/Del/2016 (A) & ITA No. 3882 & 3883/Del/2016(R) Assessment Year: 2010-11 & 2011-12 should exceed INR 20,000/-. As in case of reimbursement of tour bills to various staff each expenditure does not exceed INR 20,000/- , disallowance of INR 966500/– under section 40A (3) is unwarranted. Revenue has not pointed out that any of such expenditure and payment both exceeds specified limit. In view of this, ground number 2 of appeal of assessee is partly allowed. 14. Assessee did not press ground number 3 of appeal being disallowance of INR 25,000 on ground of non-deduction of tax at source. Accordingly, it is dismissed. 15. Ground number 4 of appeal is with respect to valuation of work in progress. learned assessing officer in para number 23 – 25 of assessment order noted that special auditor reported that assessee company has not classified its inventory as per requirement of schedule VI of Companies The Act, 1956. He observed that assessee company has not included in valuation of work in progress, indirect cost like manufacturing expenses, power and fuel, direct labor etc. and fixed and variable overheads like depreciation in plant and machinery, factory building, factory management, administration costs and other indirect costs incurred for conversion of stock in trade. Therefore, learned assessing officer noted that valuation of work in progress in form of semi finished goods and unpacked finished goods resulting in under valuation of inventory is of INR 31639765/- resulting in understatement of income to that extent. Unit wise details of valuation of working progress in form of semi finished goods and for unpacked goods was given as per para number 10 of audit report. Learned AO noted that difference in valuation of opening inventory of work in progress after loading of indirect cost as per accounting standard 2 was Rs. 28766959/-, hence, it resulted into net understatement of profit of Rs. 2872806/–. Assessee explained before assessing officer that company has valued its inventory as per accounting policy adopted as per accounting standard two issued by ICAI. It was further stated that assessee has already included cost of Page | 16

Dharampal Satyapal Ltd Vs, DCIT ITA No. 3738, 3739/Del/2016 (A) & ITA No. 3882 & 3883/Del/2016(R) Assessment Year: 2010-11 & 2011-12 conversion and cost related to freight, insurance, and job work charges in valuation of raw materials and further sample copy of valuation sheet was provided. It was further shown that certain indirect expenditure is also considered by special auditor cannot form part of valuation of inventory as per accounting standard two of ICAI. Therefore, it was stated that no adjustment because of valuation of closing stock should be made. Assessee further stated that issue is decided in favour of assessee on this aspect for assessment year 2004 – 05. Learned AO rejected explanation of assessee and relied upon audit report of special auditor. He therefore made addition of Rs 2872806/–. It was confirmed by learned CIT – A. 16. Learned authorised representative submitted that it is relevant to mention that appellant assessee has valued closing stock in accordance with guidelines laid down by AS-2 and it has been consistently followed in all years. Same system has been followed for valuation of opening stock and fact that closing stock of year under reference has been carried forward as opening stock of next year; there is even otherwise no adverse revenue implication. Further, observations of Special auditor are arbitrary and seek to include other indirect costs in valuation of closing stock, which is illogical and contrary to accounting standard. He further submitted that in any case, assessing officer himself has accepted valuation of closing stock in AY 2013-14 onwards and no addition has been made in this regard. In these circumstances, addition in present year is inconsistent and not based on correct appreciation of facts of case and valuation of stock done by assessee, which is as per AS-2. Factual position to this effect is supported from assessment order for AY 2013-14 wherein no addition on this issue has been made. He submitted that even otherwise, in case any change is made to method of valuation of closing stock, corresponding effect has to be given to value of opening stock as well and as such action of assessing officer is only enhancing value of closing stock is mechanical and against principle laid down by Hon‘ble Page | 17

Dharampal Satyapal Ltd Vs, DCIT ITA No. 3738, 3739/Del/2016 (A) & ITA No. 3882 & 3883/Del/2016(R) Assessment Year: 2010-11 & 2011-12 Delhi High Court in case of CIT v. Mahavir Alluminium Ltd. (2008)297 ITR 77 (Del) in which it was held as under: “We are of opinion that in present case, there is no question of any double benefit being given to assessee. Paragraph 23.13 of guidance note itself makes it clear that whenever any adjustment is made in valuation of inventory, this will affect both opening as well as closing stock. It is also to be noted that if any adjustment is required to be made by a statute, (as for example Section 145A of The Act), effect to same should be given irrespective of any consequences on computation of income for tax purposes. Section 145A of The Act begins with as non-obstante clause, and therefore, to give effect to Section 145A of The Act, if there is a change in closing stock as on 31st March, 1999, there must necessarily be a corresponding adjustment made in opening stock as on 1st April, 1998. 17. He further submitted that Further, considering entirety of facts, adjustment in value of opening and closing stock would be a revenue neutral exercise and no fruitful purpose would be served in undertaking such exercise. In this connection, reference may be made to decision of Supreme Court in case of CIT v. Excel Industries Ltd. [2013] 358 ITR 295 where in it is held that Income-Tax department to not to indulge in fruitless litigation where no loss of revenue is involved. In view of factual and legal position clarified above, impugned addition is not sustainable on facts and under law particularly when assessing officer himself has accepted valuation of closing stock AY 2013-14. 18. Learned departmental representative relied upon orders of lower authorities. However, he did not controvert that there is no change in method of valuation of closing stock employed by assessee in impugned assessment year as compared to assessment year 2013 – 14 and subsequently assessing officer has accepted method of valuation adopted by assessee in subsequent years. 19. We have carefully considered rival contentions and perused orders of lower authorities. It is apparent that method of valuation and its cost components have been disputed by revenue in present year. However subsequently from assessment year 2013 – 14 onwards method of Page | 18

Dharampal Satyapal Ltd Vs, DCIT ITA No. 3738, 3739/Del/2016 (A) & ITA No. 3882 & 3883/Del/2016(R) Assessment Year: 2010-11 & 2011-12 valuation and cost included in cost of inventory has not been disputed by revenue and is accepted as correct. That be fact that in subsequent year has cost component of valuation of closing stock has been accepted, which is on identical basis as in impugned AY, it shows that revenue has accepted same as correct in that year but has disputed it for this year. Only basis is he audit report u/s 142 (2A) of the Act. Learned departmental representative could not show us any reason to show that how method of valuation of closing stock as well as cost component included therein by assessee are different from those were adopted for assessment year 2013 – 14. In view of above, undisputed position that in subsequent years learned assessing officer has accepted method of valuation as well as cost component included for inventory valuation of inventory, addition made by learned assessing officer in current year cannot be sustained. In view of this, ground number 4 of appeal is allowed. 20. Ground number 5 of appeal of assessee is with respect to disallowance of interest paid on borrowed funds to extent of INR 2 0214239/– u/s 36 (1) (iii) of The Act. Special auditor has pointed out that though Assessee Company has claimed interest paid on borrowed funds at higher rate of interest as business expenditure. Assessee Company has given loans and advances to its group companies out of borrowed funds without charging adequate interest in some cases. Therefore, as interest charged from group companies are lower than rate of interest paid by it on funds borrowed. Therefore, special auditor noted that business expediency to borrow funds at higher rate of interest paid to its other group concerns on funds borrowed from them is not demonstrated. Hence it was reported that total interest claimed by assessee company as business expenditure of INR 20214239/– is not allowable. Reason being difference between higher interest rate borrowing of funds by applying rate of interest paid on funds borrowed and interest charged from group concerns at a lower rate, which is not allowable as an expenditure to assessee under Page | 19

Dharampal Satyapal Ltd Vs, DCIT ITA No. 3738, 3739/Del/2016 (A) & ITA No. 3882 & 3883/Del/2016(R) Assessment Year: 2010-11 & 2011-12 provisions of section 36 (1) (iii) of The Act. On questioned by ld AO, assessee explained that assessee has given above funds to group companies out of retained earnings of assessee company and borrowed funds have not been utilized. It was further stated that borrowed funds have been utilized only for expansion of business. It was further stated that rate of interest specified by special auditor is also not correct. However, learned assessing officer rejected contention of assessee and disallowed interest expenditure of INR 2 0214239/– holding that it has not been incurred wholly, necessarily and exclusively for purpose of business of assessee company. When this issue was agitated before learned CIT – A, he upheld disallowance. He held that he has perused bank statement contained in paper book filed by assessee where loan were advanced to sister concerns from cash credit account having negative balances. Therefore, he held that immediate source for advancing loan to sister concern and associated concerns are cash credit account borrowings from bank. He further stated that as in assessment year 2004 – 05 amount is required to be disallowed as per interest paid to cash credit account of bank of assessee. Accordingly, he upheld disallowance partly. 21. Learned authorised representative vehemently contested disallowance confirmed by learned CIT – A and submitted that observation of ld AO and CIT(A) are factually and legally incorrect and impugned disallowance is on arbitrary and mechanical basis. It is submitted that funds have been advanced to sister concerns on account of business and commercial expediency, there is no case of any disallowance of interest u/s 36(1)(iii) of The Act. It is relevant to note that appellant assessee is engaged in variety of business segments and loans so made to sister concerns are for purpose of advancing business interest of assessee. There is no finding recorded by ld AO or CIT (A) that funds have not been advanced for business purposes and disallowance is merely on conjectures and surmises. He relied up on decision of Hon‘ble Page | 20

Dharampal Satyapal Ltd Vs, DCIT ITA No. 3738, 3739/Del/2016 (A) & ITA No. 3882 & 3883/Del/2016(R) Assessment Year: 2010-11 & 2011-12 Delhi High Court in case of Pr. CIT v. Reebok India Company[2018] 259 Taxman 100 (Delhi) & Honorable supreme court in Hero Cycles (P) Ltd vs. CIT[2015] 379 ITR 347 (SC) , CIT Vs. S.A. Builders Ltd. 288 ITR 1 (SC). He further submitted that in any case, assessee has substantial amount of own funds in form of share capital and reserves out of which these advances were paid. This is corroborated from balance sheet as well as statement of cash credit account. It may be submitted that even CIT (A) has accepted fact that funds have been given out of cash credit account after receiving sale proceeds from customers and as such, there is no nexus between borrowed funds and advances made to sister concerns. As per comparative chart and bank statement placed at Page 2-21 of Supplementary Paper book - 2, he submitted that it is self evident that appellant has substantial non- interest bearing funds and it has to be presumed that business advances to sister concerns amounting to Rs. 43 Cr was out of own funds. Details of non-interest bearing funds submitted were as under :

Share Capital Rs. 21,51,43,090/-

Reserves and Surplus Rs. 571,60,32,751/-

Total Rs. 593,11,75,841/-

Dharampal Satyapal Ltd Vs, DCIT ITA No. 3738, 3739/Del/2016 (A) & ITA No. 3882 & 3883/Del/2016(R) Assessment Year: 2010-11 & 2011-12 iv. CIT v. Reliance Utilities & Power Ltd. [2009] 313 ITR 340 (Bom) 23. He submitted that in light of factual and legal position clarified above, there is no case of any disallowance of interest u/s 36(1)(iii) of Income Tax The Act, 1961.

Dharampal Satyapal Ltd Vs, DCIT ITA No. 3738, 3739/Del/2016 (A) & ITA No. 3882 & 3883/Del/2016(R) Assessment Year: 2010-11 & 2011-12 and not negative as held by CIT (A) , therefore, it cannot be said that nexus been proved that amount is advanced out of borrowed funds. Therefore, claim of assessee was that though cheques have been issued from cash credit account, but whenever advances have been given to sister concerns, there were positive balances available with assessee and not negative cash credit loan account. Therefore, it is apparent that assessee has not given advances out of borrowed funds, which is cash credit limit available to assessee. Bank accounts statements filed in paper book were not controverted by learned departmental representative. Further fact remains that on date of giving loan to sister concern, cash credit account did have balance due to assessee from banks. It shows that borrowed funds have not been used by assessee for giving advances to sister concern. Therefore merely giving cheques from cash credit account does not show that assessee has utilized borrowed funds. Even otherwise assessee has huge excess funds available which are non-interest- bearing in form of share capital and reserves and surplus compared to advances given to sister concern at lower rate of interest or without charging interest, honourable Supreme Court in 410 ITR 466 in para number 33 has held as under:- ―33. We do not see how when Assessing Officer's views are that in cases of interest-free loans and interest given by assessee to its subsidiary companies are in above sums, still, principle laid down by this court that if there are funds available to them interest- free and overdraft or loans taken, would not apply. This view of Assessing Officer is ex facie contrary to settled principle that a presumption would arise that investment would be out of interest-free funds generated or available with company. Then, borrowed capital in hand in that case and interest expenditure was deductible under section 36(1) (iii) of Page | 23

Dharampal Satyapal Ltd Vs, DCIT ITA No. 3738, 3739/Del/2016 (A) & ITA No. 3882 & 3883/Del/2016(R) Assessment Year: 2010-11 & 2011-12 Income tax The Act, 1961. Tribunal held that interest-free fund available to assessee is sufficient to meet its investment. It can be presumed that investments were made from interest-free funds available with assessee. This position clearly emerges from record and for current assessment year as well. We do not see how a different view in facts and circumstances can be taken. If Tribunal had followed earlier view and on facts, then, there is no perversity when nothing contrary to factual material was brought on record by Revenue. In such circumstances, concurrent view on disallowance of interest was reversed and appeal of assessee to that extent was partly allowed. We do not see any substantial question of law arising from such a view of Tribunal.‖ [underline supplied by us] 26. In view of above undisputed fact that non-or lower interest-bearing advances given to subsidiary or sister concern are less than interest free funds in form of share capital and reserves and surplus available with assessee, interest disallowance u/s 36 (1) (iii) of The Act cannot be made. Hence, in view of above facts, we reverse finding of lower authorities in disallowing interest expenditure. Accordingly, ground number 5 of appeal of assessee is allowed.

Dharampal Satyapal Ltd Vs, DCIT ITA No. 3738, 3739/Del/2016 (A) & ITA No. 3882 & 3883/Del/2016(R) Assessment Year: 2010-11 & 2011-12 amounting to INR 2458403027/–. Learned AO further noted that Assessee Company has borrowed funds during year, which have also been used for making investment. He further noted that Assessee Company has not apportioned any interest, which has been incurred to earning exempt income. Therefore auditor has worked out disallowance applying rule 8D of income tax rules 1962 amounting to INR 5 0268833/–. So, learned AO asked assessee to explain why disallowance of INR 5 0268833/– should not be made. Assessee stated that assessee has offered disallowance of INR 437504/– u/s 14 A of The Act at time of filing of return of income as per tax audit report. It was further stated that Assessee Company has earned only INR 1596000/– as dividend income and borrowed funds were not at all utilized for investment in shares hence disallowance cannot be made. Learned AO rejected explanation of assessee and stated that substantial expenditure has been incurred by assessee for earning exempt income and therefore provisions of section 14 A are clearly attracted, hence, disallowance of INR 50268833/– was made applying provisions of section 14 A read with rule 8D of The Income Tax Rules. Ld CIT(A) has allowed substantial relief to assessee and has directed assessing officer to exclude growth oriented investments while applying Rule 8D(2)(iii). Also, regarding application of Rule 8D(2)(ii), ld CIT(A) held that investments which have been made through cash credit account, rate of interest in cash credit account should be adopted. However, assessee aggrieved with order of lower authorities has preferred this ground before us. 28. Learned authorised representative submitted that assessee has only earned exempt income to extent of Rs. 15,96,000/- which is corroborated from Schedule 16 of P&L a/c placed at Page 165 of PB Vol.1 and also taken note by Special Auditor. Further, assessee has made suo motu disallowance of Rs. 4,37,504/- in return of income which is also acknowledged by assessing officer. It is pertinent to mention that all investments are out of own funds of assessee and as Page | 25

Dharampal Satyapal Ltd Vs, DCIT ITA No. 3738, 3739/Del/2016 (A) & ITA No. 3882 & 3883/Del/2016(R) Assessment Year: 2010-11 & 2011-12 such there is no nexus between interest bearing funds and investment yielding tax free income. Ld AO and CIT (A) have failed to appreciate that Rule 8D is not automatic in nature and it is incumbent upon AO to record requisite satisfaction with regards to incurring of expenses in connection with earning of exempt income. However, no such satisfaction has been recorded and lower authorities particularly when assessee has suo motu made disallowance in return of income, ld AO has not shown as to how disallowance offered in return is incorrect. In this connection, reference may be made to decision of Apex Court in case of Maxopp Investment Ltd. v. CIT [2018] 402 ITR 640 (SC) in which it was held as under : ―Having regard to language of section 14A(2), read with rule 8D of Rules, it is also made clear that before applying theory of apportionment, Assessing Officer needs to record satisfaction that having regard to kind of assessee, suo motu disallowance under section 14A was not correct. It will be in those cases where assessee in his return has himself apportioned but Assessing Officer was not accepting said apportionment. In that eventuality, it will have to record its satisfaction to this effect. Further, while recording such a satisfaction, nature of loan taken by assessee for purchasing shares/making investment in shares is to be examined by Assessing Officer.[Para 41] .‖

Dharampal Satyapal Ltd Vs, DCIT ITA No. 3738, 3739/Del/2016 (A) & ITA No. 3882 & 3883/Del/2016(R) Assessment Year: 2010-11 & 2011-12 Particulars Dividend Income Opening value Closing value as on 01.04.09 as on 31.03.10 Uflex Industries Ltd. 15,20,000 3,72,76,848 3,60,64,297 Godrej industries Ltd. 12,500 43,50,000 42,04,824 Indswift Ltd. 26,000 53,16,647 51,47,192 Dhampur Sugar 37,500 50,76,226 Nil Total 15,96,000 5,20,19,721 4,54,16,313

Dharampal Satyapal Ltd Vs, DCIT ITA No. 3738, 3739/Del/2016 (A) & ITA No. 3882 & 3883/Del/2016(R) Assessment Year: 2010-11 & 2011-12 exempt investments should be considered instead of total investments for adopting average value of investments of income which is not part of total income. effect of this decision is that while making disallowance under Rule 8D(2)(iii), it is only average of those investments which have yielded exempt income are to be taken into consideration and not average of all investments. Adverting to facts of instant case, it is seen that disallowance has been made in ignorance of above mandate of law as approved by Hon‘ble Delhi High Court. We, therefore, set aside impugned order and direct computation of correct amount of disallowance under clause (iii) of Rule 8D(2) accordingly.‖

Dharampal Satyapal Ltd Vs, DCIT ITA No. 3738, 3739/Del/2016 (A) & ITA No. 3882 & 3883/Del/2016(R) Assessment Year: 2010-11 & 2011-12 ―Section 14A, read with section 263, of Income-tax The Act, 1961 - Expenditure incurred in relation to income not includible in total income (Computation of) - Assessment year 2010-11 - In course of assessment, Assessing Officer made addition on account of apportionment of expenses against exempted income under section 14A - Commissioner passed a revisional order directing Assessing Officer to enhance amount of addition under section 14A - Tribunal set aside revisional order as well as consequent assessment order passed by Assessing Officer enhancing addition made under section 14A - High Court upheld order of Tribunal holding that amount of disallowance under section 14A could be restricted to amount of exempt income only and not a higher figure - Whether on facts, SLP filed against decision of High Court was to be dismissed on merits- Held, yes.‖ 34. Therefore he submitted that disallowance made by learned assessing officer as well as confirmed by learned CIT – A is not sustainable firstly on account of non-recording of satisfaction and secondly for reason that no interest disallowance even otherwise can be made. He further stated that while making expenditure disallowance only investments, which have yielded tax-free income, are required to be considered. 35. Learned departmental representative vehemently supported orders of lower authorities. He submitted that when assessee has earned exempt income and there is a substantial increase in amount invested in subsidiary company, learned assessing officer on basis of audit report of special auditor has invoked provisions of section 14A and worked out disallowance applying provisions of rule 8D of income tax rules 1962. He submitted that tax audit has correctly recorded satisfaction with respect to disallowance to be made. Even working of disallowance has been made. He therefore stated that assessing officer has applied his mind to show satisfaction and then made Page | 29

Dharampal Satyapal Ltd Vs, DCIT ITA No. 3738, 3739/Del/2016 (A) & ITA No. 3882 & 3883/Del/2016(R) Assessment Year: 2010-11 & 2011-12 disallowance. Even otherwise he stated that there is no provision in section 14 A of The Act and applicability of rule 8D to exclude any of sums. Therefore, he stated that addition/disallowance made by learned assessing officer be sustained. 36. We have carefully considered rival contention and perused orders of lower authorities as well as audit report of special auditor. Undisputedly assessee has earned during year exempt income of INR 1 596000/–. Assessee has offered a sum of INR 437504/– as disallowable expenditure u/s 14 A of the Act. As per para number 36 of assessment order it is apparent that special auditor has worked out disallowance under rule 8D of income tax rules applying formula contained therein and disallowance was computed at INR 50268833/–. Assessee explained to ld AO that it has made a disallowance of INR 437504/– and stated that it has not incurred any interest expenditure as borrowed funds were not utilized for investment in shares. However, it were utilized for purposes of business. Learned assessing officer without recording any satisfaction about correctness of claim of assessee of computing disallowance of INR 437504/- or examining contention of non utilization of borrowed funds for making investment in shares, applied provisions of rule 8D and made a disallowance of INR 50268833/– and reduced it from already disallowed sum of INR 437504/– by assessee. Therefore, net disallowance of Rs. 49831329/– was made. As is well known, section 14A of The Act relates to expenditure incurred in relation to income not includible in total income. Sub-section (1) of section 14A provides that for purposes of computing total income under Chapter IV, no deduction shall be allowed in respect of expenditure incurred by assessee in relation to income, which does not form part of total income under The Act. As per sub-section (2) of section 14A, Ld . Assessing Officer would determine amount of expenditure incurred in relation to such income which does not form part of total income in accordance with method as may be prescribed, if having regard to accounts of assessee, he is Page | 30

Dharampal Satyapal Ltd Vs, DCIT ITA No. 3738, 3739/Del/2016 (A) & ITA No. 3882 & 3883/Del/2016(R) Assessment Year: 2010-11 & 2011-12 not satisfied with correctness of claim of assessee in respect of such expenditure. Method for such purpose has been prescribed under rule 8D of Rules. Sub-rule (1) of rule 8D substantially reiterates what sub- section (2) of section 14A provides. Essentially, under sub-rule (1), Assessing Officer would be authorized to determine expenditure to be disallowed in relation to earning tax- free income, in terms of sub-rule (2) where having regard to accounts of assessee of previous year, if he is not satisfied with correctness of claim of expenditure made by assessee or claim made by assessee is that no expenditure has been incurred in relation to income which does not form part of total income. Further Hon Supreme court in 402 ITR 640 has held that:- ―41. Having regard to language of section 14A(2) of The Act, read with rule 8D of Rules, we also make it clear that before applying theory of apportionment, Assessing Officer needs to record satisfaction that having regard to kind of assessee, suo motu disallowance under section 14A was not correct. It will be in those cases where assessee in his return has himself apportioned but Assessing Officer was not accepting said apportionment. In that eventuality, it will have to record its satisfaction to this effect. Further, while recording such a satisfaction, nature of loan taken by assessee for purchasing shares/ making investment in shares is to be examined by Assessing Officer.‖ 37. Therefore it is apparent that before proceeding to apply provisions of rule 8D or enhancing disallowance, learned assessing officer is required to record a satisfaction that having regard to kind of assessee suo motu disallowance u/s 14A was not correct. In present case, such satisfaction by assessing officer is missing. He has merely proceeded on basis of finding of special auditor under section 142 (2A) of the Act. Therefore, disallowance made by learned assessing officer is not sustainable. Accordingly, we direct learned assessing Page | 31

Dharampal Satyapal Ltd Vs, DCIT ITA No. 3738, 3739/Del/2016 (A) & ITA No. 3882 & 3883/Del/2016(R) Assessment Year: 2010-11 & 2011-12 officer to delete disallowance in excess of disallowance offered by assessee of INR 437504/– u/s 14 A of The Act. Accordingly order of learned CIT – A is reversed and ground number 6 of appeal is allowed. 38. Ground number 7 of appeal challenges confirmation by learned CIT –A of disallowance of INR 1758546/– on account of excess claim of deduction u/s 80 IB/IC on alleged ground that appellant had violated provisions of section 80 IA (5) of the Act as business losses pertaining to financial year 2001 – 02 in 2002 – 03 had not been taken into account while computing deduction u/s 80 IB /IC of the Act. 39. Learned authorised representative at time of hearing of appeal submitted that he does not want to press this ground of appeal. Therefore, it is dismissed. 40. Ground number 8 of appeal is with respect to finding of learned CIT – A in upholding disallowance of deduction u/s 80 IB/IC on ground that fair market value of goods transferred from Noida Division to eligible unit is higher in terms of provisions of section 80 IA (8) read with 80 IB (13) and 80 IC (7) of The Act for reason that in respect of unprocessed goods profit Mark up to extent of 2% instead of 10% as computed by assessing officer was restricted. With respect to processed catechu, he confirmed valuation by assessing officer and uphold markup of manufacturing expenses and profit rate at rate of 37.85% and 10% respectively. Assessee is further aggrieved in respect of processed cardamom where learned CIT – A confirmed valuation done by assessing officer and uphold markup of manufacturing expenses and profit rate @ of 37.85% and 10% respectively. 41. Learned assessing officer-examined fact, that assessee has transferred goods from units located at Noida to eligible undertaking at below fair market price. Special auditor reported that from units located at Noida assessee has transferred work in progress in form of processed raw material/semi finished goods worth INR 394051682/– to undertaking eligible for deduction u/s 80 IC below its cost, though assessee company ought to have transferred same at fair market price Page | 32

Dharampal Satyapal Ltd Vs, DCIT ITA No. 3738, 3739/Del/2016 (A) & ITA No. 3882 & 3883/Del/2016(R) Assessment Year: 2010-11 & 2011-12 on date of transfer. Special auditor reported that during year under consideration unit has transferred work in progress and for working out value of such transfer, unit has followed same methodology as followed for valuation of its closing work in progress. Therefore, he held that unit has transferred goods in form of work in progress to eligible unit below its cost insofar as value does not include direct cost like manufacturing expenses, power and fuel, direct labour and other fixed and variable overheads like depreciation on plant and machinery factory building etc. .Therefore auditor stated that in absence of any comparable market quotation profit margin of 10% on cost provided for transfer of excise able goods for captive consumption and followed by assessee company for transfer of excisable goods to these eligible units was considered to workout fair market value of this transfer. Therefore auditors suggested that profit margin of 10% on of cost and therefore there is an understatement of taxable profit of unit by INR 1 01734012/– learned assessing officer questioned assessee on this aspect. Assessee submitted that most of goods are transferred as it is after buying from market without any value addition and even otherwise value addition is negligible, however, it was contested that there is no basis for any margin, much less margin of 10%. It was further contested by assessee that identical issue has been decided by The Commissioner of Income Tax Appeals in assessee‘s own case for assessment year 2004 – 05 partly deleting addition. Learned assessing officer rejected explanation of assessee. He held that 10% profit margin is normal profit margin also prescribed under Central Excise rules for valuation of goods of captive consumption. He further stated that special auditor has given detailed working of fair market value of transfer of goods from non-eligible unit to eligible undertaking. Thereafter learned assessing officer held that fair market value of said goods exceeds transfer value by a sum of INR 1 01734012/–. Above issue was contested by assessee before learned CIT – A.

Dharampal Satyapal Ltd Vs, DCIT ITA No. 3738, 3739/Del/2016 (A) & ITA No. 3882 & 3883/Del/2016(R) Assessment Year: 2010-11 & 2011-12 Learned CIT – A followed his own order for assessment year 2004 – 05 wherein i. in case of goods, which are not processed and sent to eligible units as such, he directed learned assessing officer to load profit margin of service charges rate of 2% on value of goods transferred which is directly sent without processing. ii. With respect to goods those are processed, he confirmed loading of average manufacturing expenses of 37.85% as processing value addition has taken place and further confirmed charging of profit at rate of 10%. iii. With respect to cardamom, he confirmed action of assessing officer of loading of manufacturing expenses at rate of 37.58 percent and profit at rate of 10% as per Excise rules subject to deduction of cost of Chilka transferred to other units from addition. 42. Therefore, assessee is aggrieved with order of learned CIT – A has preferred this appeal. 43. Ld Authorised representative submitted as under :- i. That issue relates to transfer of following three products from Noida division to eligible unit in Guwahati : a. Supari b. Katha c. Elaichi

ii. Assessing officer has recomputed value of goods transferred on basis of observation of Special Auditor after loading 14.73% mark up on account of manufacturing cost and further 10% mark up on account of profit to value of goods so transferred by applying provisions of section 80IA(8) read with section 80IB(13)/80IC(7) of The Act.

Dharampal Satyapal Ltd Vs, DCIT ITA No. 3738, 3739/Del/2016 (A) & ITA No. 3882 & 3883/Del/2016(R) Assessment Year: 2010-11 & 2011-12 iii. Ld CIT (A) has allowed part relief in respect of goods transferred without processing by reducing mark up to 2% and upheld valuation done by AO in respect of semi-processed goods. iv. In this connection, we may submit that assessing officer has failed to appreciate facts of case and adjustment in value of goods is misconceived and on arbitrary basis. goods namely Supari, Katha, and Elaichi are transferred from Noida to eligible unit in Guwahati after negligible amount of processing and as such mark up of 14.73% on account of manufacturing cost is highly arbitrary and without any basis. Further, it may be appreciated that value of goods transferred already includes cost of processing and freight charges and as such there is no ground or basis for any notional mark up of 14.73%. v. Further, assessing officer has loaded mark up of 14.73% on basis of observation of special auditor and has failed to carry out any independent investigation to justify relevance and applicability of same. It may be appreciated that assessing officer has not given any basis for estimating manufacturing and processing charges to extent of 14.73% and as such adjustment is highly arbitrary and without any basis. vi. In addition, there is absolutely no justification for loading additional 10% mark up because of profit as goods are transferred without any substantial value addition. Further, assessing officer has not brought on record any comparable case to justify such huge profit as present case involves simple transfer of goods wherein non-eligible unit is merely acting as a procurement agent on behalf of eligible units in order to ensure economy of cost and regular supply to eligible units. vii. It may be clarified that these products have been purchased for captive consumption and same is not tradable commodity. There has been no sale to any outside party and as such presumption about any profit or market value is irrelevant and misconceived. Page | 35

Dharampal Satyapal Ltd Vs, DCIT ITA No. 3738, 3739/Del/2016 (A) & ITA No. 3882 & 3883/Del/2016(R) Assessment Year: 2010-11 & 2011-12 Further, special auditor has referred central excise rules for purpose of estimation of profit @ 10%. In this regard we may submit that reference to excise rules is wholly irrelevant and out of context as same have no relevance or bearing under Income Tax The Act. rate of 10% profit as per Rule 8 of Central Excise Valuation Rules is specifically for purpose of calculating excisable value of marketable goods and as such same cannot be made basis for estimating fair market value of consumable items in terms of section 80IA(8) read with section 80IB(13)/80IC(7) of The Act. VIII. It is pertinent to note that provisions of section 80IA(8) read with section 80IB(13)/80IC(7) of The Act authorizes an assessing officer to make adjustments in claim of deduction by substituting fair market value of goods transferred from non-eligible unit to eligible unit. section specifically talks about market value that in itself means that product must be marketable having distinct identity. However, goods in present case are raw material being part of production process having no separate identity. product purchased from third parties is transferred after minimal processing and as such, there is not much difference between purchase price and transfer price of goods and as such assessing officer is not justified in enhancing value without making reference to any comparable cases. IX. Further, assessing officer has not brought anything on record to establish market value of goods for purpose of provision of section 80IA(8) and as such adjustment made to value of goods transferred from non-eligible unit to eligible unit is arbitrary and not supported by any cogent reasoning. x. There is thus no basis for addition because of 10% mark up even on cost of goods. xi. In any case, goods have been purchased on behalf of eligible units and at best, any mark up on account of profit should be on

Dharampal Satyapal Ltd Vs, DCIT ITA No. 3738, 3739/Del/2016 (A) & ITA No. 3882 & 3883/Del/2016(R) Assessment Year: 2010-11 & 2011-12 processing charges only which could only be to extent of 1-2% of actual cost or value of goods transferred.

Dharampal Satyapal Ltd Vs, DCIT ITA No. 3738, 3739/Del/2016 (A) & ITA No. 3882 & 3883/Del/2016(R) Assessment Year: 2010-11 & 2011-12 market value of such goods 41[or services] as on date of transfer, then, for purposes of deduction under this section, profits and gains of such eligible business shall be computed as if transfer, in either case, had been made at market value of such goods 42[or services] as on that date : Provided that where, in opinion of Assessing Officer, computation of profits and gains of eligible business in manner hereinbefore specified presents exceptional difficulties, Assessing Officer may compute such profits and gains on such reasonable basis as he may deem fit. Explanation - 43[For purposes of this sub-section, "market value", in relation to any goods or services, means- (i) price that such goods or services would ordinarily fetch in open market; or (ii) arm's length price as defined in clause (ii) of section 92F, where transfer of such goods or services is a specified domestic transaction referred to in section 92BA.] 48. Above section provides that if eligible business receives any services/ goods from other units or business of assessee then if transaction value as recorded in books of account is not corresponding to market value of such goods or services on date of transfer then deduction u/s 80 IA shall be adjusted as a such transfer has been made at market value of such goods as on that date. Market value has further been defined to show that it is price such goods would ordinarily fetch in open market. For this year provisions of domestic transfer pricing does not apply and therefore clause number (ii) do not apply. Further, if assessing officer finds it exceptionally difficult AO may compute income/deduction, as he may deem fit. Admittedly, in this case learned AO has held that market price of such goods are to be determined as per rule 8 of Central Excise valuation rules 2000. There is no finding by assessing officer about exceptional difficulty Page | 38

Dharampal Satyapal Ltd Vs, DCIT ITA No. 3738, 3739/Del/2016 (A) & ITA No. 3882 & 3883/Del/2016(R) Assessment Year: 2010-11 & 2011-12 being faced in computing such market rate. Even otherwise, assessing officer is guided by auditor has adopted 10% profit over actual cost incurred by assessee of goods transferred as market rate. Learned CIT – A has held that on goods, which are not processed at all and sent to eligible unit directly, then he has imputed profit margin at rate of 2% on value of goods transferred instead of 10%. With respect to goods, which are processed through job work, learned CIT – A has upheld loading of average manufacturing expenses of 37.85% and further, charging of profit at rate of 10% as per rule 8 of Central Excise rules. With respect to goods such as cardamom, which is purchased, processed, and then transferred to eligible units, he has further upheld cost loading of 37.58% and further profit at rate of 10% as a market price of goods. However in above prices there is no finding that in open market such semi finished goods are sellable or not. Explanation which defines market price provides that market price means price such goods would fetch ordinarily in open market. Therefore, there has to be a clear-cut finding that such goods are marketable, they have a sale price, and such sale prices determination is in open market. Therefore, it is apparent that market price can be more than cost and less than cost of goods. Therefore, any approach of loading of cost on goods, which are transferred from one undertaking to another undertaking without determination of market price of such goods, is not the mandate of provisions of section 80 IA (8) of The Act. Therefore any such attempt to substitute ‗cost plus profit‖ as market value of goods without finding out what could be ‗market value‘ of goods is not acceptable as it is not requirement of law. If views of lower authorities is subscribed to, then it will amount that market price can never be less than cost of goods sold and therefore it presumes a market where only profit exists. Such can never be situation. In view of this, we reject finding of lower authorities and learned assessing officer that value that has been recorded in transfer of goods from one unit to another should further be loaded by cost of 37.58%. Further Page | 39

Dharampal Satyapal Ltd Vs, DCIT ITA No. 3738, 3739/Del/2016 (A) & ITA No. 3882 & 3883/Del/2016(R) Assessment Year: 2010-11 & 2011-12 10% profit has been presumed under Central Excise provision for purpose of transfer of goods as captive consumption for another unit. Therefore if goods having a cost of Rs 100/- is transferred to another unit, then transaction value of such goods shall be considered at INR 110/–. Therefore transferring unit will pay excise duty on INR 1 10 and unit to which such goods have been transferred will claim duty credit paid on transfer value of INR 110. Therefore, above rule can only be applied with respect to duty set off of excisable units. Central Excise rules has stated that INR 110/– would be deemed transaction value of such goods. Rule 8 of Central Excise valuation rule is a deeming provision. It does not say what could be market price of such goods but for purpose of levy of Central Excise it deems that INR 110/– shall be transaction value. Therefore, in absence of any mandate available that Central Excise valuation rule 8 provides for market price of such goods, same cannot be imported into provisions of section 80 IA (8) of The Act. However, as assessee himself has stated that profit can be imputed at rate of 1 or 2% of value of transaction price recorded in books of accounts, we direct learned assessing officer in case of processed goods such as Kattha and cardamom to compute 2% on process charges as profit for computation of market price of goods transferred inter-unit. Accordingly, learned assessing officer is directed to consider transaction value of goods, which are not processed and sent to eligible unit, is recorded in books of accounts. With respect to goods, which are processed through job work and transferred to eligible unit, learned AO is directed to impute 2% profit over job work charges i.e. cost incurred by assessee for determination of profit u/s 80 IA of income tax The Act. Accordingly, ground number 8 of appeal of assessee is allowed with above direction.

Dharampal Satyapal Ltd Vs, DCIT ITA No. 3738, 3739/Del/2016 (A) & ITA No. 3882 & 3883/Del/2016(R) Assessment Year: 2010-11 & 2011-12 read with section 80 IB (13) and 80 IC (7) of The Act on ground that rate of ‗technical knowhow fee‘ on value of goods transferred from perfumery dividend to eligible unit should be 2.75% as against 2.5% declared by appellant. 50. Ld assessing officer has made adjustment in claim of deduction u/s 80IB/IC on ground that technical knowhow fee/royalty @ 2.5% paid to Dharampal Satyapal & Sons P. Ltd. (DSSP) in respect of goods transferred to Perfumery division is not in accordance with approval from Regional Director, Department of Finance Ministry, as per which ceiling rate of technical know-how fees was fixed @ 3%. Accordingly, assessing officer adopted technical know-how fee/ royalty @3% in respect of goods transferred to eligible units resulting in reduction of claim of deduction u/s 80IB/IC. The ld CIT(A) rejected action of assessing officer of adopting rate of technical know-how fee/royalty @ 3% on ground that it is maximum ceiling limit fixed by Regional Director and rate of 2.5% being mutually decided as per Technical Assistance agreement is in accordance with provisions of section 80IA(8) of The Act. However, CIT (A) directed AO to load 10% mark-up on technical know-how fee @2.5% paid by assessee and re-compute adjustment after taking rate @ 2.75%. CIT (A) is of view that since technical know-how fee/royalty on goods purchased from DSSP. ltd is expenses in hands of eligible units, there should be mark-up of 10% of such technical know- how fee/royalty. 51. Learned authorised representative submitted that assessing officer himself has accepted rate of technical know-how / royalty @ 2.5% in AY 2013-14 onwards and no adjustment has been made in this regard. In these circumstances, addition in present year is inconsistent and not based on correct appreciation of facts of case. Factual position to this effect is supported from TPO order for AY 2013-14 and 2014-15 placed at Page 38 – 69 of Supplementary paper book 2. In any case, it is submitted that action of CIT(A) in loading mark up of 10% of technical know-how/royalty paid to Dharampal Satyapal & Sons P. Ltd. is Page | 41

Dharampal Satyapal Ltd Vs, DCIT ITA No. 3738, 3739/Del/2016 (A) & ITA No. 3882 & 3883/Del/2016(R) Assessment Year: 2010-11 & 2011-12 arbitrary and not in accordance with provisions of section 80IA(10) of The Act. It is relevant to note that rate of technical know-how/royalty @ 2.5% over value of goods purchased by assessee and from Dharampal Satyapal & Sons P. Ltd. was mutually agreed as per written agreement and as such there is no question of mark-up of 10% on agreed technical know-how/royalty @ 2.5% particularly when same is payable to third party. Further, technical know-how/royalty is in respect of right to use technical know-how available with Dharampal Satyapal & Sons P. Ltd. in respect of perfumery product and same being of intangible nature; it is not open to CIT (A) to make arbitrary adjustments without appreciating facts and nature of payment. Moreover, technical know- how/royalty being intangibles, provisions of section 80IA(8) are not applicable as same are only relevant to transfer of goods or services. Moreover, rate of technical know-how/royalty is approved by Regional Director and same was paid over and above actual purchase value of goods, and there being no dispute with regards to transfer value of perfumery products, there is no basis or justification for making further mark up of 10% and as such we may submit that impugned adjustment made by CIT(A) is not sustainable under law and same may kindly be deleted. Even otherwise, action of CIT(A) is self defeating and contrary to own his finding which was rendered while adjudicate Ground No. 6 of Revenue‘s appeal wherein on identical circumstances, CIT(A) deleted adjustment made by assessing officer. As per said ground, issue was regarding payment of processing charges to Dharampal Satyapal & Sons P. Ltd. @ Rs. 2.5/kg whereas maximum ceiling capped by Regional Director was Rs. 3/kg. Assessing officer made adjustment in claim of deduction u/s 80IB/IC by taking into account maximum rate of processing charges. CIT(A) deleted said adjustment in entirety after holding that maximum ceiling limit fixed by RD cannot be considered as basis for making adjustment u/s 80IA(10) of The Act. No mark-up of 10% was added. Relevant finding of CIT(A) is at Page 94 Para 9.3. In light of above, impugned adjustment made by CIT(A) by adding mark- Page | 42

Dharampal Satyapal Ltd Vs, DCIT ITA No. 3738, 3739/Del/2016 (A) & ITA No. 3882 & 3883/Del/2016(R) Assessment Year: 2010-11 & 2011-12 up of 10% of rate of technical know-how/royalty is liable to be deleted and technical know-how/royalty @ 2.5% be considered on value of goods purchased and transferred. 52. Ld. CIT DR relied upon order of learned AO. 53. We have carefully considered rival contentions and perused orders of lower authorities. Learned auditor has noted that during year under consideration perfumery division unit has transferred perfumery products of INR 1530307821 to various manufacturing units including units eligible for deduction. Perfumery unit manufactures excisable products and transfer same to other eligible units as per valuation of rule 8 of Central Excise (valuation rules, 2000) and read with cost accounting standard – 4 issued by Council of Institute of cost and works accountants of India [ICWA] on cost of production for captive consumption. Learned AO noted that from books of accounts it is observed that technical know-how has been booked at rate of 2.5% instead of 3% of raw material consumed resulting in over statement of profit of eligible units by INR 6227744/– and therefore it was held that such technical know-how fees paid to other concern is in nature of direct expenses and should be included in cost of production for purpose of determining market price of goods transferred. Accordingly learned AO on basis of audit report made an addition of INR 6227744/–. It is contention of learned authorised representative that in assessment year 2013 – 14 onwards no such adjustment has been made despite there being identical facts and circumstances of case and eligible unit is also eligible for deduction under those sections. This fact has not been controverted by learned departmental representative. Therefore, it is a fact that in subsequent year claim of assessee has been accepted by learned assessing officer and not disputed whereas in this year it has been disputed. Therefore, it is apparent that when claim of assessee has been accepted in subsequent year on identical facts and circumstances, which is not disputed, therefore there is no reason to sustain any such addition Page | 43

Dharampal Satyapal Ltd Vs, DCIT ITA No. 3738, 3739/Del/2016 (A) & ITA No. 3882 & 3883/Del/2016(R) Assessment Year: 2010-11 & 2011-12 during year. Accordingly, ground number 9 of appeal of assessee is allowed. 54. Ground number 10 of appeal is against disallowance upheld by learned CIT – A with respect to eligible unit for tax holiday to extent of INR 3504357/- by increasing value of goods transferred from can pack Division to eligible units on ground that fair market value of goods transferred is higher in terms provisions of section 80 IA (8) read with section 80 IB (13) and 80 IC (7) of The Act. assessing officer has made adjustment on basis of observation of Special Auditor as per which it was alleged that assessee has transferred goods from Can pack Division to eligible without proper valuation in terms of Rule 8 of Central Excise Rules read with CAS -4. CIT(A) has upheld adjustment. 55. Learned authorised representative submitted that in this connection, it is of utmost importance to mention that goods transferred from Canpack Division to eligible unit has been valued strictly on basis of Rule 8 of central excise rule read with CAS-4 and as such observation of Special Auditor is factually incorrect. working of transfer value of goods as per excise rules and relevant excise rules and CAS-4 are placed at Page 23-25 & 26-37 of Supplementary paper book 2 from which it is self evident that goods has been transferred for captive consumption at 110% of cost in accordance with Rule 8 of Central Excise Rules. In view of above facts, impugned adjustment is on illegal and arbitrary basis and same may kindly be deleted as assessee has already loaded cost in accordance with Rule 8 of central excise rules. 56. Learned departmental representative vehemently supported order of learned assessing officer, he extensively read the order of the d AO and CIT A to support the addition. 57. We have carefully considered rival contention and found that identical issue with respect to applicability of rule 8 of Central Excise valuation rules, ( 2000) has been applied by learned assessing officer to determine fair market value of goods transferred inter-unit. We have already discussed applicability of rule 8 of Central Excise valuation Page | 44

Dharampal Satyapal Ltd Vs, DCIT ITA No. 3738, 3739/Del/2016 (A) & ITA No. 3882 & 3883/Del/2016(R) Assessment Year: 2010-11 & 2011-12 rules, 2000 for purpose of working out market price of goods transferred and rejected same while deciding ground number 8 of appeal of assessee. Therefore, for similar reason we also do not subscribe addition made by learned assessing officer by applying Central Excise valuation rules and imputing 10% profit margin in goods transferred to determine market price of such goods. Accordingly, ground number 10 of appeal of assessee is allowed. 58. Ground number 11 of appeal of assessee is against order of learned CIT – A with a direction to apply a profit margin of 10% against 26.14% applied by learned assessing officer over and above allocating value of common cost incurred at corporate office, depot, branches et cetera and allocated to such units and an appropriate ratio. Therefore, direction of learned CIT – A is to allocate appropriate cost of corporate office etc. then add that to a profit margin of 10% for purpose of working out deduction of eligible unit u/s 80 IB/IC/IA of The Act. Ld AO has made adjustment on basis of observation of Special Auditor as per which, common cost incurred in respect of eligible units must be allocated after loading mark up @ 26.14% being rate of operating profit after applying provisions of section 80IA(8) read with sub-section 13 of section 80IB and sub section 7 of section 80IC and making an upward adjustment on account of profit element on these common cost. Ld CIT (A) allowed part relief by reducing mark-up from 26.14% to 10%. 59. Learned authorised representative submitted that it is not case of assessing officer or CIT (A) that Head Office of assessee is providing any services to eligible units. Provisions of section 80IA(8) read with sub-section 13 of section 80IB and sub section 7 of section 80IC will only come into play where services have been provided by HO to eligible unit. However, in present case, services have been rendered by third party at market price and head office is merely allocating proportionate cost to eligible units and as such there is no occasion to compute fair market value of these costs since they are not in nature of goods or services rendered by Head office. Further, allocation of Page | 45

Dharampal Satyapal Ltd Vs, DCIT ITA No. 3738, 3739/Del/2016 (A) & ITA No. 3882 & 3883/Del/2016(R) Assessment Year: 2010-11 & 2011-12 depreciation as done by Special Auditor has already been deleted by CIT(A) (Page 181) on ground that depreciation is unit and asset specific and same cannot be allocated on arbitrary basis. Since mark-up @10% has also been applied to allocated portion of depreciation, observation of CIT(A) while applying 10% mark-up is irrational and contrary to his own findings. It may be appreciated that it is a case of simple allocation of costs incurred on behalf of units and as such loading of mark-up on such allocation is in total disregard to provisions of section 80IA(8) r.w.s. 80IB(13) & 80IC(7) of Income Tax The Act, 1961. Even otherwise, it may also be appreciated that allocation of common cost is in nature of reimbursement of expenses and as such, there is no valid ground or basis for attributing any profit on such reimbursements. 60. Learned authorised representative further referred to para number 21.3 of decision of learned CIT – A for assessment year 2004 – 05 wherein he has allowed appeal of assessee and deleted above addition. He therefore submitted that it is applicable for this year also. 61. Learned departmental representative vehemently supported order of learned assessing officer and stated that it page number 177 of order of learned CIT appeal wherein he has held that head office, depot and branches being a separate entity has incurred expenditure on behalf of various units including industrial undertaking eligible for deduction is. He rejected argument of learned authorised representative that no services have been provided for services were not acceptable as these expenditure include even advertisement expenses, sales expenses etc. He further held that even if reimbursement of expenses for purchase of raw material and finished goods which goes for eligible undertaking some services have been provided by head office and branch office. He further held that learned CIT A has upheld that any independent persons would have charged trading profit margin on such transfer of goods. Accordingly, he applied estimated profit of 10% of such cost as profit of an office/branches/depot for such services. He therefore submitted that findings given by learned CIT – A are incontrovertible. Page | 46

Dharampal Satyapal Ltd Vs, DCIT ITA No. 3738, 3739/Del/2016 (A) & ITA No. 3882 & 3883/Del/2016(R) Assessment Year: 2010-11 & 2011-12 62. We have carefully considered rival contentions and perused orders of lower authorities as well as report of special auditor. Fact shows that AO has stated that though assessee has allocated all applicable cost to respective units however AO said that it should further be loaded by markup of 26.14% being operating profit after applying provisions of section 80 IA (8) read with subsection 13 of section 80 IB and section 7 of section 80 IC for making an upward adjustment on account of profit element on these common cost. Learned CIT – A has reduced markup from 26.14% to 10%. Undisputedly assessee has allocated all cost to respective units for purpose of determining eligible profit for deduction. Only issue is that whether further markup is required to be allocated on these cost or not. Claim of assessee is that various services rendered by 3rd party are at market rate and head office has merely allocated proportionate cost to eligible units and has neither transferred any goods or nor provided any services. It is also claim of assessee that no further services have been rendered by these offices to eligible unit of assessee except allocating cost. Here, undisputedly allocation key has been correctly applied and not questioned by revenue. Therefore, only argument of revenue is that various cost allocated by head office/branches and depot shall also be further increased by a markup of profit of 10% over such cost. Identical issue has been decided by coordinate bench in [68 taxmann.com 322] wherein contention of revenue was that selling and distribution activity is itself a separate profit centre , therefore whatever services have been provided by selling and distribution arm of assessee to eligible undertaking, should have been charged adding profit and reduced from profit of industrial undertaking after valuing services of selling and distribution arm of company by loading profit element. Coordinate bench has decided that no such profit markup is required to be added when only costs have been allocated and no identification of any specific services provided by such units to eligible unit is found. For holding so coordinate bench also relied upon decision of another Page | 47

Dharampal Satyapal Ltd Vs, DCIT ITA No. 3738, 3739/Del/2016 (A) & ITA No. 3882 & 3883/Del/2016(R) Assessment Year: 2010-11 & 2011-12 coordinate bench in Cadila Healthcare Ltd. v. Addl. CIT [2012] 21 taxmann.com 483/67 SOT 110 (URO)(Ahd. - Trib.) and held as under:- “87. It is one of contention of revenue that selling and distribution activity is itself a separate profit center and therefore whatever services have been provided by selling and distribution arm of company to eligible undertaking should have been charged and reduced from profit of industrial undertaking after valuing service of selling and distribution arm of company at market rate. At present assessee has allocated it at cost. Therefore, ld. AO has invoked provisions of section 80 IA (8) of The Act. It is not dispute that that products manufactured by these industrial units are sold by selling and distribution arm of assessee and cost incurred is allocated to these respective units on basis of appropriate allocation key of 'sales'. Ld. AR of appellant relying on decision of coordinate bench of Cadila Healthcare Ltd. (supra) has submitted that there cannot be any specific demarcation between manufacturing and selling activities of assessee and profit accrues only at time of sales of goods only. Therefore, contention of revenue that selling and distribution function of assessee is a separate profit center is required to be rejected at threshold. We have carefully considered argument of ld. AR and of revenue on this point as well as ld. AO and Ld. DRP. We are of view that this argument is almost similar to argument raised by revenue in case of Cadila Healthcare Ltd. (supra) Coordinate bench has dealt with these arguments from all angles of controversy and has held as under :— '9.4 Ld. Counsel has asserted that undisputedly, it was an "inter-division transfer", hence it was expected to record same at arm's length price. He has pleaded that assessee is blowing hot and cold in same breath. When it comes to transfer of services and goods, it opposes arm's length price adjustment and says that expenses which have been incurred in past need

Dharampal Satyapal Ltd Vs, DCIT ITA No. 3738, 3739/Del/2016 (A) & ITA No. 3882 & 3883/Del/2016(R) Assessment Year: 2010-11 & 2011-12 not be taken into consideration. As discussed earlier, this logic do not commensurate with provisions of sections. Even then for argument sake if expenses relatable to current year are to be apportioned; it was found that assessee had not apportioned even a penny of expenses in development and research of new products of Baddi Unit. 9.5 Next, Revenue's Counsel has drawn our attention on profit & loss account of eligible Unit, i.e. Baddi Unit, (refer Page No.87 of paper-book). Ld. DR has said that sales to tune of Rs. 1,19,13,22,749/- were recorded for accounting period ended on 31.3.2006. He has pleaded that if said Unit was to sale its products on stand alone basis, then said Unit which was only two years old could not fetch such high sale price. said Unit has shown high profit at Rs. 1,16,82,91,400/-. goods manufactured by said Unit were transferred to marketing division of assessee-company and sale price was noted by Baddi Unit as per final sale price of product. But fact is that marketing divisions and C&F are involved, therefore sales are realized by main marketing division. He has thus pleaded that profit derived from "marketing function" cannot be dragged to manufacturing unit for purpose of claiming deduction u/s.80IC. Special Provision is confined to certain Undertakings, as defined in Statute, and such eligible undertakings are entitled for deduction of profit of such undertakings only. He has again drawn our attention that only source of income should be eligible source of income and not other sources of income, such as, profits of marketing division or profits on account of established brand. For allocation of profit of manufacturing unit mandate is very clear because Income Tax Rule, 1962 contains Rule 18BBB wherein as per sub-rule(2) a separate report is to be furnished by each undertaking and that report shall be accompanied by a profit & Page | 49

Dharampal Satyapal Ltd Vs, DCIT ITA No. 3738, 3739/Del/2016 (A) & ITA No. 3882 & 3883/Del/2016(R) Assessment Year: 2010-11 & 2011-12 loss account and balance-sheet of that Undertaking as if Undertaking is a distinct entity. He has therefore argued that allocation of profit of a manufacturing unit should be made on stand alone basis. He has questioned that how sale price of products of Baddi Unit were determined and recorded. Because of brand value sale price must have been determined by management as if profit is earned by assessee-company on sale of products of Baddi Unit. It was recorded on presumption that sales were executed by Head Office by charging brand value, name of product and goodwill of Company. In any case, according to Ld. DR, a reasonable expenditure should have been provided, so that such an abnormal profit @ 58.66% could be checked. 9.6 In support of above submissions, Mr. Srivastava has placed on strong reliance on decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of CIT v. Ahmedbhai Umarbhai & Co. [1950] 18 ITR 472 for legal proposition that, quote " profits received relate firstly to his business as a manufacturer, secondly to his trading operations, and thirdly to his business of import and export. Profit or loss has to be apportioned between these businesses in a business like manner and according to well established principles or accountancy." Unquote. He has also placed reliance on Liberty India (supra) . 10. We have heard both side at length. controversy as raised by Addl. CIT Mr. Mahesh Kumar, officiating as AO, has serious repercussions on subject of computation of "eligible profit" while claiming a deduction under Statute. adjustments as suggested by AO while working out manufacturing profit of an eligible Unit has a far reaching consequences on all such tax-payers; therefore we have to deal this issue carefully and little elaborately, so that we can reach to a logical conclusion.

Dharampal Satyapal Ltd Vs, DCIT ITA No. 3738, 3739/Del/2016 (A) & ITA No. 3882 & 3883/Del/2016(R) Assessment Year: 2010-11 & 2011-12 10.1 To begin with, it is better to elucidate that I.T. The Act has only defined 'income' (Sec. 2(24)) as well as 'business' (Sec. 2(13)) but not term "profit and gains". However, section we have to deal with i.e. Sec. 80 IC revolves around term 'profits and gains'. As per section 2(13) 'business' includes trade, commerce or manufacture. In auxiliary, as per section 2(24) 'income' includes (i) profits and gains. An 'income' has to have a component of 'profits & gains' but all type of 'profits & gains' may not be an 'income' for tax purpose under The Act. section in controversy i.e. Sec. 80 IC of The Act is embedded with both these terminology, reproduced verbatim :— "80IC (1) Where gross total income of an assessee includes any profits and gains derived by an undertaking or an enterprise from any business referred to in sub-section (2), there shall, in accordance with and subject to provisions of this section, be allowed, in computing total income of assessee, a deduction from such profits and gains, as specified in sub-section(3)". 10.2 'business' is prescribed in sub-section (2) in following manner : (2) This section applies to any undertaking or enterprise (a) which has begun or begins to manufacture or produce any Article or thing ……… Therefore, 'manufacturing' is first criteria for eligibility of 'business' to qualify for deduction. Hence 'profits' are required to be derived from a manufacturing undertaking which is producing specified article. That 'profit' is inclusive in 'gross total income'. As already noted, terminology "profit" has not been defined in this The Act therefore we have taken help of other resources. basic question is that what is "profit" of a manufacturing unit?

Dharampal Satyapal Ltd Vs, DCIT ITA No. 3738, 3739/Del/2016 (A) & ITA No. 3882 & 3883/Del/2016(R) Assessment Year: 2010-11 & 2011-12 Firstly, term "Profit" implies a comparison between stage of a business at two specific dates separated by an interval of a year. Thus fundamentally meaning is that amount of gain made by business during year. This can be ascertained by a comparison of assets of business at two dates. To determine "profit" of a manufacturing Unit accounting standard has given certain guidelines, enumerated in short. In accounting "profit" is difference between purchase price and cost of bringing product to market. A "gross profit" is equal to sales revenue minus cost of goods sold or expenses that can be traced directly to production of goods. Rather, "operating profit" is also defined as equal to sales revenue minus cost of goods plus all expenses, except interest and taxes. Most of manufacturing companies have 'Total Cost' based pricing method. Total Cost has, broadly speaking, two components; i.e. raw-material plus value addition (it includes all overheads). Therefore, profit margin is price minus total cost. In manufacturing Unit, thus cost of conversion is production overheads, such as, direct labour cost and inextricably linked expenditure of production. In general, every manufacturing concern has fixed manufacturing capacity. So objective of such concern ought to be to maximize profit. Now problem, as posed, is that let us assume that said manufacturing unit is producing two products; viz. "A" & "B". For production of "A" product, let us say, there is less working hours, but fetching more value for less money. However, in production of product "B" due to complex process of manufacturing it requires more working hours. For pricing product "B" situation is that more money expenditure and may fetch less value. Therefore, in processing department it is not possible to segregate two components to determine segregated margins. Keeping this accounting principle in mind, we revert back to language of Page | 52

Dharampal Satyapal Ltd Vs, DCIT ITA No. 3738, 3739/Del/2016 (A) & ITA No. 3882 & 3883/Del/2016(R) Assessment Year: 2010-11 & 2011-12 section 80IC which says that a deduction is permissible of such profits of a specified Undertaking engaged in manufacturing of certain article or thing. business of said enterprise/concern should be manufacturing of article or thing and profit therefrom is eligible for deduction u/s.80IC if that profit is part and parcel of gross total income. As noted hereinabove, profit is difference between purchase price and cost of production along with cost of bringing product to market. This basic principle of accountancy, as appeared, have been adopted by Baddi Unit because as per Profit & Loss account, cost of material, personal cost and general expenses, corporate expenses were reduced from sale price to arrive at "profit before tax" i.e. Rs. 116,82,91,400/-. 10.3 It is not in dispute that for Baddi Unit assessee has maintained separate books of accounts and therefore drawn a separate profit and loss account. In such a situation, whether AO is empowered to disturb computation of profit, is always a subject matter of controversy. From side of assessee, reliance was placed on Addl. CIT v. Delhi Press Patra Prakashan [2006] 10 SOT 74 (Delhi) (URO). In this case, assessee was claiming deduction u/s.80IA in respect of a Unit No.4. said Unit was showing profit @ 62%. As against that, AO has noticed that a margin of profit shown by assessee as a whole was only to extent of 10%. AO has therefore recomputed profit of said Unit by applying sub-section (10) of section 80IA and restricted profit of said Unit to 10% only. While dealing this issue, Respected Coordinate Bench has concluded that it was not justified to disturb working of profit merely because profit rate of eligible unit was substantially higher than overall rate of profit of other Units of assessee, more so when separate books were maintained by assessee in respect of said eligible Unit. In present case as well AO has proceeded to disturb profit of Page | 53

Dharampal Satyapal Ltd Vs, DCIT ITA No. 3738, 3739/Del/2016 (A) & ITA No. 3882 & 3883/Del/2016(R) Assessment Year: 2010-11 & 2011-12 Baddi Unit and held that only 6% profit is eligible for deduction u/s.80IC. While doing so, identically, AO has not pinpointed any defect in working of "profit" of Baddi Unit. In such a situation, we can say that legal proposition as laid down by Delhi Bench can also be applied in present appeal as well. 10.4 AO has also concluded that only incremental profit, representing difference between profits earned earlier when products were procured on P2P basis and profits earned by Baddi Unit, should be treated as a manufacturing profit. AO has then said that earlier assessee was procuring products on P2P basis and showing average profit at 80%, however, on basis of average selling rate of produces manufactured by Baddi Unit average profit was gone up to 86%. AO has therefore restricted deduction only at 6%. He has placed reliance on Rolls Royce Plc (supra). In that case, assessee was a UK based company carrying on marketing and sales activities in India through a subsidiary. subsidiary was also rendering support services to assessee, a UK based company. assessee was carrying out manufacturing operations. It was held that 35% of its profits could be attributed to marketing activities carried out in India and, therefore, chargeable to tax in India. Facts of that case were altogether different and there was a finding that undisputedly there was a PE in India and as per Indo-UK DTAA income has to be taxed in India. An another fact was that there was no separate account of assessee's India operation and AO had found that on basis of global accounts profits were determined on sales. In that case, marketing was said to be primary activity for earning profit. profit was directly due to operation in India. In that context word "attributable" was considered and then it was held that such part of income as it was reasonably attributable to operations carried out in India is taxable. expression "business Page | 54

Dharampal Satyapal Ltd Vs, DCIT ITA No. 3738, 3739/Del/2016 (A) & ITA No. 3882 & 3883/Del/2016(R) Assessment Year: 2010-11 & 2011-12 connection" was also considered and then it was found that it will include a person acting on behalf of a non-resident and carried on certain activities is having business connection. A business connection has to be real and intimate and through which income must accrue or arise whether directly or indirectly to non-resident. On those facts, since it was found that R&D activities were carried out by assessee, therefore, 15% of profit was allocated to R&D activities and balance of profit was attributable to marketing activities in India. said decision was entirely based upon connectivity of marketing operations with profits. CBDT Circular No.23 of 1969 dated 23/07/1969 was also taken into account wherein it was opined that where a non-resident's sales to Indian customers are secured through services of an agent in India then that profit is attributable to agent's services. Meaning thereby because of close connection of agent's marketing activity proportionate profit was attributed to said activity. Contrary to this, there was no finding that upto extent of 80%, profit was attributed to assessee-company. segregation between 80% and 6% was not on account of any evidence through which it could independently be established that major portion of profit could be attributed to assessee-company and rest of profit could only be attributed to Baddi Unit. 10.5 AO has also made out a case that book profit percentage of Baddi Unit was 58.67%, whereas profit of assessee- company as a whole was 11.88%. If we further elaborate this aspect, then AO has also given a working through which average selling rate was 86.36% of Baddi Unit. Meaning thereby if we presume for example that assessee has gross profit of 86%, then net profit was disclosed at 58%. A question thus arises that what beneficial purpose could be served for reduction of gross profit to a lower percentage of net profit, Page | 55

Dharampal Satyapal Ltd Vs, DCIT ITA No. 3738, 3739/Del/2016 (A) & ITA No. 3882 & 3883/Del/2016(R) Assessment Year: 2010-11 & 2011-12 specially when allegation of A.O. was that there was an attempt to declare higher profit of Baddi unit to get more advantage of deduction. On perusal of P&L account, it is an admitted factual position that assessee has in fact debited certain expenses which have included head office expenses, such as, marketing expenses and corporate expenses. Meaning thereby net profit of Baddi Unit was not merely production cost minus sale price, but difference of sale price minus all general expenses which were attributable to sales. Therefore, it is not reasonable to say that unreasonably profit was escalated. difference between two percentages of profit, i.e. about 28% ( G.P. - N.P.) thus represented expenditure which could be said to be in respect of marketing network and brand of product related expenses. AO has not complained about allocation of expenditure as made by assessee while computing profit of Baddi Unit. Once assessee has itself taken into account related expenses to arrive at net profit, then it was not reasonable on part of Revenue Department to further reallocate those expenses by curtailing percentage of eligible profit. 10.6 From side of Revenue, ld. Special Counsel has argued that in terms of provisions of section 80IA(5) deduction is to be computed as if such eligible business is only source of income of assessee. According to him, manufacturing profit was only source of income and that alone should be accounted for in P&L account to claim deduction u/s.80IC of The Act. Ld. DR has explained that as per view of A.O. up-to 80% of profit was result of efficient marketing net work plus due to brand name of company. Only 6% was manufacturing profit, per A.O. It is true that section 80IC does recognized provisions of section 80IA. Refer, Sub-section (7) of section 80IC which prescribes as follows:— Page | 56

Dharampal Satyapal Ltd Vs, DCIT ITA No. 3738, 3739/Del/2016 (A) & ITA No. 3882 & 3883/Del/2016(R) Assessment Year: 2010-11 & 2011-12 "Section 80IC(7) : provisions contained in sub-section (5) and sub-sections (7) to (12) of section 80IA shall, so far as may be, apply to eligible undertaking or enterprise under this section." Due to this reason, our attention was drawn on provisions of section 80IA(5) of IT The Act; reads as under:— "Section 80IA(5) : Notwithstanding anything contained in any other provision of this The Act, profits and gains of an eligible business to which provisions of sub-section (1) apply shall, for purposes of determining quantum of deduction under that sub-section for assessment year immediately succeeding initial assessment year or any subsequent assessment year, be computed as if such eligible business were only source of income of assessee during previous year relevant to initial assessment year and to every subsequent assessment year up to and including assessment year for which determination is to be made." As per this section, profits of an eligible undertaking shall be computed as if such eligible business is only source of income of assessee. In this section again, Statute has used three terms, i.e. "profit", "business" and "income". As narrated hereinabove an 'income' has a wider expression than 'profit'. Likewise, 'business' has also a wider meaning than word 'income'. In present case, manufacturing of pharmaceutical products is declared as "eligible business". Then question is that what is profit of such an eligible business? On careful reading of this sub-section, it transpires that said eligible profit should be only source of income. If we examine separate profit & loss account of Baddi Unit, then it is apparent that only source of income was sales of qualified products. In said P&L A/c there was no component of any other sources of income except sale price and otherwise also assessee has Page | 57

Dharampal Satyapal Ltd Vs, DCIT ITA No. 3738, 3739/Del/2016 (A) & ITA No. 3882 & 3883/Del/2016(R) Assessment Year: 2010-11 & 2011-12 confined claim only in respect of eligible profit which was derived from sales of pharmaceutical products. This section do not suggest that eligible profit should be computed first by transferring product at an imaginary sale price to head office and then head office should sale product in open market. There is no such concept of segregation of profit. Rather, we have seen that profit of an undertaking is always computed as a whole by taking into account sale price of product in market. 10.7 Ld. AO has suggested that assessee should have passed entries in its books of account by recording internal transfer of product from Baddhi Unit to head office marketing unit and that too at arm's length price. From side of appellant an argument was raised that what should be arm's length price in a situation when a product is ultimately to be sold in open market. Whether AO is suggesting that an imaginary line be drawn to determine profit of Baddi Unit at a particular stage of transfer of products. Definitely a difficulty will arise to arrive at sale price as suggested by AO on transfer of product from Baddi to head office. What could be reasonable profit which is to be charged by Baddi Unit will then be a subject of dispute and shall be an issue of controversy. On contrary, if sale price is recorded at market price, which is easily ascertainable, that was recorded in Baddi Unit account, scope of controversy gets minimal. Rather, intense contention of Ld.AR is that facts of case have explicitly demonstrated that goods manufactured at Baddi Unit were transported to various C&F agents across country for sale purpose. Therefore, eligible business is manufacturing of pharmaceutical products and only source of income was profit earned on sale of products.

Dharampal Satyapal Ltd Vs, DCIT ITA No. 3738, 3739/Del/2016 (A) & ITA No. 3882 & 3883/Del/2016(R) Assessment Year: 2010-11 & 2011-12 10.8 An interesting argument was raised by ld. Special Counsel that provisions of section 80IA(8) prescribes segregation of profit in case of transfer of goods from one Unit to another Unit. But section 80IA(8) reads as follows:— 'Section 80IA(8) : Where any goods or services held for purposes of eligible business are transferred to any other business carried on by assessee, or where any goods [or services] held for purposes of any other business carried on by assessee are transferred to eligible business and, in either case, consideration, if any, for such transfer as recorded in accounts of eligible business does not correspond to market value of such goods [or services] as on date of transfer, then, for purposes of deduction under this section, profits and gains of such eligible business shall be computed as if transfer, in either case, had been made at market value of such goods or services as on that date: Provided that where, in opinion of Assessing Officer, computation of profits and gains of eligible business in manner hereinbefore specified presents exceptional difficulties, Assessing Officer may compute such profits and gains on such reasonable basis as he may deem fit. Explanation : For purposes of this sub-section, "market value", in relation to any goods or services, means price that such goods or services would ordinarily fetch in open market. Where any goods held for purpose of eligible business are transferred to any other business carried on by assessee, then if consideration for such transfer as recorded in accounts of eligible business do not correspond to market value of such goods, then for purposes of deduction profits and gains of such eligible business shall be computed as if transfer has been made at market value of such goods as on that date. Page | 59

Dharampal Satyapal Ltd Vs, DCIT ITA No. 3738, 3739/Del/2016 (A) & ITA No. 3882 & 3883/Del/2016(R) Assessment Year: 2010-11 & 2011-12 Though section has its own importance but area under which this section operates is that where one eligible business is transferred to any other business. We again want to emphasis that word used in this section is "business" and not word "profit". We can hence draw an inference by describing these two words and thus have precisely noted that 'eligible business' has a different connotation which is not at par or identical with "eligible profit". matter we are dealing is not case where business as a whole is transferred. This is a case where manufacturing products were sold through C&F in market. Even this is not case that first sales were made by Baddi Unit in favour of head office or marketing unit and thereupon sales were executed by head office to open market. Once it was not so, then fixation of market value of such good is out of ambits of this section. If there is no inter-corporate transfer, then AO has no right to determine fair market value of such goods or to compute arm's length price of such goods. AO has suggested two things; first that there must be inter- corporate transfer, and second that transfer should be as per market price determined by AO. Both these suggestions are not practicable. If these two suggestions are to be implemented, then a Pandora box shall be opened in respect of determination of arm's length price vis a vis a fair market and then to arrive at reasonable profit. Rather a very complex situation shall emerge. Specially when Statute do not subscribe such deemed intercorporate transfer but subscribe actual earning of profit, then impugned suggestion of AO do not have legal sanctity in eyes of law. 10.9 A very pertinent question has been raised by ld.AR Mr. Patel that what should be line of demarcation to determine sale price of a product if not market price. As far as present system of fixation of sale price of product is concerned, a Page | 60

Dharampal Satyapal Ltd Vs, DCIT ITA No. 3738, 3739/Del/2016 (A) & ITA No. 3882 & 3883/Del/2016(R) Assessment Year: 2010-11 & 2011-12 consistent method was adopted keeping in mind several factors, depending upon market situation, we have been informed. But if assessee is compelled to deviate from consistent method of pricing, then any other suggestion shall not be workable because no imaginary line of profit can be drawn, precisely pleaded before us. So uncertainty is that on production cost what should be reasonable mark-up which shall cover up margin of profit of a manufacturing unit. And why at all this complex working of computation be adopted by this assessee when a very simple method is adopted that on one side of P&L A/c production cost plus overheads were debited and on other side of P&L A/c sale price was credited to computed profit. There are certain expenditure which are notional expenditure and there are certain expenditure which are self-generated to create brand value of a product. Naturally, allocation of notional expenditure particularly in respect of self- generated brand is a matter of hypothesis and not a matter of realty. Logically it is not realistic to set apart a value of a self generated brand which had grown in number of years. 10.10 segment reporting of profit is although in practice but purpose of such reporting is altogether different. Such segment information is particularly useful for financial analysis, so that management may keep a close watch on performance of diversified business lines. areas of demarcation are business segment, geographical segment, etc. But as far as Revenue of an enterprise is concerned while segmentation is required, then Revenue from sales to external customers are reported in segmented statement of profit and loss. In an accounting system, an intra-company sale between divisions or units is not regarded as Revenue for purpose of such financial reporting. As per Accounting Standards an Enterprise Revenue ignores Page | 61

Dharampal Satyapal Ltd Vs, DCIT ITA No. 3738, 3739/Del/2016 (A) & ITA No. 3882 & 3883/Del/2016(R) Assessment Year: 2010-11 & 2011-12 in house-sales that represent Revenue to one segment and Expense to another. In this connection, AO has discussed Hon'ble Supreme Court decision pronounced in case of Liberty India (supra). AO wanted to justify his attempt of segmentation on basis of theory that only profits derived due to manufacturing activity can be said to be derived from eligible undertaking. It was contested by AR before us that "segment reporting" is about segregation of business and not about segregation of any specific activity. In case of Liberty India (supra) it was observed that IT The Act broadly provides two types of tax incentives, namely, investment linked incentives and profit linked incentives. Court was discussing Chapter VIA which provides incentive in form of tax deductions to category of "profit linked incentives". incentive is linked with generation of 'operational profit'. Therefore, respected Parliament has confined grant of deductions only derived from eligible business. Each eligible business constitutes a stand alone item in matter of computation of profit. Court has said that because of this reason concept of "segment reporting" was introduced in Indian Accounting Standards. Ld. Counsel Mr. Srivastava has argued that deduction u/s.80IC is a profit linked incentive. Only Operational Profit has to be claimed for 80IC deduction. According to him, each of eligible business constitutes a stand alone item in matter of computation of profit. For computation of profit of an eligible business word used is "derived" in section 80IC which is a narrower connotation, as compared to word "attributable". In other words, by using expression "profits derived by an undertaking", Parliament intended to cover such sources not beyond first degree, i.e. first degree of manufacturing activity. law pronounced by Hon'ble Supreme Court is final and should

Dharampal Satyapal Ltd Vs, DCIT ITA No. 3738, 3739/Del/2016 (A) & ITA No. 3882 & 3883/Del/2016(R) Assessment Year: 2010-11 & 2011-12 not be disputed. However, a judgement is to be correctly interpreted. 10.11 Finally, on question of segmentation of profit a vehement reliance was placed on an old precedent namely Ahmedbhai Umarbhai & Co. (supra). Facts of that case was that assessee had owned three Mills at Bombay and one at Raichur (Hyderabad). assessee was manufacturing oil from groundnuts. produced at Raichur, Hyderabad is partly sold at Raichur and partly in Bombay. question was in respect of liability under Excess Profit Tax The Act (EPT The Act) for oil manufactured at Raichur but sold in Bombay. controversy was that assessee had contended that a part of profits derived from sales in British India of oil manufactured at Raichur was attributable to manufacturing operations at Raichur which are an essential part of their business and that such profit must be excluded from assessment under EPT The Act. It was narrated that in other words, The Act brings within its ambit all income in case of a person resident in British India which accrues or arises or which is deemed to accrue or arise to him in British India during accounting year. If Sec. 5 of The Act stopped short at that stage, it was undoubted that in case of respondent who is a resident in British India all his income, no matter where it arose, within British India or without British India, would be chargeable to excess profits tax just in same way as it chargeable to income-tax under Indian IT The Act. whole of his income arising in Raichur has legitimately been taxed under that The Act. In that decision also, word "business" was defined, i.e. business includes any trade, commerce or manufacture. It has also been said that all businesses, to which said law applied, carried on by same person shall be treated as one business for purpose of said The Act. question was about manufacturing activity and it Page | 63

Dharampal Satyapal Ltd Vs, DCIT ITA No. 3738, 3739/Del/2016 (A) & ITA No. 3882 & 3883/Del/2016(R) Assessment Year: 2010-11 & 2011-12 was contended that if a man is a manufacturer as well as a seller of goods, then in his case term "part of a business" means carrying on all two activities together and therefore constitute part of business. One of Hon'ble Judges has said that activities which assessee carried on at Raichur was certainly a business of assessee. On one hand, it was argued that accrual of profit must necessarily be at place where sale proceeds are received or realized. But on other hand, it was argued that profits received relate (i) firstly to his business as a manufacture, (ii) secondly to his trading operations and (iii) thirdly to his business of export. On that basis, it was opined that profit or loss has to be apportioned between these businesses in a business like manner and also according to well established principle of accountancy. This apportionment of profits between a number of businesses which are carried on by same person at different places determines also place of accrual of profit. The Act of sale is mode of realizing profits. If goods are sold to a third person at Mill premises, one could have said that profits arose by reason of sale. Profit would only be ascribed to business of manufacture and would arise at Mill Premises. Merely because a Mill owner has started another business organization in nature of sale depot, that cannot wholly deprive business of manufacture of its profits, though there may have to be apportionment in such a case between business of manufacture and business of shop keeping. question which was answered was that whether in respect of manufacturing business of assessee in Raichur, profits accrue or arise and if so, at what place. One of Hon'ble Judges has opined that manufacturing profit arise at place of manufacture and that sale profits arise at place of sale and that apportionment has to be made between two, though place of receipts and realization of profits is place where Page | 64

Dharampal Satyapal Ltd Vs, DCIT ITA No. 3738, 3739/Del/2016 (A) & ITA No. 3882 & 3883/Del/2016(R) Assessment Year: 2010-11 & 2011-12 sales are made. Simultaneously it was also opined that manufacturing profit could not be said to have accrued at that place because there was nothing done from which profits could accrue. There was an interesting contradiction because of divergent views and it was also expressed that it was a fallacy to regard profits as arising solely at place of sale. It was said that revenue of company are derived from a series of operation, including purchase of raw-materials or partly manufactured articles, completely manufacturing its products and transporting and selling them, and receiving proceeds of such sales. essence of its profit-making business is a series of operations as a whole. 10.12 We have carefully perused this decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court as cited by Special Counsel Mr. Srivastava. At outset, we want to place on record that entire issue before Hon'ble Supreme Court was in respect of third proviso to section 5 of EPT The Act. said proviso was duly a reproduced in para-40 of order and for ready reference typed below:— "Provided further that this The Act shall not apply to any business whole of profits of which accrue or arise in an Indian State, and where profits of a part of a business accrue or arise in an Indian State, such part shall, for purposes of this provision, be deemed to be a separate business whole of profits of which accrue or arise in an Indian State, and other part of business shall, for all purposes of this The Act, be deemed to be a separate business." point for consideration was that whether on those facts third proviso to section 5 could be invoked. manufacturing activity of making ground-nut oil was carried out at Raichur (Hyderabad) which was treated as a separate business within meaning of said proviso and thereupon it was claimed as Page | 65

Dharampal Satyapal Ltd Vs, DCIT ITA No. 3738, 3739/Del/2016 (A) & ITA No. 3882 & 3883/Del/2016(R) Assessment Year: 2010-11 & 2011-12 exempt being carried out within territorial jurisdiction of Indian State. So Court has observed that to succeed in their claim, it is incumbent upon assessee to show that there was in fact a part of a business and that profit had actually accrued or arose in that part of an Indian State. Court has clearly stated in para-41 that both elements should found exist and then only business could be treated as a separate business. However, said proviso has propounded only deeming provisions, as is apparent from language of section itself. For purpose of said section, it was deemed to be a separate business. whole of profits of which accrue in an Indian State and other part of business be deemed to be a separate business. In para-44, Hon'ble Court has discussed problem with reference to certain decisions of English Courts and then made an observation that it had been held that if separation is possible in such cases, proper course is to follow that sever profits of two businesses and assess accordingly. result of discussion was that profits of two businesses were directed to be apportioned. Simultaneously, Hon'ble Court has also made an observation, quote "It is true that these are cases where several businesses were amalgamated and carried on together, or more of which were not liable to tax or excess profits duty; but principle of apportionment upon which these cases were decided could, in my opinion, be applied with equal propriety to cases where one part of business is distinct and separate from other parts and is capable of earning profits separately." unquote. Hon'ble Judge was therefore very much concern about fact that business should be capable of earning profits separately. Rather, in subsequent paras it was further made clear that manufacturing profit could be sub-divided only if there was no insuperable/challenging difficulty in making such apportionment. A possibility was therefore discussed that there Page | 66

Dharampal Satyapal Ltd Vs, DCIT ITA No. 3738, 3739/Del/2016 (A) & ITA No. 3882 & 3883/Del/2016(R) Assessment Year: 2010-11 & 2011-12 could be apportionment of net profit that accrue to business of assessee and one portion of it could be allotted to that part of business which relates to manufacture of said commodity which was ultimately sold in market. Raichur factory certainly has business connection in British India for a part of oil manufactured by it is sold through Bombay establishment of assessee. That all operations of Raichur business are not carried on in Bombay. Therefore, profits that would be deemed under this section to accrue or arise in Bombay will only be profits which may reasonably be attributed to that part of operations carried on in Bombay, that is to say, to sale of part of its oil in Bombay. In this context, an observation was made that a trade is completed at a place where a business transaction is closed. Profits of a business are undoubtedly not "received" till commodity are sold and they are ascertained only when sale take place. This aspect has not been doubted or challenged even in said order. But in said order question was that if a part of a business consisted of manufacturing activity and that activity can be segregated so as to compute yield profit, then whether such profit accrue only at place where manufacture are sold. To answer this question, Hon'ble Court has commented in para- 49 that there was no express direction as to apportionment in third proviso to section-5 of EPT The Act. opinion expressed was very specific that a profit can accrue in respect to that part of a business only when apportionment is possible. Hon'ble Court has said that only on said assumption that apportionment was possible said proviso was based upon that presumption only. If no apportionment can be made in respect of process of a particular business, then that will not be considered to be a part of business at all and held that proviso will not apply. It was concluded that principle of Page | 67

Dharampal Satyapal Ltd Vs, DCIT ITA No. 3738, 3739/Del/2016 (A) & ITA No. 3882 & 3883/Del/2016(R) Assessment Year: 2010-11 & 2011-12 apportionment was implied therein. After this detailed discussion, we thus arrive at conclusion that principle of apportionment was criteria for segregating manufacturing profit if it was feasible to do so. As against that in present case assessee has computed profit of Baddi Unit on basis of well accepted principle of accountancy that a profit is accrued where a transaction is closed, meaning thereby profit arises solely at time of sale. 10.13 After detailed discussion, before we close controversy we would like to express that AO's proposition of segmentation of eligible profit of manufacturing unit was not altogether meaningless. This approach of AO cannot be brushed aside on fact of it. But at present, when method of accounting as applicable under Statute, do not suggest such segregation or bifurcation, then it is not fair to draw an imaginary line to compute a separate profit of Baddi Unit. Baddi Unit has in fact computed its profit as per a separately maintained books of account of eligible manufacturing activity. To implement method of computation at stand alone basis, as conveyed by AO, manufacturing unit has prepared a profit & loss account of its manufacturing-cum-sale business activity. If Statute wanted to draw such line of segregation between manufacturing activity and sale activity, then Statute should have made a specific provision of such demarcation. But at present legal status is that Statute has only chosen to give benefit to "any business of drug manufacturing activity" which is incurring expenditure on research activity is eligible for this prescribed weighted deduction. segregation as suggested by AO has first to be brought into Statute and then to be implemented. Without such law, in our considered opinion, it was not fair as also not justifiable on part of AO to disturb method of accounting of assessee regularly followed in Page | 68

Dharampal Satyapal Ltd Vs, DCIT ITA No. 3738, 3739/Del/2016 (A) & ITA No. 3882 & 3883/Del/2016(R) Assessment Year: 2010-11 & 2011-12 normal course of business. It is true that otherwise no fallacy or mistake was detected in books of accounts of Baddi Unit prepared on stand alone basis through which only source of income/profit was manufacturing of specified products. We therefore hold that AO's action of segregation was merely based upon a hypothesis, hence hereby rejected. These two grounds Nos.6 & 7 are allowed." 88. We have carefully perused this decision and note that controversy in this ground of appeal with respect to applicability of section 80 IA (8) of The Act, on marketing and other selling distribution as well as research and development services provided by undertaking as a whole to eligible industrial undertaking at cost or market rate for working out eligible profit for deduction, has been decided. Ld. DR could not point out any other contrary judgment to decision cited by Ld. AR. Therefore, we respectfully following above decision of coordinate bench hold that provisions of section 80IA(8) of The Act does not apply to assessee on transfer of services of marketing division of company to eligible industrial undertaking whose profits are claimed as deductible.‖ 63. Therefore in absence of any finding that head office, branches or depot are providing any services and are considered as a profit centre by assessee or any finding by learned assessing officer, no further profit can be attributed on actual cost allocated by these units to eligible units. Further actual cost charged by 3rd parties are merely allocated to eligible and non eligible units of assessee without making any further noticeable addition to such costs, profit ratio of 10% over and above cost cannot be imputed for working out eligible profit of unit. Further learned CIT – A in assessee‘s own case for assessment year 2004 – 05 has himself held that without any provision of services to assessee, he himself did not agree with finding of learned assessing officer about these facts for assessment year 2004 – 05. Learned CIT

Dharampal Satyapal Ltd Vs, DCIT ITA No. 3738, 3739/Del/2016 (A) & ITA No. 3882 & 3883/Del/2016(R) Assessment Year: 2010-11 & 2011-12 DR also did not point out before us that was there any value addition made by these head office or branches to various cost allocated by assessee. In view of this ground, number 11 of appeal of assessee is allowed and AO is directed to not to markup any profit element on allocation of common cost to eligible undertaking. 64. Ground number 12 of appeal of assessee is with respect to deduction of claim of deduction u/s 80 IB/80 IC to extent of INR 39571939/– in respect of royalty on use of brand name ‗ Rajinigandha‘ by eligible units in terms of provisions of section 80 IA (8) read with section 80 IB (13) and 80 IC (7) of The Act. Learned assessing officer has noted that eligible undertaking is are manufacturing and selling their products under brand name Ranjnigandha is owned by corporate office of Assessee Company. Above brand as noted by him is a well-established brand, which has been used by eligible undertaking, is without making any provision for payment of royalty etc. in its books of accounts. These facts were also pointed out by special auditor and therefore as suggested by special auditor fair market value of transfer of Rajinigandha brand by corporate office to eligible units should also be considered at rate of 1% of sale value of finished products manufactured and sold in name of said brand. Therefore profit of these brands are allocated to eligible undertaking would have reduced eligible profit for deduction by INR 3 9571939/-. Assessee submitted before learned assessing officer that no expenses are incurred by eligible units in this regard nor any income has been earned for use of brand name. It was further stated that above brand is owned by assessee company itself and therefore there is no question of charging any royalty of nature suggested by AO. Learned assessing officer rejected contention of assessee and stated that it is evident that royalty attributable to use of brand name by eligible undertaking has not been charged by brand owning entity. It is further noted by him that above brand is owned by head office/corporate office and accordingly for working out correct profit of Page | 70

Dharampal Satyapal Ltd Vs, DCIT ITA No. 3738, 3739/Del/2016 (A) & ITA No. 3882 & 3883/Del/2016(R) Assessment Year: 2010-11 & 2011-12 eligible unit is provided u/s 80 IA (8) of The Act, non charging of such royalty for use of brand has resulted into distortion of real profit of eligible undertaking. He proposed that profits of eligible undertaking should be reduced by INR 39571939/–. On appeal before learned CIT – A he held that definitely brand has been developed overall long period and is property of corporate or head office of company. Therefore, he confirmed above addition. 65. Learned authorised representative submitted that brand is owned by assessee company as such and every unit or division of company is owner of said brand. He therefore stated that it is impossible to comprehend as to how a company can pay royalty to itself. He further stated that learned assessing officer and Commissioner Appeals has picked up a wrong comparable to make addition in hands of assessee. It was stated that case of royalty in case of ‗Tulsi mix‘ brand is out of context and not relevant to facts of case as in that case assessee himself is being royalty to an independent third party in view of exploitation of its brand name. On contrary it was submitted that present brand originally owned and used by various units of company and as such there is no case of any know how royalty to be reduced from eligible profit. He further stated that in similar circumstances and facts of case AO has not made any adjustment because of royalty in respect of same brand for assessment year 2013 – 14 onwards and as such impugned adjustment is inconsistent. He further stated that factual position to this effect is supported from order of learned transfer pricing officer for assessment year 2013 – 14 and 2014 – 15. He extensively referred to page number 38 – 69 of paper book number 2. He further submitted that royalty being an intangible is not covered under provisions of section 80 IA (8) of The Act as above provision only apply in case of goods and services. Therefore he submitted that AO is not justified in reducing claim of deduction by adjusting notional royalty in respect of brand ‗ RajaniGandha ‗ payable by eligible units to head office. Page | 71

Dharampal Satyapal Ltd Vs, DCIT ITA No. 3738, 3739/Del/2016 (A) & ITA No. 3882 & 3883/Del/2016(R) Assessment Year: 2010-11 & 2011-12 66. Learned departmental representative vehemently supported order of learned assessing officer and learned CIT – A. He submitted that royalty is payable for use of brand owned by another unit of assessee for being used by eligible unit for manufacturing. He therefore submitted that user of above brand by eligible unit is a service and therefore provisions of section 80 IA (8) of The Act are applicable. 67. We have carefully considered rival contention and perused orders of lower authorities. Undisputedly brand originally is owned by assessee company and no royalty is paid by assessee to an outsider i.e. 3rd party. Learned assessing officer has compared royalty payment made by assessee for another brand of ‗ Tulsi mix‘ to another party. Admittedly, in case of assessee for assessment year 13 – 14, learned transfer-pricing officer in order dated 30/10/2017 while benchmarking specified domestic transactions has also not made any adjustment on this account. No doubt, there is a service to the eligible unit for using the brand name but its market value is required to be determined. Assessee has not given this brand name for exploitation to any third party. Further for market value in relation to services of user of above brand name would be price that such goods or services would ordinarily fetch in open market. Assessee has also not allowed anybody else to utilize above brand. Ld AO has compared with the brand name ‗Tulsi Mix‘ for which assessee is paying royalty, which is owned by third party. There is no comparison shown by the ld AO that both are similar brands. Further in later on years ld AO himself has not adjusted the legible profit on this account, therefore, it is apparent that ld AO himself do not think that such adjustment is required to be made. Therefore, brand market value is also not determined by learned assessing officer. In view of this ground number 12 of appeal of assessee is allowed. 68. Ground number 13 of appeal is against confirmation of disallowance of INR 901187656/- in respect of claim of purchase of sandalwood oil from Page | 72

Dharampal Satyapal Ltd Vs, DCIT ITA No. 3738, 3739/Del/2016 (A) & ITA No. 3882 & 3883/Del/2016(R) Assessment Year: 2010-11 & 2011-12 M/s Surya Vinayak industries Ltd and Allied perfumers private limited. Brief facts of case shows that ld assessing officer has made disallowance of purchase to extent of Rs. 72,23,61,646/- from M/s. Surya Vinayak Industries Ltd. (SVIL) and Rs. 17,88,26,010/- from M/s. Allied Perfume P. Ltd. (APPL) by making reference to seized annexure A- 1/ Page 52. Ld AO has alleged that part of purchases of sandalwood oil as recorded in books of assessee are inflated and bogus and that seller M/s. Surya Vinayak Industries Ltd. and APPL does not have production capacity to supply recorded quantity of Sandalwood Oil. However, CIT(A) has restricted disallowance to Rs. 54,94,24,290/- on ground that there is no dispute regarding purchase and use of quantity for manufacturing and sale and CIT(A) computed disallowance on basis of lowest price of other suppliers. Further, AO has made complete disallowance of purchases from APPL and part disallowance from purchases from SVIL. Relevant working of disallowance is at Page 84-85 of assessment order. AO has made such disallowance without appreciating use of actual quantity with reference to manufacturing carried out by assessee. CIT(A) has also disputed price of purchases from SVIL and APPL and has observed that purchases are inflated and adjustment was made in respect of overall purchase price based on quantity purchased from these two parties by referring to lowest price of other suppliers. However, quantum of purchase and use of it in manufacturing process was not disputed after making necessary verification of raw material used and quantity manufactures. It was corroborated from excise records. CIT (A), after considering overall facts of case, held that there is no dispute regarding correctness of quantity of Sandalwood oil purchases and recorded in books of assessee and only dispute is regarding value of purchases. Accordingly, CIT(A) applied minimum purchase rate from third party to quantity of Sandalwood oil purchased from SVIL and APPL. Relevant working is at Page 297-298 of CIT(A)‘s order. Disallowance was restricted to Rs. 54,

Dharampal Satyapal Ltd Vs, DCIT ITA No. 3738, 3739/Del/2016 (A) & ITA No. 3882 & 3883/Del/2016(R) Assessment Year: 2010-11 & 2011-12 94,24,290/- as against Rs. 90,11,87,656/-. Therefore, assessee is in appeal in this ground. 69. Learned authorised representative submitted that identical issue has been considered by Hon‘ble ITAT in order for AY 2005-06 to 09-10 in favour of appellant wherein Hon‘ble court has held that alleged seized documents relied upon by AO are neither incriminating in nature nor credible evidence to justify allegation of inflation of purchase price. It has been held by Hon‘ble ITAT that entire story of inflated purchases is merely on basis of conjectures and there is no real evidence to establish any sort of case against appellant. It was submitted that whole basis of disallowance is based on Page No. 52 of Annexure A/1 seized during course of search on 21.01.2011 and same is year specific and it is not known as to how such document is relevant for AY 2010-11 i.e. year under consideration. In light of finding of Tribunal, alleged annexure A-1/ Page 52 is not relevant to AY 2010-11 and same could not be considered as basis for any addition in AY 2010-11. Further, AO and CIT(A) has not disputed fact that entire purchases of Sandalwood Oil is fully supported from invoices issued by parties and use of same for manufacturing of final product. Further, assessing officer was not justified in relying upon seized document Page 52 of Annexure A/1 as same is incoherent, dumb and wholly irrelevant to case of assessee. Further, seized document relates to AY 2011-12 and as such, it has no relevance or bearing to assessment year under consideration. It is also important to note that name of assessee is nowhere mentioned in said document and it is not known as to how such document is relevant to present case. Hon‘ble ITAT has specifically disputed correctness of this document and has held that no adverse inference could be drawn on basis of same. He further submits that theory of bogus purchases and return of cash by SVIL and APPL as suggested by assessing officer has no valid basis as assessing officer has failed to bring any evidence on record to demonstrate alleged synchronized flow of cheque and cash between assessee and these companies and as such adverse Page | 74

Dharampal Satyapal Ltd Vs, DCIT ITA No. 3738, 3739/Del/2016 (A) & ITA No. 3882 & 3883/Del/2016(R) Assessment Year: 2010-11 & 2011-12 inference is merely on hypothetical basis. reference to statement of various persons, who have no direct involvement with reference to alleged annexure A/1 Page 52, is not relevance. Assessee has simply made purchases of Sandalwood Oil from SVIL and APPL, which are independent third parties, and assessee is not answerable to internal affairs of these concerns. Further, statement of third parties have not been recorded so as to establish authenticity and genuineness of alleged seized annexure A-1 page 52 and as such computerized sheet of alleged annexure is of no evidentiary value in absence of any corroboration/cross examination. It is pertinent to note that manufacturing, sales are fully reconciled and corroborated with VAT return and excise records, and as such there could be no dispute with regard to correctness of quantitative trading results. Further, there is no adverse evidence on record regarding disputing quantum of purchases of sandalwood oil and reconciliation of purchases with production. It is self evident that whole addition is merely based on inferences and bald allegations, which are not supported from any documentary evidences. In any case, once correctness of purchases recorded in books is accepted, dispute regarding valuation of it is wholly irrelevant as revenue authorities cannot sit in armchair of assessee and decided reasonableness of an expenditure. It is not case of revenue that M/s. Surya Vinayak Industries Ltd. and M/s Allied Perfumers Pvt. Ltd. are related parties or provisions of section 80IA(8) or 80IA(10) are applicable and as such there is no ground or basis for any disallowance of purchases of Sandalwood Oil from M/s. Surya Vinayak Industries Ltd. and M/s Allied Perfumers Pvt. Ltd. keeping in view documentary evidences placed on record in form of bills, vouchers, documents showing actual receipt of material, documents in support of actual movement of goods and actual consumption in manufacture of final products, viz., Pan Masala, Tobacco and Gutka products. Even otherwise, CIT (A) has erred in applying third party minimum rate while computing value of purchase in case of SVIL and APPL. It is Page | 75

Dharampal Satyapal Ltd Vs, DCIT ITA No. 3738, 3739/Del/2016 (A) & ITA No. 3882 & 3883/Del/2016(R) Assessment Year: 2010-11 & 2011-12 relevant to mention that no investigation has been carried out to demonstrate comparability of cases. There are several factors which affect price of a commodity and without making any objective comparison with regard to quality, brand, nature and type of product, there could be no ground or basis for applying data of a third party transaction. While applying minimum rate of other party, CIT (A) has ignored fact that other parties have also supplied Sandalwood Oil at different rates as per details given at page 70 of Supplementary paper book 2. Further, CIT (A) has also ignored fact that various items manufactured are of different qualities and use of different category of raw material based on business and commercial expediency and also corroborated from manufacturing of difference quality and sale price and as such mechanical application of minimum rate is highly arbitrary and irrelevant. In any case, even if purchase price of other parties is to be considered, same should be average price and not lowest price. In light of above discussion and order of Hon‘ble ITAT for AY 2005-06 to 09-10, Issue stands settled in favour of appellant as lower authorities have not brought anything on record to substantiate allegation of inflated purchases particularly when seized material relied upon does not belong to year under consideration and there is no other material or finding to support such addition. There is thus no justification for disallowance of claim of purchases to extent of Rs. 54,94,24,290/- on basis of application of minimum third party purchase rate and same may kindly be deleted. 70. Learned departmental representative extensively read para number 70 – 102 of assessment order. It was stated that on perusal of annexure A – 1 seized during course of search and seizure action and also various other an action it is apparent that assessee has made bogus purchases from Messer Surya Vinayak industries Ltd amounting to INR 7 22361646/– and from Messer Allied perfumers private limited of INR 1 78826010 totaling to INR 901187656 in all. He further submitted that such bogus purchases have been added by learned assessing officer Page | 76

Dharampal Satyapal Ltd Vs, DCIT ITA No. 3738, 3739/Del/2016 (A) & ITA No. 3882 & 3883/Del/2016(R) Assessment Year: 2010-11 & 2011-12 giving conclusive reasons. He further went on there from and continued until para number 147 of assessment order and then stated that assessee has made bogus purchases from above two companies and therefore addition has been made in hands. 71. We have carefully considered rival contentions and perused orders of lower authorities. learned CIT – A has decided whole issue and held that based on all evidences gathered during search and post search proceedings in case of appellant and Florian a group of cases, he is satisfied that there are enough evidences in form of seized documents and statement recorded during search and post search proceedings which clearly establishes that so Vinayak industries Ltd and Allied perfumery is private limited has not supplied goods namely Sandalwood oil to assessee and I have merely issued bogus bill to assessee and received cheques from assessee and paid back to assessee in cash after some adjustment in rate and apportioning excise duty. After giving this finding, he further held that Sandalwood oil is an excisable product and entered in excise registrar of perfumery compound division of assessee. He further noted that on date of such there was no discrepancy in stock of sandalwood oil found which is apparent from assessment order where assessing officer himself as mentioned that during course of search proceedings conducted sandalwood oil was found in production for being hundred KG and in managing director room wearing 208.74 KG. He further considered consumption of sandalwood oil after reducing purchases from two companies and also after incorporating quantity purchased from these two companies and compared them. He noted that if quantity purchased from these two entities are disallowed and not taken into consideration than revised yield ranges from 102.57% to 112.62 percentage of entire consumption of raw material, which gives an absurd result of finished goods production, which is exceedingly consumption. He further noted that quantity of finished product 4 KG on consumption of sandalwood oil ranges from 6.5 – 8.54 for various Page | 77

Dharampal Satyapal Ltd Vs, DCIT ITA No. 3738, 3739/Del/2016 (A) & ITA No. 3882 & 3883/Del/2016(R) Assessment Year: 2010-11 & 2011-12 assessment years appears to be reasonable in variation whereas if entire quantity purchased from these 2 entities are ignored and finished product per KG consumption of sandalwood oil will range from 13.47 to 65.25 therefore he held that if quantity purchased from these 2 entities are not considered in quantitative details will give an erroneous and inconsistent results in terms of finished product ratio. He further found that views taken by him is also supported by words mentioned in seized documents annexure A – 1 and page number 42 seized from laptop of Mr. Gupta where there is a mention of adjustment of apportionment of excise duty and rate difference. Therefore, he gave a conclusive finding that purpose of these bills is just adjustment in prices. He further analyze details of purchases from all parties assessment year -wise in respect of sandalwood oil purchase and he found that average rate of alleged purchase from these 2 entities is a much higher rate compared to other undisputed parties. Therefore, he noted that purpose of mentioning quantity of goods as Central would oil ( C ) and sandalwood oil (SU) is just to inflate cost of sandalwood oil purchased and used for manufacturing purposes in perfumery division. He further reached at a conclusion that appellant has though purchase sandalwood oil from grey market but billing of it has been made by these two entities at higher cost. Accordingly, he held that entire quantity purchased from these two entities could not be ignored, as it will go against maintenance of quantitative records as per Central Excise rules and inconsistent results in terms of yield of finished goods. Therefore, he held that purpose of issuing bogus bill by these two entities is just to inflate purchase in amount and to increase amount of purchases in terms of rupees for sandalwood oil. Accordingly, he upheld that in fact assessee has purchased sandalwood oil from grey market, quantity of such purchases were entered into Central Excise register however for purpose of accounting and recording it in books of accounts assessee used these two entities and obtained bogus bills from them at higher rate. However, the order of the ld CIT (A) is for Page | 78

Dharampal Satyapal Ltd Vs, DCIT ITA No. 3738, 3739/Del/2016 (A) & ITA No. 3882 & 3883/Del/2016(R) Assessment Year: 2010-11 & 2011-12 the combined Assessment years for many years. He has given a finding for Ay 2011-12 however, he did not show that how this issue is related to AY 2010-11. The coordinate bench in its order in case of the assessee for the above paper has held that it pertains to Ay 2011-12. Therefore cognizance of the same can be taken only for the year Ay 201—12. There is no evidence found during the course of search that these are the transactions related to this year. The order of the coordinate bench in assessee‘s own case is clear on this issue with respect to which year the cognizance of these seized material would be taken. ― 28. The main seized paper on which heavy reliance is placed up on by revenue is Page No. 52 of annexure A-1 which is a statement dated 30.11.2010 where in the details of three bills dated 19.11.2010 and 26.11.2010 are given. The details of the bill show quantity, rate, and the amount. The total quantity purchased by the assessee is 650 kgs and corresponding amount is Rs. 4.64 crores. There is account statement below which gives the details of payment made up to 31.10.2010 of Rs. 6.70 crores as excess and there is two entry of rate difference and further there is an adjustment on account of excise duty and thereafter Rs. 2.04 crores is determined as amount to pay from which an amount paid by party of Rs. 10.50 crores is deducted which resulted into excess paid of Rs. 12.54 crores. Below that, there is a statement in which details of cash payment starting from 02.11.2010 to 24.11.2010 is mentioned totaling to Rs. 10.50 crores. A further details of account of SVIL and APPL is mentioned and net of it is stated to have been amount excess received of Rs. 9.49 crores which result in to amount to receive of Rs. 30436590/-. ―

Dharampal Satyapal Ltd Vs, DCIT ITA No. 3738, 3739/Del/2016 (A) & ITA No. 3882 & 3883/Del/2016(R) Assessment Year: 2010-11 & 2011-12 13.06.2011 where he has denied of having paid any excess cash to the assessee. The director of M/s. Surya Vinayak Industries Ltd was also summoned and his statement was recorded on 02.05.2011 wherein, he too have denied having received the payment other than by cheque or payment any cash in lieu of sales of material to the assessee company. The ld Assessing Officer himself has stated that the paper is dated 30.11.2010 that means the transaction in this paper are showing the transaction for the month of November 2010. The excess amount paid up to 31.10.2010 is mentioned. The balance is also shown up to 30.11.2010, therefore, it is apparent that this paper does not pertain to Assessment Year 2005-06 to 2009-10 but for Assessment Year 2011-12. None of the transaction showed in this paper pertain to the impugned Assessment Years mentioned before us. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Sinhagd Technical Educational Society (Supra) has held that the incriminating material seized must pertain to assessment years in question. In that particular case the ITAT in [2011] 16 taxmann.com 101 (Pune)/[2012] 50 SOT 89 (Pune)(URO)/[2011] 140 TTJ 233 (Pune) has held in para no 9 that In the process, the AO totally missed the requirements of the law i.e. only the assessment year with the pending assessments and the assessment year with the assessment year specific incriminating documents/transactions or seized asset should only be reopened under the provisions of the first proviso to s. 153A of the Act and not otherwise. It was further held as under in para no 13 that :- ―13. From the above, it is evident that the where nothing assessment year and assessee specific incriminating "money, jewellery or other valuable article or thing or books of account or documents", the assessments for assessment years cannot be disturbed. Further, the concluded assessments should not be disturbed merely for making routine additions, which could have been otherwise done in the regular assessment and of course, the pending assessments fall under exceptions. As Page | 80

Dharampal Satyapal Ltd Vs, DCIT ITA No. 3738, 3739/Del/2016 (A) & ITA No. 3882 & 3883/Del/2016(R) Assessment Year: 2010-11 & 2011-12 stated by the learned counsel point No. 9 of his note reproduced above, "nothing is seized pertaining to asst. yrs. 2000-01 to 2003-04 obviously there is no question of recording satisfaction note". On this reasoning itself, we find that the assessee has to succeed. Therefore, we do not examine the other arguments of the counsel. Otherwise, the counsel argued that the reopening of the assessment for the asst. yrs. 2000- 01 to 2001-02 is impermissible in view of the judgment of Ahmedabad Bench in the case of Vijay M. Vimawal (supra). Further, he also argued that the assessment of asst. yr. 2003-04 was actually completed under s. 143(3) on 30th March, 2006 i.e. prior to receipt of the impugned documents by the AO on 18th April, 2007, this assessment was not pending. Attending to these arguments of the counsel is superfluous and merely an academic exercise as we have upheld the applicability of the decision of the Tribunal in the case of LMJ International Ltd. (supra) for the proposition that the "where nothing incriminating is found in the course of search relating to any assessment years, the assessments for such years cannot be disturbed" and other local decision cited above. Accordingly, the additional ground raised by the assessee for all the four appeals under consideration is allowed and in favour of the assessee.‖ The matter reached honourable Bombay High court [2015] 63 taxmann.com 14 (Bombay)/ [2015] 235 Taxman 163 (Bombay)/ [2015] 378 ITR 84 (Bombay)/ [2015] 278 CTR 144 (Bombay) where in para no 7 it is held that If there is reference made to some loose papers found and seized from his residence indicating some "on money" receipt during the admission process then above co-relation and assessment year wise ought to have been established. In the circumstances, we do not think that the tribunal's order raises any substantial question of law. On further appeal before Honourable Supreme court in [2017] 84 taxmann.com 290 Page | 81

Dharampal Satyapal Ltd Vs, DCIT ITA No. 3738, 3739/Del/2016 (A) & ITA No. 3882 & 3883/Del/2016(R) Assessment Year: 2010-11 & 2011-12 (SC)/ [2017] 250 Taxman 225 (SC)/ [2017] 397 ITR 344 (SC)/ [2017] 297 CTR 441 (SC) held as under:- ―15. At the outset, it needs to be highlighted that the assessment order passed by the AO on August 7, 2008 covered eight Assessment Years i.e. Assessment Year 1999-2000 to Assessment Year 2006-07. As noted above, insofar as Assessment Year 1999-2000 is concerned, same was covered under Section 147 of the Act, which means in respect of that year, there were re-assessment proceedings. Insofar as Assessment Year 2006-07 is concerned, it was fresh assessment under Section 143(3) of the Act. Thus, insofar as assessment under Section 153C read with Section 143(3) of the Act is concerned, it was in respect of Assessment Years 2000-01 to 2005-06. Out of that, present appeals relate to four Assessment Years, namely, 2000-01 to 2003-04 covered by notice under Section 153C of the Act. There is a specific purpose in taking note of this aspect which would be stated by us in the concluding paragraphs of the judgment. 16. In these appeals, qua the aforesaid four Assessment Years, the assessment is quashed by the ITAT (which order is upheld by the High Court) on the sole ground that notice under Section 153C of the Act was legally unsustainable. The events recorded above further disclose that the issue pertaining to validity of notice under Section 153C of the Act was raised for the first time before the Tribunal and the Tribunal permitted the assessee to raise this additional ground and while dealing with the same on merits, accepted the contention of the assessee. 17. First objection of the learned Solicitor General was that it was improper on the part of the ITAT to allow this Page | 82

Dharampal Satyapal Ltd Vs, DCIT ITA No. 3738, 3739/Del/2016 (A) & ITA No. 3882 & 3883/Del/2016(R) Assessment Year: 2010-11 & 2011-12 ground to be raised, when the assessee had not objected to the jurisdiction under Section 153C of the Act before the AO. Therefore, in the first instance, it needs to be determined as to whether ITAT was right in permitting the assessee to raise this ground for the first time before it, as an additional ground. 18. The ITAT permitted this additional ground by giving a reason that it was a jurisdictional issue taken up on the basis of facts already on the record and, therefore, could be raised. In this behalf, it was noted by the ITAT that as per the provisions of Section 153C of the Act, incriminating material which was seized had to pertain to the Assessment Years in question and it is an undisputed fact that the documents which were seized did not establish any co-relation, document-wise, with these four Assessment Years. Since this requirement under Section 153C of the Act is essential for assessment under that provision, it becomes a jurisdictional fact. We find this reasoning to be logical and valid, having regard to the provisions of Section 153C of the Act. Para 9 of the order of the ITAT reveals that the ITAT had scanned through the Satisfaction Note and the material which was disclosed therein was culled out and it showed that the same belongs to Assessment Year 2004-05 or thereafter. After taking note of the material in para 9 of the order, the position that emerges therefrom is discussed in para 10. It was specifically recorded that the counsel for the Department could not point out to the contrary. It is for this reason the High Court has also given its imprimatur to the aforesaid approach of the Tribunal. That apart, learned senior counsel appearing for the respondent,

Dharampal Satyapal Ltd Vs, DCIT ITA No. 3738, 3739/Del/2016 (A) & ITA No. 3882 & 3883/Del/2016(R) Assessment Year: 2010-11 & 2011-12 argued that notice in respect of Assessment Years 2000- 01 and 2001-02 was even time barred. 19. We, thus, find that the ITAT rightly permitted this additional ground to be raised and correctly dealt with the same ground on merits as well. Order of the High Court affirming this view of the Tribunal is, therefore, without any blemish. Before us, it was argued by the respondent that notice in respect of the Assessment Years 2000-01 and 2001-02 was time barred. However, in view of our aforementioned findings, it is not necessary to enter into this controversy. 20. Insofar as the judgment of the Gujarat High Court relied upon by the learned Solicitor General is concerned, we find that the High Court in that case has categorically held that it is an essential condition precedent that any money, bullion or jewellery or other valuable articles or thing or books of accounts or documents seized or requisitioned should belong to a person other than the person referred to in Section 153A of the Act. This proposition of law laid down by the High Court is correct, which is stated by the Bombay High Court in the impugned judgment as well. The judgment of the Gujarat High Court in the said case went in favour of the Revenue when it was found on facts that the documents seized, in fact, pertain to third party, i.e. the assessee, and, therefore, the said condition precedent for taking action under Section 153C of the Act had been satisfied. 21. Likewise, the Delhi High Court also decided the case on altogether different facts which will have no bearing once the matter is examined in the aforesaid hue on the facts of this case. The Bombay High Court has rightly

Dharampal Satyapal Ltd Vs, DCIT ITA No. 3738, 3739/Del/2016 (A) & ITA No. 3882 & 3883/Del/2016(R) Assessment Year: 2010-11 & 2011-12 distinguished the said judgment as not applicable giving the following reasons: "8. Reliance on the judgment of the Division Bench of the High Court of Delhi reported in case of SSP Aviation Ltd. v. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax [2012] 346 ITR 177 is misplaced. There, search was carried out in the case of "P" group of companies. It was found that the assessee before the Hon'ble Delhi High Court had acquired certain development rights from "P" group of companies. Based thereon, the satisfaction was recorded by the Assessing Officer and he issued notice in terms of Section 153C. Thereupon the proceedings were initiated under section 153A and the assessee was directed to file returns for the six assessment years commencing from 2003- 04 onwards. The assessees filed returns for those years but disclosed Nil taxable income. These returns were accepted by the Assessing Officer, however, in respect of the assessment year 2007-08 there was a significant difference in the pattern of assessment for this year also, the return was filed for Nil income but there were certain documents and which showed that there were transactions of sale of development rights and from which profits were generated and taxable for the assessment year 2007-08. Thus, the receipt of Rs.44 crores as deposit in the previous year relevant to the assessment year 2008-09 and later on became subject matter of the writ petition before the Delhi High Court. That was challenging the validity of notice under section 153C read with section 153A. In dealing with such situation and the peculiar facts that the Delhi High Court upheld the satisfaction and the Delhi High Court found that the machinery provided under section 153C read Page | 85

Dharampal Satyapal Ltd Vs, DCIT ITA No. 3738, 3739/Del/2016 (A) & ITA No. 3882 & 3883/Del/2016(R) Assessment Year: 2010-11 & 2011-12 with section 153A equally facilitates inquiry regarding existence of undisclosed income in the hands of a person other than searched person. The provisions have been referred to in details in dealing with a challenge to the legality and validity of the seizure and action founded thereon. We do not find anything in this judgment which would enable us to hold that the tribunal's understanding of the said legal provision suffers from any error apparent on the face of the record. The Delhi High Court judgment, therefore, will not carry the case of the revenue any further." We, thus, do not find any merit in these appeals.‖ Therefore as per principle enunciated by the Honourable supreme court, there has to be specific incriminating material for each assessment year assessed u/s 153A / 153C which is concluded and addition can be made based on that only. 30. Based on the page no 52 of annexure A/1 that is containing accounts as at 31/10/2010. Therefore, it relates to AY 2011-12 only. No documents were shown to us or referred to in the Assessment order shows that any incriminating material was found which even remotely shows that assessee has purchased sandalwood at over invoiced price from those parties. The rate list of material was found for the years in appeal and no attempt was made to show that the material purchased DCIT Vs. Dharampal Satyapal Ltd, ITA No. 3877, 3878, 3879, 3880, 3881/Del/2016 (Revenue) ITA No. 3310, 3717, 3718, 3719, 3737/Del/2016(Assessee) (Assessment Year: 2005- 06 to 2009-10) Page | 56 by the assessee from this party is not at the market rate prevailing on those days. Mere assertion that assessee has purchased material from this party in these years and therefore there has to be over invoicing of the purchases is a mere assertion without any material. Therefore, we do not have any hesitation to hold Page | 86

Dharampal Satyapal Ltd Vs, DCIT ITA No. 3738, 3739/Del/2016 (A) & ITA No. 3882 & 3883/Del/2016(R) Assessment Year: 2010-11 & 2011-12 that In the present case the impugned seized paper does not belong to the Assessment Years involved in the impugned appeals. 31. Furthermore, with respect to the same paper it is also important to note that it is evident from that paper that Surya Vinayak Industries have over paid the assessee than what it should have allegedly paid for over invoicing. This evident facts also runs contrary to the other finding that Surya Vinayak industries is company of not having capacity to supply so much material in para no 145 of the order. If it is so then how it could have paid the assessee over and above what is required to be paid if the goods are over invoiced. The sum over paid by that company to the appellant is not small compared to the purchases. Even circular route stated by ld AO in various para of assessment order 143 onwards also proves contrary if read with the order passed u/s 154 of the act. Therefore according to revenue assessee has reduced the profit by booking the over invoiced purchases of the eligible units, and such income is also derived from the eligible industrial undertaking and further assessee is eligible for higher deduction u/s 80 IC of the act. 32. The LD AO has stated that the companies from whom the material has been purchased are not capable of supplying that quantity of raw material. The ld CIT (A) has held that the quantity details of the assessee cannot be doubted for the reason that amount of finished goods assessee has produced does not justify the lower consumption of material than what is shown by the assessee. This finding of facts is not disputed by revenue. Therefore it cannot be disputed that assessee has purchased the material. Now the issue is at what rate. If it s the case of the revenue that assessee has purchased goods at Rs 100 But has booked purchases at Rs 150 and received Rs 50 back from the supplier in cash, then revenue should have brought on record the near about comparable prices of those material with reasonable evidences. These facts could have been proved either by

Dharampal Satyapal Ltd Vs, DCIT ITA No. 3738, 3739/Del/2016 (A) & ITA No. 3882 & 3883/Del/2016(R) Assessment Year: 2010-11 & 2011-12 the availability of the material in the market or also by the production cost of the supplier. Revenue has not brought on record any such material. Most of the part of the order justifying the addition in absence of this merely remains allegations without evidences. Additions in such a manner cannot be sustained. 33. With respect to the other seized material which have been dealt with by the ld Assessing Officer are dealt with at para No. 107 of the Assessment order as under:- ―107. Certain other seized documents also confirm the fact that there is no product by the name of Sandalwood oil (C) or Sandalwood oil (SU) being supplied by M/s Surya Vinayak Industries Ltd. to M/s Dharampal Satyapal Ltd. Page No. 61-71 of Annexure A-ll seized from Perfumery Division, Okhla In these pages, there is a chart depicting purchase of various raw materials (132 in total) by DSL [Perfumery Division] for the year 2006- 07, 2007-08 and 2008-09 and suppliers thereof. The first and very important aspect of this chart is that wherever necessary, each and every item has been classified and named separately and it contains various compounds. But nowhere in this chart there is any mention of Sandalwood oil [C] and Sandalwood Oil [SU]. At S. No. 121, there is mention of ‗SANDALWOOD OIL‗ as ‗raw material‗. Their suppliers are mentioned in the next column with party name and yearly quantity purchased from them. In this column there is no classification of any sandalwood oil [C] or sandalwood oil [SU]. Just one item is mentioned and that is sandal wood oil. SVIL and Kamakhya Oil Co and other concerns are shown as their suppliers. This proves that only sandalwood oil is being supplied by SVIL. Page No.7 to 12 of Annexure A-16 of Perfumery Division is the statement of raw materials taken from the I.A.S. software which is used in the perfumery division. This statement shows the opening balance, total receipts, total consumption, closing balances, physical balance along with short/excess for the period 1.4.09 to 31.03.10. This statement is showing the date in respect of more than 150 raw materials being Page | 88

Dharampal Satyapal Ltd Vs, DCIT ITA No. 3738, 3739/Del/2016 (A) & ITA No. 3882 & 3883/Del/2016(R) Assessment Year: 2010-11 & 2011-12 purchased by Perfumery Division. In this statement there is mention of only sandalwood oil and not any [C] or [SU]. In the same way page No.2 to 6 of this annexure are the statement of physical stock as on 23.03.2010 prepared by the staff of Perfumery Division. All the items of this physical stock statement dated 23.03.2010 tally with the I.A.S. statement available in page No.9 to 12 taken on 31.3.2010. But surprisingly, the sandalwood oil is not included in this statement of physical stock taken on 23.03.2010 which goes to show there was no stock of sandalwood oil present on that day, whereas the closing balance of I.A.S. statement says closing balance of 2926 Kgs. This again proves the booking of bogus purchase of sandalwood oil by M/s DSL. Page no. 72 of Annexure 14 seized from Perfumery Division of Okhla are now being referred to and discussed. On page 72 there is mention of various raw material purchases as on 31.12.2010. Item No.8 is sandalwood oil where receipt as per MD (Shri Rajiv Gupta) is 12,694 Kg and as per Accounts it is 12,894. A different of 200 Kgs is there and in the remarks column it is mentioned that details are attached. And in this context entries of Page no. 67 are being referred. On this page bill wise detail of purchase from various parties of sandalwood oil for the period 1.4.10 to 31.12.2010 are mentioned. Page No.87 to 90 of Annexure A-11 of the Perfumery Division are now being referred to and discussed. In these pages DSL has calculated the average rate of its raw materials. In these pages also there is no mention of any raw material by the name of Sandalwood oil [C] or [SU]. What is there, is only sandalwood oil, whose average rate is mentioned at Rs.62503/- per kg. In the same annexure in page no.83 to 86, DSL has made a chart of average rate or last rate whichever is higher as on 31.3.2010 for its raw materials. In this chart only the price of sandalwood oil is mentioned which Rs.67,864/- per kg. and there is no [C] or [SU]. Further, page no.79 to 89 of Annexure A-15 contains the office of Form ER- 4 (Annual Return F.Y. 2008-09) which was submitted to the Excise Department. In annexure I (page No.84) Page | 89

Dharampal Satyapal Ltd Vs, DCIT ITA No. 3738, 3739/Del/2016 (A) & ITA No. 3882 & 3883/Del/2016(R) Assessment Year: 2010-11 & 2011-12 information relating to major purchase of raw materials for 2008-09 is given. It contains only one item and that is SANDALWOOD OIL, quantity purchased is shown at 17,066 Kgs valuing Rs.l 18,69,74,659/-. And th-is includes all the purchases made from SVIL, APPL and Kamakhya Oil Co. and others. Annexure II [page 82 to 83] contains the detail of finished goods. Finished goods are 39 in number and value there of is declared at Rs. 142^92,20,822/-. It is surprising to see that out of Rs.l 42.00 crores of sale, the most expensive ingredient is sandalwood oil and value thereof is Rs.118.00 crores‖ 34. On reading of the above paragraph the main contention of the ld Assessing Officer is that there is no product by the name of sandalwood oil (C) or Sandalwood Oil (U) being supplied by Surya Vinayak Industries ltd to M/s. Dharampal Stayapal Ltd (assessee). The page NO. 226 of Annexure 11, which is also the statement of physical stock as on 23.03.2011, does not fall into the assessment years in the above appeal. Further page NO. 72 of Annexure A-14 also pertain financial year 01.04.2010 to 31.12.2010. The central Excise Return Filed in Form NO. ER-1 cannot be said to be incriminating material, as it does not show any escapement of income involved in those papers. Hon'ble Supreme Court Sinhgad Technical & Education society ( supra) in the para No. 18 has endorsed the reasoning given by the coordinate bench stating it to be logical and valid that incriminating material, which was seized, had to pertain to the Assessment Years in question and the documents seized must established any correlation document-wise with the Assessment Years involved. From the above reading of the documents, it is apparent that none of the seized documents belongs to the Assessment Years 2005- 06 to 2009-10. Even otherwise, without commenting whether they are incriminating or not, it does not pertain to the assessment years involved. The ld CIT DR could not show us document, which pertained to the Assessment Year 2005-06 to 2009- 10. As none of the documents seized during the course of search are shown to us Page | 90

Dharampal Satyapal Ltd Vs, DCIT ITA No. 3738, 3739/Del/2016 (A) & ITA No. 3882 & 3883/Del/2016(R) Assessment Year: 2010-11 & 2011-12 pertaining to the Assessment Year 2005-06 to 2009-10, we are of opinion that all the additions made by the ld Assessing Officer are not based on incriminating documents found during the course of search, hence they are not sustainable.‖ 72. Therefore, the coordinate bench has given a categorical finding that this seized document does not belong to AY 2010-11 but for Ay 2011—12. There is no material shown to us by the LD CIT DR, which authorizes us to impute the seized papers pertaining to later years for making addition in the earlier years. Revenue has also not initiated any redressal mechanism provided in the act. No reasons are given by the ld AO or ld CIT (A) to extrapolate those seized documents for AY 2010- 11. The findings of ld CIT (A) are also for Ay 2011-012 and for the reason without application of mind that whether such seized documents are relevant for other AYs other than AY 2011-12, he confirmed the additions for those years. The coordinate bench has given a categorical finding that those papers are pertaining to AY 2011-12 only. We have also taken cognizance of those papers in AY 2011-12 and upheld addition on those papers n appeal of assessee for that year. Therefore, in view of above facts, no addition is warranted in this AY on the basis of the seized papers Accordingly, ground number 13 of appeal of assessee is allowed. 73. Now we come to ground number 14 of appeal of assessee which is against transfer pricing adjustment of INR 59551686/–. Identical addition has been made for AY 2012-13, the ld CIT (A) has considered the figures and facts for AY 2012-13, and therefore in this order for sake of simplicity, facts for that year are considered. For AY 2012-13 , In form number 3CEB filed by assessee and international transaction as reported International transaction of interest on loan with its associated enterprise DNS business AG to Rs 22163283/–, same was referred by learned assessing officer to The Additional Commissioner Of Income Tax, Transfer Pricing Officer – I (1), New Delhi for determination of arm‘s-length price. International transaction is that Page | 91

Dharampal Satyapal Ltd Vs, DCIT ITA No. 3738, 3739/Del/2016 (A) & ITA No. 3882 & 3883/Del/2016(R) Assessment Year: 2010-11 & 2011-12 assessee has advanced foreign currency loan to its subsidiary in Switzerland of INR 176420000/– where rate of interest charged is only 3%. Assessee benchmarked this transnational transaction adopting CUP as most appropriate method. Learned transfer pricing officer issued a show cause notice to assessee on 20/11/2013 wherein he noted that since tested party is assessee , prevalent interest rate that could have been earned by taxpayer by advancing loan to an unrelated party in India, with weak financial health as that of associated enterprises, as there is no security provided by subsidiary against loan advanced, he proposed to charge interest at rate of 16.31% on rupee equivalent of loan advanced to associated enterprise. Assessee submitted its reply on 3/12/2013 submitting that assessee company has given foreign currency loan to its wholly owned subsidiary in Switzerland at interest of 3%. It was further contested that where transaction was of lending money in foreign currency to its foreign subsidiaries in such a situation domestic prime lending rate would have no applicability and international rate fixed being LIBOR should be taken as benchmark rate for international transaction. Learned transfer pricing officer rejected contention of assessee and stated that assessee, in process of lending money to its subsidiary has not followed arm‘s-length principle by not correctly assessing risk associated with international transaction of lending of money where cost of borrowing is not relevant but return that it would have earned in India if money was not lent should be benchmark. Therefore, he adopted return associated with BB rated bonds and calculated 16.67% rate of return. He further adopted an alternative analysis and stated that as there is no credit rating available of associated enterprise, he adopted BB and D ratings for it. He further exercised powers under section 133 (6) and obtained average yield on long-term instruments from Crisil. Reply received for yield BBB grade corporate bond for 5-year period of 11.22%, which he considered for BB rated bonds yield 20% more than such bonds and Page | 92

Dharampal Satyapal Ltd Vs, DCIT ITA No. 3738, 3739/Del/2016 (A) & ITA No. 3882 & 3883/Del/2016(R) Assessment Year: 2010-11 & 2011-12 accordingly held that 16.31% would be return rate. Therefore he calculated interest applying rate of interest at 16.31 percentage and computed interest that should have been charged by assessee of Rs. 110997973/– whereas assessee has booked interest of Rs. 22163283/– and stated that total interest chargeable would have been Rs. 88834690/–. Accordingly, he made an adjustment of Rs. 88834690/– u/s 92CA of The Act and passed an order on 23/12/2013. For AY 2010-11 the addition was made of RS INR 59551686/- . 74. The learned CIT – (A) in para number 32.3 of his order has decided whole issue. He rejected contention of assessee that it is a shareholder activity rejecting that advancement of loan cannot be characterized as a shareholder activity and it is a financial transaction and required to be benchmarked. He further noted that his view is also supported by term loan advanced which was later on to be converted into a share capital. Further with respect to argument of learned authorised representative that issue is squarely covered by decision of honourable jurisdictional High Court in case of cotton natural India private limited, he considered loan agreement and stated that as specifically currency of loan is not mentioned in loan agreement and ceiling of loan is fixed in Indian rupees and that currency of loan is in Indian rupees only and therefore foreign currency fluctuation in Indian rupee loan will not effect and therefore primary LIBOR rate or interest rate prevailing in foreign country will not apply on this loan. Accordingly, he upheld action of learned transfer pricing officer holding that Indian interest rate on such loan for benchmarking interest transaction of loan advanced is required to be taken by taking state bank of India prime lending rate for purpose of benchmarking interest rate under CUP method. Assessee aggrieved with order of learned CIT – A preferred this appeal by this ground of appeal. 75. Learned authorised representative submitted that in remand report submitted before learned CIT – A for assessment year 13 – 14 learned Page | 93

Dharampal Satyapal Ltd Vs, DCIT ITA No. 3738, 3739/Del/2016 (A) & ITA No. 3882 & 3883/Del/2016(R) Assessment Year: 2010-11 & 2011-12 AO has accepted that loan has been advanced in foreign currency. He further referred to copy of remand report placed at page number 72 of paper book number 2. He further submitted that assessee has determined its arm‘s-length price at Rs. 2 2163283/– at rate of 3% per annum inclusive of LIBOR rate applicable on loan. However learned transfer pricing officer determine ALP at INR 8 1714969/– and thereby addition of INR 59551686 has been made. He further submitted that learned transfer-pricing officer has used CUP method for benchmarking international transaction by adopting interest rate at rate of 16.31 percentages per annum by benchmarking with prime lending rate of state bank of India and making an adjustment of further 400 basis points. He submitted that since borrowing entity is a resident of Switzerland which is a country that functions on LIBOR plus rates, hence, borrowing entity would have received a loan on LIBOR plus rates in that jurisdiction. Therefore, there should be rate applicable for calculating arm‘s-length price as against interest rate based on Indian prime lending rate. He stated that this is based on logic that had borrowing entity approached banks in its own country of residence they would have paid interest on LIBOR plus rates. Further, he submitted that it is a settled legal position that in case of an associated enterprise transaction interest to be charged for benchmarking transaction of loans advanced by taxpayer to its foreign associated enterprise in foreign currency should be computed on basis of London interbank offered rate (LIBOR) and not as per domestic rates as such as prime lending rate offered by Indian banks as it has no relevance on such foreign currency loans. He further relied on decision of honourable Delhi High Court in case of CIT vs Cotton naturals private limited [ 55 taxmann.com 523] wherein it has been held that with respect to appropriate comparable rate of interest on foreign currency dominated loan interest rate should be market determine interest rate applicable to currency concerned in which loan has to be repaid. He further stated that in impugned case assessee has advance loan to its wholly- Page | 94

Dharampal Satyapal Ltd Vs, DCIT ITA No. 3738, 3739/Del/2016 (A) & ITA No. 3882 & 3883/Del/2016(R) Assessment Year: 2010-11 & 2011-12 owned subsidiary in Switzerland in foreign currency and same is repayable in that foreign currency only and therefore issue squarely covered by decision of honourable jurisdictional High Court. He further referred to decision of coordinate bench in ITA number 06/07/2002/del/2015 dated 8/10/2018 wherein DCIT vs Seigwerk India private limited similar view was upheld. He further referred to decision of coordinate bench in ITA number 5816/del/2012 wherein it was held that in a case where loan was advanced in foreign currency interest rate on foreign currency loan being qualitatively different, even if one has to see interest, that assessee should have earned one has to see interest that assessee would have earned on foreign currency loans and not rupee dominated loans. He further referred to decision of honourable Bombay High Court in CIT vs. Tata auto comp systems Ltd [374 ITR 516 ] wherein it is held that where assessee advance loan to its foreign associated enterprise, rate of interest was to be determined on basis of rate prevailing in country where loan had been consumed. Therefore he is submitted that benchmarking of interest, if any, should be done on basis of LIBOR instead of prime lending rate of state bank of India is all transaction with its associated enterprise have been undertaken in one currency and as such transfer pricing adjustment is not sustainable under law. 76. Learned departmental representative vehemently supported order of learned transfer pricing officer and learned CIT – A. 77. We have carefully considered rival contention and perused orders of lower authorities. Facts in facts show in present case is that assessee has given a loan to its wholly owned subsidiary in Switzerland namely DS Business AG, Switzerland at interest rate of 3% per annum. Currency of loan is Foreign currency and therefore assessee stated that Swiss LIBOR should be taken for benchmarking interest rate and not Indian rate. In remand, report submitted by learned transfer pricing officer in para number 2.1 it is clearly submitted that assessee has given loan to its associated enterprise in foreign currency and however Page | 95

Dharampal Satyapal Ltd Vs, DCIT ITA No. 3738, 3739/Del/2016 (A) & ITA No. 3882 & 3883/Del/2016(R) Assessment Year: 2010-11 & 2011-12 till now such loan has not been repaid by associated enterprise. From this, it is apparent that assessee has lent money to its foreign associated enterprise in foreign currency. Honourable Delhi High Court in CIT vs. Cotton Naturals P Limited [ 2015 – TII – 09 – HC – Del – TP] dated 27/03/2015 has clearly held that there is no justification or cogent reason for applying prime lending rate for outbound loan transactions where Indian patent has advance loan to an associated enterprises abroad. In view of this finding of learned CIT – A is not correct that prime lending rate should be applied. Though, learned CIT – A is correct in holding that there is no stipulation about repayment currency in loan agreement, However in absence of any such clause in agreement it cannot be said that such loan is required to be repaid in Indian Rs. Only and therefore, PLR has been correctly applied where fact shows that loan has been granted in foreign currency. Honourable Gujarat High Court in 2018-TII-169-HC-AHM-TP in R/Tax Appeal No. 687 of 2018 of PRINCIPAL COMMISSONER OF INCOME TAX RAJKOT-1 Vs JYOTI CNC AUTOMATION PVT LTD has also held that since AE is situated in France, it is most appropriate to consider mark up on basis of average speed over LIBOR charged in France. Accordingly, orders of learned lower authorities are reversed with respect to applicability of Indian interest rate on such loan for benchmarking interest transaction of loan advanced. No other arguments were advanced by either of parties on other issues involved other than that of applicability of PLR vs. LIBOR. In result ground, number 14 of appeal of assessee is allowed. 78. In result, appeal filed by assessee is partly allowed. 79. Now we proceed to decide appeal of learned joint Commissioner of income tax (OSD), central circle – 29, New Delhi. 1st ground of appeal is with respect to disallowance deleted by learned CIT – A by reducing claim under section 80 IB / 80 IC of INR 101734012/- made by learned assessing officer by increasing value of goods transfer from other units to eligible units treating them process goods and by Page | 96

Dharampal Satyapal Ltd Vs, DCIT ITA No. 3738, 3739/Del/2016 (A) & ITA No. 3882 & 3883/Del/2016(R) Assessment Year: 2010-11 & 2011-12 reducing 80 IB/ 80 IC to that extent. Both parties agreed that this issue is squarely covered by ground number 8 of appeal of assessee. For reasons given while deciding ground number 8 of appeal of assessee and of a direction therein to compute 2% of value of job work charges only in certain transactions, we dismiss ground number 1 of appeal of learned assessing officer. 80. Ground number 2 of appeal of assessee is with respect to direction of learned CIT – A in directing learned assessing officer to calculate royalty at rate of 2.5% of raw material without excise duty as against 3%, rate approved by Ministry of company affairs in respect of service/ goods transfer from perfumery division to eligible units. Both parties confirmed that this ground is connected to ground number 9 of appeal of assessee. We have decided ground number 9 of appeal of assessee wherein we have held that because assessing officer himself has accepted rate of technical know-how/royalty at rate of 2.5% in assessment year 2013 – 14 onwards and no adjustment has been made in this regard and therefore in present case addition is unwarranted. In view of this ground number 2 of appeal of learned assessing officer is dismissed. 81. Ground number 3 of appeal of learned assessing officer is with respect to reduction of claim u/s 80 IB of INR 3 2704671 made by learned assessing officer taking into account expenditure such as depreciation of fixed assets of corporate office and expenses of depot of INR 32704671/- incurred by business of assessee for providing services to eligible undertaking which is not been allocated to eligible undertaking and by reducing deduction u/s 80 IB and I 80 IC of The Act to that extent. 82. We have heard both parties. Learned CIT DR vehemently supported order of learned assessing officer and submitted that depreciation is required to be allocated to total expenditure incurred by eligible unit for purpose of working out right amount of eligible deduction.

Dharampal Satyapal Ltd Vs, DCIT ITA No. 3738, 3739/Del/2016 (A) & ITA No. 3882 & 3883/Del/2016(R) Assessment Year: 2010-11 & 2011-12 Learned authorised representative vehemently supported order of learned CIT – A. 83. We have carefully considered rival contention and perused order of lower authorities. Learned assessing officer has made adjustment of claim of deduction u/s 80IB/IC on basis of observation of Special Auditor as per which depreciation of Head office must be allocated to eligible undertaking. Learned CIT(A) has deleted adjustment on reasoning that statutory claim of depreciation u/s 32 is on basis of asset put to use at specific location/unit and same cannot be allocated on pro rata basis. relevant finding of CIT(A) is as under : ―I have considered assessment order, written submissions and oral arguments of Ld AR. For AY 2004-05, I have considered issue and given relief to assessee in appellant case in appeal no.12/12-13/1038. My findings on this issue are reproduced as under: I have considered assessment order, written submissions and oral arguments of Ld AR during appellate proceeding. Ld.AR has argued that depreciation of Noida Division and corporate office are assets of these divisions. Therefore, question of allocating depreciation to eligible units does not arise. Similarly, expenses of Rs. 20,26,125 are belonging to depots. Hence question of loading this expense to eligible unit does not arise. Ld AR has alternatively argued that any such addition will not have impact on taxable income. I have examined arguments of Ld. AR that depreciation of a particular unit cannot be bifurcated in prorata basis, as depreciation is eligible even if asset is not used exclusively for business. As far as, other expense amounting to Rs. 20,11,566 debited for specific division ―Noida Gutka Division‖ there is no question of allocating such expense to eligible units unless it is proved that same is not pertaining to ―Noida Gutka Division‖. Therefore, I direct AO to

Dharampal Satyapal Ltd Vs, DCIT ITA No. 3738, 3739/Del/2016 (A) & ITA No. 3882 & 3883/Del/2016(R) Assessment Year: 2010-11 & 2011-12 delete these additions. I would like to clarify here that I do not agree with argument of Ld AR that proportionate disallowance of deprecation or expense from other unit to eligible unit claiming deduction u/s 80IB/80IC will not effect quantum of deduction, as shifting of expense from other unit to eligible unit will reduce profit of eligible unit, hence quantum of deduction and therefore total income will reduce, though total income will remain same. Accordingly, there will be impact on total income. However on merits of addition, I have given relief. As a result this ground of appeal is allowed. Depreciation under Income Tax The Act u/s 32 is eligible even asset is used for single day during FY for business of assessee is entitled for claiming depreciation u/s 32 of IT The Act. In present case, definitely there are units of appellant which are not claiming deduction u/s 80IB/80IC and headquarter assets can be said to be used for such units also. Further, I agree with arguments of Ld AR that depreciation cannot be bifurcated on proportionate basis. Accordingly, reduction on quantum of deduction u/s 80IB/80IC on account of depreciation cannot be confirmed. These grounds of appeal for various AYs are allowed.‖ 84. On perusal of order of learned CIT (A), we find that issue has been decided after considering facts and submissions of appellant. He has rightly held that depreciation on assets of one particular unit/division cannot be allocated to some other unit/division and as such, finding recorded by CIT (A) is well reasoned and based on sound legal principles. Further issue is also supported by decision of coordinate bench in case of ACIT v. Secure Meters Ltd. (ITA No. 542/Ju/2007 & 349/JU/2009) (28.08.2012) wherein Hon‘ble Tribunal upheld order of ld CIT (A) deleting adjustment of deduction u/s

Dharampal Satyapal Ltd Vs, DCIT ITA No. 3738, 3739/Del/2016 (A) & ITA No. 3882 & 3883/Del/2016(R) Assessment Year: 2010-11 & 2011-12 80IB/IC on account of allocation of depreciation of assets in Head Office. relevant finding is as under : ―2.8 above findings of ld. CIT (A) in our considered view are in consonance with decision of Hon'ble Apex Court in case of Rajasthan State Warehousing Corporation vs. CIT (supra). findings of Hon'ble Apex Court has also been tabulated in order of ld. CIT(A) at pages 20 and 21 of his order. ld. CIT(A) has given categorical findings that various assets at HO are used for day to day working at HO. These assets are not used for activities of two units at Bated and Barotiwala. At HO at Udaipur, company has to perform certain corporate functions and these assets are used for that purpose. Hon'ble Supreme Court held that no such expenses can be apportioned against separate independent unit. AO has mainly relied on order of Hon'ble High Court in case of Rajasthan State Warehousing Corporation vs. CIT (supra) which has been reversed by Hon'ble Supreme Court. Therefore, ld. CIT (A) held that apportionment on account of HO made by AO was not justified. ld. DR also mainly relied on order of AO including decision of Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court. However, ld. DR could not point out as to why order of Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court is still applicable when same has been reversed by Hon'ble Apex Court, which has been considered by ld. CIT(A). Therefore, in view of facts and circumstances of case and in view of findings given by ld. CIT(A) which are reproduced somewhere above in this order, we hold that ld. CIT(A) was justified in allowing claim of assessee.‖ 85. Further, during course of hearing it was submitted that even otherwise, assessing officer has not made any adjustment on account of allocation of depreciation from AY 2013-14 onwards, which is also supported by order of learned transfer pricing officer for AY 2013-14 and 2014-15. In view of above facts we do not find any infirmity in

Dharampal Satyapal Ltd Vs, DCIT ITA No. 3738, 3739/Del/2016 (A) & ITA No. 3882 & 3883/Del/2016(R) Assessment Year: 2010-11 & 2011-12 order of learned CIT – A in directing learned assessing officer to not to consider depreciation on various assets for purpose of reduction of claim under section 80 IB and 80 IC of income tax The Act. Accordingly, ground number 3 of appeal of learned assessing officer is dismissed. 86. Ground number 4 of appeal of learned assessing officer is with respect to deletion of reduction of claim u/s 80 IB/80 IC of INR 150836977/- for which learned assessing officer taking into consideration fair market value of services obtained by eligible undertaking from corporate offices, depose and branches et cetera was made. Both parties confirmed that this is connected to ground number 11 in appeal of assessee. As we have already allowed ground, number 11 of appeal of assessee this ground of appeal of learned AO does not survive for reason given by us therein. Accordingly, ground number 4 of appeal is dismissed. 87. Ground number 5 of appeal of learned AO is against order of learned CIT – A in deleting reduction of claim u/s 80 IB/80 IC of INR 6 9085390/- thus ignoring fact that royalty payment at rate of 3% which was made to sister concern taken by AO was rate approved by regional Dir. Ld Assessing officer has made impugned adjustment of claim of deduction u/s 80IB/IC on ground that royalty @ 1% of net sales paid to M/s. Dharampal Satyapal & Sons P. Ltd. (Third party) is less than rate approved by Regional Director of Central Government which is 3% and as such profit of eligible units and consequential claim of deduction 80IB/IC is inflated due to less royalty payment. Accordingly, claim of deduction was reduced by increasing royalty payment by eligible units by 2% of net sales in terms of provisions of 80IA(10) r.w.s. 80IB(13) & 80IC(7) of Income Tax The Act, 1961. CIT(A) deleted adjustment on ground that rate fixed by Regional Director was maximum ceiling limit and same cannot be considered as fair value for adjustment in terms of provisions of section 80IA(10) r.w.s. 80IB(13) & 80IC(7) of Income Tax The Act, 1961. Page | 101

Dharampal Satyapal Ltd Vs, DCIT ITA No. 3738, 3739/Del/2016 (A) & ITA No. 3882 & 3883/Del/2016(R) Assessment Year: 2010-11 & 2011-12 88. We have heard both parties on issue and considered order of learned lower authorities. learned CIT – A has deleted above addition considering that M/s Dharampal Satyapal & Sons Ltd. owns trade mark in field of chewing tobacco such as Tulsi etc. As M/s Dharampal Satyapal& Sons Ltd. is a related party, approval was required for terms and conditions of such royalty payment by Director of Central Govt.of India. As per said agreement, royalty payment cap was fixed at 3% of net sales. However, as mutually agreed, royalty was paid @1% of net sales. Here also Ld AR has argued as in earlier grounds that maximum ceiling of royalty cannot be taken, as market rate as assessing officer has not brought any facts on record stating that under similar circumstances any party has not paid royalty @3%. Maximum ceiling approved by Regional Director is only maximum ceiling cap for payment of royalty as per provision of that Act. Further Ld. AR argued that same rate of royalty is paid to other undertaking of appellant, which are not eligible for deduction u/s 80IB/80IC. Reasons given by ld CIT (A) for deleting addition are found to be correct. No infirmity was also pointed out by learned departmental representative. It may be appreciated that rate approved by Regional Director is maximum rate and there could we no ground or basis for treating same for any adjustment in terms of provisions of section 80IA(10) r.w.s 80IB(13) and 80IC(7) of The Act. It is relevant to note that same rate of royalty @1% is being paid by both eligible as well as non-eligible units and as such, impugned adjustment is on arbitrary and mechanical basis. In view of this , order of ld CIT(A) deleting adjustment of deduction u/s 80IB/IC on account of notional royalty in respect of ―Tulsi‖ Brand in excess of 1% being payable by eligible units to M/s. Dharampal Satyapal & Sons P. Ltd. Deserves to be upheld as same rate was applied and accepted even by AO in respect of non-eligible units. Accordingly, ground number 5 of appeal of learned assessing officer is dismissed. 89. Ground number 6 is also with respect to deleting reduction of claim u/s 80 IB/80 IC of Rs. 2295045/– made by learned assessing officer Page | 102

Dharampal Satyapal Ltd Vs, DCIT ITA No. 3738, 3739/Del/2016 (A) & ITA No. 3882 & 3883/Del/2016(R) Assessment Year: 2010-11 & 2011-12 on account of processing charges of betel not at rate of 3% in place of 2.5% taken by assessee, thus, ignoring fact that processing charges at rate of 3% which was made to sister concern taken by learned assessing officer was rate approved by regional Dir. Ld assessing officer has made impugned adjustment of claim of deduction u/s 80IB/IC on ground that Betel nut processing charges @ Rs. 2.5 per Kg paid to M/s. Dharampal Satyapal & Sons P. Ltd. (Third party) is less than rate approved by Regional Director of Central Government which is Rs. 3 per Kg and as such profit of eligible units and consequential claim of deduction 80IB/IC is inflated due to less payment of processing charges. Accordingly, claim of deduction was reduced by increasing Betel nut processing charges claimed by eligible units by Rs. 0.5 per Kg in terms of provisions of 80IA(10) r.w.s. 80IB(13) & 80IC(7) of Income Tax The Act, 1961. ld. CIT(A) deleted adjustment on ground that rate fixed by Regional Director was maximum ceiling limit and same cannot be considered as fair value for adjustment in terms of provisions of section 80IA(10) r.w.s. 80IB(13) & 80IC(7) of Income Tax The Act, 1961. 90. We have carefully considered rival arguments as well as order of lower authorities. We have considered assessment order, appellate order, written submission, and oral arguments of Ld. A and LD. DR . Ld Assessing Officer has made addition on account of report of special auditor suggesting that market rate of processing betel nut should be at maximum ceiling rate as approved by Regional Director of Central Govt. of India which is at Rs. 3 per kg. instead of processing charges debited @ Rs. 2.5 per keg. Less charging of processing charges has resulted into over statement of profit of eligible undertaking for claiming deduction u/s. 80IB/80IC. Main argument of Ld. AR against said finding is that Regional Director has fixed maximum amount of job charges. Such maximum amount cannot be taken as market rate of job charges, which an independent party would charge for, said work. It is business decision between parties to fix job charges within Page | 103

Dharampal Satyapal Ltd Vs, DCIT ITA No. 3738, 3739/Del/2016 (A) & ITA No. 3882 & 3883/Del/2016(R) Assessment Year: 2010-11 & 2011-12 overall ceiling approved by Regional Director i.e. 3%. Assessee Appellant and associated concern has agreed for processing charges @ 2.5%. Further, Ld. AR argued that same rate of job charges has been paid by other units of appellant as well who are not eligible for deduction u/s. 80IB/80IC. Therefore, rate cannot be questioned to reduce profit to eligible undertaking. Even otherwise, Maximum ceiling rate of job charges cannot be taken as market rate of such charges. Further, appellant has charged similar rate of job charges for other industrial undertaking, which are not eligible for deduction u/s. 80IB/80IC. Under these circumstances, ld AO has taken an incorrect view that on account of job charges to its associate concern for processing beetling has resulted into over statement of profit of industrial undertaking eligible for deduction u/s. 80IB/80IC. finding of CIT(A) is well reasoned as he has held that rate approved by Regional Director is maximum rate and there could no ground or basis for treating same for any adjustment in terms of provisions of section 80IA(10) r.w.s 80IB(13) and 80IC(7) of The Act. It is relevant to note that same rate of processing charges @ Rs. 2.5 per Kg is being paid by both eligible as well as non-eligible units and as such, impugned adjustment is on arbitrary and mechanical basis. Accordingly, we uphold order of ld CIT (A) and direct assessing officer not to alter deduction u/s. 80IB/80IC of eligible undertaking on account of variation in job charges. Ground number 6 of appeal of learned AO is dismissed. 91. Ground number 7 of appeal of learned assessing officer is against action of learned CIT – A in allowing an amount of Rs. 1146248 on account of excise duty refund for computation of deduction u/s 80 IC of income tax The Act. assessing officer has considered adjustment on basis of observation of special auditor. Special auditor is of opinion that Excise duty refund is an incentive received from government and it is in nature of ―other income‖ and cannot be said to be derived from industrial undertaking. Accordingly, claim of deduction Page | 104

Dharampal Satyapal Ltd Vs, DCIT ITA No. 3738, 3739/Del/2016 (A) & ITA No. 3882 & 3883/Del/2016(R) Assessment Year: 2010-11 & 2011-12 u/s 80IC was reduced. ld CIT(A) deleted addition on basis of decision of Hon‘ble Delhi High Court in case of sister concern of assessee in CIT v. M/s. Dharampal Premchand Ltd. 317 ITR 353 (Del) wherein Hon‘ble High Court held that excise duty refund is linked with manufacturing activity of assessee and same qualifies for deduction u/s 80IB of The Act. Hon supreme court in Hon‘ble Supreme Court in case of CIT v. Meghalaya Steels Ltd [2016] 383 ITR 217 (SC) has approved same. Therefore as honourable CIT – A as decided whole issue following decision of honourable jurisdictional High Court, learned departmental representative also could not point out any contrary decision on this issue, we uphold order of learned CIT – A in holding that excise duty refund is part of eligible income for deduction u/s 80 IC of income tax The Act. Accordingly, ground number 7 of appeal of learned assessing officer is dismissed. 92. Ground number 8 of appeal is with respect to deletion of addition of INR 1 934839/– on account of prior period expenses. Assessing officer has considered disallowance merely on basis of report of Special auditor without even examining details or nature of expenses. CIT(A) deleted disallowance on ground that neither Special auditor nor assessing officer has mentioned specific details of prior period expenses particularly when assessee has suo motu disallowed proper period expenses to extent of Rs. 45,27,338/- in return of income. It was further held that assessee being subjected to tax at highest slab rate in all years, impugned disallowance is tax neutral. 93. Learned departmental representative vehemently supported order of learned assessing officer whereas learned authorised representative supported order of learned CIT – A. 94. We have carefully considered rival contentions. learned CIT – A has deleted disallowance on ground that neither special auditor nor assessing officer has specifically mentioned any details about prior period expenditure and he also considered that assessee himself is also disallowed prior period expenditure of Rs. for 527338/– in return of Page | 105

Dharampal Satyapal Ltd Vs, DCIT ITA No. 3738, 3739/Del/2016 (A) & ITA No. 3882 & 3883/Del/2016(R) Assessment Year: 2010-11 & 2011-12 income itself. Further, as learned assessing officer has not pointed out about time when bills were admitted by assessee has a liability by approving it. Further finding and conclusion of CIT (A) are well reasoned. Special auditor and assessing officer have failed to point out specific expenditure and disallowance is on mechanical basis without appreciating facts of case. Learned CIT DR also could not point out any infirmity in order of learned CIT – A. In any case, genuineness of expenses is not dispute and only issue being year of allowability particularly when tax rate remains same; disallowance is merely on technical ground. In view of this we uphold order of learned CIT – A deleting addition of INR 1 934839/– on account of prior period expenditure. Accordingly, ground number 8 of appeal of AO is dismissed. 95. Learned assessing officer has challenged in ground number 9 deletion of addition of INR 2 6345007 made on account of foreign exchange fluctuation. Assessing officer has computed loss on fluctuation of foreign currency in respect of loan advanced to wholly owned subsidiary M/s. DS Business AG. Action of assessing officer is on basis of report of Special auditor wherein Special Auditor has observed as per AS-11, foreign currency transactions must be reported on closing rate as on Balance sheet date and any difference must be recognized as profit or loss. Even though, action of assessing officer in computing foreign exchange fluctuation loss has reduced income of assessee during year under reference, however, said treatment is principally wrong and against scheme of The Act. It is further clarified that this very issue is present in all years i.e. 2005-06 to 2011-12 wherein in some years it has resulted in increase in taxable income whereas in some years it has resulted in reduction. CIT(A) has decided issue vide consolidated order wherein effect of addition/loss of such foreign exchange fluctuation of foreign currency loan has been nullified on basis of decision of Apex Court in case of CIT v. Tata Locomotive and Engineering Co. Ltd. [1966] 60 ITR 405(SC) and Sutlej Cotton Mills Ltd. Page | 106

Dharampal Satyapal Ltd Vs, DCIT ITA No. 3738, 3739/Del/2016 (A) & ITA No. 3882 & 3883/Del/2016(R) Assessment Year: 2010-11 & 2011-12 v. CIT [1979] 116 ITR 1(SC) . Ld CIT (A) has rightly held that loan transaction being on capital account, gain or loss arising on fluctuation of foreign currency is capital in nature and not taxable under Income tax The Act. Learned departmental representative also could not point out any reason to say that order of learned CIT – A is incorrect and foreign exchange fluctuation gain arising to assessee on statement of foreign currency loan is not a capital receipt. Accordingly order of learned CIT – A is upheld and ground number 9 of appeal of AO is dismissed. 96. Ground number 10 of appeal of learned assessing officer‘s appeal is against order of learned CIT – A wherein he has deleted disallowance of Rs. 49831329/– made by assessing officer on account of section 14 A of income tax The Act and thus restricting disallowance to extent of exempt income only. Both parties confirmed that this ground of appeal is directly related to ground number 6 of appeal of assessee. While deciding ground number 6 of appeal of assessee we have restricted disallowance u/s 14 A of income tax The Act to extent of disallowance already offered by assessee on this score, therefore, for reasons stated therein, we dismiss ground number 10 of appeal of learned AO. 97. Ground number 11 of appeal of learned assessing officer is with respect to direction of learned CIT – A with respect to computing income of assessee with respect to bogus purchases found during course of search taking lowest purchase price from third parties. Both parties agreed that this ground is identical to ground number 13 of appeal of assessee. As we have already held in that particular ground that seized paper relates to assessment year 2011 – 12 and not to assessment year 2010 – 11 and therefore no addition can be made during year as seized paper do not relate to assessment year concerned. Accordingly, ground number 11 of appeal of assessee officer is dismissed.

Dharampal Satyapal Ltd Vs, DCIT ITA No. 3738, 3739/Del/2016 (A) & ITA No. 3882 & 3883/Del/2016(R) Assessment Year: 2010-11 & 2011-12 98. Ground number 12 of appeal is with respect to addition deleted by learned CIT of INR 387876/- made on account of lesser rate of job work charges from sister concern in comparison to other related parties. LD AO has considered addition on basis of report of Special auditor wherein it has been observed that Silver foil division of assessee was charging Rs. 3,000/- per Kg from M/s. Dharampal Premchand Ltd. towards job work charges whereas it has charged Rs. 4,100/- per Kg from third parties and as it has resulted in understatement of income of assessee and inflation of profits of eligible units of sister concern. Accordingly, addition in respect of difference of rates was made. Ld CIT (A) has deleted addition on ground that impugned addition is purely on notional basis and not sustainable under law. 99. We have heard rival contentions whole addition has been made by learned assessing officer on presumption that Assessee Company has charge of charges at rate of INR 3000 per KG to its group concern for doing job work for them and silver file division as against INR 4100 per KG charged to other parties and other units of company. This was remark of special auditor and it was stated that if it were done for eligible units of group concern then group concerns would be entitled for higher deduction by INR 377876. It is evident that addition of higher rate of job charges is on hypothetical basis and against concept of real income. Further, it is not open to assessing officer to sit in armchair of assessee and to make business decisions on arbitrary basis. Further, there is no provision in Income tax The Act, 1961 that warrants such adjustment and as such, action of assessing officer in increasing rate of job work charged from sister concern M/s. Dharampal Premchand Ltd. is not sustainable under law. Order of CIT (A) is well reasoned and learned departmental representative could not controvert order of learned CIT – A therefore, addition in respect of job work has rightly been deleted by CIT (A). Accordingly, ground number 12 of appeal of learned AO is dismissed.

Dharampal Satyapal Ltd Vs, DCIT ITA No. 3738, 3739/Del/2016 (A) & ITA No. 3882 & 3883/Del/2016(R) Assessment Year: 2010-11 & 2011-12 100. Ground number 13 of appeal of AO is against deletion of addition with respect to profit arising out of sale of shares of Messer‘s coastal Project‘s private limited pertains to Messer is SR credits private limited and not to assessee company. Assessing officer has considered addition on basis of documents seized from premises of assessee, which are in nature of proposed MOU, dated 19.01.2007 entered between assessee and M/s. Coastal Projects P. Ltd. for purchase of shares by assessee. assessing officer observed that assessee purchased 18,12,500 shares of M/s. Coastal Projects P. ltd. for a consideration of Rs. 72,50,00,000/- on 29.02.2008 and sold them to M/s. S.R. Credits P Ltd. on 21.09.2009 for sum of Rs. 82,50,00,000/- thereby earning profit. Subsequently, M/s. S.R. Credits P. Ltd. sold these shares for total consideration of Rs. 110,99,93,126/- to foreign institutional investors. LD AO has alleged that entire arrangement is a colourable device and profit earned by M/s. S.R. Credits P. Ltd. actually belongs to assessee. As a result, gain earned by M/s. S.R. Credits P. ltd. is taxed in hands of assessee. In fact, transaction between M/s. S. R. Credits P. Ltd. and foreign institutional investors was of independent nature based on their own business interest and it could have no bearing to assessee. Further, assessee has already earned reasonable profit in transaction as short-term capital gain and in light of documentary evidences on record, it should be considered as in order. In any case, there can be no justification for any addition on notional and hypothetical basis. 101. The ld CIT(A) deleted addition on ground that in case of M/s. S.R. Credits P. ltd., first appellate authority has upheld sanctity and genuineness of transaction and as such there is no ground or basis for any addition in hands of assessee. Therefore learned AO aggrieved with order of learned CIT – A preferred this appeal before us. 102. Learned departmental representative vehemently referred to order of learned assessing officer whereas learned authorised representative relied upon order of learned CIT – A. Page | 109

Dharampal Satyapal Ltd Vs, DCIT ITA No. 3738, 3739/Del/2016 (A) & ITA No. 3882 & 3883/Del/2016(R) Assessment Year: 2010-11 & 2011-12 103. We have carefully considered rival contention and perused orders of learned lower authorities. learned CIT – A is dealt with whole order as under:- ―I have considered assessment order, written submission and oral arguments of Ld. AR. After considering entire facts and evidences gathered by assessing officer, which are reproduced in assessment order. I have held in case of M/s. SR Credit PVt. Ltd. in appeal no. 102/13-14/1253 vide appellate order dtd. 21/03/2013 that it could not established that these transactions are pertaining to appellant not M/s. SR Credit Pvt.Ltd. Therefore, capital gain arising out and these transactions are taxable in hands of M/s. SR Credit Pvt.Ltd. My finding in case of M/s. SR Credit Pvt. Ltd. in above said appeal no is reproduced as under:- I have considered assessment order, written submission, report of assessing officer and oral arguments of LD AR during appellate proceedings. ―First arguments against jurisdiction of addition u/s. 153A. Ld. AR has relied on various judicial pronouncements that no addition/disallowance or tinkering can be made in closed assessment without incriminating evidences gathered during search and relied on various judicial pronouncements. On this issue, I have perused assessment order. assessing officer has relied on two seized documents to prove that transaction of sale and purchase of shares of M/s. Coastal Projects Pvt. Ltd. (CPPL) do not belong to appellant but M/s. DSL namely.

Dharampal Satyapal Ltd Vs, DCIT ITA No. 3738, 3739/Del/2016 (A) & ITA No. 3882 & 3883/Del/2016(R) Assessment Year: 2010-11 & 2011-12 i) page 1-6 of Annexure AA seized from office at A- 85 Sector, Noida and page 1-58 of Annexure AA-1. I have perused assessment order with a view to ascertain contents of these seized documents. Page no. 1-6 Annexure AA is memorandum of understanding dtd. 19/01/2007 written on stamp paper between DSL & Coastal Projects Pvt. Ltd. By virtue of this agreement M/s. DSL agreed to invest Rs. 100 crores by picking up 2,50,00,000/- shares at face value of Rs. 10 with premium of Rs. 390 per share. Page 1-58 of annexure AA-1 contain another agreement dtd. 12/03/2008 between Coastal Projects Pvt. Ltd. (and Dharampal Satyapal Ltd., FIL Capital management (Mauritium) Ltd. Sequila India Growth Investment Holding & Dents Cheque Bank AG, Hongkong Branch. Through these agreements, new investors have agreed to purchase shares held by M/s. DSL at a price of Rs. 553.24 per equity. Therefore, above, seized documents are related to findings that shares of CPPL acquired by DSL@Rs. 400 per share was intended to FIIS15 for higher consideration by DSL which has been sold to appellant at lesser rate. Therefore, in my view, there are incriminating seized document which supports stand of assessing officer that transaction of sale and purchase of shares by appellate is not real but these shares are sold by M/s. DSL. In view of above facts, assessing officer regarding transaction of shares of CPPL. Hence, arguments of Ld AR that eh action of assessing officer regarding treatment of shares by assessing officer is not based on any incriminating seized documents is not correct. Therefore, judicial pronouncement relied by Page | 111

Dharampal Satyapal Ltd Vs, DCIT ITA No. 3738, 3739/Del/2016 (A) & ITA No. 3882 & 3883/Del/2016(R) Assessment Year: 2010-11 & 2011-12 Ld. AR is misplaced on fact. Therefore, judicial argument of Ld. AR are dismissed. i) I would discuss issue on merits. Sale of shares of coastal power projects Pvt. Ltd. by appellant to FIIS. assessing officer held that sale of shares of Coastal Power Projects Pvt. Ltd. by appellant is arranged transaction to reduce profit by Dharampal Satyapal Ltd (DSL) as Dharampal Satyapal Ltd, is having taxable income and appellant is only showing loss. Main grounds and evidence relied by assessing officer are as under:- a) Dharampal Satyapal Ltd. has sold 18,12,500/- shares of M/s. Coastal Power Projects Pvt. Ltd. on 21/08/2009 to appellant for consideration of Rs. 82.50 crores which ultimately was sold by appellant for Rs. 110,99,93,126/- to F11s. vide purchase agreement dtd. 09/10/2009. An agreement was found during search dtd. 12/03/2008 for sale of shares amongst Dharampal Satyapal Ltd. F11s and Coastal Ltd. where consideration was shown as Rs. 100,29,47,500/-. Therefore, assessing officer concluded that shares were transferred to appellant at lower cost. ii) Though formal engagement letter was issued by M/s. SR Credits Pv t.Ltd. to Yes Bank, however, Mr. Namit of Yes Bank which has maintained escrow account has stated that initial meeting was held between various officers of namely Sh. Anil Goswami, GM, DSL, Rajiv Gupta (MD), DSL. Mr. Rajesh Gupta, Director, DSL and official of Yes Bank on 28/07/2009, which suggest that transaction in name appellant is only paper transaction. Page | 112

Dharampal Satyapal Ltd Vs, DCIT ITA No. 3738, 3739/Del/2016 (A) & ITA No. 3882 & 3883/Del/2016(R) Assessment Year: 2010-11 & 2011-12 Ld AR argued that issue of transfer of shares by Dharampal Satyapal Ltd. was not finalized with FIIS as per seized agreements which was dtd. 21/08/2008 and deal account not be finalized. Dharampal Satyapal Ltd. continued its effort to sale share of M/s. Coastal Power Projects Pvt. Ltd. which is evident from e-mail seized during search operation where offer was for Rs. 73.1 crore only. This proves that shares of Coastal Power Projects Ltd. was not sold to appellant at lower cost which was Rs. 82.50 crores on 21/08/2009 which exceeds offer as per e-mail which is confirmed by assessing officer also. Ld AR further argued that no statement of bank officer Sh. Namit was given to appellant during assessment proceedings for rebuttal. Even on reference assessing officer in his reply has stated that such statement is not part of appraisal report which means such statement was not even seen by assessing officer. Further, Ld AR argued that appellant is also a group concern of Dharampal Satyapal Ltd. overall management is common. Therefore, even if meeting was held by managing director or senior officials of Dharampal Satyapal Ltd. they were representing M/s. SR Credit Pvt. Ltd. only as formal engagement letter was issued in name of appellant by Yes Bank official as per version of assessing officer also. Therefore, Ld AR argued that there is no evidence to suggest that transaction entered by appellant is only paper transaction to divert profit of Dharampal Satyapal Ltd. I have considered entire facts and circumstances of case. agreement seized suggest transfer price of

Dharampal Satyapal Ltd Vs, DCIT ITA No. 3738, 3739/Del/2016 (A) & ITA No. 3882 & 3883/Del/2016(R) Assessment Year: 2010-11 & 2011-12 shares held by Dharampal Satyapal Ltd. at Rs. 100.29 crores is dtd. 12/03/2008 was not complied. In seized document in form of e-mail dtd April, 2009 evidences that said share transaction as not concluded as per seized agreement dtd. 21/08/2009 relied by assessing officer in support of higher price. As per seized e-mail offer of share was only Rs. 73 crores and appellant has purchased these shares for Rs. 82.50 crores. Therefore, it is not proved that shares of Coastal Power Project Pvt. Ltd. was sold to appellant company at lesser rate. Further, I agree with arguments of Ld AR that statement of Sh. Sumit of Yes Bank relied by assessing officer that initial meeting for transfer of said shares was held between Directors and Senior of Dharampal Satyapal Ltd. and Yes Bank was never confronted to assesse and is not even in record for assessing officer. Ld Assessing officer without seeing statement has incorporated content of such statement in assessment order. Even if it is presumed that at initial stage meeting were held between managing directors and directors and senior officer of Dharampal Satyapal Ltd and Yes Bank, it does not prove that transaction were sham as formal engagement letter was issued is name of appellant. appellant is definitely as associate entity of flagship company Dharampal Satyapal Ltd. Therefore, such initial meeting even it held as per statement relied by assessing officer in no way makes transaction unreal. Considering entire facts and circumstances of case, I do not agree with findings of assessing officer that transaction of transfer of shares of M/s. Coastal Power

Dharampal Satyapal Ltd Vs, DCIT ITA No. 3738, 3739/Del/2016 (A) & ITA No. 3882 & 3883/Del/2016(R) Assessment Year: 2010-11 & 2011-12 Projects Pvt. Ltd. does not pertain to appellant. Accordingly, I direct assessing officer to consider profit on sale of such transaction in hands of appellant. related first grounds on allowed. iii) Disallowance of Rs. 2,78,43,961/- under legal and professional expenses:- These expenses are paid to Yes Bank amounting to Rs. 2,77,17,116/- and M/s. Amarchand Mangaldas and Suresh A Shroff and Company amounting to Rs. 1,26,845/- on sale transaction of shares of Coastal Power Project Pvt. Ltd. Assessing officer has disallowed expenses on ground that these expenses pertain to transaction of ale of Coastal Power Project Pvt. Ltd., which did not pertain to appellant. Ld AR argued that service by these concerns for transfer of shares is not questioned and allowable. As I have held that these shares transaction of Coastal Power Project Pvt. Ltd. pertain to appellant, these expenses are allowable expenses in hands of assesse. Accordingly, I direct assessing officer to delete addition made on account of disallowance of expenses. Second ground of appeal is allowed. iv) Disallowance of loss of Rs. 7,03,15,125/- on share transaction of M/s. Blue Wings Tour and Travel Ltd. facts of this addition is that M/s. D.S. Hotel & Resorts (I) Ltd. has purchased 50,000 shares of M/s. Boue Wings Tour and Travels Pvt. Ltd. on 14/12/2005 for consideration of Rs. 10,60,50,000/- from Maroo family. These shares were purchased by appellant at same cost in June 2009. On 25/09/2009, these shares were sold to Maroo family again for consideration of Rs. Page | 115

Dharampal Satyapal Ltd Vs, DCIT ITA No. 3738, 3739/Del/2016 (A) & ITA No. 3882 & 3883/Del/2016(R) Assessment Year: 2010-11 & 2011-12 3,60,00,000/-. Therefore there was a loss of Rs. 7,03,15,125/- to appellant. Ld. Assessing Officer has disallowed said loss on found that same is a share transaction with a view to decrease profit on account of sale of shares of Coastal Power Project Pvt. Ltd. Ld. AR during appellate proceedings argued that appellant is in business of shares trading and transaction of shares of Blue Wings and Travels Pvt. Ltd. are all reflected in books of accounts of respective parties supported by transfer of shares. shares of M/s. Blue Wings Tower & Travels Pvt. Ltd. is sold to outside various person of Maroo Family Ld AR argued that assessing officer has not corroborated any evidence against said transaction. I agree with arguments of Ld AR that all transaction are backup by evidence and assessing officer has not corroborated any evidence on record to prove these transaction as in genuine. Therefore, I direct assessing officer to allow loss on sale of shares of M/s. Blue Wings Tower & Travels Pvt. Ltd. 3rd ground of appeal is allowed. As, I have held that capital again is taxable in hands of M/s. SR Credit Pvt. Ltd. and there is no new fact brought on record. Therefore, addition on account of capital gain for share transaction for sale of shares of Coastal Power Project Pvt. Ltd. cannot be taxed in hands of appellant. Therefore, addition made on account of capital gain for share transaction for same shares of Coastal Power Project Pvt. Ltd. is deleted in appellant‘s hand. These grounds of appeal are hereby allowed.‖

Dharampal Satyapal Ltd Vs, DCIT ITA No. 3738, 3739/Del/2016 (A) & ITA No. 3882 & 3883/Del/2016(R) Assessment Year: 2010-11 & 2011-12 104. On careful perusal of finding of learned CIT – A it was found to be reasoned and based on settled legal principles. It may be appreciated that purchase and sale of shares of M/s. Coastal Projects P. Ltd. by assessee is properly documented and there is actual flow of consideration between parties. Further, assessing officer has not disputed genuineness of transaction and as such, impugned addition is merely on basis of conjectures and surmises. assessee is also produced all documents which are relevant to whole transaction at page number 74 – 123 of supplementary paper book. Learned departmental representative could not point out any infirmity in those documents with respect to whole transaction. Further, there is no material or evidence on record to establish that consideration received by M/s. S.R. Credits P. ltd. is received or transferred to assessee or has been utilized by assessee and as such, allegation of colourable device is unsubstantiated and uncorroborated. Mere fact that shares have finally been purchased by foreign institutional investors furthermore strengthens fact that transaction is genuine and fully acted upon by respective parties. It is not case of assessing officer that assessee has breached or contravened any provisions of Income tax The Act, 1961 and as such impugned addition is on hypothetical basis and total disregard to principle of real income. In view of above facts we do not find any infirmity in order of learned CIT – capital in deleting whole addition on account of profit on sale of shares of Messer‘s coastal Project private limited which in fact pertains to Messer is SR credits private limited and not to assessee. Accordingly, ground number 13 of appeal of learned assessing officer is dismissed. 105. Ground number 14 – 15 – 16 are general in nature and therefore those are dismissed. 106. In result appeal filed by Deputy Commissioner of income tax, Central Circle – 4, New Delhi in ITA number 388 2/Del/2016 for assessment year 2010 – 11 is dismissed.

Dharampal Satyapal Ltd Vs, DCIT ITA No. 3738, 3739/Del/2016 (A) & ITA No. 3882 & 3883/Del/2016(R) Assessment Year: 2010-11 & 2011-12 107. Now we proceed to decide appeal of assessee for assessment year 2011 – 12, which is also filed against consolidated order of learned CIT – A – 44, New Delhi dated 29/2/2016. Assessee has raised following grounds of appeal in ITA No. 3739/Del/2016 for Assessment Year 2011-12:- 1(i) That on facts and circumstances of case, Ld. CIT(A) was not justified in confirming disallowance of Rs. 12,11,775/- u/s 40A(3) of I.T. The Act, 1961. (ii) That claim is in respect of reimbursement of expenses by employees and there being no dispute about genuineness and justification of claim, there is no case of any default in terms of provisions of section 40A(3) of The Act. (iii) That even otherwise, payment is covered under exception in clause (k) of Rule 6DD and as such there is no case of any default u/s 40A(3) of I.T. The Act, 1961. 2. That finding of conclusion of CIT(A) in respect of value of work in progress is illegal and arbitrary as valuation of work in progress is based on regular system of accounting and based on legal and accounting principles. 3(i) That CIT(A) having accepted claim of assessee that there is no case of any disallowance of interest paid on borrowed funds to extent of Rs. 3,00,903/- u/s 36(l)(iii), it is not open to issue direction for charge of interest on notional basis in respect of advances to sister concerns for purpose of business. (ii) That these directions are illegal, arbitrary and beyond jurisdiction. 4(i) That on facts and circumstances of case, Ld. CIT(A) was not justified in confirming disallowance to Rs. 43,10,566/- u/s 14A without appreciating that impugned disallowance is without recording satisfaction in terms of provisions of section 14A(2) of The Act.

Dharampal Satyapal Ltd Vs, DCIT ITA No. 3738, 3739/Del/2016 (A) & ITA No. 3882 & 3883/Del/2016(R) Assessment Year: 2010-11 & 2011-12 (ii) That appellant has not incurred any expenditure for earning of exempt income and as such provisions of section 14A are not applicable to facts of case. (iii) That disallowance is illegal, arbitrary and or excessive. 5(i) That on facts and circumstances of case, Ld. CIT(A) was not justified in upholding disallowance of deduction u/s 80IB/80IC on ground that fair market value of goods transferred from Noida division to eligible units is higher in terms provisions of section 80IA(8) read with 80IB(13) and 80IC(7) of The Act as follows : a. In respect of unprocessed goods, by restricting profit markup to extent of 2% instead of 10% as computed by assessing officer. b. In respect of processed Kathha (Catechu), by confirming valuation done by assessing officer and upholding mark up of manufacturing expenses and profit rate @ 37.85% and 10% respectively. c. In respect of processed Cardamom (Elaichi), by confirming valuation done by assessing officer and upholding mark up of manufacturing expenses and profit rate @ 37.85% and 10% respectively. (ii) That AO and CIT(A) have erred in attributing direct and indirect manufacturing costs to cost of goods procured and transferred to eligible units. (iii) That AO and CIT(A) were not justified in applying mark up rate of profit @10% on value of goods so transferred and same is highly arbitrary and without any basis. (iv) That adjustment of cost and consequential claim of deduction u/s 80IB/80IC is illegal, arbitrary and based on conjectures and surmises. 6(i) That on facts and circumstances of case, Ld. CIT(A) was not justified in confirming disallowance of deduction under section 80IB/IC by

Dharampal Satyapal Ltd Vs, DCIT ITA No. 3738, 3739/Del/2016 (A) & ITA No. 3882 & 3883/Del/2016(R) Assessment Year: 2010-11 & 2011-12 applying provisions of section 80IA(8) read with 80IB( 13) and 80IC(7) of The Act, on ground that rate of technical know-how fee on value of goods transferred from perfumery division to eligible unit should be @2.75% as against 2.5% declared by appellant. (ii) That adjustment of cost and consequential claim of deduction u/s 80IB/80IC is illegal, arbitrary and based on conjectures and surmises. 7(i) That on facts and circumstances of case, Ld. CIT(A) was not justified in upholding disallowance of deduction u/s 801B/80IC to extent of Rs. 1,36,34,222/- by applying provisions of section 80IA(8) read with 80IB(13) and 80IC(7) of The Act, on ground that fair market value of goods transferred from „Silverfoil Division‟ to eligible undertaking was higher than that declared by appellant. (ii) That adjustment of cost and consequential reduction of claim of deduction u/s 80IB/80IC is illegal, arbitrary and based on conjectures and surmises. 8(i) That on facts and circumstances of case, Ld. CIT(A) was not justified in upholding disallowance of deduction u/s 80IB/80IC to extent of Rs 5,82,029/- by increasing value of goods transferred from Canpack division to eligible units on ground that fair market value of goods transferred is higher in terms provisions of section 80IA(8) read with 80IB(13) and 80IC(7) of The Act. (ii) That profit mark up rate of 10% is highly arbitrary and without any valid basis or justification. (iii) That adjustment of cost and consequential reduction of claim of deduction u/s 80IB/80IC is illegal, arbitrary and based on conjectures and surmises. 9(i) That on facts and circumstances of case, Ld. CIT(A) was not justified in restricting disallowance of deduction under section 80IB/IC by applying provisions of section 80IA(8) read with 80IB( 13) and 80IC(7) of The Act, on account of re-computation of profits of eligible Page | 120

Dharampal Satyapal Ltd Vs, DCIT ITA No. 3738, 3739/Del/2016 (A) & ITA No. 3882 & 3883/Del/2016(R) Assessment Year: 2010-11 & 2011-12 undertaking, by increasing value of common costs incurred at corporate office, depots, branches, etc. and allocated to such units in an appropriate ratio, with profit margin of 10% as against 27.09% applied by AO. (ii) That Ld. CIT(A) was not justified in holding that various corporate services rendered by corporate office, depots, branches, etc. to eligible undertakings, should have been allocated to eligible units at fair market price/cost plus appropriate mark-up for purposes of computing deduction under section 80IB/IC read with section 80IA(8) of The Act. (iii) That Ld. CIT(A) has failed to appreciate that no services were rendered by other divisions, viz., corporate office, depots, branches, etc., to eligible undertakings, but expenses were incurred by such divisions on behalf of eligible undertakings, which was subsequently allocated to such eligible units. (iv) That adjustment of cost and consequential reduction of claim of deduction u/s 80IB/80IC is illegal, arbitrary and based on conjectures and surmises. 10(i). That on facts and circumstances of case, Ld. CIT(A) was not justified in confirming disallowance of deduction u/s 80IB/80IC to extent of Rs.5,51,62,247/- by applying provisions of section 80IA(8) read with 80IB(13) and 80IC(7) of The Act on ground that eligible undertakings should have paid royalty to Head Office for using brand „Rajnigandha‟, allegedly owned by Head Office. (ii) That Ld. CIT(A) was not justified in holding that brand „Rajnigandha‟ was owned by head-office and not by eligible undertakings and as such eligible units should pay royalty for usage of same. (iii) That adjustment of royalty and consequential reduction of claim of deduction u/s 80IB/80IC is illegal, arbitrary and based on conjectures and surmises.

Dharampal Satyapal Ltd Vs, DCIT ITA No. 3738, 3739/Del/2016 (A) & ITA No. 3882 & 3883/Del/2016(R) Assessment Year: 2010-11 & 2011-12 ll(i). That Ld. CIT(A) erred on facts and in law in sustaining disallowance of purchase of sandalwood oil to extent of Rs 84,54,88,059/- holding same to be bogus. (ii) That Ld. CIT(A) erred on facts and in law in endorsing allegation of assessing officer that bogus bills were obtained by appellant from two companies, viz., M/s. SurvaVinayak Industries Limited (in short „SVIL‟) and M/s. Allied Perfumery Private Limited (in short „APL‟) , in order to inflate purchase of sandalwood oil. (iii) That Ld. CIT(A) erred on facts and in law in endorsing allegation of assessing officer that cash was received by appellant from above two concerns, that too, on basis of erroneous inferences/ assumptions on basis of certain seized documents. (iv) That Ld. CIT(A) erred on facts and in law in relying upon ex-parte statements/ materials collected behind back of appellant, without allowing cross-examination and/ or confronting same to appellant, in gross violation of principles of natural justice. (v) That Ld. CIT(A) erred on facts and in law in endorsing allegation of assessing officer that appellant obtained bogus bills towards purchase of sandalwood oil in order to reduce taxable income. 12(i). That on facts and circumstances of case, LD. CIT(A) was not justified in confirming transfer pricing adjustment of Rs. 8,88,34,690/- to arm‟s length price of interest received from loan advanced to associated enterprise by relying on TPO‟s order. (ii) That CIT(A), assessing officer and TPO has erred on facts and in law in applying interest rate of 16.31% p.a. on basis of SBI prime lending rate + 400bps on loan advanced by appellant to its wholly owned subsidiary, namely, DS Business AG as against interest at rate of 3% p.a. charged by appellant. (iii) That CIT(A), assessing officer and TPO has erred on facts and in law in considering average Prime Lending Rate of SBI as arms length Page | 122

Dharampal Satyapal Ltd Vs, DCIT ITA No. 3738, 3739/Del/2016 (A) & ITA No. 3882 & 3883/Del/2016(R) Assessment Year: 2010-11 & 2011-12 rate of interest without appreciating that such rate is applicable on loans availed in India in domestic currency. (iv) That loan was advanced by appellant to its associated enterprise in foreign denominated currency and accordingly LIBOR rates prevailing in international market should be considered for benchmarking and not SBI prime lending rate. 13(i) That lower authorities have erred in charging interest u/s. 234A, 234B & 234C of The Act without application of mind. (ii) That charge of interest is not justified on facts and under law.

Dharampal Satyapal Ltd Vs, DCIT ITA No. 3738, 3739/Del/2016 (A) & ITA No. 3882 & 3883/Del/2016(R) Assessment Year: 2010-11 & 2011-12 similar reasons we reverse order of learned CIT – A. Accordingly, ground number 2 of appeal of assessee is allowed. 110. Ground number 3 of appeal is with respect to disallowance of interest expenditure u/s 36 (1)(iii) of INR 3 00903 wherein national interest has been charged and advances to sister concern for purpose of business. Both parties agreed that this is identical to ground number 5 of appeal of assessee for assessment year 2010 – 11. On careful consideration of facts in this year also, and for reason that assessee has huge non-interest-bearing funds in form of share capital and reserves and surpluses more than amount advanced by assessee to its sister concern addition was deleted in that year. There is no change in facts and circumstances of case and therefore for similar reasons we reverse order of learned CIT – A and direct assessing officer to delete disallowance of INR 3 00903 on account of interest expenditure. Accordingly, ground number 3 of appeal is allowed. 111. Ground number 4 of appeal of assessee is with respect to disallowance u/s 14 A of income tax The Act of INR 4 310566/–. Both parties agreed that this ground is identical to ground number 6 of appeal of assessee. They also confirmed that there is no change in facts and circumstances of case. We have carefully considered rival contention and perused ground number 6 of appeal of assessee for assessment year 2010 – 11 wherein we have deleted addition only because of reason that learned assessing officer has not recorded satisfaction u/s 14 A (2) of income tax Act. Therefore for similar reasons and with a direction that disallowance offered by assessee may be sustained to that extent only, we reverse order of learned CIT – A of confirming disallowance of INR 4 310566/– and allow ground number 4 of appeal accordingly. 112. Ground number 5 of appeal of assessee is with respect to disallowance confirmed by learned CIT – A of deduction u/s 80 IB/80 IC on ground that fair market value of goods transferred from Noida division to eligible unit is higher. Both parties agreed that facts Page | 124

Dharampal Satyapal Ltd Vs, DCIT ITA No. 3738, 3739/Del/2016 (A) & ITA No. 3882 & 3883/Del/2016(R) Assessment Year: 2010-11 & 2011-12 relating to this ground are identical to ground number 8 of appeal of assessee for assessment year 2010 – 11. We have carefully considered rival contention and vide ground number 8 of appeal of assessee wherein we have directed learned assessing officer to consider transaction value of goods, which are not processed and sent to eligible units as recorded in books of accounts. With respect to goods, which are processed through job work and transferred to eligible unit, we direct learned assessing officer to impute 2% profit on job work charges that is cost incurred by assessee to consider same as a market price for determination of eligible profit u/s 80 IA/IB/IC of income tax The Act. Further similar direction is also given while deciding ground number 5 of appeal of assessee for this year too. Accordingly, ground number 5 of appeal of assessee is allowed with above direction. 113. Ground number 6 of appeal of assessee is also with respect to disallowance confirmed by learned CIT – A with respect to deduction u/s 80 IB/IC on ground that rate of technical know-how fee on value of goods transferred from perfumery division to eligible unit should be 2.75% as against 2.5% declared by appellant. Both parties agreed that this is similar to ground number 9 of appeal of assessee for assessment year 2010 – 11. While deciding ground number 9 of appeal has been allowed for reason that claim of assessee has been accepted in subsequent year on identical facts and circumstances. Therefore, for similar reasons we allow ground number 6 of appeal of assessee for this year too. 114. Ground number 7 of appeal of assessee is with respect to disallowance confirmed by learned CIT – A of eligible income u/s 80 IB/80 IC to extent of INR 13634222/– by applying provisions of section 80 IA (8) on ground that fair market value of goods transferred from silver foil division to eligible undertaking was held than that declared by appellant. Brief facts of issue are that special auditor is reported that during year under consideration silver for unit has Page | 125

Dharampal Satyapal Ltd Vs, DCIT ITA No. 3738, 3739/Del/2016 (A) & ITA No. 3882 & 3883/Del/2016(R) Assessment Year: 2010-11 & 2011-12 transferred goods of INR 9 7796985 to various units including INR 4 5266554/– to manufacturing units eligible for deduction u/s 80 IB/80 IC of income tax Act. Learned auditor has considered for arriving at transfer value of silver foil is on FIFO method considering value of raw silver. He compared market value of silver on date of order booking by customer. Therefore, he found that there is a difference in outside customer‘s sale rate and inter-unit transfer rates because of frequent variation in price of raw silver during year. Therefore, auditor stated that silver for unit has transferred products to eligible units below fair market value. Based on this , he worked out fair market value of products transferred to eligible units taking average market price and stated that there is an understatement of profit of unit by INR 13634222/– and over statement of profits of eligible units to that extent. Therefore, learned assessing officer made similar addition. On appeal before learned CIT – A above addition was confirmed. Therefore, assessee has challenged it before us. 115. Learned authorised representative submitted that auditors as well as assessing officer and learned CIT – A failed to consider that due to wide variation in price of goods being transferred by division during year average method used by assessing officer to compute transfer value is not justified. It was stated that silver for division of assessee at Noida procured silver for from third-party vendors at market price, which are, further transferred to eligible units at actual cost comprising of procurement cost, processing cost, freight expenses on FIFO [ 1st in 1st out] basis. Therefore, it was stated that assessee has transferred goods at total cost comprising all these cost components. Merely because silver for is also sold by appellant to third-party customers at a price higher than cost at which same product was transferred to eligible unit whole addition has been made. It was further stated that both lower authorities made addition considering average rate of sale price to third party during relevant AR to arrive at market value of goods transferred by non-eligible unit to eligible Page | 126

Dharampal Satyapal Ltd Vs, DCIT ITA No. 3738, 3739/Del/2016 (A) & ITA No. 3882 & 3883/Del/2016(R) Assessment Year: 2010-11 & 2011-12 unit. He further stated that transfer value adopted by appellant was full cost price of silver for which is procured from third party. It was further stated that only value addition that has been made by assessee is with respect to processing charges on silver foil. He therefore submitted that above addition made by learned assessing officer and confirmed by learned CIT – capital is devoid of any merit and therefore should be deleted. 116. Learned departmental representative vehemently supported orders of lower authorities and submitted that when assessee has sold identical material to 3rd party then same is market price of goods as on that date and therefore assessee has reduced profit of non eligible unit and enhanced/increased profit of eligible unit and therefore above disallowance as rightly been made by lower authorities. 117. We have carefully considered rival contentions and perused orders of lower authority. Appellant has procured silver for from third-party vendors and transferred to eligible units at actual cost comprising procurement cost, processing cost, freight expenses et cetera on FIFO basis. Whereas learned assessing officer has taken average sale cost rate to 3rd party to file market value of such civil file to eligible undertaking claiming deduction u/s 80 IB/80 IC of The Act. It is apparent that silver foil item is sold to outsiders; actual price realized by assessee on sale of these items to third party is market value of product as on that date. However, assessee has purchased raw silver from third parties and as on date raw material purchased by assessee for eligible unit was fair market value of goods purchased. Assessee has also loaded actual cost on these goods with respect to freight and other expenditure. However, assessee has done processing on goods purchased from third parties therefore; assessee has provided in fact services of processing of goods. Even otherwise as stated by learned authorised representative that silver is a commodity price of which fluctuates every hour therefore approach of learned lower authorities in adopting average purchase price during year Page | 127

Dharampal Satyapal Ltd Vs, DCIT ITA No. 3738, 3739/Del/2016 (A) & ITA No. 3882 & 3883/Del/2016(R) Assessment Year: 2010-11 & 2011-12 cannot substitute market value of silver purchased by assessee for its eligible unit. Therefore, at most processing cost of silver is service that has been transferred by non-eligible unit to eligible unit, which should have been done at market rate. At present assessee has considered process cost on actual cost basis and has loaded on price of silver. Therefore, we direct assessing officer to adopt a margin of 2% over process cost of processed silver transferred from non-eligible unit to eligible unit and to sustain disallowance of deduction to that extent only. Accordingly, ground number 7 of appeal of assessee is allowed partly to that extent. 118. Ground number 8 of appeal of assessee is with respect to disallowance of deduction u/s 80 IB/80 IC to extent of INR 582029/– by increasing value of goods transferred from can pack Division to eligible units on ground that fair market value of goods transferred is higher. Identical issue has been dealt with by our in ground number 10 of appeal of assessee for assessment year 2010 – 11. Both parties confirmed that facts and issue involved therein are identical. While deciding ground number 10 of appeal of assessee for assessment year 2010 – 11 after discussing applicability of rule 8 of Central Excise valuation rules, 2000 for purpose of working out market price of goods transferred. We rejected it. Therefore, for similar reasons we do not subscribe addition made by learned assessing officer and confirmed by learned CIT – A which is relying on Central Excise valuation rules and imputing 10% profit margin in goods transferred to determine market price of such goods. Therefore accordingly ground number 8 of appeal of assessee is allowed and order of learned CIT – A is reversed and AO is directed to delete disallowance of deduction u/s 80 IB/80 IC to extent of INR 582029/–. 119. Ground number 9 of appeal of assessee is with respect to disallowance of cost of service/common cost of eligible undertaking which is similar to ground number 11 of appeal of assessee for assessment year 2010 – 11. Both parties also confirmed that there is Page | 128

Dharampal Satyapal Ltd Vs, DCIT ITA No. 3738, 3739/Del/2016 (A) & ITA No. 3882 & 3883/Del/2016(R) Assessment Year: 2010-11 & 2011-12 no change in facts and circumstances of case. While deciding issue in assessment year 2010 – 11 we have held that gross profit ratio of 10% over and above actual cost incurred by assessee cannot be imputed for working out eligible profit of unit. We have allowed ground number 11 of appeal of assessee for that year holding that there is no value addition made by these head office or branches to various cost allocated by assessee. For similar reasons we allow ground number 9 of appeal of assessee reversing order of learned CIT – A. 120. Ground number 10 of appeal of assessee is with respect to disallowance of deduction u/s 80 IB/80 IC to extent of Rs 5,51,62,247/– wherein learned assessing officer has made addition which is confirmed by learned CIT appeal that eligible undertaking should have paid royalty to head office for using brand allegedly owned by head office. Both parties confirmed that this ground of appeal is identical to ground number 12 of appeal of assessee for assessment year 2010 – 11. While deciding above ground for assessment year 2010 – 11 we hold that undisputedly brand is owned by assessee company and royalty is not paid by assessee to 1/3 party. Addition was also considered on ground that learned AO has considered another brand of Tulsi mix, which is paid by assessee to an outsider, and therefore addition was made. Above addition was deleted for reason that assessee has used the brand but there is no identification of market value in relation to Rajinigandha brand of assessee but it was with respect to Tulsi mix brand. Therefore, fair market value of property of their particular brand was not ascertained by learned assessing officer. Therefore, addition was deleted in that year. Accordingly for similar reasons we also reverse order of learned CIT – A and allow ground number 10 of appeal of assessee. 121. Ground number 11 of appeal is with respect to addition on purchase of sandalwood oil of INR 845488059/– holding that it is a bogus purchase shown by assessee. In all earlier years, we have decided this Page | 129

Dharampal Satyapal Ltd Vs, DCIT ITA No. 3738, 3739/Del/2016 (A) & ITA No. 3882 & 3883/Del/2016(R) Assessment Year: 2010-11 & 2011-12 issue holding that seized documents does not belong to assessment year other than assessment year 2011 – 12. Therefore, cognizance is now required to be taken of these seized documents for this year. Brief facts of case shows that in respect of claim of purchase of sandalwood oil from M/s Surya Vinayak industries Ltd and Allied perfumers private limited. Brief facts of case shows that ld assessing officer has made disallowance of Rs 1239246117/- of purchase to extent from M/s. Surya Vinayak Industries Ltd. (SVIL) and from M/s. Allied Perfume P. Ltd. (APPL) by making reference to seized annexure A-1/ Page 52. AO has alleged that part of purchases of sandalwood oil as recorded in books of assessee are inflated and bogus and that seller M/s. Surya Vinayak Industries Ltd. and APPL does not have production capacity to supply recorded quantity of Sandalwood Oil. However, ld CIT(A) has restricted disallowance to Rs. 84,54,88,059/- on ground that there is no dispute regarding purchase and use of quantity for manufacturing and sale and CIT(A) computed disallowance on basis of lowest price of other suppliers. Further, ld AO has made complete disallowance of purchases from APPL and part disallowance from purchases from SVIL. Relevant working of disallowance is at Para no 138 of assessment order. Ld. AO has made such disallowance without appreciating use of actual quantity with reference to manufacturing carried out by assessee. Ld CIT (A) has also disputed price of purchases from SVIL and APPL and has observed that purchases are inflated and adjustment was made in respect of overall purchase price based on quantity purchased from these two parties by referring to lowest price of other suppliers. However, quantum of purchase and use of same in manufacturing process was not disputed after making necessary verification of raw material used and quantity manufactured. He corroborated it with excise records. Ld. CIT (A), after considering overall facts of case, held that there is no dispute regarding correctness of quantity of Sandalwood oil purchases and recorded in books of assessee and only dispute is regarding value of purchases. Accordingly, Page | 130

Dharampal Satyapal Ltd Vs, DCIT ITA No. 3738, 3739/Del/2016 (A) & ITA No. 3882 & 3883/Del/2016(R) Assessment Year: 2010-11 & 2011-12 ld. CIT(A) applied minimum purchase rate from third party to quantity of Sandalwood oil purchased from SVIL and APPL. Relevant working is at Page 297-298 of CIT(A)‘s order. Disallowance was restricted to Rs. 84,54,88,059/- as against Rs. 123,92,46,117/- . Therefore, assessee is in appeal on this ground. 122. Learned authorised representative submitted that identical issue has been considered by Hon‘ble ITAT in order for AY 2005-06 to 09-10 in favour of appellant wherein Hon‘ble court has held that alleged seized documents relied upon by AO are neither incriminating in nature no credible evidence to justify allegation of inflation of purchase price. It has been held by Hon‘ble ITAT that entire story of inflated purchases is merely on basis of conjectures and there is no real evidence to establish any sort of case against appellant. In light of finding of Tribunal, alleged annexure A-1/ Page 52 is not relevant to AY 2010-11 and same could not be considered as basis for any addition in AY 2010- 11. 123. He further submitted that Ld AO and LD CIT (A) has not disputed fact that entire purchases of Sandalwood Oil is fully supported from invoices issued by parties and also use of same for manufacturing of final product. Further, assessing officer was not justified in relying upon seized document Page 52 of Annexure A/1 as same is incoherent, dumb and wholly irrelevant to case of assessee. It is also important to note that name of assessee is nowhere mentioned in said document and it is not known as to how such document is relevant to present case. 124. He further submitted that theory of bogus purchases and return of cash by SVIL and APPL as suggested by assessing officer has no valid basis as assessing officer has failed to bring any evidence on record to demonstrate alleged synchronized flow of cheque and cash between assessee and these companies and as such adverse inference is merely on hypothetical basis. Reference to statement of various persons, who have no direct involvement with reference to alleged annexure A/1 Page Page | 131

Dharampal Satyapal Ltd Vs, DCIT ITA No. 3738, 3739/Del/2016 (A) & ITA No. 3882 & 3883/Del/2016(R) Assessment Year: 2010-11 & 2011-12 52, is not relevance. Assessee has simply made purchases of Sandalwood Oil from SVIL and APPL, which are independent third parties, and assessee is not answerable to internal affairs of these concerns. Further, statement of third parties have not been recorded so as to establish authenticity and genuineness of alleged seized annexure A-1 page 52 and as such computerized sheet of alleged annexure is of no evidentiary value in absence of any corroboration/cross examination. He stated that manufacturing, sales are fully reconciled and corroborated with VAT return and excise records, and as such, there could be no dispute with regard to correctness of quantitative trading results. Further, there is no adverse evidence on record regarding disputing quantum of purchases of sandalwood oil and reconciliation of purchases with production. Therefore, according to him it is self evident that whole addition is merely based on inferences and bald allegations, which are not supported from any documentary evidences. 125. He further submitted that in any case, once correctness of purchases recorded in books is accepted, dispute regarding valuation of it is wholly irrelevant as revenue authorities cannot sit in armchair of assessee and decided reasonableness of an expenditure. 126. It is not case of revenue that M/s. Surya Vinayak Industries Ltd. and M/s Allied Perfumers Pvt. Ltd. are related parties or provisions of section 80IA(8) or 80IA(10) are applicable and as such there is no ground or basis for any disallowance of purchases of Sandalwood Oil from M/s. Surya Vinayak Industries Ltd. and M/s Allied Perfumers Pvt. Ltd. keeping in view documentary evidences placed on record in form of bills, vouchers, documents showing actual receipt of material, documents in support of actual movement of goods and actual consumption in manufacture of final products, viz., Pan Masala, Tobacco and Gutka products. 127. He submitted that even otherwise, ld CIT (A) has erred in applying third party minimum rate while computing value of purchase in case of Page | 132

Dharampal Satyapal Ltd Vs, DCIT ITA No. 3738, 3739/Del/2016 (A) & ITA No. 3882 & 3883/Del/2016(R) Assessment Year: 2010-11 & 2011-12 SVIL and APPL. It is relevant to mention that no investigation has been carried out to demonstrate comparability of cases. There are several factors which affect price of a commodity and without making any objective comparison with regard to quality, brand, nature and type of product, there could be no ground or basis for applying data of a third party transaction. While applying minimum rate of other party, ld CIT (A) has ignored fact that other parties have also supplied Sandalwood Oil at different rates as per details given as per separate sheet. Further, ld CIT (A) has also ignored fact that various items manufactured are of different qualities and use of different category of raw material based on business and commercial expediency and also corroborated from manufacturing of difference quality and sale price and as such mechanical application of minimum rate is highly arbitrary and irrelevant. In any case, even if purchase price of other parties is to be considered, same should be average price and not lowest price. 128. He therefore submitted that thus there is no justification for disallowance of claim of purchases to extent of Rs. 845488059/- on basis of application of minimum third party purchase rate and same may kindly be deleted. 129. Learned departmental representative extensively read para number 70 – 102 of assessment order. It was stated that on perusal of annexure A – 1 seized during course of search and seizure action and also various other an action it is apparent that assessee has made bogus purchases from Messer Shri Surya Vinayak industries Ltd amounting to INR 1253628766/- and from Messer Allied perfumers private limited of INR 64128420/- totaling to INR 1317757186/- in all. He further submitted that such bogus purchases have been added by learned assessing officer giving conclusive reasons. He further went on there from and continued until para number 147 of assessment order and then stated that assessee has made bogus purchases from above two companies and therefore addition has been made in hands.

Dharampal Satyapal Ltd Vs, DCIT ITA No. 3738, 3739/Del/2016 (A) & ITA No. 3882 & 3883/Del/2016(R) Assessment Year: 2010-11 & 2011-12 130. We have carefully considered rival contentions and perused orders of lower authorities. learned CIT – A has decided whole issue and held that based on all evidences gathered during search and post search proceedings in case of appellant and Florian a group of cases, he is satisfied that there are enough evidences in form of seized documents and statement recorded during search and post search proceedings which clearly establishes that Surya Vinayak industries Ltd and Allied perfumery private limited has not supplied goods namely Sandalwood oil to assessee and they have merely issued bogus bills to assessee and received cheques from assessee and paid back to assessee in cash after some adjustment in rate and apportioning excise duty. After giving this finding, he further held that Sandalwood oil is an excisable product and entered in excise registrar of perfumery compound division of assessee. He further noted that on date of search, there was no discrepancy in stock of sandalwood oil found which is apparent from assessment order where assessing officer himself has mentioned that during course of search proceedings conducted sandalwood oil was found in production and in managing director room. He further considered consumption of sandalwood oil after reducing purchases from two companies and also after incorporating quantity purchased from these two companies and compared them. He noted that if quantity purchased from these two entities are disallowed and not taken into consideration than revised yield ranges from 102.57% to 112.62% of entire consumption of raw material, which gives an absurd result of finished goods production that is exceeding consumption. He further noted that quantity of finished product per KG on consumption of sandalwood oil ranges from 6.5 – 8.54 for various assessment years appears to be reasonable in variation whereas if entire quantity purchased from these two entities are ignored then finished product per KG consumption of sandalwood oil will range from 13.47 to 65.25 kgs. Therefore, he held that if quantity purchased from these two entities are not considered in quantitative details it will give an Page | 134

Dharampal Satyapal Ltd Vs, DCIT ITA No. 3738, 3739/Del/2016 (A) & ITA No. 3882 & 3883/Del/2016(R) Assessment Year: 2010-11 & 2011-12 erroneous and inconsistent results in terms of finished product ratio. He further found that views taken by him is also supported by words mentioned in seized documents annexure A – 1 and page number 42 seized from laptop of Mr. Gupta where there is a mention of adjustment of apportionment of excise duty and rate difference. Therefore, he gave a conclusive finding that purpose of these bills is just adjustment in prices. He further analyzed details of purchases from all parties assessment year -wise in respect of sandalwood oil purchase and he found that average rate of alleged purchase from these two entities is at a much higher rate compared to other undisputed parties. Therefore, he noted that purpose of mentioning quantity of goods as Sandalwood Oil (C) and sandalwood oil (SU) is just to inflate cost of sandalwood oil purchased and used for manufacturing purposes in perfumery division. He further reach at a conclusion that appellant has though purchased sandalwood oil from grey market but billing of same has been made by these 2 entities at higher cost. Accordingly, he held that entire quantity purchased from these 2 entities cannot be ignored, as it will go against maintenance of quantitative records as per Central Excise rules and inconsistent results in terms of yield of finished goods. Therefore, he held that purpose of issuing bogus bill by these two entities is just to inflate purchase in amount and to increase amount of purchases in terms of rupees for sandalwood oil. However, there is no impact on quality details of purchases and consumptions. Accordingly, he upheld that in fact assessee has purchased sandalwood oil from grey market, quantity of such purchases were entered into Central Excise register however for purpose of accounting and recording it in books of accounts assessee used these two entities and obtained bogus bills from them at higher rate than what is actual purchases rates from grey market. These findings of learned CIT – A are convincing, based on proper analysis of quantitative details maintained by assessee. These are

Dharampal Satyapal Ltd Vs, DCIT ITA No. 3738, 3739/Del/2016 (A) & ITA No. 3882 & 3883/Del/2016(R) Assessment Year: 2010-11 & 2011-12 further not controverted by both parties by producing any cogent evidence. 131. First contention that is raised by assessee is that issue squarely covered in favour of assessee by decision of coordinate bench for assessment year 2005 – 06 to 2009 – 10 in favour of appellant is devoid of any merit as those cases were decided on issue of whether there was any incriminating material found during course of search or not with respect to those assessment years. Further as document also do not pertain to those years therefore, we have not confirmed any addition up to AY 2010-11. In fact, in that, decision coordinate bench has categorically held that evidence in form of page number 52 of annexure A – 1 is very specific to assessment year 2011 – 12; therefore, we confirm addition in this year. Therefore above decision in fact categorically states that addition if any is required to be made in year 2011 – 12 as incriminating material is found for that particular year. As seized document pertain to this year, therefore, ld assessing officer could have made an addition based on seized documents found during course of search, which conclusively proves that assessee has obtained bogus bills for sandalwood oil from these two concerns. Therefore, argument of assessee that as addition is not confirmed in those years, it should also not be made in this year is devoid of any merit and hence rejected. 132. Second argument of assessee that theory of bogus purchases and return of cash by two entities as suggested by assessing officer has no valid basis as assessing officer has failed to bring any evidence on record to demonstrate alleged synchronized flow of cheque and cash between assessee in this company and as such adverse inference is wrongly drawn. This argument does not hold any water in case as assessee was found to have purchased merely bills for purchase of sandalwood oil whereas it has conclusively proved that material has been purchased from grey market. Seized documents also shows that assessee has entered into cash transactions against bills issued by Page | 136

Dharampal Satyapal Ltd Vs, DCIT ITA No. 3738, 3739/Del/2016 (A) & ITA No. 3882 & 3883/Del/2016(R) Assessment Year: 2010-11 & 2011-12 these parties as there is a perfect sharing of excise duty credit available to assessee also. Therefore, if material is so evident and staring at face of assessee there is no corroborative material, which is required to be brought on record by AO. Further statement of persons also proves that assessee has entered into practice of buying only bills from assessee and purchasing material from somewhere else. Hence, this argument is rejected. 133. Third argument of assessee also does not hold any water that statement of various persons who have no direct involvement with reference to alleged seized paper hence, is not relevant. Those persons have shown modus operandi of assessee. Therefore, they are relevant with respect to whole transaction. 134. Fourth arguments with respect to statement of 3rd parties and their records as well as computerized sheet does not have any evidentiary value in absence of corroboration of cross-examination of those parties is also devoid of any merit. In fact, these parties have dealings with assessee. Those parties have deposed against fact stated by assessee. Therefore if assessee finds that those parties have misquoted facts than it is duty of assessee to produce those parties before assessing officer with adequate evidence corroborating fact that those quote by these parties was erroneous. Assessee has not done anything to prove so. In view of this argument of corroboration or cross-examination is devoid of any merit. 135. Fifth arguments of assessee is that manufacturing and sales are fully reconcile uncorroborated with Vat t return and excise records also does not hold any water in view of fact that assessee has purchased material from grey market and replaced them with bills in books of accounts obtained from these two parties. Therefore, naturally manufacturing and sales would be reconciled and so VAT record and excise records. 136. Sixth argument of assessee is that once correctness of purchases recorded in books are accepted dispute regarding valuation of it is Page | 137

Dharampal Satyapal Ltd Vs, DCIT ITA No. 3738, 3739/Del/2016 (A) & ITA No. 3882 & 3883/Del/2016(R) Assessment Year: 2010-11 & 2011-12 wholly irrelevant. Further, claim of assessee that these two parties were alleged to have provided bogus bills to assessee are not related parties and therefore there is no ground or basis for any disallowance of deduction u/s 80 IA (8) or 80 IA (10) of The Act. Above argument of assessee is also deserves to be rejected at threshold itself as assessee has inflated cost of raw materials by purchasing material from grey market at market rate and replacing it with bogus bills of these two alleged concerns at higher rate. It is not at all necessary that bogus bills can be purchased only from related parties; therefore, argument of assessee that these two parties are unrelated to assessee is devoid of any merit. 137. Seventh arguments that further even purchases of bogus bills are also a commercial transaction, which has been carried out by these two entities between assessee and these parties. All documents supporting transaction in form of bills, vouchers, documents showing actual receipt of material, documents in support of actual movement of goods and consumption in manufacture of final products are not of any relevance for reason that assessee has in fact purchased goods, otherwise quantitative details shown by assessee would be skewed, only allegation is with respect to obtaining bills of purchase of material not at market rate but at higher rate. In view of this lower authorities have conclusively proved fact that assessee has purchased material from grey market and replaced it with bills of these two alleged entities without procuring goods from them and financial transaction is shown to have entered at higher than market rates. 138. Eighth arguments are question that arises is that what could be amount of addition in hands of assessee on account of these transactions. Allegations that have crystallized in above transaction is that assessee has purchased sandalwood oil from grey market without obtaining bills from parties from whom material has been purchased but bills have been obtained from these two entities without Page | 138

Dharampal Satyapal Ltd Vs, DCIT ITA No. 3738, 3739/Del/2016 (A) & ITA No. 3882 & 3883/Del/2016(R) Assessment Year: 2010-11 & 2011-12 purchasing material from them. Rates charged by these two parties in those bogus bills are higher than market rate. Assessee has return of cash to extent of bill price as stated in those bogus bills issued by these two parties and purchased material from grey market at market rate, therefore assessee has paid market value of those goods in grey market. Therefore, difference, which can be added in hands of assessee, is difference between market rate of goods purchased and bill value in bogus bills issued by these two parties. learned CIT – A has considered market price as minimum price paid by assessee with respect to various parties during year, whereas alternative claim of assessee is that such market price should be taken as average price of sandalwood oil during year. Claim of assessee is that because of several factors, which affect price of commodity such as quality, brand, nature, and type of product and therefore minimum price always, demonstrates lower quality material without brand and in smaller quantities. This is also apparent from fact that page number 298 of order of learned CIT appeal where to derive at minimum price of sandalwood oil he has taken a bill wherein assessee has purchased only hundred kilograms of material, where rate of sandalwood per KG is only INR 28142.40, whereas assessee has purchased total quantity of INR 18894.210 kg during year amounting in all to INR 1436436257/-. Further alleged purchase of material from grey market and substituting it with bill price of these two alleged parties total quantity purchased by assessee is of 16702.800 kg and for making of addition purchase transaction of only hundred kilograms is taken which is not even 1% of alleged transaction. Therefore making an addition by selecting an inadequate and inappropriate sample is neither fair nor proper. In view of above, argument it is apparent that assessee has purchased sandalwood throughout year and it is not case of ld AO or CIT (A) that price of sandalwood was always stagnant and does not depend upon quality, brand, and nature of product, terms, and conditions of goods. In view of this, we find that there is no Page | 139

Dharampal Satyapal Ltd Vs, DCIT ITA No. 3738, 3739/Del/2016 (A) & ITA No. 3882 & 3883/Del/2016(R) Assessment Year: 2010-11 & 2011-12 basis for taking minimum price for purpose of computing above addition. According to us, average price if taken by revenue for purpose of making addition would obliterate to some extent any difference between purchases on various dates, of different quantities, of different qualities, from different parties, from different destination and of different rates. This is also supported from fact that assessee has purchased sandalwood from 4 different parties of 18894.210 KG. In those 4 parties, two parties were alleged bogus bill providers are also included. Total purchases are of Rs. 1436436257/- during year. Average rate of purchases from balance two parties (ignoring 2 parties who provided bogus bills) ranges from Rs. 75882.10 - to INR 28272.38. Average rate of purchases is INR 54156.49 per kg. In view of above facts, we direct learned assessing officer to make addition in hands of assessee for 16702.800 kg by replacing purchase price shown by two parties in their bills by average rate of purchases of INR 54156.49 per kilogram which works out difference of Rs 41,31,92,185/-. Accordingly addition of Rs 41,31,92,185/- is confirmed and balance addition is deleted. Accordingly, ground number 11 of appeal of assessee is partly allowed. 139. Ground number 12 of appeal of assessee is with respect to transfer pricing adjustment of Rs 88834690/– confirmed by learned CIT appeal with respect to arm‘s-length price of interest received from loan advanced to wholly owned subsidiary in Sweden being associated enterprise. Learned transfer pricing officer applied interest rate of 16.31% per annum applying state bank of India prime lending rate +400 bps on loans advanced by appellant to its wholly owned subsidiary where assessee has charge interest at rate of 3% per annum. Both parties confirmed that identical ground of appeal has been considered in assessee‘s appeal for assessment year 2010 – 11 vide ground number 14. It was further stated that there is no change in facts and circumstances of case.

Dharampal Satyapal Ltd Vs, DCIT ITA No. 3738, 3739/Del/2016 (A) & ITA No. 3882 & 3883/Del/2016(R) Assessment Year: 2010-11 & 2011-12 140. We have carefully considered rival contention and find that identical ground of appeal of assessee for assessment year 2010 – 11 has been decided by us wherein relying on decision of honourable Delhi High Court in cotton natural private limited appeal of assessee was allowed on that ground. Therefore, for similar reasons ground number 12 of appeal for this year also is allowed. 141. Ground number 13 is with respect to charge of interest u/s 234A, 234B and 234C of The Act. Before us, no arguments were advanced by assessee. Therefore, it is dismissed. 142. Accordingly, appeal of assessee is partly allowed. 143. Now we come to appeal of learned assessing officer wherein following grounds have been raised l in ITA No. 3883/Del/2016 for Assessment Year 2011-12:- “1. Whether on facts & in circumstances of case, Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law & on facts in deleting reduction of claim u/s 80IB/80IC of Rs. 12,12,36,832/- made by AO by increasing value of goods transferred from Noida units to eligible units treating them processed goods and by reducing 80IB/80IC to that extent. 2. Whether on facts & in circumstances of case, Ld. CIT (A) has erred in law & on facts in directing AO to calculate royalty @ 2.5% of raw material without excise duty as against 3%, rate approved by Min. of Company Affairs in respect of goods transferred from „perfumery division‟ to eligible units. 3. Whether on facts & in circumstances of case, Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law & on facts in deleting reduction of claim u/s 80IB/80IC of Rs. 3,54,13,197/- made by AO by taking into account expenditure (depreciation of fixed assets of corporate office and expenses of depots) of Rs. 3,54,13,197/- incurred by businesses of assessee for providing services to eligible undertakings which has not been allocated to eligible Page | 141

Dharampal Satyapal Ltd Vs, DCIT ITA No. 3738, 3739/Del/2016 (A) & ITA No. 3882 & 3883/Del/2016(R) Assessment Year: 2010-11 & 2011-12 undertakings and by reducing deduction u/s 80IB/80IC of The Act, to that extent. 4. Whether on facts & in circumstances of case, Ld. CIT (A) has erred in law & on facts in deleting reduction of claim u/s 80IB/80IC of Rs.21,68,29,686/- made by AO by taking into consideration fair market value of services obtained by eligible undertakings from corporate offices, depot, and branches etc. thereby re-computing profits of eligible undertakings resulting in reducing of deduction 80IB/80IC to that extent. 5. Whether on facts & in circumstances of case, Ld. CIT(A) has erred in and on facts in deleting reduction of claim u/s 801B/80IC of Rs. 4,85,85,020/- thus ignoring fact that royalty payment @3% which was made to sister concern taken by AO was rate approved by Regional Director. 6. Whether on facts & in circumstances of case, Ld. C1T(A) has erred in law & on facts in allowing amount of Rs. 17,33,526/- on account of excise duty refund for computation of deduction u/s 80IC. 7. Whether on facts & in circumstances of case, Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law & on facts in deleting addition of Rs. 16,24,418/- made by AO on account prior period expenses. 8. Whether on facts & in circumstances of case, Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law & on facts in deleting addition of Rs. 10,96,21,278/- made on account of foreign exchange fluctuation, thus ignoring provision of AS-11. 9. Whether on facts & in circumstances of case, Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law & on facts in deleting disallowance of Rs. 1,98,85,294/- made by A O on The Act so' section 14A of Income Tax The Act, 1961 and thus restricting disallowance to extent of exempt income. Page | 142

Dharampal Satyapal Ltd Vs, DCIT ITA No. 3738, 3739/Del/2016 (A) & ITA No. 3882 & 3883/Del/2016(R) Assessment Year: 2010-11 & 2011-12 10. Whether on facts & in circumstances of case, Ld. CIT (A) has erred in law & on facts in directing to take basis of calculation from lowest purchases from third party, thus ignoring facts and evidences of bogus purchases unearthed during course of search and post search proceedings. 11. Whether on facts & in circumstances of case, Ld. CIT (A) has erred in law & on facts in deleting addition of Rs. 2,45,310/- made on account of lesser rate of job work charged from sister concerns in comparison to other related parties. 12. That order of CIT (A) is perverse, erroneous and is not tenable on facts and in law. 13. That grounds of appeal are without prejudice to each other.” 144. Ground number 1 of appeal is with respect to addition deleted by learned CIT – A with respect to deduction claimed under section 80 IB and 80 IC of INR 1 21236832 by increasing value of goods transferred from Noida units to eligible units treating them process goods and by reducing eligible profit to that extent. Both parties confirmed that this is identical to ground number 1 in appeal of learned assessing officer for assessment year 2010 – 11. They also confirmed that there is no change in facts and circumstances of case of assessee. We have carefully considered rival contention and decided ground number 1 of appeal of learned assessing officer for assessment year 2010 – 11 dismissing same with a direction to learned assessing officer. Accordingly, this ground of appeal is also dismissed. 145. Ground number 2 of appeal of AO is with respect to deletion of royalty addition made by learned assessing officer at rate of 3% at rate approved by Ministry of company affairs in respect of goods transferred from perfumery division to eligible units. This is identical to ground number 2 of appeal of learned assessing officer wherein we have confirmed action of learned CIT – capital in deleting above addition as learned assessing officer himself in assessment year 2013 – Page | 143

Dharampal Satyapal Ltd Vs, DCIT ITA No. 3738, 3739/Del/2016 (A) & ITA No. 3882 & 3883/Del/2016(R) Assessment Year: 2010-11 & 2011-12 14 onwards has not made any adjustment accordingly for similar reasons we dismiss ground number 2 of appeal of learned assessing officer. 146. Ground number 3 of appeal of AO is with respect to disallowance of deduction u/s 80 IB and 80 IC where expenditure are not allocated to eligible undertaking. Both parties confirmed that this is identical to ground number 3 of appeal of learned assessing officer for assessment year 2010 – 11. As We Have Already Deleted Addition for Assessment Year 2010 – 11 with Respect to Depreciation of Fixed Assessee As Well As Allocation of Expenditure, for Similar Reasons Given Therein We Also Dismiss Ground Number 3 of Appeal 147. Ground Number 4 of Appeal of Learned Assessing Officer Is with Respect to Fair Market Value of Services Obtained by Eligible Units While Calculating Deduction U/s 80 IB/80 IC of The Act. Both Parties Confirmed That This Is Identical to Ground Number 4 of Appeal of Learned Assessing Officer for Assessment Year 2010 – 11. Therefore for Similar Reasons Contained Therein We Dismiss Ground Number 4 of Appeal of Assessing Officer for This Year Too. 148. Ground Number 5 of Appeal of Learned Assessing Officer Is against Deleting Reduction of Claim U/s 80 IB 80 IC on Account of Royalty Payment to Sister Concern. Identical ground has been decided by us in appeal of learned assessing officer for assessment year 2010 – 11 wherein we have dismissed this ground of appeal. Therefore, for similar reasons we dismiss this ground of appeal also. 149. Ground number 6 of appeal of learned assessing officer is with respect to allowability of deduction u/s 80 IC in respect of excise duty refund considering same as an eligible income or not. Identical issue has been considered by us in appeal of learned assessing officer in ground number 7 for AY year 2010 – 11 wherein we have held that excise duty refund is an income eligible for purpose of deduction u/s 80 IB of income tax the act as it is derived from industrial

Dharampal Satyapal Ltd Vs, DCIT ITA No. 3738, 3739/Del/2016 (A) & ITA No. 3882 & 3883/Del/2016(R) Assessment Year: 2010-11 & 2011-12 undertaking. accordingly ground number 6 of appeal of learned assessing officer is dismissed 150. Ground number 7 of appeal of assessee is with respect to disallowance of prior period expenditure. Both parties confirmed that this is identical to ground number 8 of appeal of assessee officer for assessment year 2010 – 11. We have carefully considered rival contention and find that ground number 8 of appeal of assessing officer for assessment year 2010 – 11 has been dismissed by us in therefore for similar reasons we also dismiss ground number 7 of this appeal. 151. Ground number 8 of appeal is with respect to foreign exchange fluctuation loss, which is identical to ground number 9 of appeal of learned assessing officer. We have already decided this ground of appeal dismissing appeal of learned assessing officer confirming order of learned CIT (A) and therefore for similar reasons contained therein we also dismiss ground number 8 of appeal of assessee. 152. Ground number 9 of appeal of assessee is with respect to disallowance u/s 14 A of income tax the act. Learned authorised representative submitted that assessing officer has computed disallowance to extent of Rs. 24195860/- and restricted it to extent of Rs. 19885294/– after giving due amount of set off disallowance of Rs. 4310566/- offered in return of income. Learned CIT – A allowed partial relief. Both parties submitted that identical issue has been considered by coordinate bench in Appeal of Learned AO for assessment year 2010 – 11 vide ground number 10 of appeal. Above issue is connected with appeal of assessee for same year wherein disallowance confirmed by learned CIT – A has been challenged. We have already stated that learned assessing officer has made addition without recording any satisfaction with regard to incorrectness of claim of assessee. Therefore, ground of appeal of learned assessing officer was dismissed with direction to retain only addition which has been offered by assessee in its computation of income. In current Page | 145

Dharampal Satyapal Ltd Vs, DCIT ITA No. 3738, 3739/Del/2016 (A) & ITA No. 3882 & 3883/Del/2016(R) Assessment Year: 2010-11 & 2011-12 year disallowance offered by assessed of INR 4310566/–. Accordingly, ground number 9 of appeal of learned assessing officer is dismissed. 153. Ground number 10 of appeal of learned assessing officer is directly connected to ground number 11 of appeal of assessee. While deciding ground number 11 of appeal of assessee we have given detailed resident and upheld partial disallowances confirmed by learned CIT appeal. Therefore, for reasons given there under this ground of appeal of learned assessing officer does not survive. Accordingly, ground number 10 of appeal of assessing officer is dismissed. 154. Ground number 11 of appeal is with respect to addition in respect of job charges paid at lesser rate. Both parties confirmed that identical ground of appeal has been decided in case of appeal of learned assessing officer for assessment year 2010 – 11 vide ground number 12. We have carefully considered rival contention and find that ground number 12 of appeal of learned assessing officer for assessment year 2010 – 11 is dismissed for reasons given therein we also dismiss ground number 11 of appeal in present case. 155. Accordingly, appeal of learned assessing officer is dismissed. 156. Accordingly, appeals of learned assessing officer for both the Ays are dismissed and appeals of assessee are partly allowed for both the assessment years. Order pronounced in open court on 18/04/2019. -Sd/- -Sd/- (H.S. SIDHU) (PRASHANT MAHARISHI) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Dated: 18/04/2019 Copy forwarded to 1. Applicant 2. Respondent 3. CIT 4. CIT (A) Page | 146

Dharampal Satyapal Ltd Vs, DCIT ITA No. 3738, 3739/Del/2016 (A) & ITA No. 3882 & 3883/Del/2016(R) Assessment Year: 2010-11 & 2011-12 5. DR:ITAT ASSISTANT REGISTRAR ITAT, New Delhi