TPO Exceeded Jurisdiction by Questioning 80-IA Profit Allocation Instead of Transaction Price.
Issue
Can a Transfer Pricing Officer (TPO) disregard a valid benchmarking method (CUP) for a specified domestic transaction and make a transfer pricing adjustment by questioning the assessee’s internal profit allocation between different business units (an issue of corporate tax), rather than the arm’s length nature of the transaction price itself?
Facts
- The assessee executed infrastructure projects as a sub-contractor for its Associated Enterprises (AEs).
- The arrangement was a back-to-back contract: the AEs were awarded projects by the Government and passed on the entire execution to the assessee.
- The entire contract revenue received by the AEs from the Government was passed on to the assessee with zero mark-up.
- The assessee reported this as a Specified Domestic Transaction (SDT) and benchmarked it using the Comparable Uncontrolled Price (CUP) method, arguing the price was at arm’s length since it was determined by an unrelated party (the Government).
- The TPO rejected this. The TPO’s reasoning was not that the price was wrong, but that the assessee’s internal profit computation for its Section 80IA eligible unit was incorrect due to improper expense allocation.
- Based on this corporate tax issue, the TPO applied ‘Another Method’ and made a transfer pricing adjustment.
Decision
The court held that the TPO’s approach was arbitrary, unjustified, and beyond the scope of Transfer Pricing provisions. The addition was deleted. It found that since the price was a direct pass-through from an unrelated party (the government), it was undeniably at arm’s length, and there was no scope for any profit shifting.
Key Takeaways
- Jurisdictional Limit: A TPO’s role is to determine the arm’s length price of a transaction between related parties, not to audit the assessee’s internal profit and loss allocation or the computation of corporate tax deductions like Section 80-IA.
- CUP Method in Back-to-Back Deals: A back-to-back contract where the price is set by an independent third party and passed on without modification is a classic case where the CUP method is the most appropriate, and the price is inherently at arm’s length.
- No Profit Shifting: In this scenario, since the AE retained no margin, there was no possibility of shifting profits from the assessee to the AE, which is the primary mischief that transfer pricing provisions aim to prevent.
80-IA Deduction Claim by Sub-Contractor Remanded to Verify Project Commencement Date Post-2017 Law Change.
Issue
Is an assessee, acting as a sub-contractor for an infrastructure project, eligible for a deduction under Section 80-IA, particularly when the law was amended to disallow such deductions for projects commencing on or after April 1, 2017, and the commencement dates of the projects in question are not clear from the record?
Facts
- The assessee, a sub-contractor, executed infrastructure projects on behalf of its related party, which held the main contract from the State Government.
- The assessee claimed a deduction under Section 80-IA(4).
- The Assessing Officer (AO) disallowed the claim because the assessee did not have a direct agreement with the government.
- In previous years, the Tribunal had allowed a similar claim in the assessee’s own case.
- However, a new law (second proviso to Section 80-IA(4)) was inserted, which explicitly prohibits the 80-IA deduction for enterprises that begin developing or operating infrastructure facilities on or after April 1, 2017.
- The record for the current assessment year lacked clarity on when the projects executed by the assessee had actually commenced.
Decision
The court ruled that the earlier decisions were not automatically binding due to the change in law. Since the eligibility for the deduction now critically depended on a key fact—the project commencement date—which was not on record, the matter was remanded back to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication. The AO was directed to verify the facts and then decide the claim in accordance with the amended law.
Key Takeaways
- Each Year is Separate: The principle of res judicata does not apply to tax assessments. A decision in one year is not automatically binding in a subsequent year, especially if the facts or the law have changed.
- Impact of Amendments: Legislative amendments can override past judicial precedents. The insertion of the second proviso to Section 80-IA(4) created a new condition that must be satisfied.
- Importance of Factual Foundation: A claim for deduction cannot be decided without a clear factual basis. When crucial facts like a commencement date are missing, the correct approach is to remand the case for verification.
IN THE ITAT HYDERABAD BENCH ‘B’
Sushee Infra & Mining Ltd.
v.
ACIT
VIJAY PAL RAO, Vice President
and MADHUSUDAN SAWDIA, Accountant Member
and MADHUSUDAN SAWDIA, Accountant Member
IT Appeal No. 1390 (Hyd.) of 2024
[Assessment year 2021-2022]
[Assessment year 2021-2022]
SEPTEMBER 24, 2025
CA. Abhiroop Bhargav for the Appellant. Dr. Narendra Kumar Naik, CIT-DR for the Respondent.
ORDER
Vijay Pal Rao, Vice President.- The above appeal has been filed by the assessee against the Final Assessment Order of the Assessing Officer dated 29.10.2024 passed u/sec.143(3) r.w.s.144C(13) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [in short “the Act”], pursuant to the Directions dated 28.09.2024 of the Disputes Resolution Panel-1, [in short “DRP”], Bengaluru, passed u/sec.144C(5) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, relating to the assessment year 2021-2022.
2. The assessee has raised the following grounds in the instant appeal :
1. “That on facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Order u/s 143(3) rws 143C(13) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (“Act”) is bad in law;
Corporate Tax Grounds
2. That on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld.AO/DRP have erred in disallowing the claim of the deduction of the Assessee u’s 801A of the Act on the ground that works have been awarded to the Assessee by Joint Venture Companies and that the requirement of Section 801A of the Act are not fulfilled.
Transfer Pricing Grounds
3. That on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. AO/ Ld. TPO has erred in enhancing the income of Assessee by Rs.1,31,62.27,000 while holding that the Assessee’s specified domestic transaction with its associated enterprise (‘AE”) namely Sushee Arunachal Highways Limited pertaining to Ministry of Road Transport Highways project does not satisfy the arm’s length principle envisaged under the Act and in doing so, have grossly erred in :
| a. | not appreciating that more than 90% of the contract receipts during the year are on account of work done in the earlier years and that the costs pertaining to the same have been absorbed in the earlier years. |
| b. | in interpreting/applying the provisions of section 92BA read with section 801A(10) of the Act, without establishing the existence of any arrangement to manipulate profits of the eligible unit of the Assessee and its AE. |
| c. | proposing to reduce the deduction under section 801A of the Act by Rs.1,31,62,27,000 by invoking the provisions of section 92BA read with section 801A(10) of the Act, alleging that the Assessee earned more than ‘ordinary profits in respect of the eligible unit of the Assessee and its AE. |
| d. | not appreciating that none of the conditions set out in section 92C(3) of the Act are satisfied in the present case. |
| e. | disregarding the arm’s length price (ALP) as determined by the Assessee in the Transfer Pricing (TP) documentation maintained in terms of section 92D of the Act read with Rule 10D of the Income-tax Rules, 1962 (‘Rules’). |
| f. | modifying the comparability analysis in the TP documentation and in conducting a fresh comparability search based on application of additional filters in determining ALP. |
| g. | including certain companies in the final comparable set that are not comparable to the Assessee in terms of functions performed, assets employed and risks assumed. |
4. That on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. AO/Ld. TPO has erred in enhancing the income of Assessee by Rs.12,70,80,000 while holding that the Assessee’s specified domestic transaction with its associated enterprise (‘AE’) namely Sushee Prasad JV pertaining to Irrigation & CAD Department, Government of Telangana project does not satisfy the arm’s length principle envisaged under the Act and in doing so, have grossly erred in :
| a. | not appreciating that more than 90% of the contract receipts during the year are on account of work done in the earlier years and that the costs pertaining to the same have been absorbed in the earlier years |
| b. | in interpreting/applying the provisions of section 92BA read with section 801A(10) of the Act, without establishing the existence of any arrangement’ to manipulate profits of the eligible unit of the Assessee and its AE |
| c. | proposing to reduce the deduction under section 801A of the Act by Rs.12,70,80,000 by invoking the provisions of section 92BA read with section 801A(10) of the Act, alleging that the Assessee earned more than ‘ordinary profits in respect of the eligible unit of the Assessee and its AE. |
| d. | not appreciating that none of the conditions set out in section 92C(3) of the Act are satisfied in the present case. |
| e. | disregarding the arm’s length price (‘ALP”) as determined by the Assessee in the Transfer Pricing (TP) documentation maintained in terms of section 92D of the Act read with Rule 100 of the Income-tax Rules, 1962 (‘Rules’). |
| f. | modifying the comparability analysis in the TP documentation and in conducting a fresh comparability search based on application of additional revised filters in determining ALP. |
| g. | including certain companies in the final comparable set that are not comparable to the Assessee in terms of functions performed, assets employed and risks assumed |
5. That on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld. AO has erred in not granting credit under Section 115JAA of the Act amounting to Rs.10,93,41,440
6. That on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld. AO has erred in considering the TDS at Rs.9,42,69,564 as against Rs.10,21,50,744
7. That on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld. AO erred in the levy of the interest under Section 234A and 234B of the Act
8. The Appellant craves leave to add, amend, alter, vary and/or withdraw any or all the above grounds of appeal.
Each of the Grounds are without prejudice to each other.”
3. Ground No.1 is regarding validity of assessment order passed by the Assessing Officer being barred by limitation provided u/sec.153 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [in short “the Act”].
4. The learned AR of the Assessee submitted that, the Assessing Officer has passed the impugned order beyond the time limit prescribed u/sec.153(4) of the Act. Therefore, in view of the Judgment of Hon’ble Madras High Court in the case of CIT v., Roca Bathroom Products (P.) Ltd. 304/445 ITR 537 (Madras) the assessment order is invalid and void abinitio.
5. The Learned DR for the Revenue, on the other hand, submitted that this issue is pending adjudication before the Hon’ble Supreme Court and, therefore, the same may be kept open with a direction to the Assessing Officer to give effect to the final out-come of the proceedings before the Hon’ble Supreme Court. The learned AR for the Assessee has also fairly agreed to the proposal that this issue may be kept open and Assessing Officer may be directed to give effect to the final out-come of the proceedings before the Hon’ble Supreme Court.
6. We have heard the submissions of both the parties. In view of the fact that this issue is pending adjudication before the Hon’ble Supreme Court, the same is kept open and Assessing Officer is directed to give effect to the Judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Roca Bathroom Products (P) Ltd. , (supra) as per the outcome of the proceedings pending before the Hon’ble Supreme Court.
7. Grounds of appeal No.2 is regarding disallowance of claim of deduction u/sec.80IA of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The learned AR of the Assessee submitted that, the assessee has undertaken certain infrastructure projects under sub-contract from it’s related party being Joint Venture [in short “JV”] and Special Purpose Vehicle [in short “SPV”] which were awarded by the State Government in favour of the related party and the same were executed by the assessee under the sub-contract between the assessee and the related party. Thus, learned AR of the Assessee submitted that the assessee has claimed deduction u/sec.80IA of the Act in respect of the project which were eligible for the deduction. However, the Assessing Officer and the learned DRP has disallowed the claim on the ground that the assessee has not entered into any agreement with the Government as a mandatory condition u/sec.80IA(4) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The learned AR has submitted that this claim of the assessee was considered and allowed by this Tribunal in assessee’s own case for the assessment years 2008-2009 to 2014-2015. Therefore, this issue is covered by the earlier decisions of this Tribunal in assessee’s own case.
8. The Learned DR for the Revenue, on the other hand submitted that the Revenue has already filed appeals before the Hon’ble High Court against the orders of this Tribunal in earlier assessment years. He has further submitted that the earlier orders passed by the Tribunal pertains to the pre-amended provisions of sec.80IA of the Act. He has further submitted that once the contract between an enterprise and Government for development and maintenance and operation of the infrastructure facilities is a mandatory condition, then, in absence of any contract between the assessee and the Government renders the assessee not eligible for deduction u/sec.80IA(4) of the Act. In support of his contention, he relied upon the Judgment of Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of Principal Commissioner of Income-tax v. Celebi Delhi Cargo Management India (P.) Ltd. 3/478 ITR 82 (Delhi)/ITA.No.619/2019, Dated 30.01.2025. He has relied upon the orders of the authorities below.
9. We have considered the rival submissions and relevant material on record. The assessee has claimed deduction u/sec.80IA of the Act in respect of the income from three projects which are as under :
| SI. No. | Name of the Site | Self Capacity JVs/SPVs etc. | 80IA claim Amount |
| 1. | Manipur | Self Executed | 8,05,27,769 |
| 2. | Sushee Arunachal Highways Limited | SPV | 142,85,10,227 |
| 3. | Sushee Prasad JV | Executed in JVs | 14,37,87,788 |
| Total | 165,28,25,784 | ||
9.1. Out of these three projects, the first project is executed by the assessee itself as it was awarded to the assessee by the Government, whereas the other two projects were awarded to the related party of the assessee namely Sushee Arunachal Highways Limited and M/s. Sushee Prasad Joint Venture, respectively. These related parties, then sub-contracted these projects to the assessee for execution. Thus, the assessee reported these transactions with two related parties as specified domestic transaction in the Form-3CEB report. At the outset, we note that the claim of deduction u/sec.80IA of the Act was already considered by this Tribunal in assessee’s own case for the preceding assessment years i.e., for the assessment years 2008-2009 to 2014-2015. However, the earlier order of the Tribunal would not help the case of assessee, if the projects are not the same which were the subject matter of the earlier assessment years and there is a subsequent amendment in the provisions of sec.80IA of the Act in the shape of 2nd proviso which reads as under :
“Provided further that nothing contained in this section shall apply to any enterprise which starts the development or operation and maintenance of the infrastructure facility on or after the 1st day of April, 2017.”
9.2. Thus, in absence of the clarity on the point whether these projects being the infrastructure facilities were started for development or operation and maintenance by the assessee on or after 1st April, 2017, no conclusive finding can be given on this issue. Accordingly, this issue is remanded to the record of the Assessing Officer for verifying the relevant facts in terms of second proviso to sec.80IA(4) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 and then, decide this issue in accordance with law.
10. Grounds of appeal Nos.3 and 4 are regarding TP adjustment in respect of the specified domestic transactions. The assessee has reported the specified domestic transactions as given in para-3.2 of the Transfer Pricing Officer [in short “TPO”] Order as under :
| Name of the AE | Nature of Transaction | Amount (Rs.) | MAM Adopted |
| SUSHEE IVRCL ARUNACHAL HYWAYS LIMITED | CONTRACT REVENUE | 2558530275 | Other Method |
| SUSHEE PRASAD JV | CONTRACT REVENUE | 403052595 | Other Method |
11. The assessee has claimed that it’s specified domestic transactions are at arm’s length on the ground that the related parties were awarded all the contracts from Government, have sub-contracted the projects to the assessee and transferred the revenue received from the Government to the assessee without any mark-up. Therefore, the assessee has claimed that when the related parties have not deducted any amount from the amount received from the Government and transferred the entire amount to the assessee, then, the price of the transactions with the related parties is at arm’s length. It was also contended before the TPO that the price offered by the Government to the principal contractor [AE] is a Comparable Un-related Price [in short “CUP”] and, therefore, if the same price is transferred by the related party to the assessee, then, it is at arm’s length. The TPO did not accept the TP analysis of the assessee and proceeded to determine the Arm’s Length Price [in short “ALP”] of the specified domestic transactions by adopting Transactional Net Margin Method [in short “TNMM”] as Most Appropriate Method [in short “MAM”] and then, re-calculated the profit margin of the assessee by re-apportionment of the expenses between the non-eligible and eligible infrastructure facilities for deduction u/sec.80IA(4) of the Act and after re-apportionment of the expenditure, the TPO has proposed the TP adjustment in para11.2.4 to 13 as under :
“11.2.4. Final set of comparables considered by the TPO :
As the taxpayer has not raised any objection against the comparable companies as proposed by the TPO in the show cause notice issued, the final set of comparable companies considered by the TPO is as mentioned in para. 10.2.5 above.
11.2.5. Computation of Arm’s Length Price:
The median of the weighted average Profit Level indicators is taken as the arm’s length margin. Based on this, the arm’s length price of the of the specified domestic transactions entered into with the associated enterprises (AE’s) Le Sushee Arunachal Highways Limited is computed as under:
Methodology : For the reasons discussed above, TNMM is taken as most appropriate method.
Profit Level Indicator : Operating profit to operating cost as the Profit Level Indicator.
Comparable: As discussed above
Data used: Data pertaining to the FY 2020-21, FY 2019-20 and 2018-19 as mandated under Rule 10B (5),
Computation of Arm’s Length Price: The median of the Profit Level indicators is taken as the arm’s length margin.
Based on this, the arm’s length price is computed as under:
(Rs in lakhs)
| Operating cost of the eligible unit (OC) | 2427.21 |
| Operating Revenue of the eligible unit (OR) | 4030.53 |
| Operating Profit (OP) | 1323.32 |
| OP/OC | 66.%% |
| Arm’s length margin | 13.%% |
| Arm’s length price (ALP) (100+ALM) *OC | 2759.73 |
| Excess profit claimed/Adjustment (difference of ALP & OR) | 1270.8 |
Accordingly, the sum of Rs.12,70,80,000/- is hereby suggested as adjustment in respect of Specified Domestic Transaction entered with the AE i.e Sushee Prasad JV.
12. The summary of total adjustment made on various specified domestic transactions are as under:
| S.No. | Nature of adjustment | Adjustment (Rs.) |
| 1. | Specified Domestic Transactions entered with Sushee Arunachal Highways Ltd | Rs. 127,00,27,000/- |
| 2. | Specified Domestic Transactions entered with Sushee Prasad JV | Rs. 10,00,80,000/- |
| Total | Rs.144,33,07,000/- |
13. Thus, the total TP adjustment on specified domestic transactions is computed at Rs.144,33,07,000/-. The Assessing Officer is required to rework the deduction u/s 801A of the taxpayer accordingly.”
12. In pursuance to the Order of the TPO, the Assessing Officer passed Draft Assessment Order, whereby made addition of the said amount of Rs.144,33,07,000/- on account of TP adjustment.
13. The assessee challenged the Draft Assessment Order by filing objections before the DRP, but, could not succeed.
14. Before the Tribunal, the learned AR for the Assessee has reiterated it’s contentions as raised before the authorities below and submitted that once the related party has transferred the entire receipt as received from the Government to the assessee, then, the said transaction is at arm’s length, because nothing was retained by the related party out of the amount received from the Government. He has further submitted that, the price paid by the Government to the AE is an independent comparable price and the same was transferred by the AE to the assessee, then, even under CUP, the transaction is at arm’s length and no adjustment is called for. The TPO has not determined the ALP on the revenue received by the assessee from AE, but, he has re-calculated the income of the assessee from the said project by re-allocating the cost between eligible entities and non-eligible entities. Further, the TPO has held that the excess profit claimed by the assessee is required to be adjusted and deduction u/sec.80IA to be denied on the said amount. Thus, the TPO has travelled beyond his jurisdiction while giving the finding on the claim of deduction u/sec.80IA of the Act and recalculation of the profit of the assessee. Thus, he is submitted that the assessee produced all the relevant record including records pertaining to correspondence between the AE and the Government, under which, there was a final settlement of the bills of the AE which was transferred to the assessee. Once the payment was settled between the AE and the Government and the same was transferred to the assessee, then, there is no question of any shifting of profit or understatement of the profit by the assessee. Thus, he has contended that the addition made by the Assessing Officer on account of TP adjustment is unsustainable in the eye of law and liable to be deleted.
15. On the other hand, the Learned DR for the Revenue has relied upon the orders of the authorities below and submitted that it is a case of shifting of profit by allocation of the entire expenditure to non-eligible unit and thereby, claiming excess deduction u/sec.80IA of the Act. He submitted that the TNMM is one of the most appropriate method as referred to under Rule-10B of I.T. Rules, 1962. Thus, he submitted that the TPO has applied the correct method for determining the ALP.
16. We have considered the rival submissions as well as relevant material on record. At the outset, we note that the TPO has given reasoning for rejection of the benchmarking done by the assessee which is alien to the procedure for determining the ALP. This is not the jurisdiction of the TPO to scrutinize the claim of deduction u/sec.80IA of the Act of the assessee in respect of projects undertaken by the assessee under sub-contract from the AE. The very object of the Transfer Pricing proceedings is to determine the ALP and to ensure that the assessee should not shift it’s profit to the AE, whereas the TPO has proceeded in the reverse direction to re-calculate the profit of the assessee by disallowing the expenditure on the premise that the assessee has allocated/apportioned more expenditure to the non-eligible projects/enterprise and thereby, showing excess profit/income in respect of 80IA eligible units/enterprises. This is not the jurisdiction of the TPO to question the allocation of the expenditure between eligible and non-eligible units of the assessee. The TPO ought to have examine the price of the transactions with the related party as reported being specified domestic transactions and then, to determine the ALP. Undisputedly, the assessee has received sub-contract receipts from the related parties as it was received from the Government being the principal contractor for execution of the infrastructure facilities. Though, the contract was originally awarded to the related party/AE of the assessee by the Government, Ministry of Road Transport and Highways, however, the infrastructure projects were executed by the assessee under sub-contract with the related party and, therefore, the entire receipt from the Government was passed-on to the assessee. Therefore, once the entire receipt was transferred by the AE to the assessee without any mark-up or reduction, then, the price between the Government and the AE is a Comparable Uncontrolled Price and the same is also received by the assessee amounting to ALP. Once there is a Comparable Uncontrolled Price under the same contract, then, the price received by the assessee from the AE cannot be questioned as not at arms’ length. It was an arrangement of back-to-back contract between the assessee and related party and, therefore, the price paid by the Government was passed-on by the AE to the assessee, which has executed the projects and thus, in our considered view, the said price received by the assessee is at arm’s length without having any scope of any shifting of profit to the AE. The entire proceedings conducted by the TPO is in the reverse directions to verify and ascertain that the assessee has shown excessive profit from these projects by allocating more expenditure to the non-eligible units. That issue is completely beyond the scope of determination of ALP and subject matter of assessment. Once the TPO has found that assessee is showing more profit from these projects and the amount received from the AE is not in dispute, then, the claim of deduction u/sec.80IA of the Act being a separate matter and subject matter of the assessment proceedings, cannot be taken-up by the TPO. These benchmarking of specified domestic transactions by the assessee on the basis that the price received by the AE from the Government is an independent third party transaction and would be a Comparable Uncontrolled Price, then, we do not find any fault in the said benchmarking on behalf of the assessee. The TPO has rejected the said analysis and benchmarking done by the assessee on the ground that the computation of profit by assessee in respect of sec.80IA eligible unit, is not correct due to excess allocation of expenditure to the non-eligible unit. That issue is purely a corporate issue and will not change the price of the specified domestic transactions. Thus, the approach of the TPO is beyond the Transfer Pricing Provisions of the Act. Accordingly, in view of the above facts and circumstances, we hold that rejection of the benchmarking done by assessee under CUP method on the part of the TPO and adopting ‘Another Method’ by the TPO is highly arbitrary and unjustified. The entire thrust of the TPO to reject the benchmarking of the assessee and adopting ‘Another Method’ was to re-allocate the cost/expenditure between the 80IA eligible units and non-eligible units and then, redetermined the financial results of each of the unit of the assessee instead of the reported financial results duly audited. Accordingly, the addition made by the Assessing Officer on account of TP adjustment is not sustainable and liable to be deleted. We order accordingly.
17. Grounds of appeal No.5 is regarding the grievance of the assessee that not granting credit u/sec.115JAA of the Act.
18. This issue is raised by the assessee for the first time and was not raised before the DRP. Therefore, the learned AR of the Assessee submitted that the Assessing Officer may be directed to verify and then, allow the credit to the assessee.
19. The Learned DR for the Revenue, on the other hand, has no objection if appropriate direction be given to the Assessing Officer.
20. Having considered the rival submissions and perusal of the relevant record we note that the assessee did not raise this issue before the DRP and, therefore, there was no occasion for the authorities below to consider this claim of the assessee. Accordingly, in the facts and circumstances of the case, the Assessing Officer is directed to consider this claim of credit u/sec.115JAA of the Act as per law.
21. Grounds of appeal No.6 is regarding incorrect TDS credit given by the Assessing Officer.
22. Both the learned AR for the Assessee and the Learned DR for the Revenue have fairly submitted that this is also a fresh ground raised by the assessee for the first time before the Tribunal and, therefore, it requires proper verification at the level of the Assessing Officer. Therefore, in the given facts and circumstances of the case, we find that the instant issue requires proper verification at the level of the Assessing Officer. Accordingly, the Assessing Officer is directed to verify and examine this claim of short credit on account of TDS as raised by the assessee.
23. Grounds of appeal No.7 is regarding levy of interest u/sec.234A and 234B which are mandatory and consequential in nature.
24. Grounds of appeal No.8 is general in nature and, therefore, need not be adjudicated.
25. In the result, appeal of the Assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes.