Latest Expert Exchange Queries
sitemapHome | Registration | Job Portal for CA's | Expert Exchange | Currency Converter | Post Matrimonial Ads | Post Property Ads
 
 
News shortcuts: From the Courts | News Headlines | VAT (Value Added Tax) | Service Tax | Sales Tax | Placements & Empanelment | Various Acts & Rules | Latest Circulars | New Forms | Forex | Auditing | Direct Tax | Customs and Excise | ICAI | Corporate Law | Markets | Students | General | Indirect Tax | Mergers and Acquisitions | Continuing Prof. Edu. | Budget Extravaganza | Transfer Pricing
 
 
 
 
Popular Search: ACCOUNTING STANDARDS :: empanelment :: due date for vat payment :: ICAI offer Get Windows 7,Office 2010 in Rs.799 Taxes :: ARTICLES ON INPUT TAX CREDIT IN VAT :: articles on VAT and GST in India :: form 3cd :: cpt :: ACCOUNTING STANDARD :: list of goods taxed at 4% :: VAT Audit :: TDS :: VAT RATES :: Central Excise rule to resale the machines to a new company :: TAX RATES - GOODS TAXABLE @ 4%
 
 
From the Courts »
  Vatsala Shenoy vs. JCIT (Supreme Court)
  Vatsala Shenoy vs. JCIT (Supreme Court)
 M.K.Overseas Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Pr.Commissioner Of Income Tax-06
 Arshia Ahmed Qureshi Vs. Pr. Commissioner Of Income Tax-21
 CHAUDHARY SKIN TRADING COMPANY Vs. PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-21
  Sushila Devi vs. CIT (Delhi High Court)
  Vatsala Shenoy vs. JCIT (Supreme Court)
 Deputy Director Of Income Tax Vs. Virage Logic International
 Commissioner Of Income Tax-3 International Taxation Vs. Virage Logic International India
 Pr. Commissioner Of Income Tax-06 Vs. Moderate Leasing And Capital Services Pvt. Ltd.
 ITO vs. Vikram A. Pradhan (ITAT Mumbai)

Asst. CIT, Central Circle-13, Room No.1006, 10th Floor, Old CGO Annexe Bldg., Mumbai-400 020 Vs. Prakash Steelage Ltd. 101, 1st Floor, Shantrunjay Apts., 28, Sindhi Lane, N. D. Road, Mumbai-400 004
January, 29th 2015
                    ""   
     IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL "C" BENCH, MUMBAI

          ,                       ,     
      BEFORE SHRI SANJAY ARORA, AM AND SHRI AMIT SHUKLA, JM

                     ./I.T.A. No. 5221/Mum/2012
                    (   / Assessment Year: 2009-10)

Asst. CIT, Central Circle-13,                       Prakash Steelage Ltd.
Room No.1006, 10th Floor,                  /        101, 1st Floor, Shantrunjay Apts.,
Old CGO Annexe Bldg.,                      Vs.      28, Sindhi Lane, N. D. Road,
Mumbai-400 020                                      Mumbai-400 004
     . /  . /PAN/GIR No. AAACP 6673 K
         ( /Appellant)                        :            (     / Respondent)

         / Appellant by                      :     Shri Premanand J.

           /Respondent by                    :     Dr. K. Shivram &
                                                   Ms. Neelam C. Jadhav

                          /                  :     12.11.2014
                    Date of Hearing
                      /
                                             :     28.01.2015
           Date of Pronouncement

                                    / O R D E R
Per Sanjay Arora, A. M.:
      This is an Appeal by the Revenue directed against the Order by the Commissioner
of Income Tax (Appeals)-37, Mumbai (`CIT(A)' for short) dated 31.05.2012, allowing
the assessee's appeal contesting the levy of penalty u/s.271AAA of the Income Tax Act,
1961 (`the Act' hereinafter) for the assessment year (A.Y.) 2009-10 vide order dated
29.06.2011.

2.    The only issue arising in the instant appeal is the maintainability or otherwise in
law, and in the facts and circumstances of the case, of the deletion of the penalty levied
                                            2
                                                  ITA No. 5221/Mum/2012 (A.Y.) 2009-10
                                                            Asst. CIT vs. Prakash Steelage Ltd.

u/s.271AAA of the Act by the ld. CIT(A) vide his impugned order, which is in fact a
combined order for A.Ys. 2004-05, 2008-09 and 2009-10.

3.    The facts of the case in brief are that there was a search and seizure action u/s.132
of the Act in the case of Prakash Steelage group of companies, of which the assessee-
company forms a part, on 09.02.2009. Several incriminating materials were found,
leading to a disclosure of undisclosed income of Rs.15,00,21,000/- for the entire group
vide statement u/s.132(4) dated 06/3/2009, to be appropriated by the `assessee' amongst
the various group concerns. The disclosure in the case of the assessee was for A.Ys.
2008-09 and 2009-10, at Rs.49,21,666/- and Rs.99,13,210/- respectively. The assessee
subsequently filed its return of income for the relevant year on 29.11.2009, declaring a
total income of Rs.7,52,43,818/-. Its assessment was completed u/s.143(3) on 31.12.2010,
determining the total income at Rs.7,55,90,450/-, i.e., at an increase of Rs. 3,46,632/-
over that returned, also initiating penalty proceedings u/s.271AAA vide notice u/s.274 of
even date. The same was subsequently levied at Rs.66,52,232/-, being 10% of the
undisclosed income of Rs.6,65,22,317/-, detailed as under, included in the assessed
income of Rs.755.90 lacs:

           a)    Undisclosed interest income declared by        Rs.99,13,210/-
                 the assessee
           b)    Undisclosed income relating to stock         Rs.5,62,62,475/-
           c)    Undisclosed income relating to stock            Rs.3,46,632/-
                 discrepancy

      In appeal, the ld. CIT(A) deleted the penalty on the basis of a finding as to
substantial compliance (of the provision), not warranting any further denial of benefit of
Explanation 5A to section 271(1)(c), which is worded similar to Explanation 5, after
noting the decision in the case of CIT vs. Mahendra C. Shah [2008] 299 ITR 305 (Guj).
Aggrieved, the Revenue is in appeal, raising the following two grounds, which we may
number as 1 & 2:
      `1.    On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the ld.
      CIT(A) erred in deleting the penalty order u/s.271AAA relying on the
      decision of Gujarat High Court in the case of CIT vs. Mahendra Shah 299
                                            3
                                                  ITA No. 5221/Mum/2012 (A.Y.) 2009-10
                                                            Asst. CIT vs. Prakash Steelage Ltd.

      ITR 205 (Guj) without appreciating the fact that the decision relied upon
      was not squarely applicable in the instant case as it related to explanation
      5A of section 271(1)(c) and not u/s.271AAA.
      2.     On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the ld.
      CIT(A) erred in allowing the appeal of the assessee without appreciating
      the fact that the assessee failed to fulfill the preconditions stipulated in
      section 271AAA particularly the condition u/s.271AAA(2)(ii) of the I.T.
      Act.'




4.    We have heard the parties, and perused the material on record.
4.1   At the outset, we observe, even as would be apparent from the foregoing narration
of events, and as also sought to be brought forth by the Revenue per its first ground of
appeal, that the ld. CIT(A) has grossly misapplied himself in the matter; examining the
levy of penalty under a provision (section 271(1)(c)) which was neither invoked by the
Assessing Officer (A.O.) nor could in fact be in the facts and circumstances of the case.
Penalty in the instant case stands levied u/s.271AAA, which reads as under:
      `Penalty where search has been initiated.
      271AAA. (1) The Assessing Officer may, notwithstanding anything
      contained in any other provisions of this Act, direct that, in a case where
      search has been initiated under section 132 on or after the 1st day of June,
      2007 but before the 1st day of July, 2012, the assessee shall pay by way of
      penalty, in addition to tax, if any, payable by him, a sum computed at the
      rate of ten per cent of the undisclosed income of the specified previous
      year.
      (2) Nothing contained in sub-section (1) shall apply if the assessee,--
            (i) in the course of the search, in a statement under sub-section (4) of
             section 132, admits the undisclosed income and specifies the manner
             in which such income has been derived;
             (ii) substantiates the manner in which the undisclosed income was
             derived; and
             (iii) pays the tax, together with interest, if any, in respect of the
             undisclosed income.
      (3) No penalty under the provisions of clause (c) of sub-section (1) of
      section 271 shall be imposed upon the assessee in respect of the
      undisclosed income referred to in sub-section (1).
      (4) The provisions of sections 274 and 275 shall, so far as may be, apply in
      relation to the penalty referred to in this section.
                                            4
                                                  ITA No. 5221/Mum/2012 (A.Y.) 2009-10
                                                            Asst. CIT vs. Prakash Steelage Ltd.


       Explanation.--For the purposes of this section,--
             (a) "undisclosed income" means--
                 (i) any income of the specified previous year represented, either
                 wholly or partly, by any money, bullion, jewellery or other
                 valuable article or thing or any entry in the books of account or
                 other documents or transactions found in the course of a search
                 under section 132, which has--
                 (A) not been recorded on or before the date of search in the books
                 of account or other documents maintained in the normal course
                 relating to such previous year; or
                 (B) otherwise not been disclosed to the Principal Chief
                 Commissioner or Chief Commissioner or Principal
                 Commissioner or Commissioner before the date of search; or
                 (ii) any income of the specified previous year represented, either
                 wholly or partly, by any entry in respect of an expense recorded
                 in the books of account or other documents maintained in the
                 normal course relating to the specified previous year which is
                 found to be false and would not have been found to be so had the
                 search not been conducted;
              (b) "specified previous year" means the previous year--
                  (i) which has ended before the date of search, but the date of
                  filing the return of income under sub-section (1) of section 139
                  for such year has not expired before the date of search and the
                  assessee has not furnished the return of income for the previous
                  year before the said date; or
                 (ii) in which search was conducted.'

4.2    The matter stands dealt with by the ld. CIT(A) vide sub-para 6 of his order, which
stands perused by us. Para 6.1.1 records the assessee's grounds before him. Sub-para 6.2
notes briefly the facts of the case and the basis of the levy of penalty as recorded by the
A.O. Sub-para 6.3 reproduces the assessee's submissions before the ld. CIT(A). Vide
sub-para 6.4.1, the ld. CIT(A) records having considered the rival submissions and
perused the materials on record. Sub-para 6.5 details his `Decision', which we may
reproduce as under:

       `6.5.1 Penalty u/s.271AAA has been levied by the Ld. A.O. on the
       following undisclosed income /additions:-
                                      5
                                             ITA No. 5221/Mum/2012 (A.Y.) 2009-10
                                                       Asst. CIT vs. Prakash Steelage Ltd.

       a.     Undisclosed interest Income declared by the assessee of
              Rs.99,13,210/-
       b.     Undisclosed Income relating to stock of Rs.5,62,62,475/-
              declared by the assessee and addition due to discrepancy in
              stock of Rs.3,46,632/-.
6.5.2 Ld. A.O. has initiated penalty u/s.271AAA only because the
appellant could not specify the manner in which such income had been
derived and failed to substantiate the same. In this regard, it is pertinent to
look into the provisions of sec.271AAA, relevant part of which are as
under:-
"(i) in the course of the search in a statement under sub-section (4) of
section 132, admits the undisclosed income and specifies the manner in
which such income has been derived;
(ii)   substantiates the manner in which the undisclosed income was
derived; and .........."

6.5.3 It may also be profitable to refer to Explanation 5A substituted by
the Finance Act, 2009 w.r.e.f. 01.06.2007 which is as under:-

        "Where, in the course of a search initiated under section 132 on or
after the 1st day of June, 2007, the assessee is found to be the owner of-

(i)    Any money, bullion, jewellery or other valuable article or thing
       (hereafter in this Explanation referred to assets) and the assessee
       claims that such assets have been acquired by him by utilizing
       (wholly or in part) his income for any previous year; or

(ii)   Any income based on any entry in any books of account or other
       documents or transactions and he claims that such entry in the books
       of account or other documents or transactions represents his income
       (wholly or in part) for any previous year,

Which has ended before the date of search and ­
(a)   Whether the return of income for such previous year has been
      furnished before the said date but such income has not been
      declared therein; or

(b)    The due date for filing the return of income for such previous year
       has expired but the assessee has not filed the return,
                                             6
                                                    ITA No. 5221/Mum/2012 (A.Y.) 2009-10
                                                              Asst. CIT vs. Prakash Steelage Ltd.

       Then, notwithstanding that such income is declared by him in any return of
       income furnished on or after the date of search, he shall, for the purposes
       of imposition of a penalty under clause (c) of sub-section (1) of this section,
       be deemed to have concealed the particulars of his income or furnished
       inaccurate particulars of such income."

       6.5.4 On perusal of the same it is to be seen that an explanation has been
       provided in the aforesaid provisions on fulfillment of which penalty is not
       to be levied. The same being:
              1.     A statement is made u/s. 132(4) admitting the undisclosed
                     income,
              2.     Specifying the manner in which the undisclosed income was
                     derived and
              3.     The assessee pays the tax together with interest, if any, on the
                     same.
       6.5.5 I find that the appellant has already made a statement admitting the
       undisclosed income and also stated that it has paid all the taxes together
       with interest on the sum offered for taxation in the statement u/s.132(4) as
       reflected in the return of income filed for the year. The appellant group has
       also stated during and immediately after the search that the income of the
       group was earned from undisclosed business based on the entries found in
       the seized documents. While dealing with similar circumstances, in respect
       of Explanation-5 to sec. 271(1)(c) which also contained similar
       requirements of disclosing the manner in which the income was earned and
       substantiating the same Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in the case of CIT vs.
       Mahendra Shah 299 ITR 305 (Guj.) has held as under:

                     (Paras 7 to 15 of the decision stand reproduced)

       6.5.6 In view of the above, it is clear that even if the statement does not
       specify the manner in which income is derived but the income is declared
       and tax thereon is paid, there would be substantial compliance not
       warranting on further denial of the benefit under Explanation 5A to sec.
       271(1)(c) which is similarly worded as Expl. 5. In view of the same, I am of
       the considered opinion that penalty imposed u/s.271AAA is not warranted
       in the facts of the case. Accordingly, the same is directed to be cancelled.'




4.3    The ingredients of section 271AAA, for which reference may be made to sub-
sections (1) and (2) thereof, and which provision only is applicable for the current year ­
                                             7
                                                    ITA No. 5221/Mum/2012 (A.Y.) 2009-10
                                                              Asst. CIT vs. Prakash Steelage Ltd.

the year of search (s. 271AAA(1) r/w Explanation thereto), and in fact applied by the
A.O., vary substantially from that of section 271(1)(c) (Explanation 5), noted at para
6.5.4 of the impugned order, inasmuch as the former provides for substantiation of the
manner in which the undisclosed income, as disclosed per s. 132(4), is derived by the
assessee. In fact, the ld. CIT(A) records the ingredients of Explanation 5 to section
271(1)(c) at para 6.5.4 of his order, while Explanation 5A to s. 271(1)(c) alone is relevant
for a search initiated u/s.132 on and after 01.06.2007, as in the instant case; the former
applying only in case of a search initiated before 01.06.2007. Even the decision relied
upon by him (at para 6.5.5), i.e., Mahendra C. Shah (supra), is only in the context of
section 271(1)(c). The two sections, i.e., s. 271(1)( c) and s. 271AAA, are not only
worded differently, with thus different concomitant scopes, are rather mandated to
operate exclusively (refer section 271AAA(3)). The foregoing, we believe, would bring
forth the basis as well as the validity of our initial observation at para 4.1 of this order,
i.e., of the ld. CIT(A) having grossly misapplied himself in the matter. We, therefore,
accepting the Revenue's Ground # 1, vacate the findings by the ld. CIT(A) as well as his
consequent decision as recorded in the concluding sub-para (# 6.5.6) of his order.
       The same, however, would not by itself imply a positive satisfaction of the
conditions of section 271AAA, only on the basis of which the penalty as levied could be
sustained. The matter would therefore; the ld. CIT(A) having examined the levy on the
basis and anvil of a different provision, require being restored back to him for a
consideration afresh, i.e., the issue on merits, and toward which the Revenue has raised
its Ground No. 2 before us. We, accordingly, restore the matter back to the file of the ld.
CIT(A) to adjudicate the issue arising, i.e., the applicability of s. 271AAA in the facts of
the case, and after allowing the asssessee an opportunity to state its case before him.

4.4    In this regard, we also consider it relevant to state our prima facie observations, so
that the same are kept in view by the ld. CIT(A) while deciding the assessee's case before
him. Firstly, any income to be subject to penalty u/s.271AAA should be an `undisclosed
income', as defined vide Explanation below sub-subsection (4) the said section. The
                                              8
                                                    ITA No. 5221/Mum/2012 (A.Y.) 2009-10
                                                              Asst. CIT vs. Prakash Steelage Ltd.

penalty in the instant case, however, has been levied on the income of Rs.3,46,632/-,
which, as it would appear to us on a reading of the assessment and penalty order, is only
on account of a difference in the valuation of stock. Thus a finding as to the impugned
incomes being undisclosed incomes is a pre-requisite for the application of the provision.
       Further, each of the three ingredients as specified u/s. 271AAA(2) would need to
be separately examined for their satisfaction by the assessee if the penalty there-under is
not to be levied and, thus, sustained. While this may seem axiomatic and, therefore,
superfluous for us to be stating so, liable to be construed as an expression of over anxiety,
we do so as we observe a gross overlooking of this vital aspect of the matter. As we
observe, the undisclosed income of Rs.562.62 lacs relating to stock was declared by the
assessee, i.e., for the first time, only per its return of income filed on 29.11.2009, and not
per the declaration vide a statement/deposition u/s.132(4) of the Act; the disclosure
following search extending only to an income of Rs.99.13 lacs, i.e., by way of interest.
The only finding by the ld. CIT(A) in the matter is that vide para 6.5.5 of his order, which
states of tax and interest having been paid on the incomes offered u/s. 132(4), and which
find due reflection in the return of income. The only income, of the three incomes under
reference, which satisfies this requirement, is the interest income, i.e., presuming that the
manner of its derivation stands also specified. The admission u/s.132(4) is to specify the
undisclosed income, or at least the manner in which it is to be arrived at; the whole
premise for extending immunity from the penalty, statutorily mandated, being that the
assessee commits himself, providing the necessary details under a condition of oath.
       Further, surprisingly again, we observe no finding by the ld. CIT(A) in respect of
substantiation of the manner of deriving the undisclosed income, which stipulation, while
missing in section 271(1)(c), stands incorporated in section 271AAA. The A.O. clearly
records a finding, both in respect of the assessee having failed to specify the manner in
which the undisclosed income is derived as well as of the assessee having failed to
substantiate the same, and which in fact the ld. CIT(A) notes vide para 6.5.2 of his order.
Clearly, these findings of fact would need to be addressed by the ld. CIT(A), either
endorsing or reversing or otherwise modifying the same, i.e., based on his reappraisal of
                                               9
                                                     ITA No. 5221/Mum/2012 (A.Y.) 2009-10
                                                               Asst. CIT vs. Prakash Steelage Ltd.




the materials found from the possession of, or otherwise furnished by, the assessee, or
even the evidences led by it before him for the first time, of-course by and upon
observing the due process of law (refer r. 46A). The onus to satisfy the conditions of the
provision though, would only be on the assessee. In fact, all this would precisely be the
purview of the first appellate authority in the set aside proceedings.
       Coming to the decision in the case of Mahendra C. Shah (supra), relied upon by
the ld. CIT(A), the same, as afore-stated, is firstly in respect of section 271(1)(c), the
parameters as well as ingredients of which are different from that of section 271AAA.
While the former provision is applicable in the case of concealment of or furnishing
inaccurate, particulars of income, considering the deeming provisions in its respect under
the section, s. 271AAA provides for a mandatory levy of penalty except where the
assessee satisfies the conditions of section 271AAA(2). Even the saving upon proving a
reasonable clause, as provided under section 273B, is not applicable for a penalty
imposable u/s.271AAA, which is only in respect of undisclosed income, so that what
alone is relevant is the applicability of the provision in the facts of the case. It is apparent
from the reading of the said decision that the environmental conditions existing at the
time of the search, including the manner in which the statement u/s.132(4) is generally
recorded, prevailed with the hon'ble court in holding of a substantial compliance in the
facts of the case, i.e., qua the condition of admission of undisclosed income and the
statement of the manner in which it is derived, also provided u/Expl.5 to s. 271(1)(c),
saving penalty. As explained by it, this is as the assessee had no occasion to state or make
averments in the manner as required by or under the law. Its prescription is therefore to
be read contextually. The legal proposition that thus arises from the said judgment is that
the satisfaction of the conditions must be considered in the background and the context of
the obtaining facts and circumstances of the case. In the instant case, the statement
u/s.132(4), which is by Shri Prakash C. Kanugo, a director of the assessee-company, was
recorded only on 06.03.2009 (copy on record), i.e., nearly a month after the search. The
assessee cannot be said to be constrained for want of time - which was ample, to
deliberate in the matter, as well as seek legal advice. In fact, the statement was made only
                                             10
                                                    ITA No. 5221/Mum/2012 (A.Y.) 2009-10
                                                              Asst. CIT vs. Prakash Steelage Ltd.

in the presence of its counsel, Shri Vinay Doshi, CA, and itself makes a plea for grant of
condonation from the levy of penalty (in answer to Q.11). Could it be therefore be said
that the assessee had no occasion to aver with regard to the manner of deriving the
income being disclosed? A company acts through the human agency of its management,
which alone could depose qua the manner in which its undisclosed income stood earned/
derived, being rather in its exclusive knowledge? All that the law postulates is a honest
disclosure qua the said income. A finding as to the satisfaction or otherwise of the said
condition, or for that matter its' substantiation, i.e., of the manner in which the
undisclosed income was derived, it needs to be appreciated, are pure findings of fact. The
hon'ble high courts can interfere with such a finding/s only where it is in its view either
perverse or without evidence or based on irrelevant material, or which is partly relevant
and partly irrelevant (refer, inter alia, CIT v. Daulat Ram Rawatmull [1973] 87 ITR 349
(SC)). Further, even where so, the province of the hon'ble court is to restore the matter
back to the tribunal, stating its reasons, as clarified by the hon'ble court in Janatha
Contract Co. v. CIT [1976] 105 ITR 627 (Ker), following the binding decisions by the
apex court in CIT v. Greaves Cotton & Co. Ltd. [1968] 68 ITR 200 (SC) and CIT v.
Indian Mollasses & Co. (P.) Ltd. [1970] 78 ITR 474 (SC). The authorities on the law in
the matter could in fact be multiplied. Then, again, we wonder, rather than reading down
the provision, so as to operate to negate the mandatory requirement of the section,
defeating the legislative intent, which, as explained by the hon'ble courts as well as the
official pronouncements explaining the provision, is of plugging the generation of
undisclosed income and the consequent leakage of revenue for future, why could the
same be not read so as to allow the assessee the latitude for providing the necessary
details subsequently, i.e., where the disclosure u/s.132(4) is made under excruciating or
difficult circumstances. The same of course would be under oath, making it a part of and
refer to the earlier statement u/s. 132(4), complying thus substantially and effectively,
with the substantive provision of law. Further, the further condition of `substantiation', as
provided u/s. 271AAA(2)(ii), which was not there in the case, being u/s. 271(1)(c), before
the hon'ble court in Mahendra C. Shah (supra), could only be interpreted to mean of the
                                           11
                                                  ITA No. 5221/Mum/2012 (A.Y.) 2009-10
                                                            Asst. CIT vs. Prakash Steelage Ltd.

law casting a further obligation on the assessee to demonstrate the manner of deriving the
undisclosed income, as specified per the statement u/s.132(4), as valid and true, i.e.,
stands validated and is on a firm basis; the presumption as to the truth of the materials
found being already provided for u/s. 292C. The said decision would thus be of little
assistance to the assessee.

5.     In the result, the Revenue's appeal is allowed for statistical purposes
                                                                 
                Order pronounced in the open court on January 28, 2015
         Sd/-                                          Sd/-
      (Amit Shukla)                                (Sanjay Arora)
         / Judicial Member                           / Accountant Member
 Mumbai;  Dated : 28.01.2015
. ../Roshani, Sr. PS
         /Copy of the Order forwarded to :
1.  / The Appellant
2.  / The Respondent
3.     () / The CIT(A)
4.      / CIT ­ concerned
5.                 ,     ,   / DR, ITAT, Mumbai
6.     / Guard File
                                                    / BY ORDER,


                                             /  (Dy./Asstt. Registrar)
                                         ,  / ITAT, Mumbai

 
 
Home | About Us | Terms and Conditions | Contact Us
Copyright 2016 CAinINDIA All Right Reserved.
Designed and Developed by Binarysoft Technologies Pvt. Ltd.
Binarysoft Technologies - Our Experience

Transfer Pricing | International Taxation | Business Consulting | Corporate Compliance and Consulting | Assurance and Risk Advisory | Indirect Taxes | Direct Taxes | Transaction Advisory | Regular Compliance and Reporting | Tax Assessments | International Taxation Advisory | Capital Structuring | Withholding tax advisory | Expatriate Tax Reporting | Litigation | Badges | Club Badges | Seals | Military Insignias | Emblems | Family Crest | Software Development India | Software Development Company | SEO Company | Web Application Development | MLM Software | MLM Solutions