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: list of goods taxed at 4% :: due date for vat payment :: ARTICLES ON INPUT TAX CREDIT IN VAT :: empanelment :: ACCOUNTING STANDARD :: cpt :: VAT Audit :: VAT RATES :: TDS :: Central Excise rule to resale the machines to a new company :: articles on VAT and GST in India :: ICAI offer Get Windows 7,Office 2010 in Rs.799 Taxes :: TAX RATES - GOODS TAXABLE @ 4% :: form 3cd :: ACCOUNTING STANDARDS
 
 
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)

Sabharwal Properties Industries Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Income Tax Officer
February, 25th 2016
$~15 to 26
*     IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

+                      W.P.(C) 8994/2014 & CM 20547/2014

SABHARWAL PROPERTIES INDUSTRIES PVT. LTD. ..... Petitioners
            Through: Mr. Salil Kapoor, Mr. Sanat Kapoor,
                     Ms. Ananya Kapoor, Mr. Arun Vir Singh
                     and Mr. Sumit Lal Chandani, Advocates.

                                            versus

INCOME TAX OFFICER                                         ..... Respondent
             Through:                     Mr. Rahul Chaudhary, Senior Standing
                                          Counsel.

                                            WITH

+                      W.P.(C) 9014/2014 & CM 20601/2014

SABHARWAL PROPERTIES INDUSTRIES PVT. LTD. ..... Petitioners
            Through: Mr. Salil Kapoor, Mr. Sanat Kapoor,
                     Ms. Ananya Kapoor, Mr. Arun Vir Singh
                     and Mr. Sumit Lal Chandani, Advocates.

                                            versus

INCOME TAX OFFICER                                         ..... Respondent
             Through:                     Mr. Rahul Chaudhary, Senior Standing
                                          Counsel.

                                            WITH

+                      W.P.(C) 9015/2014 & CM 20603/2014

SABHARWAL APARTMENTS PVT. LTD.           ..... Petitioner
            Through: Mr. Salil Kapoor, Mr. Sanat Kapoor,
                     Ms. Ananya Kapoor, Mr. Arun Vir Singh




WP (C) No.8994/2014 & connected matters                                Page 1 of 15
                                          and Mr. Sumit Lal Chandani, Advocates.

                                             versus

INCOME TAX OFFICER                                          ..... Respondent
             Through:                     Mr. Zoheb Hossain, Junior Standing
                                          Counsel for Mr. Dileep Shivpuri, Senior
                                          Standing Counsel.

                                            WITH


+                      W.P.(C) 9386/2014 & CM 21216/2014

SABHARWAL APARTMENTS PVT. LTD.           ..... Petitioner
            Through: Mr. Salil Kapoor, Mr. Sanat Kapoor,
                     Ms. Ananya Kapoor, Mr. Arun Vir Singh
                     and Mr. Sumit Lal Chandani, Advocates.

                                             versus

INCOME TAX OFFICER                                          ..... Respondent
             Through:                     Mr. Zoheb Hossain, Junior Standing
                                          Counsel for Mr. Dileep Shivpuri, Senior
                                          Standing Counsel.

                                            WITH


+                      W.P.(C) 9387/2014 & CM 21218/2014

SABHARWAL APARTMENTS PVT. LTD.           ..... Petitioner
            Through: Mr. Salil Kapoor, Mr. Sanat Kapoor,
                     Ms. Ananya Kapoor, Mr. Arun Vir Singh
                     and Mr. Sumit Lal Chandani, Advocates.

                                             versus




WP (C) No.8994/2014 & connected matters                                  Page 2 of 15
INCOME TAX OFFICER                                          ..... Respondent
             Through:                     Mr. Zoheb Hossain, Junior Standing
                                          Counsel for Mr. Dileep Shivpuri, Senior
                                          Standing Counsel.

                                            WITH


+                      W.P.(C) 9388/2014 & CM 21220/2014

SABHARWAL APARTMENTS PVT. LTD.           ..... Petitioner
            Through: Mr. Salil Kapoor, Mr. Sanat Kapoor,
                     Ms. Ananya Kapoor, Mr. Arun Vir Singh
                     and Mr. Sumit Lal Chandani, Advocates.

                                             versus

INCOME TAX OFFICER                                          ..... Respondent
             Through:                     Mr. Zoheb Hossain, Junior Standing
                                          Counsel for Mr. Dileep Shivpuri, Senior
                                          Standing Counsel.

                                            WITH


+                      W.P.(C) 9430/2014 & CM 21298/2014

SABHARWAL APARTMENTS PVT. LTD.           ..... Petitioner
            Through: Mr. Salil Kapoor, Mr. Sanat Kapoor,
                     Ms. Ananya Kapoor, Mr. Arun Vir Singh
                     and Mr. Sumit Lal Chandani, Advocates.

                                             versus

INCOME TAX OFFICER                                          ..... Respondent
             Through:                     Mr. Zoheb Hossain, Junior Standing
                                          Counsel for Mr. Dileep Shivpuri, Senior
                                          Standing Counsel.




WP (C) No.8994/2014 & connected matters                                  Page 3 of 15
                                            WITH


+                      W.P.(C) 135/2015 & CM 205/2015

SABHARWAL APARTMENTS PVT. LTD.           ..... Petitioner
            Through: Mr. Salil Kapoor, Mr. Sanat Kapoor,
                     Ms. Ananya Kapoor, Mr. Arun Vir Singh
                     and Mr. Sumit Lal Chandani, Advocates.

                                             versus

INCOME TAX OFFICER                                          ..... Respondent
             Through:                     Mr. Zoheb Hossain, Junior Standing
                                          Counsel for Mr. Dileep Shivpuri, Senior
                                          Standing Counsel.

                                            WITH


+                      W.P.(C) 823/2015 & CM 1432/2015

SABHARWAL PROPERTIES INDUSTRIES PVT. LTD. ..... Petitioners
            Through: Mr. Salil Kapoor, Mr. Sanat Kapoor,
                     Ms. Ananya Kapoor, Mr. Arun Vir Singh
                     and Mr. Sumit Lal Chandani, Advocates.

                                             versus

INCOME TAX OFFICER                                         ..... Respondent
             Through:                     Mr. Rahul Chaudhary, Senior Standing
                                          Counsel.

                                            WITH


+                      W.P.(C) 824/2015 & CM 1434/2015




WP (C) No.8994/2014 & connected matters                                  Page 4 of 15
SABHARWAL PROPERTIES INDUSTRIES PVT. LTD. ..... Petitioners
            Through: Mr. Salil Kapoor, Mr. Sanat Kapoor,
                     Ms. Ananya Kapoor, Mr. Arun Vir Singh
                     and Mr. Sumit Lal Chandani, Advocates.

                                            versus

INCOME TAX OFFICER                                         ..... Respondent
             Through:                     Mr. Rahul Chaudhary, Senior Standing
                                          Counsel.

                                            WITH


+                      W.P.(C) 825/2015 & CM 1436/2015

SABHARWAL PROPERTIES INDUSTRIES PVT. LTD. ..... Petitioners
            Through: Mr. Salil Kapoor, Mr. Sanat Kapoor,
                     Ms. Ananya Kapoor, Mr. Arun Vir Singh
                     and Mr. Sumit Lal Chandani, Advocates.

                                            versus

INCOME TAX OFFICER                                         ..... Respondent
             Through:                     Mr. Rahul Chaudhary, Senior Standing
                                          Counsel.

                                             AND


+                      W.P.(C) 826/2015 & CM 1438/2015

SABHARWAL PROPERTIES INDUSTRIES PVT. LTD. ..... Petitioners
            Through: Mr. Salil Kapoor, Mr. Sanat Kapoor,
                     Ms. Ananya Kapoor, Mr. Arun Vir Singh
                     and Mr. Sumit Lal Chandani, Advocates.




WP (C) No.8994/2014 & connected matters                                Page 5 of 15
                                            versus

INCOME TAX OFFICER                                         ..... Respondent
             Through:                     Mr. Rahul Chaudhary, Senior Standing
                                          Counsel.

CORAM:
JUSTICE S.MURALIDHAR
JUSTICE VIBHU BAKHRU

                                          ORDER
%                                         18.02.2016

Dr. S. Muralidhar,J.:

1. These are two sets of writ petitions filed by Sabharwal Apartments Private
Limited (`SAPL') and Sabharwal Properties Industries Private Limited
(`SPIPL') challenging the notices issued to each of them under Section 148
of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (`the Act') on 28th March, 2014 in respect of
Assessment Years (AYs) 2007-2008 to 2012-2013.





2. While directing issuance of notice in the writ petitions on 7 th January,
2015, this court directed that no further steps shall be taken pursuant to the
aforementioned notices. Further, by order dated 13th August 2015, the Court
directed that W.P.(C) No.9386/2014, which pertains to the AY 2007-2008,
shall be treated as the lead matter. A counter affidavit has been filed by the
Respondent in the said writ petition.


3. For each of the above AYs, the returns filed by the two Assessees were
processed under Section 143(1) of the Act. Only in respect of AY 2009-
2010, the return filed by SAPL on 29th September, 2009 was picked up for



WP (C) No.8994/2014 & connected matters                                Page 6 of 15
scrutiny and an assessment order passed under Section 143(3) of the Act.


4. The broad grounds of challenge to the reopening of the assessments is that
in respect of AY 2007-2008 and 2008-2009 pertaining to SAPL, the notices
were beyond the period of four years after the end of the AY in which the
return was filed; in respect of SPIPL barring the notices for AYs 2010-2011
and 2011-2012, none of the other notices were served on SPIPL; for AY
2007-2008, the notice issued to SPIPL was beyond four years. However, the
main ground of challenge is that the reasons recorded for reopening the
assessments under Section 148 of the Act are ambiguous and incapable of
being understood. In particular it is contended that the reasons recorded by
the Assessing Officer (`AO') "lacks clarity and it is practically impossible to
derive meaning out of it and is incapable of being understood." It is further
contended that the Additional Commissioner of Income Tax (`Additional
CIT') had accorded an approval to the said reasons without application of
mind.


5. The reasons for reopening the case as recorded for the AY 2007-2008 in
respect of SAPL, on the basis of which notice was issued, are the reasons for
reopening of the cases in respect of SPIPL as well and it is the same set of
reasons for all the six AYs, i.e., 2007-2008 to 2012-2013.


6. Since the main ground of challenge is regarding the lack of clarity of the
reasons recorded, it is necessary to set out the reasons as under:
        "The Proposal in the prescribed format in the above mentioned cases
        for the issuing notices U/S 148 of the I.T. Act for reopening the cases




WP (C) No.8994/2014 & connected matters                              Page 7 of 15
       for the A.Y. 2007-08 to 2012-13.

       In this case a survey operation U/S 133A has been conducted by the
       Investigation Wing, New Delhi on 12.12.2013. During the course of
       survey conducted at the premises of the assessee company M/s
       Sabharwal Apartment Pvt. Ltd (SAPL) & Sabharwal Properties Ind.
       Pvt. Ltd. (SPIPL) were alleged to have shown unsecured loans of
       Rs.9.65 crore during F.Y. 2010-11 (A.Y. 2011-12) M/s Mahima
       Distributors Pvt. Ltd. (MDPL) Kolkata which was acquired by
       purchase of shares by four company was more than Rs.9 crores but
       purchased for Rs. 37 lacs while other companies who acquired shares
       in the same company had paid huge premium over and above the par
       value of Rs.10/- per share of (MDPL) in F.Y. 2006-07(A.Y. 2007-08).
       The issue is being investigated by Investigation Wing, Kolkata for
       verifying the receipt of share premium by MDPL and report awaited.

       Further computation of long term capital gain by persons/owner of
       properties developed by Sabharwal group through SAPL & SPIPL &
       investigation are in progress conducted by the Investigation Wing.
       The unsecured loans obtained by MDPL & other share holders sold
       their shares at par value of Rs, 10 taken over by Sabharwal Apartment
       Pvt. Ltd. (SAPL) & Sabharwal Properties Industries Pvt. Ltd. (SPIPL)
       remain unexplained credits u/s 68 of I.T. Act.

       During A.Y. 201I-11 share premium & share applicable money
       received in A.Y. 2008-09 by SPIPL is Rs.50 lac & in A. Y. 2009-10
       75 lac. SAPL Rs. 50 lac in A.Y. 2009-10 for verification of
       transaction and existence of companies or merely providing book
       entries and commission issued to DDIT Kolkata & report awaited.

       The loans received by M/s. SAPL and M/s. SPIPL in AY 11-12
       before the takeover of company M/s. MDPL remains unexplained as
       under. ­

       M/s Sabharwal Properties Industries
       Pvt. Ltd. (SPIPL)                                 Rs.5244306/-
       M/s Sabharwal Apartment Pvt. Ltd. (SAPL)          Rs.5345082/-




WP (C) No.8994/2014 & connected matters                        Page 8 of 15
       The source and genuineness of share application money and share
       premium received for the A.Y. 2010-11 has to be examined.

       M/s Sabharwal Properties Industries
       Pvt. Ltd. (SPIPL)                                   Rs.12500000/-

       M/s Sabharwal Apartments Industries
       Pvt. Ltd. (SAPL)                                    Rs. 5000000/-"

7. In respect of the above reasons, objections were filed by both the
Assessees for each of the AYs on 20th October, 2014 and the objections
were rejected by the orders dated 24th October 2014 passed by the Income
Tax Officer Ward-7(1), New Delhi. These orders have also been challenged
in the present writ petitions.


8. With the help of the learned counsel for the Revenue, the Court has tried
to decipher the reasons recorded for reopening since a plain reading of it
reveals that the reasons are totally incoherent. In fact, a plain reading of it
gives rise to doubts whether some lines have gone missing or some
punctuation marks have been left out. Grammatically also the reasons
recorded make little sense. However, this is the least of the problems.
Essentially, the reasons recorded do not indicate what the basis for the
reopening of the assessments is.


9. Under Section 147 (1) of the Act, the reasons recorded for reopening an
assessment should state that the Assessee had failed to disclose fully and
truly all the material facts necessary for his assessment in the returns as
originally filed and the reasons recorded should provide a live link to the
formation of the belief that income has escaped assessment. To recapitulate



WP (C) No.8994/2014 & connected matters                          Page 9 of 15
the law on this aspect as explained in Madhukar Khosla v. Assistant
Commissioner of Income Tax (2014) 367 ITR 165 (Del):
       "the foundation of the AO's jurisdiction and the raison d'etre of a
       reassessment notice are the "reasons to believe". Now this should
       have a relation or a link with an objective fact, in the form of
       information or facts external to the materials on the record. Such
       external facts or material constitute the driver, or the key which
       enables the authority to legitimately re-open the completed
       assessment. In absence of this objective `trigger', the AO does not
       possess jurisdiction to reopen the assessment." There has to be a
       definite recording in the reasons that there was an escapement of
       income as a result of failure on the part of the Assessee to disclose
       fully and truly all the material facts necessary."

10. In CIT v. Kelvinator of India Ltd. (2010) 320 ITR 561 (SC), the
Supreme Court reiterated that, under Section 147 of the Act, the AO does
not have the power to reopen an assessment on the basis of `mere change of
opinion'. It observed:
       "....the Assessing Officer has no power to review; he has the power to
       re-assess. But re-assessment has to be based on fulfilment of certain
       pre-condition and if the concept of `change of opinion' is removed, as
       contended on behalf of the Department, then, in the garb of re-
       opening the assessment, review would take place. One must treat the
       concept of `change of opinion' as an in-built test to check abuse of
       power by the Assessing Officer. Hence, after 1st April, 1989,
       Assessing Officer has power to re-open, provided there is `tangible
       material' to come to the conclusion that there is escapement of
       income from assessment. Reasons must have a live link with the
       formation of the belief."

11. Turning to the case on hand, the Court has been able to decipher, with
the assistance of the learned counsel for the Revenue, the reasons as stated
for reopening the assessments to be as under:




WP (C) No.8994/2014 & connected matters                         Page 10 of 15
       i. A survey operation under Section 133A was conducted by the
       Investigation Wing, New Delhi on 12th December, 2013 in the
       premises of SAPL and SPIPL.

       ii. Both SAPL and SPIPL showed unsecured loans of Rs. 9.65 crore
       having been borrowed from Mahima Distributors Private Limited
       (`MDPL'), Kolkata for AY 2011-2012.

       iii. The shares of MDPL worth more than Rs. 9 crore were acquired
       by four companies for Rs. 37lakhs, whereas other companies which
       acquired shares of MDPL paid a huge premium over and above the
       par value of Rs.10/- per share in AY 2007-2008.

       iv. The report of the Investigation Wing, Kolkata verifying the receipt
       of share premium by MDPL was awaited.

       v. The investigation into the aspect of long term capital gains by the
       owners of properties developed by Sabharwal Group through SAPL
       and SPIPL was in progress.

       vi. Unsecured loans "obtained by MDPL and other share holders"
       remained unexplained credits under Section 68 of the Act.

       vii. The loans received by SAPL and SPIPL in 2011-2012 before
       takeover of MDPL remained unexplained.


12. The facts relating to all the six AYs appear to be jumbled up. That apart,
the unnumbered paras 3 and 4 of the reasons extracted hereinbefore do not



WP (C) No.8994/2014 & connected matters                          Page 11 of 15
make any grammatical sense whatsoever.


13. In an attempt to salvage the situation, learned counsel for the Revenue
drew attention to paras 2 to 4 and 8 of the order dated 24th October 2014
rejecting the Petitioners' objections which read thus:
      "2. The transactions pertaining to the loans and share application
      money revealed during the course of survey proceedings are
      interlinked and cannot be separated, hence, all the assessment
      proceedings pertaining to six assessment years permitted to be re-
      opened under the provisions of the Act, has been re-opened. The action
      is very much permitted under the provisions of the Act.




      3. It is not true to state that there is no alleged escapement of income
      for the year under consideration. The assessee purchased a company
      M/s Mahima Distributors Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata for Rs.37 lac though the
      investment of this company was 9 crore. Not so much, the other
      companies purchased the shares of this company during F.Y. 2006-07
      relevant to A.Y. 2007-08 after payment of huge premium. This
      company was found bogus and was only operation on paper and no
      actual transactions were going on as per the statement of the Director
      of M/s. MDPL recorded by the Investigation Wing, Kolkata.

      4. There is a clear mentioned in the reasons that the escapement of
      income is more than Rs.1 lac and therefore, the permission has been
      sought from Addl. CIT Range 7 u/s 151(2) which was granted.
      ......
       8. As already stated that the transactions of all the years re-opened are
       inter-linked and sufficient material is available on record to show that
       the income escaped in every year is more than. DIT (Investigation)
       Kolkata has recorded the statement of various persons who has made
       transactions with MDPL and all are found on enquiry as bogus. Their
       statements are available on record."

14. The following reasons which find place in the above orders dated 24th
October 2014, do not find any mention in the original reasons recorded for




WP (C) No.8994/2014 & connected matters                           Page 12 of 15
reopening the assessment:


       i. The Assessees purchased a company, MDPL, for Rs. 37 lakh
       though the investment of the company was Rs. 9 crore.


       ii. MDPL was found to be bogus and there was no actual transaction
       involving it.

       iii. There was a statement of the Director of MDPL to the above effect
       recorded by the Investigation Wing, Kolkata.

       iv. The escapement of income was more than Rs. 1 lakh.

       v. The 'various persons' who had transactions with MDPL were also
       bogus.


15. Further, in the counter affidavit filed by the Respondent, the above
reasons adduced for the first time in the order rejecting the objections have
been sought to be reiterated.


16. It is well settled that the reasons recorded for reopening the assessment
have to speak for themselves. They have to spell out that (i) there was a
failure of the Assessee to disclose fully and truly all the material facts
necessary for the assessment and (ii) the reasons must provide a live link to
the formation of the belief that income had escaped assessment. These
reasons cannot be supplied subsequent to the recording of such reasons
either in the form of an order rejecting the objections or an affidavit filed by



WP (C) No.8994/2014 & connected matters                           Page 13 of 15
the Revenue. In this context, the decision of this Court in Northern Exim
(P) Ltd. v. DCIT [2013] 357 ITR 586 (Del) is instructive. Para 14 of the said
decision reads as under:
       "14. The learned Standing Counsel for the Income Tax Department
       drew our attention to the entry made on 22.01.2001 in the proceedings
       sheet recorded in the course of the re-assessment proceedings. We
       have already seen that the said entry records that the authorised
       representative of the petitioner was asked to show cause why the
       difference in the amount of profit before tax and the amount declared
       under the VDIS cannot be treated as its income for the assessment
       year 1997-98 as no return of income had been filed. The entry made
       in the proceeding sheet is perhaps more elaborate and informative
       than the reasons recorded under Section 148(2) in the sense that it also
       states one more reason for initiating re- assessment proceedings,
       namely, that there is a difference between the profit before tax
       (Rs.42,79,340/-) and the amount declared in the VDIS (Rs.7,23,490/).
       The reasons recorded however are not so explicit and do not refer to
       this fact. We are to be guided only by the reasons recorded for re-
       assessment and not by the reasons or explanation given by the
       Assessing Officer at a later stage in respect of the notice of re-
       assessment. ...........

       The ratio laid down in all these cases is that, having regard to the
       entire scheme and purpose of the Act, the validity of the assumption
       of jurisdiction under Section 147 can be tested only by reference to
       the reasons recorded under Section 148(2) of the Act and the
       Assessing Officer is not authorised to refer to any other reason even if
       it can be otherwise inferred and/ or gathered from the records. He is
       confined to the recorded reasons to support the assumption of
       jurisdiction. He cannot record only some of the reasons and keep the
       others up his sleeves to be disclosed before the Court if his action is
       ever challenged in a Court of law."

17. Even otherwise even the above reasons given subsequently do not satisfy
the jurisdictional requirements of Section 147 (1) of the Act inasmuch as




WP (C) No.8994/2014 & connected matters                           Page 14 of 15
they do not indicate that there was a failure by the Assessee to disclose fully
and truly all the material facts necessary for the assessment. The reasons
also do not provide a live link to the formation of the belief that income had
escaped assessment.


18. Consequently, for the aforementioned reasons, the Court is satisfied that
in the present case the essential requirements of Section 147 of the Act have
not been satisfied by the Revenue. The impugned notices dated 28th March,
2014 and the orders dated 24th October 2014 rejecting the objections of the
two Petitioners are accordingly quashed.


19. The writ petitions are allowed and the applications are disposed of in the
above terms but in the circumstances with no orders as to costs.




                                                    S.MURALIDHAR, J




                                                    VIBHU BAKHRU, J
FEBRUARY 18, 2016
b'nesh




WP (C) No.8994/2014 & connected matters                            Page 15 of 15

 
 
Home | About Us | Terms and Conditions | Contact Us
Copyright 2016 CAinINDIA All Right Reserved.
Designed and Developed by Binarysoft Technologies Pvt. Ltd.
Internet Marketing Website Marketing Internet Promotion Internet Marketing India Website Marketing India Internet Promotion India Internet Marketing Consultancy Website Marketing Consulta

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