1. That order passed by Ld. AO dated 20/12/2018 and further order passed by ld. CIT A dated 17/06/2019 are bad in law in as much as mechanical notice u/s. 143(2) on basis of CASS is not in accordance with jurisdictional conditions stipulated under the Act so it shows grave and patent non application of mind on part of Ld AO in issuing notice u/s. 143(2) and accordingly all subsequent proceeding including orders passed by Ld AO and Ld CIT-A are void ab initio.
Other grounds on merits
Qua disallowance of u/s. 40A (2)(b) (Rs. 366,82,337)
2. That order passed by Ld AO dated 20/12/2018 and further order passed by Id CIT A dated 17/06/2019 are bad in law in as much as disallowance of Rs. 366,82,337/- u/s. 40A (2)(b) is made without appreciating that throughout revenue has consistently allowed subject royalty expense in assessment orders dated 16.12.2016 (AY 2014-2015) and 23.10.2017(AY 2013-2014) and moreover there is no scrutiny examination in identical facts for AY 2015-2016 and AY 2017-2018 and when such are the facts isolated disallowance in subject period is against the principle of uniformity, consistency and predictability and thus on this short count itself addition sustained needs to be reversed;
3. That order passed by Ld AO dated 20/12/2018 and farther order passed by Id CIT A dated 17/06/2019 are bad in law in as much as disallowance of Rs. 366,82,337/- u/s. 40A (2)(b) is made without appreciating that there is no tax evasion plan which is must to invoke section 40A (2)(b) as stipulated in mother circular of CBDT no. 6P of 1968 explaining that sans tax evasion provisions of section 40A (2) cant be pressed into service where as in extant case not only due tax is deducted u/s. 195 of Rs. 68,83,862 on said payment of royalty but same is remitted on sound and rational basis of commercial expediency principles which has been unlawfully interdicted by Ld AO/Ld CIT-A on mere basis of assumption and presumption only.
4. That order passed by Ld AO dated 20/12/2018 and further order passed by Id CIT A dated 17/06/2019 are bad in law in as much as disallowance of Rs. 366,82,337/- u/s. 40A (2)(b) is made without appreciating that burden lying on revenue to invoke section 40A (2)(b) is patently un-discharged in present case as no effort is made at any stage to demonstrate so called alleged excessiveness in payment of subject royalty sans which entire disallowance becomes ultra vires to provisions of the Act;
5. That order passed by Ld AO dated 20/12/2018 and further order passed by Id CIT A dated 17/06/2019 are bad in law in as much as disallowance of Rs. 366,82,337/- u/s. 40A (2)(b) is made without appreciating that law does not allow revenue to put itself in armchair of business man and dictate business expediency which is in exclusive domain of assessee;
6. That the appellant craves leave to add add/alter any/all grounds of appeal before or at the time of hearing of the........