Vodafone Mobile Services Limited (Formerly Known as Vodafone West Limited), Ahmedabad V. The Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax,TDS-Circle, Ahmedabad

CO 89/AHD/2016

• Counselvise Citation: [2018] 123 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 3650 (ITAT-AHMEDABAD)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 9 month(s) 5 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Cross Objection
• Pronouncement Date: 04-04-2018
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: Not Allotted
• Assessment Year: 2011-2012
• Appeal Filed On: 29-06-2016
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: A KHAN
• Assessee Lawyers: SN SOPARKARAR
• Keywords: Opportunity of cross examination; Rule of consistency

Judgement Text

, CH CHCH CH IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL B BENCH, AHMEDABAD , EKUHK CKSJM EKUHK CKSJM EKUHK CKSJM EKUHK CKSJM , BEFORE SHRI MAHAVIR PRASAD, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI, MANISH BORAD, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ./ I.T.A. NOS. 1317 & 1318/AHD/2016 ( / ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2011-12 & 2012-13) THE DY. CIT, TDS CIRCLE, AHMEDABAD. / VS. M/S. VODAFONE WEST LTD., (FORMERLY KNOWN AS VODAFONE ESSAR GUJARAT LTD.), VODAFONE HOUSE, CORPORATE ROAD, AHMEDABAD 380 051 ./ ./ PAN/GIR NO. : AAACF 1190 P CROSS OBJECTION NO.89/AHD/2016 (ARISING OUT OF I.T.A. NO.1317/AHD/2016) ( / ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2011-12) DY. CIT, TDS CIRCLE, NAVJIVAN BUILDING, AHMEDABAD 380 014 / VS. VODAFONE MOBILE SERVICES LTD., (FORMERLY KNOWN AS VODAFONE WEST LIMITED) VODAFONE HOUSE, B. WING, 4 TH FLOOR, CORPORATE ROAD, PRAHLADNAGAR, AHMEDABAD 380 051 ./ ./ PAN/GIR NO. : AAACS 4457 Q ( !' / APPELLANT ) .. ( #' / RESPONDENT ) REVENUE BY : SHRI M.S.A. KHAN, CIT-D.R. ASSESSEE BY : SHRI S.N. SOPARKAR, A.R. $ %& ' () / DATE OF HEARING 21/02/2018 *+,- ' () / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT 04/04/2018 ITA NO.1317 & 1318/AHD/2016 & CO NO.89/AHD/2016 ASST.YEAR 2011-12, 2012-13, 2011-12 - 2 - . / O R D E R PER MAHAVIR PRASAD, JUDICIAL MEMBER : THESE ARE TWO APPEALS BY THE REVENUE ALONGWITH CR OSS OBJECTION BY THE REVENUE AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE COMMISSIONER O F INCOME TAX (APPEALS)-8, AHMEDABAD, DATED 02/03/2016 FOR ASSESS MENT YEAR (AY) 2011-12 & 2012-13. 2. SINCE BOTH APPEALS HAVE COMMON GROUNDS AND ASSES SEE IS SAME THEREFORE, FOR THE SAKE OF CONVENIENCE, WE WOULD LI KE TO DISPOSE OF BOTH APPEALS BY WAY OF A COMMON ORDER. IN THESE APPEALS FOLLOWING GROUNDS HAVE TAKEN: 1. THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED ON FACTS AND IN LAW I N DELETING THE DEMAND RAISED U/S.201(1)/201(1) OF THE IT ACT ON NO N DEDUCTION OF TDS OF RS.9,04,74,072/- (INCLUDING INTEREST U/S. 201(1A) OF THE ACT) FOR A.Y. 2011-12 & RS. 9,90,67,994/- (INCLUDIN G INTEREST U/S.201(1A) OF THE ACT) FOR A.Y. 2012-13 ON THE DIS COUNT OFFERED TO PRE-PAID DISTRIBUTORS. INSPITE OF THE FACT THAT THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 194H OF THE IT ACT APPLY TO THE ASSESSEE. 2. THE LD.CIT(A) HAS ERRED ON FACTS AND IN LAW IN D ELETING THE DEMAND RAISED U/S.201(1)/201(1) OF THE IT ACT ON RO AMING CHARGES PAID TO OTHER TELECOM COMPANIES OF RS.11,09 ,12,301/- (INCLUDING INTEREST U/S.201(1A) OF THE ACT) FOR A.Y . 2011-12 & RS.11,03,21,623/- (INCLUDING INTEREST U/S.201(1A) O F THE ACT) FOR A.Y.2012-13 BY APPLYING PROVISIONS OF SECTION 194J OF THE IT ACT APPLY TO THE ASSESSEE. 3. THE RELEVANT FACTS AS CULLED OUT FROM THE MATERI ALS ON RECORD ARE AS UNDER:- THE ASSESSEE COMPANY VODAFONE WEST LTD IS IN THE B USINESS OF TELECOM OPERATIONS AND PROVIDING TELECOM SERVICES. ITA NO.1317 & 1318/AHD/2016 & CO NO.89/AHD/2016 ASST.YEAR 2011-12, 2012-13, 2011-12 - 3 - 3.1 IN THIS CASE, A SURVEY U/S.133A OF THE ACT WAS CARRIED OUT ON 26.08.2008 AND DURING THE COURSE OF SURVEY IT WAS F OUND THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT DEDUCTED TDS ON COMMISSION PAID TO PRE PAID DISTRIBUTORS U/S.194H AND ROAMING CHARGES (FEES FOR TECHNICAL SE RVICES) U/S.194 OF THE ACT). THE ASSESSING OFFICER PASSED THE ORDER U/S.20 1(1)/ 201(1A) OF THE ACT ON 08.03.2010 TREATING THE ASSESSEE AS 'ASSESSE E IN DEFAULT' FOR NOT DEDUCTING TDS AND HENCE NOT DEPOSITING IT AS PER LA W. 3.2 IN THIS REGARD, AN EXPERT OPINION WAS TAKEN ON THE ISSUE OF 'TREATMENT OF ROAMING CHARGES AS FEES FOR TECHNICAL SERVICES LIABLE FOR TDS U/S.194J OF THE ACT', IN THE FORM OFF STATEMENT U/S.131 OF THE ACT OF SHRI RAJIV KUSHWAH, DIRECTOR, TERM CELL, GUJARAT, D EPARTMENT OF TELECOMMUNICATIONS ON 11.03.2014. 3.3 ON THE BASIS OF THE STATEMENT A SHOW CAUSE NOTI CE WAS ISSUED TO THE ASSESSEE (ALONG WITH A COPY OF THE EXPERT OPINION). AN OPPORTUNITY TO CROSS EXAMINE THE EXPERT WAS GIVEN BY THE LD. AO BU T ASSESSEE FAILED TO AVAIL THE OPPORTUNITY OF CROSS EXAMINATION OF THE E XPERT IN THIS REGARD. 3.4 IT WAS OBSERVED BY THE A.O. THAT THE ASSESSEE W AS NOT DEDUCTING TDS U/S.194] (FEES FOR TECHNICAL SERVICES) ON THE ' IUC CHARGES' PAID BY THE ASSESSEE COMPANY, AND TREATED ASSESSEE AS 'ASSE SSEE IN DEFAULT' U/S.201(1)/201(1A) OF THE ACT. AFTER GOING THROUGH THE VARIOUS APPELLATE STAGES, THE HON'BLE SUPREME COURT ISSUED DIRECTIONS TO THE A.O. TO TAKE AN EXPERT OPINION IN THE MATTER TO DET ERMINE THE HUMAN INTERVENTION W.R.T. THE SAID PAYMENTS. THE AO TOOK EXPERT OPINION IN THE ITA NO.1317 & 1318/AHD/2016 & CO NO.89/AHD/2016 ASST.YEAR 2011-12, 2012-13, 2011-12 - 4 - MATTER, WHICH WAS CROSS EXAMINED BY THE ASSESSEE. I N THIS REGARD, THE ASSESSING OFFICER FINALIZED THE ASSESSMENT PROCEED INGS BASED ON THE 'EXPERT OPINION AND ITS CROSS EXAMINATION' IN WHICH THE 'IUC CHARGES' WERE HELD TO HAVE BEEN PAID AS 'FEES FOR TECHNICAL SERVICES' LIABLE FOR TDS U/S.194J OF THE ACT. IN THIS REGARD, IT IS PERT INENT TO MENTION HERE THAT THE TELECOM OPERATORS SUCH AS BHARTI AIRTEL LT D AND IDEA CELLULAR LTD INCLUDING THE ASSESSEE, HAVE TAKEN COGNIZANCE OF TH IS FACT AND HAVE STARTED DEDUCTING TDS U/S.194J (@10%) ON THE PAYMENTS MADE FOR 'IUC CHARGES'. CONSIDERING THE FACT THAT TH E INTERCONNECT/PORT ACCESS FORM A SUBSET OF THE 'ROAMING SERVICES' PROV IDED BY THE 'HOME NETWORK' TO THE 'IN ROAMER SUBSCRIBER' OF THE ' VISITING NETWORK' (AS DISCUSSED ABOVE), AND THE ASSESSEE RECOGNIZES TH E PAYMENTS MADE IN THAT REGARD (IUC CHARGES) AS FTS LIABLE FOR TDS U/S .194J, THE ROAMING SERVICES FALL UNDER THE DEFINITION OF 'FEES FOR TEC HNICAL SERVICES' LIABLE FOR TDS U/S.194J OF THE ACT. 3.5 APART FROM THE ABOVE SAID ASSESSEE HAS SOLD PRE -PAID VOUCHERS OF VARIOUS FACE VALUES TO ITS DISTRIBUTORS AT LOWER RA TE THAN ITS FACE VALUE. THE VALUE OF THE COMMISSION PAID BY THE ASSESSEE TO THE DISTRIBUTOR BY SUBTRACTING THE PRICE/VALUE AT WHICH THE VOUCHERS W ERE SOLD TO ITS DISTRIBUTORS FROM THE M.R.P. VALUE OF SUCH COUPONS HAS BEEN FURNISHED BY THE ASSESSEE IN ITS SUBMISSION DATED 26.03.2014. TH E VALUE ARRIVED AT AND PROVIDED BY THE ASSESSEE OF SUCH COMMISSION IS RS.7 7,93,41,990/-. IT WAS OBSERVED BY THE LD. AO THAT NO TAX HAS BEEN DEDUCTE D U/S.194H OF THE I.T.ACT ON ABOVE PAYMENT. ITA NO.1317 & 1318/AHD/2016 & CO NO.89/AHD/2016 ASST.YEAR 2011-12, 2012-13, 2011-12 - 5 - 3.6 IN THIS REGARD THE ASSESSEE HAS STATED THAT SIN CE THERE IS NO 'PRINCIPAL-AGENT' RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN THE ASSESSEE AND THE DISTRIBUTORS, HENCE THE ASSESSEE HAS TREATED THE AMOUNT PAID TO P RE PAID DISTRIBUTORS AS 'DISCOUNT' AND NOT AS COMMISSION. THE ASSESSEE HAS MENTIONED THE AGREEMENT ENTERED IN F.Y.2007-08 BETWEEN THE DISTRI BUTORS IN THIS REGARD, ACCORDING TO WHICH THERE IS 'PRINCIPAL- PRINCIPAL' RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN THE TWO. 3.7 ASSESSEE FURTHER STATED THAT SINCE NO ACTUAL PA YMENT HAS BEEN PAID TO THE DISTRIBUTOR, HENCE, PROVISION OF SECTION 194 H ARE NOT APPLICABLE. 3.8 BUT LD. AO WAS NOT SATISFIED WITH THE CONTENTIO N OF THE ASSESSEE AND MADE AN ADDITION OF RS.20,13,87,000/-. 4. AGAINST THE SAID ORDER ASSESSEE PREFERRED FIRST STATUTORY APPEAL BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A) WHO PARTLY ALLOWED THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE. 5. NOW MATTER IS BEFORE US. 6. WE HAVE GONE THROUGH THE RELEVANT RECORD AND IMP UGNED ORDER. IN THIS CASE, DURING THE COURSE OF TDS PROCEEDING, LD. TDS OFFICER REQUIRED THE ASSESSEE TO SHOW-CAUSE WHY ROAMING CHARGES PAID TO OTHER TELECOM COMPANY SHOULD NOT BE TREATED AS FEES FOR TECHNICA L SERVICES REQUIRING DEDUCTION OF TAX AT SOURCE IN ACCORDANCE WITH PROVI SIONS OF SECTION 194J OF THE ACT. ITA NO.1317 & 1318/AHD/2016 & CO NO.89/AHD/2016 ASST.YEAR 2011-12, 2012-13, 2011-12 - 6 - 7. ASSESSEES CONTENTION WAS THAT ROAMING MEANS AN ARRANGEMENT WHEREBY A SUBSCRIBER OF CELLULAR PHONE USES CELLULA R SERVICES OUTSIDE THE HOME NETWORK. THUS, THE SUBSCRIBER WHO IS NOT ROAM ING, GETS SERVICES FROM HIS HOME OPERATOR, WHILE A SUBSCRIBER WHO IS ROAMING WILL GET SERVICES FROM BOTH, THE HOST OPERATOR AND THE HOME OPERATOR. THE HOST OPERATOR, OF COURSE, CHARGES THE HOME OPERATOR FOR PROVIDING TELECOM SERVICES TO THE SUBSCRIBER OF THE LATER AND VICE-VE RSA. BASED ON THE USAGE, THE HOST OPERATOR WOULD INVOICE THE HOME OPERATOR, WHICH THE HOME OPERATOR WOULD RECOVER FROM HIS OWN SUBSCRIBER. 8. ROAMING SERVICES ARE PROVIDED BY TELECOM OPERATO RS ARE IN THE NATURE OF USE OF STANDARD FACILITIES, WHICH DO NOT REQUIRE ANY HUMAN INTERFACE. FURTHER, SINCE THE ROAMING CHARGES ARE N OT PAID FOR RENDERING MANAGERIAL, TECHNICAL OR CONSULTANCY SERVICES, SAID SERVICES CANNOT BE CONSTRUED AS FEES FOR TECHNICAL SERIES AS DEFINED U NDER PROVISIONS OF SECTION 194J OF THE ACT. THEREFORE, THE ASSESSEE IS NOT REQUIRED TO DEDUCT TAX AT SOURCE ON SUCH ROAMING CHARGES. 9. AS REGARD TO APPLICABILITY OF PROVISIONS OF SECT ION 194H OF THE ACT ON THE DISCOUNT OFFERED TO PRE-PAID DISTRIBUTORS IS CONCERNED. LD. AR STATED THAT ARRANGEMENT BETWEEN THE APPELLANT AND I TS PREPAID DISTRIBUTORS WAS ON A PRINCIPAL TO PRINCIPAL BASIS, WHEREIN TH E APPELLANT SOLD ITS PRE- PAID TALK TIME TO ITS DISTRIBUTORS, AT A DISCOUNT A ND THE DISTRIBUTORS IN TURN SOLD THE SAME TO THE RETAILERS. RETAILERS THEREAFTE R SOLD THE SAME TO THE ULTIMATE CONSUMERS. ACCORDINGLY, IT WAS STATED THAT THE ASSESSEE ACCOUNTED FOR REVENUES ON THE BASIS OF THE SALE PRO CEEDS REALIZED I.E. ITA NO.1317 & 1318/AHD/2016 & CO NO.89/AHD/2016 ASST.YEAR 2011-12, 2012-13, 2011-12 - 7 - PRICE AT WHICH THE PRE-PAID TALK TIME WAS SOLD TO T HE DISTRIBUTOR. THEREFORE, THE APPELLANT NEITHER BOOKED NOR PAID AN Y COMMISSION TO ITS PREPAID DISTRIBUTORS AND HENCE, THE QUESTION OF DED UCTING TAX AT SOURCE ON THE SAME DID NOT ARISE. 10. LD. AR FURTHER STATED THAT IN ORDER TO ATTRACT THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 194H OF THE ACT, THE RELATIONSHIP OF AGENC Y BETWEEN THE PARTIES IS A PRE-REQUISITE. 11. PROVISION OF SECTION 194H OF THE ACT IS APPLIC ABLE WHEN THE PERSON IS RESPONSIBLE FOR MAKING A PAYMENT. THE ASSESSEE D ID NOT MAKE ANY PAYMENT TO THE DISTRIBUTORS BUT INSTEAD SOLD PRE-PA ID TALK TIME TO THEM AT A DISCOUNT TO THEIR MARKET PRICE AND HENCE, PROVISI ON OF SECTION 194H ARE NOT APPLICABLE. 12. IN SUPPORT OF ITS CONTENTION, LD. AR CITED AN O RDER OF CO-ORDINATE BENCH IN ASSESSEES OWN CASE IN ITA NO.1634 & 1635/ AHD/2014 FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2008-09 & 2009-10 ON THE ISSUE OF S ECTION 194J AND 194H OF THE ACT CO-ORDINATE BENCH HELD AS UNDER: WE FIND IN THIS FACTUAL BACKDROP THAT THE VERY ISS UE HAD ARISEN IN ASSESSEES CASE ITSELF IN ASSESSMENT YEAR 2009-10 I NVOLVING REVENUE'S AND ASSESSEE'S CROSS APPEALS ITA NOS. 90 9 & 944/AHD/2014 DECIDED ON 17.11.2016 AS DECIDED IN THE FOLLOWING M ANNER: '21. WE HAVE HEARD RIVAL SUBMISSIONS. WE PUT UP A S PECIFIC QUERY TO REVENUE AS TO WHETHER THERE IS ANY DIRECT EVIDENCE PINPOINTING HUMAN INTERVENTION ELEMENT IN ASSESSEE' S ROAMING FACILITIES AVAILED FROM ITS PAYEES. NO MATERIAL IS QUOTED IN RESPONSE TO OUR QUERY EXCEPT PAGE 71 OF THE ASSESSM ENT ORDER. ITA NO.1317 & 1318/AHD/2016 & CO NO.89/AHD/2016 ASST.YEAR 2011-12, 2012-13, 2011-12 - 8 - MEANING THEREBY THAT THERE IS ONLY AN INFERENCE THA T THE ASSESSEE MUST HAVE PAID FOR THE IMPUGNED ROAMING CHARGES INV OLVING HUMAN INTERVENTION COMPONENT. THIS CASE FILE REVEAL S THAT THIS TRIBUNAL'S KOLKATA BENCH IN ITA NO.L864/KOL/2012 VO DAFONE EAST LTD. (ASSESSEE'S SISTER CONCERN) VS. ACIT DECIDED O N 15.09.2015 EXAMINES ALL FINE POINTS IN CASE OF IDENTICAL ROAMI NG CHARGES IN CELLULAR TELEPHONY PARLANCE TO CONCLUDE THAT THE SA ME ARE NOT LIABLE FOR TDS DEDUCTION. 13. WITH REGARD TO TDS DEDUCTION ON ASSESSEES PRE- PAID VOUCHER IS CONCERNED. CO-ORDINATE BENCH HELD AS UNDER: IT EMERGES THAT THE INSTANT ISSUE IN ASSESSEE'S FO RMER APPEAL HAS BEEN RENDERED ACADEMIC SINCE A CO-ORDINATE BENCH ACCEPTE D ITS CORRESPONDING GROUND RAISED IN ITA NO.386/AHD/2011 DECIDED ON 07.07,2015 PREFERRED AGAINST THE CIT(A)'S ORDER DAT ED 31/12/2010(SUPRA). IT IS FURTHER EVIDENT THAT THE S AID RATIO VERY WELL APPLIES IN ASSESSEE'S CORRESPONDING SECOND SUBSTANT IVE GROUND IN LATTER ASSESSMENT YEAR AS UNDER: '7. WE FIND THAT WHAT IS SOLD BY THE ASSESSEE IS A IRTIME, WHETHER THROUGH THE PHYSICAL VOUCHERS OR THROUGH TH E ELECTRONIC TRANSFER OF REFILL/RECHARGE VALUE, TO ITS DISTRIBUT ORS. IT IS THIS TRANSACTION WHICH IS SUBJECT MATTER OF DIFFERENT PE RCEPTIONS, SO FAR AS TAX WITHHOLDING OBLIGATIONS OF THE SELLER AR E CONCERNED, OF THE PARTIES BEFORE US, AS A MATTER OF FACT, THE ASS ESSMENT ORDER ITSELF STATES THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS SOLD THE 'PRE-P AID VOUCHERS, OF VARIOUS FACE VALUE, TO ITS DISTRIBUTORS, AT A RATE LOWER THAN ITS FACE VALUE ', AND THAT 'THE DIFFERENCE (BETWEEN THE FACE VALUE AND THE PRICE AT WHICH IS SOLD) IS NOTHING BUT COMMISSI ON ON WHICH NO TAX HAS BEEN DEDUCTED. THE SHORT ISSUE THAT WE ARE REQUIRED TO ADJUDICATE IN THIS APPEAL IS WHETHER THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 194H WILL COME INTO PLAY IN RESPECT OF THE DIFFEREN CE BETWEEN THE PRICE AT WHICH THE AIRTIME IS THUS SOLD TO THE DIST RIBUTORS AND ITS RECOMMENDED RETAIL PRICE TO THE END CONSUMERS. 8. THIS ISSUE IS NO LONGER RES INTEGRA. AS THE SAM E BUSINESS MODEL, WITH NO OR PERIPHERAL VARIATIONS, HAS BEEN F OLLOWED BY ALMOST ALL THE OPERATORS IN THE MOBILE TELECOMMUNIC ATION INDUSTRY, THIS ISSUE HAS BEEN SUBJECT MATTER BEFORE VARIOUS FORUMS, AND MORE IMPORTANTLY, BEFORE VARIOUS HON'BL E HIGH ITA NO.1317 & 1318/AHD/2016 & CO NO.89/AHD/2016 ASST.YEAR 2011-12, 2012-13, 2011-12 - 9 - COURTS. LEARNED REPRESENTATIVES FAIRLY AGREE THAT T HE ABOVE ISSUE IN APPEAL IS SUBJECT MATTER OF DIFFERENCE OF OPINIO N BY VARIOUS HON'BLE NON-JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURTS AND THAT WE DO NOT HAVE THE BENEFIT OF GUIDANCE BY HON'BLE JURISDICTIONAL H IGH COURT. 9. THIS ISSUE IS COVERED, IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSE E, BY HON'BLE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT'S COMMON JUDGEMENT IN THE CASE S OF BHARTI AIRTEL LIMITED, TATA TELESERVICES LIMITED AN D VOADFONE SOUTH LIMITED, REPORTED AS BHARTI AIRTEL LIMITED VS . DCJT [(2015) 372 ITR 33 (KAR)] 14. LD. AR ALSO CITED AN ORDER OF CO-ORDINATE BENCH IN ASSESSEES OWN CASE IN ITA NO.386/AHD/2011 FOR ASST YEAR 2008-09. CO-ORDINATE BENCH HAS HELD THAT ASSESSEE IS NOT LIABLE TO DEDUCT TAX U/S.194H AND 194J. THEREFORE, ASSESSEE IS NOT IN DEFAULT FOR SUCH TDS. 15. ON THE PRINCIPLE OF CONSISTENCY AND RESPECTFULL Y FOLLOWING THE ORDER OF CO-ORDINATE BENCH AND IN OUR CONSIDERED OP INION LD. CIT(A) HAS PASSED A DETAILED AND REASONED ORDER. THEREFORE, WE ARE NOT INCLINE TO INTERFERE IN THE ORDER PASSED BY THE LD. CIT(A). 16. IN THE RESULT, BOTH THE APPEALS ARE DISMISSED. 17. SO FAR AS CO NO.89/AHD/2016 IS CONCERNED. ASSES SEE DOES NOT WISH TO PRESS AND SAME IS DISMISSED AS NOT PRESSED. ITA NO.1317 & 1318/AHD/2016 & CO NO.89/AHD/2016 ASST.YEAR 2011-12, 2012-13, 2011-12 - 10 - 18. IN THE RESULT, BOTH THE APPEALS ARE DISMISSED A ND CROSS OBJECTION IS ALSO DISMISSED AS NOT PRESSED. THIS ORDER PRONOUNCED IN OPEN COURT ON 04/04/2018 SD/- SD/- EKUHK CKSJM EKUHK CKSJM EKUHK CKSJM EKUHK CKSJM EGKOHJ IZLKN EGKOHJ IZLKN EGKOHJ IZLKN EGKOHJ IZLKN YS[KK LNL; U;KF;D LNL; YS[KK LNL; U ;KF;D LNL; YS[KK LNL; U ;KF;D LNL; YS[KK LNL; U ;KF;D LNL; ( MANISH BORAD ) (MAHAVIR PRASA D) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER AHMEDABAD; DATED 04/03/2018 PRITI YADAV, SR. PS ! ' #$%& ' &$ / COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. !' / THE APPELLANT 2. #' / THE RESPONDENT. 3. /01( $ 2( / CONCERNED CIT 4. $ 2( ( !) / THE CIT(A)-8, AHMEDABAD. 5. 567 (%01 , !) 01- , / / DR, ITAT, AHMEDABAD 6. 78 9& / GUARD FILE. ! ( / BY ORDER, #5!( ( //TRUE COPY// )/ * ( DY./ASSTT.REGISTRAR) , / ITAT, AHMEDABAD 1. DATE OF DICTATION 21/02/2018 (DICTATION-PAD 5 PA GES ATTACHED AT THE END OF THIS APPEAL-FILE) 2. DATE ON WHICH THE TYPED DRAFT IS PLACED BEFORE THE DICTATING MEMBER 26/02/2018 3. OTHER MEMBER 4. DATE ON WHICH THE APPROVED DRAFT COMES TO THE SR.P. S./P.S.. 5. DATE ON WHICH THE FAIR ORDER IS PLACED BEFORE THE D ICTATING MEMBER FOR PRONOUNCEMENT 6. DATE ON WHICH THE FAIR ORDER COMES BACK TO THE SR.P .S./P.S. 7. DATE ON WHICH THE FILE GOES TO THE BENCH CLERK 8. DATE ON WHICH THE FILE GOES TO THE HEAD CLERK ... 9. THE DATE ON WHICH THE FILE GOES TO THE APSSISTANT R EGISTRAR FOR SIGNATURE ON THE ORDER.. 10. DATE OF DESPATCH OF THE ORDER