M/S. HINDUSTAN PETROLIUM CORP. LTD, V. THE ADDL DIT (IT),

ITA 1005/MUM/2004

• Counselvise Citation: [2010] 136 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 1422 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 6 year(s) 4 month(s) 5 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 22-06-2010
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: L
• Next Hearing Date: 15-10-2009
• Assessment Year: 2000-2001
• Appeal Filed On: 16-02-2004
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: RITA KUMARI DOKANIA
• Keywords: Opportunity of being heard
• Section: 201; 10

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, MUMBAI BENCH L,MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI D. MANMOHAN (VICE-PRESIDENT) & SHRI R.K. PANDA (ACCOUNTANT MEMBER) I.T.A. 1005 & 1006/MUM/2004 M/S.HINDUSTAN PETROLEUM CORPORATION LTD., 17, JAMSHEDJI TATA ROAD, MUMBAI-400 020. VS. THE ADDL.DIRECTOR OF INCOME-STAX, INTERNATIONAL TAXATION 3(1), MUMBAI-400 020. APPELLANT RESPONDENT APPELLANT BY MS. AARTI SATHE. RESPONDENT BY MS. RITA KUMARI DOKANIA. O R D E R PER BENCH : THE ABOVE TWO APPEALS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE ARE DIR ECTED AGAINST THE SEPARATE ORDERS DATED 15-10-2003 OF CIT(A)-XXXI, MU MBAI, AGAINST ORDERS PASSED U/S.195(2) OF THE I.T. ACT. SINCE IDENTICAL GROUNDS ARE INVOLVED IN BOTH THE APPEALS, THEREFORE, FOR THE SAKE OF CONVENIENCE, BO TH THE APPEALS WERE HEARD TOGETHER AND ARE BEING DECIDED BY THIS COMMON ORDE R. ITA NO.1005/M/2004 : 2. THE FACTS OF THE CASE, IN BRIEF, ARE THAT THE AS SESSEE COMPANY ENTERED INTO A PROCESS BOOK SUPPLY AGREEMENT (NO.96/1674A) WITH INSTITUT FRANCAIS DU PETROLE, FRANCE (IFP), FOR ACQUIRING THE RIGHT TO UTILIZE THE PROCESS TECHNOLOGY FOR DHDS PROJECT AT VISHAKH REFINERY. THE AGREEMENT WAS ENTERED INTO TO IMPROVE THE CHARACTERISTICS OF GAS OIL BY CATALYTIC HYDRO D E-SULPHURISATION, THEREBY DECREASING THE SULPHUR CONTENT OF THE SAID GAS OILS . AS PER CLAUSE-IV OF THE AGREEMENT, M/S. IFP WAS TO BE PAID AN AMOUNT OF FRF 3,309,600 ON PER DIEM BASIS. OUT OF THE ABOVE AMOUNT, A SUM OF FRF 2,795, 788 WAS PAID AND REMITTED ITA 1005-1006/M/04 HINDUSTAN PETROLEUM CORPN.LTD. 2 DURING THE F.Y. 2000-01, WITHOUT DEDUCTION OF ANY T DS BASED ON AN AUTHORIZATION ISSUED BY THE AO VIDE ORDER DATED 20/06/2000. THE B ALANCE AMOUNT OF FRF 513,812 WAS SOUGHT TO BE PAID DURING THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION AND THE ASSESSEE ACCORDINGLY APPLIED TO THE ASSESSING OFFIC ER VIDE APPLICATION DATED 26- 08-2002 FOR EXTENDING THE VALIDITY OF THE EARLIER N OC DATED 20/06/2000 FOR THE F.Y. 2002-03 AND REMITTING THE SAID AMOUNT. IN THE SAID APPLICATION, THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT IFP IS AN ESTABLISHMENT CREATED BY T HE GOVT. OF FRANCE UNDER A SPECIAL LAW AND BELONGS TO THE GOVT. OF FRANCE. BEI NG ONLY A LIMB OF A SOVEREIGN STATE, IFP IS IMMUNE FROM INDIAN TAXATION AND HENCE NO TAX IS PAYABLE ON THE REMITTANCE TO IFP. 3. HOWEVER, THE AO DID NOT ACCEPT THE CONTENTION O F THE ASSESSEE. HE OBSERVED THAT UNDER IDENTICAL CIRCUMSTANCES PAYMEN TS WERE MADE BY INDIAN OIL CORPORATION TO IFP AND IT WAS HELD THAT THE IFP IS NOT CONDUCTING THE BUSINESS IN INDIA IN THE CAPACITY OF A SOVEREIGN STATE. HE ACCO RDINGLY HELD THAT THE SAID REMITTANCE IS IN THE NATURE OF FEES FOR TECHNICAL S ERVICES AND ACCORDINGLY LIABLE TO TAX AT 10% ON GROSS AMOUNT PAYABLE. 4. BEFORE THE CIT(A), IT WAS SUBMITTED THAT IT IS A SETTLED PROPOSITION OF INTERNATIONAL LAW THAT A SOVEREIGN, WHILE IN A FOR EIGN TERRITORY, POSSESSES IMMUNITY FROM ALL LOCAL JURISDICTIONS, IN SO FAR AS AND IN SO LONG AS HE IS THERE, IN HIS CAPACITY OF A SOVEREIGN AND IS EXEMPTED FROM AL L DUES AND TAXES IN THE FOREIGN TERRITORY ALSO. THE DECISION OF THE TRIBUNA L IN THE CASE OF M/S. IRAQI AIRWAYS VS. INSPECTING ASST. COMMR. OF INCOME-TAX ( 23 ITD 115) WAS BROUGHT TO THE NOTICE OF CIT(A) FOR THE PROPOSITION THAT IN TH E CASE OF AN ASSESSEE WHO IS AN ORGANIZATION OF A SOVEREIGN GOVERNMENT, ENJOYING IM MUNITY FROM TAX IN THE STATE TO WHICH IT BELONGS, SHALL BE EXEMPT FROM TAX IN OT HER TERRITORIES ALSO. SINCE THE FACTS OF THE CASE ARE PARI MATERIA WITH THOSE OF T HE DECISION IN THE CASE OF IRAQI ITA 1005-1006/M/04 HINDUSTAN PETROLEUM CORPN.LTD. 3 AIRWAYS, IT WAS ACCORDINGLY SUBMITTED THAT THE AGRE EMENT WITH IFP SHALL NOT BE EXIGIBLE FOR DEDUCTION OF TAX AT SOURCE IN INDIA. T HE CERTIFICATE ISSUED BY THE EMBASSY OF FRANCE DATED 05/10/1995 WAS FILED TO SUB STANTIATE THAT M/S. IFP , FRANCE, IS UNDER THE CONTROL OF THE GOVT. OF FRANCE . ARTICLE 26 OF DTA AGREEMENT WITH FRANCE AND INDIA WAS ALSO BROUGHT TO THE NOTIC E OF CIT(A). IT WAS ACCORDINGLY SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE IS NOT LIAB LE FOR DEDUCTION OF TAX AT SOURCE FROM THE PAYMENT MADE TO M/S. IFP, FRANCE. 5. HOWEVER, THE VARIOUS SUBMISSIONS ADVANCED BY THE COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE DID NOT CONVINCE THE CIT(A). HE NOTED FROM PARA V.5 OF THE AGREEMENT ENTERED INTO BETWEEN IFP AND HPCL THAT THERE IS NO INTENTION REFLECTED IN THE AGREEMENT THAT IPF (LICENSOR) IS EXEMPT FROM TAXATI ON IN INDIA BY VIRTUE OF IT BEING A DEPARTMENT OF THE FRANCE GOVERNMENT. HE NOT ED THAT AS PER CLAUSES OF THE AGREEMENT IT IS CLEARLY PROVIDED THAT ANY TAX L IABILITY PERTAINING TO IFP (LICENSOR) IN INDIA SHALL BE BORNE BY THE ASSESSEE (LICENSEE). HE NOTED THAT HAD IT BEEN A CASE THAT IFP WAS NOT LIABLE TO TAX IN I NDIA, THERE WOULD NOT HAVE BEEN ANY QUESTION OF PROVIDING ANY SPECIFIC CLAUSE IN T HE AGREEMENT TO STATE THAT THE TAX LIABILITY OF THE LICENSOR IN INDIA SHALL BE BOR NE BY THE LICENSEE. IN SO FAR AS THE CERTIFICATE FROM THE EMBASSY OF FRANCE IN INDIA FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS CONCERNED, HE NOTED THAT THE SO-CALLED CERTIFICATE DOES NOT CONVEY THAT IFP IS A DEPARTMENT OF THE GOVT. OF FRANCE. IN THE ABSENCE O F ANY OTHER CLEAR EVIDENCE, HE HELD THAT THE SO-CALLED CERTIFICATE CANNOT BE T REATED AS AN EVIDENCE TO SHOW THAT IFP IS A DEPT. OF THE GOVT. OF FRANCE. AS REGA RDS THE CONTENTION OF THE ASSESSEE THAT IFP CANNOT BE SUBJECTED TO ANY TAXAT ION OR ANY REQUIREMENT CONNECTED THEREWITH, WHICH IS MORE BURDENSOME THAN THE TAXATION AND CONNECTED REQUIREMENTS TO WHICH THE NATIONALS OF THE OTHER CO NTRACTING STATE IN THE SAME CIRCUMSTANCES ARE SUBJECTED AND THEREFORE THE PROVI SIONS OF SEC. 10(23A) SHOULD ITA 1005-1006/M/04 HINDUSTAN PETROLEUM CORPN.LTD. 4 BE APPLIED, THE CIT(A) HELD THAT THE CONTENTION OF THE ASSESSEE IS FAR FETCHED. HE NOTED THAT THE ASSOCIATION OR INSTITUTION REFERRED TO IN SEC. 10(23A) OF THE I.T. ACT HAS TO BE AN ASSOCIATION OR INSTITUTION ESTABLISHED IN INDIA AND SUCH ASSOCIATION OR INSTITUTION HAS TO BE APPROVED BY THE CENTRAL GOVER NMENT FOR THIS PURPOSE. HOWEVER, IFP IS NEITHER AN INSTITUTION OR ASSOCIATI ON REFERRED TO IN SEC. 10(23A) NOR IS APPROVED BY THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT FOR THIS PURPOSE. THEREFORE, THERE IS NO QUESTION OF APPLICABILITY OF SEC. 10(23A) OF THE I.T. ACT OR FOR THAT MATTER ARTICLE 26 (NON-DISCRIMINATION) OF THE INDO-FRENCH DTA ACT. HE ACCORDINGLY UPHELD THE ACTION OF THE AO. AGGRIEVED BY THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A), THE ASSESSEE IS IN APPEAL BEFORE US. 6. THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE STRONGLY CHALLE NGED THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A). HE SUBMITTED THAT NO OBJECTION CERTIFICATE GRANTED TO HPCL FOR NOT TO DEDUCT TAX AT SOURCE FROM THE PAYMENT MADE TO IFP WAS ISSUED BY THE AO WHICH WAS VALID UPTO THE FINANCIAL YEAR 1996-97. EVEN FOR THE SUBSEQUENT YEARS ALSO, THE ASSESSEE HAS OBTAINED CERTIFICATE FROM THE AO. HOWEVER, FOR THE IMPUGNED FINANCIAL YEAR, THE AO DENIED SUCH CERTIFICATE ON A CCOUNT OF REMITTANCE OF FRF 5,13,812 TO M/S.IFP. HE SUBMITTED THAT THE PAYEE IS NOT LIABLE TO TAX IN INDIA, THE MAJOR PART OF PAYMENT HAS ALREADY BEEN MADE WITHOUT DEDUCTING TAX AND ONLY THE EXTENSION WAS DENIED BY THE AO FOR THE IMPUGNED FINANCIAL YEAR. REFERRING TO THE DECISION OF THE SPECIAL BENCH OF THE TRIBUNAL I N THE CASE OF ROYAL JORDANIANS AIRLINES REPORTED IN 98 ITD 1 (DELHI), HE SUBMITTED THAT THE SAID DECISION IS DISTINGUISHABLE AND NOT APPLICABLE TO THE FACTS OF THE PRESENT CASE. HE SUBMITTED THAT ROYAL JORDANIANS AIRLINES WAS A SEPARATE CORPO RATION CARRYING ON COMMERCIAL ACTIVITIES, WHEREAS IFP IS NOT CARRYING OUT ANY COM MERCIAL ACTIVITY. THEREFORE, THE FACTS OF THE SAID DECISION ARE CLEARLY DISTINGUISHA BLE AND NOT APPLICABLE TO THE FACTS OF THE CASE OF M/S. IFP. ITA 1005-1006/M/04 HINDUSTAN PETROLEUM CORPN.LTD. 5 7. THE LD. DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE, ON THE OTHE R HAND, STRONGLY SUPPORTED THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A). REFERRING TO THE DECISION OF THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. BRITISH PAINTS INDIA LTD. REPORTED IN 188 ITR 44, HE SUBMITTED THAT THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT IN THE SAID DECISION HAS HELD THAT IT IS INCORRECT TO SAY THAT THE OFFICER IS BOU ND TO ACCEPT THE SYSTEM OF ACCOUNTING REGULARLY EMPLOYED BY THE ASSESSEE, THE CORRECTNESS OF WHICH HAD NOT BEEN QUESTIONED IN THE PAST. THERE IS NO ESTOPPEL I N THESE MATTERS AND THE OFFICER IS NOT BOUND BY THE METHOD FOLLOWED IN THE EARLIER YEARS. REFERRING TO THE DECISION OF THE TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF ROYAL JORDA NIANS AIRLINES (SUPRA), HE SUBMITTED THAT IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY SPECIFIC PROVI SION TO EXEMPT THE INCOME OF ASSESSEE FROM TAXATION IN INDIA IN THE ACT OR IN AN Y TREATY BETWEEN GOVT. OF INDIA AND FRANCE OR ANY GOVT. ORDER, IT WOULD NOT BE JUS TIFIED TO DECLARE INCOME OF IFP AS NOT CHARGEABLE TO TAX IN INDIA. HE SUBMITTED THA T IFP MAY BE UNDER THE CONTROL OF THE FRENCH GOVT. BUT IT IS NOT A GOVT. D EPTT. BY ITSELF. THEREFORE, THE DECISION OF THE SPECIAL BENCH OF THE TRIBUNAL IN TH E CASE OF ROYAL JORDANIANS AIRLINES IS CLEARLY APPLICABLE TO THE FACTS OF THE PRESENT CASE AND THE ASSESSEE WAS LIABLE TO DEDUCT TAX AT SOURCE FROM PAYMENT MADE TO IFP. 8. IN HIS REJOINDER, THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESS EE, REFERRING TO ARTICLE 26 OF INDO-FRENCH AGREEMENT, SUBMITTED THAT IFP, FRANCE, CANNOT BE SUBJECTED TO ANY TAXATION OR ANY REQUIREMENT CONNECTED THEREWITH, WH ICH IS OTHERWISE MORE BURDENSOME THAN THE TAXATION AND CONNECTED REQUIR EMENTS TO WHICH THE NATIONALS OF THE OTHER CONTRACTING STATE IN THE SAM E CIRCUMSTANCES ARE OR MAY BE SUBJECTED. IN INDIA, AS PER THE PROVISIONS OF SEC. 10 OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT, 1961, THE INCOME OF THE INSTITUTES OF SIMILAR NATUR E IS EXEMPT FROM INDIAN TAXATION. SECTION 10(23A) EXEMPTS THE INCOME OF A SSOCIATION/INSTITUTION ESTABLISHED IN INDIA HAVING AS ITS OBJECTS THE ENCO URAGEMENT, SUPERVISION, ITA 1005-1006/M/04 HINDUSTAN PETROLEUM CORPN.LTD. 6 REGULATION OR CONTROL OF THE PROVISION OF LAW, MEDI CINE, ACCOUNTANCY, ENGINEERING OR OTHER PROFESSION AS THE CENTRAL GOVT. MAY SPECIF Y. THE INDIAN INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY, BOMBAY, PERFORMS THE ACTIVITIES SIMILAR TO IFP, FRANCE. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE NON-DISCRIMINATION ARTICLE, IFP, FRANCE, CANN OT BE SUBJECTED TO A HIGHER TAXATION IN INDIA AND HAD TO BE TAXED OR EXEMPTED F ROM ON THE BASIS OF RATES APPLICABLE TO SIMILAR INSTITUTION IN INDIA. THE RAT E OF TAX FOR ACTIVITIES PERFORMED BY IIT, BOMBAY, IS NIL AND HENCE THE SAME SHOULD BE APPLICABLE IN THE CASE OF IFP, FRANCE. 9. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS MADE BY BOTH THE SIDES, PERUSED THE ORDERS OF THE AO AND THE CIT(A) AND THE PAPER BOOK FILED ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE. WE HAVE ALSO CONSIDERED THE VARIOUS DECIS IONS CITED BEFORE US. THERE IS NO DISPUTE TO THE FACT THAT M/S.HPCL WAS GRANTED NO C BY THE AO ON ACCOUNT OF ITS PAYMENT TO IFP UPTO THE FINANCIAL YEAR 2001-02. HOWEVER, WE FIND THAT THE AO DURING THE RELEVANT FINANCIAL YEAR, I.E. FOR THE FI NANCIAL YEAR 2002-03, DENIED THE NO DEDUCTION CERTIFICATE ON ACCOUNT OF REMITTANCE O F FRF 5,13,812 ON THE GROUND THAT THE SAME BEING IN THE NATURE OF ROYALTY AND FE E FOR TECHNICAL SERVICES, IS TAXABLE IN INDIA AND IN VIEW OF ARTICLE 13 OF DTTA AND THE PROTOCOL, THE RATE OF TAX IS 10% OF THE GROSS AMOUNT PAYABLE. WE FURTHER FIND THAT THE AO, WHILE DENYING NO DEDUCTION CERTIFICATE TO THE ASSESSEE, HAS OBSER VED THAT IN THE CASE OF PAYMENTS MADE BY INDIAN OIL CORPORATION TO IFP IT W AS HELD THAT IFP IS NOT CONDUCTING THE BUSINESS IN INDIA IN THE CAPACITY OF SOVEREIGN STATE. WE FIND THE CIT(A) UPHELD THE ACTION OF THE AO ON THE GROUND TH AT IFP IS UNDER THE CONTROL OF THE FRENCH GOVERNMENT AND IT IS NOT A GOVT. DEPT. I TSELF. FURTHER, THE ASSOCIATION OR INSTITUTION REFERRED TO IN SEC.10(23A) OF THE AC T IS ESTABLISHED IN INDIA AND APPROVED BY THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT, WHEREAS IFP IS NEITHER AN ASSOCIATION OR AN INSTITUTION ESTABLISHED IN INDIA NOR APPROVED BY T HE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT FOR SUCH ITA 1005-1006/M/04 HINDUSTAN PETROLEUM CORPN.LTD. 7 EXEMPTION. IT IS THE SUBMISSION OF THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE THAT SINCE THE PAYEE IS NOT LIABLE TO TAX IN INDIA AND MAJOR PART OF THE PAYMENT HAS ALREADY BEEN MADE WITHOUT DEDUCTION OF TAX, THEREFORE, THE ASSESSEE IS NOT LIABLE FOR DEDUCTION OF TAX AT SOURCE OF THE PAYMENT TO BE MAD E TO IFP. FURTHER, IFP BEING UNDER THE CONTROL OF THE FRENCH GOVERNMENT, WHOSE I NCOME IS EXEMPT FROM TAX, THEREFORE, THE SAME SHOULD BE TREATED AT PAR WITH THE IITS, THE INSTITUTE OF INDUSTRIAL ENGG., ETC., AND ACCORDINGLY NO TAX IS L IABLE TO BE DEDUCTED ON ACCOUNT OF THE PAYMENT BEING MADE TO IFP. 9.1 WE FIND THE TAX AUTHORITIES OF FRANCE VIDE THEI R CERTIFICATE, A COPY OF WHICH IS PLACED AT PAPER BOOK PAGE 23, HAS STATED THAT IF P IS A PROFESSIONAL ESTABLISHMENT CREATED BY THE LAW OF NOVEMBER 17, 19 43 AND IS UNDER THE FRENCH GOVT. CONTROL, THAT IT HAS NO PERMANENT ESTABLISHME NT IN INDIA AND THAT IFP IS NOT SUBJECT TO TAXATION IN FRANCE REGARDING INCOME AFFE CTED BY ARTICLE 13 OF THE ABOVEMENTIONED CONVENTION. 9.2 SIMILARLY, WE FIND THE FRENCH EMBASSY IN INDIA VIDE THEIR CERTIFICATE DATED 5-10-1995 (PAPER BOOK PAGE 24) HAS CERTIFIED THAT I FP (FRANCE) IS UNDER THE CONTROL OF THE GOVT. OF FRANCE AND THAT NO INCOME-T AX IS PAYABLE BY IFP TO THE GOVT. OF FRANCE FOR ITS OPERATIONS IN THE FIELD OF TEHNOLOGY LICENCING. 9.3 WE FIND ALTHOUGH THE ABOVE DOCUMENTS WERE FILE D BEFORE THE CIT(A), HE HELD THAT IN ABSENCE OF ANY CLEAR EVIDENCE THE SO-C ALLED CERTIFICATE CANNOT BE INTERPRETED TO MEAN THAT IFP IS THE DEPARTMENT OF G OVT. OF FRANCE. FURTHER, THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE, WHILE DISTINGUISHING THE DECISION OF THE SPECIAL BENCH OF THE TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF ROYAL JODANIAN AIRLINES, HAS SUBMITTED THAT IFP IS NOT CARRYING OUT ANY COMMERCIAL ACTIVITY UNL IKE ROYAL JORDANIAN AIRLINES. HOWEVER, NO DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE WAS FILED BEFORE US SO AS TO CONVINCE US. ITA 1005-1006/M/04 HINDUSTAN PETROLEUM CORPN.LTD. 8 9.4 CONSIDERING THE TOTALITY OF THE FACTS OF THE CA SE, WE, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE, DEEM IT PROPER TO RESTORE THE MATTER BACK TO THE FILE OF THE AO WITH A DIRECTION TO GIVE ONE MORE OPPORTUNITY TO THE ASSES SEE TO SUBSTANTIATE WITH EVIDENCE TO HIS SATISFACTION THAT IFP IS A DEPARTME NT OF THE FRENCH GOVT. AND THAT IFP IS NOT CARRYING OUT ANY COMMERCIAL ACTIVITY. TH E AO SHOULD DECIDE THE ISSUE AFRESH AND IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW AFTER GIVING DUE OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD TO THE ASSESSEE. WE HOLD AND DIRECT ACCORDINGLY. THE G ROUNDS RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE ARE ACCORDINGLY ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PU RPOSES. ITA NO.1006/M/2004 : 10. AFTER HEARING BOTH THE SIDES, WE FIND THE GROU NDS IN THIS APPEAL ARE IDENTICAL TO GROUNDS OF APPEAL IN ITA NO.1005/M/200 4, WE HAVE ALREADY DECIDED THE ISSUE AND THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE HAS BEEN ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. FOLLOWING THE SAME RATIO, THE GROUNDS RAI SED BY THE ASSESSEE IN THIS APPEAL ARE ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. 11. IN THE RESULT, BOTH THE APPEALS FILED BY THE A SSESSEE ARE ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. ORDER PRONOUNCED ON THE 22ND DAY OF JUNE, 201 0. SD/- SD/- (D. MANMOHAN) (R.K. PANDIA) VICE-PRESIDENT A CCOUNTANT MEMBER MUMBAI: 22ND JUNE, 2010. NG: ITA 1005-1006/M/04 HINDUSTAN PETROLEUM CORPN.LTD. 9 COPY TO : 1. ASSESSEE. 2.DEPARTMENT. 3 CIT(A)-XXXI,,MUMBAI. 4 DIT(INTERNATIONAL TAXATION),MUMBAI. 5.DR,L BENCH,MUMBAI. 6. MASTER FILE. (TRUE COPY) BY ORDER, ASST.REGISTRAR, ITAT, MUMBAI. ITA 1005-1006/M/04 HINDUSTAN PETROLEUM CORPN.LTD. 10 DETAILS DATE INITIALS DESIGNATION 1 DRAFT DICTATED ON 14-05-2010 SR.PS/ 2 DRAFT PLACED BEFORE AUTHOR 02-06-2010 SR.PS/ 3 DRAFT PROPOSED & PLACED BEFORE THE SECOND MEMBER 04-06-2010 JM/AM 4 DRAFT DISCUSSED/APPROVED BY SECOND MEMBER 08-06-2010 JM/AM 5. APPROVED DRAFT COMES TO THE SR.PS/PS SR.PS/ 6. KEPT FOR PRONOUNCEMENT ON SR.PS/ 7. FILE SENT TO THE BENCH CLERK SR.PS/ 8 DATE ON WHICH THE FILE GOES TO THE HEAD CLERK 9 DATE OF DISPATCH OF ORDER