The Income-tax Officer, Jammu V. The Accounts Officer, Jammu

ITA 113/ASR/2011

• Counselvise Citation: [2012] 119 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 7718 (ITAT-AMRITSAR)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 29 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 07-05-2012
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Bench Allotted: DB
• Next Hearing Date: 02-05-2012
• Assessment Year: 2009-2010
• Appeal Filed On: 08-04-2011
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: LAXMAN SINGH
• Keywords: Tax effect
• Section: 194C; 201(1)

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AMRITSAR BENCH; AMRITSAR. BEFORE SH. H.S. SIDHU, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SH. B.P.JAIN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER I.T.A. NOS.112 & 113(ASR)/2011 ASSESSMENT YEARS:2008-09 & 2009-2010 PAN:AMRG!1498E INCOME TAX OFFICER (TDS) VS. THE ACCOUNTS OFFICER, JAMMU. GOVT. MEDICAL COLLEGE, JAMMU. (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY:SH. LAXMAN SINGH, CIT(DR) RESPONDENT BY: SH. JOGINDER SINGH, CA DATE OF HEARING :02/04/2012 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT:07/05/2012 ORDER PER BENCH: THESE TWO APPEALS OF THE REVENUE ARISE FROM THE C ONSOLIDATED ORDER OF THE CIT(A, JAMMU, DATED 27.01.2011 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEARS 2008-09 & 2009-10 RESPECTIVELY. 2. THE REVENUE IN BOTH THE APPEALS HAS RAISED FOLLO WING COMMON GROUNDS OF APPEALS, WHICH ARE AS UNDER: 2 1. THAT THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN HOLDING THE PA YMENT TREATED AS PAYMENTS FOR TECHNICAL SERVICES BY THE AO U/S 194J AS PAYMENTS FOR ANNUAL MAINTENANCE CONTRACT COVERED U/S 194C. 2. THAT THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN ALLOWING THE RE LIEF ON THE BASIS OF CIRCULAR NO.715 AS ANNUAL MAINTENANCE CONTRACTOR S IN THE CASE ARE ENTIRELY FOR TECHNICAL SERVICES. 3. THAT THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN ALLOWING THE R ELIEF BY RELYING ON THE CASE OF M/S. EASTERN TYPEWRITERS SERVICES VS . STATE OF A.P.(42 STC 18) WHICH INVOLVE ANNUAL MAINTENANCE CO NTRACT OF TYPEWRITERS WHEREAS THE PRESENT CASE THE CONTRAC T IS FOR SOPHISTICATED MACHINES LIKE ST SCAN R.O. SYSTEM ETC . WHICH CAN NOT BE COMPARED WITH THE TYPEWRITER. 4. THAT THE APPELLANT CRAVES THE LEAVE TO ADD, AME ND, MODIFY, DELETE ANY OF THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL BEFORE OR AT TH E TIME OF HEARING. 3. THE BRIEF FACTS FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2008-09 ARE THAT THE ASSESSEE IS A GOVT. MEDICAL COLLEGE AT JAMMU. THE ASSESSEE HAD ENTERED INTO CONTRACTS WITH A NUMBER OF PARTIES FOR MAINTENANCE OF VARIOUS EQUIPMENTS AND MADE PAYMENTS TO THEM AND DEDUCTED TAX U/S 194C OF THE A CT. IN TWO OF THE PARTIES TAX WAS DEDUCTED U/S 194J OF THE ACT . IN OTHER CA SES, THE ASSESSEE HAD DEDUCTED TAX U/S 194C OF THE ACT, WHEREAS THE AO UN DER SECTION 201(1) & 201(1A) HAD OBSERVED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD MADE PAY MENTS FOR TECHNICAL SERVICES AND THEREFORE, HAD MADE A SHORT DEDUCTION AND LATE PAYMENT OF TAX AND TOTAL DEMAND WAS RS.2,64,390/- FOR THE FINANCIA L YEAR 2007-08 AND RS.7,73,570/- FOR THE FINANCIAL YEAR 2008-09 WAS RA ISED. THE LD. CIT(A) IN HIS ORDER AT PAGES 5 & 6 OBSERVED AS UNDER: 3 IN RESPECT OF ALL THE OTHER CONTRACTS THEY ARE FOU ND ON DIFFERENT FOOTING AS THEY ALL ARE FOR ROUTINE MAINTENANCE. IN THOSE CASES NO TECHNICAL SERVICES WERE REQUIRED TO RUN THE PLANTS AND EQUIPMENT AS THEY WERE HANDLED BY THE EMPLOYEES OF THE ASSESSEE ON DAY TO DAY BASIS BUT MAINTENANCE INCLUDING THE SUPPLY OF SPARE S WAS TO BE DONE BY MOST OF THE AGENCIES. THE CONTRACT FOR PAST CONT ROL ALSO CANNOT BE SAID TO INVOLVE ANY TECHNICAL SERVICES AS SUCH. THO UGH GENERALLY SPEAKING ALMOST ALL THE SERVICES OR WORK CONTRACTS MAY INVOLVE CERTAIN AMOUNT OF TECHNICAL EXPERTISE YET IT CANNOT BE SAID THAT THESE ARE FOR PROVIDING TECHNICAL SERVICES WHICH IS DEFINED IN EXPLANATION 2 TO CLAUSE (I) OF SUB SECTION 1 OF SECTION 9 OF THE I. TAX ACT AS UNDER: FEE FOR TECHNICAL SERVICES MEANS ANY CONSIDERATIO N (INCLUDING LUMP SUM CONSIDERATION) FOR THE RENDERIN G OF ANY MANAGERIAL, TECHNICAL OR CONSULTANCY SERVICES (INCL UDING THE PROVISION OF SERVICES OF TECHNICAL OR OTHER PERSONN EL) BUT DOES NOT INCLUDE CONSIDERATION OF ANY CONSTRUCTION, ASSE MBLY, MINNING OR LIKE PROJECT UNDERTAKEN BY THE RECIPIENT OR CONSIDERATION WHICH WOULD BE INCOME OF THE RECIPIEN T CHARGEABLE UNDER THE HEAD SALARY. IN THESE CONTRACTS AS ABOVE NO TECHNICAL SERVICES WERE TO BE SUPPLIED BY THE SECOND PARTIES THOUGH THE CONTRACTS WERE FOR SERVICES TO BE RENDERED PRIMARILY. THE CASE LAW RELIED BY THE ASSE SSEE IN ITS WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS OF M/S. EASTERN TYPEWRITERS SERVICES VS . STATE OF A.P. 42 STC 18 WHERE IT WAS HELD THAT WHEN AN ASSESSEE ENTE RED INTO A CONTRACT WITH THE GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENT FOR REPAIR ING AND SERVING TYPEWRITER AND OTHER EQUIPMENTS AT PERIODICAL INTE RVALS AND AT CERTAIN SPECIFIED RATES, THE SAME WAS WORK CONTRACT. IN ALL THE CONTRACTS MENTIONED IN QUESTION HERE TH E EQUIPMENT WERE RUN BY ASSESSEE BUT THE REPAIRS AND MAINTENANC E, WERE DONE BY CONTRACTORS WHICH THOUGH REQUIRED A CERTAIN EXPERTI SE YET THE CONTRACT CANNOT BE TERMED AS A CONTRACT FOR PROVIDING TECHN ICAL SERVICES. THE LIMITED TECHNICAL EXPERTISE, WHICH IS REQUIRED I N ALMOST ALL TYPES OF WORK WAS MERELY USED TO FACILITATE THE ROUTINE MA INTENANCE WORK AND NOT FOR PROVIDING TECHNICAL SERVICES AS SUCH. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE, I HOLD THAT THE CONTRACTS UN DER DISCUSSION WERE COVERED UNDER WORK OR SERVICE CONTRACTS AND TH E CIRCULAR 715 WAS 4 CLEARLY APPLICABLE, HENCE THERE WAS NO SHORT DEDUCT ION OF TAXES AND THE DEMAND SO CREATED IN RESPECT OF THEM (EXPECT TWO CO NTRACTS OF RUNNING THE EQUIPMENT AS DISCUSSED ABOVE) WAS NOT AT ALL EN FORCEABLE AND ASSESSEE IS NOT TO BE TREATED IN DEFAULT. 4. THE LD. CIT (DR) SH. LAXMAN SINGH ARGUED AND INV ITED OUR ATTENTION TO THE VARIOUS PROVISIONS CONTAINED IN THE CONTRACT S SUBMITTED AND VARIOUS PARAS OF THE ORDER U/S 201(1) & 201(1A) THAT ONLY S ERVICES ARE TECHNICAL SERVICES, WHICH REQUIRED A SPECIAL SKILL AND THE SA ME CANNOT BE DONE OTHERWISE THAN BY A TECHNICAL OR A PROFESSIONAL PER SON. FOR THE MEANING ASSIGNED TO THE TERM FEES FOR TECHNICAL SERVICES, THE EXPLANATION (2) TO SECTION 9(1)(VII) HAS TO BE TAKEN INTO CONSIDERATIO N. MR. LAXMAN SINGH, THE LD. DR FURTHER INVITED OUR ATTENTION TO THE AGREEME NT WITH M/S. THERMTRONICS KRILSOKER PVT. LTD; FOR MAINTENANCE OF THEATRE AND SURGICAL FOR WHICH SPECIALIST IS REQUIRED WHO WILL VISIT AND CARRY OUT THE MAINTENANCE SERVICE AND ALSO EMERGENCY BREAK DOWN CALLS. SIMILA RLY, FINDINGS OF THE AO WERE SHOWN TO THE BENCH WITH REGARD TO THE RO SYSTE M MAINTENANCE BY M/S. RIDHAM MARKETING SERVICES, CT SCAN SYSTEM BY M/S. W IPRO GE MEDICAL SYSTEM AND MRI MACHINE BY M/S. SIEMENS LTD; AND LI FT MAINTENANCE BY M/S. OTIS ELEVATOR AS WELL AS STERLISATION AND MEDICA L EQUIPMENT BY M/S. XPERT TECHNICAL SERVICES AND ANTI TERMITE TREATMENT BY M/S. GLOBAL PEST CONTROL ORGANIZATION ETC. HOWEVER, THE LD. DR REMAI NED SILENT ABOUT THE 5 SUPPLY OF BREAD & BUTTER BY MR. RAKESH KUMAR MALHOT RA AND SUPPLY OF SECURITY AND PERSONNEL BY M/S. DOGRA PLACEMENT SERV ICES. THE LD. DR PRAYED TO RESTORE THE ORDER OF THE AO AND REVERSE THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A). 5. ON THE OTHER HAND, THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSES SEE, SH. JOGINDER SINGH ARGUED THAT THERE ARE FOUR LIMBS OF THE WORK CONTRACT. THE ASSESSEE HAD FULFILLED ALL THE FOUR LIMBS. THEREFORE, THE SAID C ONTRACTS ARE WORK CONTRACT. IF EVERY CONTRACT IS TAKEN AS A TECHNICAL CONTRACT THEN THERE WILL BE NO WORK CONTRACT IN THE WORLD. THE CONTRACT IS FOR REPAIR A ND SERVICES ONLY AND RUNNING MACHINE. HE INVITED OUR ATTENTION TO VARIOU S PAGES OF CONTRACT IN THIS REGARD THAT THESE ARE ONLY FOR THE MAINTENANCE AND SERVICE AND NOT FOR TECHNICAL SERVICES. OUR ATTENTION WAS ALSO INVITED TO CIRCULAR NO.715 DATED 08.08.1995 OF CBDT BY MAKING SPECIFIC REFERENCE TO QUESTION NO.29 WITH REGARD TO THE CONTRACT TO BE COVERED UNDER SECTION 194C & 194J OF THE ACT AND THE CBDT HAD ANSWERED THAT ROUTINE, NORMAL MA INTENANCE CONTRACTS WHICH INCLUDES SUPPLY OF SPARES WILL BE COVERED U/ S 194C OF THE ACT. HOWEVER, WHERE TECHNICAL SERVICES ARE RENDERED, THE PROVISION OF SECTION 194J WILL APPLY IN REGARD TO TAX DEDUCTION AT SOUR CE. THEREFORE, THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE RELIED UPON THE SUBMISSION S MADE BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A), CIRCULAR OF THE BOARD AND THE AGREEMENTS PL ACED ON RECORD, RELIED 6 UPON THE DECISION OF THE CIT(A) AND PRAYED TO CONFI RM THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A). 6. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS AND PERUSED THE FACTS OF THE CASE. AS REGARDS THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IN ITA NO.112 (ASR)/2011, THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE INVITED OUR ATTENTION, AT THE OUTSET, THAT THE DEMAND IN THE FINANCIAL YEAR 2007-08 RELATING TO ASSESSMEN T YEAR 2008-09 IS RS.2,64,390/- ONLY AND THEREFORE, IN VIEW OF INSTRU CTION NO.3 OF 2011 [ F.NO.279/MISC.142/2007-ITJ] DATED 9 TH FEB.,2011, THE DEPARTMENT IS PROHIBITED TO FILE THE APPEAL HAVING TAX EFFECT WHI CH DOES NOT EXCEED RS.3,00,000/- BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL. THIS WAS OBJECTE D BY THE LD. DR AND RELIED UPON THE SAME INSTRUCTION OF CBDT ON WHICH T HE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE RELIED UPON. THE LD. DR INVITED OUR ATTENT ION TO PARA 5 OF THE SAID INSTRUCTION, WHERE THE TAX EFFECT IN THE COMPOSITE ORDER OF ANY HIGH COURT OR APPELLATE AUTHORITY HAS TO BE TAKEN INTO CONSIDERAT ION EVEN IF THE TAX EFFECT IS LESS THAN THE PRESCRIBED MONETARY LIMITS IN RESPECT OF ONE ASSESSEE. 6.1. AFTER CONSIDERING THE SAID INSTRUCTION OF THE CBDT, BEFORE US, IDENTICAL ISSUE IS INVOLVED IN APPEALS FOR TWO DIFF ERENT YEARS BY A COMPOSITE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A) DATED 27.01.2011 FOR THE AS SESSMENT YEARS 2008-09 & 2009-10 RESPECTIVELY, WHERE THE COMPOSITE TAX DEM ANDED IS MORE THAN RS.3,00,000/- AND, THEREFORE, AS PER STHE SAID INST RUCTION NO.3 OF 2011 OF 7 CBDT (SUPRA)THE APPEAL OF THE REVENUE IS MAINTAINAB LE. THEREFORE, THE PRELIMINARY OBJECTION OF LD. AR IS REJECTED. 6.2. AS REGARDS THE APPEAL ON MERITS, AS ARGUED BY BOTH THE PARTIES AND FACTS AVAILABLE ON RECORD, WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT WHOLE ISSUE IS WITH REGARD TO THE CONTRACTS ENTERED INTO BY THE ASSESSEE, WHIC H IS A GOVT. MEDICAL COLLEGE AT JAMMU, HAS ENTERED INTO AGREEMENTS WITH VARIOUS PARTIES TO MAINTAIN OPERATION THEATRE AND SURGICAL EQUIPMENTS, RO SYSTEM, CT SCAN MACHINE, MRI MACHINE, LIFT, STERLISATION AND MEDICA L EQUIPMENTS ALONG WITH ANTI-TERMITE TREATMENT AND ALSO THERE WERE CON TRACTS FOR SUPPLY OF BREAD AND BUTTER AND SUPPLY OF SECURITY AND PERSONN EL. AS REGARDS SUPPLY OF BREAD AND BUTTER AND SUPPLY OF SECURITY AND PERSONN EL, WE DO NOT SEE ANY TECHNICAL PART OR TECHNICAL SERVICES AS PER FACTS A VAILABLE ON RECORD. AS REGARDS OTHER SERVICES, WHETHER THE SAME IS CONTRAC T U/S 194C OF THE ACT OR TECHNICAL SERVICE U/S 194J OF THE ACT, HAS TO BE P ERUSED. THE ASSESSEE HAS CLAIMED A CONTRACT U/S 194C OF THE ACT. THEREFORE, WE HAVE TO PERUSE WHETHER THE PROFESSIONAL OR TECHNICAL SERVICES U/S 194J OF THE ACT, WHICH PROVIDES ANY PERSON, NOT BEING AN INDIVIDUAL OR A H INDU UNDIVIDED FAMILY, WHO IS RESPONSIBLE FOR PAYING TO A RESIDENT ANY SU M BY WAY OF (A) FEES FOR PROFESSIONAL SERVICES, OR (B) FEES FOR TECHNICAL SE RVICES, SHALL AT THE TIME OF CREDIT OF SUCH SUM TO THE ACCOUNT OF THE PAYEE OR A T THE TIME OF PAYMENT 8 THEREOF IN CASH OR BY ISSUE OF A CHEQUE OR DRAFT OR BY ANY OTHER MODE WHICHEVER IS EARLIER, DEDUCT AN AMOUNT EQUAL TO TE N PERCENT OF SUCH SUM AS INCOME-TAX ON INCOME COMPRISED THEREIN. THIS 10% HA S BEEN INSERTED BY THE FINANCE ACT W.E.F. 01.06.2007 IN PLACE OF 5%. AS P ER EXPLANATION OF SECTION 194J, PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AND FEES FOR T ECHNICAL SERVICES HAS BEEN DEFINED AS UNDER: EXPLANATION FOR THE PURPOSES OF THIS SECTION : (A) PROFESSIONAL SERVICES MEANS SERVICES RENDERE D BY A PERSON IN THE COURSE OF CARRYING ON LEGAL, MEDICAL, ENGINEERI NG OR ARCHITECTURAL PROFESSION OR THE PROFESSION OF ACCOUNTANCY OR TECH NICAL CONSULTANCY OR INTERIOR DECORATION OR ADVERTISING OR SUCH OTHER PROFESSION AS IS NOTIFIED BY THE BOARD FOR THE PURPOSES OF SECTION 44AA OR OF THIS SECTION; B) FEES FOR TECHNICAL SERVICES SHALL HAVE THE S AME MEANING AS IN EXPLANATION 2 TO CLAUSE (VII) OF SUB-SECTION (1) OF SECTION 9; 6.3. AS PER SECTION 9(1)(VII) - EXPLANATION (2) THE TECHNICAL SERVICES HAVE BEEN DEFINED AS UNDER: EXPLANATION [2] FOR THE PURPOSES OF THIS CLAUSE, FEES FOR TECHNICAL SERVICES MEANS ANY CONSIDERATION (INCLUDING ANY LU MP SUM CONSIDERATION) FOR THE RENDERING OF ANY MANAGERIAL, TECHNICAL OR CONSULTANCY SERVICES (INCLUDING THE PROVISION OF SE RVICES OF TECHNICAL OR OTHER PERSONNEL) BUT DOES NOT INCLUDE CONSIDERA TION FOR ANY CONSTRUCTION, ASSEMBLY, MINING OR LIKE PROJECT UND ERTAKEN BY THE RECIPIENT OR CONSIDERATION WHICH WOULD BE INCOME OF THE RECIPIENT CHARGEABLE UNDER THE HEAD SALARIES. 9 6.4. AS PER SAID EXPLANATION IN SECTION 9(1), THE F EES FOR TECHNICAL SERVICES MEANS ANY CONSIDERATION FOR THE RENDERING OF ANY M ANAGERIAL, TECHNICAL OR CONSULTANCY SERVICES INCLUDING THE PROVISION OF SE RVICES OF TECHNICAL OR OTHER PERSONNEL, IS A PART OF TECHNICAL SERVICES AN D FEES PAID FOR THAT SHALL BE CONSIDERED FOR THE PURPOSE OF SECTION 194J OF THE A CT. IN THE PRESENT CASE, ON PERUSAL OF THE VARIOUS AGREEMENTS PLACED ON RECORD BY THE ASSESSEE THAT FIRSTLY WITH REGARD TO THEATRE AND SURGICAL OPERA TION WITH M/S. THERMTRONICS KRILOSKER PVT. LTD. AS PER CONDITIONS MENTIONED IN THE AGREEMENT IN CLAUSES (I) TO (VI), THE SERVICES OF A TECHNICAL QUALIFIED PERSON ARE TO BE MADE AVAILABLE TO THE ASSESSEE TO MAINTAI N EQUIPMENTS AND THEREFORE, THE SAID TECHNICAL SERVICES AS PER CBDT CIRCULAR 715 DATED 8.8.1995 CANNOT BE SERVICES OF ROUTINE AND NORMAL M AINTENANCE. THE OPERATION THEATRE AND SURGICAL ARE HIGHLY TECHNICA L EQUIPMENTS FOR THE OPERATIONS OF THE PERSONS. THEREFORE, THEY CANNOT B E MAINTAINED IN A ROUTINE OR NORMAL MANNER, BUT A TECHNICAL PERSON IS REQUIRE D FOR MAINTENANCE OF SUCH EQUIPMENTS.. SIMILAR IS THE CASE WITH RO SYSTEM, CT SCAN MACHINE, MRI MACHINE, LIFT AND STERLISATION & MEDICAL EQUIPMENT S FOR THE AGREEMENTS MADE BETWEEN M/S. RIDHAM MARKETING SERVICES, M/S. W IPRO GE MEDICAL SYSTEM, M/S. SIEMENS LTD; M/S. OTIS ELEVATOR AND M /S. XPERT TECHNICAL SERVICE RESPECTIVELY. THEREFORE, WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT THESE CONTRACTS 10 CANNOT BE THE CONTRACTS IN A ROUTINE OR NORMAL MAN NER BUT FOR WHICH TECHNICAL SERVICE HAS BEEN RENDERED AND PROVISIONS OF SECTION 194J READ WITH SECTION 9(1) OF EXPLANATION-2 ARE ATTRACTED, READ W ITH SECTION 201(1) AND 201(1A), WHICH THE AO HAS RIGHTLY APPLIED. WE FIND NO INFIRMITY IN THE ORDER OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN THIS REGARD. 6.5. AS REGARDS ANTI-TERMITE TREATMENT FOR WHICH TH E AGREEMENT WAS MADE WITH M/S. GLOBAL PEST CONTROL ORGANIZATION. THIS TR EATMENT THOUGH DOES NOT REQUIRE TECHNICAL EXPERTISE BUT IT REQUIRES PROFESS IONAL SKILL FOR THE REASON THE SPRAY OF THE ANTI TERMITE CHEMICALS IN THE PREM ISES OR THE MACHINE, REQUIRES A HIGHLY AND PROFESSIONALIZED SKILL, IN TH E ABSENCE OF WHICH THERE CAN BE A LOSS TO THE LIFE OF THE HUMAN BEING LIVING THEREIN, ESPECIALLY IN THE MEDICAL COLLEGE WHERE THE PATIENTS ARE ADMITTED WH O VISIT THE HOSPITAL FOR THEIR TREATMENT, HAVE TO BE TAKEN CARE. IF SPRAY IS MADE BY A PERSON WHO IS NOT PROFESSIONAL OR WITHOUT ANY PROFESSIONAL SKILL THEN CONSEQUENCES CAN BE OTHERWISE. THEREFORE, IN THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCE S OF THE CASE, WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT THIS SERVICE HAS TO BE TREATED AS PR OFESSIONAL SERVICE TO BE INCLUDED FOR THE PURPOSE OF SECTION 194J READ WITH SECTION 9(1)(VII) EXPLANATION (2). IN THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, EXCEPT FOR THE SUPPLY OF BREAD & BUTTER BY MR. RAKESH KUMAR MALHOT RA AND SUPPLY OF SECURITY & PERSONNEL BY M/S. DOGRA PLACEMENT SERVIC ES, WE UPHOLD THE 11 FINDINGS OF THE AO AND REVERSE THE FINDINGS OF THE LD. CIT(A). ACCORDINGLY, THE APPEAL OF THE REVENUE IS PARTLY ALLOWED. 6.6 THE ISSUE IN THE REVENUES APPEAL IN ITA NO.113 (ASR)/2011 IS IDENTICAL TO THE FACTS DISCUSSED AND ADJUDICATED IN ITA NO.112(ASR)/2011 (SUPRA) AND OUR ORDER IN ITA NO.112(ASR)/2011 SHAL L BE FOLLOWED IN ITA NO.113(ASR)/2011 AND ACCORDINGLY, THE APPEAL OF THE REVENUE IS PARTLY ALLOWED. 7. IN THE RESULT BOTH THE APPEAL OF THE REVENUE ARE PARTLY ALLOWED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 7TH MAY, 2012. SD/- SD/- (H.S. SIDHU) (B.P. JAIN) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER DATED: 7TH MAY, 2012 /SKR/ COPY OF THE ORDER IS FORWARDED TO : 1. THE ASSESSEE:THE ACCOUNTS, GOVT. MEDICAL COLLEGE, J AMMU. 2. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER (TDS), JAMMU. 3. THE CIT(A), JAMMU. 4. THE CIT, JAMMU. 5. THE SR DR, ITAT, AMRITSAR TRUE COPY BY ORDER (ASSISTANT REGISTRAR) INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AMRITSAR BENCH : AMRITSAR.