John Deere Equipment Pvt.Ltd, Pune V. Assistant Commissioner of Income tax, Pune

ITA 1257/PUN/2017

• Counselvise Citation: [2019] 112 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 2318 (ITAT-PUNE)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 year(s) 6 month(s) 18 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 05-12-2019
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: C
• Next Hearing Date: 03-12-2019
• Assessment Year: 2009-2010
• Appeal Filed On: 18-05-2017
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: PU
• Keywords: Transfer pricing; Double taxation relief; TDS; Set aside
• Section: 201(1); 195; 201; 2

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL C BENCH, PUNE BEFORE SHRI R.S.SYAL, VP AND SHRI PARTHA SARATHI CHAUDHURY , JM . / I TA NO. 1255/ PUN/20 17 / ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2009 - 10 JOHN DEERE INDIA PVT. LTD. TOWER - XIV, CYBERCITY, MAGARPATTA CITY, HADAPSAR, PUNE - 411 013. PAN : AAACJ4233B ....... / APPELLANT / V/S. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE - 14, PUNE. / RESPONDENT . / ITA NO . 1257/PUN/2017 / ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2009 - 10 JOHN DEERE EQUIPMENT PVT. LTD. (NOW MERGED WITH JOHN DEERE (INDIA) PVT. LTD.) TOWER - XIV, CYBERCITY, MAGARPATTA CITY, HADAPSAR, PUNE - 411 013. PAN: AAACL7331A ....... / APPELLANT / V/S. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE - 14, PUNE. / RESPONDENT A SSESSEE BY : SHRI NIKHIL PATHAK REVENUE BY : SHRI T. VIJAYA BHASKAR REDDY 2 ITA NO S . 1255 & 1257 /PUN/20 17 A.Y. 2009 - 10 / DATE OF HEARING : 0 3 .12 .2019 / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 05 .12 .2019 / ORDER PER PARTHA SARATHI CHAUDHU RY, JM : THE S E TWO APPEAL S PREFERRED BY THE ASSESSEE EMANATES FROM THE ORDERS OF THE LD. CIT(APPEALS) - 7, PUNE DATED 27.03.2017 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2009 - 10 AS PER THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL ON RECORD. 2. AT THE VERY OUTSET, THE LD. AR OF THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES IN BOTH THESE APPEALS ARE ABSOLUTELY SIMILAR AND THE ISSUES RAISED IN BOTH THESE APPEALS ARE COVERED BY THE DECISION OF THE PUNE BENCH OF THE TRIBUNAL IN ASSESSEES OWN CASE. 3. THESE CASES WERE THEREFORE HEARD TOGETHER. SINCE FACTS COMMON AND ISSUES ARE SIMILAR, THESE CASES ARE BEING DISPOSED OF VIDE THIS CONSOLIDATED ORDER. FOR THE SAKE OF CONVENIENCE, WE WOULD FIRST TAKE UP ITA NO.1255/PUN/2017 FOR ADJUDICATION. ITA NO.1255/P UN/2017 A.Y.2009 - 10 4. IN THIS CASE, THE FINDINGS OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER AT PARA 4 OF HIS ORDER IS THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD MADE PAYMENTS AMOUNTING TO RS.42,62,70,626/ - TO DEERE & CO, USA, THE ASSOCIATED ENTERPRISE (AE) WITHOUT COMPLYING WITH THE PROVISIONS RELATED TO DEDUCTION OF TAX AT SOURCE CLAIMING SAID PAYMENT AS REIMBURSEMENT OF EXPENSES WHICH WAS NOT ALLOWABLE U/S.40(A)(IA) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 (HEREINAFTER REFERRED TO AS THE ACT) AND THEREFORE, NON - 3 ITA NO S . 1255 & 1257 /PUN/20 17 A.Y. 2009 - 10 DISCLOSURE OF TRUE AND MATERIA L FACTS ON THE PART OF THE ASSESSEE LEADING TO ESCAPEMENT OF INCOME, THE ISSUANCE OF NOTICE U/S.148 OF THE ACT IS JUSTIFIED AND AS PER LAW. THE OBJECTION OF THE ASSESSEE WITH RESPECT TO INITIATION OF PROCEEDINGS U/S.147 OF THE ACT WAS THEREFORE HELD BY TH E ASSESSING OFFICER TO BE UNTENABLE. IT WAS FURTHER OBSERVED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD MADE PAYMENTS TO DEERE & CO., USA WITHOUT DEDUCTION OF TAX AT SOURCE I.E. REIMBURSEMENT OF EXPENSES AMOUNTING TO RS.42,62,70,626/ - . THIS CONSIDERATI ON RECEIVED BY THE DECREE & CO. WAS ON ACCOUNT OF VARIOUS IT SUPPORT SERVICES, USE OR RIGHT TO USE SOFTWARE, ACCESS TO SERVICE (SCIENTIFIC EQUIPMENT), LEASE LINE CHARGES. THE ABOVE PAYMENTS ACCORDING TO THE ASSESSING OFFICER ARE TECHNICAL SERVICES AND TAXA BLE AS FEES FOR TECHNICAL SERVICES UNDER THE SECTION 9(I)(VII) . THE SERVICE PROVIDER, THE AIL IS A TAX RESIDENT OF USA. AS PER ARTICLE 12 OF THE DOUBLE TAXATION AVOIDANCE AGREEMENT BETWEEN INDIA AND THE USA (DTAA), ROYALTIES AND FEE FOR INCLUDED SERVICES ( FIS) MEANS PAYMENTS OF ANY KIND TO ANY PERSON IN CONSIDERATION FOR RENDERING OF ANY TECHNICAL OR CONSULTANCY SERVICES WHICH MAKE AVAILABLE TECHNICAL KNOWLEDGE, EXPERIENCE, SKILL KNOW HOW OR PROCESSES ETC. THE ASSESSING OFFICER FURTHER OBSERVED THAT THE PA YMENTS OF RS.19,34,64,266/ - TO DEERE & CO., USA, THE ASSOCIATED ENTERPRISE (AE) ARE HELD TO BE IN THE NATURE OF FIS/ROYALTY WITHIN THE MEANING OF SECTION 9(I)(VI) & 9(I)(VII) OF THE ACT AND ARTICLE 12 OF THE DTAA AND THEREFORE, PROVISIONS OF SECTION 195 OF THE ACT ARE SQUARELY APPLICABLE FOR PAYMENT OF LICENSE FEE AND THE ASSESSEE WAS BOUND BY LAW TO DEDUCT THE TAXES BEFORE REMITTING THE MONEY TO NON - RESIDENTS AND THUS, AMOUNT OF RS.19,34,64,266/ - WAS ADDED TO THE TOTAL INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE. 5. THE LD. C IT(APPEALS) RECORDED HIS DECISION FROM PARA 6.3 ONWARDS OF HIS ORDER. THAT BEFORE THE LD. CIT(APPEALS) A DETAILED WRITTEN SUBMISSION WAS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE WHICH IS ON RECORD. IT IS ALSO PERTINENT TO NOTE THAT THE 4 ITA NO S . 1255 & 1257 /PUN/20 17 A.Y. 2009 - 10 ASSESSEE PREFERRED APPEAL AGAINST THE O RDER U/S.201 & 201(1A) FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2007 - 08 AND 2008 - 09 RESPECTIVELY. THE CIT(A) - 13, PUNE DISMISSED THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE VIDE ORDER DATED 30.03.2015. THE LD. CIT(A) IN THAT CASE HELD THE PAYMENTS MADE FOR ACQUIRING SOFTWARE LICENSES ARE TAXAB LE UNDER INCOME TAX ACT AS WELL AS DTAA. THE LD. CIT(A) ALSO HELD THAT PAYMENT MADE FOR USE OF THE LEASED LINE ARE TAXABLE AND THE ASSESSEE OUGHT TO HAVE DEDUCTED THE TAX AT SOURCES ON PAYMENTS MADE FOR THE USE OF LEASED LINE CHARGES AS PER INCOME TAX ACT AS WELL AS DTAA. THEREFORE, IN THE PRESENT CASE, THE LD. CIT(APPEALS) UPHELD THE ORDER OF ASSESSING OFFICER IN INVOKING THE SECTION 40(A)(I) OF THE ACT FOR NON DEDUCTION OF TDS. 6. THE LD. AR OF THE ASSESSEE APPRAISED THE BENCH THAT THIS ISSUE IS COVERED IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE BY THE DECISION OF THE PUNE BENCH OF THE TRIBUNAL IN ASSESSEE OWN CASE IN ITA NO.626/PUN/2017 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2009 - 10 WHEREIN THE TRIBUNAL HAS HELD AS FOLLOWS: 5. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND PERUSED THE MATER IAL ON RECORD. THE ISSUE IN THE PRESENT APPEAL IS WITH RESPECT TO THE PAYMENT OF TAX AND INTEREST RECEIVED U/S 201(1) AND 201(1A) OF THE ACT ON ACCOUNT OF NON - DEDUCTION OF TAX ON THE PAYMENTS MADE BY THE ASSESSEE TO DEERE & CO., USA. WE FIND THAT IDENTICAL ISSUE AROSE IN ASSESSEES OWN CASE IN A.YS. 2007 - 08 AND 2008 - 09 IN ITA NOS.905 TO 908/PUN/2015 (SUPRA) WHEREIN THE CO - ORDINATE BENCH OF THE TRIBUNAL HAS HELD THAT ASSESSEE IS NOT LIABLE TO DEDUCT THE TDS ON THE PAYMENT. THE RELEVANT FINDINGS OF THE TRIBUN AL ARE AS UNDER : 90. IN CONCLUSION, WE HOLD THAT PURCHASE OF SOFTWARE BY THE ASSESSEE BEING COPYRIGHTED ARTICLE IS NOT COVERED BY THE TERM ROYALTY UNDER SECTION 9(1)(VI) OF THE ACT. WHERE THE ASSESSEE DID NOT ACQUIRE ANY COPYRIGHT IN THE SOFTWARE, IS NOT COVERED UNDER EXPLANATION 2 TO SECTION 9(1)(VI) OF THE ACT. WE FURTHER HOLD THAT AMENDED DEFINITION OF ROYALTY UNDER THE DOMESTIC LAW CANNOT BE EXTENDED TO THE DEFINITION OF ROYALTY UNDER DTAA, WHERE THE TERM ROYALTY ORIGINALLY DEFINED HAS NOT BEEN AMENDED. AS PER DEFINITION OF ROYALTY UNDER DTAA, IT IS PAYMENT RECEIVED IN CONSIDERATION FOR USE OR RIGHT TO USE ANY COPYRIGHT OF LITERARY, ARTISTIC OR SCIENTIFIC WORK, ETC.; THUS, PURCHASE OF COPYRIGHTED ARTICLE DOES NOT FALL IN REALM OF ROYALTY. WE ALSO HOLD THAT SINCE THE PROVISIONS OF DTAA OVERRIDES THE PROVISIONS OF INCOME TAX ACT AND ARE MORE BENEFICIAL AND THE DEFINITION OF ROYALTY HAVING NOT UNDERGONE ANY AMENDMENT IN DTAA, THE ASSESSEE WAS NOT LIABLE TO DEDUCT TAX FOR PAYMENTS MADE FOR PURCHASE OF SOFTWARE . IN SUCH SCENARIO, THE ASSESSEE CANNOT BE HELD TO BE IN DEFAULT AND THE DEMAND CREATED UNDER SECTION 201(1) AND INTEREST CHARGED UNDER SECTION 201(1A) OF THE ACT IS THUS, CANCELLED. 5 ITA NO S . 1255 & 1257 /PUN/20 17 A.Y. 2009 - 10 .. 93. THE ASSESSEE HAS FILED BREAKUP OF EXPENSES AT PAGES 164 A ND 165 OF FACTUAL PAPER BOOK. ACCORDINGLY, WE HOLD THAT INTERNET CHARGES PAID OF 27,09,701/ - , LINE CHARGES OF RS. 39,87,960/ - , SERVICE CHARGES OF RS. 6,63,652/ - AND OTHER CHARGES I.E. VPN CHARGES, ONLINE MEETING CHARGES, ETC. OF RS. 22,94,256/ - ARE NOT PA YMENT OF ROYALTY AND ARE NOT EVEN FOR MAKE AVAILABLEOF ANY TECHNICAL SERVICES AND HENCE, THERE WAS NO REQUIREMENT TO DEDUCT TAX AT SOURCE OUT OF SUCH PAYMENTS. IN THE SAID BREAKUP, THE ASSESSEE HAS ALSO POINTED OUT THAT SOFTWARE CHARGES PAID WERE TO THE TUNE OF 4,22,73,399/ - , WHICH WE HAVE ALREADY HELD IN THE PARAS HEREINABOVE, NOT LIABLE FOR DEDUCTION OF TAX AT SOURCE. 101. APPLYING THE SAID PROPOSITIONS TO THE FACTS OF PRESENT CASE, WE HOLD THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT DEFAULTED IN NON DEDUCTIO N OF TAX AT SOURCE OUT OF PAYMENTS MADE FOR LEASE LINE CHARGES. WE ALSO UPHOLD THE ALTERNATE PLEA OF ASSESSEE THAT THE SAID LEASE LINE CHARGES ARE AT BEST REIMBURSEMENT OF EXPENSES AND HENCE, NOT LIABLE FOR DEDUCTION OF TAX AT SOURCE. THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL NO.4 TO 5 ARE ALLOWED. . 106. IN THE FACTS BEFORE AHMEDABAD BENCH OF TRIBUNAL, WHERE SERVICES RENDERED BY SERVICE PROVIDER WERE GENERAL IN NATURE AND WHICH DID NOT INVOLVE ANY TRANSFER OF TECHNOLOGY, IT WAS HELD THAT WHERE THE ONUS WAS ON REVENUE AUTHORITIES TO DEMONSTRATE THAT THESE SERVICES TOO INVOLVE ANY TRANSFER OF TECHNOLOGY AND SINCE THAT ONUS WAS NOT DISCHARGED, THEN THE PAYMENT WAS NOT COVERED BY THE DEFINITION OF FEES FOR TECHNICAL SERVICES. THE FACTS OF THE SAID CASE ARE SIMILAR TO TH E FACTS BEFORE US, WHEREIN TRAINING AVAILED BY EMPLOYEES OF ASSESSEE WERE WEB BASED SERVICES AVAILABLE ON INTERNET AND NO TECHNICAL KNOWLEDGE WAS BEING IMPARTED BY SERVICE PROVIDER AND THE REVENUE HAS FAILED TO DEMONSTRATE THAT THE SERVICES DID INVOLVE TRA NSFER OF TECHNOLOGY AND IN THE ABSENCE OF SAME, IT CANNOT BE SAID TO BE PAYMENTS IN THE NATURE OF FEES FOR TECHNICAL SERVICES. APPLYING THE SAID RATIO, WE HOLD THAT THERE WAS NO LIABILITY UPON THE ASSESSEE TO DEDUCT TAX AT SOURCE ON THE AFORESAID PAYMENTS AND HENCE, ASSESSEE CANNOT BE HELD TO BE IN DEFAULT UNDER SECTION 201(1) AND 201(1A) OF THE ACT. THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL NO. 6 TO 8 ARE THUS, ALLOWED. 110. ON THE OTHER HAND, THE LEARNED AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE FOR THE ASSESSEE HAS POINTED OUT THAT FACTUAL ASPECTS OF SAID CASE WERE ENTIRELY DIFFERENT, WHERE A OFFSHORE ENTITY HAD DEPUTED TECHNICAL PERSONNEL TO TRAIN INDIAN EMPLOYEES AND HENCE, IT WAS CA SE OF MAKE AVAILABLE OF SKILL BEHIND SERVICES, TO OTHER PARTIES. IN THIS REGARD, HE HAS PLACED RELIANCE ON THE RATIO LAID DOWN BY THE AHMEDABAD BENCH OF TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF BURT HILL DESIGN (P.) LTD. (SUPRA), WHEREIN TAX WAS DEDUCTED OUT OF SALARY AN D IT WAS HELD THAT THERE WAS NO LIABILITY TO DEDUCT TAX UNDER SECTION 201(1) OF THE ACT. IN RESPECT OF RATIO LAID DOWN BY THE HONBLE HIGH COURT OF DELHI IN THE CASE OF CENTRICA INDIA OFFSHORE PVT. LTD. VS. CIT (SUPRA), IT WAS POINTED OUT THAT WHERE SLP HA S BEEN DISMISSED, THEN IT CANNOT BE HELD TO BE LAW OF LAND AS PROPOUNDED BY THE HON'BLE SUPREME COURT IN V.M. SALGAOCAR & BROS. (P.) LTD. VS. CIT (SUPRA) AND PALAM GAS SERVICE VS. CIT (SUPRA). ACCORDINGLY, WE HOLD THAT WHERE THE HON'BLE SUPREME COURT HAS O NLY DISMISSED SLP, THEN NO RULING ON PRINCIPLE BEING LAID DOWN BY THE APEX COURT, THE PROPOSITION LAID DOWN 6 ITA NO S . 1255 & 1257 /PUN/20 17 A.Y. 2009 - 10 BY THE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY IN DIT VS. M/S. MARK & SPENCER RELIANCE INDIA P. LTD. (SUPRA) WOULD RULE. ACCORDINGLY, WE FURTHER HOLD TH AT THE ASSESSEE HAVING DEDUCTED TAX AT SOURCE OUT OF SALARY PAID TO EMPLOYEES DEPUTED, HAS NOT DEFAULTED UNDER SECTION 201(1) / 201(1A) OF THE ACT. THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL NO.9 TO 12 ARE THUS, ALLOWED. 6. BEFORE US, NO MATERIAL HAS BEEN PLACED BY REVENUE TO DEMONSTRATE THAT THE ORDER OF TRIBUNAL IN ASSESSEES OWN CASE FOR A.YS. 2007 - 08 AND 2008 - 09 (SUPRA) HAS BEEN SET ASIDE / STAYED BY HIGHER JUDICIAL FORUM. REVENUE HAS ALSO NOT POINTED OUT ANY DISTINGUISHING FEATURE IN THE FACTS OF THE PRESENT CASE AND IN THE CASE OF ASSESSEES OWN CASE IN EARLIER YEARS. WE THEREFORE, RELYING ON THE DECISION OF THE TRIBUNAL IN ASSESSEES OWN CASE IN EARLIER YEARS (SUPRA) AND FOR SIMILAR REASONS HOLD THAT ASSESSEE HAS NOT DEFAULTED IN DEDUCTION OF TDS ON THE IMPUGNED PAYMEN TS MADE. WE THEREFORE SET ASIDE THE ORDER OF AO PASSED U/S 201(1) / 201(1A) OF THE ACT. THUS, THE GROUNDS OF THE ASSESSEE ARE ALLOWED. 7. WE HAVE PERUSED THE CASE RECORDS AND HEARD THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS. THE LD. DR COULD NOT BRING ANY MATERIAL OR RELEV ANT DOCUMENTS ON RECORDS TO DEMONSTRATE THAT THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL IN ASSESSEES OWN CASE HAS BEEN SET ASIDE OR STAYED BY THE HIGHER JUDICIAL FORUM. THE REVENUE HAS NOT POINTED OUT ANY DISTINGUISHING FEATURE IN THE FACTS OF THE CASE WITH THAT OF THE A SSESSEES OWN CASE IN EARLIER YEAR. THEREFORE, RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING OUR FINDINGS IN THE EARLIER YEAR AND FOR SIMILAR REASONS, WE HOLD THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT DEFAULTED IN DEDUCTION OF TDS ON THE IMPUGNED PAYMENTS MADE. ACCORDINGLY, WE SET ASIDE THE ORD ER OF THE LD. CIT(APPEALS) AND ALLOW THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE. 8. IN THE RESULT, APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IN ITA NO.1255/PUN/2017 IS ALLOWED. ITA NO.1257 /PUN/2017 A.Y.2009 - 10 9. THAT WITH REGARD TO THIS APPEAL, THE LD. AR OF THE ASSESSEE DEMONSTRATED THAT THE ISSUE RAISED IN THIS APPEAL IS COVERED BY THE DECISION OF THE PUNE BENCH OF THE TRIBUNAL IN ASSESSEES OWN CASE IN ITA 7 ITA NO S . 1255 & 1257 /PUN/20 17 A.Y. 2009 - 10 NO. 627/PUN/2017 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2009 - 10. IN PAR A 12 OF THE TRIBUNALS ORDER, IT WAS HELD AND OBSERVED AS FOLLOWS: 12. NOW, COMING TO ENHANCEMENT MADE BY CIT(A) I.E. ON ACCOUNT OF PAYMENT FOR WEB BASED TRAINING FEES AND ALSO PAYMENT AGAINST REIMBURSEMENT OF EXPATS SALARIES. THE FIRST ISSUE WAS ADJUDICATED BY TRIBUNAL VIDE PARA 102 ONWARDS AND VIDE PARA 106 IT WAS CONCLUDED THAT IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY TRANSFER OF TECHNOLOGY, THE PAYMENT IS NOT COVERED UNDER THE DEFINITION OF FEES FOR TECHNICAL SERVICES AND HENCE, THERE WAS NO LIABILITY UPON THE ASSESSEE TO DEDUCT TAX AT SOURCE OUT OF PAYMENTS MADE FOR WEB BASED TRAINING. FOLLOWING THE SAME PARITY OF REASONING, WE HOLD THAT ASSESSEE COULD NOT BE HELD TO BE IN DEFAULT UNDER SECTION 201(1) AND 201(1A) OF THE ACT IN RESPECT OF PAYMENTS MADE FOR WEB B ASED TRAINING. WE OBSERVE THAT THE TRIBUNAL IN THE ORDER HAS HELD THAT THE ASSESSEE COULD NOT BE HELD TO BE IN DEFAULT UNDER SECTION 201(1) AND 201(1A) OF THE ACT IN RESPECT OF PAYMENTS MADE FOR WEB BASED TRAINING AND THEREFORE, THE ASSESSEE ALSO COULD NOT BE STATED TO HAVE DEFAULTED IN DEDUCTION OF TDS U/S.40(A)(IA) OF THE ACT. IN VIEW OF EXAMINATION OF FACTS ON RECORD AND THE JUDICIAL PRONOUNCEMENTS PLACED BEFORE US, WE ALLOW THIS APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE. 10. IN THE RESULT, APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IN IT A NO.1257/PUN/2017 IS ALLOWED. 11. IN THE COMBINED RESULT, BOTH THE APPEALS OF THE ASSESSEE IN ITA NOS.1255 & 1257/PUN/2017 ARE ALLOWED. ORDER PRO NOUNCED ON 05 TH DAY OF DEC EMBER , 201 9 . SD/ - SD/ - R.S.SYAL PARTHA SARATHI CHAUDHURY VICE PRESIDENT JUDICIAL MEMBER / PUNE; / DATED : 05 TH DECE MBER , 2019 . SB 8 ITA NO S . 1255 & 1257 /PUN/20 17 A.Y. 2009 - 10 / COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. / THE APPELLANT. 2. / THE RESPONDENT. 3. THE CIT(APPEALS) - 7, PUNE. 4. THE CIT - 6, PUNE 5 . , , , / DR, ITAT, C BENCH, PUNE. 6 . / GUARD FILE. // TRUE COPY // / BY ORDER, / PRIVATE SECRETARY , / ITAT, PUNE . 9 ITA NO S . 1255 & 1257 /PUN/20 17 A.Y. 2009 - 10 DATE 1 DRAFT DICTATED ON 0 3 . 12 .2019 SR.PS/PS 2 DRAFT PLACED BEFORE AUTHOR 03 .12 .201 9 SR.PS/PS 3 DRAFT PROPOSED AND PLACED BEFORE THE SECOND MEMBER JM/AM 4 DRAFT DISCUSSED/APPROVED BY SECOND MEMBER AM/JM 5 APPROVED DRAFT COMES TO THE SR. PS/PS SR.PS/PS 6 KEPT FOR PRONOUNCEMENT ON SR.PS/PS 7 DATE OF UPLOADING OF ORDER SR.PS/PS 8 FILE SENT TO BENCH CLERK SR.PS/PS 9 DATE ON WHICH THE FILE GOES TO THE HEAD CLERK 10 DATE ON WHICH FILE GOES TO THE A.R 11 DATE OF DISPATCH OF ORDER