ADIT, Dehradun V. M/s. Siem Offshore Inc., Dehradun

ITA 1283/DEL/2013

• Counselvise Citation: [2014] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 81685 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 6 month(s) 4 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 09-09-2014
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: G
• Next Hearing Date: 12-08-2014
• Assessment Year: 2008-2009
• Appeal Filed On: 05-03-2013
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Keywords: Double taxation relief
• Section: 234B; 28

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL (DELHI BENCH G , NEW DELHI) BEFORE SHRI JOGINDER SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI T.S. KAPOOR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER I.T.A. NO. 1295/DEL/2013 (ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2008-09) SIEM OFFSHORE AS VS. ADIT, (INTERNATIONAL C/O NEERAJ D AGARWALA & ASSOCIATES, TAXATION), DE HRADUN 1 ST FLOOR, BAHUBALI BUILDING, 17/1/H, CAWASJI PATEL STREET, FORT MUMBAI-400001 GIR / PAN:AAKCS7217G I.T.A.NO. 6181/DEL/2012 (ASSESSMENT YEAR 2008-09) SIEM OFFSHORE INC., VS. ADIT, (INTERNATIONAL 601, GATEWAY PLAZA, TAXATION), DEHRADUN HIRANANDANI GARDENS, MUMBAI GIR / PAN: AAKCS6466R I.T.A.NO. 1283/DEL/2013 (ASSESSMENT YEAR 2008-09) ADIT, INTERNATIONAL VS. SIEM OFFSHORE INC.. TAXATION, DEHRADUN 75/7, RAJPUR ROAD, DEHRADUN (APPELLANTS) (RESPONDENTS) APPELLANT BY : SHRI AMIT ARORA, ADV. RESPONDENT BY : SHRI SANJEEV KUMAR, CIT DR ORDER PER BENCH: THESE ARE THREE APPEALS OUT OF WHICH I.T.A.NO. 129 5/DEL/2013 AND I.T.A.NO. 6181/DEL/2012 HAVE BEEN FILED BY THE ASSE SSEE AGAINST SEPARATE ORDERS OF LD. CIT(A) DATED 20.12.2012 AND 25.10.201 2 RESPECTIVELY. THE ITA NO.1295/DEL/2013 I.T.A.NO. 6181/DEL/2012 I.T.A.NO. 1283/DEL/2013 2 I.T.A.NO. 1283/DEL/2013 HAS BEEN FLED BY THE REVENU E AGAINST CIT(A)S ORDER DATED 20.12.2012 2. IN I.T.A.NO. 1295/DEL/2013 VIDE GROUND NO.1, THE ASSESSEE IS AGGRIEVED WITH THE ACTION OF LD. CIT(A) BY WHICH HE HAS CONFIRMED THE ADDITION MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER BY CALCULATI NG TAX ON GROSS RECEIPTS. IN THE 2 ND GROUND OF APPEAL, THE ASSESSEE IS AGGRIEVED WITH T HE ACTION OF LD. CIT(A) BY WHICH HE HAD CONFIRMED THE ADDITION MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER BY HOLDING THE RECEIPT RECEIVED BY THE ASSE SSEE AS FEE FOR TECHNICAL SERVICES UNDER ARTICLE13 OF DTAA BETWEEN INDIA AND NORWAY INSTEAD OF TAXING IT U/S 44BB OF INCOME-TAX ACT, 1961. 3. IN I.T.A.NO. 6181/DEL/2012, ONLY ONE GROUND OF A PPEAL HAS BEEN TAKEN WHICH IS SIMILAR TO GROUND NO.1 AS IN I.T.A.N O. 1295/DEL/2013. 4. IN I.T.A.NO. 1283/DEL/2013, THE REVENUE IS AGGR IEVED WITH THE ACTION OF LD. CIT(A) BY WHICH HE HAD HELD THAT INTEREST U/ S 234B WAS NOT CHARGEABLE IN THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE. 5. AT THE OUTSET, THE LD. A.R. SUBMITTED THAT THE 1 ST GROUND TAKEN BY THE ASSESSEE IN I.T.A.NO. 1295/DEL/2013 AND IN I.T.A.NO . 6181/DEL/2012WAS COVERED AGAINST THE ASSESSEE BY A NUMBER OF DECISIO NS OF UTTARANCHAL HIGH COURT SUCH AS SEDCO FOREX INTERNATIONAL INC. VS CIT 299 ITR 238, COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX V. HALLIBURTON OFFSHORE SERVICES INC. [2008] 300 ITR 265 (UTTARAKHAND), COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX V. TRANS OCEAN OFFSHORE INC. [2008] 299 ITR 248 (UTTARAKHAND). LD . D.R. IN RESPECT OF GROUND NO.1 HEAVILY RELIED UPON THE WRITTEN SYNOPSI S FILED BY HIM AND OUR SPECIFIC ATTENTION WAS INVITED TO PARA 14 TO 14.3 W HICH IS EXTRACTED BELOW: 14. PROVISIONS OF SECTION 5 (2) (B) APPLIES TO THE ASSESSEE BEING A NON-RESIDENT. THE REFERENCE TO CLAUSE (A) OF EXPLAN ATION TO SECTION 9 (1) (I) OF THE ACT AND SECTION 9(1)(VII) OF THE ACT BY THE ASSESSEE TO ITA NO.1295/DEL/2013 I.T.A.NO. 6181/DEL/2012 I.T.A.NO. 1283/DEL/2013 3 CLAIM THATS THE VESSEL WAS PHYSICALLY OUTSIDE INDI A FOR NOVEMBER 2007 ( 26 DAYS) TO JANUARY 2008 (14 DAYS) THE BUSIN ESS ACTIVITIES WERE OUTSIDE INDIA AND THE SERVICES ARE UTILIZED OUTSIDE INDIA AND THE SOURCE OUTSIDE INDIA AND THE REVENUE RECEIVED BY TH E ASSESSEE FOR THIS PERIOD DOES NOT ACCRUE HENCE IS NOT TAXABLE IN INDI A. THIS CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE IS IMPROPER AND LEGALLY UNTENABLE FOR THE FOLLOWING REASONS. 14.1 SECTION 28 DEFINES THE SCOPE OF PROFITS AND G AINS OF THE BUSINESS OR PROFESSION. THE SECTION 28(I) DEALS WITH THE PRO FITS AND GAINS OF ANY BUSINESS OR PROFESSION WHICH WAS CARRIED ON BY THE ASSESSEE AT ANY GIVEN TIME DURING THE PREVIOUS YEAR. MOBILIZATION A ND DEMOBILIZATION ARE ACTIVITIES IN CONNECTION WITH THE BUSINESS OF T HE ASSESSEE IN INDIA. THE MOVEMENT OF THE VESSEL WHICH IS MANAGED BY THE ASSESSEE IS A PART OF THE BUSINESS OF THE ASSESSEE THAT IS CARRIE D OUT IN INDIA AND IT IS NOT AN INDEPENDENT BUSINESS OR EVEN AN INDEPENDENT ACTIVITY CARRIED BY THE ASSESSEE. 14.2 THE INCOME IN THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE IS NO D OUBT ACCRUING OR ARISING IN INDIA AS THE BUSINESS IS BEING UNDERTAKE N IN INDIA. THE SOURCE OF REVENUE ORIGINATES FROM ONGC WHO PAYS TO EMGS WHO IN TURN PAYS TO SIEM OFFSHORE INC AND THE ASSESSEE REC EIVE FEE FROM THAT ENTITY. 14.3 SECTION 9 TAKES INTO ACCOUNT SITUATIONS WHERE A BUSINESS CONSISTS OF MANY OPERATIONS/ACTIVITIES WHICH ARE MAINLY CARRIED OUT 'OUT OF INDIA' BY THE NON-RESIDENT AND DUE TO SOME BUSINESS CONNECTIO N IN INDIA IN RELATION TO THE SAME BUSINESS, THE INCOME ACCRUING OR ARISING, WHETHER DIRECTLY OR INDIRECTLY, IS TAXABLE IN INDIA. IN THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE THE BUSINESS IS BEING CARRIED OUT IN INDIA. IT CANNOT BE THE CASE O F THE ASSESSEE THAT IT IS CARRYING OUT ITS MAIN 'BUSINESS' OUTSIDE INDIA AND ONLY INCOME FROM THE OPERATIONS CARRIED OUT IN INDIA IS TAXABLE. THE ASS ESSEE HAS CARRIED OUT ITS BUSINESS IN INDIA AND SOURCE OF INCOME IS IN INDIA AND ALL RECEIPTS ARE TAXABLE IN INDIA. IN CASE OF THE ASSESSEE THERE ARE NO BUSINESS OPERATIONS OUTSIDE INDIA IN CONNECTION WITH THE PAYMENTS RECEI VED BY IT. ITA NO.1295/DEL/2013 I.T.A.NO. 6181/DEL/2012 I.T.A.NO. 1283/DEL/2013 4 6. LD. A.R. SUBMITTED THAT HE HAD ALREADY STATED TH AT THE ISSUE RAISED IN GROUND NO.1 IS AGAINST THE ASSESSEE. 7. AS REGARDS THE 2 ND GROUND IN I.T.A.NO. 1295/DEL/2013, LD. A.R. SUBMITTED THAT HE SAME IS COVERED IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE IN ITS OWN CASE FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEARS 2006-07 AND 2007-08 IN I.T .A.NOS. 5631 AND 5632/DEL/2010 AND IN THIS RESPECT OUR ATTENTION WAS INVITED TO PAGE 88 AND 89 OF THE SAID ORDER WHEREIN VIDE PARA 183 AT PAGE 89, THE TRIBUNAL HAD DECIDED THE ISSUE IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE AND HAD ALSO HELD THAT THE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE WAS TO BE TAXED U/S 44BB OF THE ACT . HOWEVER, LD. D.R. SUBMITTED THAT THE ISSUE CANNOT BE SAID TO BE COVER ED IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE AS HON'BLE DELHI HIGH COURT HAS PASSED AN ORDER DATED 09.07.2014 IN THE CASE OF PGS GEOPHYSICAL AS VS ADIT WHEREIN T HE HON'BLE HIGH COURT HAS LAID DOWN LAW REGARDING TAXABILITY FOR FT S FOR ASSESSMENT YEARS PRIOR TO 2011-12 AND IN THIS RESPECT, A COPY OF THE ORDER OF HON'BLE HIGH COURT WAS PLACED ON RECORD AND A COPY WAS PROVIDED TO LD. A.R. AND WE WERE TAKEN TO PARAGRAPH 20 OF THE SAID ORDER WHEREI N IT HAS BEEN HELD THAT THE RECEIPT OF THE ASSESSEE CAN BE TAXED U/S 44BB ONLY IF THE ASSESSEE HAS A PE IN INDIA DURING THE RELEVANT PERIOD AND THE CONTRAC T ENTERED INTO BY THE ASSESSEE IN INDIA WAS EFFECTIVELY CONNECTED WITH TH AT PE IN INDIA. LD. D.R. SUBMITTED THAT ABOVE FINDINGS HAVE NOT BEEN MADE IN THE APPEALS UNDER CONSIDERATION, THEREFORE, THE CASE NEEDS TO GO BACK TO THE ASSESSING OFFICER WHO SHOULD ASCERTAIN THE EXISTENCE OF ABOVE TWO CON DITIONS AND ONLY IF THESE CONDITIONS EXISTED THE INCOME CAN BE TAXED U/S 44BB OF THE ACT OTHERWISE INCOME NEEDS TO BE TAXED AS FEE FROM TECHNICAL SERV ICES. THE LD. A.R. AGREED THAT THE EXISTENCE OF PE AND THE FACT THAT CONTRACT WAS EFFECTIVELY CONNECTED WITH PE IN INDIA WERE NOT EXAMINED BY ASS ESSING OFFICER AND, ITA NO.1295/DEL/2013 I.T.A.NO. 6181/DEL/2012 I.T.A.NO. 1283/DEL/2013 5 THEREFORE, HE AGREED THAT THE MATER CAN BE SENT BAC K FOR EXAMINATION ON THESE LINES. 8. AS REGARDS THE REVENUES APPEAL IN I.T.A.NO. 128 3/DEL/2013, LD. D.R. CONCEDED THAT THIS ISSUE IS AGAINST THE REVENU E AS HELD BY THE TRIBUNAL IN ITS OWN CASE IN I.T.A.NO. 5631 & 5632/DEL/2010 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEARS 2006-07 & 2007-08 ONLY IF TAX HAD BEEN DEDUCTED AT SOURCE ON PAYMENTS MADE TO ASSESSEE. LD. A.R. MADE A STATEMENT AT BAR THAT TAX WAS DEDUCTED FROM THE PAYMENTS MADE TO ASSESSEE. 9. WE HAVE HEARD RIVAL PARTIES AND HAVE GONE THROUG H THE MATERIAL PLACED ON RECORD. WE FIND THAT THE CASES HEARD BY US BEL ONG TO TWO DIFFERENT ASSESSEES ONE BELONGING TO NORWAY AND ONE BELONGING TO USA. BOTH ASSESSEES ARE PROVIDING SIMILAR SERVICES OF VESSEL MANAGEMENT SERVICES IN INDIA. THE ASSESEES INCOME IN THE EARLIER YEARS H AS BEEN HELD TO BE TAXABLE U/S 44BB OF THE ACT. HOWEVER, THE CASE LAW RELIED UPON BY THE LD. D.R. ALSO HAS SIMILAR FACTS AND ASSESSEE IN THAT CASE IS ENGAGED IN SIMILAR ACTIVITIES. HON'BLE DELHI HIGH COURT IN THAT CASE VIDE PARA 20 HAS HELD THAT INCOME OF ASSESSEES ENGAGED IN SUCH ACTIVITIES CAN BE TAXED U/S 44BB ONLY IF THE TWO CONDITIONS ARE FULFILLED. ONE OF THE CONDI TIONS IS EXISTENCE OF PE IN INDIA AND SECOND IS REGARDING EFFECTIVE CONNECTION OF SUCH CONTRACT WITH THE PE IN INDIA. IN THIS RESPECT, PARA 20 OF HON'BLE H IGH COURT IS REPRODUCED BELOW: 20. HAVING STATED THE ABOVE, WE MUST CLARIFY THAT THE INCOME FALLING WITHIN SECTION 115A(1)(B) OF THE ACT WHICH DOES NOT FALL WITHIN THE FOUR CORNERS OF SECTION 44DA(1) OF THE ACT WOULD AL SO NOT BE TAXABLE UNDER SECTION 44BB(1) OF THE ACT, FOR THE REASON TH AT BY VIRTUE OF PROVISO TO SECTION 44BB(1) OF THE ACT, THE SAME IS EXCLUDED. ACCORDINGLY, THE ASSESSING OFFICER WOULD SPECIFICAL LY HAVE TO DETERMINE (A) WHETHER THE ASSESSEE HAD A PE IN INDI A DURING THE ITA NO.1295/DEL/2013 I.T.A.NO. 6181/DEL/2012 I.T.A.NO. 1283/DEL/2013 6 RELEVANT PERIOD; AND (B) IF SO, WHETHER THE CONTRAC TS ENTERED INTO BY THE APPELLANT WITH BG AND RIL WERE EFFECTIVELY CONC ERNED WITH THE APPELLANTS PE IN INDIA. IT IS ONLY, IF THE ASSESS ING OFFICER FINDS THAT THE SAID TWO CONDITIONS WERE SATISFIED, THAT THE IN COME OF THE ASSESSEE WOULD BE COMPUTED UNDER SECTION 44BB(1) OF THE ACT. HOWEVER, IF SUCH CONDITIONS ARE NOT SATISFIED THEN THE INCOME T AX PAYABLE BY THE APPELLANT WOULD BE COMPUTED IN ACCORDANCE WITH SECT ION 115A(1)(B) OF THE ACT. 10. THOUGH THIS ISSUE IS COVERED IN FAVOUR OF THE A SSESSEE IN ITS OWN CASE BUT HON'BLE HIGH COURT HAS FURTHER CLARIFIED THE SI MILAR ISSUE IN ITS ORDER DATED 09.07.2014 IN THE CASE OF PGS GEOPHYSICAL AS, THEREFORE, IN THIS YEAR THE ISSUE CANNOT BE DECIDED BY FOLLOWING EARLIER YE ARS. 11. WE FIND THAT THE ISSUE DECIDED BY HON'BLE HIGH COURT IS PERI-MATERIA WITH THE GROUND NO.2 IN I.T.A.NO. 1295/DEL/2013, TH EREFORE, GROUND NO.2 IN I.T.A.NO.1295/DEL/2013 IS RESTORED TO THE OFFICE OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER WITH THE DIRECTION TO ASCERTAIN THE EXISTENCE OF CO NDITIONS AS PER PARA 20 OF THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT ORDER AND THEN DETERMINE THE TAX ON THE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE AS PER LAW. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE GRO UND NO.1 IN I.T.A.NO. 1295/DEL/2013 IS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. 12. AS REGARDS GROUND NO.1 IN I.T.A.NO. 1295/DEL/20 13 AND 6181/DEL/2012 WE FIND THAT THE ISSUE HAS BEEN DECID ED IN VARIOUS CASES BY UTTARANCHAL HIGH COURT BY WHICH THE ISSUE HAS BEEN DECIDED AGAINST THE ASSESSEE. THEREFORE, WITHOUT COMMENTING UPON ARGUM ENTS OF LD. D.R. AS CONTAINED IN HIS SYNOPSIS, WE HAVE DECIDED THE ISSU E AGAINST THE ASSESSEE BY FOLLOWING THE JUDGEMENT OF HON'BLE UTTARAKHAND HIGH COURT. FOR THE SAKE OF CONVENIENCE, THE FINDINGS OF UTTARANCHAL HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF SEDCO FOREX INTERNATIONAL INC. VS CIT 299 ITR 238 ARE REP RODUCED BELOW: IN THE PRESENT CASE, A FINDING HAS BEEN RECORDED B Y THE INCOME-TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL THAT IT WAS NOT IN DISPUTE BEFOR E THE TRIBUNAL THAT ITA NO.1295/DEL/2013 I.T.A.NO. 6181/DEL/2012 I.T.A.NO. 1283/DEL/2013 7 THE PAYMENT WAS MADE TO THE APPELLANT-COMPANY OUTSI DE INDIA AND THE MOBILIZATION FEE AS CLAIMED BY THE ASSESSEE WAS PAI D TO THE APPELLANT BY ONGC HAS NO NEXUS WITH THE ACTUAL AMOUNT INCURRE D BY THE APPELLANT-COMPANY FOR TRANSPORTATION OF DRILLING UN ITS OF RIGS TO THE SPECIFIED DRILLING LOCATIONS IN INDIA. HENCE, THE M OBILIZATION FEE IS NOT THE REIMBURSEMENT OF EXPENDITURE. ONGC WAS LIABLE T O PAY A FIXED SUM AS STIPULATED IN THE CONTRACT REGARDLESS OF ACT UAL EXPENDITURE WHICH MAY BE INCURRED BY THE ASSESSEE-COMPANY FOR T HE PURPOSE. IN VIEW OF THE FICTIONAL TAXING PROVISION CONTAINED UN DER SECTION 44BB, THE ASSESSING OFFICER WAS RIGHT IN ADDING THE AMOUN T OF RS. 99,04,000 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 1986-87 AND THE AMOUNT WORT H RS. 64,64,530 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 1987-88 RECEIVED BY THE ASS ESSEE TOWARDS MOBILIZATION CHARGES FOR THE PURPOSE OF IMPOSING IN COME-TAX AND THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (APPEALS) AND THE INCOME -TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL WERE ALSO RIGHT IN UPHOLDING THE ORDER OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER. IN VIEW OF OUR FOREGOING DISCUSSION, THE APPEAL IS DEVOID OF MERIT AND IS DISMISSED ACCORDINGLY. QUESTION IS ANSWERED IN F AVOUR OF THE REVENUE AND AGAINST THE ASSESSEE. THERE SHALL BE NO ORDER AS TO COSTS. 13. IN VIEW OF ABOVE, GROUND NO.1 IN BOTH THE APPEA LS IS DECIDED AGAINST THE ASSESSEE AND ARE DISMISSED. 14. IN NUTSHELL, I.T.A.NO. 1295/DEL/2013 IS PARTLY ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES AND I.T.A.NO. 6181/DEL/2012 IS DISMISSED. 15. AS REGARDS I.T.A.NO. 1283/DEL/2013 WE FIND THAT THE TRIBUNAL IN ITS ORDER DATED 11.07.2010 IN I.T.A.NO. 5631 & 5632/DEL /2010 IN THE CASE OF ASSESSEE ITSELF HAS DECIDED THE ISSUE OF CHARGEABIL ITY OF INTEREST U/S 234B IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE BY HOLDING AS UNDER: INTEREST U/S 234B FOR THE REASONS GIVEN IN I.T.A.N O. 5283/DEL/2010 WE HOLD THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS NOT LIABLE TO PAY INT EREST U/S 234B. ACCORDINGLY, GROUND IS DECIDED IN FAVOUR OF THE ASS ESSEE. ITA NO.1295/DEL/2013 I.T.A.NO. 6181/DEL/2012 I.T.A.NO. 1283/DEL/2013 8 16. WE FIND FROM THE SAME ORDER THAT WHILE DECIDING I.T.A.NO. 5283/DEL/2010 IN RESPECT OF CHARGING OF INTEREST U/ S 234B, THE TRIBUNAL; HAS DECIDED THE ISSUE AT PARA 175 WHICH READS AS UNDER: CONSIDERING THE ENTIRETY OF FACTS, WE DIRECT THE A SSESSING OFFICER NOT TO CHARGE INTEREST U/S 234B IN RESPECT OF ALL CONTR ACTS ENTERED INTO BY THE ASSESSEE WITH VARIOUS ORGANIZATIONS IN INDIA EX CEPT WITH RESPECT OF THE CONTRACTS ENTERED INTO WITH HOEC AND ONGC. AS FAR AS INCOME TAXABLE U/S 44BB IN RESPECT OF VARIOUS CONTRACTS AR E CONCERNED, THE ASSESSEE ITSELF HAS ACCEPTED THE LIABILITY FROM THE VERY BEGINNING AND, THEREFORE IT CANNOT BE INFERRED THAT ASSESSEE WOULD HAVE MADE ANY REPRESENTATION WHICH WOULD HAVE INFLUENCED THE DEDU CTOR COMPANIES FOR NOT DEDUCTING THE TAX. HOWEVER, AS FAR AS CONT RACT WITH HOEC AND ONGC ARE CONCERNED, AS WE HAVE HELD THAT INCOME AROSE IN INDIA, THEREFORE, IN VIEW OF THE DECISION OF HON'BL E DELHI HIGH COURT IN ALCATEL LUCENT USA INC. THE INTEREST U/S 234B IS LEVIABLE. 17. THEREFORE, FOLLOWING THE ABOVE, WE HOLD THAT IN TEREST WAS NOT CHARGEABLE U/S 234B OF THE ACT. 18. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE, APPEAL FILED BY THE REVEN UE IS DISMISSED. 19. IN NUTSHELL I.T.A.NO. 1295/DEL/2013 IS PARTLY A LLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES, I.T.A.NO. 6181/DEL/2012 AND I.T.A.NO. 128 3/DEL/2013 ARE DISMISSED. 20. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON THIS 09 TH DAY OF SEP., 2014. SD./- SD./- (JOGINDER SINGH ) (T.S. KAPOOR ) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER DATE: 09 TH SEP., 2014 SP ITA NO.1295/DEL/2013 I.T.A.NO. 6181/DEL/2012 I.T.A.NO. 1283/DEL/2013 9 COPY FORWARDED TO:- 1. THE APPELLANT 2. THE RESPONDENT 3. THE CIT 4. THE CIT (A)-, NEW DELHI. 5. THE DR, ITAT, LOKNAYAK BHAWAN, KHAN MARKET, NEW DEL HI. TRUE COPY. BY ORDER (ITAT, NEW DELHI).