Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax, V. Foseco India Ltd., Pune

ITA 1481/PUN/2015

• Counselvise Citation: [2017] 127 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 9118 (ITAT-PUNE)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 8 month(s) 18 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 31-07-2017
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Assessment Year: 2010-2011
• Appeal Filed On: 12-11-2015
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: NIRUPAMA KOTRU
• Assessee Lawyers: SOUMEN ADAK ATUL PODDAR
• Keywords: Transfer pricing; International transaction; Non-deduction of tax
• Section: 143(3)

Judgement Text

] IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PUNE BENCH B, PUNE BEFORE MS. SUSHMA CHOWLA, JM AND SHRI ANIL CHATURVEDI, AM . / ITA NOS.1481 AND 1482/PUN/2015 / ASSESSMENT YEARS : 2010-11 & 2011-12 DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 1(2), PUNE. . / APPELLANT V/S M/S. FOESECO INDIA LTD., GAT NO. 921, 922, PUNE NAGAR ROAD, SANASWADI, TALUKA SHIRUR, PUNE 412 208. PAN: AAACF1049H . / RESPONDENT C.O.NOS.36 & 37/PUN/2017 (ARISING OUT OF / ITA NOS.1481 AND 1482/PUN/2015 / ASSESSMENT YEARS : 2010-11 & 2011-12 M/S. FOESECO INDIA LTD., GAT NO. 921, 922, PUNE NAGAR ROAD, SANASWADI, TALUKA SHIRUR, PUNE 412 208. PAN: AAACF1049H . / APPELLANT V/S DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 1(2), PUNE. . / RESPONDENT ASSESSEE BY : SHRI SOUMEN ADAK / ATUL PODDAR REVENUE BY : SMT. NIRUPAMA KOTRU / ORDER PER ANIL CHATURVEDI, AM : THESE TWO APPEALS FILED BY THE REVENUE AND THE C.OS. FILED BY THE ASSESSEE ARE DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDERS OF COMM ISSIONER OF / DATE OF HEARING : 25.07.2017 / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT: 31.07.2017 2 INCOME-TAX (APPEALS)-13, PUNE DT.26.08.2015 FOR THE ASSES SMENT YEARS 20101-11 AND 2011-12. 2. BEFORE US, AT THE OUTSET LD.D.R. SUBMITTED THAT THOUGH THE APPEALS FILED BY THE REVENUE ARE FOR DIFFERENT ASSESSMENT YEARS BUT THE FACTS AND ISSUES INVOLVED IN BOTH THE APPEALS ARE IDE NTICAL EXCEPT FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR AND THE AMOUNTS INVOLVED AND T HEREFORE THE SUBMISSIONS MADE BY THE REVENUE WHILE ARGUING ONE APPEA L WOULD BE EQUALLY APPLICABLE TO OTHER APPEALS ALSO AND THEREFORE, BOTH THE APPEALS CAN BE HEARD TOGETHER. THE AFORESAID SUBMISSION OF THE LD.D.R. HAS NOT BEEN OBJECTED TO BY LD.A.R. WE THEREFOR E, FOR THE SAKE OF CONVENIENCE, PROCEED TO DISPOSE OF BOTH THE AP PEALS BY A CONSOLIDATED ORDER. HOWEVER, WE PROCEED WITH NARRATING T HE FACTS FOR THE APPEAL IN ITA NO.1481/PUN/2015 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2010-11. 3. THE FACTS AS CULLED OUT FROM THE MATERIAL ON RECORD ARE AS UNDER: ASSESSEE IS A COMPANY STATED TO BE ENGAGED IN THE BU SINESS OF MANUFACTURING OF PRODUCTS USED IN METALLURGICAL INDUSTRY. AS SESSEE ELECTRONICALLY FILED ITS RETURN OF INCOME FOR A.Y. 2010-11 ON 06.09.2010 DISCLOSING TOTAL INCOME OF RS.21,61,56,257/-. THE C ASE WAS SELECTED FOR SCRUTINY AND ACCORDINGLY NOTICE U/S 143 (2) OF THE ACT WAS ISSUED ON 20.09.2011 AND SERVED ON THE ASSESSEE. IT WAS NOTICED THAT ASSESSEE HAD ENTERED INTO INTERNATIONAL TRA NSACTIONS WORTH RS.23,92,93,115/ AND THEREFORE A REFERENCE U/S 92CA (1) OF THE ACT WAS MADE TO TRANSFER PRICING OFFICER (TPO) FOR DETERMIN ATION OF ARMS LENGTH PRICE (ALP) OF THE TRANSACTIONS. THE TRANSFER PRIC ING 3 OFFICER (TPO) VIDE ORDER PASSED U/S 92CA(3) DT.10.01.2014 DID NOT ACCEPT THE BENCH-MARKING OF INTERNATIONAL TRANSACTIONS DO NE BY THE ASSESSEE WITH ITS ASSOCIATED ENTERPRISE (A.E) AND MADE AN UPWARD ADJUSTMENT OF RS.6,01,84,323/-. THEREAFTER AO PASSED ORD ER U/S 143(3) R.W.S. 144C(1) OF THE ACT DETERMINING THE TOTAL INCOM E OF RS.27,81,53,529/-. AGGRIEVED BY THE ORDER OF AO, ASSESSEE CARRIED THE MATTER BEFORE LD.CIT(A), WHO BY CONSOLIDATED ORDER OF DT.26.08.2015 (IN APPEAL NO.PN/CIT(A)-13/DCIT, CIR-1(2)/26/2014 - 15/165) GRANTED SUBSTANTIAL RELIEF TO THE ASSESSEE. AGGRIE VED BY THE ORDER OF LD.CIT(A), REVENUE IS NOW IN APPEAL BEFORE US AND HAS RAISED THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS : 1. THE ORDER OF THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) IS CONTRARY TO LAW AND TO THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE. 2. THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (APPEALS) ERRED IN HOLDING THAT THE PAYMENT OF ROYALTY OF RS. 6,01,84,323/- MA DE BY THE ASSESSEE TO FOSECO INTERNATIONAL WAS AT AN EXCESSIVE RATE AN D WAS NOT PAID TO ARMS LENGTH PRICE. 3. THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) ERRED IN FAILING TO APPRECIATE THAT THE ENHANCEMENT OF ROYALTY PAYMENT WAS MADE ONLY AFTER THE RBI PERMITTED ENHANCEMENT IN THE RATE OF ROYALTY PAYMENTS, AS NO SPECIFIC ADDITIONAL BENEFIT CONFERRED TO THE ASSESSEE. 4. THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) ERRED IN FAILING TO APPRECIATE THAT BY VIRTUE OF THE ROYALTY CONTRACT A GREEMENT DATED 01/06/2003, THE ASSESSEE HAD NOT ONLY ACQUIRED EXCL USIVE LICENSE TO USE TRADE MARK FOR PROMOTION, DISTRIBUTION AND SALE OF PRODUCTS MANUFACTURED BY THE ASSESSEE, WHERE AS NO ADDITIONA L BENEFIT WAS RECEIVED BY THE ASSESSEE, IN VIEW OF THE NEW COLLA BORATION AGREEMENT. 5. THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (APPEALS) ERRED IN FAILING TO APPRECIATE THAT BY VIRTUE OF THE NEW COLLABORATION AGREEMENT, NO ADDITIONAL BENEFIT WAS RECEIVED BY THE ASSESSEE. 6. FOR THESE AND SUCH OTHER GROUNDS AS MAY BE URGED AT THE TIME OF THE HEARING, THE ORDER OF THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF I NCOME TAX ( APPEALS) MAY BE VACATED AND THAT OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER BE RESTORED. 4. ASSESSEE IN THE CO.NO.36/PUN/2017 HAS RAISED THE FO LLOWING GROUND : THAT ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX ( APPEALS) WAS NOT JUSTIF IED AND GROSSLY ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE DISALLOWANCE ON ACCOUNT OF COMMISSION PAID BY THE APPELLANT AMOUNTING TO RS.18,12,949/-. 4 5. WE FIRST TAKE UP REVENUES APPEAL IN ITA NO.1481/PUN/ 3015 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2010-11. 6. ALL THE GROUNDS BEING INTER-CONNECTED ARE CONSIDERED TOGETH ER. 6.1 AO NOTICED THAT ASSESSEE IS A 48 YEAR OLD COMPANY AND PART OF FOSECO GROUP WHICH HAS PRESENCE IN 34 COUNTRIES ALL O VER THE WORLD. THE TOTAL SHARE-HOLDING OF THE HOLDING COMPANY, NA MELY FOSECO UK, IN THE ASSESSEES COMPANY WAS 66.48%. ASSE SSEE WAS MAINLY PRODUCING THE PRODUCTS THAT HAVE BEEN DEVELOPED BY THE FOSECO GROUP WORLD-WIDE. AO NOTICED THAT FOR THE TECHN OLOGY OBTAINED FROM FOSECO INTERNATIONAL FOR THE MANUFACTURING O F METALLURGICAL CHEMICALS, ASSESSEE HAD PAID ROYALTY FOR TECHN ICAL KNOWHOW FROM TIME TO TIME. DURING THE YEAR, 2000 THE RE SERVE BANK OF INDIA (RBI) PERMITTED PAYMENT OF ROYALTY OF 2% FOR EXPORTS AND 1% OF DOMESTIC SALES UNDER AUTOMATIC ROUTE ON USE OF TRADEMARKS AND BRAND NAME. THE ASSESSEE UNDER THE S AME SCHEME ENTERED INTO AN AGREEMENT WITH ITS A.E. FOR PAYMENT OF FE E OVER A PERIOD OF 7 YEARS. SOON THEREAFTER RBI LIBERALIZED PAYMEN T OF ROYALTY TO THE EXTENT OF 5% ON LOCAL SALES AND 8% ON EXPORTS. A SSESSEE IMMEDIATELY TERMINATED ITS EARLIER AGREEMENT AND ENTERED INTO A NEW AGREEMENT FOR PAYMENT OF ROYALTY AT A HIGHER RATE. AS P ER THE TPO, THE NEW AGREEMENT DID NOT SHOW THAT ANY SPECIFIC BENEFIT WAS CONFERRED UPON BY THE ASSESSEE AND AS PER HIM THE PAR T AND PARCEL OF THE SCHEME OF TECHNOLOGY TRANSFER FOR WHICH HIGHER ROYALT Y WAS PAID HAD BEEN PREVAILING FOR OVER 40 YEARS. HE ACCORDINGLY H ELD THAT NO BENEFIT HAS BEEN DERIVED BY THE ASSESSEE OUT OF ITS ROY ALTY AGREEMENT DT.01.07.2004 AND THEREFORE THE PAYMENT OF ROYALTY AS PER THE REVIS ED 5 ROYALTY AGREEMENTS WERE NOT JUSTIFIABLE AS ASSESSEE WAS NOT ABLE TO PROVE THAT THE TECHNOLOGY COMMENSURATE WITH NEW TERMS AND CONDITIONS HAS BEEN PROVIDED BY THE A.E. HE ACCORDINGLY HELD THE TRANSACTION NOT TO BE AT ARMS LENGTH. HE THEREAFTER DETERMINED THE EXCESS ROYALTY PAID BY THE ASSESSEE AT RS.6,01,84,323/- AND PROPOSED ITS ADJUSTMENT. THE ADDITION AS SPECIFIED BY TPO WAS MADE BY THE AO. AGGRIEVED BY THE ORDER OF AO, ASSESSEE CARR IED THE MATTER BEFORE LD.CIT(A) WHO DELETED THE ADDITION BY HOLDING AS UNDER : 2.2.1 THE LEARNED TPO HAS MADE THE ADJUSTMENT TO THE INTERNATIONAL TRANSACTION OF THE PAYMENT OF ROYALTY SIMILAR TO THE ADJUSTMENT MADE BY HIM IN THE EARLIER ASSESSMENT YE ARS. THE APPELLANT COMPANY HAS PAID ROYALTY @ 5% OF NET SALE S ON THE PRODUCTS SOLD IN INDIA AND @ 8% ON NET SALES ON THE VALUE OF THE PRODUCTS EXPORTED TO ITS AE- FOSECO INTERNATIONAL. THESE PAYMENTS WERE MADE IN PURSUANCE TO ITS AGREEMENT DATED 01.07 .2004. PRIOR TO THIS, THE APPELLANT PAID ROYALTY @ 1% ON ITS DOMEST IC SALES AND @ 2% ON ITS EXPORT SALES MADE TO ITS AE. DURING THE YEAR , THE LEARNED TPO MADE AN ADJUSTMENT TO THE ROYALTY PAYMENT BY RESTRI CTING THE PAYMENT @ 1% ON DOMESTIC SALES AND @ 2% ON EXPORT S ALES ON GROUND THAT THE INCREASE IN RATE OF ROYALTY PAYMENT WAS NO T JUSTIFIED. 2.2.2 THE LEARNED AO HAS ELABORATED RELEVANT LEGAL PROVISIONS AT GREAT LENGTH IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER AND HAS CONCLUDED AS TO HOW THE ADJUSTMENT TO THE INTERNATIONAL TRANSACTION OF ROYA LTY IS REQUIRED TO BE MADE. IT HAS ALSO DEALT WITH THE APPELLANT'S ARGUME NTS IN DETAIL IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER. I DO NOT REPRODUCE THE LEARNED AO 'S ARGUMENTS AND THE APPELLANT'S ARGUMENTS BEFORE THE LEARNED AO AND BEFORE ME IN THIS ORDER AS I HAVE DEALT WITH THESE ARGUMENTS IN MY DECISION ON THIS ADJUSTMENT IN THE APPELLANT'S APPEAL FOR THE A Y 2009-10 AND ALSO IN MY APPELLATE ORDER IN THE APPELLANT'S CASE FOR A Y 2005-06, 2007- 08 AND 2008-09. 2.2.3 THE APPELLANT PRAYED THAT IN VIEW OF THE FAVO URABLE ORDERS OF THE CIT(A) IN THE EARLIER YEARS ON THIS GROUND, THE DISALLOWANCE MADE BY THE LEARNED AO ON ACCOUNT OF PAYMENT OF ROYALTY TO ITS AE BE DELETED. FINDINGS 2.2.4. AS STATED ABOVE, APPELLATE ORDER OF AY 2009- 10 DATED 09.04.2014 AND ALSO IN THE APPELLATE ORDERS OF AY 2 005-06, 2007-08 AND 2008-09 DATED 07.08.2013, I HAVE DELETED THE AD JUSTMENT MADE ON ACCOUNT OF PAYMENT OF ROYALTY TO ITS AE. I DO NO T FIND ANY DIFFERENCE IN THE FACTS OF THIS YEAR REQUIRING RECONSIDERATION OF MY EARLIER DECISION. THEREFORE, BY FOLLOWING MY OWN DECISION I N THE APPELLANT'S CASE FOR THE EARLIER YEARS, I DELETE THE ADJUSTMENT OF RS. 6,01,84,323 ON ACCOUNT OF THE PAYMENT OF ROYALTY MADE TO ITS AE . 6 AGGRIEVED BY THE ORDER OF LD.CIT(A), REVENUE IS NOW IN APPE AL BEFORE US. 7. BEFORE US, AT THE OUTSET, LD.A.R. SUBMITTED THAT IDENTICA L ISSUE AROSE IN ASSESSEES OWN CASE IN A.Y. 2005-06 TO 2009-10 . THE CO- ORDINATE BENCH OF THE TRIBUNAL IN A.Y. 2009-10, BY FOLLOWING T HE ORDER OF CO-ORDINATE BENCH OF THE TRIBUNAL FOR A.YS.2005-06 TO 2008- 09, DECIDED THE ISSUE IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE. HE POINT ED TO THE RELEVANT FINDING OF THE CO-ORDINATE BENCH OF THE TRIBUNAL. H E THEREFORE SUBMITTED THAT SINCE THE FACTS OF THE CASE FOR TH E YEAR UNDER APPEAL ARE IDENTICAL TO THAT OF EARLIER YEARS, NO INTERFERE NCE TO THE ORDER OF LD.CIT(A) IS CALLED FOR. ON THE OTHER HAND, LD.D.R. DID NOT CONTROVERT THE SUBMISSIONS MADE BY LD.A.R. BUT HOWEVER SUPPORTED THE ORDER OF TPO/AO. 8. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND PERUSED THE MATERIAL ON RECORD. THE ISSUE IN THE PRESENT GROUND IS WITH RES PECT TO ADJUSTMENT OF ACCOUNT OF ROYALTY PAYMENT. WE FIND THAT IDENTICAL ISSUE OF ADJUSTMENT ON ACCOUNT OF ROYALTY WAS MADE BY AO IN EARLIER YEARS. THE ISSUE WAS DECIDED BY THE CO-ORDINATE BENCH OF THE TRIBUNAL IN A.Y. 2009-10 IN ASSESSEES FAVOUR BY FOLLOWING THE ORDER OF CO-ORDINATE BENCH OF THE TRIBUNAL FOR A.YS. 2005-06 TO 2 009-10. THE RELEVANT FINDINGS OF CO-ORDINATE BENCH OF THE TRIBUNAL WHILE DECIDING THE ISSUE IN A.Y. 2009-10 READS AS UNDER : 9. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND PERUSED THE MATERIAL ON RECORD. WE FIND THAT LD. CIT(A) WHILE DECIDING THE ISSUE IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE HAS NOTED THAT VIDE AGREEMENT DT.01.06 .2003 THAT WAS 7 ENTERED BETWEEN ASSESSEE AND ITS AE, ASSESSEE DID N OT HAD THE LICENCE TO MANUFACTURE WHEREAS AS PER THE NEW AGREE MENT ASSESSEE HAD LICENCE TO MANUFACTURE. HE FURTHER HELD THAT T POS CONCLUSION THAT ASSESSEE ALREADY HAD LICENCE TO MANUFACTURE WA S NOT BASED ON FACTS ON RECORDS. LD. CIT(A) HAD FURTHER FOLLOWED HIS OWN ORDER FOR ASSESSMENT YEARS 2005-06 TO 2008-09. WE FIND THAT WHEN THE MATTER FOR A.Y. 2005-06 TO 2008-09 WAS CARRIED BEFORE THE CO-ORDINATE BENCH OF THE TRIBUNAL, THE CO-ORDINATE BENCH OF THE TRIB UNAL UPHELD THE ORDER OF LD. CIT(A) BY HOLDING AS UNDER : 10. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND PERUS ED THE MATERIAL ON RECORD. THE ISSUE IN THE PRESENT CASE I S WITH REFERENCE TO ADJUSTMENT OF ROYALTY PAYMENT BY THE ASSESSEE TO ITS AE BY CONSIDERING IT TO BE EXCESSIVE. IT IS AN UNDISPUTED FACT THAT ASSESSEE HAD ENTERED INTO AN AGREEMENT WITH FOSECO INTERNATIONAL ON 1.7.2004 AND THE PAYMENT OF ROYALTY IS AS PER TH E AFORESAID AGREEMENT. IT IS ALSO AN UNDISPUTED FACT THAT THE P ERCENTAGE OF ROYALTY PAYMENT MADE BY THE ASSESSEE TO ITS AE IS A S PER THE LIBERALIZED SCHEME OF RBI. THE ONLY REASON FOR DISA LLOWANCE OF ROYALTY PAYMENT BY THE TPO/AO IS THAT THE AS PER TH E EARLIER AGREEMENT ENTERED BY THE ASSESSEE THE RATE OF ROYAL TY WAS LESS THAN THE RATE OF ROYALTY THAT WAS AGREED AS PER THE AGREEMENT DATED 1.7.2004 AND THEREFORE ACCORDING TO TPO THE P AYMENT OF ROYALTY WAS EXCESSIVE AND THAT NO BENEFIT WAS DERIV ED BY THE ASSESSEE BY MAKING THE EXCESS ROYALTY PAYMENT. WE F IND THAT LD CIT(A) WHILE DECIDING THE ISSUE HAS GIVEN A FINDING THAT THAT THE FIRST AGREEMENT DATED 30.4.2003 THAT WAS ENTERED I NTO BY THE ASSESSEE WITH FOSECO INTERNATIONAL WAS ONLY WITH RE SPECT TO ACQUISITION OF LICENCE TO USE THE TRADEMARK OF FOSE CO WHEREAS THE SECOND AGREEMENT DATED 1.7.2004 ENTERED BY THE ASSE SSEE WITH FOSECO INTERNATIONAL WAS A MUCH WIDER AGREEMENT IN ITS SCOPE AS IT INTER ALIA GRANTED THE ASSESSEE RIGHT TO MANUFACTUR E, HAVE MANUFACTURED, USE AND SELL THE PRODUCTS IN INDIA AN D OUTSIDE INDIA AND THUS THE SCOPE OF SECOND AGREEMENT WAS MUCH WID ER THAN THE FIRST AGREEMENT. HE HAS FURTHER GIVEN A FINDING THA T THE BENEFIT TEST ADOPTED BY TPO/AO FOR DISALLOWING THE ROYALTY PAYME NT CANNOT BE APPLIED BECAUSE BENEFIT TEST IS APPLICABLE FOR AVAI LING SERVICES AND CANNOT BE APPLIED FOR ACQUISITION OF RIGHTS AND THA T THERE IS NO CONCEPT OF APPLICATION OF BENEFIT TEST UNDER INDIAN TRANSFER PRICING REGULATIONS. BEFORE US, REVENUE HAS NEITHER BROUGHT ANY MATERIAL ON RECORD TO CONTROVERT THE FINDINGS OF LD.CIT(A) N OR HAS PLACED ON RECORD ANY CONTRARY BINDING DECISION. REVENUE HAS A LSO NOT PLACED ANY MATERIAL ON RECORD TO DEMONSTRATE AS TO HOW THE DECISIONS RELIED UPON BY THE LD AR ARE NOT APPLICABLE TO THE PRESENT FACTS. WE FURTHER FIND THAT THE DECISIONS RELIED UPON BY T HE LD.AR AND THE DECISION OF THE HON'BLE BOMBAY HIGH COURT IN THE CA SE OF SGS INDIA PVT. LTD(SUPRA) ARE SQUARELY APPLICABLE TO THE PRES ENT FACTS. IN VIEW OF THE AFORESAID FACTS, WE FIND NO REASON TO INTERF ERE WITH THE ORDER OF LD.CIT(A) AND THUS THE GROUNDS OF REVENUE ARE DISMISSED. 11. AS FAR THE GROUNDS OF REVENUE IN A.Y. 2007 0 8 & 2008 09 ARE CONCERNED, SINCE BOTH THE PARTIES BEFORE US HAV E SUBMITTED THAT THE GROUNDS RAISED BY THE REVENUE IN ITS APPEAL FOR AY 2007-08 AND 2008-09 ARE IDENTICAL TO THE GROUND RAISED BY THE R EVENUE IN AY 2005-06, WE THEREFORE FOR SIMILAR REASONS AS STATED HEREIN ABOVE WHILE DISPOSING THE APPEAL FOR REVENUE FOR AY 2005- 06 AND FOR SIMILAR REASONS, DISMISS THE GROUNDS OF REVENUE IN AY 2007-08 AND AY 2008-09. 12. IN THE RESULT ALL THE APPEALS OF REVENUE ARE DISM ISSED. 8 10. BEFORE US, REVENUE HAS NOT POINTED OUT ANY DIST INGUISHING FEATURE IN THE FACTS OF THE PRESENT CASE AND THAT OF THE EARLIER YEARS NOR HAS PLACED ANY MATERIAL ON RECORD TO DEMONSTRATE THAT THE ORDERS OF TRIBUNAL IN ASSESSEES OWN CASE FOR EARLIER YEAR S THAT WAS FOLLOWED BY LD. CIT(A) HAD BEEN SET ASIDE BY HIGHER JUDICIAL FORUM. IN VIEW OF THESE FACTS, WE FIND NO REASON TO INTERFERE WITH TH E ORDER OF LD. CIT(A) AND THEREFORE FOLLOWING THE SAME REASONING AS FOR A .Y. 2005-06 TO A.Y. 2008-09 AND FOR SIMILAR REASONS THE GROUNDS OF THE APPEAL OF REVENUE ARE DISMISSED. 9. BEFORE US, REVENUE HAS NOT POINTED OUT ANY DISTINGUISH ING FEATURE IN THE FACTS OF THE PRESENT CASE AND THAT OF THE EARLIER YEARS NOR HAS PLACED ANY MATERIAL ON RECORD TO DEMONSTRATE T HAT THE ORDERS OF TRIBUNAL IN ASSESSEES OWN CASE FOR EARLIER YEARS THAT WAS FOLLOWED BY LD. CIT(A) HAD BEEN SET ASIDE BY HIGHER JUDICIAL FORUM. IN VIEW OF THE AFORESAID FACTS, WE FIND NO REASON TO INTERFERE WITH THE ORDER OF LD. CIT(A) AND THEREFORE FOLLOWING THE SAME REASONING AS GIVE N BY THE CO-ORDINATE BENCH OF THE TRIBUNAL WHILE DECIDING THE APPEA L IN A.Y. 2009-10 AND FOR SIMILAR REASONS, THE GROUNDS OF THE APPEAL OF REVENUE ARE DISMISSED. 9.1 THUS, THE APPEAL OF REVENUE IS DISMISSED. 10. WE NOW TAKE UP ASSESSEES CROSS-OBJECTION IN CO.NO.36/PUN/2017 FOR ADJUDICATION. 11. AO NOTICED THAT ASSESSEE HAD PAID COMMISSION AGGREG ATING TO RS.18,12,949/- TO THREE NON-EXECUTIVE DIRECTORS (THE DE TAILS OF WHICH ARE LISTED IN PARA 7.1. OF THE ORDER) AO WAS OF THE VIEW THAT THE PAYMENTS WAS OF COMMISSION IN NATURE AND THEREFORE THE A SSESSEE WAS LIABLE TO DEDUCT TDS U/S 194H OF THE ACT ON THE PAY MENT OF COMMISSION. SINCE THE ASSESSEE HAD NOT DEDUCTED THE TD S, PROVISIONS OF SEC.40(A)(IA) OF THE ACT WERE APPLICABLE AND THE 9 EXPENDITURE WAS THEREFORE NOT ALLOWABLE. HE ACCORDINGLY DISALLOWED THE PAYMENT OF COMMISSION. AGGRIEVED BY THE ORDER OF AO , ASSESSEE CARRIED THE MATTER BEFORE LD.CIT(A) WHO UPHELD THE ORDER OF AO BY HOLDING AS UNDER :- 2.3.1 DURING THE AY 2010-11, THE COMPANY HAS PAID COMMISSION TO THE NON- EXECUTIVE DIRECTORS. THE DETAILS ARE UNDER : NAME PAN AMOUNT (RS.) R A SAROOR AAEPS1876J 7,00,000 P N GHATALIA AAEPG5034G 4,66,667 D P MEHTA AFMPM1118C 6,46,282 2.3.2 THE LEARNED AO HAS ELABORATED RELEVANT LEGAL PROVISIONS IN DETAIL IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER AND HAS CONCLUDED AS TO HOW THE TDS WAS LIABLE TO BE DEDUCTED U/S.194H. IT HAS ALSO DEALT W ITH THE APPELLANT'S ARGUMENTS IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER. I DO NOT REPRODU CE THE LEARNED AO'S ARGUMENTS AND THE APPELLANT'S ARGUMENTS BEFORE THE LEARNED AO AND BEFORE ME IN THIS ORDER AS I HAVE DEALT WITH TH ESE ARGUMENTS IN MY DECISION ON IDENTICAL DISALLOWANCE IN THE APPELL ANT'S APPEAL FOR THE AY 2009-10. 2.3.3 THE APPELLANT PRAYED THAT THE AMOUNT DISALLOW ED BY THE LEARNED AO OF RS.18,12,949/- U/S 40(A) (IA) BE ALLO WED. FINDINGS 2.3.4 IN MY APPELLATE ORDER OF AY 2009-10, I DID N OT FIND ANY ERROR IN THE LEARNED AOS APPROACH AND HAS THEREFORE UPHELD THE ACTION OF THE AO. I DO NOT FIND ANY DIFFERENCE IN THE FACTS OF TH IS YEAR REQUIRING ANY CHANGE OF MY EARLIER DECISION. THEREFORE, BY FOLLOW ING MY OWN DECISION IN THE APPELLANTS CASE FOR THE EARLIER YEAR, I HOL D THAT THE LEARNED AO HAS RIGHTLY DISALLOWED RS.18,12,949 U/S 40(A) (IA). AGGRIEVED BY THE ORDER OF LD.CIT(A), ASSESSEE IS NOW IN APP EAL BEFORE US. 12. BEFORE US, LD.A.R. REITERATED THE SUBMISSIONS MADE BEF ORE LD.CIT(A) AND FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT IDENTICAL ISSUE AROSE IN ASSESSEES OWN CASE IN EARLIER YEARS BEFORE THE HONBLE TRIBUNAL. THE ISSUE WAS DECIDED BY CO-ORDINATE BENCH OF THE TRIBUNAL IN ASSESSEES FAVOUR. HE POINTED TO THE RELEVANT FINDING OF THE TRIBUNAL. HE THEREFORE SUBMITTED THAT SINCE THE FACTS AND ISSUES IN TH E YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION ARE IDENTICAL TO THAT OF EARLIER YEARS, THE ADDITION MADE 10 BY AO NEEDS TO BE DELETED. LD.D.R. ON THE OTHER HAND, SU PPORTED THE ORDER OF LOWER AUTHORITIES. 13. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND PERUSED THE MATERIAL ON RECORD. THE ISSUE IN THE PRESENT CASE IS WITH RESPE CT TO DISALLOWANCE OF COMMISSION PAID TO NON-EXECUTIVE DIRECTORS O N ACCOUNT OF NON-DEDUCTION OF TDS U/S 40(A)(IA) OF THE ACT. W E FIND THAT IDENTICAL ISSUE AROSE IN ASSESSEES OWN CASE IN EARLIE R YEARS FOR A.Y. 2009-10 AND THE ISSUE WAS DECIDED IN FAVOUR OF THE AS SESSEE BY THE CO-ORDINATE BENCH OF THE TRIBUNAL OF EARLIER YEARS, B Y HOLDING AS UNDER : 15. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND PERUSE D THE MATERIAL ON RECORD. THE ISSUE IN THE PRESENT GROUND IS WITH REFERENCE TO DISALLOWANCE OF COMMISSION TO NON-EXECUTIVE DIRECTO RS FOR THE REASON THAT ASSESSEE DID NOT DEDUCT TDS U/S 194H BEFORE MA KING THE PAYMENT. WE FIND THAT IDENTICAL ISSUE OF DISALLOWA NCE OF EXPENDITURE ON ACCOUNT OF NON-DEDUCTION OF TDS AROSE IN CASE OF ASSESSEE IN EARLIER YEARS. THE CO-ORDINATE BENCH OF THE TRIBUN AL WHILE DECIDING THE ISSUE FOR A.Y. 2005-06 TO 2008-09 (ORDER DT.30. 11.2016) HAS DECIDED THE ISSUE IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE BY HOLD ING AS UNDER : 29. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND PERUSE D THE MATERIAL ON RECORD. THE ISSUE IN THE PRESENT CASE I S WITH REFERENCE TO DISALLOWANCE U/S 40(A)(IA) OF THE ACT ON ACCOUNT OF NON DEDUCTION OF TDS ON THE COMMISSION PAID BY ASSE SSEE TO ITS NON EXECUTIVE DIRECTORS. IT IS AN UNDISPUTED FA CT THAT THE COMMISSION HAS BEEN PAID TO THE NON EXECUTIVE DIREC TORS OF THE ASSESSEE. IT IS ALSO A FACT THAT THE COMMISSION PAI D IS NOT FOR ANY SERVICES RENDERED IN THE COURSE OF BUYING OR SE LLING OF GOODS OR IN RELATION TO ANY TRANSACTION RELATING TO ANY ASSET, VALUABLE ARTICLE OR THING ARE REFERRED IN S.194H OF THE ACT. WE FIND THAT THE CO-ORDINATE BENCH OF TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF KIRLOSKAR OIL ENGINES (SUPRA) AND AFTER RELYING ON THE DECISION IN THE CASE OF BHARAT FORGE LTD, HAS DECIDED THE IS SUE IN FAVOUR OF ASSESSEE BY HOLDING AS UNDER: 6. BEFORE WE PROCEED WITH THE ISSUE IT WOULD BE REL EVANT TO REFERRED TO THE DEFINITION OF COMMISSION AS DE FINED IN EXPLANATION (I) TO SECTION 194H OF THE ACT. THE SA ME IS REPRODUCED HERE-IN-UNDER: I) COMMISSION OR BROKERAGE INCLUDES ANY PAYMENT RECEIVED OR RECEIVABLE DIRECTLY OR INDIRECTLY, BY A PERSON ACTING ON BEHALF OF ANOTHER PERSON FOR SERVICES RENDERED (NOT BEING PROFESSIONAL SERVICES) OR FOR ANY SERVICES IN THE COURSE OF BUYING OR SELLING OF GOODS OR IN RELATION 11 TO ANY TRANSACTION RELATING TO ANY ASSET, VALUABLE ARTICLE OR THING, NOT BEING SECURITIES; 7. UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 194H TAX IS TO B E DEDUCTED AT SOURCE ON THE PAYMENTS MADE TO A RESIDE NT BY WAY OF COMMISSION (NOT BEING INSURANCE COMMISSIO N REFERRED TO IN SECTION 194D) OR BROKERAGE. A BARE PERUSAL OF THE DEFINITION WOULD SHOW THAT IT IS AN INCLUSI9VE DEFINITION WHICH INCLUDES PAYMENTS MADE DIRECTLY OR INDIRECTLY FOR SERVICES RENDERED IN THE COURSE OF BUYING OR SELLING GOODS OR IN RELATION TO ANY TRANSACTION RELATING TO ANY ASSET, VALUABLE ARTICLE OR THING, NOT BEING SECURITIES. THE NON-EXECUTIVE DIR ECTORS APPOINTED ON THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF THE COMPANY DO NOT RENDER ANY OF THE SERVICES REFERRED TO IN THE DEFINITION OF COMMISSION OR BROKERAGE. A ROLE OF NON- EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR IS TO PROVIDE CONSTRUCTIVE SUGGE STION FOR THE BETTER PERFORMANCE OF THE COMPANY AND TO PR OTECT THE INTEREST OF THE ORGANIZATION/SHAREHOLDERS BY WH OM HE HAS BEEN NOMINATED ON THE BOARD. THUS, BY NO STRETCH OF IMAGINATION THE PAYMENTS MADE TO THE NON-EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR FALL WITHIN THE AMBIT OF TERM COMMISSION OR BROKERAGE AS DEFINED U/S. 194H OF THE ACT. 8. THE PROVISIONS RELATING TO DEDUCTION OF TAX AT S OURCE ON PAYMENT OF FEE FOR PROFESSIONAL OR TECHNICAL SER VICES ARE CONTAINED IN SECTION 194J. THE PROVISIONS OF S ECTION 194J HAVE BEEN AMENDED BY THE FINANCE ACT, 2012 W.E.F 01-07-2012 VIDE WHICH CLAUSE (BA) HAS BEEN INSERTED IN SUB-SECTION (1) OF SECTION 194J. THE N EW CLAUSE INSERTED BY THE FINANCE ACT, 2012 READS AS UNDER: [(BA)] ANY REMUNERATION OR FEES OR COMMISSION BY WHATEVER NAME CALLED, OTHER THAN THOSE ON WHICH TAX IS DEDUCTIBLE UNDER SECTION 192, TO A DIRECTOR OF A COMPANY, OR] THE MEMORANDUM EXPLAINING THE AMENDMENT BROUGHT IN BY THE FINANCE BILL 2012 IS AS UNDER: TDS ON REMUNERATION TO A DIRECTOR : UNDER THE EXISTING PROVISIONS OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, A COMPANY, BEING AN EMPLOYER, IS REQUIRED TO DEDUCT TAX AT THE TIME OF PAYMENT TO ITS EMPLOYEES INCLUDING MANAGING DIRECTOR/WHOLE TIME DIRECTOR. HOWEVER, THERE IS NO SPECIFIC PROVISION FOR DEDUCTION OF TAX ON THE REMUNERATION PAID TO A DIRECTOR WHICH IS NOT IN THE NATURE OF SALARY. IT IS PROPOSED TO AMEND SECTION 194J TO PROVIDE THAT TAX IS REQUIRED TO BE DEDUCTED ON THE REMUNERATION PAID TO A DIRECTOR, WHICH IS NOT IN THE NATURE OF SALARY, AT THE RATE OF 10% OF SUCH REMUNERATION. THIS AMENDMENT WILL TAKE EFFECT FROM IST JULY, 2012. THE PROVISIONS OF NEWLY INSERTED CLAUSES ARE ENFORCEABLE W.E.F 01-07-2012, THEREFORE, IT WILL 12 HAVE NO APPLICATION IN THE ASSESSMENT YEARS UNDER APPEAL. 9. THE CO-ORDINATE BENCH OF THE TRIBUNAL IN THE CAS E OF BHARAT FORGE LTD. VS. ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (SUPRA) HAD OCCASION TO DEAL WITH THIS I SSUE. THE TRIBUNAL HELD THAT NO TAX AT SOURCE WAS REQUIRE D TO BE DEDUCTED U/S. 194J FROM THE PAYMENTS MADE TOWARDS THE DIRECTORS SITTING FEES PRIOR TO 01-07- 2012. THE RELEVANT EXTRACT OF THE FINDINGS OF THE TRIBUNA L ARE REPRODUCED HERE-IN-BELOW: 8. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL ARGUMENTS MADE BY BOTH THE SIDES, PERUSED THE ORDERS OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND THE CIT(A) AND THE PAPER BOOK FILED ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE. WE HAVE ALSO CONSIDERED THE VARIOUS DECISIONS RELIED ON BY THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE. THE ONLY DISPUTE IN THIS GROUND IS REGARDING DEDUCTION OF TAX AT SOURCE FROM THE SITTING FEES PAID TO THE DIRECTORS. ACCORDING TO THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 194J IS NOT APPLICABLE FROM SUCH SITTING FEES SINCE FEES DOES NOT FALL IN ANY OF THE CATEGORIES O F PROFESSIONAL SERVICE AS PER EXPLANATION TO SECTION 194J. FURTHER, NO SUCH OBJECTION WAS TAKEN IN THE PAST BY THE DEPARTMENT FOR SUCH NON DEDUCTION AND IN VIEW OF INSERTION OF SUB SECTION (BA) TO SECTION 194J(1) TDS IS REQUIRED TO BE MADE OUT OF SUCH DIRECTOR SITTING FEES W.E.F., 01-07- 2012. THEREFORE, FOR NON-DEDUCTION OF TAX AT SOURCE FROM THE SITTING FEES FOR THE IMPUGNED ASSESSMENT YEAR THERE IS NO DEFAULT ON THE PART OF THE ASSESSEE. ACCORDING TO THE REVENUE THE DIRECTOR IS ALSO A MANGER UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF THE COMPANIES ACT AND THEREFORE TECHNICAL PERSONNEL AND THEREFORE THE COMPANY IS LIABLE TO DEDUCT TAX AT SOURCE UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 194J. 8.1 AS PER THE EXPLANATION TO PROVISIONS OF SECTION 194J PROFESSIONAL SERVICE MEANS SERVICES RENDERED BY A PERSON IN THE COURSE OF CARRYING LEGAL, MEDICAL, ENGINEERING OR ARCHITECTURAL PROFESSION OR THE PROF ESSION OF ACCOUNTANCY OR TECHNICAL CONSULTANCY OR INTERIOR DECORATION OR ADVERTISING OR SUCH OTHER PROFESSION AS IS NOTIFIED BY THE BOARD. WE, THEREFORE, FIND FORCE I N THE SUBMISSION OF THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE THAT SITTING FEES PAID TO THE DIRECTORS DOES NOT AMOUNT TO FEES PAID FOR ANY PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AS HAS BEEN MENTIONED IN THE EXPLANATION TO SECTION 194J(1). WE FURTHER FIND FROM THE MEMORANDUM EXPLAINING TO PROVISIONS OF THE FINANCE BILL 2012 THAT AS PER CLA USE NO.71 IT WAS SPECIFICALLY MENTIONED THAT THERE WAS NO SPECIFIC PROVISION FOR DEDUCTION OF TAX ON THE REMUNERATION PAID TO A DIRECTOR WHICH IS NOT IN THE NATURE OF SALARY. WE FIND THE PROVISIONS OF SECTIO N 194J(1)(BA) SPEAKS OF ANY REMUNERATION OR FEES OR COMMISSION BY WHATEVER NAME CALLED OTHER THAN THOSE ON WHICH TAX IS DEDUCTIBLE U/S. 192 TO A DIRECTOR O F A COMPANY ON WHICH TAX HAS TO BE DEDUCTED AT THE APPLICABLE RATE AND THE ABOVE PROVISION HAS BEEN INSERTED BY THE FINANCE ACT, 2012. WE, THEREFORE, FIND 13 FORCE IN THE SUBMISSION OF THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE THAT NO TAX IS REQUIRED TO BE DEDUCTED U/S . 194J OUT OF SUCH DIRECTORS SITTING FEES FOR THE A. Y. 2007- 08. IN THIS VIEW OF THE MATTER, THE ORDER OF THE C IT(A) IS SET-ASIDE AND THE GROUND RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE ON THE ISSUE OF TDS ON SITTING FEES PAID TO DIRECTORS IS ALLOWED. 10. THE LD. DR HAS NOT BEEN ABLE TO DISTINGUISH THE FINDINGS OF THE TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF BHARAT FORGE LTD. VS. ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (SUPR A). RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING THE SAME WE AFFIRM THE FINDI NGS OF COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) ON THIS ISS UE AND DISMISS THE APPEALS OF THE REVENUE. 30. BEFORE US, LD DR COULD NOT POINT OUT ANY DISTIN GUISHING FEATURE IN THE FACTS OF THE PRESENT CASE AND THAT O F KIRLOSKAR OIL (SUPRA) NOR HAS PLACED ON RECORD ANY CONTRARY BINDI NG DECISION IN ITS FAVOUR. IN VIEW OF THE AFORESAID FACTS, AND FOLLOWING THE SAME REASONING AS GIVEN BY THE CO-ORDINATE BENCH WH ILE DECIDING THE ISSUE IN THE CASE OF KIRLOSKAR OIL (SU PRA), WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT IN THE PRESENT CASE ASSESSEE WAS NOT REQUIRED TO DEDUCT TDS U/S 194H ON THE PAYMENT OF COMMISSION TO NON EXECUTIVE DIRECTORS AND THEREFORE PROVISIONS OF S.4 0(A)(IA) ARE NOT ATTRACTED AND THEREFORE NO DISALLOWANCE OF EXPE NSES IS CALLED FOR. THUS THE GROUND OF ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED. 31. THUS THE CO OF ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED. 16. BEFORE US, REVENUE HAS FAILED TO POINT OUT ANY DIFFERENCE IN THE FACTS IN THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION AND THAT OF E ARLIER YEARS, FURTHER IT HAS ALSO NOT PLACED ANY MATERIAL ON RECORD TO SH OW THAT THE ORDER OF THE CO-ORDINATE BENCH OF THE TRIBUNAL IN ASSESSEES OWN CASE FOR EARLIER YEARS HAS BEEN SET ASIDE BY HIGHER JUDICIAL FORUM. IN VIEW OF THESE FACTS AND FOLLOWING THE SAME REASONING AS CON SIDERED WHILE DECIDING THE APPEAL OF ASSESSEE FOR A.Y. 2005-06 TO 2005-09 AND FOR SIMILAR REASONS, SET ASIDE THE DISALLOWANCE MADE BY AO. THUS THE GROUND OF ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED AND THE CROSS-OBJECTI ON OF THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED. 17. THUS THE CROSS-OBJECTION OF THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWE D. 14. BEFORE US, REVENUE HAS NOT POINTED OUT ANY DISTINGUIS HING FEATURE IN THE FACTS OF THE PRESENT CASE AND THAT OF THE EARLIER YEARS NOR HAS PLACED ANY MATERIAL ON RECORD TO DEMONSTRATE T HAT THE ORDERS OF TRIBUNAL IN ASSESSEES OWN CASE FOR EARLIER YEARS HAD B EEN SET ASIDE BY HIGHER JUDICIAL FORUM. IN VIEW OF THESE FACTS A ND FOLLOWING THE SAME REASONING AS GIVEN BY THE CO-ORDINATE BENCH O F THE TRIBUNAL, WHILE DECIDING THE ISSUE IN A.Y. 2005-06 TO A.Y. 2009 -10 AND FOR SIMILAR REASONS, DELETE THE ADDITIONS MADE BY AO A ND THUS 14 THE CROSS-OBJECTIONS OF THE ASSESSEE IN C.O.NO.36/P UN/2017 IS ALLOWED. 15. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE REVENUE IN ITA NO.1481/PUN/2015 FOR A.Y. 2010-11 IS DISMISSED AND CROSS- OBJECTION OF ASSESSEE IN C.O.NO.36/PUN/2017 IS ALLO WED. 16. AS FAR AS APPEAL FOR A.Y. 2011-12 IS CONCERNED, SINCE BOTH THE PARTIES BEFORE US HAVE SUBMITTED THAT THE FACTS OF THE C ASE FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2010-11 ARE IDENTICAL TO THE FACTS OF THE CASE FOR A .Y. 2011-12, WE, THEREFORE, FOR SIMILAR REASONS STATED HEREIN WH ILE DISPOSING OF THE APPEAL FOR A.Y. 2010-11 AND FOR SIMILAR REAS ONS, DISMISS THE APPEAL OF REVENUE FOR A.Y. 2011-12 AND ALLOW THE CROSS- OBJECTIONS OF ASSESSEE. 17. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE REVENUE IN ITA NO.1482/PUN/2015 FOR A.Y. 2011-12 IS DISMISSED AN D CROSS- OBJECTION OF ASSESSEE IN C.O.NO.37/PUN/2017 IS ALLO WED. 18. IN THE RESULT, BOTH THE APPEALS OF REVENUE ARE DIS MISSED AND THE CROSS-OBJECTIONS OF THE ASSESSEE ARE ALLOWE D. ORDER PRONOUNCED ON 31 ST DAY OF JULY, 2017. SD/- S D/- ( SUSHMA CHOWLA ) ( ANIL CHATURVEDI ) ! / JUDICIAL MEMBER '! / ACCOUNTANT MEMBER PUNE; DATED : 31 ST JULY, 2017. YAMINI 15 #$%&'('% / COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. / THE APPELLANT 2. / THE RESPONDENT 3. THE CIT (IT-TP), PUNE 4. THE CIT(A)-13, PUNE. 5. '#$ %%&',) &', / DR, ITAT, B PUNE; 6. $+,-/ GUARD FILE. / BY ORDER , // TRUE COPY / / ./0%1&2 / SR. PRIVATE SECRETARY ) &', / ITAT, PUNE