ING Vysya Bank Limited, Bangalore V. DCIT, Bangalore

ITA 160/BANG/2010

• Counselvise Citation: 16021114 RSA 2010
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 5 month(s) 19 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 05-08-2011
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Next Hearing Date: 18-05-2011
• Assessment Year: 2008-2009
• Appeal Filed On: 15-02-2010
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: ETWA MUNDA CITII
• Keywords: Double taxation relief; Permanent establishment; TDS
• Section: 201(1); 195

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME-TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL BANGALORE BENCH A, BANGALORE BEFORE SMT. P. MADHAVI DEVI, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI A. MOHAN ALANKAMONY, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER I.T.A. NO.160(BANG.)/2010 ( ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2008-09) M/S ING VYSYA BANK LTD, ING VYSYA HOUSE, NO.22, MG ROAD, BANGALORE-560 001. PAN NO.AABCT 0529M APPELLANT VS THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF INCOME-TAX, (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION), CIRCLE-1(1), BANGALORE. RE SPONDENT APPELLANT BY : SHRI S, ANANTHAN, CA RESPONDENT BY : SHRI ETWA MUNDA, CIT-II O R D E R PER SMT P. MADHAVI DEVI, JM; THIS IS AN APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AND ITS DIR ECTED AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A)-IV, BANGALORE, DATED 30-11- 2009 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2008-09. THE ASSESSEE IS AGGRIEVE D BY THE CIT(A) IN CONSIDERING THE ASSESSEE AS ASSESSEE IS DEFAULT U/S 201(1) OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT, 1961 ON THE GROUND THAT THE ASSESSE E HAS FAILED TO DEDUCT TAX AT SOURCE U/S 195 OF THE ACT ON THE PAYM ENTS MADE BY IT TO ING ZURICH FOR PURCHASE OF SHRINK WRAPPED SOFTWARE FROM OUTSIDE ITA.NO.160(B)/10 2 INDIA. THE AO CONSIDERED THE SAID PAYMENT AS ROYAL TY UNDER THE ACT AS WELL AS THE DTAA BETWEEN INDIA AND SWITZERLAND. 2. BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT THE ASSESSEE W HO IS ENGAGED IN THE BUSINESS OF BANKING IN INDIA HAD MADE CERTAIN R EMITTANCES TO M/S ING VYSYA BANK N.V.SWITZERLAND DURING THE RELEVANT FINANCIAL YEAR. FROM THE PERUSAL OF THE CA CERTIFICATE, THE AO NOTI CED THAT SUCH REMITTANCES WERE MADE TOWARDS PURCHASE OF SOFTWARE LICENSE AND ALSO THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT DEDUCTED TAX AT SOURCE ON THE SAID REMITTANCE UNDER THE PLEA THAT THE PAYMENTS ARE MAD E TOWARD PURCHASE OF SOFTWARE AND THE SAME ARE NOT LIABLE TO TAX IN INDIA AS PER PROVISIONS OF TREATY LAWS AND DOMESTIC LAWS. HE, THEREFORE, INITIATED PROCEEDINGS U/S 201(1) OF THE ACT ON THE INDIAN COM PANY AND ASKED THE ASSESSEE TO SUBMIT THE DETAILS. THE ASSESSEE SU BMITTED THAT M/S ING COMPUTER LEASE, BELGIUM (ICLB) ENTERED INTO LIC ENSE AGREEMENT WITH M/S ORACLE NETHERLANDS B.V VIDE AGREEMENT DATE D 27-05-2004 AS PER WHICH ORACLE NETHERLANDS BV HAS TO SELL THE LIC ENSES TO USE THE ORACLE DATA BASE SOFTWARE AND PERFORMANCE OF TECHNI CAL SUPPORT SERVICES WITH WHOLE ING GROUP. AS PER THE TERMS OF THE AGREEMENT, ORACLE NETHERLANDS WOULD GRANT THE LICENSE TO ICLB AS ONE TIME PAYMENT. CONSEQUENTLY, ICLB HAS ENTERED INTO A SU BLICENSING AGREEMENT WITH OTHER ING ASSOCIATED COMPANIES VIDE AGREEMENT DATED 27-09-2005 TO PROVIDE THE USE OF SUCH LICENSE AND T HE ENJOYMENT OF SUPPLIER RELATED MAINTENANCE AND SUPPORT TO THE SUB -LICENSES. AS PER ITA.NO.160(B)/10 3 THE SUB-LICENSE AGREEMENT, THE SUB LICENSES ARE REQ UIRED TO PAY ONE TIME CHARGE FOR EACH SUB LICENSE AS CALCULATED IN S UB-LICENSE SHEET. THE AO ALSO OBSERVED THAT AS PER THE INVOICE, THE A SSESSEE HAS AVAILED 39 CPU LICENSES AND 320 ORACLE NAMED USER LICENSES WHICH CONTAIN THE ORACLE DATABASE SOFTWARE AND OTHER LICENSES AND THAT ALSO THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS SUBMITTED THAT ALL THESE SOFTWARE HAVE DIRECTLY BEEN DOWNLOADED FROM THE WEBSITE WWW. AFTER CONSIDERING THE AGREEMENT AND ALSO THE SUBMISSION OF THE ASSESSEE WITH REGAR D TO THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN CPU LICENSE AND NAMED USER LICENSES AND THA T THE ASSESSEE HAS PURCHASED THE SHRINK WRAPPED BRAND COMPUTER SO FTWARE WHICH IS AVAILABLE OFF THE SHELF IN THE MARKET, THE AO HE LD THAT AS PER THE PROVISIONS OF DTAA BETWEEN INDIA AND SWITZERLAND AS WELL AS THE DEFINITION OF ROYALTY AS PER THE ACT, PAYMENT IS IN THE NATURE OF ROYALTY AND THEREFORE, THE ASSESSEE WAS REQUIRED TO DEDUCT TAX AT SOURCE BEFORE MAKING THE REMITTANCES. THUS, THE A O HELD THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS AN ASSESSEE IN DEFAULT U/S 201(1) OF T HE ACT AND ALSO LEVIED INTEREST U/S 201(1A) OF THE ACT. 3. AGGRIEVED, THE ASSESSEE PREFERRED AN APPEAL BE FORE THE CIT(A) WHO, AFTER CONSIDERING THE ASSESSEES SUBMISSIONS A S WELL AS THE ASSESSING AUTHORITIES FINDING, HELD THAT THE ASSESS EE HAS OBTAINED ONLY A LICENSE TO USE THE ORACLE DATABASE SOFTWARE AND N O OTHER RIGHT OR INTEREST IN THE SAID SOFTWARE HAS BEEN GRANTED TO I T. HE HELD THAT THE SOFTWARE HAS BEEN SUPPLIED ALONG WITH NECESSARY DOC UMENTATION ITA.NO.160(B)/10 4 INCLUDING USER/OPERATING/TECHNICAL MANUALS NECESSAR Y FOR THE INSTALLATION, OPERATION AND USE OF SUCH SOFTWARE BU T THE OWNERSHIP STILL VESTS WITH ORACLE BV. HE HELD THAT THE TRANS FER OF LIMITED RIGHT OF USE IS DIFFERENT FROM TRANSFER OF OWNERSHIP RIGHT A ND AS SUCH, THE TRANSACTION IN QUESTION CANNOT BE REGARDED AS A SAL E SIMPLICITOR AND SINCE THE TRANSACTION INVOLVED SALE OF COMPUTER SOF TWARE, NATURE OF PAYMENT RECEIVED DEPENDS UPON THE NATURE OF RIGHTS ACQUIRED BY THE TRANSFEREE IN REGARD TO USE AND EXPLOITATION OF THE SAID SOFTWARE. HE HELD THAT THE RIGHTS IN COMPUTER PROGRAMME ARE A FO RM OF INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY AND WHERE THERE IS AN OUTRIGHT SALE OF SOF TWARE, CONSIDERATION IS FOR THE TRANSFER OF SUCH INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY A ND HAS TO BE TREATED AS ROYALTY. HE HELD THAT IN THE INSTANCE CASE, TH E ASSESSEE HAS ACQUIRED ONLY A LIMITED RIGHT TO USE THE ORACLE DAT ABASE SOFTWARE WHILE ORACLE BV HAS RETAINED ITS PROPRIETARY RIGHTS THEREIN AND THEREFORE, THE CONSIDERATION PAID FOR SUCH LIMITED RIGHT OF USER IS ONLY IN THE NATURE OF ROYALTY. HE ALSO RELIED UPON THE DECISION OF THE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS SAM SUNG ELECTRONICS CO. LTD.,(2009) (320 ITR 209) WHEREIN IT HAS BEEN HELD THAT THE INDIAN COMPANY, WHEN IT IS MAKING PAYMENT TO A NON-RESIDEN T, HAS TO COMPULSORILY DEDUCT TAX AT SOURCE IRRESPECTIVE OF WHETHER THE PAYMENT IS LIABLE FOR TAX IN INDIA OR NOT. AGGRIE VED, THE ASSESSEE IS IN SECOND APPEAL BEFORE US. ITA.NO.160(B)/10 5 4. SHRI S. ANANTHAN, THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE A SSESSEE, WHILE REITERATING THE SUBMISSIONS MADE BY THE ASSESSEE BE FORE THE AUTHORITIES BELOW, SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE ONLY PURCHASED A LICENSE TO USE THE ORACLE DATABASE SOFTWARE WHICH I S USED BY MANY OTHERS AND MERE SALE OF LICENSE IS NOT THE SALE OF RIGHT. HE SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS ONLY PURCHASED THE SHRINK WR APPED SOFTWARE PROVIDED BY ORACLE DATABASE AND IT IS NOTHING BUT S ALE OF SOFTWARE AND NO TDS IS REQUIRED TO BE MADE FROM SUCH REMITTANCES . HE SUBMITTED THAT THE DECISION OF THE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO. LTD.,(SUPRA) HAS BEEN SET A SIDE BY THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF GE INDIA TECHN OLOGY CENTRE VS CIT. THUS, ACCORDING TO HIM, THE ASSESSEE CANNOT B E HELD AS THE ASSESSEE IN DEFAULT U/S 201(1) OF THE ACT. HE ALSO PLACED RELIANCE UPON THE DECISION OF THE BANGALORE BENCH B OF THE TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF VELANKANI MAURITIUS LTD., VS DY. DIRECTOR O F INCOME-TAX (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION)(2010) 132 TTJ 124 WHEREIN THE SALE OF OFF THE SHELF SHRINK WRAPPED SOFTWARE IN INDIA IS HELD TO BE ONLY SALE OF COPYRIGHTED ARTICLE AND INCOME THERE FROM IS NOT RO YALTY UNDER THE ACT OR UNDER THE DTAA. 5. SHRI ETWA MUNDA, THE LEARNED DR, ON THE OTHER H AND PLACED RELIANCE UPON THE ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW. HE SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS IN FACT, PURCHASED SOFTWARE WITH A LICENSE TO USE THE SAME AND THEREFORE, THE CONSIDERATION FOR THE SAME CONSTITUTED ITA.NO.160(B)/10 6 ROYALTY. THE ASSESSEE HAVING NOT DEDUCTED TDS IS ASSESSEE IN DEFAULT U/S 201(1) OF THE ACT AND IS ALSO LIABLE TO PAY INT EREST U/S 201(1A) OF THE ACT. 6. HAVING HEARD BOTH THE PARTIES AND HAVING CONSID ERED THE MATERIAL ON RECORD, WE FIND THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS P URCHASED THE LICENSE FROM ORACLE DATA BASE TO USE ITS SOFTWARE A ND THE LICENSE IS FOR THE PURPOSE OF ITS USAGE ONLY. THE SOFTWARE IS NOT TAILOR MADE SPECIFICALLY FOR THE ASSESSEE AND THE ASSESSEE HAS ONLY A LIMITED RIGHT TO USE THE SOFTWARE AND COULD NOT ALTER OR MODIFY T HE SOFTWARE OR SELL THE LICENSE TO ANY OTHER PERSON. WHEN THE RIGHT OF USE OF SOFTWARE IS SUCH LIMITED ONE, THAT IS ONLY TO USE AND OPERATE, IT CANNOT BE SAID THAT THERE IS ANY TRANSFER OF INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY . THE LICENSED SOFTWARE HAS BEEN DEVELOPED BY ORACLE BY USE OF INT ELLECTUAL PROPERTY NO DOUBT, BUT THE PRODUCT IS ONLY PERMITTED TO BE U SED AND OPERATED AND THE ASSESSEE HAS NO RIGHT TO MODIFY OR TRANSFER THE SAID LICENSE. THUS, WE ARE OF THE OPINION, THAT THERE IS NO TRANS FER OF INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY. NOW, THE QUESTION TO BE CONSIDERED IS THE NATURE OF THE PAYMENT WHETHER IT CONSTITUTES ROYALTY UNDER THE INDIAN INCOME TAX ACT AND THE DTAA BETWEEN INDIA AND SWITZERLAND ?. IF IT IS IN THE NATURE OF ROYALTY THEN WHETHER OR NOT THE ROYALTY I S TAXABLE IN INDIA IN THE HANDS OF THE NON-RESIDENT WILL DEPEND UPON THE PROVISIONS OF THE IT ACT AND THE RELEVANT DTAA IF ANY. THE ARTICLE O N ROYALTY IN A TREATY BETWEEN TWO NATIONS ASSUMES SIGNIFICANCE SINCE THE ASSESSEE IN VIEW ITA.NO.160(B)/10 7 OF THE PROVISION OF SEC.90(2) OF THE INDIAN INCOME TAX ACT, HAS AN OPTION TO OPT FOR TAXATION EITHER UNDER THE INDIAN INCOME- TAX ACT OR THE TREATY WHICHEVER IS MORE BENEFICIAL TO IT. THE REFORE, WHENEVER ROYALTY IS PAID TO OR RECEIVED BY A PERSON WHO IS A RESIDENT OF ANOTHER COUNTRY WITH WHICH THERE EXISTS A TREATY, THEN THE DEFINITION OF ROYALTY AS CONTAINED IN THE RELEVANT TREATY WILL PREVAIL, IF IT IS MORE BENEFICIAL TO THE ASSESSEE. IF THE PAYMENT IS MADE TO NON-RESIDENT, THOUGH ROYALTY UNDER THE INDIAN INCOME-TAX ACT, BUT IF IT DOES NOT CONSTITUTE ROYALTY, UNDER THE TREATY THEN THE SAID PAYMENT WILL GENERALLY NOT BE TAXABLE IN INDIA, UNLESS THE SAID PAYMENT IS ATTRIBUTABLE TO THE PERMANENT ESTABLISHMENT OF THE SAID NON-RESIDENT IN INDIA. THEREFORE, IT IS IMPERATIVE FOR US TO LOO K AT THE MEANING OF ROYALTY GIVEN IN THE INDIAN INCOME-TAX ACT AND ALSO IN THE DTAA BETWEEN INDIA AND SWITZERLAND. EXPLANATION -2 OF S EC.9(1) AND CLAUSE- (VI) DEFINES ROYALTY AS UNDER; EXPLANATION-2 FOR THE PURPOSES OF THIS CLAUSE, ROYALTY MEANS CONSIDERATION (INCLUDING ANY LUMPSUM CONSIDERATION BUT EXCLUDING ANY CONSIDERATION WHICH WOULD BE THE INCOME OF THE RECI PIENT CHARGEABLE UNDER THE HEAD CAPITAL GAINS FOR- I) THE TRANSFER OF ALL OR ANY RIGHTS (INCLUDING THE GR ANTING OF A LICENCE ) IN RESPECT OF A PATENT, INVENTION, MODEL, DESIGN, SECRET FORMULA OR PROCESS OF TRADE MARK OR SIMILAR PROPERTY; II) THE IMPARTING OF ANY INFORMATION CONCERNING THE WOR KING OF, OR THE USE OF, A PATENT, INVENTION, MODEL, DESIGN, SECRET FORMULA OR PROCESS OR TRADE MARK OR SIMILAR PROPERT Y; ITA.NO.160(B)/10 8 III) THE USE OF ANY PATENT, INVENTION, MODEL, DESIGN, SE CRET FORMULA OR PROCESS OR TRADE MARK OR SIMILAR PROPERT Y; IV) THE IMPARTING OF ANY INFORMATION CONCERNING TECHNIC AL, INDUSTRIAL, COMMERCIAL OR SCIENTIFIC KNOWLEDGE EXPE RIENCE OR SKILL; IVA) THE USE OR RIGHT TO USE ANY INDUSTRIAL, CO MMERCIAL OR SCIENTIFIC EQUIPMENT BUT NOT INCLUDING T HE AMOUNTS REFERRED TO IN SECTION 44BB:) V) THE TRANSFER OF ALL OR ANY RIGHTS (INCLUDING, THE G RANTING OF A LICENCE) IN RESPECT OF ANY COPYRIGHT , LITERARY, ARTISTIC OR SCIENTIFIC WORK INCLUDING FILMS OR V IDEO TAPES FOR USE IN CONNECTION WITH TELEVISION OR TAPES FO R USE IN CONNECTION WITH RADIO BROADCASTING BUT NOT INCLUDING CONSIDERATION FOR THE SALE, DISTRIBUTION OR EXHIBITION OF CINEMATOGRAPHIC FILMS; OR VI) THE RENDERING OF ANY SERVICES IN CONNECTION WITH THE ACTIVITIES REFERRED TO IN SUB-CLAUSES() I) TO (IV) (IVA) AN (V).. THUS, IT CAN BE SEEN THAT CLAUSE-(I) OF EXPLANATIO N -2 REFERS TO ROYALTY AS THE CONSIDERATION FOR THE TRANSFER OF ANY RIGHT INCLUDING THE GRANTING OF LICENSE IN RESPECT OF A PATENT, I NVENTION, MODEL, DESIGN, SECRET FORMULA OR PROCESS OR TRADE MARK OR SIMILAR PROPERTY AND CLAUSE-V) REFERS TO THE TRANSFER OF ALL OR ANY RIGHTS (INCLUDING THE GRANTING OF A LICENSE) IN RESPECT OF ANY COPYRIGHT, LITERARY, ARTISTIC OR SCIENTIFIC WORK INCLUDING. THUS, THE LICENSE T O USE THE SOFTWARE DEVELOPED BY ORACLE ALSO FALLS UNDER THIS CATEGORY OF PROPERTY. ITA.NO.160(B)/10 9 FURTHER, THE PAYMENT OF ROYALTY CAN BE PERIODICAL O R A LUMPSUM CONSIDERATION. THUS, IT IS CLEAR THAT UNDER THE IN DIAN INCOME-TAX ACT, THE ONE TIME PAYMENT MADE BY THE ASSESSEE FOR OBTAI NING LICENSE OF ORACLE DATA BASE SOFTWARE IS ROYALTY AND IS TAXAB LE IN INDIA. 7. LET US NOW EXAMINE THE DEFINITION OF ROYALTY GIVEN IN ARTICLE 12(3) OF DTAA BETWEEN INDIA AND SWITZERLAND; THE TERMS ROYALTIES AS USED IN THIS ARTICLE MEA NS PAYMENTS OF ANY KIND RECEIVED AS A CONSIDERATION FO R THE USE OF, OR THE RIGHT TO USE, ANY COPYRIGHT OF A LITERARY, ARTISTIC OR SCIENTIFIC WORK, INCLUDING CINEMATOGRAPH FILMS O R WORK ON FILM, TAPE OR OTHER MEANS OF REPRODUCTION FOR US E IN CONNECTION WITH RADIO OR TELEVISION BROADCASTING, A NY PATENT, TRADE MARK, DESIGN OR MODEL, PLAN, SECRET F ORMULA OR PROCESS, OR FOR THE USE OF, OR THE RIGHT TO USE, ANY INDUSTRIAL COMMERCIAL OR SCIENTIFIC EQUIPMENT OR FO R INFORMATION CONCERNING INDUSTRIAL, COMMERCIAL OR SC IENTIFIC EXPERIENCE. 7.1 FROM A PLAIN READING OF THE ABOVE ARTICLE ALSO IT IS CLEAR THAT ANY PAYMENT MADE FOR THE USE OF OR RIGHT TO USE OF THE PROPERTIES MENTIONED THERE IN WOULD BE ROYALTY. WE FIND THAT BOTH THE DEFINITIONS ARE SIMILAR AND ENCOMPASS THE PAYMENT FOR THE USE OF AND THE RIGHT TO USE OF ANY INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY MENTIONED THEREIN SUCH AS COPYRIGHT OF A LITERARY, ARTISTIC OR SCIENTIFIC WORK OR ANY P ATENT, TRADE MARK, DESIGN OR MODEL, PLAN ETC.. THUS, THE LICENSE GRA NTED BY ORACLE DATA ITA.NO.160(B)/10 10 BASE FOR USE OF ITS SOFTWARE BY THE ASSESSEE COMPAN Y CONSTITUTES ROYALTY. THE CONSIDERATION, CONSTITUTING ROYALTY MA Y BE PERIODIC OR LUMPSUM CONSIDERATION. IN THE CASE BEFORE US, THE ASSESSEE HAS MADE A ONE TIME LUMPSUM PAYMENT FOR THE USE OF THE SUB-L ICENSE. NOW, THE QUESTION AS TO WHETHER THE ASSESSEE IS LIABLE TO DE DUCT TAX AT SOURCE FROM THE PAYMENT IS TO BE CONSIDERED. THE CIT(A) HAD RELIED UPON THE DECISION OF THE HONBLE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT, IN TH E CASE OF M/S SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS TO HOLD THAT IRRESPECTIVE OF TH E TAXABILITY OF THE INCOME IN INDIA, THE PAYER HAS TO DEDUCT TAX AT SOU RCE BEFORE MAKING THE REMITTANCES. HOWEVER, AS BROUGHT TO OUR NOTICE , THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF GE INDIA TECHNOLOGY CE NTRE (CITED SUPRA) HAS REVERSED THIS DECISION AND REMITTED IT B ACK TO THE HONBLE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT TO DECIDE THE TAXABILITY OF TH E REMITTANCES. THEREFORE, THE DECISION OF THE HONBLE KARNATAKA HI GH COURT IN THE CASE OF M/S SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS IS NO LONGER APPLIC ABLE. EVEN OTHERWISE, WE HAVE ALREADY HELD THAT THE REMITTANCE S ARE IN THE NATURE OF ROYALTY BOTH UNDER THE INDIAN INCOME TAX ACT A S WELL AS THE DTAA BETWEEN INDIA AND SWITZERLAND. IN SUCH CASE, THE A SSESSEE IS REQUIRED TO DEDUCT TAX AT SOURCE BEFORE MAKING THE REMITTANC ES. AS THE ASSESSEE HAS FAILED TO DO SO, THE ASSESSEE HAS TO B E TREATED AS AN ASSESSEE IN DEFAULT U/S 201(1) OF THE ACT. THE DEC ISION RELIED UPON BY THE ASSESSEE IS NOT APPLICABLE TO THE FACTS OF THE CASE BEFORE US. IN VIEW OF THE SAME, WE ARE OF THE OPINION, THAT BOTH THE AO AND THE ITA.NO.160(B)/10 11 CIT(A) ARE RIGHT IN HOLDING THAT THE ASSESSEE IS AN ASSESSEE IN DEFAULT U/S 201(1) OF THE IT ACT, 1961. 8. IN THE RESULT, THE ASSESSEES APPEAL IS DISMISS ED. (A. MOHAN ALANKAMONY (SMT. P. MADHA VI DEVI) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JU DICIAL MEMBER PLACE: BANGALORE DATED: 05-08-2011 AM* COPY TO : 1. THE ASSESSEE 2. THE REVENUE 3. CIT(A) 4. CIT 5. DR 6. GF(BLORE) BY ORDER AR, ITAT, BANGALORE