KREUZ SUBSEA PTE LTD, MUMBAI V. DCIT (IT) 3(1)(2), MUMBAI

ITA 1781/MUM/2016

• Counselvise Citation: [2017] 127 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 0172 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 5 month(s) 11 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 04-09-2017
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Next Hearing Date: 04-09-2017
• Assessment Year: 2012-2013
• Appeal Filed On: 23-03-2016
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Keywords: Double taxation relief; Permanent establishment
• Section: 234B

Judgement Text

, , , , INCOME-TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL LBENCH M UMBAI , , BEFORE S/SH. RAJENDRA,ACCOUNTANT MEMBER & RAVISH SOOD, JUDICIAL MEMBER ./ITA./1781 & 6621/MUM/2016, /ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2012-13&2013-14 M/S. KREUZ SUBSEA PTE.LTD. C/O.,SRBC & ASSOCIATES-CAS 14TH FLOOR, THE RUBY 29 SENAPATI BAPAT MARG, DADA(W) MUMBAI-400 028 PAN:AADCK 6822 G VS. DCIT,(INTL TAXN.) -3(1)(2) 1ST FLOOR, ROOM NO.113 SCINDIA HOUSE, NM NAGAR, BALLARD PIER MUMBAI-400 038. ( /APPELLANT ) ( / RESPONDENT ) REVENUE BY: SHRI SAMUEL DARSE-CIT-DR ASSESSEE BY: SHRI NISHANT THAKKAR/ MS. JASMIN AMALSADVALA-AR / DATE OF HEARING: 04.09.2017 / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT: 04.09.2017 ,1961 254(1) ORDER U/S.254(1)OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT,1961(ACT) / PER RAJENDRA, AM - CHALLENGING THE ORDERS OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER(AO) ,PASSED IN PURSUANCE OF THE DIRECTION OF DISPUTE RESOLUTION PANEL-I [DRP-I] MUMBAI, THE ASSE SSEE HAS FILED THE APPEAL FOR THE ABOVE MENTIONED TWO ASSESSMENT YEARS (AY.S).ASSESSEE -A N ON RESIDENT COMPANY,IS INCORPORATED UNDER THE LAWS OF SINGAPORE.IT HAD UNDERTAKEN INSTA LLATION AND CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITIES DURING THE YEARS UNDER APPEAL. THE DETAILS OF FILING OF RE TURN OF INCOME,DATES OF DIRECTION OF DRP, DATES OF ORDERS OF THE AO U/S.144C(13) R.W.S.143(3) ,ASSESSED INCOME CAN BE SUMMARIZED AS UNDER:- AY. RETURN OF INCOME DT.OF DIRECTION OF DRP AO ORD ER DT. ASSESSED INCOME 2012-13 30/9/2013 23.12.2015 31.3.2015 RS.13.41CROR ES 2013-14 30/9/2013 25/07/2016 15.3.2016 RS.8.93 CROR ES ITA/1781/MUM/2016,AY 2012-13: 2. THE FIRST EFFECTIVE GROUND OF APPEAL(GOA 1-7)IS ABO UT THE STATUS OF THE ASSESSEE I.E. INSTALLATION PE OR SERVICE PE.DURING THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, THE AO FOUND THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD UNDERTAKEN INSTALLATION AND CONSTRUCT ION ACTIVITIES IN RELATION TO ITS FOUR PROJECTS IN INDIA - 1.CONTRACT WITH SWIBER OFFSHORE CONSTRUCTION PTE.LT D.-CONTRACT NO.SOC/KSS/130910-002; 2.CONTRACT WITH SWIBER OFFSHORE CONSTRUCTION PTE.LT D.- SOC/KSS/030311-011; 3.CONTRACT WITH SWIBER OFFSHORE CONSTRUCTION PTE.LT D.- SOC/KSS/001;AND 1781&6621/MUM/16-M/S. KRUEZ SUBSEA PTE.LTD. 2 4.CONSORTIUM OF VALENTINE MARITIME LTD. AND VALENTI NE MARITIME MAURITIUS LTD.- C1004/PR/11/273/01 IT WAS CLAIMED THAT PROJECT DURATION OF THE ABOVE M ENTIONED PROJECT WAS AS FOLLOWS: ENTITY PROJECT DURATION FOR THE YEAR ENDING 2012 SWIBER -SOC/KSS/1309/10-002 57 DAYS SWIBER - SOC/KSS/030311-011 72 DAYS SWIBER - SOC/KSS/001 51 DAYS CONSORTIUM OF VALENTINE MARITIME LTD. AND VALENTINE MARITIME MAURITIUS LTD.-C1004/PR/11/273/01 88 DAYS THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THE PROJECT COMPLETION CERTI FICATE BEFORE THE AO DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS AND SUBMITTED THAT DURATION OF EACH OF THE PROJECT WAS LESS THAN 183 DAYS,THAT IT DID NOT SATISFY THE DURATION TEST AS E NVISAGED UNDER ARTICLE-5(3) OF THE INDIA SINGAPORE DOUBLE TAXATION AVOIDANCE AGREEMENT (DTAA ),THAT IT DID NOT FORM A PE IN INDIA, THAT REVENUE EARNED BY IT WOULD NOT BE TAXABLE IN INDIA IN TERMS OF ARTICLE-5(3) READ WITH ARTICLE-7 OF THE TREATY.HOWEVER, THE AO DID NOT ACC EPT THE SUBMISSION OF THE ASSESSEE.IN PURSUANCE OF DIRECTION OF THE DRP,HE HELD THAT INCO ME OF THE ASSESSEE WAS TO BE COMPUTED AT THE RATE OF 10% OF GROSS REVENUE OF RS.1,34,17,46 ,562/- (RS.13.41 CRORES). 3. DURING THE COURSE OF HEARING BEFORE US AUTHORISED R EPRESENTATIVES OF BOTH THE SIDES AGREED THAT IDENTICAL ISSUE WAS DELIBERATED UPON BY THE TR IBUNAL, WHILE DECIDING APPEAL FOR AY.2010- 11(58TAXMANN.COM 371),THAT THE TRIBUNAL HAD DECIDE D THE ISSUE IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE.WE WOULD LIKE TO REPRODUCE THE RELEVANT PORTION OF THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL AND SAME READS AS UNDER :- 7. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS, PERUSED T HE RELEVANT FINDING GIVEN IN THE IMPUGNED ORDER AND THE MATERIAL PLACED ON RECORD. T HE ASSESSEE IS INTO THE BUSINESS OF INTEGRATED SUBSEA INSTALLATION SERVICES. IT HAS UND ERTAKEN 3 PROJECTS FOR INSTALLATION AND CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITY WITH ALLSEAS MARINE CONTRACTO RS AND SWIBER OFFSHORE CONSTRUCTION PTE. LTD. FOR BH HYDRA PROJECT AND BJ GASLIFT PROJECT. A S PER THE TERMS OF THE CONTRACT THE INSTALLATION AND CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITY IN ALL THE T HREE CONTRACTS WERE AS UNDER: (A) CONTRACT WITH ALLSEAS (I) INSTALLATION OF KREUZ SAT-01, A SATURATION DIV ING SYSTEM, ON THE DYNAMIC POSITIONING VESSEL I.E. REM FORZA (II) INSTALLATION OF SUBSEA ISOLATION VALUES I.E. SSIV (III) INSTALLATION OF 24' SPOOLS BETWEEN RISERS ON OFFSHORE PROCESS PLATFORM AND SUBSEA PIPELINES CONNECTING WELL HEADS IN THE D EEPER WATER TOWARDS FACILITATING GAS FLOW FROM THE DEEP WELL HEADS TO PROCESS PLATFORM (IV) INSTALLATION OF SUBSEA SPOOL TIE-IN, CONCRETE MATTRESS AND ANY SUBSEA RELATED ACTIVITIES (V) CARRYING OUT ASSOCIATED FREE SPAN AND P IPELINE CROSSING INSTALLATIONS AND RISER REMEDIAL ETC. (B) CONTRACT WITH SWIBER-BG HYDRA A-SCOPE OF WORKS FOR INSTALLATION SERVICES FROM S WIBER SUPPORTER EXECUTION OF CONSTRUCTION AND INSTALLATION OF RIS ER CLAMPS, RISERS AND SPOOLS FROM BARGE SWIBER SUPPORTER (WORK VESSEL), FREE ISSUED B Y SWIBER. 1781&6621/MUM/16-M/S. KRUEZ SUBSEA PTE.LTD. 3 SUBSEA INSTALLATION SCOPE OF WORK SHALL INCLUDE: (I) INSTALLATION OF RISERS, TWO NOS. AT PPA (EXIST ING) AND ONE EACH AT PK & SWP (NEW) PLATFORMS. (II) INSTALLATION OF RISER AND I-TUBE CLAMPS FOR T WO RISERS AND ONE I-TUBE AT PPA PLATFORM (III) INSTALLATION OF I-TUBE AT PPA PLATFORM ENCAS HING A 2-INCH RIGID CHEMICAL INJECTION LINE (IV) INSTALLATION OF SPOOL SPICE CONNECTORS AT PPA AND SWP PLATFORMS BETWEEN RISER AND PIPELINES AND PIGGY BACK LINE AND CHEMICAL INJECTIO N LINE INSIDE OF I-TUBE (V) INSTALLATION OF STALK ON 10' RISER AT PK PLATF ORM (VI) INSTALLATION OF SPOOL PIECE CONNECTOR BETWEEN PIGGY BACK PIPE AND CHEMICAL INJECTION LINE INSIDE OF I-TUBE. B-SCOPE OF WORKS FOR INSTALLATION SERVICES FROM HD- 2500 EXECUTION OF CONSTRUCTION AND INSTALLATION FOR SUBS EA INSTALLATION OF SWP AND PK JACKETS (STRUCTURES) SHALL BE UNDERTAKEN BY KREUZ FROM BARG E HD-2500 (WORK VESSEL), CHARTERED BY SWIBER. SUBSEA INSTALLATION SCOPE OF WORK SHALL INCLUDE. (I) SEA BED SURVEYS AND INSTALLATION OF TRANSPONDE RS ON SEA BED (II) JACKET MUD MAT SURVEY WITH RESPECT TO SEA BED POST INSTALLATION (III) MONITORING OF FLOOD AND VENT VALES SUBSEA DU RING INSTALLATION AND UPENDING OF STRUCTURE (IV) DEMOLITIONS OF GROUT LINES AND REACH ROD POST STRUCTURE INSTALLATION (V) REMOVAL AND DEMOLITION OF WORKING PLATFORM ON COMPLETION OF INSTALLATION (VI) REMOVAL OF SUBSEA INSTALLATION SLINGS AND RIG GING (C) CONTRACT WITH SWIBER-BG GASLIFT SWIBER ENTERED INTO CONTRACT WITH KREUZ VIDE SUBCON TRACT NUMBER 2009 018/OCS/KSS/BG- PGL FOR THE PERFORMANCE FOR OFFSHORE TRANSPORTATION AND INSTALLATION OF PIPELINES AND RISERS FOR THE PANNA GAS LIFT PROJECT. EXECUTION OF CONSTRUCTION AND INSTALLATION OF RISER CLAMPS, RISERS AND SPOOLS SHALL BE UNDERTAKEN BY SUBCONTRACTOR FROM BARGE SWIBER SUPPO RTER (WORK VESSEL), FREE ISSUED BY CONTRACTOR. SUBSEA INSTALLATION SCOPE OF WORK SHALL INCLUDE: (I) INSTALLATION OF RISERS (II) INSTALLATION OF GROUT BAG OR MATTRESS CROSSIN GS (III) INSTALLATION OF RISER CLAMPS (IV) INSTALLATION OF SPOOL SPICE CONNECTORS FROM PERUSAL OF THE AFORESAID ACTIVITIES, IT IS APP ARENT THAT ESSENCE OF ALL THE ABOVE CONTRACTS WAS TO UNDERTAKE SUBSEA INSTALLATION AND CONSTRUCTI ON ACTIVITY AND NOT INTO THE PROVISION OF EQUIPMENT, MANPOWER SUPPLY OR FURNISHING OF ANY KIN D OF SERVICES. THE ENTIRE CONTRACT IS FOR PURE INSTALLATION. THE PROJECT DURATION OF ALL THE THREE CONTRACTS HAD ALREADY BEEN LISTED IN THE FOREGOING PARAGRAPH EXCEPT FOR THE NUMBER OF DAYS I N THE CASE OF SWIBER BG HYDRA PROJECT, WHICH ACCORDING TO THE AO IS MORE THAN 183 DAYS, BE CAUSE THE STARTING DAY OF THE PROJECT SHOULD BE RECKONED FROM THE DATE OF THE SIGNING OF THE CONTRACT. 8. THE FIRST AND FOREMOST CONTROVERSY WHICH NEEDS T O BE ADJUDICATED HERE IS, WHETHER IN THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE, THE SERVICE PE CAN BE SAID TO BE ESTABLISHED/CONSTITUTED WITHIN THE SCOPE OF ARTICLE 5(3) OR ARTICLE 5(6). THE AO IN THE DRAF T ASSESSMENT ORDER HAD HELD THAT ARTICLE 5(3) IS APPLICABLE AND SINCE THE NUMBER OF DAYS OF THE E MPLOYEES WORKING IN INDIA HAS EXCEEDED 183 DAYS, THEREFORE, IT CONSTITUTES SERVICE PE IN I NDIA. HOWEVER, NOW IN PURSUANCE OF DRP DIRECTION, THE DEPARTMENT'S CASE IS THAT ASSESSEE I S SERVICE PE WITHIN THE SCOPE ARTICLE 5(6). FOR THE SAKE OF READY REFERENCE, RELEVANT PARAS OF ARTICLE 5 OF INDIA SINGAPORE DTAA IS REPRODUCED HEREUNDER: '3. A BUILDING SITE OR CONSTRUCTION, INSTALLATION O R ASSEMBLY PROJECT CONSTITUTES A PERMANENT ESTABLISHMENT ONLY IF IT CO NTINUES FOR A PERIOD OF MORE THAN 183 DAYS IN ANY FISCAL YEAR. 1781&6621/MUM/16-M/S. KRUEZ SUBSEA PTE.LTD. 4 4. AN ENTERPRISE SHALL BE DEEMED TO HAVE A PERMANEN T ESTABLISHMENT IN A CONTRACTING STATE AND TO CARRY ON BUSINESS THROUGH THAT PERMANENT ESTABLISHMENT IF IT CARRIES ON SUPERVISORY ACTIVITIES IN THAT CONTRACTI NG STATE FOR A PERIOD OF MORE THAN 183 DAYS IN ANY FISCAL YEAR IN CONNECTION WITH A BU ILDING SITE OR CONSTRUCTION, INSTALLATION OR ASSEMBLY PROJECT WHICH IS BEING UND ERTAKEN IN THAT CONTRACTING STATE. 5. NOTWITHSTANDING THE PROVISIONS OF PARAGRAPHS 3 A ND 4, AND ENTERPRISE SHALL BE DEEMED TO HAVE A PERMANENT ESTABLISHMENT I N A CONTRACTING STATE AND TO CARRY ON BUSINESS THROUGH THAT PERMANENT ESTABLISHM ENT IF IT PROVIDES SERVICES OR FACILITIES IN THAT CONTRACTING STATE FOR A PERIOD O F MORE THAN 183 DAYS IN ANY FISCAL YEAR IN CONNECTION WITH THE EXPLORATION, EXPLOITATI ON OR EXTRACTION OF MINERAL OILS IN THAT CONTRACTING STATE. 6. AN ENTERPRISE SHALL BE DEEMED TO HAVE A PERMANEN T ESTABLISHMENT IN A CONTRACTING STATE IF IT FURNISHES SERVICES, OTHER T HAN SERVICES REFERRED TO IN PARAGRAPHS 4 AND 5 OF THIS ARTICLE AND TECHNICAL SERVICES AS D EFINED IN ARTICLE 12, WITHIN A CONTRACTING STATE THROUGH EMPLOYEES OR OTHER PERSON NEL, BUT ONLY IF: (A) ACTIVITIES OF THAT NATURE CONTINUE WITHIN THAT CONTRACTING STATE FOR A PERIOD OR PERIODS AGGREGATING MORE THAN 90 DAYS IN ANY FISCAL YEAR; OR (B) ACTIVITIES ARE PERFORMED FOR A RELATED ENTERPR ISE (WITHIN THE MEANING OF ARTICLE 9 OF THIS AGREEMENT) FOR A PERIOD OR PER IODS AGGREGATING MORE THAN 30 DAYS IN ANY FISCAL YEAR.' ARTICLE 5(3) IS A SPECIFIC PROVISION DEALING WITH ' SERVICE PE', ON ACCOUNT OF CONSTRUCTION, INSTALLATION OR ASSEMBLY PROJECT. IF IT CONTINUES FOR A PERIOD OF MORE THAN 183 DAYS IN ANY FISCAL YEAR. THE INSTALLATION ACTIV ITY INCLUDES ERECTION/SETTING UP MACHINE, EQUIPMENTS AND TESTING AND COMMISSIONING O F SUCH MACHINES AND EQUIPMENTS. INSTALLATION ALSO RELATES TO A CONSTRUC TION OF A PROJECT. ARTICLE 5(6) WHEREAS ENVISAGES THAT, IF AN ENTERPRISE IS 'FURNIS HING SERVICES' IN THE CONTRACTING STATE THROUGH ITS EMPLOYEES FOR A PERIOD OF 90 DAYS OR MORE, THEN IT IS DEEMED TO HAVE SERVICE PE, EXCEPT FOR THE SERVICES REFERRED TO IN PARA 4 AND 5. THE THRESHOLD PERIOD UNDER THIS PARA IS 90 DAYS AND MORE; OR IF SUCH ACT IVITIES ARE PERFORMED FOR A RELATED ENTERPRISE, THEN PERIOD OF MORE THAN 30 DAYS. THE A RTICLE 5(6) EXPLICITLY PROVIDES THAT IT APPLIES TO 'SERVICES' OTHER THAN THOSE COVERED B Y ARTICLE 5(4) AND 5(5), HOWEVER, THE SAID ARTICLE IS SILENT AS REGARDS ITS RELATIONSHIP WITH ARTICLE 5(3). THUS, ARTICLE 5(6) COVER VARIOUS SERVICES WHICH ARE NOT COVERED BY PAR A 4 AND 5 OF ARTICLE 5 AND TECHNICAL SERVICES AS DEFINED IN ARTICLE 12. WHAT K IND OF SERVICES HAVE BEEN CONTEMPLATED IN PARA 6 OF ARTICLE 5 HAVE NOT BEEN E LABORATED IN THE TREATY OR ELSEWHERE. IN CONTRADISTINCTION, PARA 3 OF ARTICLE 5 IS VERY SPECIFIC AND THEREFORE, SUCH SPECIFIC ACTIVITIES CANNOT BE READ INTO PARA 6 OF A RTICLE 5. THERE CANNOT BE A OVERLAPPING OF ACTIVITIES CARRIED OUT WITHIN THE AM BIT OF ARTICLE 5(3) AND FURNISHING OF SERVICES AS STATED IN ARTICLE 5(6). BOTH SHOULD BE READ INDEPENDENT OF EACH OTHER, OR ELSE THERE WAS NO REQUIREMENT OF ENSHRINING SEPARAT E PROVISIONS. IF THE ACTIVITIES RELATING TO CONSTRUCTION OR INSTALLATION ARE SPECIF ICALLY COVERED UNDER ARTICLE 5(3), THEN ONE NEED NOT TO GO IN ARTICLE 5(6). THUS, THE ACTIVITY OF THE ASSESSEE WHICH IS PURELY INSTALLATION SERVICES HAS TO BE SCRUTINIZED UNDER ARTICLE 5(3) ONLY AND NOT WITHIN ARTICLE 5(6). 9. NOW WE HAVE TO SEE, WHETHER THE THRESHOLD THE PE RIOD OF MORE THAN 183 DAYS IN THE FISCAL YEAR HAS CROSSED OR NOT IN THIS CASE. SO FAR AS PROJECT RELATING TO CONTRACT WITH ALLSEAS, THE FINDING OF THE DRP IS THAT EMPLOYEES O F THE ASSESSEE WHO HAVE STAYED IN INDIA WERE FOR DURATION OF MINIMUM 3 DAYS TO 101 DA YS AND ON SECOND TRIP THE DURATION RANGES FROM 14 DAYS TO 48 DAYS WHICH AGGRE GATES TO LESS THAN 183 DAYS. THE DRP HAS NOT GIVEN ANY FINDING THAT THE PERIOD OF ST AY OF EMPLOYEES HAS CROSSED 183 DAYS. THE ONLY CASE OF THE DRP IS THAT, THE ASSESSE E CONSTITUTE A SERVICE PE WITHIN ARTICLE 5(6) WHICH PRESCRIBED FOR 90 DAYS AND 30 DA YS. THUS, SO FAR AS CONTRACT WITH ALLSEAS, THE SAME DO NOT CONSTITUTE A SERVICE PE AS PERIOD OF STAY IN INDIA IS LESS THAN 1781&6621/MUM/16-M/S. KRUEZ SUBSEA PTE.LTD. 5 183 DAYS. SO FAR AS CONTRACT WITH SWIBER GB GASLIFT PROJECT ALSO, THE NUMBER OF DAYS AS PER THE FINDING OF DRP ITSELF IS MUCH LESS THAN 183 DAYS AND THEREFORE, THIS PROJECT ALSO DO NOT CONSTITUTE SERVICE PE IN INDIA. WE FIND THAT THE ACTIVITIES CARRIED OUT BY THE ASSE SSEE DURING THE YEAR UNDER APPEAL ARE SIMILAR TO THE ACTIVITIES OF AY.2010-11,SO,RESPECTFULLY FOL LOWING THE ABOVE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL,WE DECIDE FIRST EFFECTIVE GROUND OF APPEAL IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE. 4. SECOND EFFECTIVE GROUND OF APPEAL (GOA -8) IS ABOUT NOT GRANTING CREDIT FOR TDS CLAIMED BY THE ASSESSEE IN ITS RETURN OF INCOME.THE AO IS DIRECTED TO VERIFY THE CLAIM MADE BY THE ASSESSEE AND TAKE NECESSARY ACTION AS PER LAW. GRO UND OF APPEAL NO. 8 IS ALLOWED IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE,IN PART. 5. GROUND NO. 9-11 DEALING WITH INTEREST U/S. 234B OF THE ACT ARE CONSEQUENTIAL IN NATURE, HENCE SAME ARE NOT BEING ADJUDICATED. 6. LAST GROUND OF APPEAL ABOUT INITIATING PENALTY PROC EEDINGS U/S. 271(1)(C ) OF THE ACT IS PREMATURE,HENCE,WE DISMISS THE SAME. ITA/6621/MUM/2016-AY: 2013-14: 7.FACTS FOR THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION ARE SIMILA R TO THE FACTS FOR THE AY.2012-13.TH ONLY DIFFERENCE IS AMOUNT INVOLVED.THE AO ASSESSED THE I NCOME OF THE ASSESSEE AT RS.8.93 CRORES,BEING 10% OF GROSS REVENUE OF RS.89.30 CRORE S.IN THIS YEAR THE ASSESSEE HAS EXECUTED ONLY ONE INSTALLATION PROJECT AND THE PERIOD OF THE PROJECT WAS LESS THAT 183 DAYS.FOLLOWING THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL,FOR EARLIER YEAR,WE DECID E FIRST EFFECTIVE GROUND OF APPEAL IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE. 8. GROUND NO.8 IS ABOUT NOT GRANTING CREDIT FOR TDS CL AIMED BY THE ASSESSEE . THE AO IS DIRECTED TO VERIFY THE CLAIM AND PASS NECESSARY ORDERS. GROU ND NO.8 IS ALLOWED PARTLY. 9. GROUND NO.9 AND 10 ARE ABOUT LEVY OF INTEREST U/S. 234 BEING CONSEQUENTIAL IN NATURE THEY ARE NOT BEING ADJUDICATED.FOLLOWING OUR ORDER FOR T HE LAST YEAR WE DISMISS LAST GROUND OF APPEAL RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE AS IT DEALS WITH INI TIATION OF PENALTY U/S. 271(1)(C) OF THE ACT. AS A RESULT APPEALS FIELD BY ASSESSEE FO R BOTH THE AY.S STANDS PARTLY ALLOWED. .. ! '#$% $&' . PRONOUNCED IN OPEN COURT ON 4 TH SEPTEMBER, 2017 . ( ' )# 4 , 2017 SD/- SD/- ( (( ( /RAVISH SOOD) ( $(* / RAJENDRA) ( +, / JUDICIAL MEMBER / ACCOUNTANT MEMBER MUMBAI; /DATED :04.09.2017. JV.SR.PS. 1781&6621/MUM/16-M/S. KRUEZ SUBSEA PTE.LTD. 6 / COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. APPELLANT / 2. RESPONDENT / 3. THE CONCERNED CIT(A)/ , 4. THE CONCERNED CIT / 5. DR L BENCH, ITAT, MUMBAI / , , . . 6. GUARD FILE/ //TRUE COPY// / BY ORDER, / DY./ASST. REGISTRAR , /ITAT, MUMBAI.