M/s. Text Hundred India Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi V. ACIT, New Delhi

ITA 2095/DEL/2014

• Counselvise Citation: [2017] 127 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 4725 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 3 year(s) 4 month(s) 21 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 31-08-2017
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: D
• Next Hearing Date: 21-06-2017
• Assessment Year: 2004-2005
• Appeal Filed On: 09-04-2014
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Assessee Lawyers: ROHIT JAIN ADV SHRI ROHIT GARG
• Keywords: Business income; Transfer pricing; Business expenditure; Additional evidence; Wholly owned subsidiary
• Section: 143(3); 37

Judgement Text

INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH H : NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI H.S.SIDHU , JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI PRASHANT MAHARISHI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO. 2095 TO 2098/DEL/2014 (ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2004 - 05 TO 2009 - 10 ) TEX T HUNDRED INDIA PVT. LD, 2 ND FLOOR, TDI CENTRE, PLOT NO. 7, JASOLA, NEW DELHI PAN:AAAC4224E VS. ACIT, CIRCLE - 16(1), NEW DELHI (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) ITA NO. 284 9 TO 2851 & 2852 /DEL/2014 (ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2004 - 05 TO 2006 - 07 AND 2009 - 10 ) DCIT, CIRCLE - 16(1), NEW DELHI VS. TEXT HUNDRED INDIA PVT. LTD, 2 ND FLOOR, TDI CENTRE, PLOT NO. 7, JASSOLA, NEW DELHI PAN:AAACT4224E (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) ASSESSEE BY : SHRI ROHIT JAIN, ADV SHRI ROHIT GARG, CA REVENUE BY: SHRI ARUN KUMAR YADAV, SR. DR DATE OF HEARING 24/06 / 2017 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT 31 / 07 / 2017 O R D E R PER BENCH . ASSESSMENT YEAR 2004 - 05 ITA NO. 2095/DEL/2014 (BY ASSESSEE) ITA NO. 2849/DEL/2014 (BY REVENUE) 1. TH ESE TWO APPEALS ARE FILED BY THE RIVAL PARTIES ARE AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE LD CIT(A) - 19 DATED 06.02.2014 FOR THE AY 2004 - 05 IN APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AGAINST THE ORDER OF LD ASSESSING OFFICER U/S 143(3) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT READ WITH SECTION 254 OF THE ACT ON 19.12.2011. 2. THE ASSESSEE HAS RAISED THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS OF APPEAL IN ITA NO. 2095/DEL/2014 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2004 - 05: - PAGE 2 OF 12 1. THAT THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) ERRED ON FACTS AND LAW IN UPHOLDING THE DISALLOWANCE OF MANAGEMENT SERVICE CHARGES TO THE EXTENT OF RS. 1,84,09,798 (OUT OF TOTAL AMOUNT OF RS.2,16,76,134/ - ALLEGING THAT APPELLANT FAILED TO ESTABLISH THAT MANAGEMENT CHARGES WERE INCURRED WHOLLY AND EXCLUSIVELY FOR THE PURPOSES OF BUSINESS OF THE APPELLANT. 1.1 THAT THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) ERRED ON FACTS AND LAW IN HOLDING THAT E - MAIL TRAILS SUBMITTED BY THE APPELLANT WAS ONLY AN AFTERTHOUGHT AND DOES NOT SUBSTANTIATE THAT THE CONSULTANCY SERVICES WERE ACTUALLY RECEIVED BY THE APPELLANT FROM THE GROUP COM PANIES. 1.2 THAT THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) ERRED ON FACTS AND LAW IN OBSERVING THAT THE APPELLANT HAD EARNED SUBSTANTIAL FEES FROM THE CLIENTS DURING PREVIOUS YEAR(S) RELEVANT TO ASSESSMENT YEAR(S) 2000 - 01 AND 2003 - 04 WITHOUT INCURRING SIMIL AR MANAGEMENT EXPENDITURE. 1.3 THAT THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) ERRED ON FACTS AND IN LAW IN RELYING UPON THE SO - CALLED ADVERSE REMARK/QUALIFICATION OF THE AUDITOR WITHOUT: (I) APPRECIATING THAT THERE WAS NO SUCH REMARK/QUALIFICATION IN THE AC COUNTS FOR THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION; (II) EXAMINING/ APPRECIATING PERCEPTIONS/NOTIONS, DISREGARDING VOLUMINOUS UNCONTROVERTED DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCES PLACED ON RECORD TO JUSTIFY THE ACTUAL RENDERING OF SERVICES BY THE GROUP COMPANIES TO THE APPELLANT. 1 .4 THAT THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) ERRED ON FACTS AND IN LAW IN NOT FOLLOWING THE BINDING ORDERS OF THE CIT(A) IN THE APPELLANTS OWN CASE FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEARS 2007 - 08 AND 2008 - 09, IN GROSS VIOLATION OF PRINCIPLES OF JUDICIAL PROPRIETY. 1 .5 THAT THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) ERRED ON FACTS AND IN LAW IN LEVELING VARIOUS FALSE/BASELESS ALLEGATIONS AND PROCEEDINGS ON GENERAL PERCEPTION/ NOTIONS, DISREGARDING VOLUMINOUS UNCONTROVERTED DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCES PLACED ON RECORD. WITHOUT PREJUDICE 1.6 THAT THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) ERRED ON FACTS AND IN LAW IN ALLOWING DEDUCTION OF MANAGEMENT SERVICE CHARGES AT UNREALISTICALLY LOW RATE OF 5% OF THE GROSS FEE INCOME EARNED BY THE APPELLANT. 3. THE REVENUE HAS RAISED TH E FOLLOWING GROUNDS OF APPEAL IN ITA NO. 2849/DEL/2014 FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2004 - 05 1. LD CIT(A) ERRED IN DELETING THE ADDITION OF RS. 3266336/ - OUT OF RS. 21676134/ - MADE BY THE AO ON ACCOUNT OF MANAGEMENT SERVICE CHARGES. 2. THE APPELLANT CRAVES FOR RESERVING THE RIGHT TO AMEND, MODIFY, ALTER, ADD OR FOREGO ANY GROUNDS OF APPEAL AT ANY TIME BEFORE OR DURING THE HEARING OF APPEAL. 4. THE ASSESSEE COMPANY IS A RESIDENT WHOLLY ON SUBSIDIARY OF TEXT HUNDRED INDIA PVT. LTD UK AND ENGAGED IN THE BUSINESS OF PROVIDING PUBLIC RELATIONS CONSULTANCY TO LEADING IT AND TELECOM COMPANIES IN INDIA. FOR TE AY 2004 - 05 IT FILED RETURN OF INCOME ON 20.10.2004 SHOWING INCOME OF RS. 12318750/ - . THE ORIGINAL ASSESSMENT U/S 143(3) OF THE ACT WAS PASSED ON 31.10.2006 ASSESSIN G TOTAL INCOME OF RS. PAGE 3 OF 12 37000660/ - . ON THE VARIOUS ADDITIONS MADE THE APPEAL WAS PREFERRED THE LD CIT(A) WHO VIDE ORDER DATED 30.01.2009 UPHELD THE ADDITION OF RS. 21676134/ - ON ACCOUNT OF MANAGEMENT SERVICES CHARGES BUT ALLOWED THE APPEAL OF ASSESSEE ON CLI ENT SERVICE FEES, ON BUSINESS PROMOTION AND ROYALTY ISSUES. BOTH THE PARTIES CHALLENGED THE ORDER OF THE LD CIT(A) BEFORE THE ITAT IN ITA NO. 1165/DEL/2009 AND 1466/DEL/2009. THE COORDINATE BENCH SET ASIDE THE ISSUE OF THE ADDITION OF MANAGEMENT SERVICE CH ARGES BACK TO THE FILE OF AO FOR DE NOVO ADJUDICATION AFTER ADMITTING ADDITIONAL EVIDENCES. FURTHER, ON THE ISSUE OF CLIENT SERVICE FEES AND ROYALTY WAS ALSO SET ASIDE TO THE FILE OF AO FOR RE - ADJUDICATION. THE REVENUE PREFERRED THE APPEAL AGAINST THE ORDE R OF THE COORDINATE BENCH BEFORE THE HON'BLE DELHI HIGH COURT WHICH WAS DISMISSED VIDE ORDER DATED 14.01.2011. 5. MEANWHILE THE LD ASSESSING OFFICER REFRAMED THE ASSESSMENT ON 19.12.2011 U/S 143(3) READ WITH SECTION 254 OF THE ACT MAKING THE SAME DISALLOWANC ES OF MANAGEMENT SERVICE AND ROYALTY ASSESSING THE TOTAL INCOME OF RS. 34553240/ - . THE SAME WAS CHALLENGED BY ASSESSEE BEFORE LD CIT(A) WHO CONFIRMED THE DISALLOWANCES OF MANAGEMENT SERVICE CHARGES OF RS. 18409798/ - OUT OF RS. 21676134/ - . THEREFORE, REVENUE IS IN APPEAL BEFORE US AGAINST THE ADDITION DELETED BY THE LD CIT(A) AND THE ASSESSEE IS IN APPEAL BEFORE US AGAINST THE ADDITION CONFIRMED. 6. ON THE APPOINTED DATE THE LD AR SUBMITTED THAT THE ISSUE IS SQUARELY COVERED BY THE DECISION OF THE COORDINATE BENCH IN ASSESSEES OWN CASE FOR AY 2007 - 08 AND 2008 - 09 WHICH IS PLACE AT PAGE NO. 162 OF THE PAPER BOOK AND THEREFORE, ISSUE IS NOW SQUARELY COVERED BY THAT DECISION. HE SPECIFICALLY REFERRED TO PARA NO. 10 OF THE ORDER WHERE THE APPEAL OF THE REVENUE FOR AY 2007 - 08 AND 2008 - 09 ON THE SIMILAR ISSUE ARE DISMISSED. HE THEREFORE, SUBMITTED THAT ON THIS ISSUE THE DISALLOWANCE DELETED BY THE LD CIT(A) WERE CONFIRMED BY THE COORDINATE BENCH. HE THEREFORE, SUBMITTED THAT APPEALS OF THE REVENUE ARE COVERED AGAINST THE REVENUE BY THE ORDER OF THE COORDINATE BENCH. HE FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT SO FAR AS THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS CONCERNED IT WAS SUBMITTED THAT FOR AY 2010 - 11 THE LD ASSESSING OFFICER ITSELF HAS NOT MADE ANY ADDITION ON THIS ACCOUNT AC CEPTING THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE. HE THEREFORE, SUBMITTED THAT WHEN THE REVENUE HAS ACCEPTED THE STAND OF THE ASSESSEE IN SUBSEQUENT ASSESSMENT YEAR THERE IS NO REASON THAT DISALLOWANCE SUSTAIN S IN THIS YEAR. 7. THE LD SR. DR ARUN KUMAR YADAV APPEARING FOR THE REVENUE COULD NOT CONTROVERT THAT HOW THE APPEALS OF THE REVENUE ARE NOT COVERED BY THE EARLIER DECISION OF THE COORDINATE BENCH IN ASSESSEES OWN CASE AND WHY THE APPEALS OF THE ASSESSEE ARE PAGE 4 OF 12 NOT ALLOWABLE IN VIEW OF THE DECISION OF THE COORDINATE BENC H AS WELL AS THE STAND OF ASSESSING OFFICER IN SUBSEQUENT YEAR. 8. WE HAVE CAREFULLY CONSIDERED THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS AND ALSO PERUSED THE ORDERS OF THE LOWER AUTHORITIES. WE HAVE ALSO PERUSED THE ORDER OF THE COORDINATE BENCH IN ITA NO. 4378/DEL/2012 F OR AY 2007 - 08 AND ITA NO. 8/DEL/2013 FOR AY 2008 - 09 DATED 27.11.2015. THE COORDINATE BENCH IN THOSE APPEALS WAS SEIZED OF THE MATTER WHEN TOTAL MANAGEMENT SERVICE FEES WAS DISALLOWED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER BUT THE ADDITION WAS DELETED BY THE LD CIT(A) AN D AGAINST THAT ORDER OF THE LD CIT(A) REVENUE WAS IN APPEAL BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL. THE COORDINATE BENCH HAS HELD HAS UNDER: - 5. BRIEF FACTS GIVING RISE TO THE SAID GROUNDS OF APPEAL ARE AS FOLLOWS. THE ASSESSEE IS A WHOLLY OWNED SUBSIDIARY OF A UK COMPANY, VIZ. M/S. TEXT HUNDRED INTERNATIONAL LTD. THE ASSESSEE IS ENGAGED IN THE BUSINESS OF PUBLIC RELATION SERVICE AND HAD, DURING THE RELEVANT YEAR, SHOWN TOTAL RECEIPTS OF RS. 12,75,49,484/ - . WHILE COMPUTING THE TAXABLE INCOME, THE ASSESSEE HAS CLAIMED PAYMEN T OF MANAGEMENT CHARGES OF RS.1,16,17,998/ - TO FOUR OF ITS ASSOCIATED COMPANIES BASED IN AUSTRALIA, UK AND US AND ALSO PAYMENT OF ROYALTY OF RS. 44=53,109/ - TO NEXT FIFTEEN COMMUNICATIONS GROUP PIC., UK. INSOFAR AS THE MANAGEMENT SERVICE CHARGES ARE CONCER NED, THE SAME ARE STATED TO HAVE BEEN PAID TO THE SAID FOUR ASSOCIATED COMPANIES FOR PROVIDING VARIOUS MANAGEMENT SERVICES TO THE ASSESSEE. THE ROYALTY PAYMENT IS STATED TO BE TOWARDS USE OF TEXT 100 LOGO/ BRAND. IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER, THE ASSESSING OF FICER OBSERVED THAT SUBSTANTIAL PAYMENT IS BEING MADE BY THE ASSESSEE TO ITS ASSOCIATED COMPANIES ABROAD TOWARDS MANAGEMENT CHARGES AND LICENSE FEES (ROYALTY). IN THIS REGARD, A COMPARISON HAS BEEN MADE IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER TO SHOW THAT SUBSTANTIAL FEES WERE PAID DURING THE FINANCIAL YEAR - 2005 - 06 AND ALSO THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION. ACCORDINGLY, THE ASSESSEE WAS DURING THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, DIRECTED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO FURNISH JUSTIFICATION OF THE CLAIM OF MANAGEMENT CHARGES AND ROYALTY PAYMENT. IN RESPONSE TO THE SAME, THE ASSESSEE FILED DETAILED JUSTIFICATION ALONG WITH VARIOUS DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCES BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER EXPLAINING IN DETAIL THE NATURE OF SERVICES BEING RENDERED BY THE ASSOCIATED COMPANIES/ CONCERNS FOR WHICH SUC H MANAGEMENT CHARGES WERE PAID BY THE ASSESSEE. THE SUBMISSIONS MADE ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE, HOWEVER, DID NOT FIND FAVOUR WITH THE ASSESSING OFFICER. THE ASSESSING OFFICER ALLEGED THAT THE ASSESSEE APPEARS TO HAVE DIVERTED ITS INCOME TO ITS GROUP COMPAN IES BY RESORTING TO DEBITING ITS ACCOUNTS BY MANAGEMENT SERVICE CHARGES AND ROYALTY PAYMENT. THE ASSESSING OFFICER, THEREFORE, CONCLUDED THAT THE PAYMENTS MADE WERE NOT GENUINE AND, THEREFORE, THE SAME COULD NOT BE ALLOWED AS DEDUCTION. IN PARAS 2.6 OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER, THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS OBSERVED THAT THE EXPENSES CLAIMED BY THE ASSESSEE CANNOT BE REGARDED AS HAVING BEEN LAID OUT AND EXPENDED WHOLLY AND EXCLUSIVELY FOR THE PURPOSES OF BUSINESS OR PROFESSION SO AS TO QUALIFY FOR DEDUCTION UNDER S ECTION 37 OF THE ACT. IN VIEW OF THESE FINDINGS, THE ASSESSING OFFICER HELD THAT MANAGEMENT SERVICE CHARGES AND PAYMENT OF LICENSE FEES (ROYALTY) WAS NOT ALLOWABLE AS DEDUCTION TO THE ASSESSEE. PAGE 5 OF 12 6 . AGGRIEVED, THE ASSESSEE WENT IN APPEAL BEFORE THE ID. CIT (A) AND REITERATED THE SUBMISSIONS MADE BEFORE THE AO. THE ASSESSEE ALSO FILED ELABORATE WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS AND ALSO PAPER BOOK CONTAINING .VARIOUS DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCES AND COPIES OF DECISIONS RELIED UPON ION SUPPORT OF ITS CLAIM. IT WAS THE SUBMISSION O F THE ASSESSEE THAT THE SERVICES RENDERED BY THE ASSESSEE TO ITS VARIOUS CLIENTS INVOLVES, RENDERING, INTER A. A, THE FOLLOWING SERVICES: (A) CARRYING OUT PUBLIC RELATIONS CAMPAIGNS FOR PROMOTING PRODUCTS/SERVICES OF THE CLIENTS IN PRINT/ELECTRONIC MEDIA. B.) ORGANIZING CAMPAIGNS/EVENTS FOR LAUNCH OF PRODUCTS BY THE CLIENTS. (C) PROVIDING TRAINING TO REPRESENTATIVES OF THE CLINES IN CONNECTION WITH PRESS MEETS/CONFERENCES, ORGANIZING EVENTS FOR DISSEMINATION OF REGIONAL AND INTERNATIONAL ANNOUNCEMENT.. . . (D) WRITING OPINIONS/ARTICLES ON BEHALF OF THE CLIENTS. (E) ADVISING THE CLIENTS ON VARIOUS EVENTS/PROMOTIONAL CAMPAIGNS TO BE ORGANIZED FOR PROMOTING THE PRODUCTS. (F) ADVISING THE CLIENTS ON HUMAN RESOURCE/ PERSONNEL TO BE RECRUITED ENGAGED FOR PROMOT ION MARKETING PRODUCTS SERVICES. IN ORDER TO RENDER THE AFORESAID PUBLIC RELATIONS AND MANAGEMENT CONSULTANCY SERVICES TO A VARIED RANGE OF CLIENTS, THE ASSESSEE, IT WAS TAKES MANAGEMENT SERVICES AND CONSULTANCY SUPPORT OF VARIOUS ASSOCIATED GROUP COMPANIE S/ENTERPRISES SPREAD ACROSS THE GLOBE, OR OBTAINING SUCH MANAGEMENT AND CONSULTANCY SERVICES, THE ASSESSEE, IT WAS CONTENDED, PAID MANAGEMENT CHARGES TO THE ASSOCIATED GROUP COMPANIES/ENTERPRISES STRICTLY IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE MANAGEMENT SERVICES AGREEMEN T ENTERED INTO WITH THE GROUP COMPANIES AS PER DETAILS GIVEN BELOW: - S.NO NAME OF GROUP COMPANY DATE OF 1. TEXT - 100 PTY. LIMITED, 1 AUGUST, 2. TEXT - 100 GROUP PIC., UK 1ST . AUGUST, 3. TEXT - 100 CORPORATION, 30TH JULY, 2003 4. . TEXT - 100, UK 1ST AUGUST, IT WAS FURTHER CONTENTED THAT THE MANAGEMENT AND CONSULTANCY SERVICES RECEIVED FROM THE GROUP COMPANIES/ ASSOCIATED ENTERPRISES INCLUDE, INTER ALIA, THE FOLLOWING SERVICES: A. CONSULTANCY SERVICES FROM REGIONAL DIRECTORS INCLUDING STRATEGIC AND BUSINESS DEVEL OPMENT ADVICES AND MAINTENANCE OF SENIOR LEVEL RELATIONSHIP WITH KEY GLOBAL CLIENTS. B. HUMAN RESOURCE SERVICES RELATING TO HUMAN RESOURCE PLANNING, BUDGETING AND BENCHMARKING ETC. C. FINANCE CONSULTANCY AND ACCOUNTING SERVICES, D SALES AND MARKETING SER VICES. E. INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY (I.T.) SERVICES. F. LEGAL SERVICES IT WAS FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT IN TERMS OF THE AFORESAID AGREEMENTS ENTERED INTO BY THE ASSESSEE WITH VARIOUS GROUP COMPANIES, SERVICES ARE BEING RECEIVED BY THE ASSESSEE ON REGULAR BASI S, IN RESPECT OF WHICH INVOICES ARE BEING RECEIVED ON THE BASIS OF THE AGREEMENTS ENTERED INTO BY THE ASSESSEE. IT WAS PAGE 6 OF 12 VEHEMENTLY CONTENDED THAT ACTUAL RENDERING OF THE SERVICES BY THE ASSOCIATED COMPANIES IS CLEARLY EVIDENT FROM VOLUMINOUS DOCUMENTARY EVI DENCES PLACED ON RECORD IN THE FORM OF VARIOUS EMAILS EXCHANGED BETWEEN THE EMPLOYEES OF THE ASSESSEE AND THE GROUP COMPANIES RELATING TO VARIOUS INTERACTIONS FROM TIME TO TIME. IT WAS FURTHER VEHEMENTLY SUBMITTED THAT THE ALLEGATION OF THE ASSESSING OFFIC ER THAT PAYMENT OF THE MANAGEMENT SERVICE CHARGES AND ROYALTY/ LICENSE FEES MERELY REMITTANCES ABROAD IS WITHOUT ANY BASIS. IT WAS FURTHER CONTENDED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD DEDUCTED TAX AT SOURCE. ON THE ENTIRE PAYMENTS REMITTED TO THE ASSOCIATED COMPANIES . THE ASSESSEE ALSO PLACED ON RECORD A DETAILED CHART TABULATING VARIOUS SERVICES RENDERED BY ASSOCIATED COMPANIES FROM TIME TO TIME AND CORRELATED THE SAME WITH VARIOUS DOCUMENTS IN THE FORM OF EMAILS FILED IN THE PAPER BOOK. ON THE BASIS OF THE SAID EVID ENCES, IT WAS CONTENDED THAT THERE WAS NO BASIS FOR THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO DISALLOW THE MANAGEMENT SERVICE CHARGES PAID BY THE ASSESSEE. 7. INSOFAR AS ROYALTY PAYMENT WAS CONCERNED, IT WAS SUBMITTED THAT THE SAME WAS PAID IN TERMS OF LICENSE AGREEMENT D ATED 30TH JULY, 2003, ENTERED INTO BY THE ASSESSEE WITH NEXT FIFTEEN COMMUNICATIONS GROUP PIC UK, THE OWNER OF TRADEMARK TEXT 100. IN TERMS OF THE SAID AGREEMENT, THE SAID TRADEMARK, IT WAS SUBMITTED, WAS ALLOWED TO BE USED TO THE ASSESSEE ON'NON - EXCLUSI VE AND NON - TRANSFERABLE BASIS AND THE ASSESSEE WAS REQUIRED TO PAY LICENSE FEES AGREED AT THE RATE OF 1% OF THE TOTAL REVENUE OF THE. ASSESSEE. IT WAS FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS ACTUALLY USED THE TRADEMARK AND LOGO IN THE COURSE OF ITS BUSINES S BY IMPRINTING THEM ON CLIENT INVOICE, OFFICIAL STATIONARY, VISITING CARDS, CORRESPONDENCE, ETC. 8. ON THE BASIS OF THE AFORESAID SUBMISSION THE LD AR FOR THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER ERRED IN DISALLOWING MANAGEMENT SERVICE CHARGES A ND ROYALTY PAYMENT IN TOTAL DISREGARD OF VOLUMINOUS DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE BEING PLACED ON RECORD. THE ASSESSING :** REF IN THE REMAND REPORT, IT APPEARS, WAS REFERRING TO THE :::R:S~ENTS FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEARS 2004 - 05 TO 2006 - 07 (REFERRED SJZRA WHEREIN T HE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS SUBSEQUENTLY PASSED ORDERS .AR TO THE ORDER PASSED FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2007 - 08, THE YEAR - _:ER APPEAL. AS STATED ABOVE, THE VOLUMINOUS EVIDENCES FILED FOR THE EAR UNDER CONSIDERATION WERE, IN THE ORIGINAL PROCEEDINGS FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEARS 2004 - 05 TO 2006 - 07, WERE NOT CONSIDERED EITHER BY THE MESSING OFFICER OR THE CIT(A) AND WERE ADMITTED FOR THE FIRST TIME BY THE TRIBUNAL. IN THE SET ASIDE PROCEEDINGS FOR THOSE YEARS, THE ASSESSING. HE HAS MERELY FOLLOWED THE ASSESSMENT OR DER FOR THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION. IN THE AFORESAID CIRCUMSTANCES, IT WAS SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER OUGHT TO HAVE JUDICIOUSLY CONSIDERED THE DOCUMENTARY E :E - CES WHILE COMPLETING THE ASSESSMENT FOR THE YEAR UNDER AERATION, WHICH HAS NOT BEEN DONE. REFERENCE TO THE SET - ASIDE THUS, MISPLACED. HE REITERATED THAT CLAIMED BY THE ASSESSEE SHOULD BE OF THE AFORESAID SUBMISSIONS, IT WAS VEHEMENTLY CONTENTED BY THE LD. AR FOR THE ASSESSEE THAT THE ASSESSING GROSSLY ERRED IN DISALLOWING MANAGEMENT SERV ICE CHARGES AND ROYALTY PAID IN THE NORMAL COURSE OF ITS BUSINESS. 9. AFTER CONSIDERING THE ELABORATE SUBMISSIONS MADE BY THE ID AR, THE CIT(A) HAS COME TO THE CONCLUSION AS UNDER: I HAVE CAREFULLY CONSIDERED THE FINDINGS GIVEN IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER, THE SUBMISSIONS MADE ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE, THE REMAND REPORT FURNISHED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND ALSO VARIOUS DOCUMENTARY PAGE 7 OF 12 EVIDENCES PLACED ON RECORD. AT THE OUTSET, IT MAY BE NOTICED THAT THERE IS NO DISPUTE THAT VARIOUS VOLUMINOUS DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCES FILED BY - THE ASSESSEE IN THE PAPER BOOK TO SUBSTANTIATE THE RENDERING OF THE SERVICES BY VARIOUS ASSOCIATED COMPANIES WERE ALSO AVAILABLE WITH THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND THIS FAC T IS DULY CONFIRMED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN HIS REMAND REPORT. NOW REGARDING THE ALLOWABILITY OF MANAGEMENT SERVICE CHARGES AND THE LICENSE FEE (ROYALTY PAYMENT) BY THE ASSESSEE TO ASSOCIATED ENTERPRISES OUTSIDE INDIA, THE FACTS RELATING TO BOTH THE PA YMENTS HAVE ALREADY BEEN CANCELLED IN THE EARLIER PART OF THE ORDER AND SINCE THERE IS NO DISPUTE ON THE FUNDAMENTAL BETWEEN ASSESSEE AND THE ASSESSING OFFICER THE SAME ARE NOT REPEATED HERE. ON A CONSIDERATION OF THE FINDINGS GIVEN BY THE ASSESSING OFFI CER IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER, IT IS NOTICED THAT THE PRIMARY CONTENTION OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS, IN THE GARB OF PAYMENT OF MANAGEMENT SERVICE CHARGES AND THE LICENSE REMITTED PAYMENT ABROAD TO ITS GROUP COMPANIES/ASSOCIATED ENTERPR ISE. ON THIS BASIS, THE ASSESSING OFFICER HELD THAT THE MADE BY THE ASSESSEE WAS NOT IN THE REGULAR COURSE OF ITS BUSINESS AND WAS THUS NOT INCURRED WHOLLY AND EXCLUSIVELY FOR THE PURPOSES OF BUSINESS. ACCORDINGLY, THE ASSESSING OFFICER PROCEEDED TO DISALL OW THE ENTIRE MANAGEMENT SERVICE CHARGES AND ALSO THE ROYALTY PAYMENT CLAIMED BY THE ASSESSEE AS BUSINESS EXPENDITURE. IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER, THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS HOWEVER, IT IS NOTICED, NOT SUBSTANTIATED THE AFORESAID CHARGE OF REMITTING PAYMENT A BROAD IN THE GARB OF CLAIMING EXPENSES. THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS NOT BEEN ABLE TO REBUT/ CONTROVERT THE VOLUMINOUS DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCES AVAILABLE ON RECORD REGARDING THE ACTUAL RENDERING OF SERVICES BY THE ASSOCIATED ENTERPRISES TO THE ASSESSEE. IN THE R EMAND REPORT TOO, THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS NOT BEEN ABLE TO CONTROVERT/REBUT THE RENDERING OF THE SERVICES BY THE ASSOCIATED ENTERPRISE TO THE ASSESSEE, EVEN THOUGH THE ASSESSING OFFICER WAS SPECIFICALLY REQUIRED TO COMMENT ON THE EVIDENCES FILED BY THE A SSESSEE. ON A CAREFUL CONSIDERATION OF THE DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE WHICH HAVE BEEN PLACED ON RECORD BY THE ASSESSEE IN :~E PAPER BOOK, IT IS NOTICED THAT THE SAME CONTAINS EMAILS EXCHANGED FROM TIME TO TIME BETWEEN THE EMPLOYEES OF THE ASSESSEE AND THE EMPLO YEES OF THE ASSOCIATED ENTERPRISE UNDER THE MANAGEMENT SERVICES AGREEMENT ENTERED INTO BY THE ASSESSEE WITH :~E ASSOCIATED ENTERPRISES. THE MANAGEMENT SERVICE AGREEMENT ' - WIVES RENDERING OF SERVICES BY THE ASSOCIATED ENTERPRISE AND THE ASSESSEE ON (A) CONS ULTANCY SERVICES INCLUDING STRATEGIC/BUSINESS DEVELOPMENT ADVICE; (B) HUMAN RESOURCE SERVICES; (C) FINANCIAL CONSULTANCY AND ACCOUNTING SERVICES; (D) SALES AND MARKETING SERVICES; (E) INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY (IT) SERVICES; AND (F) LEGAL SUPPORT SERVICES. IN SUPPORT OF THE SAID SIX CATEGORY OF SERVICES COVERED IN THE MANAGEMENT SERVICE AGREEMENT, THE ASSESSEE HAS PLACED ON RECORD EMAILS EXCHANGED FROM TIME TO TIME. A TABULATION CONTAINING THE DETAILS AND THE NATURE OF SERVICE RENDERED, DATE OF RENDERING OF S ERVICES AND THE CORRESPONDING DETAILS OF THE PAGE 8 OF 12 EMAILS PLACED IN THE PAPER BOOK, WHICH IS , WAS SENT TO THE ASSESSING OFFICER FOR HIS SPECIFIC COMMENTS. DESPITE BEING AFFORDED SPECIFIC OPPORTUNITY DURING THE APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS, THE ASSESSING OFFICER, IN TH E REMAND REPORT HAS NOT BEEN ABLE TO CONTROVERT ANY OF THE EVIDENCES PLACED ON RECORD. THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS IN FACT, NOT BEEN ABLE TO DISPUTE THE ACTUAL RENDERING OF SERVICES BY THE ASSOCIATED ENTERPRISE TO THE ASSESSEE. THE SAID ANNEXURE CLEARLY CONT AINS NOT ONLY DETAILS OF THE PERSONS BETWEEN WHOM THE RELEVANT EMAILS WERE ECHANGED BUT ALSO THE NATURE OF THE ADVICE AND CATEGORY OF SERVICE FOR WHICH THE ADVICE WAS RECEIVED. SECTION 65B ADMISSIBILITY OF ELECTRONIC RECORDS UNDER THE INDIAN EVIDENC E ACT, 1872. '... ANY INFORMATION CONTAINED IN AN ELECTRONIC RECORD WHICH IS PRINTED ON A PAPER, STORED, RECORDED OR COPIED IN OPTICAL OR MAGNETIC MEDIA PRODUCED BY A COMPUTER (HEREINAFTER REFERRED TO AS THE COMPUTER OUTPUT) SHALL BE DEEMED TO BE ALSO A DO CUMENT...' ALSO SECTION 4 OF INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY ACT, 2000 RELATING TO LEGAL RECOGNITION OF ELECTRONIC RECORDS PROVIDES THAT: - WHERE ANY LAW PROVIDES THAT INFORMATION OR ANY OTHER MATTER SHALL BE IN WRITING OR IN THE TYPEWRITTEN OR PRINTED FORM, THEM , NOTWITHSTANDING ANYTHING CONTAINED IN SUCH LAW, SUCH REQUIREMENT SHALL BE DEEMED TO HAVE BEEN SATISFIED IF SUCH INFORMATION OR MATTER IS RENDERED OR MADE AVAILABLE IN AN ELECTRONIC ; AND .ACCESSIBLE SO AS TO BE USABLE FOR SUBSEQUENT REFERENCE. ON A PERUSAL OF THE ABOVE THE PROVISONS IT IS CLEAR THAT INDIA INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY ACT 2000 AND INDIAN EVIDENCE ACT, 1873 PROVIDES THAT THE INFORMATION FURNISHED IN THE ELECTRONIC RECORDS CAN BE - TREATED AS DOCUMENTS FOR THE PURPOSES OF ASSESSING ANY INF ORMATION. IN THE LIGHT OF THE AFORESAID, IT CAN EASILY BE CONCLUDED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS PLACED SUFFICIENT UNREBUTTED UNCONTROVERTED DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCES IN SUPPORT OF ACTUAL RENDERING OF SERVICE BY THE ASSOCIATED ENTERPRISE TO THE ASSESSEE. THEREFORE , I AM OF THE CONSIDERED VIEW THAT THERE IS NO BASIS FOR THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO ALLEGE THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD MERELY DIVERTED ITS INCOME TO ITS FOREIGN ASSOCIATED ENTERPRISE IN THE GRAB OF - PAYMENT OF MANAGEMENT SERVICE CHARGES. THE FURTHER CONTENTION OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT BEEN ABLE TO CORRELATE THE SERVICES RECEIVED AND THE ACTUAL EARNING - OF INCOME IS, IN MY VIEW, MISPLACED AND CONTRARY TO THE SETTLED LEGAL POSITION. FOR THE PURPOSE OF COMPUTING BUSINESS INCOME, ALL EXPENSES INCURRED WHOLLY AND EXCLUSIVELY FOR THE PURPOSES OF BUSINESS ARE ALLOWABLE AS DEDUCTION. THE EXPRESSION WHOLLY AND EXCLUSIVELY REQUIRES THAT THE ENTIRE_ EXPENSES INCURRED BY THE ASSESSEE MUST BE FOR THE PURPOSES OF BUSINESS. THE EXPRESSION FOR THE PU RPOSE OF PAGE 9 OF 12 BUSINESS IS VERY WIDE AND THERE IS NO REQUIREMENT IN LAW TO ESTABLISH ONE TO ONE CORRELATION BETWEEN THE EXPENSES INCURRED AND THE ACTUAL INCOME EARNED BY THE ASSESSEE. ONCE THE EXPENSES ARE INCURRED FOR THE PURPOSES OF BUSINESS, WHICH EXPRESSI ON IS MUCH WIDER THAN THE EXPRESSION FOR THE PURPOSE OF EARNING PROFITS AND THE ASSESSEE IS ALSO ABLE TO SUBSTANTIATE THAT THE SAID EXPENSES ARE WHOLLY AND EXCLUSIVELY FOR THE SAID PURPOSE, THERE IS NO FURTHER REQUIREMENT TO CORRELATE THE EXPENSES WITH THE INCOME EARNED. IN SHORT, ONCE THE EXPENSES ARE FOUND TO BE INCURRED IN THE NORMAL COURSE OF BUSINESS, WHETHER OR NOT INCURRING OF SUCH EXPENSES RESULTS IN EARNING OF INCOME, SUCH EXPENSES ARE ALLOWABLE AS BUSINESS DEDUCTION. REFERENCE IN THIS REGARD MAY B E - NODE TO THE CELEBRATED DECISION OF THE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT V. MALAYALAM PLANTATIONS LTD. REPORTED IN 53 ITR 140, RELIED UPON BY THE AR OF THE ASSESSEE. IN VIEW THEREOF, I DO NOT FIND ANY MERIT IN THE CONCLUSION OF THE AO THAT SINCE THE ASSE SSEE HAS NOT BEEN ABLE TO - ESTABLISH CORRELATION BETWEEN EXPENSES INCURRED AND THE INCOME EARNED, THE EXPENSES INCURRED ARE NOT ALLOWABLE AS DEDUCTION. ON PERUSAL OF RECORDS, IT IS ALSO NOTICED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD DULY DEDUCTED TAX AT SOURCE ON THE PAYME NTS MADE TO THE ASSOCIATED ENTERPRISE AT THE APPLICABLE RATES. THUS, ON AN OVERALL DEW OF THE MATTER, IT IS NOTICED THAT PAYMENT OF MANAGEMENT SERVICE CHARGES IS SUPPORTED BY (A) MANAGEMENT SERVICE AGREEMENT ENTERED INTO BY THE. ASSESSEE WIT IT THE FOREIGN ASSOCIATED ENTERPRISES; (B) VOLUMINOUS DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCES WHICH HAVE NOT BEEN CONTROVERTED/REBUTTED /DISPUTED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND DEDUCTION OF TAX AT SOURCE AT THE APPLICABLE RATE IN THESE CIRCUMSTANCES. I DO NOT FIND ANY MERIT IN THE DISALL OWANCE OF MANAGEMENT SERVICE CHARGES AMOUNTING TO RS. 11617998/ - VIEW TAKEN BY ME IS ALSO FORTIFIED BY DECISION OF THE DELHI THE VIEW TAKEN BY ME IS ALSO FORTIFIED BY DECISION OF THE DELHI TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF CUSHMAN INDIA PVT. LTD. V. ACIT REPORTE D IN 143 TTJ 692, RELIED UPON BY THE AR OF THE ASSESSEE. IN THAT CASE TOO, RENDERING OF SERVICES BY THE ASSOCIATED ENTERPRISE/ CONCERN WAS SUPPORTED BY COPIES OF EMAILS, WHICH WAS PLACED ON RECORD. THE ASSESSING OFFICER : SC OWED THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE ON THE GROUND THAT THERE - AS ABSENCE OF EVIDENCES OF RENDERING OF SERVICES. DISAGREEING ~ - :H THE FINDINGS OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER, THE TRIBUNAL HELD AS UNDER: 18. IN PURSUANCE OF AFOREMENTIONED AGREEMENT, VIDE TAX INVOICE (COPY OF WHICH IS PLACED AT P. 191 OF THE PAPER BOOK), CWS HAS RAISED AN AMOUNT OF 74,330 SINGAPORE DOLLARS BEING REIMBURSEMENT OF 75 PER CENT OF MR. ROYDEN'S COST INCURRED FROM JANUARY TO JUNE, 2006 IN SINGAPORE OFFICE. THE AFORESAID AMOUNT HAS BEEN CALCULATED IN A SEPARATE SHEET, THE COPY OF WHICH IS FILED AT P. 192 OF THE PAPER BOOK. A DETAILED COST HAS BEEN WORKED OUT AT 99,107 SINGAPORE DOLLARS, 75 PER CENT THEREOF COMES TO 74,330 SINGAPORE DOLLARS. TO SUPPORT THAT MR. ROY DEN BRAGANZA HAS ACTUALLY RENDERED THE SERVICES, THE ASSESS EE HAS ALSO ENCLOSED COPIES OF E - MAILS SENT BY MR. ROYDEN BRAGANZA RELATING TO THE PERIOD UNDER CONSIDERATION, THE COPIES OF SEVERAL E - MAILS ARE PLACED AT P. 318 ONWARDS IN WHICH REFERENCE HAS BEEN MADE TO THE SERVICES OBTAINED BY IBM. ' PAGE 10 OF 12 THEREFORE, IT CANN OT BE SAID THAT THERE IS COMPLETE ABSENCE OF EVIDENCE SUBMITTED BY THE ASSESSEE IN RESPECT OF SERVICES OBTAINED BY IT FROM THE SAID MR. ROYDEN BRAGANZA IN RESPECT OF THE REVENUE EARNED BY THE ASSESSEE. THEREFORE, THE OBSERVATION OF THE THAT THERE IS NO DOC UMENTARY EVIDENCE FURNISHED BY THE ASSESSEE IS CONTRARY TO RECORD. LEARNED TPO HAS MAINLY DENIED THE BENEFIT TO THE ASSESSEE ON THE GROUND THAT THERE WAS NO NEED BY THE ASSESSEE TO MAKE SUCH PAYMENT AS THE . ASSESSEE WHEN STARTED ITS BUSINESS IN INDIA MAY HAVE RECEIVED INCIDENTAL BENEFIT FROM OLD BUSINESS RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN THE HOLDING COMPANY OF THE ASSESSEE AND IBM. IN OUR OPINION, SUCH OBSERVATIONS OF LEARNED TPO ARE NOT CORRECT. THE ASSESSEE HAS BEEN SHOWN TO HAVE EARNED SUBSTANTIAL REVENUES FROM IBM AND THAT CANNOT BE THE RESULT OF ONLY INCIDENTAL BENEFIT RECEIVED BY THE ASSESSEE FROM OLD BUSINESS RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN THE HOLDING COMPANY OF THE ASSESSEE AND IBM. IF ONE WANTS TO OBTAIN REVENUE UPON DEALING IN REAL ESTATE, CERTAIN WORK HAS TO BE DONE. A LL THE PRIMARY FACTS WERE SUBMITTED TO THE AO AS WELL AS THE TPO. THE NAMES OF THE PARTIES WERE MENTIONED. WITHOUT EXAMINING ANY OF SUCH DETAILS,, IT CANNOT BE SAID THAT THE REVENUE EARNED BY THE ASSESSEE WAS ONLY ON ACCOUNT OF INCIDENTAL BENEFIT. THERE IS A FORCE IN THE CLAIM THAT TO ENABLE IT TO EARN THE REVENUE FROM NECESSARY TO PROVIDE THE SERVICES TO IBM OUTSIDE SERVICES ARE PROVIDED BY THE EMPLOYEES OF THE ASSESSEE COMPANY, THEN, IT HAS TO INCUR THE COST OF ITS EMPLOYEE WHO HAS TO TRAVEL - TO THE DESTI NATION AND THAT WOULD RESULT IN EXTRA EXPENDITURE. SIMILARLY, IF THOSE SERVICES ARE OUTSOURCED TO THE INDEPENDENT PARTY, THEN ALSO THERE WOULD BE SOME ELEMENT OF PROFIT TO BE CHARGED BY THE SAID INDEPENDENT PARTY. AS AGAINST BOTH THESE SITUATIONS, WHAT COS T HAS BEEN INCURRED BY THE ASSESSEE IS ONLY REIMBURSEMENT OF THE EXPENSES OF AN EMPLOYEE WHO IS SITTING IN SINGAPORE WHICH IS COST EFFECTIVE. ' IT HAS SIMILARLY BEEN HELD BY THE BOMBAY TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE - ' OF BRESSER RAND INDIA PVT. LTD. V. ACIT IN ITA NO. 8753/BOMBAY/2010, A COPY WHEREOF IS PLACED AT PAGES 464 TO 483 OF THE PAPER BOOK. IN THAT CASE, THE ASSESSEE PAID CERTAIN COST CONTRIBUTION CHARGES TO ITS US PARENT, WHICH WAS DISALLOWED, INTER ALIA, ON THE GROUND THAT COST SHARING AGREEMENT WAS NOT G ENUINE BUSINESS AGREEMENT AND ALSO THAT NO REAL SERVICES WERE AVAILED BY THE ASSESSEE FROM THE US COMPANY. THE ORDER OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER WAS UPHELD BY THE CIT(A). BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL IT WAS CONTENDED ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE THAT THERE WAS SUFFICIENT EVIDENCES AVAILABLE ON RECORD TO SUPPORT ACTUAL RENDERING OF SERVICES AND THE ALLEGATION THAT THE AGREEMENT WAS NOT GENUINE WAS NTO CORRECT. UPHOLDING THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE THE TRIBUANL IN PARAS AND 8 HELD AS UNDER: - INSOFAR AS ROYALTY PAYMENT IS CONCERNED, THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS NOT GIVEN ANY INDEPENDENT FINDINGS AND HAS MERELY RELIED UPON THE FINDINGS - GIVEN FOR THE DISALLOWANCE OF THE MANAGEMENT SERVICES. IT IS NOTICED THAT PAYMENT OF ROYALTY IS SUPPORTED BY SPECIFIC AGREEMENT ENTERED INTO B Y THE ASSESSEE WITH THE UK COMPANY. THE ASSESSEE IS ALSO FOUND TO BE ACTUALLY USING THE LOGO/ TRADEMARK IN THE COURSE OF ITS BUSINESS, WHICH FACT HAS REMAINED UNCONTROVERTED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. IN THESE CIRCUMSTANCES AND FOR THE DETAILED REASONS GIVE N. - JN - .RESPECT OF MANAGEMENT SERVICE CHARGES, DISALLOWANCE OF ROYALTY PAGE 11 OF 12 PAYMENT IS ATS DELETED. ACCORDINGLY, GROUNDS OF APPEAL NOS. 5 AND 6 ARE ALLOWED. 10. WE HAVE GIVEN OUR THOUGHTFUL CONSIDERATIONS TO THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS, INCLUDING WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS VIS A - VIS ALL EVIDENCE AVAILABLE ON RECORD. THE. ID A.R HAS PLACED HEAVY RELIANCE ON HIS WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS. HE HAS FURNISHED A TABLE WHICH IS PLACED ON RECORD DEPICTING ALL THE DETAILS REQUIRED TO PROVE HIS POINT OF VIEW. PER CONTRA THE ID. D .R. SHRI MAJOJ H CHOPRA HAS HEAVILY RELIED ON THE ORDER OF THE A.O. WE ARE IN AGREEMENT WITH THE CONCLUSION ARRIVED AT BY THE ID. C1T(A). IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE ELABORATE FINDINGS AND REASONING GIVEN BY THE ID. CIT(A), THERE REMAINS NOTHING FOR US TO INTERFE RE WITH HIS ORDER ON THESE GROUNDS. WHILE UPHOLDING THE ORDER OF THE ID. CIT(A), WE DERIVE SUPPORT FROM THE COURT DECISIONS RELIED UPON BY THE ID. CIT(A) IN HIS ORDER. ACCORDINGLY, FINDING MERITS IN THE ARGUMENTS AND SUBMISSIONS OF THE ID AR AND THE CONCLU SION ARRIVED AT BY THE ID. C!T(A), WE DECLINE TO INTERFERE WITH ORDER OF THE ID. CIT(A). GROUND NOS. 1 AND 2 IN A.Y. 2007 - 08 AND A.Y. 2008 - 09 STAND DISMISSED. 9. FURTHERMORE, THE ASSESSEE HAS PLACED BEFORE US ORDER U/S 143(3) OF THE ACT FOR AY 2010 - 11 WHEREIN, LD ASSESSING OFFICER HAS NOT MADE ANY ADDITION ON ACCOUNT OF MANAGEMENT CHARGES. THEREFORE, AS STATED BEFORE US BY THE LD AR AND NOT CONTROVERTED BY THE LD DR THERE IS NO CHANGE IN THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND PAYMENT HAVE BEEN MADE ON THE BASIS OF SAME AGREEMENT AND SIMILAR PROOFS FOR RENDERING OF THE SERVICES BY THOSE PARTIES. 10. IN THE PRESENT YEAR FOR THE PURPOSE OF MANAGEMENT SERVICES THE ASSESSEE HAS SUBMITTED THE NAME OF THE CONSULTANT DESIGNATION AND ALSO SUPPORTED SERVICE REQUE ST BY EMAIL AND ITS REPLY BY EMAIL. THE AGREEMENTS WITH THE VARIOUS PARTIES ARE ALSO PLACED ON RECORD WHICH SHOWS THE SIMILAR SERVICES ARE THERE AS COVERED BY THE ORDER OF THE COORDINATE BENCH. IN VIEW OF THIS RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING THE ORDER OF THE COORDI NATE BENCH AS WELL AS THE CHANGE IN THE STAND OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN SUBSEQUENT YEAR IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE WE ALSO DISMISS THE GROUND OF THE APPEAL OF THE REVENUE AND ALLOW THE GROUND OF THE ASSESSEE WITH RESPECT TO THE MANAGEMENT SERVICE FEES. 11. I N VIEW OF THIS WE ALLOW THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE AND DISMISS THE APPEAL OF THE REVENUE FOR AY 2004 - 05. ASSESSMENT YEAR 2009 - 10 ITA NO. 2098/DEL/2014 (ASSESSEE) AND ITA NO. 2852/DEL/2014 (REVENUE) ASSESSMENT YEAR 2005 - 06 ITA NO. 2850/DEL/2014( REVENUE) AN D ITA NO. 2096/DEL/2014 ASSESSMENT YEAR 2006 - 07 ITA NO. 2097/DEL/ 2014 (REVENUE) AND ITA NO. 2581/DEL/2014 (ASSESSEE) PAGE 12 OF 12 12. THE PARTIES BEFORE US ALSO CONFIRMED THAT SIMILAR FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES ARE INVOLVED IN APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE AND REVENUE FOR AY 2005 - 0 6, 2006 - 07 AND 2009 - 10. THE APPEAL OF THE REVENUE WITH RESPECT TO ALL THESE YEARS I.E. AY 2005 - 06, 2006 - 07 AND 2009 - 10 ARE ON THE SAME GROUND . THEREFORE, RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING THE ORDER OF THE COORDINATE BENCH IN ASSESSEES OWN CASE FOR EARLIER YEARS AND FOR THE REASON OF CHANGE IN THE STAND OF THE REVENUE FOR SUBSEQUENT YEAR WE FOLLOW THE SAME DECISION AS WE HAVE TAKEN IN APPEAL OF BOTH THE PARTIES FOR AY 2004 - 05 DISMISS THE APPEAL OF THE REVENUE AND ALLOWING THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE. 13. IN THE RESULT FOR ALL THE YEARS APPEALS OF THE ASSESSEE ARE ALLOWED AND APPEALS OF THE REVENUE ARE DISMISSED. 14. ORDER PRO NOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 3 1 / 08 / 2017 . - S D / - - S D / - ( H.S.SIDHU ) (PRASHANT MAHARISHI) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER DATED: 3 1 / 08/ 2017 A K KEOT COPY FORWARDED TO 1. APPLICANT 2. RESPONDENT 3. CIT 4. CIT (A) 5. DR:ITAT ASSISTANT REGISTRAR ITAT, NEW DELHI