Verizon Communications India Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi V. JCIT, Special Range- 9, New Delhi

ITA 2234/DEL/2019

• Counselvise Citation: [2021] 107 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 3275 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 year(s) 7 month(s) 7 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 20-10-2021
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Bench Allotted: F
• Assessment Year: 2010-2011
• Appeal Filed On: 13-03-2019
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: GANGADHAR
• Keywords: Business income; TDS
• Section: 195; 9(1); 9(1); 9(1); 194J; 13; 2

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH D, NEW DELHI BEFORE SH. N. K. BILLAIYA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SH. AMIT SHUKLA, JUDICIAL MEMBER (THROUGH VIDEO CONFERENCING) ITA NO.7297/DEL/2017, 6509/DEL/2019 & 2234/DEL/2019 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2013-14, 2015 -16 & 2010-11 VERIZON COMMUNICATIONS INDIA PVT. LTD. A-WING, 3 RD FLOOR, RADISSON COMMERCIAL PLAZA, NH-8, NEW DELHI-110037 PAN NO AAACW3738L VS ADDL. CIT SPECIAL RANGE-9, NEW DELHI (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY SH. S. K. AGGARWAL, CA SH. ALOK KUMAR SINHA, CA RESPONDENT BY SH. GANGADHAR PANDA, CIT DATE OF HEARING: 11/10/2021 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT: 20/10/2021 ORDER PER N. K. BILLAIYA, AM: 1. ITA NO.2234/DEL/2019 IS THE APPEAL BY THE ASSESS EE PREFERRED AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A)-15, DELHI DATED 28.12.2018 PERTAINING TO A.Y.2010-11. 2. ITA NO.7297/DEL/2017 IS THE APPEAL BY THE ASSESS EE PREFERRED AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 06.10.2017 FRAMED U/S. 143 (3) 2 R.W.S. 144 C (13) OF THE ACT AND ITA NO.6509/DEL/20 19 IS THE APPEAL BY THE ASSESSEE PREFERRED AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 14.06.2019 FRAMED U/S. 143 (3) R.W.S 144 C OF THE A CT PERTAINING TO A.Y.2015-16. 3. SINCE COMMON GRIEVANCES ARE INVOLVED IN THE ABOV E MENTIONED APPEALS THEY WERE HEARD TOGETHER AND ARE DISPOSED OF BY THIS COMMON ORDER FOR THE SAKE OF CONVENIENCE AN D BREVITY. 4. THE FIRST COMMON GRIEVANCE RELATES TO THE PROPOR TIONATE DISALLOWANCE OF DEDUCTION CLAIMED U/S.80 IA OF THE ACT. 5. THE UNDERLYING FACTS IN THE ISSUE ARE THAT THE A SSESSEE COMMENCED PROVIDING TELECOMMUNICATION SERVICES FROM MAY, 2002. A DEDUCTION U/S. 80 IA OF THE ACT WAS CLAIME D BY THE ASSESSEE ON PROFITS DERIVED FROM TELECOMMUNICATION SERVICES. A.Y.2007-08 WAS TAKEN AS THE FIRST OF THE 10 YEARS OUT OF A BLOCK OF 15 YEARS AS STIPULATED UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF S ECTION 80 IA OF THE ACT. ACCORDINGLY THE ASSESSEE CLAIMED THE DEDU CTION U/S. 80 IA FOR THE FIRST TIME IN A.Y.2007-08. THE CLAIM WA S ALLOWED BY THE AO. 6. IN JANUARY 2008, THE ASSESSEE ALSO OBTAINED NLD AND ILD LICENSES FROM THE DOT AND CONTINUED TO PROVIDE TELECOMMUNICATION SERVICES WITH ENHANCED QUALITY. THE ASSESSEE CLAIMED DEDUCTION UNDER SECTION 80-IA OF THE ACT ON PROFITS 3 DERIVED FROM TELECOMMUNICATION SERVICES INCLUDING T HE SERVICES RENDERED PURSUANT TO THESE LICENSES FOR THE ASSESSM ENT YEARS UNDER CONSIDERATION. 7. THE AO WAS OF THE OPINION THAT THE SERVICES PROV IDED PURSUANT TO ILD/ NLD LICENSE CONSTITUTE A NEW AND I NDEPENDENT UNDERTAKING AND SINCE THE LICENSE WAS RECEIVED IN 2 008, ACCORDING TO THE AO THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT COMPLIED W ITH THE CONDITION REQUIRING THAT THE TELECOMMUNICATION SERV ICES SHOULD COMMENCE PRIOR TO 1, APRIL 2005. SINCE THE ASSESSE E DID NOT PROVIDE ANY SEGMENTAL INCOME EXPENDITURE FOR NLD AN D ILD SERVICES, PROPORTIONATE DISALLOWANCE IS MADE ON THE BASIS OF REVENUE. 8. THE PROPORTIONATE DISALLOWANCE FOR THE YEAR UNDE R CONSIDERATION IS AS UNDER :- 9. ASSESSEE CARRIED THE MATTER BEFORE THE CIT(A) BU T WITHOUT ANY SUCCESS. 4 10. BEFORE US THE COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE DREW OUR ATTENTION TO THE DECISION OF THIS TRIBUNAL IN ASSESEES OWN CASE FOR A.Y.2011- 12 AND POINTED OUT THE RELEVANT FINDINGS OF THIS TR IBUNAL CLAIMING THAT THE ISSUE HAS BEEN DECIDED BY THE TRIBUNAL IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE. 11. PER CONTRA THE DR DID NOT BRING ANY DISTINGUISH ING DECISION IN FAVOUR OF THE REVENUE. 12. WE HAVE CAREFULLY CONSIDERED THE ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW AND HAVE CAREFULLY PERUSED THE DECISION OF TH IS TRIBUNAL IN ASSESSEES OWN CASE FOR A.Y.2011-12. 13. WE FIND FORCE IN THE CONTENTION OF THE COUNSEL. THIS TRIBUNAL IN A.Y.2011-12 HAS RESOLVED THIS QUARREL IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE. THE RELEVANT FINDINGS READ AS UNDER :- 5 6 14. SINCE THE FACTUAL MATRIX AND THE ARGUMENTS ARE IDENTICAL. FACTS CONSIDER IN A.Y.2011-12, RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWI NG THE DECISION OF THE COORDINATE BENCH (SUPRA) WE DIRECT THE AO TO DELETE THE PROPORTIONATE DISALLOWANCES. 15. GROUND NO.2 TO 6 OF A.Y.2010-11, GROUND 2 TO 2. 5 FOR A.Y.2013-14 AND GROUND NO.2 TO 7 FOR A.Y.2015-16 AR E ALLOWED. 16. THE SECOND COMMON GRIEVANCE RELATES TO THE DISA LLOWANCE OF TELECOMMUNICATIONS EXPENSES PAID TO FOREIGN TELECOM OPERATORS. 17. THE UNDERLYING FACTS IN THIS ISSUE ARE THAT THE ASSESSEE CONTRACTS WITH ITS CUSTOMERS FOR PROVIDING DATA TRA NSMISSION SERVICES IN INDIA AND OVERSEAS IN A SAFE AND SECURE MANNER. WHILE THE ASSESSEE POSSESSES THE REQUISITE LICENSES AND I NFRASTRUCTURE TO RENDER THE TELECOMMUNICATION SERVICES IN INDIA, IT IS NOT ABLE TO DO SO OUTSIDE INDIA. THE ASSESSEE HAS ENTERED INTO AN AGREEMENT WITH MCI COMMUNICATION SERVICES INC. (MCICS) AND MC I INTERNATIONAL INC. FOR PROVIDING TELECOMMUNICATION SERVICES OUTSIDE INDIA. THIS IS A QUID PRO QUO ARRANGEMENT WHEREIN THE ASSESSEE PROVIDES SIMILAR TELECOMMUNICATION SERVICE S TO THE FOREIGN TELECOM OPERATORS (FTOS) WITHIN INDIA AS AN D WHEN THEY REQUIRE. IN CONSIDERATION TO THE SERVICES RECEIVED FROM FTO THE ASSESSEE HAS MADE PAYMENTS TO THE FTOS. THE ASSESSE E SEPARATELY RECEIVED PAYMENTS FROM THE FTOS FOR THE TELECOMMUNICATION SERVICES PROVIDED BY IT WITHIN IN DIA. 7 18. THE AO DISALLOWED THE PAYMENTS SO MADE U/S. 40 (A) (I) OF THE IT ACT, 1961 FOR NON-WITHHOLDING OF TAXES. 19. WHEN THE MATTER WAS AGITATED BEFORE THE CIT(A) IT WAS STRONGLY CONTENDED THAT NO SUCH WITHHOLDING OF TAXE S WAS REQUIRED IN TERMS OF THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 195 OF THE ACT SINCE THE SUBJECT PAYMENTS WERE NOT CHARGEABLE TO TAX IN INDIA UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF THE ACT AND INDIA-US DOUBLE TAXAT ION AVOIDANCE AGREEMENT (DTAA). 20. THE CIT(A) WAS NOT CONVINCED WITH THE CONTENTIO N OF THE ASSESSEE AND CONFIRMED THE DISALLOWANCE. 21. BEFORE US THE COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE DREW OUR ATTENTION TO THE DECISION OF THIS TRIBUNAL IN ASSESSEE S OWN CA SE FOR A.Y.2011- 12 AND POINTED OUT THAT THE TRIBUNAL HAS DECIDED TH E ISSUE IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE. 22. PER CONTRA THE DR THOUGH SUPPORTED THE FINDINGS OF THE LOWER AUTHORITIES, BUT COULD NOT BRING ANY DISTINGU ISHING DECISION IN FAVOUR OF THE REVENUE. 23. WE HAVE GIVEN A THOUGHTFUL CONSIDERATION TO THE ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW. WE FIND FORCE IN THE CONTEN TION OF THE COUNSEL THAT THIS ISSUE WAS CONSIDERED BY THIS TRIB UNAL IN 8 ASSESSEES OWN CASE FOR A.Y.2011-12 AND HAS DECIDED IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE. THE RELEVANT FINDINGS READ AS UNDER ;- 24. ON FINDING PARITY OF FACTS WITH THE FACTS OF A. Y.2011-12, RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING THE FINDINGS OF THIS TRIBUNA L (SUPRA) WE DIRECT THE AO TO DELETE THE DISALLOWANCE. 25. GROUND NO. 7 TO 10 IN A.Y.2010-11, GROUND NO.3 TO 3.6 IN A.Y.2013-14 AND GROUND NO.8 TO 11 IN A.Y. 2015-16 A RE ALLOWED. 26. THE NEXT GRIEVANCE RELATES TO THE DISALLOWANCES OF TELECOMMUNICATION EXPENSE OF RS.30,08,982/- PAID TO DOMESTIC TELECOM OPERATORS IN A.Y.2010-11. 9 27. THE UNDERLYING FACTS IN THIS ISSUE ARE THAT THO UGH THE ASSESSEE POSSESSES THE REQUISITE LICENSES AND PERMI SSIONS TO RENDER THE TELECOMMUNICATION SERVICES IN INDIA BUT IT IS NOT IN A POSITION TO PROVIDE THE SAME SERVICES OUTSIDE INDIA . ALSO, IN SOME CASES THE ASSESSEE DOES NOT POSSESS THE REQUISITE I NFRASTRUCTURE TO PROVIDE TELECOMMUNICATION SERVICES IN A FEW PART S OF INDIA. THEREFORE, IN ORDER TO SERVE ITS CUSTOMERS ALL OVER INDIA, THE ASSESSEE PROCURED TELECOM CONNECTIVITY SERVICES FRO M INDIAN TELECOM OPERATORS. 28. THE AO DISALLOWED THE PAYMENTS MADE FOR THESE T ELECOM CONNECTIVITY SERVICES. THE AO WAS OF THE FIRM BELI EF THAT THE TELECOM CHARGES PAID TO INDIAN COMPANIES ARE ELIGIB LE FOR WITHHOLDING OF TAX U/S. 194J OF THE ACT AND SINCE T HE ASSESSEE HAS NOT WITHHELD THE TAXES THE AO DISALLOWED THE EN TIRE PAYMENT U/S. 40 (A) (IA) OF THE ACT. 29. THE ASSESSEE AGITATED THE MATTER BEFORE THE CIT (A) BUT WITHOUT ANY SUCCESS. 30. BEFORE US THE COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE VEHEMENT LY STATED THAT PAYMENT FOR TELECOMMUNICATION SERVICES TO DTO DO NOT QUALIFY AS ROYALTY INTERMS OF SECTION 9 (1) (VI) OF THE ACT. IT IS THE SAY OF THE COUNSEL THAT AS PER THE AGREEMENT BETWEE N THE 10 ASSESSEE, BHARTI AIRTEL AND RELIANCE EACH PARTY WAS RESPONSIBLE FOR ITS OWN NETWORK AND FOR THE PROVISION OF SERVIC ES RELATED TO IT. 31. STRONG RELIANCE WAS PLACED ON THE DECISION OF T HIS TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF BHARTI AIRTEL LIMITED 178 ETJ 708. 32. PER CONTRA THE DR STRONGLY SUPPORTED THE FINDIN GS OF THE AO. 33. WE HAVE GIVEN A THOUGHTFUL CONSIDERATION TO THE ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW. IT IS TRUE THAT THE AGREEME NT BETWEEN THE ASSESSEE, BHARTI AIRTEL AND RELIANCE CLEARLY SHOW T HAT EACH PARTY WAS RESPONSIBLE FOR ITS NETWORK AND FOR THE PROVISI ONS OF SERVICES RELATED TO IT. WE ARE OF THE CONSIDERED VIEW THAT THE TELECOM OPERATORS PROVIDED CONNECTING, TRANSIT AND TERMINAT ION SERVICES TO EACH OTHER ON A RECIPROCAL BASIS AND NEITHER OF THE PARTIES HAD ANY RIGHTS IN THE EQUIPMENTS OR IN THE NETWORK OF T HE OTHER PARTIES. THE FTOS DO NOT GRANT ANY POSSESSION OR C ONTROL OF ANY EQUIPMENT OR IN THE NETWORK DEPLOYED BY THEM TO THE ASSESSEE. 34. WE HAVE CAREFULLY PERUSED THE DECISION OF THIS TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF BHARTI AIRTEL (SUPRA). THE RELEVANT FI NDINGS OF THE COORDINATE BENCH READ AS UNDER :- 6. THE FACT PATTERNS OF THE APPELLANTS CASE IS SI MILAR TO THE FACT PATTERS IN THE ORDER PASSED BY JURISDICTIONAL HONB LE DELHI TRIBUNAL IN CASE OF BHARTI AIRTEL (SUPRA), BEING A DTO IN AP PELLANTS CASE. THE HONBLE DELHI TRIBUNAL EXAMINED THE TAXABILITY OF T ELECOM PAYMENTS 11 TO FOREIGN TELECOM OPERATORS IN DETAIL AND HELD THA T THERE IS A CLEAR DISTINCTION BETWEEN SERVICE RENDERING AGREEMENTS AN D ROYALTY AGREEMENTS AND A PAYMENT FOR A SERVICE CANNOT BE TREATED AS ROYALTY FOR THE USE OF A PROCESS/ EQUIPMENT EITHE R UNDER THE ACT OR UNDER THE TAX TREATY. RELEVANT EXTRACT OF THIS HON BLE TRIBUNALS ORDER IS AS UNDER: A PERUSAL OF THESE AGREEMENTS DEMONSTRATE THAT, EA CH PARTY UNDER THE AGREEMENT REMAINS RESPONSIBLE FOR ITS ' OWN NET WORK AND FOR THE PROVISION OF SERVICES RELATED TO IT. THE TELECOM OP ERATOR PROVIDE CONNECTING, TRANSIT AND TERMINATION SERVICES TO EAC H OTHER ON A RECIPROCAL BASIS AND NEITHER OF THE PARTIES SHALL H AVE ANY RIGHTS IN THE EQUIPMENTS OR IN THE NETWORK OF OTHER PARTIES T HE AGREEMENT ARE NOT FOR RENTING, HIRING, LETTING OR LEASING OUT OF ANY OF THE NETWORK ELEMENTS OR RESOURCES TO THE OTHER PARTIES OR FOR R ENDERING TELECOMMUNICATION SERVICES ON A RECIPROCAL BASIS .. ..THE ASSESSEE IS NOWHERE CONCERNED WITH THE ROUTE, EQUIPMENT, PROCES S OR NETWORK ELEMENTS USED BY THE FTO IN THE COURSE OF RENDERING SUCH SENDEES. IN THE CASE OF TELECOM INDUSTRY. ALL THE TELECOM O PERATORS HAVE SIMILAR INFRASTRUCTURE AND TELECOM NETWORKS IN PLAC E, FOR RENDITION OF TELECOMMUNICATION SERVICES. THE PROCESS EMBEDDED IN THE NETWORKS OF ALL TELECOM OPERATORS IS THE SAME. THE EQUIPMENT S, RESOURCES ETC. EMPLOYED IN THE EXECUTION OF THE PROCESS MAY BE DIF FERENT IN PHYSICAL TERMS I.E. IN TERMS OF OWNERSHIP AND PHYSI CAL PRESENCE, BUT THE PROCESS EMBEDDED IN THE EXECUTION OF A TELECOM INFRASTRUCTURE IS THE SAME AND COMMONLY AVAILABLE WITH ALL THE TELECO M OPERATORS. THE 'ROYALTY' IN RESPECT OF USE OF A 'PROCESS' WOUL D IMPLY THAT THE GRANTOR OF THE RIGHT HAS AN EXCLUSIVE RIGHT OVER SU CH 'PROCESS' AND ALLOWS THE 'USE' THEREOF TO THE GRANTEE IN RETURN F OR A 'ROYALTY'. IT IS NECESSARY THAT GUARANTEE MUST 'USE' THE 'PROCESS' O N ITS OWN AND BEAR THE RISK OF EXPLOITATION. THE 'PROCESS OF RU NNINGS THE NETWORKS IN THE CASE OF ALL THE TELECOM OPERATORS IS ESSENTI ALLY THE SAME AND 12 THEY DO NOT HAVE ANY EXCLUSIVE RIGHT OVER SUCH 'PRO CESS' SO AS TO BE IN A POSITION TO CHARGE A 'ROYALTY'. FOR ALLOWING T HE USE OF SUCH PROCESS, THE TERM 'USE' IN CONTEXT OF ROYALTY CONNO TES USE BY THE GRANTEE AND NOT BY THE GRANTOR. A 'PROCESS' WHICH H AS BEEN IN PUBLIC DOMAIN FOR SOME TIME AND IS WIDELY USED BY EVERYONE IN THE FIELD CANNOT CONSTITUTE AN ITEM OF INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY FOR THE PURPOSE OF CHARGE OF 'ROYALTY'. ANY COMPENSATION OR CONSIDERAT ION, IF AT ALL RECEIVED FOR ALLOWING THE USE OF ANY SUCH 'PROCESS' WHICH IS PUBLICALLY AVAILABLE AND NOT EXCLUSIVELY OWNED BY T HE GI-ANTOR CONSTITUTES BUSINESS INCOME AND NOT ROYALTY. 'THE TELECOM OPERATOR MERELY RENDER TELECOMMUNICAT IONS SERVICES TO THE SUBSCRIBERS, AS WELL AS INTERCONNECTING TELECOM OPERATORS WITH THE AID OF THEIR NETWORK AND THE PROCESS EMBEDDED T HEREIN. THIS IS A STANDARD FACILITY WHICH IS USED BY THE FTP ITSELF. THUS THE INSERTION OF EXPLANATION 6 TO SECTION 9(L)(VI) DOES NOT ALTER THE DECISION TAKEN BY US ON THIS ISSUE. 56. IS FAR AS THE INSERTION OF EXPLANATION 5 TO S ECTION 9(L)(VI) IS CONCERNED, WE HOLD THAT THIS EXPLANATION COMES INTO PLAY ONLY IN CASE OF ROYALTY FALLING WITHIN THE AMBIT OF SECTION 2 OF SECTION 9(1) (VI). WHEN A PROCESS IS WIDELY AVAILABLE IN THE PUB LIC DOMAIN AND IS NOT EXCLUSIVELY OWNED BY ANYONE THE IT CANNOT CONST ITUTE AN ITEM OF INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY FOR THE PURPOSE OF CHARGE OF ROYALTY UNDER CLAUSES (I), (II) AND (III) OF EXPLANATION 2 TO SEC TION 9(L)(VI). HENCE, THE CRITERIA OF POSSESSION, CONTROL, LOCATION INDIRECT USE ETC., AS EXPLAINED BY EXPLANATION 5 HAS NO EFFECT IN THE CASE IN HAND. THE HON'BLE DELHI HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF BHARA TI CELLULAR LTD. (SUPRA) HAS GIVEN A FINDING THAT THE FACILITY IN QU ESTION PROVIDED TO THE ASSESSEE IS A 'SERVICE' AND IN A BROADER SENSE A 'COMMUNICATION SERVICE'..... THUS THE FACTUAL FINDING OF THE JURIS DICTIONAL HIGH COURT IN THIS VERY FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES IS THAT 'TECHN ICAL SERVICES ' IS 13 BEING PROVIDED BY THE FTO'S TO THE ASSESSEE BUT THA T SUCH 'TECHNICAL SERVICE' IS NOT FTS AS DEFINED U/S. 9(L)(VII) OF TH E ACT AS THERE IS NO HUMAN INTERVENTION UNDER SUCH CIRCUMSTANCES, THE QU ESTION OF TAKING A CONTRARY VIEW THAT IT IS NOT A 'TECHNICAL SERVICES', BUT A CASE WHERE THE FTP HAD GRANTED THE ASSESSE A RIGHT TO US E A PROCESS AND THE PAYMENT IS FOR 'ROYALTY' CANNOT BE COUNTENANCED . APPLYING THE BINDING DECISION OF THE HON'BLE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT WE HAVE TO HOLD THAT THE PAYMENT CANNOT BE TERMED AS COVERED B Y EXPLANATION 2 READ WITH SECTION 9(L)(VI) OF THE ACT. 35. ON FINDING PARITY WITH THE FACTS, RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING THE DECISION OF THE COORDINATE BENCH (SUPRA) WE DIRECT THE AO TO DELETE THE DISALLOWANCE GROUND NO.11 TO 14 IN A.Y.2 010-11 ARE ALLOWED. 36. THE NEXT GRIEVANCE RELATES SHORT GRANT OF CREDI T FOR TAXES DEDUCTED AT SOURCE (TDS) IN A.Y. 2013-14 AND 2015 -16. 37. WE FIND THAT ON SHORT GRANT OF TDS GIVEN BY TH E AO, THE ASSESSEE HAS MOVED A RECTIFICATION APPLICATION WHIC H HAS NOT BEEN DISPOSED OF TILL DATE. WE DIRECT THE AO TO CONSIDE R THE CLAIM OF THE CREDIT OF TDS AS PER THE PROVISIONS OF THE LAW AND DECIDE THE RECTIFICATION APPLICATION EXPEDITIOUSLY. 38. GROUND NO.5 OF A.Y.2013-14 AND GROUND NO. 12 OF A.Y.2015- 16 ARE ACCORDINGLY DISPOSED OF. 14 39. GROUND NO.15 AND 16 FOR A.Y.2010-11 ARE NOT PRE SSED AND SAME ARE DISPOSED OF AS NOT PRESSED. 40. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL NO.2234/DEL/2019 IS P ARTLY ALLOWED AND ITA NO.7297/DEL/2017 AND 6509/DEL/2019 ARE ALLO WED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 20.10.2021. SD/- SD/- (AMIT SHUKLA) (N. K. BILLAIYA) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOU NTANT MEMBER *NEHA* DATE:-20.10.2021 COPY FORWARDED TO: 1. APPELLANT 2. RESPONDENT 3. CIT 4. CIT(APPEALS) 5. DR: ITAT ASSISTANT REGI STRAR ITAT NEW DELHI 15 DATE OF DICTATION 20.10.2021 DATE ON WHICH THE TYPED DRAFT IS P LACED BEFORE THE DICTATING MEMBER 20.10.2021 DATE ON WHICH THE TYPED DRAFT IS PLACED BEFORE THE OTHER MEMBER 20.10.2021 DATE ON WHICH THE APPROVED DRAFT COMES TO THE SR.PS/PS 20.10.2021 DATE ON WHICH THE FAIR ORDER IS PLACED BEFORE THE DICTATING MEMBER FOR PRONOUNCEMENT 20.10.2021 DATE ON WHICH THE FAIR ORDER COMES BACK TO THE SR. PS/ PS 20.10.2021 DATE ON WHICH THE FINAL ORDER IS UPLOADED ON THE WEBSITE OF ITAT 20.10.2021 DATE ON WHICH THE FILE GOES TO THE BENCH CLERK 20.10.2021 DATE ON WHICH FIL E GOES TO THE HEAD CLERK. THE DATE ON WHICH FILE GOES TO THE ASSISTANT REGISTRAR FOR SIGNATURE ON THE ORDER DATE OF DISPATCH OF THE ORDER