ACIT, Gurgaon V. M/s Osram India Pvt. Ltd., Gurgaon

ITA 2459/DEL/2011

• Counselvise Citation: 245920114 RSA 2011
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 7 month(s) 1 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 14-12-2012
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: E
• Next Hearing Date: 15-11-2012
• Assessment Year: 2005-2006
• Appeal Filed On: 13-05-2011
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: GUNJAN P RASAD
• Assessee Lawyers: S R WADHWA
• Keywords: Depreciation; Wholly owned subsidiary
• Section: 194C

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH E: NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI S.V. MEHROTRA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI JOGINDER SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA NOS. 2459, 2460/DEL/2011 ASSESSMENT YEARS: 2005-06, 2006-07 ACIT, CIRCLE-2, GURGAON. VS. OSRAM INDIA PVT. LTD., 2 ND FLOOR, SIGNATURE TOWER, TOWER-B, SOUTH CITY-1, GURGAON. PAN NO. AAACO0160A (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) ITA NO. 1967/DEL/2012 ASSESSMENT YEARS: 2007-08 ACIT(OSD), WARD -1(1), GURGAON. VS. OSRAM INDIA PVT. LTD., 2 ND FLOOR, SIGNATURE TOWER, TOWER-B, SOUTH CITY-1, GURGAON. PAN NO. AAACO0160A (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY: SH. GUNJAN PRASAD, CIT(DR) RESPONDENT BY: SH. S.R. WADHWA, ADV. O R D E R PER S.V. MEHROTRA, A.M. THE APPEALS VIDE ITA NOS. 2459 & 2460 FILED BY THE DEPARTMENT ARE DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDER OF LD. CIT(A) DATED 17/0 2/2011 FOR ASSESSMENT YEARS 2005-06, 2006-07 RESPECTIVELY AND THE APPEAL VIDE ITA NO. 1967 IS DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDER OF LD. CIT(A) DATED 16/0 1/2012 FOR A.Y. 2007-08. ITA NOS. 2459, 2460/D/11 & 1967/D/12 2 2. ITA NO. 2459/D/2011 : THE ASSESSEE IS A 100% SUBSIDIARY OF M/S OSRAM GMBH , GERMANY. DURING THE YEAR, UNDER CONSIDERATION, THE COMPANY WAS ENGA GED IN MANUFACTURING AND TRADING OF LAMPS AND PROVIDING DESIGNING SERVIC ES FOR SOFTWARE AND ELECTRONIC BALLASTS. THE COMPANY WAS ALSO ENGAGED IN MANUFACTURING AND TRADING OF LAMPS WHICH INCLUDES GENERAL LIGHTING LA MPS (GLS), FLUORESCENT TUBE LIGHTS (FTL), ENERGY SAVING COMPACT FLUORESCEN T LAMPS (CFL), AUTOMOTIVE LAMPS, DECORATIVE AND PHOTO-OPTIC LAMPS AND BALLASTS. THE ASSESSEE HAD FILED RETURN DECLARING LOSS OF RS. 94, 35,45,902/-. 3. THE ASSESSING OFFICER DETERMINED THE LOSS AT RS. 88,76,14,210/- AFTER MAKING FOLLOWING ADDITIONS: - 1) DEPRECIATION ON GOODWILL RS, 33,05,377/- 2) PACKING MATERIAL CONSUMED RS. 5,26,26,316/- 4. LD. CIT(A), WHILE PARTLY ALLOWING THE ASSESSEES APPEAL, DELETED BOTH THE DISALLOWANCES. 5. BEING AGGRIEVED, THE DEPARTMENT IS IN APPEAL BEF ORE US AND HAS TAKEN FOLLOWING GROUNDS OF APPEAL: - 1. ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, THE LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) HAS ER RED ITA NOS. 2459, 2460/D/11 & 1967/D/12 3 IN FACTS AND IN LAW IN DELETING THE DISALLOWANCE OF RS. 33,05,377/- MADE BY THE AO ON ACCOUNT OF DEPRECIATI ON ON GOODWILL WHEN THE AO HAS RIGHTLY MADE THIS DISALLOWANCE BY OBSERVING THAT THE GOODWILL IS NOT A DEPRECIABLE ASSET AND THERE IS NO PROVISION UNDER T HE LAW TO ALLOW DEPRECIATION ON IT. 2. ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CA SE, THE LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) HAS ERRED IN FACTS AND IN LAW IN DELETING THE DISALLOWANCE OF RS . 5,26,26,316/- MADE BY THE AO U/S 40(A)(IA) OF THE A CT, WHEN THE AO HAS RIGHTLY DRAWN THE CONCLUSION THAT T HE PACKING MATERIAL CONSUMED AMOUNTING TO RS. 5,26,26,26,316/- BOTH PRE PRINTED OR PLAIN IS IN TH E NATURE OF JOB WORK AND SECTION 194C IS APPLICABLE ON THESE TRANSACTIONS. 6. BRIEF FACTS, APROPOS GROUND NO. 1 ARE THAT THE A SSESSEE COMPANY HAD CLAIMED DEPRECIATION ON GOODWILL TO THE TUNE OF RS. 33,05,377/-. THE ASSESSING OFFICER DISALLOWED THE ASSESSEES CLAIM O BSERVING THAT THE SAME DOES NOT FALL IN SECTION 32(1)(II). 7. LD. CIT(A), FOLLOWING THE DECISION OF ITAT, DELH I BENCH DATED 25/11/2010 IN ITA NO. 3740/DEL/2008 AND OTHERS IN A SSESSEES OWN CASE FOR ASSESSMENT YEARS 2002-03, 2003-04 & 2004-05, DIRECT ED THE AO TO ALLOW DEPRECIATION ON GOODWILL DURING THE CURRENT YEAR. 8. LD. DR RELIED ON THE ORDER OF AO. ITA NOS. 2459, 2460/D/11 & 1967/D/12 4 9. LD. COUNSEL SUBMITTED AS UNDER: - 1. THE HONBLE TRIBUNAL, FOR A.YS. 2002-03 TO 200 4-05 (PP. 1-16/PB) VIDE PARA 11.1 (PAGE-10/PB). THE DEPARTMENT HAS ACCEPTED THIS ORDER IN RESPECT OF TH E A.YS. 2002-03 TO 2004-05 AND ALSO THE VALUATION OF VARIOU S INTANGIBLE ASSETS. 2. THE ISSUE IS NO LONGER RES-INTEGRA. THE HONBL E SUPREME COURT RECENTLY IN CIT VS. SMIFS SECURITIES LTD. (2012) 75 DTR 417 (SC)HAS HELD THAT THE DEPRECIATIO N ON GOODWILL IS ADMISSIBLE AS IT FALLS UNDER THE EXPRES SION ANY OTHER BUSINESS OR COMMERCIAL RIGHTS OF SIMILAR NATU RE IN EXPLANATION 3 TO SECTION 32(1). 10. LD. COUNSEL FURTHER CLARIFIED THAT THE ISSUE OF VALUATION HAS BEEN SETTLED IN A.Y. 2002-03 AND, THEREFORE, THE MATTER NEED NOT TO BE RESTORED TO THE FILE OF AO. IN THIS REGARD, HE REFERRED TO PAGE 10 OF PAPE R BOOK, WHEREIN THE DECISION OF TRIBUNAL FOR ASSESSMENT YEARS 2002-03, 2003-04 & 2004-05, IS CONTAINED. HE REFERRED TO PARA 11.1 WHICH READS AS UNDER: - 11.1 WE WOULD ALSO LIKE TO OBSERVE THAT TO GIVE EFFECT OF OUR ORDER, THE AO SHOULD BIFURCATE THE AMOUNT OF GO ODWILL I.E. RS. 636.72 IN TWO PORTIONS I.E. INTANGIBLE ASS ETS AND GOODWILL IN THE INITIAL YEAR I.E. A.Y. 1999-2000. THEREAFTER, AFTER DEDUCTING THE AMOUNT OF PROPORTIO NATE DEPRECIATION ON GOODWILL ALLOWED BY THE AO IN AY 19 99- 2000, 2000-01 & 2001-02, HE SHOULD WORK OUT THE WDV AS ON 1.4.2001 FOR BOTH PORTIONS. ON SUCH WDV FOR ITA NOS. 2459, 2460/D/11 & 1967/D/12 5 INTANGIBLE ASSETS, THE DEPRECIATION SHOULD BE ALLOW ED IN AY 2002-03 AND SUBSEQUENT YEARS WHEREAS NO DEPRECIATIO N SHOULD BE ALLOWED IN THESE YEARS ON WDV OF REMAININ G PART I.E. GOODWILL, TO BRING MATERIAL ON RECORD FOR VALUATION OF THESE INTANGIBLE ASSETS BY THE ASSESSE E IN THE FORM OF ANY COMPARABLE CASE OR VALUATION BY AN EXPE RT ETC. OTHERWISE, THE AO WILL DO THIS EXERCISE ON THE BASI S OF HIS BEST JUDGMENT. 11. HAVING HEARD BOTH THE PARTIES, WE DO NOT FIND A NY REASON TO INTERFERE WITH THE ORDER OF LD. CIT(A) BECAUSE NOW THE ISSUE HAS BEEN SETTLED BY HONBLE SUPREME COURT. LD. COUNSEL SUBMITS THAT IN A.Y. 2002-03 THE ISSUE REGARDING VALUATION HAS BEEN SETTLED THEREFORE, IN LINE WITH THE FINDINGS OF EARLIER YEAR THIS YEARS DISALLOWANCE IS TO BE RECO MPUTED. WHILE GIVING EFFECT TO THIS ORDER, THE AO WILL EXAMINE THE QUANTIFICATI ON PART HAVING REGARD TO THE FINDINGS FOR EARLIER YEARS. 12. IN THE RESULT, THIS GROUND IS DISMISSED IN TERM S OF ABOVE OBSERVATIONS. 13. BRIEF FACTS, APROPOS GROUND NO. 2 ARE THAT THE ASSESSEE COMPANY WAS REQUIRED TO FURNISH THE DETAILS OF RAW AND PACKING MATERIAL EXPENSES AND WHETHER ANY TDS WAS DEDUCTED OR NOT ON THESE EXPENS ES. THE ASSESSEE FURNISHED FOLLOWING DETAILS: - AMOUNT (IN RS.) RAW MATERIAL CONSUMED 33,04,12,895 PACKING MATERIAL CONSUMED AT FACTORY 5,17,62,496 ITA NOS. 2459, 2460/D/11 & 1967/D/12 6 PACKING MATERIAL CONSUMED AT BRANCHES 6,89,800 STICKERING CHARGES 1,74,020 TOTAL 38,30,39,211 14. AS REGARDS NON DEDUCTION OF TDS, AS PER PROVISI ONS OF SECTION 194C, THE ASSESSEES SUBMISSION WAS THAT NO TDS HAD BEEN MADE ON PACKING MATERIAL AS ALL THE PACKING MATERIAL CONSUMED DURIN G THE YEAR WAS PURCHASED BY THEM AND THE SAME DID NOT INVOLVE ANY JOB WORK. THE AO AFTER CONSIDERING THE ASSESSEES DETAILS OBSERVED THAT THE CLAIM OF T HE ASSESSSEE THAT PACKING MATERIAL CONSUMED BY IT DID NOT INVOLVE ANY JOB WOR K, WAS NOT TENABLE, AS THE PACKING MATERIAL ON WHICH PRINTING HAD BEEN MADE, A S PER THE SPECIFICATIONS GIVEN BY THE ASSESSEE COMPANY, WAS A WORK CONTRACT INVOLVING JOB WORK. HE REFERRED TO THE CBDT CIRCULAR NO. 715 DATED 08/08/1 995 TO POINT OUT THAT THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 194C WERE APPLICABLE IN RESPE CT OF SUPPLY OF PRINTING MATERIAL AS PER THE PRESCRIBED SPECIFICATIONS. HE FURTHER OBSERVED THAT THE ASSESSEE COMPANY IN ITS REPLY HAD NOT DENIED THE FA CT THAT THE PRINTING ON THE PACKING MATERIAL WAS NOT AS PER PRESCRIBED SPECIFIC ATIONS. HE REFERRED TO THE DECISION OF HONBLE BOMBAY HIGH COURT IN THE CASE O F SARVODAYA PRINTING PRESS VS. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA (1994), 93 STC 387, WHEREIN IT HAS BEEN HELD THAT PRINTING OF LABELS UNDER SPECIFIED CONTRACT IN VOLVES JOB WORK. HE FURTHER OBSERVED THAT THE ASSESSEES CLAIM THAT THE PACKING MATERIAL OF RS. 1,11,39,439/- WAS PLAIN MATERIAL, ON WHICH NO PRINT ING WAS GOT DONE, WAS NOT ITA NOS. 2459, 2460/D/11 & 1967/D/12 7 SUPPORTED BY ANY PROOF. HE, THEREFORE, DISALLOWED T HE ASSESSEES CLAIM OF RS. 5,26,26,316/- U/S 40(A)(IA) READ WITH SECTION 194C. 15. LD. CIT(A), WHILE PARTLY ALLOWING THE ASSESSEE S APPEAL, DELETED THE AFOREMENTIONED DISALLOWANCE FOR THE FOLLOWING REASO NS: - I. PACKING MATERIAL EXPENSES HAD BEEN INCURRED FOR PURCHASE OF PACKING MATERIAL SOME OF WHICH WAS PRINTED AND SOME OF WHICH WAS PLAIN. THIS WAS PRIMARILY IN PURSUANCE TO CONT RACT OF SALE; II. NO DISALLOWANCE WAS WARRANTED OUT OF THE EXPENS ES INCURRED FOR THE PURCHASE OF PLAIN PACKING MATERIAL; III. NO TDS WAS REQUIRED TO BE MADE IN RESPECT OF S TICKER CHARGES SINCE TDS HAD BEEN MADE IN A.Y. 2006-07; IV. THE ASSESSEES PLEA THAT PACKING MATERIAL AGGRE GATING TO RS. 4,06,23,057/- ON WHICH PRINTING WORK WAS DONE BY TH E SUPPLIER OF THE MATERIAL WAS DULY SUPPORTED FROM THE BILLS. AS SUCH NO TDS WAS REQUIRED TO BE MADE; V. CIRCULAR NO. 715 DATED 08/08/1995 RELIED UPON BY THE AO, WAS NOT CORRECT BECAUSE THE SAME IS APPLICABLE ONLY WIT H REGARD TO PRINTING MATERIAL AND NOT TO PACKING MATERIAL WHICH IS PRE-PRINTED. THERE IS A DIFFERENCE IN PRINTING MATERIAL AND PRIN TING THE PACKING MATERIAL; VI. AS PER CBDT CIRCULAR NO. 681 PARA 7(VI) DATED 0 8/03/1994, THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 194C WILL NOT COVER CONTRACTS FOR SALE OF GOODS; ITA NOS. 2459, 2460/D/11 & 1967/D/12 8 VII. RELYING ON THE DECISION OF HONBLE PUNJAB & HA RYANA HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. DEPUTY CHIEF ACCOUNT OFFICER , MARKFED, 304 ITR 17 IT WAS HELD THAT THE PURCHASE OF PACKING MATERIAL, BOTH PRE-PRINTED AND PLAIN, CONSTITUTES CONTRACT OF SALE TO WHICH SEC. 194C, IS NOT APPLICABLE. 16. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE SUBMISSIONS OF BOTH THE PARTIES AND HAVE PERUSED THE RECORD OF THE CASE. OUT OF THE TOTAL R AW AND PACKING MATERIAL CONSUMED AGGREGATING TO RS. 38,30,39,211/-, THE DIS PUTE IS IN RESPECT OF FOLLOWING ITEMS ONLY: - PACKING MATERIAL CONSUMED AT FACTORY 5,17,62,496 PACKING MATERIAL CONSUMED AT BRANCHES 6,89,800 STICKERING CHARGES 1,74,020 17. IN REGARD TO PACKING MATERIAL CONSUMED AT FACTO RY, THE ASSESSEES SUBMISSION WAS THAT PACKING MATERIAL AGGREGATING TO RS. 1,11,39,439/- WAS PLAIN MATERIAL ON WHICH NO PRINTING HAD BEEN DONE A ND RS. 4,06,23,057/- FOR PACKING MATERIAL ON WHICH PRINTING WAS DONE BY SUPP LIERS OF MATERIAL. PACKING MATERIAL OF RS. 6,89,800/- CONSUMED AT BRANCHES WAS PRINTED MATERIAL SUPPLIED BY SUPPLIERS. THUS, THE CONTENTION IN RES PECT OF PRINTED MATERIALS PURCHASED BY ASSESSEE WAS THAT SUPPLIERS HAD SUPPLI ED PRINTED MATERIAL. THE AOS CONTENTION IS THAT SINCE PACKING MATERIAL ON W HICH PRINTING HAD BEEN DONE WAS AS PER THE SPECIFICATIONS GIVEN BY THE ASS ESEE COMPANY, THEREFORE, IT WAS A WORKS CONTRACT INVOLVING JOB WORK. IN THI S REGARD, HE HAS RELIED ON ITA NOS. 2459, 2460/D/11 & 1967/D/12 9 CIRCULAR NO. 715 DATED 08/08/1995, THE QUESTION NO. 15 AND ANSWER THERETO OF WHICH READS AS UNDER: - WHETHER SECTION 194C APPLIED IN RESPECT OF SUPPLY AND PRINTING MATERIAL AS PER PRESCRIBED SPECIFICATIONS? ANS. YES. LD. CIT(A) HAS HELD THIS TO BE CONTRACT OF SALE REL YING ON THE DECISION OF HONBLE PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. DEPUTY CHIEF ACCOUNTS OFFICER MARK FED (SUPRA). THEREFORE, THE MOOT POINT FOR CONSIDERATION IS WHETHER THE ASSESSEES CONTRACT WA S CONTRACT OF SALE OR IT WAS A WORKS CONTRACT INVOLVING JOB WORK. ADMITTED LY, THE PACKING MATERIAL HAS BEEN SUPPLIED BY SUPPLIERS AFTER PRINTING THE SAME AS PER THE ASSESEES SPECIFICATIONS. THE HONBLE PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF MARK FED (SUPRA) HAS, INTER-ALIA, HELD THAT THE FACTUM C ARRYING OUT SOME PRINTING WORK ON PACKING MATERIAL CAN ONLY BE REGARDED AS TH E WORK EXECUTED BY THE SUPPLIER INCIDENTAL TO SALE TO THE ASSESSEE. THE F ACT OF SOME PRINTING BEEN DONE, AS A PART OF SUPPLY, IS OF NO CONSEQUENCE TO THE CONTRACT BEING ESSENTIAL OF A SALE OF CHATTEL. THE HONBLE HIGH COURT EMPHA SIZES THAT THE PRE- DOMINANT OBJECT UNDERLYING THE CONTRACTS HAD TO BE CONSIDERED WHICH WAS SALE/ PURCHASE OF GOODS AND THE ONLY INTENTION OF T HE ASSESSEE WAS TO BUY PACKING MATERIAL. THE HONBLE HIGH COURT TOOK INTO CONSIDERATION THE FACT THAT THE RAW MATERIAL FOR THE MANUFACTURING OF SUCH PACK ING MATERIAL WAS NOT SUPPLIED BY THE ASSESSEE. IN THE PRESENT CASE ALSO IT IS NOT DISPUTED THAT THE ITA NOS. 2459, 2460/D/11 & 1967/D/12 10 RAW MATERIAL FOR THE MANUFACTURING OF PACKING MATER IAL WAS NOT SUPPLIED BY THE ASSESSEE. THEREFORE, THE DECISION IN THE CASE OF M ARK FED (SUPRA) SQUARELY COVERS THE ISSUE. WE, ACCORDINGLY, DO NOT FIND ANY REASON TO INTERFERE WITH THE ORDER OF LD. CIT(A) IN HOLDING THAT SINCE THE PURCH ASE OF PACKING MATERIAL BOTH PRE-PRINTED AND PLAIN CONSTITUTED THE CONTRACT OF S ALE, THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 194C WERE NOT APPLICABLE. CONSEQUENTLY, HE RIGHTLY HELD THAT THE AO WAS NOT JUSTIFIED IN MAKING THE IMPUGNED DISALLOWANCE U/S 4 0(A)(IA). THE DEPARTMENT HAS NOT BROUGHT ON RECORD ANY MATERIAL TO CONTROVER T THE FACTUAL POSITION IN THIS REGARD. WE, ACCORDINGLY, CONFIRM THE ORDER OF LD. C IT(A). 18. IN THE RESULT, THE DEPARTMENTS APPEAL FOR A.Y. 2005-06 IS DISMISSED. 19. ITA NO. 2460 : - THE DEPARTMENT HAS TAKEN FOLLOWING GROUNDS OF APPEA L: - 1. ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, THE LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) HAS ER RED IN FACTS AND IN LAW IN DELETING THE DISALLOWANCE OF RS. 24,79,033/- MADE BY THE AO ON ACCOUNT OF DEPRECIATI ON ON GOODWILL WHEN THE AO HAS RIGHTLY MADE THIS DISALLOWANCE BY OBSERVING THAT THE GOODWILL IS NOT A DEPRECIABLE ASSET AND THERE IS NO PROVISION UNDER T HE LAW TO ALLOW DEPRECIATION ON IT. 2. ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CA SE, THE LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) HAS ERRED IN FACTS AND IN LAW IN DELETING THE DISALLOWANCE OF RS . ITA NOS. 2459, 2460/D/11 & 1967/D/12 11 5,50,05,943/- MADE BY THE AO U/S 40(A)(IA) OF THE A CT, WHEN THE AO HAS RIGHTLY DRAWN THE CONCLUSION THAT T HE PACKING MATERIAL CONSUMED AMOUNTING TO RS. 5,50,05,943/- BOTH PRE PRINTED OR PLAIN IS IN THE N ATURE OF JOB WORK AND SECTION 194C IS APPLICABLE ON THESE TRANSACTIONS. 20. GROUND NOS. 1 AND 2 ARE IDENTICAL TO GROUND NOS . 1 & 2 FOR A.Y. 2005- 06 VIDE ITA NO. 2459/DEL/2011. THEREFORE, FOR THE REASONS GIVEN FOR THE RESPECTIVE GROUNDS IN THE SAID ITA, THE DEPARTMENT S APPEAL IS DISMISSED. 21. ITA NO. 1967 : - THE DEPARTMENT HAS TAKEN FOLLOWING GROUNDS OF APPEA L: - 1. ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE C ASE, THE LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) HAS ERRED IN FACTS AND IN LAW IN DELETING THE DISALLOWANCE OF RS . 18,59,274/- MADE BY THE AO ON ACCOUNT OF DEPRECIATI ON ON GOODWILL WHEN THE AO HAS RIGHTLY MADE THIS DISALLOWANCE BY OBSERVING THAT THE GOODWILL IS NOT A DEPRECIABLE ASSET AND THERE IS NO PROVISION UNDER T HE LAW TO ALLOW DEPRECIATION ON IT. 2. ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CA SE, THE LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) HAS ERRED IN FACTS AND IN LAW IN DELETING THE DISALLOWANCE OF RS . 5,42,02,744/- MADE BY THE AO U/S 40(A)(IA) OF THE A CT, WHEN THE AO HAS RIGHTLY DRAWN THE CONCLUSION THAT T HE PACKING MATERIAL CONSUMED AMOUNTING TO RS. ITA NOS. 2459, 2460/D/11 & 1967/D/12 12 5,42,02,744/- BOTH PRE PRINTED OR PLAIN IS IN THE N ATURE OF JOB WORK AND SECTION 194C IS APPLICABLE ON THESE TRANSACTIONS. 22. GROUND NOS. 1 AND 2 ARE IDENTICAL TO GROUND NOS . 1 & 2 FOR A.Y. 2005- 06 VIDE ITA NO. 2459/DEL/2011. THEREFORE, FOR THE REASONS GIVEN FOR THE RESPECTIVE GROUNDS IN THE SAID ITA, THE DEPARTMENT S APPEAL IS DISMISSED. 23. IN THE RESULT, THE DEPARTMENTAL APPEALS ARE DIS MISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 14.12.2012 SD/- SD/- (JOGINDER SINGH) JUDICIAL MEMBER (S.V. MEHROTRA) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER DATED: 14.12.2012 *KAVITA COPY TO: 1. APPELLANT 2. RESPONDENT 3. CIT 4. CIT(A) 5. DR, ITAT, NEW DELHI. TRUE COPY BY ORDER ASSISTANT REGISTRAR