Deputy Director of Income-tax, V. EPCOS AG., Nashik

ITA 249/PUN/2015

• Counselvise Citation: [2016] 131 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 0356 (ITAT-PUNE)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 9 month(s) 3 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 14-12-2016
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Assessment Year: 2010-2011
• Appeal Filed On: 11-03-2015
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Assessee Lawyers: PARAS S SAVLA
• Keywords: Business income; Double taxation relief
• Section: 28

Judgement Text

, IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PUNE BENCH B, PUNE . . , ! , # $ BEFORE SHRI R.K. PANDA, AM AND SHRI VIKAS AWASTHY, JM . / ITA NO.249/PN/2015 #& & / ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2010-11 DDIT (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION)-I, PUNE . / APPELLANT V/S EPCOS, AG, C/O. EPCOS INDIA PVT., PLOT NO.E,22-25, MIDC, SATPUR, NASHIK 422 007 PAN : AAACE9787H . / RESPONDENT / APPELLANT BY : SHRI AVADESH KUMAR / RESPONDENT BY : SHRI PARAS S. SAVLA / ORDER PER R.K.PANDA, AM : THIS APPEAL FILED BY THE REVENUE IS DIRECTED AGAI NST THE ORDER DATED 27-11-2014 PASSED BY THE DRP, PUNE FOR THE AS SESSMENT YEAR 2010-11. 2. FACTS OF THE CASE, IN BRIEF, ARE THAT THE ASSESS EE IS A FOREIGN COMPANY HAVING ITS HEAD OFFICE AT MUNICH, ST. MARTI N STREET 53, GERMANY. IT IS A TAX RESIDENT OF GERMANY. IT IS E NGAGED IN THE BUSINESS OF DEVELOPMENT, MANUFACTURE AND MARKETING OF ELECTR ONIC COMPONENTS / DATE OF HEARING :13.12.2016 / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT: 14.12.2016 2 ITA NO.249/PN/2015 AND MODULES. IT IS WELL KNOWN FOR ITS SUPERIOR PRO DUCTS IN THE SEGMENT OF CAPACITORS, CERAMIC COMPONENTS, CAPACITORS AND I NDUCTORS. 3. DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS THE ASSESSING OFFICER NOTED THAT THE ASSESSEE IS IN RECEIPT OF IN COME OF RS.16,72,75,797/-, THE BREAKUP OF WHICH IS AS UNDER : SR.NO. DESCRIPTION OF THE INCOME AMOUNT (RS) 1 RECEIPT FROM PRODUCT MARKETING SERVICES 8,56,61,8 73/- 2 INCOME FROM SALES SUPPORT SERVICES 77,83,023/- 3 INCOME FROM IT SUPPORT SERVICES 4,87,48,738/- 4 INTEREST RECEIVED ON ECB LOANS 2,50,82,163/- TOTAL 16,72,75,797/- 4. THE ASSESSING OFFICER NOTED THAT AS PER THE TDS CERTIFICATE THE AMOUNT PAID OR CREDITED BY THE INDIAN ENTITY IS RS. 16,74,64,089/-. HOWEVER, THE ASSESSEE HAS OFFERED AN AMOUNT OF RS.1 6,72,75,800/- ONLY AS INTEREST AND ROYALTY/FTS. HE, THEREFORE, A SKED THE ASSESSEE TO SUBMIT THE RECONCILIATION OF AMOUNT SHOWN AS TAXABL E INCOME AND THE AMOUNT CREDITED AS PER THE TDS CERTIFICATE AND THE REASONS THEREOF ALONG WITH DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE. IN ABSENCE OF ANY REPLY FROM THE SIDE OF THE ASSESSEE, THE ASSESSING OFFICER DETERMI NED THE TAXABLE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE AT RS.16,74,64,089/- AND PAS SED THE DRAFT ORDER U/S.144C(1) BY HOLDING THAT THE ASSESSEE IS IN THE RECEIPT OF THE INTEREST, ROYALTY/FTS INCOME AMOUNTING TO RS.16,74, 64,089/- WHICH IS ATTRIBUTABLE TO PE IN INDIA. ACCORDINGLY, HE TAXED THE RECEIPTS U/S.115A (IN CASE OF INTEREST) AND U/S.115A R.W.S. 44D OF TH E ACT (IN CASE OF ROYALTY/FTS) @20%, WITHOUT ALLOWING ANY DEDUCTION I N RESPECT OF ANY EXPENDITURE OR ALLOWANCE UNDER ANY OF THE SECTIONS FROM SECTION 28 TO 44C. 5. THE ASSESSEE OBJECTED TO THE SAID ADDITION MADE IN THE DRAFT ORDER AND APPEALED TO THE DRP, PUNE. THE DRP, PUNE RELYING ON THE 3 ITA NO.249/PN/2015 DECISION OF THE TRIBUNAL IN ASSESSEES OWN CASE FOR A.Y. 2007-08 DIRECTED THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO DELETE THE DEMAND . 6. AGGRIEVED WITH SUCH DIRECTION OF THE DRP THE REV ENUE IS IN APPEAL BEFORE US WITH THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS : 1. WHETHER ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF T HE CASE, THE DRP, PUNE ERRED IN HOLDING THAT ASSESSEE DOES NOT HA VE A PE IN INDIA DEHORS THE FINDING OF THE AO THAT THE FUNCTION S OF EPCOS, AG ARE PERFORMED THROUGH THE INDIAN SUBSIDIARIES BY ISSUAN CE OF DIRECTIONS THROUGH EMAILS ETC. AND THE ENTIRE SPECTRU M OF ACTIVITIES OF THE INDIAN SUBSIDIARIES ARE MONITORED BY THE ASSESSEE THUS HAVING CONTROL AND MANAGEMENT OF INDIAN SUBSIDIARIE S AND THEREBY CONSTITUTING A PE IN INDIA. 2. WHETHER ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF TH E CASE, THE DRP, PUNE ERRED IN LAW BY HOLDING THAT EVEN IF A PE, EXISTS BUT IF THE RECEIPTS SOURCED FROM INDIA ARE NOT ATTRIBUTABLE TO THE PE, THEN THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE WOULD STILL FALL UNDER ART.12(2 ) AND EXCLUSION CLAUSE PROVIDED IN ART.12(5) WOULD NOT BE I NVOKED THEREBY NOT TRIGGERING ART.7 OF THE TREATY FOR THE RATE PURPOSES. 3. THE APPELLANT CRAVES LEAVE TO ADD, AMEND/ALTER OR DELETE ANY GROUND OTHER THAN THE AFORESAID GROUND HEREIN IF ADV ISED SO. 7. THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE COUNSEL AT THE OUTSET SU BMITTED THAT IDENTICAL ISSUE HAD COME UP BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL IN ASSESSEES OWN CASE FOR A.Y. 2009-10. THE TRIBUNAL FOLLOWING THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL IN ASSESSEES OWN CASE FOR THE PRECEDING ASSESSMENT YE ARS DISMISSED THE APPEAL FILED BY THE REVENUE ON THIS VERY ISSUE. THEREFORE, THE ISSUE IS COVERED IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE AND AGAINST TH E REVENUE BY THE DECISION OF THE TRIBUNAL IN ASSESSEES OWN CASE. H E ACCORDINGLY SUBMITTED THAT THE GROUNDS RAISED BY THE REVENUE SH OULD BE DISMISSED. 8. THE LD. DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE ON THE OTHER HAND FAIRLY CONCEDED THAT THE ISSUE STANDS DECIDED IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE BY THE DECISION OF THE TRIBUNAL. HOWEVER, THE REVENUE HAS FILED APPEAL AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL BEFORE THE HONBL E HIGH COURT. THEREFORE, TO KEEP THE MATTER ALIVE, THE REVENUE HA S FILED THIS APPEAL. 4 ITA NO.249/PN/2015 9. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL ARGUMENTS MADE BY B OTH THE SIDES, PERUSED THE ORDER OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER/DRP AND THE PAPER BOOK FILED ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE. WE FIND THE ISSUE RAISED BY THE REVENUE IN THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL HAS ALREADY BEEN D ECIDED BY THE TRIBUNAL IN ASSESSEES OWN CASE FOR A.Y. 2009-10. THE TRIBUNAL AFTER CONSIDERING THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL IN ASSESSEES OWN CASE FOR A.Y. 2003-04 WHICH HAS SUBSEQUENTLY BEEN FOLLOWED IN THE OTHER ASSESSMENT YEARS HAS DECIDED THE ISSUE AND THE GROU NDS RAISED BY THE REVENUE HAVE BEEN DISMISSED. THE RELEVANT OBSERVAT ION OF THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL FROM PARA 5 ONWARDS READ AS UNDER : 5. BOTH SIDES HEARD. WE HAVE PERUSED THE ORDERS OF AU THORITIES BELOW AND HAVE ALSO CONSIDERED THE DECISION OF THE TRI BUNAL IN THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE IN EARLIER ASSESSMENT YEARS. WE FIND THA T THE ISSUE RAISED IN THE PRESENT APPEAL HAS BEEN ALREADY ADJ UDICATED BY THE COORDINATE BENCH OF THE TRIBUNAL IN ASSESSEES OWN C ASE. THE RELEVANT EXTRACT OF THE ORDER OF TRIBUNAL FOR THE A SSESSMENT YEAR 2003-04 WHICH HAS BEEN SUBSEQUENTLY FOLLOWED IN THE OT HER ASSESSMENT YEARS READS AS UNDER: CONCLUSION ON THE FIRST ISSUE I.E. ON EXISTENCE OF PE: 41.1 IN THE LIGHT OF THESE DISCUSSIONS, IN OUR CONSIDERE D VIEW, THE ASSESSEE COMPANY DID NOT HAVE ANY PE IN INDIA, MUCH LESS A PE TO WHICH SUBJECT 'ROYALTIES' AND 'FEES FOR TEC HNICAL SERVICES' CAN BE ATTRIBUTED. IN TERMS OF THE INDIA-GE RMANY DTAA, INDIA DOES NOT HAVE RIGHT TO TAX THESE RECEIPT S AS BUSINESS PROFITS UNDER ART. 7. OF COURSE, IN THE LIGHT O F OUR FINDING THAT NO REVENUES EARNED BY THE ASSESSEE COMPANY COULD BE SAID TO BE ATTRIBUTABLE TO THE PE, EVEN IF ONE WAS TO COME TO THE CONCLUSION THAT A PE EXISTED, NO TAXABILI TY COULD ARISE UNDER ART. 7. THE ASSESSEE HAS OFFERED THE ROYALTIE S AND FEES FOR TECHNICAL SERVICES FOR TAXABILITY IN INDIA UN DER ART. 12, AND, TO THAT EXTENT, ADMITTED TAX LIABILITY EXI STS. THE OVERZEALOUS APPROACH OF THE AO HAS BEEN RIGHTLY REJEC TED BY THE CIT(A). WE APPROVE AND CONFIRM THE STAND OF THE CIT(A), AND DECLINE TO INTERFERE IN THE MATTER. OBSERVATIONS ON THE SECOND ISSUE I.E. ON TAXABILITY @ 20 PER CENT IN TERMS OF S. 44D R/W S. 115A IN CASE PE IS FOUND TO BE IN EXISTENCE: 42. WHILE DEALING WITH THE INTERPLAY BETWEEN EXISTEN CE OF A PE AND TAXABILITY AS 'ROYALTIES AND FEES FOR TECHNIC AL SERVICES', WE HAD TAKEN NOTE OF THE PROPOSITION ADVANC ED BY THE REVENUE AUTHORITIES THAT ONCE ART. 12(5) IS INVOK ED, ALL THE RECEIPTS AS 'ROYALTIES AND FEES FOR TECHNICAL SERV ICES' ARE 5 ITA NO.249/PN/2015 TAXABLE IN INDIA ON GROSS BASIS UNDER S. 44D, THOUGH, AS PER THE PROVISIONS OF S. 115A, AT A LOWER RATE OF 20 PER C ENT. 43. THIS PROPOSITION PROCEEDS ON THE FALLACY THAT ONCE THE FIRST CONDITIONS UNDER ART. 12(5) ARE SATISFIED, I.E. ONCE THE ASSESSEE COMPANY HAS A PE IN INDIA, THE 'ROYALTIES AND FE ES FOR TECHNICAL SERVICES' ARE TO BE NECESSARILY TAXED IN INDIA UNDER ART. 7. THAT IS CLEARLY ERRONEOUS, BECAUSE, AS NO TED ABOVE, TWIN CONDITIONS OF EXISTENCE OF THE PE AS ALSO THE EFFECTIVE NEXUS BETWEEN THE PE AND THE SUBJECT 'ROYAL TIES' AND 'FEES FOR TECHNICAL SERVICES' ARE TO BE SATISFIED. WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT ON ACCOUNT OF EXISTENCE OF A PE IN IND IA, ONLY SUCH PROFITS OF THE ASSESSEE COMPANY CAN BE BROUGHT TO TA X IN INDIA AS ARE 'ATTRIBUTABLE TO THAT PE'. IT IS A TYPICAL CHICKEN AND EGG SITUATION OF CIRCULAR LOGIC. ON ONE HAND, TH E WORDING OF ART. 12(5) IS SUCH THAT THIS EXCLUSION CLAUSE IS TRIGG ERED ONLY WHEN 'ROYALTIES AND FEES FOR TECHNICAL SERVICES' HAVE A LIVE ECONOMIC NEXUS, REFLECTED BY EFFECTIVE CONNECTI ON WITH 'RIGHTS', 'PROPERTIES' AND 'CONTRACTS', IN RESPECT OF W HICH SUCH ROYALTIES AND FEES FOR TECHNICAL SERVICES ARE PAID, WIT H PE, AND, ON THE OTHER HAND, THE SCHEME OF TAXABILITY UND ER ART. 7, WHICH IS COMPLEMENTARY TO THIS APPROACH, IS ALSO SUCH T HAT THE TAXABILITY UNDER ART. 7 IS ATTRACTED ONLY IN RESP ECT OF SUCH 'ROYALTIES' AND 'FEES FOR TECHNICAL SERVICER' AS ARE SO ATTRIBUTABLE TO THE PE. UNLESS AN AMOUNT IS SUCH THAT I T IS TAXABLE UNDER ART. 7, EVEN IF IT IS IN THE NATURE OF 'ROYALTIES' OR 'FEES FOR TECHNICAL SERVICES', THE EXCLUSION CLAUSE UNDE R ART. 12(5) WILL NOT COME INTO PLAY. AT THE SAME TIME, UN LESS AN AMOUNT REPRESENTING 'ROYALTIES' OR 'FEES FOR TECHNICAL SERVICES' IS SUCH THAT IT TRIGGERS EXCLUSION CLAUSE UNDER ART. 12(5), IT WOULD NOT BE TAXABLE UNDER ART. 7. 44. ART. 7(1) RESTRICTS THE SCOPE OF TAXABILITY OF BU SINESS PROFITS OF AN ENTERPRISE IN THE SOURCE COUNTRY TO ONL Y SUCH PROFITS AS ARE ATTRIBUTABLE TO THE PE. THEREFORE, TO BRING ANY INCOME TO TAXABILITY UNDER ART. 7 IN THE SOURCE COUN TRY, THE FIRST THING TO BE SATISFIED UNDER ART. 7(1) IS THAT THE INCOME BEING SOUGHT TO BE TAXED IS ONLY SUCH AS IS ATTRIBUTABLE TO THE PE. IN OTHER WORDS, UNLESS THE REVENUE AUTHORITIES CAN DEMONSTRATE THAT THE 'ROYALTIES AND FEES FOR TECHNICAL SERVICES' EARNED BY THE FOREIGN COMPANY CONSTITUTES PRO FIT ATTRIBUTABLE TO THE PE, IT CANNOT BE BROUGHT TO TAX IN INDIA. JUST BECAUSE THERE IS A PE IN THE SOURCE COUNTRY, ONE C ANNOT INFER THAT ENTIRE INCOME FROM THE SOURCE COUNTRY IS ATTRIBUTABLE TO THE PE AND LIABLE TO BE TAXED IN TH E SOURCE COUNTRY FOR THAT REASON. THERE IS NO JUSTIFICATION FOR THE REVENUE AUTHORITIES TO COME TO THE CONCISION THAT ENT IRE RECEIPTS OF THE ASSESSEE COMPANY ARE ATTRIBUTABLE TO 'PE ' AND ARE, THEREFORE, TAXABLE UNDER ART. 7 FOR THAT REASON . UNLESS THE CONDITIONS OF ART. 7(1) ARE NOT SATISFIED, THERE I S NO OCCASION TO INVOKE TAXABILITY AS PROFITS ATTRIBUTABLE TO PE. IT WOULD PERHAPS NEED A FORCE OF ATTRACTION RULE OF WID EST AMPLITUDE TO DO SO. AS TO HOW SHOULD THIS PROFIT ATTRI BUTION EXERCISE DONE, THE GUIDANCE IS AVAILABLE FROM ART. 7( 2). 45. UNDER ART. 7(2), THESE PROFITS ARE TO BE SO ATTRIB UTED AS PE 'MIGHT BE EXPECTED TO MAKE IF IT WERE A DISTINCT AND SEPARATE ENTERPRISE ENGAGED IN THE SAME OR SIMILAR ACTI VITIES 6 ITA NO.249/PN/2015 UNDER THE SAME OR SIMILAR CONDITIONS AND DEALING WHOLL Y INDEPENDENTLY WITH THE ENTERPRISE OF WHICH IT IS A PE '. THE PE IS TO BE CONSIDERED AS HYPOTHETICAL INDEPENDENT BUT LET US NOT FORGET THAT THE SERVICES ARE RENDERED BY THE PE , I.E. INDIAN SUBSIDIARIES, AND THE SERVICES ARE ALSO AVAILED B Y SAME INDIAN SUBSIDIARIES. THE FUNDAMENTAL QUESTION THAT WOULD ARISE IN SUCH A CASE S WHETHER SOMEONE CAN MAKE PROFIT OUT OF DEALINGS WITH ONESELF. THE ANSWER POSES NO DIFFICULTY. THE PROPOSITION IS WELL SETTLED THAT NOBOD Y CAN MAKE PROFIT OUT OF SELF OR TRADE DEAL WITH SELF OR EA RN FROM SELF. IT IS SO HELD IT A SERIES OF CASES, INCLUDING SIR KI KABHAI PREMCHAND VS. CIT (1953) 24 ITR 506 (SC), BETTS HARTL EY HUETT & CO. LTD. VS. CIT (1979) 116 ITR 425 (CAL) AN D ABN AMRO BANK NV VS. ASSTT. DIRECTOR OF IT (2005) 98 TTJ (KOL)(SB) 295 : (2005) 97 ITD 89 (KOL)(SB), IT IS TH US CLEAR THAT AN INCOME OF THE INDIAN SUBSIDIARIES, ON ACCOUNT OF HAVING RENDERED SERVICES TO THEMSELVES, CANNOT BE TAXED . THERE CANNOT BE ANY INCOME IN THE HANDS OF THIS PE, E VEN IF THAT BE SO, WHICH CAN BE BROUGHT TO TAX. 46. THE LIM ITATION ON DEDUCTIONS IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE DOMESTIC LAW, AS LA ID DOWN BY ART. 7(3), CAN COME TO PLAY WHEN THERE IS AN INCOME ATTRIBUTABLE TO THE PE IN THE FIRST PLACE. WHEN THER E ARE NO RECEIPTS WHICH CAN BE ATTRIBUTED, TO THE PE, THERE I S NO QUESTION OF ALLOWING DEDUCTIONS THERE FROM. THAT ASPEC T OF THE MATTER IS ENTIRELY INFRUCTUOUS. THE LIMITATION UN DER S. 44D IS, THEREFORE, NOT RELEVANT IN THE PRESENT CASE. T HE SAME IS THE POSITION WITH REGARD TO THE LOWER RATE PRESCRIB ED UNDER S. 115A OF THE ACT. THERE IS NO WARRANT FOR APP LICATION OF S. 44D AND S. 115A UNLESS THERE IS A POSITIVE INCOME F ROM 'ROYALTIES AND FEES FOR TECHNICAL SERVICES' WHICH CAN B E BROUGHT TO TAX UNDER ART. 7. CONCLUSION ON THE SECOND ISSUE I.E., TAXABILITY @ 20 PE R CENT IN TERNS S. 44D R/W S.115A IN CASE PE IS FOUND TO BE IN EXISTENCE : 47. IN OUR CONSIDERED VIEW, IN TERMS OF THE INDO GERM AN TAX TREATY PROVISIONS, IT WILL HAVE TO BE DEMONSTRATED THA T SUCH ROYALTIES AND FEES FOR TECHNICAL SERVICES HAVE A LIVE ECONOMIC NEXUS WITH THE PE AND ONLY THEN EXCLUSION CLAUSE UNDER ART. 12(5) AS ALSO TAXABILITY UNDER ARTS. 7(1) AND 7(2), WI LL COME INTO PLAY. IT IS ONLY AFTER THESE ROYALTIES AND FEES FO R TECHNICAL SERVICES ARE SO INCLUDED IN THE BUSINESS PROFITS ATTRIBUTA BLE TO THE PE THAT THE PROVISIONS OF SS. 44D AND 115A CAN B E INVOKED. THEREFORE, EVEN IF WE ARE TO HOLD THAT THE TAXPAYER HAD A PE IN INDIA, UNLESS THERE IS A CATEGORICAL FINDI NG THAT ENTIRE RECEIPTS WERE ATTRIBUTABLE TO THAT PE, ENTIRE BUSINESS RECEIPTS OF THE TAXPAYER SOURCED FROM INDIA WOULD NOT HAVE BEEN TAXABLE IN INDIA UNDER ART. 7. THE PROVISIONS OF S. 44D AND S. 115A DO NOT, THEREFORE, COME INTO PLAY ONLY B ECAUSE THERE IS A PE IN INDIA. 6. SINCE, THERE HAS BEEN NO CHANGE IN THE FACTS AND C IRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE IN THE IMPUGNED ASSESSMENT YEAR, WE, THEREFORE, RESPECTFULLY FOLLOW THE ORDER OF CO-ORDINATE BENCH A ND DISMISS THE APPEAL OF THE REVENUE. 7 ITA NO.249/PN/2015 10. SINCE THE FACTS OF THE PRESENT CASE ARE IDENTIC AL TO THE FACTS OF THE CASE IN THE PRECEDING ASSESSMENT YEARS, THEREFO RE, IN ABSENCE OF ANY CONTRARY MATERIAL BROUGHT TO OUR NOTICE, WE DO NOT FIND ANY INFIRMITY IN THE ORDER OF THE DRP IN HOLDING THAT THE ASSESSE E COMPANY HAS NO PE IN INDIA AND THEREFORE INVOKING OF SECTION 115A R.W.S. 44DA WAS NOT NECESSARY. WE ACCORDINGLY UPHOLD THE ORDER OF THE DRP AND THE GROUNDS RAISED BY THE REVENUE ARE DISMISSED. 11. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL FILED BY THE REVENUE IS DISMISSED. PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 14-12-2016. SD/- SD/- (VIKAS AWASTHY) (R.K. PANDA) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACC OUNTANT MEMBER PUNE; DATED : 14 TH DECEMBER, 2016. ) *#,! -! / COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : / BY ORDER , // # % / TRUE COPY // // TRUE COPY // &' % * / SR. PRIVATE SECRETARY *, / ITAT, PUNE 1. / THE APPELLANT 2. / THE RESPONDENT 3. THE DRP , PUNE 4. # %%* , * , B BENCH / DR, ITAT, B BENCH PUNE; 5. 2 / GUARD FILE.