M/s. Shanghai Electric Group Co. Ltd., Noida V. DDIT, New Delhi

ITA 344/DEL/2014

• Counselvise Citation: 34420114 RSA 2014
• Duration Of Justice: 7 month(s) 19 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 05-09-2014
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Bench Allotted: G
• Next Hearing Date: 01-09-2014
• Assessment Year: 2010-2011
• Appeal Filed On: 17-01-2014
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: SANJEEV SHARMA
• Assessee Lawyers: NITEN NARANG
• Keywords: Double taxation relief; Permanent establishment
• Section: 28

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI DELHI DELHI DELHI BENCH BENCH BENCH BENCH B BB B : NEW DELHI : NEW DELHI : NEW DELHI : NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI G.D. AGRAWAL, VICE BEFORE SHRI G.D. AGRAWAL, VICE BEFORE SHRI G.D. AGRAWAL, VICE BEFORE SHRI G.D. AGRAWAL, VICE PRESIDENT AND PRESIDENT AND PRESIDENT AND PRESIDENT AND SHRI SHRI SHRI SHRI H.S. SIDHU H.S. SIDHU H.S. SIDHU H.S. SIDHU, JUDICIAL , JUDICIAL , JUDICIAL , JUDICIAL MEMBER MEMBER MEMBER MEMBER ITA NO ITA NO ITA NO ITA NO. .. .344/DEL/2014 344/DEL/2014 344/DEL/2014 344/DEL/2014 ASSESSMENT YEAR ASSESSMENT YEAR ASSESSMENT YEAR ASSESSMENT YEAR : : : : 2010 2010 2010 2010- -- -11 1111 11 M/S SHANGHAI ELECTRIC GROUP M/S SHANGHAI ELECTRIC GROUP M/S SHANGHAI ELECTRIC GROUP M/S SHANGHAI ELECTRIC GROUP CO., LTD., CO., LTD., CO., LTD., CO., LTD., C/O M/S SRBC & ASSOCI C/O M/S SRBC & ASSOCI C/O M/S SRBC & ASSOCI C/O M/S SRBC & ASSOCIATES ATES ATES ATES LLP, 5 LLP, 5 LLP, 5 LLP, 5 TH THTH TH FLOOR, PLOT NO.2B, FLOOR, PLOT NO.2B, FLOOR, PLOT NO.2B, FLOOR, PLOT NO.2B, TOWER 2, SECTOR 126, TOWER 2, SECTOR 126, TOWER 2, SECTOR 126, TOWER 2, SECTOR 126, NOIDA NOIDA NOIDA NOIDA 201 304. 201 304. 201 304. 201 304. PAN : AAPCS1357N. PAN : AAPCS1357N. PAN : AAPCS1357N. PAN : AAPCS1357N. VS. VS. VS. VS. DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX, DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX, DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX, DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE CIRCLE CIRCLE CIRCLE- -- -2(2), 2(2), 2(2), 2(2), INTERNATIONAL TAXATION, INTERNATIONAL TAXATION, INTERNATIONAL TAXATION, INTERNATIONAL TAXATION, NEW DELHI. NEW DELHI. NEW DELHI. NEW DELHI. (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY : SHRI DEEPAK CHOPRA, SHRI PIYUSH SINGH, MS. MANASWINI BAJPAI, ADVOCATES AND SHRI NITEN NARANG, CA. RESPONDENT BY : SHRI SANJEEV SHARMA, CIT-DR AND SHRI VIVEK KUMAR, SR.DR. ORDER ORDER ORDER ORDER PER G.D. AGRAWAL, VP PER G.D. AGRAWAL, VP PER G.D. AGRAWAL, VP PER G.D. AGRAWAL, VP : : : : THIS APPEAL BY THE ASSESSEE IS DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDER OF LEARNED DISPUTE RESOLUTION PANEL-II, NEW DELHI DATED 30 TH OCTOBER, 2013 FOR THE AY 2010-11. 2. WE HAVE HEARD THE ARGUMENTS OF BOTH THE SIDES AND P ERUSED RELEVANT MATERIAL PLACED BEFORE US. THE FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT THE ASSESSEE IS A COMPANY INCORPORATED UNDER THE LAWS OF PEOP LES REPUBLIC OF CHINA AND IS ENGAGED IN THE BUSINESS OF SUPP LY OF BOILER, TURBINE & GENERATOR (BTG) EQUIPMENTS TO VARIOUS COMPA NIES SETTING UP POWER PLANTS IN INDIA. THE ASSESSEE ALSO PROVIDED SUPE RVISORY SERVICES FOR ERECTION/COMMISSIONING OF SUCH EQUIPMENT AT PROJECT ITA-344/DEL/2014 2 OWNERS SITES. THE ASSESSEE OFFERED INCOME FROM SUPERVISOR Y SERVICE FEE UNDER SECTION 44BBB OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT, 1961 . REGARDING SUPPLY OF BTG EQUIPMENT, THE ASSESSEES CONTENTION IS THAT THESE ARE OFF-SHORE SUPPLIES, HENCE, NOT TAXABLE IN INDIA. THE ASSESSING OFFICER, AFTER DETAILED DISCUSSION ON FACTUAL AS WELL AS LEGAL ASP ECTS, ARRIVED AT THE CONCLUSION THAT THE SUPPLY OF THE BTG EQUIPMENT A ND SUPERVISORY SERVICES IN RESPECT OF ERECTION AND COMMISSIONING OF SUCH EQUIPMENT WAS A COMPOSITE WORK CONTRACT AND THE SAME CANNOT BE D IVIDED AND HELD ONE AS CONTRACT FOR SALE OF EQUIPMENT AND ANOTHE R AS CONTRACT FOR RENDERING OF SUPERVISORY SERVICES. HE FURTHER HELD THA T THE ASSESSEE IS HAVING PERMANENT ESTABLISHMENT IN INDIA AND ARRIVED A T THE CONCLUSION THAT 25% OF THE PROFIT ACCRUING FROM THE SUPPLY OF B TG EQUIPMENT IS ATTRIBUTABLE TO PE IN INDIA. ACCORDINGLY, THE ASSESSIN G OFFICER DETERMINED THE ASSESSEES INCOME AT ` 62,50,63,759/- AS AGAINST THE INCOME OF ` 7,72,74,388/- OFFERED BY THE ASSESSEE. THAT AGAINST THE PROPOSED ORDER OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER, THE ASSESSEE HAD FI LED OBJECTION BEFORE THE DRP AND THE DRP, VIDE ITS ORDER DATED 30 TH OCTOBER, 2013, OVERRULED ALL THE OBJECTIONS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AND HELD AS UNDER:- ON CAREFUL CONSIDERATION OF THE MATTER, THE PANEL I S OF THE OPINION THAT THE AO HAS TAKEN THE ABOVE STAND REGARDI NG TURN-KEY/COMPOSITE NATURE OF CONTRACT AFTER DETAILED ANALYSIS OF THE TERMS OF THE CONTRACT ENTERED INTO BY THE ASSESSEE. AS REGARDS THE ADOPTION OF THE GLOBAL PROFIT R ATIO OF 8.29% BY THE AO, WE FIND THAT THE SAME IS BASED ON THE GLOBAL P & L ACCOUNT OF THE ASSESSEE AND THE ASSESSEES CONTENTION REGARDING SEGMENTAL PROFIT OF 1.69% IS NOT FULLY VERIFIABLE. THE ATTRIBUTION BY THE AO OF 25% OF PR OFIT TO THE PE IN INDIA IS ALSO BASED ON THE ANALYSIS OF FUNCTIONS PERFORMED BY THE ASSESSEES PE IN INDIA. THEREFORE, WE FIND NO REASON TO INTERFERE WITH THE ABOVE PROPOSITI ONS MADE BY THE AO IN THE DRAFT ASSESSMENT ORDER. THE GROUNDS OF OBJECTION NOS.1 TO 5 ARE, ACCORDINGLY, REJ ECTED. ITA-344/DEL/2014 3 3. AFTER CAREFULLY CONSIDERING THE ARGUMENTS OF BOTH THE SIDES AND THE FACTS OF THE CASE, WE ARE OF THE OPINION THAT THE ORDER OF THE DRP IS CRYPTIC AND NON-SPEAKING WITHOUT CONSIDERING ANY SUBM ISSIONS AND ARGUMENTS OF THE ASSESSEE. WE FIND THAT THE ASSESSMENT ORD ER IS RUNNING INTO 44 PAGES. THE ASSESSEES OBJECTION TO THE D RP IS OF MORE THAN 60 PAGES IN WHICH THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT ONLY DEALT WI TH THE FACTUAL ASPECT BUT HAS ALSO REFERRED TO THE VARIOUS DECISIONS O F THE ITAT, HON'BLE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT AND HONBLE APEX C OURT WHICH INCLUDED :- (I) ISHIKAWAJIMA-HARIMA HEAVY INDUSTRIES CO.LTD. 288 IT R 408 (SC). (II) CIT VS. HYUNDAI HEAVY INDUSTRIES CO.LTD. [2007] 291 ITR 482 (SC). (III) LG CABLE LTD. VS. DIT 113 ITD 113 (DELHI ITAT). (IV) DIT VS. ERICSSON A.B. 343 ITR 370 (DELHI HIGH COURT) . (V) DIT VS. NOKIA NETWORKS OY ITA NO.512/2007, 1138/200 6, 503/2007 & 505/2007 DELHI HIGH COURT. (VI) JSC TECHNOPROMEXPORT VS. DIT A.A.R. NO.827 OF 2009 . (VII) CIT VS. R.D. AGGARWAL AND CO. [1965] 56 ITR 20 (SC ). (VIII) MEWAR TEXTILE MILLS LTD. 91 ITR 542 (SC). (IX) ITO VS. SHRI RAM BEARINGS LTD. 224 ITR 724 (SC). (X) ACIT VS. ANDHRA PRADESH POWER GENERATION CORPN.LTD. 2009-TIOL-346-ITAT-HYD. (XI) XELO PTY LIMITED VS. DDIT [(A.A.R.) ITA NOS.4107,4108,4380,4381/MUM/2002]. (XII) DEEPAK CABLES (INDIA) LIMITED [A.A.R. NO.940 OF 2009 ]. (XIII) HYOSUNG CORPORATION [A.A.R. NO.773 OF 2008] FURTHER AFFIRMED BY HON'BLE DELHI HIGH COURT [WP (C)NO.2765 /2010 AND C.M. NO.5515/2010]. ITA-344/DEL/2014 4 (XIV) SEPCOIII ELECTRIC POWER CONSTRUCTION CORPORATION [APPLICATION NO.1 OF 2011 IN AAR NO.1008 OF 2010]. (XV) LS CABLE LTD. [AAR NO.858-861 OF 2009]. (XVI) JOINT STOCK COMPANY FOREIGN ECONOMIC ASSOCIATION TECHNOPROMEXPORT [AAR NO.827 OF 2009]. (XVII) TECHNIP ITALY SPA VS. ADDL.CIT [ITA NO.434(DEL) 201 0]. (XVIII) NANJING ELECTRIC (GROUP) CO.LTD. [ITA NO.6175/DEL/2 012]. 4. THE ASSESSEE ALSO DEALT WITH THE PROVISIONS OF DTAA BET WEEN INDIA AND CHINA. HOWEVER, WE FIND THAT THE DRP HAS NOT CONSIDERED EITHER THE ASSESSEES CONTENTION OR THE DECISIONS RELIED U PON BY THE ASSESSEE OR THE PROVISIONS OF DTAA AND SIMPLY SUSTAINED THE ADDITION HOLDING THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS TAKEN THE STAND AF TER DETAILED ANALYSIS OF TERMS AND CONTRACT ENTERED INTO BY THE ASSES SEE. THAT IF THE DRP HAS TO SIMPLY ENDORSE THE ORDER OF THE ASSESSING O FFICER, THE PURPOSE OF CREATING THE HIGH-POWERED PANEL I.E., DRP , WHICH IS CONSISTING OF THREE COMMISSIONERS OF INCOME-TAX, WOULD B E TOTALLY FRUSTRATED. WE ARE, THEREFORE, OF THE OPINION THAT THE ORDER OF THE DRP NEEDS TO BE SET ASIDE BEING CRYPTIC AND NON-SPEAKING. 5. HOWEVER, DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, IT WAS POINTED OUT BY THE LEARNED DR THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD TA KEN THE CONTRADICTORY STAND BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER. HE STA TED THAT ON ONE SIDE THE ASSESSEE CONTENDED THAT THERE ARE TWO SEPAR ATE AND INDEPENDENT CONTRACTS, ONE FOR SUPPLY OF EQUIPMENT AN D ANOTHER FOR RENDERING OF SUPERVISORY SERVICES BUT THE ASSESSEE HAS OFFE RED THE INCOME FROM SUPERVISORY SERVICES UNDER SECTION 44BBB WH ICH IS APPLICABLE IN RESPECT OF TURNKEY PROJECTS. HE FURTHE R SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS ENTERED INTO AN AGREEMENT FOR SUPPLY OF EQUI PMENT WITH TWELVE PARTIES BUT HAS PRODUCED ONLY COPY OF THREE AG REEMENTS, ALL WITH JINDAL GROUP OF COMPANIES. IN THE ABSENCE OF AG REEMENT WITH NINE ITA-344/DEL/2014 5 PARTIES, THE REVENUE IS UNABLE TO DETERMINE THE NATUR E OF CONTRACT BETWEEN THE PARTIES. HE, THEREFORE, SUBMITTED THAT EITHER THE ORDER OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER SHOULD BE SUSTAINED OR IF AT ALL TH E MATTER IS BEING SET ASIDE, IT SHOULD BE SET ASIDE TO THE FILE OF THE ASSESSI NG OFFICER SO THAT HE MAY EXAMINE ALL THE ASPECTS IN DETAIL. 6. LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE, ON THE OTHER HAND, OBJECTED TO THE SETTING ASIDE OF THE MATTER TO THE FILE OF THE ASSE SSING OFFICER AND STATED THAT THE SETTING ASIDE OF THE ISSUE TO THE FILE OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER WILL ONLY RESULT IN MULTIPLICITY OF PROCEEDI NGS AND, THEREFORE, HE CONTENDED THAT THE IDEAL SITUATION WOULD BE THE ADJU DICATION OF ALL THE ISSUES BY THE ITAT. HE ALSO STATED THAT HE IS READY TO P RODUCE THE AGREEMENT OF SUPPLYING OF EQUIPMENT AND THE SUPERVISOR Y SERVICES WITH ALL PARTIES BEFORE THE ITAT AND THE ITAT MAY EX AMINE THE SAME. HE ALSO SUBMITTED THAT THE ISSUE OF DETERMINATION OF IN COME FROM SUPERVISORY SERVICES IS NOT IN APPEAL BEFORE THE ITAT AN D, THEREFORE, IT IS NOT RELEVANT HOW THE INCOME IS OFFERED BY THE ASSESSEE IN RESPECT OF SUPERVISORY CONTRACT. HE FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT IF AT ALL THE MATTER IS REQUIRED TO BE SENT BACK, THEN IT SHOULD BE SENT TO TH E FILE OF THE DRP AND NOT THE ASSESSING OFFICER. 7. AFTER CONSIDERING THE ABOVE SUBMISSIONS OF THE PARTIE S, WE ARE OF THE OPINION THAT IT WOULD MEET THE ENDS OF JUSTICE IF THE MATTER IS SET ASIDE AND RESTORED TO THE FILE OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER. IT IS THE ASSESSEES CONTENTION THAT THE ASSESSEE ENTERED INTO TWO AGR EEMENTS, ONE FOR SUPPLY OF EQUIPMENT AND ANOTHER AGREEMENT F OR SUPERVISION OF ERECTION OF THOSE EQUIPMENT. HE CONTENDED THAT BOTH THE CONTRACTS ARE SEPARATE AND INDEPENDENT CONTRACTS AND EQUIPMENTS HAVE BEEN SUPPLIED OFF-SHORE. THE TITLE IN THE EQUIPMENT HAS P ASSED OUTSIDE THE TERRITORY OF INDIA AND PAYMENT IS ALSO MADE OUTSIDE IN DIA. HOWEVER, ITA-344/DEL/2014 6 INCOME FROM SUPERVISORY CONTRACT HAS BEEN OFFERED BY THE ASSESSEE UNDER SECTION 44BBB WHICH READS AS UNDER:- [SPECIAL PROVISION FOR COMPUTING PROFITS AND GAINS OF FOREIGN COMPANIES ENGAGED IN THE BUSINESS OF CIVIL CONSTRUCTION, ETC., IN CERTAIN TURNKEY POWER PROJECT S. 44BBB. [(1)] NOTWITHSTANDING ANYTHING TO THE CONTRAR Y CONTAINED IN SECTION 28 TO 44AA, IN THE CASE OF AN ASSESSEE, BEING A FOREIGN COMPANY, ENGAGED IN THE BUSINESS OF CIVIL CONSTRUCTION OR THE BUSINESS OF ERECTION OF PLANT OR MACHINERY OR TESTING OR COMMISSIONING THEREOF , IN CONNECTION WITH A TURNKEY POWER PROJECT APPROVED BY THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT IN THIS BEHALF, A SUM EQUAL TO TE N PER CENT OF THE AMOUNT PAID OR PAYABLE (WHETHER IN OR O UT OF INDIA) TO THE SAID ASSESSEE OR TO ANY PERSON ON HIS BEHALF ON ACCOUNT OF SUCH CIVIL CONSTRUCTION, ERECTION, TESTI NG OR COMMISSIONING SHALL BE DEEMED TO BE THE PROFITS AND G AINS OF SUCH BUSINESS CHARGEABLE TO TAX UNDER THE HEAD PROF ITS AND GAINS OF BUSINESS OR PROFESSION.] [(2)] NOTWITHSTANDING ANYTHING CONTAINED IN SUB-SECTIO N (1), AN ASSESSEE MAY CLAIM LOWER PROFITS AND GAINS THAN THE PROFITS AND GAINS SPECIFIED IN THAT SUB-SECTION, IF HE KEEPS AND MAINTAINS SUCH BOOKS OF ACCOUNT AND OTHER DOCUMENT S AS REQUIRED UNDER SUB-SECTION (2) OF SECTION 44AA AND GETS HIS ACCOUNTS AUDITED AND FURNISHES A REPORT OF SUCH AUD IT AS REQUIRED UNDER SECTION 44AB, AND THEREUPON THE ASSESSING OFFICER SHALL PROCEED TO MAKE AN ASSESSMENT OF THE TOTAL INCOME OR LOSS OF THE ASSESSEE UNDER SUB-SECTION (3) OF SECTION 143 AND DETERMINE THE SUM PAYABLE BY, OR REFUNDABLE TO, THE ASSESSEE.]. 8. SECTION 44BBB IS APPLICABLE FOR COMPUTING THE PRO FITS AND GAINS OF FOREIGN COMPANIES ENGAGED IN THE BUSINESS OF CIVIL C ONSTRUCTION OR IN CERTAIN TURNKEY POWER PROJECTS. THUS, THE ASSESSEE IS TAK ING A CONTRADICTORY STAND WHILE OFFERING INCOME IN RESPECT OF SUPERVISORY SERVICE AGREEMENT AND IN RESPECT OF EQUIPMENT SUPPLY A GREEMENT. MOREOVER, THE CONTENTION OF THE LEARNED DR THAT ALL THE AGREEMENTS ITA-344/DEL/2014 7 RELATING TO EQUIPMENT SUPPLY AND SUPERVISORY CONTRACT WERE NOT FURNISHED BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS NOT BEEN DENI ED BY THE LEARNED COUNSEL. HE OFFERED TO FURNISH THOSE AGREEMEN TS BEFORE US BUT WHEN CERTAIN CRUCIAL AGREEMENTS WERE NOT BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER, IT WOULD BE APPROPRIATE THAT FIRST THOSE AGREEMENTS A RE EXAMINED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND THEREAFTER, HE MAY TAKE A VIE W IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW. IF ASSESSEE IS NOT SATISFIED WITH THE VIEW TAK EN BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER, HE MAY AVAIL APPROPRIATE REMEDY AS MA Y BE PERMISSIBLE IN LAW. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE, WE SET ASIDE THE ORDERS OF AUTHORITIES BELOW AND RESTORE THE MATTER TO THE FILE OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER. WE DIRECT HIM TO ALLOW ADEQUATE OPPORTUNI TY TO THE ASSESSEE TO PRODUCE ALL THE AGREEMENTS IN RESPECT OF EQUIPMENT S SUPPLY AS WELL AS SUPERVISION OF ERECTION OF THOSE EQUIPMENTS. WE ALSO DIRECT THE ASSESSEE TO PRODUCE ALL THESE AGREEMENTS AND ANY OTHER D OCUMENT, EVIDENCE OR EXPLANATION WHICH MAY BE RELEVANT FOR D ETERMINATION OF TAXABLE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE. THEREAFTER, THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS DIRECTED TO PASS THE ORDER IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW. W E ALSO OBSERVE THAT IF THE ASSESSEE IS NOT SATISFIED WITH THE ORDER OF TH E ASSESSING OFFICER AND FILES OBJECTION BEFORE THE DRP, THEN THE DRP WILL PASS A SPEAKING ORDER CONSIDERING THE ASSESSEES OBJECTION IN AC CORDANCE WITH LAW. 9. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS DEEMED TO BE ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. DECISION PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 5 TH SEPTEMBER, 2014. SD/- SD/- ( (( (H.S. SIDHU H.S. SIDHU H.S. SIDHU H.S. SIDHU) )) ) (G.D. AGRAWAL (G.D. AGRAWAL (G.D. AGRAWAL (G.D. AGRAWAL) )) ) JUDICIAL MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER VICE PRESIDENT VICE PRESIDENT VICE PRESIDENT VICE PRESIDENT DATED : 05.09.2014 VK. ITA-344/DEL/2014 8 COPY FORWARDED TO: - 1. APPELLANT : M/S SHANGHAI ELECTRIC GROUP CO., LTD., M/S SHANGHAI ELECTRIC GROUP CO., LTD., M/S SHANGHAI ELECTRIC GROUP CO., LTD., M/S SHANGHAI ELECTRIC GROUP CO., LTD., C/O M/S SRBC & ASSOCIATES LLP, 5 C/O M/S SRBC & ASSOCIATES LLP, 5 C/O M/S SRBC & ASSOCIATES LLP, 5 C/O M/S SRBC & ASSOCIATES LLP, 5 TH THTH TH FLOOR, PLOT NO FLOOR, PLOT NO FLOOR, PLOT NO FLOOR, PLOT NO.2B, .2B, .2B, .2B, TOWER 2, SECTOR 126, NOIDA TOWER 2, SECTOR 126, NOIDA TOWER 2, SECTOR 126, NOIDA TOWER 2, SECTOR 126, NOIDA 201 304. 201 304. 201 304. 201 304. 2. RESPONDENT : DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX, DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX, DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX, DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE CIRCLE CIRCLE CIRCLE- -- -2(2), INTERNATIONAL TAXATION, 2(2), INTERNATIONAL TAXATION, 2(2), INTERNATIONAL TAXATION, 2(2), INTERNATIONAL TAXATION, NEW DELHI. NEW DELHI. NEW DELHI. NEW DELHI. 3. CIT 4. CIT(A) 5. DR, ITAT ASSISTANT REGISTRAR