The Income Tax Officer, Jalandhar V. M/s. PMS International Pvt. Ltd, Distt. Kapurthala

ITA 363/ASR/2014

• Counselvise Citation: [2016] 133 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 8786 (ITAT-AMRITSAR)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 9 month(s) 19 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 22-03-2016
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: DB
• Next Hearing Date: 17-02-2016
• Assessment Year: 2006-2007
• Appeal Filed On: 03-06-2014
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Assessee Lawyers: RAVISH SUD
• Keywords: Deemed to accrue or arise in india; Non-deduction of tax; Deemed dividend
• Section: 194C; 201(1)

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AMRITSAR BENCH; AMRITSAR. BEFORE SH. A.D. JAIN, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SH. T.S. KAPOOR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO.257(ASR)/2014 ASSESSMENT YEAR:2006-07 PAN;AACCP1274G M/S. PMS INTERNATIONAL (P) LTD., VS. INCOME TAX OFF ICER (TDS)-II, VILL. JAMALPUR, JALANDHAR. G.T.ROAD, PHAGWARA. (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) ITA NO.363(ASR)/2014 ASSESSMENT YEAR:2006-07 PAN;AACCP1274G INCOME TAX OFFICER (TDS)-II, VS. M/S. PMS INTERNATI ONAL (P) LTD., JALANDHAR. VILL. JAMALPUR, G.T.ROAD, PHAGWARA. (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) ASSEESSEE BY: SH. RAVISH SUD, ADVOCATE DEPARTMENT BY: SH. TARSEM LAL, DR DATE OF HEARING: 12/02/2016 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT: 22/03/2016 ORDER PER A.D. JAIN, JM; THESE ARE THE CROSS APPEALS ONE BY THE ASSESSEE AND THE OTHER BY THE DEPARTMENT AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A), BATHINDA, DATED 03.03.2014 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2006-07. ITA NO. 257 & 363(ASR)/2014 ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2006-07 2 2. FIRST, WE WILL TAKE UP THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSE E, IN ITA NO.257(ASR)/2014, WHERE THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS HAVE BEEN RAISED: 1. THAT THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A) TO THE EXTENT UPHO LDING THE ORDER OF THE AO PASSED U/S 201(1)/201(1A) OF THE INCOME T AX ACT, 1961 IS AGAINST THE LAW AND FACTS OF THE CASE. 2. THAT THE CIT(A) HAD WRONGLY UPHELD THE ORDER OF THE AO, WHEREIN THE LATTER HAD ERRED IN HOLDING THE ASSESSE E COMPANY TO BE IN CONTRAVENTION OF SECTION 194C IN R ESPECT OF SHIPPING EXPENSES (INCLUDING IHC/THC) AND HAD WRO NGLY RAISED A DEMAND OF RS.7,189/- AND RS.4,314/- U/S 20 1(1) AND 201(1A), RESPECTIVELY. 3. THAT THE CIT(A) HAD WRONGLY UPHELD THE ORDER OF THE AO, WHEREIN THE LATTER HAD ERRED IN HOLDING THE ASSESSE E COMPANY TO BE IN CONTRAVENTION OF SECTION 194C IN R ESPECT OF PAYMENT TO CONTRACTORS AND HAD WRONGLY RAISED A D EMAND OF RS.4,682/- AND RS.3,371/- U/S 201(1) AND 201(1A), RESPECTIVELY. 4. THAT THE CIT(A) HAD WRONGLY UPHELD THE ORDER OF THE AO, WHEREIN THE LATTER HAD ERRED IN HOLDING THE ASSESSE E COMPANY TO BE IN CONTRAVENTION OF SECTION 206C(IA) AND HAD WRONGLY RAISED A DEMAND OF 1,642/- AND RS. 1,182/- U/S 201(1) AND 201(1A), RESPECTIVELY. 3. GROUND NOS. 3 & 4 ARE NOT PRESSED. REJECTED AS N OT PRESSED. 4. GROUND NO. 1 IS GENERAL. 5. APROPOS GROUND NO.2, THE AO NOTED THAT IT WAS TH E OBSERVATION OF THE AUDITORS OF THE ASSESSEE THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD NOT DEDUCTED TAX AT SOURCE IN SOME OF SUCH PAYMENTS, WHICH HAD BEEN MAD E TO THE CONTRACTORS, CUSTOM AGENTS, LEASE RENT CHARGES ETC. , AS UNDER: NATURE OF EXPENSES AMOUNT OF PAYMENT A. SHIPPING EXPENSES M/S. WORLDWIDE CONTAINER & SHIPPING SERVICES RS.1,0 0,000/- M/S. VENUS CLEARING RS. 21,712/- ITA NO. 257 & 363(ASR)/2014 ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2006-07 3 M/S. IAL RS. 75,762/- M/S. R.K. SHIPPING RS. 68,846/- M/S. S.K. SHIPPING RS. 46,013/- M/S. LTA WORLDWIDE RS. 40,101/- B. PAYMENTS OF RAJKOT BRANCH: I. JOB WORK RS. 91,620/- II) M/S. NANDA RAODWAYS RS.1,37,924/- 6. THE AO OBSERVED THAT THE ASSESSEES CONTENTION T HAT NON DEDUCTION OF TAX AT SOURCE WAS IN PURSUANCE TO THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 172(8) OF THE I.T. ACT, AS SUPPLEMENTED BY CBDT CIRCULAR NO.7 23 DATED 19.09.1995, WAS NOT ACCEPTABLE, SINCE THE AMOUNTS P AID WERE FOUND TO REPRESENT CHARGES PAID OTHER THAN OCEAN FREIGHT A ND WERE NOT PAID UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 172(8) AND THE CIRC ULAR OF THE BOARD; THAT THE AMOUNTS OF SHIPPING CHARGES DO NOT CONSTITUTE FREIGHT AMOUNT, BUT REPRESENTED OTHER CHARGES WHICH HAD BEEN PAID TO TH E CLEARING AND FORWARDING AGENTS FOR THEIR SERVICES TO CLEAR THE G OODS AT THE CUSTOM PORT; AND THAT BY CLEARING THE GOODS AT THE CUSTOM PORT, THE CLEARING AND FORWARDING AGENTS CANNOT BE CONSIDERED TO BE THE A GENTS OF THE NON- RESIDENT SHIP-OWNERS OR CHARTERS AND THEY WILL NOT STEP INTO THE SHOES OF THE PRINCIPAL AS STATED IN CIRCULAR NO.723, DATED 1 9.09.1995. AS SUCH, THE AO HELD THE ASSESSEE TO BE IN DEFAULT IN RESPEC T OF PAYMENTS OF RS.3,52,434/-. THE TAX IN DEFAULT @ 2.04% WAS WORKE D OUT TO RS.7,189/-, WHEREAS THE INTEREST U/S 201(1A) FROM 31.03.2006 WA S WORKED OUT AT RS.4,314/-. ITA NO. 257 & 363(ASR)/2014 ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2006-07 4 7. THE LD. CIT(A) CONFIRMED THE ACTION OF THE ASSES SING OFFICER. 8. THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE HAS CONTENDED T HAT THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN UPHOLDING THE ORDER OF THE AO, HOLDING THE ASSESSEE COMPANY TO BE IN CONTRAVENTION OF SECTION 194C OF T HE ACT IN RESPECT OF SHIPPING EXPENSES; THAT ACCORDING TO SECTION 172(8) OF THE ACT, AS SUPPLEMENTED BY CBDT CIRCULAR NO. 723 DATED 19.09. 1995, THE AMOUNTS PAID BY THE ASSESSEE COMPANY TOWARDS INLAND HAULAGE CHARGES, TERMINAL HANDLING CHARGES, BUNKER ADJUSTMENT FACTOR , COST ADJUSTMENT FACTOR, ETC., I.E., SHIPPING EXPENSES, WERE NOT LIA BLE FOR ANY DEDUCTION OF TAX AT SOURCE AND THE AUTHORITIES BELOW HAVE ERRED IN HOLDING THE ASSESSEE-COMPANY TO BE IN DEFAULT U/S 201(1)/201(1A ) READ WITH SECTION 194C OF THE ACT FOR FAILURE TO DEDUCT TAX AT SOURCE ON THESE AMOUNTS. 9. ON THE OTHER HAND, THE LD. DR, HAS PLACED STRONG RELIANCE ON THE IMPUGNED ORDER. 10. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS AND HAVE PE RUSED THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD. THE QUESTION IS AS TO WHETHER INLAND HAULAGE CHARGES, TERMINAL HANDLING CHARGES, BUNKER ADJUSTME NT FACTOR, COST ADJUSTMENT FACTOR, ETC., I.E., SHIPPING EXPENSES PA ID BY THE ASSESSEE REGARDING EXPORTS USING NON-RESIDENT SHIPPING CALL FOR TDS. 11. SECTION 172 OF THE ACT REGULATES THE PROCEDURE FOR ASSESSING THE INCOME OF NON-RESIDENT SHIPPING. 12. SECTION 172(2) READS AS FOLLOWS: ITA NO. 257 & 363(ASR)/2014 ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2006-07 5 WHERE SUCH A SHIP CARRIES..GOODS SHIPPED AT A PORT IN INDIA, SEVEN AND HALF PERCENT OF THE AMOUNT PAID OR PAYABLE ON ACCOUNT OF SUCH CARRIAGE TO THE OWNER OR THE CHARTE RER OR TO ANY PERSON ON HIS BEHALF, WHETHER THAT AMOUNT IS PAID O R PAYABLE IN OR OUT OF INDIA, SHALL BE DEEMED TO BE INCOME ACCRUING IN INDIA TO THE OWNER OR CHARTERER ON ACCOUNT OF SUCH CARRIAGE. 13. SECTION 172(6) IS AS FOLLOWS: A PORT CLEARANCE SHALL NOT BE GRANTED TO THE SHIP UNTIL THE COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS OR OTHER OFFICER DULY AUTHORI ZED TO GRANT THE SAME, IS SATISFIED THAT THE TAX ASSESSABLE UNDER TH IS SECTION HAS BEEN DULY PAID OR THAT SATISFACTORY ARRANGEMENTS H AVE BEEN MADE FOR THE PAYMENT THEREOF. 14. ACCORDING TO SECTION 172(8): FOR THE PURPOSE OF THIS SECTION, THE AMOUNT REFERRED TO IN SUB-SECTION (2) SHALL INCLUDE THE AMOUNT PAID OR PAYABLE BY WAY OF DEMURRAGE CHARGE OR HANDLING CHA RGE OR ANY OTHER AMOUNT OF SIMILAR NATURE. 15. FROM THE ABOVE, IT IS CLEAR THAT IN CASE OF SHI PPING OF GOODS AT A PORT IN INDIA , SEVEN AND A HALF PERCENT OF THE CAR RIAGE CHARGES SHALL BE DEEMED TO BE INCOME ACCRUING IN INDIA ON ACCOUNT OF SUCH CARRIAGE; THAT UNLESS AND UNTIL THE TAX ASSESSABLE U/S 172 IS PAID OR ARRANGED FOR AND THE COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS IS SATISFIED TO THAT EFFE CT, THE SHIP SHALL NOT BE GRANTED PORT CLEARANCE; THAT THE CARRIAGE CHARGES, AS AND ENVISAGED BY SECTION 172(2) SHALL BE INCLUDED IN THE AMOUNT OF DEMURRAGE CHARGE OR HANDLING CHARGE OR ANY OTHER AMOUNT OF SIMILAR NATU RE. ITA NO. 257 & 363(ASR)/2014 ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2006-07 6 16. IN THIS REGARD, AS PER CBDT CIRCULAR NO.723 DAT ED 19.09.1995 (APB 37-38), WHERE PAYMENTS ARE MADE TO SHIPPING AG ENTS OF NON- RESIDENT SHIP-OWNERS OR CHARTERERS FOR CARRIAGE OF PASSENGERS, ETC., SHIPPED AT A PORT IN INDIA, SINCE THE AGENT ACTED O N BEHALF OF THE NON- RESIDENT SHIP-OWNER OR CHARTERER, HE STEPS INTO THE SHOES OF THE PRINCIPAL AND, ACCORDINGLY, THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 172 SHA LL APPLY AND THOSE OF SECTIONS 194C AND 195 WILL NOT APPLY. 17. FURTHER, IN ITO VS. FREIGHT SYSTEMS (INDIA ) P VT. LTD., 6 SOT 473 (DEL.), IT HAS BEEN HELD THAT PAYMENT OF OCEAN FREI GHT AND INLAND HAULAGE CHARGES CANNOT BE SUBJECTED TO TDS BY VIRTUE OF THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 172 OF THE ACT, WHICH POSITION IS CLARIFIED BY CBDT CIRCULAR NO.723 DATED 19.09.1995. THIS DECISION, THOUGH CITED BY THE ASSE SSEE BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A), IT DOES NOT FIND EVEN A MENTION, MUCH LESS ADJUDICATION, BY THE LD. CIT(A), IN THE OPERATIVE PORTION OF THE ORDER. BEFORE US ALSO, NO DECISION CONTRARY TO FREIGHT SYSTEMS (INDIA) PVT. LTD. (SUPRA) HAS BEEN CITED ON BEHALF OF THE DEPARTMENT. THUS, IN VIEW OF THE CLEAR PROVISIONS OF SECTION 172(8) OF THE ACT, AS SUPPLEMENTED BY CBDT CIRCULAR NO.723 DATED 19.09.1995, BOTH OF WHICH HAVE BEEN DULY CONS IDERED IN FREIGHT SYSTEMS (INDIA ) PVT. LTD. (SUPRA). THE GRIEVANCE OF THE ASSESSEE BY WAY OF GROUND NO. 2 IS FOUND TO BE JUSTIFIED AND IS ACC EPTED AS SUCH. ACCORDINGLY, THE DEMAND OF RS.7,189/- U/S 201(1) AN D RS.4,314/- U/S 201(1A) OF THE ACT FOR NON-DEDUCTION OF TDS ON PAY MENT OF SHIPPING EXPENSES OF RS.3,52,434/- IS CANCELLED. ITA NO. 257 & 363(ASR)/2014 ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2006-07 7 18. ITA NO.363(ASR)/2014 THIS IS DEPARTMENTS CROSS APPEAL FOR THE AY 2006 -07, CONTENDING THAT THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN DELETING THE DEMA ND OF RS.25,97,630/- (TAX U/S 201(1) RS.16,23,502/- + INTEREST U/S 201( 1A) RS. 9,74,101/-) ON ACCOUNT OF NON DEDUCTION OF TAX OUT OF DIVIDEND BY TRANSFER OF FUNDS BY THE ASSESSEE TO ITS SISTER CONCERNS BY WAY OF LO ANS AND ADVANCES. 19. THE AO OBSERVED THAT AS PER SECTION 2(22)(E) OF THE ACT, DIVIDEND INCOME INCLUDES ANY PAYMENT BY A COMPANY, NOT BEIN G A COMPANY IN WHICH THE PUBLIC ARE SUBSTANTIALLY INTERESTED OF AN Y SUM MADE AFTER 31.05.1987, BY WAY OF ADVANCE OR LOAN TO A SHAREHOL DER, BEING A PERSON WHO IS THE BENEFICIAL OWNER OF SHARES HOLDING NOT LESS THAN TEN PERCENT OF THE VOTING POWER, OR TO ANY CONCERN, IN WHICH SU CH SHAREHOLDER IS A MEMBER OR A PARTNER AND IN WHICH HE HAS A SUBSTANT IAL INTEREST, OR ANY PAYMENT BY ANY SUCH COMPANY ON BEHALF OR FOR THE IN DIVIDUAL BENEFIT OF ANY SUCH SHAREHOLDER TO THE EXTENT TO WHICH THE CO MPANY IN EITHER CASE POSSESSES ACCUMULATED PROFITS. THE AO ASKED THE ASS ESSEE AS TO WHY, AS SUCH, IT SHOULD NOT BE TREATED AS AN ASSESSEE IN DE FAULT FOR NON- DEDUCTION OF TAX AT SOURCE OUT OF DEEMED DIVIDEND UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 2(22)(E) OF THE ACT, AS THE PARTNERS OF THE SISTER CONCERNS WERE SUBSTANTIAL SHAREHOLDERS AND HAD SUBSTANTIAL INTERE ST. THE ASSESSEE EXPLAINED THAT THE COMPANY HAD BUSINESS DEALINGS WI TH ITS SISTER CONCERNS AND SO, THE TRANSFER OF FUNDS COULD NOT B E TERMED AS DIVIDEND ITA NO. 257 & 363(ASR)/2014 ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2006-07 8 U/S 2(22)(E) OF THE ACT. THE AO, HOWEVER, CONCLUDED THAT APART FROM THE CREDITS ON ACCOUNT OF PURCHASE/SALE TRANSACTIONS, T RANSFER OF FUNDS HAD ALSO BEEN MADE FROM THE COMPANY TO THE FIRM IN THE NATURE OF ADVANCE OR LOAN. IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY EXPLANATION, THE AO HEL D THE ASSESSEE TO BE IN DEFAULT UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 194 OF THE ACT AND THEREFORE, CREATED DEMANDS U/S 201(1) AND U/S 201(1A) OF THE ACT, FOR THE DEFAULT OF NON-DEDUCTION OF TAX AT SOURCE OUT OF DEEMED DIV IDEND ON ACCOUNT OF TRANSFER OF FUNDS TO ITS SISTER CONCERNS BY THE ASS ESSEE COMPANY. 20. THE LD. CIT(A) DELETED THE DEMAND. 21. THE LD. DR HAS CONTENDED THAT THE LD. CIT(A) HA S ERRED IN DELETING THE DEMAND CORRECTLY MADE BY THE AO ON ACCOUNT OF N ON-DEDUCTION OF TAX OUT OF DIVIDEND BY TRANSFER OF FUNDS BY THE ASSESSE E TO ITS SISTER CONCERNS BY WAY OF LOANS AND ADVANCES. THE LD. COUNSEL FOR T HE ASSESSEE, ON THE OTHER HAND, HAS STRONGLY RELIED UPON THE IMPUGNED O RDER. 22. WHILE DELETING THE DEMAND, THE LD. CIT(A) HAS H ELD THAT THE SISTER CONCERNS OF THE ASSESSEE COMPANY ARE NOT THE SHAREH OLDERS OF THE ASSESSEE-COMPANY AND SO, THE LOANS AND ADVANCES GIV EN BY THE ASSESSEE COMPANY TO ITS SISTER CONCERNS CANNOT BE TREATED AS DEEMED DIVIDEND. 23. BEFORE US, THE DEPARTMENT HAS NOT SHOWN THAT TH E SISTER CONCERNS OF THE ASSESSEE COMPANY, TO WHOM THE ASSESSEE COMPA NY ADVANCED THE AMOUNTS IN QUESTION, ACTUALLY ARE THE SHAREHOLDERS OF THE ASSESSEE COMPANY. AS CORRECTLY NOTED BY THE LD. CIT(A), SINC E NONE OF THE ASSESSEES SISTER CONCERNS ARE ITS SHAREHOLDERS, TH E ASSESSEE WAS NOT ITA NO. 257 & 363(ASR)/2014 ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2006-07 9 UNDER ANY OBLIGATION TO DEDUCT TAX AT SOURCE ON TH E PAYMENTS MADE TO ITS SISTER CONCERNS, WHICH PAYMENTS HAD BEEN CONSID ERED BY THE AO AS DEEMED INCOME. THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 194 OF THE ACT ARE APPLICABLE ONLY IF THE PAYMENT OF DIVIDEND IS MADE TO A SHAREH OLDER, WHO IS RESIDENT IN INDIA. IT HAS NOT BEEN SHOWN OTHERWISE. 24. FURTHER, IN MTAR TECHNOLOGIES (P) LTD. VS. ACI T, 39 SOT 465 (HYD.), IT HAS BEEN HELD THAT PAYMENT BY A COMPANY TO A NON- SHAREHOLDER DOES NOT REQUIRE TDS UNDER SECTION 194 AND IN SUCH A CASE, THE COMPANY/ASSESSEE CANNOT BE HELD TO BE IN DEFAUL T U/S 201 OF THE ACT SO AS TO ATTRACT INTEREST U/S 201(1A) THEREOF. WHI LE HOLDING SO, IT WAS OBSERVED THAT U/S 150 OF THE COMPANIES ACT, EVERY C OMPANY IS EXPECTED TO MAINTAIN A REGISTER OF SHAREHOLDERS, WHEREAS A COMPANY IS NOT OBLIGED TO MAINTAIN A REGISTER WHEREIN DETAILS OF SUCH CONC ERNS, AS TO WHICH PROVISIONS OF SECTION 2(22)(E) OF THE ACT APPLY, MA Y BE KEPT; AND THAT SO, THAT WHEN THE PAYMENT IS MADE TO A NON SHAREHOLDER, IT IS IMPOSSIBLE FOR THE PAYER COMPANY TO ASCERTAIN WHETHER IT WILL ATTR ACT THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 2(22)(E) OF THE ACT OR NOT AND IT IS, THERE FORE, THAT THE LAW DOES NOT EXPECT THE PAYER COMPANY TO DEDUCT TDS WHEN PAYMENT IS MADE TO A NON-SHAREHOLDER; THAT THIS IS THE REASON WHY THE LA W EXPRESSLY PROVIDES FOR TDS REQUIREMENTS ONLY WHEN PAYMENT IS MADE TO A NON-SHAREHOLDER; THAT PAYMENT TO A SHAREHOLDER WOULD COVER BOTH NORM AL DIVIDEND AS WELL AS DEEMED DIVIDEND; THAT OTHERWISE ALSO, THE DEEMED DIVIDEND WILL BE TAXED IN THE HANDS OF THE SHAREHOLDER AND NOT IN TH E HANDS OF THE NON- ITA NO. 257 & 363(ASR)/2014 ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2006-07 10 SHAREHOLDER PAYEE; THAT THEREFORE, SECTION 194 OF T HE ACT IS SYNCHRONIZED WITH THE REQUIREMENT UNDER SECTIONS 150 AND 206 OF THE COMPANIES ACT; AND THAT ACCORDINGLY, THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 194 C OF THE ACT ARE NOT APPLICABLE IN THE HANDS OF THE RECIPIENT, DUE TO W HICH, THE PROVISIONS OF SECTIONS 201(1) AND 201(1A) OF THE ACT CANNOT BE AP PLIED. 26. THE LD. CIT(A), IT IS SEEN, HAS CORRECTLY PLAC ED RELIANCE ON MTAR TECHNOLOGIES LIMITED VS. ACIT (SUPRA). NO DECISION CONTRARY TO THIS DECISION HAS BEEN CITED BEFORE US BY THE DEPARTMENT . ACCORDINGLY, FINDING NO ERROR THEREIN, THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A) ON TH IS ASPECT IS UPHELD. THE GROUNDS RAISED BY THE DEPARTMENT ARE FOUND TO BE SH ORN OF MERIT AND ARE REJECTED AS SUCH. 27. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS PA RTLY ALLOWED, WHEREAS THE APPEAL OF THE DEPARTMENT IS DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 22/03/ 2 016. SD/- SD/- (T.S. KAPOOR) (A.D. JAIN) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER DATED: 22/03/2016 COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO: 1. THE ASSESSEE: M/S. PMS INTERNATIONAL PVT. LTD. G.T. ROAD, PHAGWARA. 2. THE ITO (TDS) (II) 3. THE CIT(A), JLR 4. THE CIT, JLR 5. THE SR DR, ITAT, AMRITSAR. TRUE COPY BY ORDER (ASSISTANT REGISTRAR) INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, AMRITSAR BENCH: AMRITSAR.