M/s. Botil Oil Tools India Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi V. ACIT, New Delhi

ITA 5375/DEL/2013

• Counselvise Citation: [2016] 132 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 7977 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 year(s) 7 month(s) 7 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 10-05-2016
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Next Hearing Date: 03-05-2016
• Assessment Year: 2007-2008
• Appeal Filed On: 03-10-2013
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Keywords: Capital asset; Business expenditure; Royalty expenses; Revenue expenditure; Capital expenditure
• Section: 37(1)

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 A AA A : NEW DELHI : NEW DELHI : NEW DELHI : NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI BEFORE SHRI BEFORE SHRI BEFORE SHRI G.D. AGRAWAL, VICE PRESIDENT G.D. AGRAWAL, VICE PRESIDENT G.D. AGRAWAL, VICE PRESIDENT G.D. AGRAWAL, VICE PRESIDENT AND AND AND AND SHRI SUDHANSHU SRIVASTAVA SHRI SUDHANSHU SRIVASTAVA SHRI SUDHANSHU SRIVASTAVA SHRI SUDHANSHU SRIVASTAVA, JUDICIAL MEMBER , JUDICIAL MEMBER , JUDICIAL MEMBER , JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA NO ITA NO ITA NO ITA NO S SS S . .. . 973/DEL/2010, 2382/DEL/2013, 3506/DEL/2010 & 5375/D EL/2013, 973/DEL/2010, 2382/DEL/2013, 3506/DEL/2010 & 5375/D EL/2013, 973/DEL/2010, 2382/DEL/2013, 3506/DEL/2010 & 5375/D EL/2013, 973/DEL/2010, 2382/DEL/2013, 3506/DEL/2010 & 5375/D EL/2013, ASSESSMENT YEAR ASSESSMENT YEAR ASSESSMENT YEAR ASSESSMENT YEAR S SS S : : : : 2006 2006 2006 2006 - -- - 07 & 2 07 & 2 07 & 2 07 & 2 007 007 007 007 - -- - 08 0808 08 M/S BOTIL OIL TOOLS INDIA M/S BOTIL OIL TOOLS INDIA M/S BOTIL OIL TOOLS INDIA M/S BOTIL OIL TOOLS INDIA PVT.LTD., PVT.LTD., PVT.LTD., PVT.LTD., 4 44 4 TH THTH TH FLOOR, MONTA BUILDING, FLOOR, MONTA BUILDING, FLOOR, MONTA BUILDING, FLOOR, MONTA BUILDING, 4, BHIKAJI CAMA PLACE, 4, BHIKAJI CAMA PLACE, 4, BHIKAJI CAMA PLACE, 4, BHIKAJI CAMA PLACE, NEW DELHI NEW DELHI NEW DELHI NEW DELHI 110 066. 110 066. 110 066. 110 066. PAN : AAACB0222G. PAN : AAACB0222G. PAN : AAACB0222G. PAN : AAACB0222G. VS. VS. VS. VS. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, INCOME TAX, INCOME TAX, INCOME TAX, CIRCLE CIRCLE CIRCLE CIRCLE- -- -3(1), 3(1), 3(1), 3(1), NEW DELHI. NEW DELHI. NEW DELHI. NEW DELHI. (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT B Y : SHRI ANIL BHALLA, CA. RESPONDENT BY : SHRI SARABJEET SINGH, DR. DATE OF HEARING : 03.05.2016 03.05.2016 03.05.2016 03.05.2016 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 10.05.2016 10.05.2016 10.05.2016 10.05.2016 ORDER ORDER ORDER ORDER PER G.D. AGRAWAL, VP PER G.D. AGRAWAL, VP PER G.D. AGRAWAL, VP PER G.D. AGRAWAL, VP : :: :- -- - ITA NO.973/DEL/2010 ITA NO.973/DEL/2010 ITA NO.973/DEL/2010 ITA NO.973/DEL/2010 ASSESSEES APPEAL FOR AY 2006 ASSESSEES APPEAL FOR AY 2006 ASSESSEES APPEAL FOR AY 2006 ASSESSEES APPEAL FOR AY 2006- -- -07 : 07 : 07 : 07 :- -- - THIS APPEAL BY THE ASSESSEE FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEA R 2006-07 IS DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDER OF LEARNED CIT(A)-VI, NE W DELHI DATED 10 TH DECEMBER, 2009. 2. THE FIRST GROUND OF THE ASSESSEES APPEAL READS AS UNDER:- THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) H AS ERRED BOTH ON FACTS AND IN LAW IN CONFIRMING THE OR DER OF THE LEARNED ASSESSING OFFICER REGARDING DISALLOWANC E OF COMMISSION AND EX-GRATIA AMOUNTING TO RS.49,16,075/ - PAID TO THE DIRECTORS OF THE APPELLANT COMPANY AS P ART OF THEIR REMUNERATION IN TERMS OF SECTION 309 R.W.S. 1 98, 349, 350 AND SCHEDULE XII OF THE COMPANIES ACT, 1956 CLA IMED U/S 37(1) OF THE ACT, BY WRONGLY INVOKING THE PROVI SIONS OF SECTION 36(1)(II) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961. ITA-973/D/2010 & 3 OTHERS 2 3. WE HAVE HEARD THE ARGUMENTS OF BOTH THE SIDES AN D HAVE PERUSED THE MATERIAL PLACED BEFORE US. WE FIND THI S ISSUE TO BE SQUARELY COVERED IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE BY THE D ECISION OF ITAT IN ASSESSEES OWN CASE FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2004-05 & 2 005-06 VIDE ITA NO.3821/DEL/2008 & 2281/DEL/2009. THE ITAT DELETED THE DISALLOWANCE WITH THE FOLLOWING FINDING:- 7. ON A CAREFUL CONSIDERATION OF THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND PERUSAL OF THE PAPERS ON RECORD AND THE ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW AS W ELL AS CASE LAWS CITED, WE HOLD AS FOLLOWS. 8. AS PER THE PROPOSITION LAID DOWN BY THE JURISDIC TIONAL HIGH COURT, IN THE CASE OF METAPLAST P. LTD. VS. DC IT 341 ITR 563 (DELHI), SECTION 36(1)(II) IS NOT ATTRACTED IF THE PAYMENT OF COMMISSION IS PART OF SALARY PAID BY THE COMPANY IN TERMS OF THE APPOINTMENT ORDER, WHICH IS APPROVED AT THE ANNUAL GENERAL MEETING. 9. IN THE CASE OF ONE HAND, THE COMMISSION IN QUEST ION IS PAID AS PER THE TERMS OF APPOINTMENT AND HAS BEE N APPROVED AT THE ANNUAL GENERAL MEETING OF THE COMPA NY HELD ON 15.09.2004. THE ANNUAL GENERAL MEETING APPROVED THE REMUNERATION PACKAGE OF (1) MR. H.L. KHUSHALANI (2) MR. VIVEK KHUSHALANI AND (3) MRS. RA KSHA WALIA W.E.F. 01.04.2004. 10. THE APPROVAL WAS GRANTED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE PROVISIONS OF SECTIONS 198, 269, 309, 310 AND SCHED ULE XIII OF THE COMPANIES ACT 1956. 11. PERUSAL OF THE RESOLUTION DEMONSTRATE THAT THE COMMISSION IN QUESTION IS NOTHING BUT ANOTHER FORM OF SALARY WHICH IS PAID FOR SERVICE RENDERED. THUS, T HE ORDER OF THE LD.CIT(A) HAS TO BE UPHELD. 12. THE ISSUE IS ALSO COVERED IN THE DECISION OF TH E JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT-1 VS. CONVERTECH EQUIPMENTS PVT.LTD. 2012-TIOL-1002-HC-DEL-IT WHER E IT IS HELD AS FOLLOWS :- MOREOVER, A DIVISION BENCH OF THIS COURT IN METAPL AST PVT.LTD. V. DCIT, (2012) 341 ITR 563, AFTER REFERRE D TO THE JUDGMENT OF THE BOMBAY HIGH COURT IN LOYAL MOTORS SERVICES COMPANY LTD. V. CIT, (1946) 14 ITR 647 OPI NED THAT THE COMMISSION, IF FOUND TO BE PAID FOR SERVIC ES ITA-973/D/2010 & 3 OTHERS 3 RENDERED BY THE DIRECTOR AS PER THE TERMS OF THE APPOINTMENT, CANNOT BE SAID TO BE DISTRIBUTION OF D IVIDEND OR PROFITS IN THE GUISE OF COMMISSION. IT WAS NOTI CED WHILE COMMISSION WAS PAID AS A FORM OF REMUNERATION FOR A CTUAL SERVICES RENDERED, DIVIDEND IS A RETURN OF INVESTME NT AND IS PAID TO ALL ITS SHAREHOLDERS EQUALLY. IT WAS THUS HELD THAT IF THE COMMISSION IS PAID FOR ACTUAL SERVICES RENDERED , SECTION 36(1)(II) WILL NOT APPLY. 13. THE LD. DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE RELIED ON T HE DECISION OF THE SPECIAL BENCH OF THE TRIBUNAL IN TH E CASE OF M/S DALAL BROACHA STOCK BROKING PVT.LTD. IN ITA NO.5792/MUM/2009 ORDER DATED 22.06.2011. 14. AS WE HAVE APPLIED THE BINDING DECISION OF THE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT TO THE FACTS OF THE CASE, WE NEED NOT CONSIDER THE DECISION OF THE MUMBAI SPECIAL BEN CH ON THE ISSUE. 15. OTHER OBJECTION RAISED BY THE LD.D.R. IS THAT B OARD RESOLUTION WAS NOT AVAILABLE FOR THE A.Y. 2005-06. COPY OF THE RESOLUTION IS PRODUCED BEFORE US. HENCE, THIS OBJECTION IS NOT SUSTAINABLE. 16. THE ISSUES ARE THE SAME FOR BOTH THE ASSESSMENT YEARS AND HENCE WE UPHOLD THE ORDER OF THE LD.CIT(A ) FOR BOTH THE ASSESSMENT YEAR. 4. THUS, THE ITAT HAS RECORDED THE FINDING THAT THE REMUNERATION WAS PAID TO THE DIRECTORS AS APPROVED AT THE ANNUAL GENERAL MEETING OF THE COMPANY. THEY HAVE ALSO RELIED UPON THE DECISI ON OF HON'BLE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CONVERTECH EQUIPMENTS PVT.LTD. (SUPRA). ADMITTEDLY, THE FACTS OF THE YEAR UNDER A PPEAL ARE IDENTICAL. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE, WE, RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING TH E ABOVE DECISION OF ITAT IN ASSESSEES OWN CASE, HOLD THAT THE DISALLOW ANCE OF REMUNERATION PAID TO THE DIRECTORS U/S 36(1)(II) WA S NOT JUSTIFIED. THE SAME IS DELETED. 5. GROUND NO.2 OF THE ASSESSEES APPEAL READS AS UN DER:- THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) H AS ERRED BOTH ON FACTS AND IN LAW IN CONFIRMING THE AC TION OF THE LEARNED ASSESSING OFFICER IN DISALLOWING 25% OF ROYALTY ITA-973/D/2010 & 3 OTHERS 4 PAID ALLEGEDLY ON THE GROUND THAT THE SAME CONSTITU TES BENEFIT OF ENDURING NATURE AND THEREFORE IS CAPITAL EXPENDITURE. 6. AT THE TIME OF HEARING BEFORE US, IT IS SUBMITTE D BY THE LEARNED COUNSEL THAT THE ASSESSEE COMPANY IS ENGAGED IN THE BUSINESS OF MANUFACTURING OIL FIELD DRILLING AND PRODUCTION EQU IPMENT. THE ASSESSEE HAS ENTERED INTO AN AGREEMENT WITH M/S CHA NCELLOR OIL TOOK, INC. FOR USE OF TECHNICAL KNOWHOW. THAT FOR USE OF SUCH TECHNICAL KNOWHOW, THE ASSESSEE MADE A LUMP SUM PAYMENT OF US $60,000 AND ALSO THE ROYALTY AT THE RATE OF 5% PER ANNUM OF THE NET EX-FACTORY SALE PRICE OF THE PRODUCT. THAT THE LUMP SUM PAYMENT OF US$60,000 WAS TREATED AS CAPITAL EXPENDITURE BY THE ASSESSEE. BU T THE RECURRING PAYMENT OF ROYALTY @ 5% OF THE SALE PRICE WAS CLAIM ED AS REVENUE EXPENDITURE. THAT THE PAYMENT WAS MADE FOR THE USE OF TECHNICAL KNOWHOW AND NOT FOR THE ACQUISITION OF TECHNICAL KN OWHOW. IT WAS A RECURRING PAYMENT WHICH WAS TO BE MADE TILL THE TEC HNICAL KNOWHOW WAS TO BE USED BY THE ASSESSEE. THAT THERE WAS NO ACQUISITION OF ANY CAPITAL ASSET IN THE FORM OF ANY TECHNICAL KNOWHOW. THEREFORE, THE EXPENDITURE OF ROYALTY PAID ON YEAR TO YEAR BASIS I S RIGHTLY CLAIMED AS A REVENUE EXPENDITURE AND THE ASSESSING OFFICER WAS N OT JUSTIFIED IN DISALLOWING 25% OF THE ROYALTY. IN SUPPORT OF THIS CONTENTION, HE RELIED UPON THE FOLLOWING DECISIONS:- (I) CIT VS. J.K. SYNTHETICS LIMITED [2009] 309 IT R 371 (DELHI). (II) CLIMATE SYSTEMS INDIA LTD. VS. CIT [2009] 31 9 ITR 113 (DELHI). (III) ALEMBIC CHEMICAL WORKS CO.LTD. VS. CIT, GUJAR AT [1989] 177 ITR 377 (SC). 7. THE LEARNED COUNSEL FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT THE R OYALTY IS BEING PAID BY THE ASSESSEE FROM ASSESSMENT YEAR 2004-05 O NWARDS AND, IN THE PRECEDING TWO YEARS, THOUGH THE ASSESSMENT WAS COMPLETED U/S 143(3), THE PAYMENT OF ROYALTY WAS NOT DISALLOWED. THUS, WHEN IN THE INITIAL YEARS THE PAYMENT OF ROYALTY IS TREATED AS REVENUE EXPENDITURE, ITA-973/D/2010 & 3 OTHERS 5 IN THE SUBSEQUENT YEAR, ON IDENTICAL FACTS, THE REV ENUE CANNOT TAKE A DIFFERENT VIEW. IN SUPPORT OF THIS CONTENTION, HE RELIED UPON THE DECISION OF HONBLE APEX COURT IN THE CASE OF RADHA SOAMI SATSANG VS. CIT [1992] 193 ITR 321 (SC). 8. LEARNED DR, ON THE OTHER HAND, RELIED UPON THE O RDERS OF AUTHORITIES BELOW. 9. WE HAVE CAREFULLY CONSIDERED THE SUBMISSIONS OF BOTH THE SIDES AND HAVE PERUSED THE MATERIAL PLACED BEFORE US. AD MITTEDLY, THE AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE ASSESSEE AND M/S CHANCELLOR O IL TOOK, INC. WAS FOR USE OF TECHNOLOGY BY THE ASSESSEE. THE TECHNOL OGY WAS NOT TRANSFERRED TO THE ASSESSEE AND THE OWNERSHIP OF SU CH TECHNOLOGY REMAINED WITH M/S CHANCELLOR OIL TOOK, INC. THE AS SESSEE WAS REQUIRED TO MAKE THE PAYMENT ON YEAR TO YEAR BASIS AS A PERC ENTAGE OF THE SALE. THE PAYMENT WAS TO BE MADE CONTINUOUSLY FOR THE PERIOD FOR WHICH THE TECHNICAL KNOWHOW WAS TO BE USED BY THE A SSESSEE. ON THESE FACTS, THE DECISION OF HON'BLE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CLIMATE SYSTEMS INDIA LTD. (SUPRA) WOULD BE SQUA RELY APPLICABLE WHEREIN THE FACTS WERE AS UNDER:- THE ASSESSEE-COMPANY ENGAGED IN THE MANUFACTURE AN D SALE OF HEAT EXCHANGERS (RADIATORS) ENTERED INTO TE CHNICAL COLLABORATION AGREEMENT WITH A US COMPANY TO MANUFACTURE RADIATORS WITH TECHNOLOGY OWNED BY THE US COMPANY. UNDER THE AGREEMENT, THE ASSESSEE WAS PERMITTED TO USE THE TECHNOLOGY FOR MANUFACTURE OF UPGRADED RADIATORS FOR WHICH THE ASSESSEE WAS TO MA KE A LUMP SUM PAYMENT OF US $ 1 MILLION TO THE US COMPAN Y, WHICH WAS CAPITALIZED IN THE ASSESSEES BOOKS OF AC COUNT AND A ROYALTY OF 3 PER CENT OF DOMESTIC SALES AND 5 PER CENT OF EXPORT SALES TO THE US COMPANY FOR A PERIOD OF 7 YEARS FOR USING THE TECHNOLOGY AND FOR AVAILING OF TECHNICAL SERVICES. DURING THE PREVIOUS YEAR RELEVANT TO THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2002-03, THE ASSESSEE PAID TO THE F OREIGN COLLABORATORS ROYALTY CALCULATED AT 3 PER CENT OF D OMESTIC SALES AND AT 5 PER CENT OF EXPORT SALES AND CLAIMED DEDUCTION THEREOF AS BUSINESS EXPENDITURE. THE ASS ESSING OFFICER DISALLOWED IT AS BEING OF CAPITAL NATURE AN D THIS WAS ITA-973/D/2010 & 3 OTHERS 6 CONFIRMED BY THE COMMISSIONER (APPEALS) AS DID THE INCOME-TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ON THE GROUNDS, INTER ALIA, (A) THAT EVEN AFTER TERMINATION OF THE AGREEMENT TH E ASSESSEE COULD CONTINUE TO USE TECHNICAL INFORMATIO N IN PRODUCTION OF LICENSED PRODUCTS AND HENCE THE ASSES SEE OBTAINED ENDURING BENEFIT, AND (B) THAT THERE WAS N OTHING TO SHOW THAT ANY SPECIFIED INTERVAL AND THUS IT WAS A CASE OF OUTRIGHT TRANSFER OF TECHNICAL KNOW-HOW. 10. ON THESE FACTS, THEIR LORDSHIPS HELD AS UNDER:- HELD, ALLOWING THE APPEAL, THAT UNDER THE AGREEMEN T, PAYMENTS WERE TO BE MADE BY THE ASSESSEE IN TWO PAR TS : A LUMP SUM FEE FOR TRANSFER OF TECHNOLOGY (WHICH TH E ASSESSEE HAD ADMITTED AS BEING OF CAPITAL NATURE) A ND ROYALTY PAYMENT IN CONSIDERATION OF PROVIDING TECHN OLOGY SERVICES. THE PAYMENT OF ROYALTY DEPENDED ON THE QUANTUM OF DOMESTIC AS WELL AS EXPORT SALES WHICH W OULD DECREASE OR INCREASE EVERY YEAR DEPENDING UPON THE DECREASE OR INCREASE IN THE SALES. THIS PAYMENT WA S NOT BECAUSE OF TRANSFER OF TECHNOLOGY, BUT FOR PROVID ING TECHNICAL SERVICES. IN SUCH CIRCUMSTANCE, THE PA YMENT OF ROYALTY, WHICH WAS A CONTINUOUS PROCESS, SHOULD HAV E BEEN TREATED AS REVENUE EXPENDITURE. 11. THE DECISION OF HONBLE APEX COURT IN THE CASE OF ALEMBIC CHEMICAL WORKS CO.LTD. (SUPRA) RELIED UPON BY THE L EARNED COUNSEL ALSO SUPPORTS THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE. RESPECTFULLY FOL LOWING THE SAME, WE DIRECT THAT THE ROYALTY SHOULD BE TREATED AS A REVE NUE EXPENDITURE AND, ACCORDINGLY, WE DELETE THE DISALLOWANCE MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER BY CAPITALIZING 25% OF THE ROYALTY EXPENDITURE. ITA NO.3506/DEL/2010 ITA NO.3506/DEL/2010 ITA NO.3506/DEL/2010 ITA NO.3506/DEL/2010 ASSESSEES APPEAL FOR AY 2007 ASSESSEES APPEAL FOR AY 2007 ASSESSEES APPEAL FOR AY 2007 ASSESSEES APPEAL FOR AY 2007- -- -08 : 08 : 08 : 08 :- -- - 12. IN THIS YEAR, TWO GROUNDS HAVE BEEN RAISED BY T HE ASSESSEE AND BOTH ARE IDENTICAL TO THE GROUNDS RAISED BY THE ASS ESSEE IN ASSESSMENT YEAR 2006-07. FOR THE DETAILED DISCUSSION WHILE DE CIDING THE GROUNDS RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE IN ASSESSMENT YEAR 2006-07 A S ABOVE, WE ALLOW BOTH THE GROUNDS OF THE ASSESSEES APPEAL FOR ASSES SMENT YEAR 2007- 08 AND DELETE THE DISALLOWANCE MADE BY THE ASSESSIN G OFFICER OUT OF COMMISSION PAID TO THE DIRECTORS AS WELL AS ROYALTY EXPENDITURE. ITA-973/D/2010 & 3 OTHERS 7 ITA NOS. ITA NOS. ITA NOS. ITA NOS.2386/DEL/2013 & 973/DEL/2010 2386/DEL/2013 & 973/DEL/2010 2386/DEL/2013 & 973/DEL/2010 2386/DEL/2013 & 973/DEL/2010 ASSESSEES APPEAL FOR AY 2006 ASSESSEES APPEAL FOR AY 2006 ASSESSEES APPEAL FOR AY 2006 ASSESSEES APPEAL FOR AY 2006- -- - 07 & 2007 07 & 2007 07 & 2007 07 & 2007- -- -08 : 08 : 08 : 08 :- -- - 13. BOTH THESE APPEALS FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2006-07 AND 2007-08 RESPECTIVELY ARE AGAINST THE PENALTY LEVIED U/S 271 (1)(C) OF THE INCOME- TAX ACT, 1961. THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAD LEVIED TH E PENALTY U/S 271(1)(C) IN RESPECT OF DISALLOWANCE OF COMMISSION PAID TO THE DIRECTORS AS WELL AS 25% CAPITALIZATION OF ROYALTY EXPENSES. BOTH THESE ADDITIONS HAVE BEEN DELETED BY US WHILE DECIDING TH E ASSESSEES APPEAL IN QUANTUM. SINCE THE ADDITION ITSELF HAS B EEN DELETED, THE PENALTY BASED UPON SUCH ADDITION CANNOT SURVIVE. T HE SAME IS CANCELLED. 14. IN THE RESULT, ALL THE APPEALS OF THE ASSESSEE ARE ALLOWED. DECISION PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 10.05.2016 . SD/- SD/- (SUDHANSHU SRIVASTAVA (SUDHANSHU SRIVASTAVA (SUDHANSHU SRIVASTAVA (SUDHANSHU SRIVASTAVA ) )) ) ( (( ( 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 VK. COPY FORWARDED TO: - 1. APPELLANT : M/S BOTIL OIL TOOLS M/S BOTIL OIL TOOLS M/S BOTIL OIL TOOLS M/S BOTIL OIL TOOLS INDIA PVT.LTD., INDIA PVT.LTD., INDIA PVT.LTD., INDIA PVT.LTD., 4 44 4 TH THTH TH FLOOR, MONTA BUILDING, FLOOR, MONTA BUILDING, FLOOR, MONTA BUILDING, FLOOR, MONTA BUILDING, 4, BHIKAJI CAMA PLACE, NEW DELHI 4, BHIKAJI CAMA PLACE, NEW DELHI 4, BHIKAJI CAMA PLACE, NEW DELHI 4, BHIKAJI CAMA PLACE, NEW DELHI 110 066. 110 066. 110 066. 110 066. 2. RESPONDENT : ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TA X, ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE CIRCLE CIRCLE CIRCLE- -- -3(1), NEW DELHI. 3(1), NEW DELHI. 3(1), NEW DELHI. 3(1), NEW DELHI. 3. CIT 4. CIT(A) 5. DR, ITAT ASSISTANT REGISTRAR