DCIT, New Delhi V. M/s. Hero Management Services Ltd., New Delhi

ITA 5646/DEL/2012

• Counselvise Citation: [2014] 120 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 5439 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 3 month(s) 13 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 21-02-2014
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: C
• Next Hearing Date: 15-01-2014
• Assessment Year: 2005-2006
• Appeal Filed On: 07-11-2012
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: R K KAPOOR C AS
• Assessee Lawyers: SATPAL SINGH
• Keywords: Double taxation relief; Services rendered outside India; Deemed to accrue or arise in india; Permanent establishment; Non-deduction of tax
• Section: 5(2); 263

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH C NEW DELHI) BEFORE SHRI U. B. S. BEDI, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI T. S. KAPOOR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER I.T.A. NO. 5646 /DEL/2012 (ASSESSMENT YEAR 2005-06) DCIT, CIRCLE 12(1), VS. M/S. HERO MANAGEMENT SERVI CES LTD., NEW DELHI E-1, QUTUB HOTEL COMPLEX, SHAHEED JEET SINGH MARG, NEW DELHI -16 PAN/GIR NO.: AABCH4681C (APPELLANTS) (RESPONDENTS) ASSESSEE BY : SHRI SATPAL SINGH, SR. DR DEPARTMENT BY: SHRI PRADEEP DINODIA & SHRI R K KAPOOR, CAS ORDER PER U B S BEDI, JUDICIAL MEMBER: THIS APPEAL OF THE DEPARTMENT IS DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDER PASSED BY LD. CIT(A) XV, NEW DELHI DATED 04.09.2012 RELEVANT TO ASSESSMENT YEAR 2005-06 WHEREIN DEPARTMENT HAS CHALLENGED DELETION OF DISALLOWANCE OF RS.1,56,30,554/- MADE ON ACCOUNT OF FAILURE TO DEDU CT TDS ON MARKET DEVELOPMENT EXPENSES. 2. THE FACTS INDICATE THAT LD. CIT DELHI-IV, NEW DE LHI VIDE ORDER DATED 21.10.2010 PASSED U/S 263 OF THE I. T. ACT, 1961 HA D SET ASIDE THE ORDER OF THE A.O. DATED 10.12.2007 ON THE GROUND THAT THE A. O. HAS FAILED TO MAKE ANY INQUIRY/INVESTIGATION INTO ADMISSIBILITY OF THE EXPENDITURE ON MARKET I.T.A. NO.5646/DEL/2012 2 DEVELOPMENT OF RS.1,56,30,554/- DEBITED TO P & L AC COUNT. IN THE COURSE OF FRESH PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE A.O., THE ASSESSEE DUL Y FURNISHED THE COPY OF RELEVANT AGREEMENT WITH THE FOREIGN SERVICE PROVIDE R AND ALSO FURNISHED DETAILS OF THE AMOUNTS PAID TO THE FOREIGN SERVICE PROVIDER FOR PROMOTION OF THE BUSINESS OF THE ASSESSEE, PARTICULARLY, IN USA AND UK. IT WAS SUBMITTED BY THE ASSESSEE BEFORE THE A.O. THAT THE SERVICE PR OVIDER DID NOT CARRY ON ANY BUSINESS THROUGH A PRIVATE ESTABLISHMENT SITUATED I N INDIA AND ALL THE SUMS WERE RECEIVED BY THE SERVICE PROVIDER OUTSIDE INDIA AND FOR THE SERVICES PROVIDED OUTSIDE INDIA, NO TAX WAS DEDUCTED AT SOUR CE IN RESPECT OF THE AMOUNTS PAID TO THE FOREIGN SERVICE PROVIDER, AS NO INCOME ACCRUED OR AROSE OR DEEMED TO ACCRUE OR ARISE IN INDIA. HOWEVER, TH E A.O. FOUND THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE ASSESSEE AS UNACCEPTABLE, AS ACC ORDING TO HIM, THE ASSESSEE SHOULD HAVE DEDUCTED TAX AT SOURCE AS PER LAW. HE, THEREFORE, DISALLOWED MARKET DEVELOPMENT EXPENDITURE OF RS.1,5 6,30,554/-. 3. THE ASSESSEE TOOK UP THE MATER IN APPEAL AND MAD E THE SUBMISSIONS AND GIST OF WHICH IS AS UNDER: .THE ASSESSEE HAD FURNISHED THE DETAILS OF MARKET DEVELOPMENT EXPENSES OF RS.1,56,30,554/-, THE BREAK OF WHICH UN DER VARIOUS HEADS IS AS UNDER: S.NO. PARTICULARS AMOUNT (RS.) WHETHER TDS DEDUCTED OR NOT 1 MARKET DEVELOPMENT EXPENSES 14,359,740 NOT DEDUCTED AS PAYMENTS TO THE FOREIGN SERVICE PROVIDERS CANNOT BE REGARDED AS FEE FOR TECHNICAL I.T.A. NO.5646/DEL/2012 3 SERVICES AS PER THE RESPECTIVE DTAAS. 2 BUSINESS PROMOTION EXPENSES 204,219 TDS NOT DEDUCTIBLE IN CASE OF ANY PAYMENTS. 3 ENTERTAINMENT EXPENSES 179,162 TDS NOT DEDUCTIBLE IN CASE OF ANY PAYMENTS. 4 ADVERTISEMENT & PUBLICITY 887,433 TDS DEDUCTED WHEREVER APPLICABLE. TOTAL 15,630,554 THE ASSESSEE HAD ALSO FURNISHED THE FURTHER BREAK-U P OF AMOUNTS REMITTED TO THE VARIOUS SERVICE PROVIDERS UNDER THE SUB-HEAD /MARKET DEVELOPMENT EXPENSES/ AMOUNTING TO RS.1/43/59/740/- / WHICH IS AS UNDER: - STATUS CRM INTERNATIONAL LLP (USA) FIRM RS.79,69,200/- MR. EDWARD CHARLES BATS (UK) INDL. RS.36,84,668/- SRI SAMPATH (UK) INDL. RS.27,05,872/- ------------------ RS.1,43,59,740/- ------------------ THE ASSESSEE DURING THE COURSE OF PROCEEDINGS HAD A LSO MADE DETAILED SUBMISSIONS DATED 23.12.2010 IN SUPPORT OF ITS CLAI M THAT NO TAX WAS DEDUCTIBLE IN RESPECT OF REMITTANCE OF RS.1/43/59/7 40/- MADE TO FOREIGN SERVICE PROVIDERS/ AS THE REMITTANCE DID NO T FALL WITHIN THE MEANING OF LEE FOR TECHNICAL SERVICES/. SIMILARLY/ THE ASSESSEE ALSO EXPLAINED THAT BUSINESS PROMOTION EXPENSES AND ENTE RTAINMENT EXPENSES INCURRED IN INDIA WERE NOT LIABLE FOR ANY TAX DEDUCTION AT SOURCE. HOWEVER/ IN RESPECT OF ADVERTISEMENT AND PU BLICITY EXPENSES/ IT HAD DULY DEDUCTED TAX WHEREVER APPLICABLE AND DE POSITED THE SAME/ AS WILL BE EVIDENT FROM THE DETAILED STATEMENT OF T HE EXPENSES ATTACHED SEPARATELY. HOWEVER, THE AD WITHOUT GIVING A REASON FOR NOT REBUTTING I.T.A. NO.5646/DEL/2012 4 THE CONTENTION OF THE ASSESSEE MADE VIDE ITS ELABOR ATE SUBMISSION ON THE ISSUE, SIMPLY STATED THAT THE SUBMISSION OF THE ASSESSEE WAS NOT ACCEPTABLE, AS IN MANY CASES TDS HAS NOT BEEN MADE, WHICH AS PER LAW SHOULD HAVE BEEN MADE; AND PROCEEDED TO DISALLO W THE ENTIRE SUM OF RS.1,56,30,554/-. FROM THE PERUSAL OF THE STATEMENT OF EXPENSES UNDER THE SUB-HEAD -BUSINESS PROMOTION EXPENSES, ENTERTAINMENT EXPENSE S AND ADVERTISEMENT & PUBLICITY EXPENSES, IT WILL BE SEEN THAT THE DISALLOWANCE OF RS.12,70,814J- IS UNCALLED FOR, AS THE ASSESSEE HAD DULY DEDUCTED AND DEPOSITED THE TAX WHEREVER APPLIC ABLE AND THESE EXPENSES DO NOT INVOLVE ANY FOREIGN REMITTANCE. INSOFAR AS THE MARKET DEVELOPMENT EXPENSES OF RS.1, 43,59,740J- ARE CONCERNED, FROM THE PERUSAL OF THE AGREEMENTS WITH CRM INTERNATIONAL LLC, MR. EDWARD CHARLES BATES AND SRI SAMPATH, IT WILL BE SEEN THAT THE PAYMENTS TO THESE SERVICE PRO VIDERS HAVE BEEN MADE FOR SERVICES IN EXAMINING THE POTENTIAL MARKET S AND PROMOTING THE PRODUCTS OF THE ASSESSEE IN USA, CANADA AND UK. THE SERVICES PROVIDED BY THESE PERSONS ARE OF I/INDEPENDENT PERS ONAL SERVICES', AS THESE PERSONS HAVE PROFESSIONAL EXPERTISE IN THESE FIELDS. THESE PERSONS HAVE NO BASE IN INDIA AND THEY HAVE NOT STA YED IN INDIA IN CONNECTION WITH THE BUSINESS OF THE ASSESSEE DURING THE YEAR. THEY HAVE ALSO NO PE IN INDIA WITHIN THE MEANING OF RELE VANT DTA AGREEMENTS. THESE SERVICE PROVIDERS ARE COVERED BY ARTICLE 15 OF THE RESPECTIVE DTAA. IT HAS BEEN HELD BY THE HON'BLE SUPREME COURT IN GE INDIA TECHNOLOGY CENTER (P) LTD. VS. CLT (2010) 327 ITR 4 56 (SC) THAT MOST IMPORTANT EXPRESSION IN SECTION 195(1) CONSIST OF T HE WORDS I/CHARGEABLE UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF THE ACT', A PE RSON PAYING INTEREST OR ANY OTHER SUM TO A NON-RESIDENT IS NOT LIABLE TO DEDUCT TAX, IF SUCH SUM IS NOT CHARGEABLE TO TAX UNDER THE ACT. SECTION 5(2) PROVIDES - SUBJECT TO THE PROVISIONS O F THIS ACT, THE TOTAL INCOME OF ANY PREVIOUS YEAR OF A PERSON WHO IS A NO N RESIDENT INCLUDES ALL INCOME FROM WHATEVER SOURCE DERIVED, W HICH I.T.A. NO.5646/DEL/2012 5 (A) IS RECEIVED OR DEEMED TO BE RECEIVED IN INDIA IN SUCH YEAR BY OR ON BEHALF OF SUCH PERSON; OR (B) ACCRUES OR ARISES OR IS DEEMED TO ACCRUE OR ARI SE TO HIM IN INDIA DURING SUCH YEAR. THEREFORE, THE INCOME WHICH ACCRUES OR ARISES OR IS DEEMED TO ACCRUE OR ARISE IN INDIA IS CHARGEABLE TO TAX IN THE CASE OF A NON-RESIDENT. THERE IS NO DISPUTE THAT NO INCOME WAS RECEIVED OR DEEMED TO BE RECEIVED IN INDIA BY THE NON-RESIDENT. SINCE THE SE RVICES WERE PROVIDED OUTSIDE INDIA BY THE SERVICE PROVIDERS IN PROMOTING THE ACTIVITIES OF THE ASSESSEE AND THE PAYMENTS WERE AL SO RECEIVED OUTSIDE INDIA, NO INCOME ACCRUES OR ARISES IN INDIA. HOWEVE R, SECTION 9 IS THE DEEMING PROVISION WHICH PROVIDES FOR DEEMED ACCRUAL OF INCOME IN INDIA IN CERTAIN CASES. THE RELEVANT CLAUSES OF SEC TION 9(1) ARE (VI) AND (VII), WHICH DEAL WITH ROYALTY AND TECHNICAL KN OW-HOW FEES. THE AO HAD NOT AT ALL ADDRESSED THE RELEVANT PROVISIONS OF THE ACT UNDER WHICH THE ASSESSEE WAS LIABLE TO DEDUCT TAX AT SOUR CE, EXCEPT MAKING A GENERAL STATEMENT THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS LIABLE TO D EDUCT TAX AT SOURCE. IT IS NOT IN DISPUTE THAT THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 195(1) ARE ATTRACTED WHERE THE PAYMENT HAS SOME ELEMENT OF INCOME CHARGE ABLE TO TAX IN INDIA. ONLY SECTIONS WHICH DEAL WITH INCOME ACCRUIN G OR DEEMED TO BE ACCRUING IN INDIA ARE SECTIONS 5(2) OR 9(L)(VI)J(VI I) OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT. IT MAY THEREFORE BE HELD THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS NOT LIABLE TO TAX AT SOURCE IN RESPECT OF PAYMENTS MADE TO FOREIGN SERVI CE PROVIDERS (PROFESSIONAL SALES REPRESENTATIVES), AS NO INCOME ACCRUES OR IS DEEMED TO ACCRUE IN INDIA; AND AS SUCH, THE DISALLO WANCE MADE BY THE AO IS UNCALLED FOR AND LEGALLY UNTENABLE. RELIANCE IN THIS REGARD IS ALSO PLACED ON THE DECISION OF IND TELESOFT PVT. LT D. (2004) 267 ITR 725 (AAR).-----------. 4. TO BUTTRESS THE ABOVE ARGUMENT, THE ASSESSEE ALS O RELIED UPON THE DECISION OF IND TELESOFT PVT. LTD. (2004)267 ITR 72 5 (AAR) AND CIT VS ION I.T.A. NO.5646/DEL/2012 6 TECHNOLOGY PVT. LTD. 46 SOT (2011) 323 (DEL.) AND F URTHER RELIANCE WAS PLACED ON CIRCULAR NO.786 DATED 07.02.2000 ISSUED B Y CBDT CLARIFYING THE TAXABILITY OF EXPORT COMMISSION PAYABLE TO NON RESI DENTS RENDERING SERVICES ABROAD AND ALSO FILED COPY OF SUCH CIRCULAR TO PLEA D FOR DELETION OF ADDITION MADE BY THE A.O. LD. CIT(A) WHILE CONSIDERING AND ACCEPTING THE PLEA OF THE ASSESSEE, HAS CONCLUDED TO GIVE ITS FINDING IN PARA 6 OF HIS ORDER WHICH IS REPRODUCED AS UNDER: I HAVE CAREFULLY CONSIDERED THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE APPELLANT AND HAVE PERUSED THE ORDER OF THE AO AND HAVE ALSO CONS IDERED THE FACTS AND EVIDENCES PLACED ON RECORDS AND THE CASE LAWS R ELIED UPON BY THE APPELLANT. IT IS SEEN FROM THE BREAK-UP OF THE MARK ET DEVELOPMENT EXPENSES OF RS.L,56,30,554 THAT IT INCLUDES THE FOL LOWING EXPENSES: - I) BUSINESS PROMOTION EXPENSES RS.2,04,219 II) ENTERTAINMENT EXPENSES V RS.1,79,162 III) ADVERTISEMENT AND PUBLICITY EXPENSES RS.8,87 ,443 THE APPELLANT FILED THE DETAILS IN RESPECT OF ABOVE EXPENSES FROM WHICH, IT IS SEEN THAT IN SO FAR AS THE BUSINESS PROMOTION AND ENTERTAINMENT EXPENSES ARE CONCERNED, NO TDS IS DEDUCTIBLE AND IN RESPECT OF A DVERTISEMENT AND PUBLICITY EXPENSES, TDS HAS BEEN DULY DEDUCTED WHER EVER APPLICABLE. THE CONTENTION OF THE APPELLANT IN SO FAR AS THE EX PENSES UNDER THE HEAD BUSINESS PROMOTION EXPENSES, ENTERTAINMENT EXPENSES AND ADVERTISEMENT AND PUBLICITY EXPENSES ARE CONCERNED, THESE EXPENSES THOUGH GROUPED, UNDER THE HEAD 'MARKET DEVELOPMENT EXPENSES' IN THE PROFIT & LOSS ACCOUNT DO NOT PERTAIN TO MARKET DEVE LOPMENT EXPENSES. THE MARKET DEVELOPMENT EXPENSES AMOUNT TO RS.L,43,5 9,740 IN RESPECT OF PAYMENTS TO FOREIGN SERVICE PROVIDERS THE APPELL ANT HAS CONTENDED THAT IT WAS NOT LIABLE TO DEDUCT TAX AT SOURCE ON T HE PAYMENTS TO FOREIGN SERVICE PROVIDERS, AS THESE MARKETING AND SELLING A GENTS HAVE NO PE IN INDIA AND THEY HAVE RENDERED THE SERVICES IN FOREIG N COUNTRIES TO FOREIGN CUSTOMERS AND HAVE RECEIVED THE PAYMENTS FO R SUCH SERVICES RENDERED OUTSIDE INDIA AND AS SUCH NO INCOME ACCRUE D OR DEEMED TO I.T.A. NO.5646/DEL/2012 7 ACCRUE IN INDIA WITHIN THE MEANING OF SECTION 4(1) READ WITH SECTION 5(2) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT. I AGREE WITH THE CONTENTION OF THE APPELLANT THAT T HE SERVICE PROVIDERS ARE JUST FOREIGN SALES REPRESENTATIVES OR MARKETING AND SELLING AGENTS ENGAGED BY THE APPELLANT FOR PROMOTING ITS BUSINESS IN USA AND UK. THE APPELLANT HAS ALSO FURNISHED THE INCOME/SALES B OOKED BY THE COMPANY FROM USA AND UK DUE TO THE SERVICES RENDERE D BY THESE SERVICE PROVIDERS. THE SERVICE PROVIDERS HAD RENDER ED SERVICES TO THE APPELLANT COMPANY OUTSIDE INDIA AND IT DID NOT HAVE PERMANENT ESTABLISHMENT IN INDIA AND THE PAYMENTS WERE ALSO R ECEIVED OUTSIDE INDIA. I FIND THAT THE FACTS OF THE APPELLANT CASE ARE IDENTICAL TO THE CASE OF ECON TECHNOLOGY (P) LTD. (SUPRA) WHEREIN, ITAT D ELHI BENCH HAS HELD THAT: '---------IF THE CONTENTION OF THE DEPARTMENT THAT THE MOMENT THERE IS REMITTANCE, THE OBLIGATION TO DEDUCT TDS ARISES IS TO BE ACCEPTED IN WORDS, CHARGEABLE UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF THE ACT IN SECTION 195 (1) GET OBLITERATED THE PAYER IS BOUND TO DEDUCT TAX AT SOURCE ONLY IF THE AMOUNT IS ASSESSABLE IN INDIA AND IF THE TAX IS NOT SO ASSESSABLE, THERE IS NO QUESTION OF MAKING TDS (PARA 20). THE COMMISSIONER (APPEALS) HAD CORRECTLY REFERRED T O CBDT CIRCULAR NO.23J DATED 23.7.1969. THEREIN, IT HAS BEEN OBSERV ED THAT WHERE A FOREIGN AGENT OF AN INDIAN EXPORTER OPERATES IN HIS OWN COUNTRY AND HIS COMMISSION IS DIRECTLY REMITTED TO HIM, SUCH COMMIS SION IS NOT RECEIVED BY HIM OR ON HIS BEHALF IN INDIA AND THAT SUCH AGEN T IS NOT LIABLE TO INCOME-TAX IN INDIA ON THE COMMISSION RECEIVED BY H IM (PARA 27) IN CBDT CIRCULAR NO. 786, DATED 7.2.2000, THE ABOVE CLARIFICATION GIVEN IN CBDT CIRCULAR NO.23, DATED 23.7.1969 HAS B EEN STATED TO STILL PREVAIL, SINCE SECTION 5 (2) AND (9) HAVE NOT UNDER GONE ANY CHANGE, AND IT STATES THAT NO TAX IS, AS SUCH, DEDUCTIBLE UNDER SECTION 195 FROM EXPORT COMMISSION AND OTHER RELATED CHARGES PAYABLE TO A NON-RESIDENT AGENT OPERATING OUTSIDE INDIA FOR THE SERVICES REND ERED OUTSIDE INDIA. I.T.A. NO.5646/DEL/2012 8 SAID CIRCULAR HAD ALSO BEEN RIGHTLY RELIEF ON BY TH E COMMISSIONER (APPEALS). NOTHING TO THE CONTRARY HAD BEEN ARGUED ON BEHALF OF THE DEPARTMENT. THE CBDT CIRCULARS ARE BINDING ON THE T AXING AUTHORITIES. (PARA 28).-----------' THE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT OF DELHI HAS ALSO UPH ELD THE ABOVE SAID DECISION IN CIT VS. ECON TECHNOLOGY (P) LTD. (2012) 246 CTR (DEL) 40. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE DECISION, I THEREFORE, HOLD TH AT THE APPELLANT WAS NOT LIABLE TO DEDUCT TAX AT SOURCE UNDER SECTION 19 5 OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT, AS NO INCOME ACCRUED OR AROSE OR DEEMED TO ACC RUE OR ARISE IN INDIA. THE DISALLOWANCE MADE BY THE AD OF RS.L,56,3 0,550/- ACCOUNT OF ALLEGED FAILURE TO DEDUCT TAX AT SOURCE IS THEREFOR E DELETED. 5. AGGRIEVED BY THIS ORDER OF LD. CIT(A), DEPARTMEN T HAS COME UP IN APPEAL AND WHILE RELYING UPON THE ORDER OF THE A.O. , IT WAS PLEADED FOR SETTING ASIDE THE ORDER OF LD. CIT(A) AND RESTORING THAT OF THE A.O. 6. LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE WHILE RELYING UPON THE ORDER OF LD. CIT(A), HAS PLEADED THAT THE ISSUE RAISED IN THIS A PPEAL IS COVERED BY ITAT C BENCH DECISION IN THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2007-08 IN I.T.A. NO. 5180/DEL/11 AND ANOTHER DECISION OF A BENCH OF ITAT, DELHI IN THE CASE OF DCIT VS ANGELIQUE INTERNATIONAL LT D., I.T.A. NO. 4167/DEL/2012 FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2009-10 DATED 26. 10.2012 IN WHICH, ONE OF THE MEMBERS OF THE TRIBUNAL IS PARTY TO THE DECI SION. THEREFORE RELYING UPON THESE DECISIONS, IT WAS PLEADED FOR CONFIRMATI ON OF THE IMPUGNED ORDER. 7. AFTER HAVING HEARD BOTH THE SIDES AND CONSIDERIN G THE MATERIAL ON RECORD AS WELL AS THE PRECEDENT RELIED UPON BY THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE, WE FIND THAT THE ISSUE INVOLVED IN THIS A PPEAL IS SQUARELY COVERED IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE IN ASSESSEES OWN CASE FOR A SSESSMENT YEAR 2007-08 I.T.A. NO.5646/DEL/2012 9 AND THERE IS ANOTHER DECISION OF ITAT A BENCH IN I.T.A. NO. 4267/DEL/2012 IN THE CASE OF DCIT VS ANGELIQUE INTE RNATIONAL LTD. DATED 26.12.2012 WHICH ARE DIRECTLY ON THE POINT. THERE FORE, FOLLOWING THESE DECISIONS AND NO CONTRARY DECISION HAS BEEN BROUGHT ON RECORD BY THE DEPARTMENT, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND THERE BE ING NO CONTRARY DECISION ON THE ISSUE BROUGHT TO OUR KNOWLEDGE, WE HAVE NO OPTI ON BUT TO AGREE WITH THE VIEW TAKEN BY EARLIER BENCH IN THE CASE OF THE ASSE SSEE FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2007-08 FOR THIS YEAR ALSO. AS SUCH, TAKING C ONSISTENT VIEW, APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE ON THIS ISSUE IS DECIDED IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE BY UPHOLDING THE ORDER OF LD. CIT(A) AND RESULTANTLY, APPEAL OF THE REVENUE GETS DISMISSED. 8. AS A RESULT APPEAL OF THE DEPARTMENT GETS DISMIS SED. 9. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 21 ST FEB., 2014. SD./- SD./- (T. S. KAPOOR) (U.B.S.BEDI) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER DATE: 21 ST FEB., 2014. SP. COPY FORWARDED TO: 1. APPELLANT 2. RESPONDENT 3. CIT 4. CIT(A)-XXV, NEW DELHI AR, ITAT, 5. CIT(ITAT), NEW DELHI NEW DELHI