THE Dy. CIT, CIRCLE - 3(1)(TDS), Vijayawada V. The Krishna District Milk Producers' Mutually Aided Co-op. Union Ltd., Vijayawada

ITA 73/VIZ/2013

• Counselvise Citation: [2016] 132 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 1221 (ITAT-VISAKHAPATNAM)
• Duration Of Justice: 3 year(s) 2 month(s) 7 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 19-04-2016
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: DB
• Next Hearing Date: 14-12-2015
• Assessment Year: misc
• Appeal Filed On: 11-02-2013
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: M K SETHI; T S N MURTHY DRS
• Keywords: Question of law
• Section: 133A; 201(1)

Judgement Text

ITA NOS.70 TO 73/VIZAG/2013 THE KRISHNA DISTRICT MILK PRODUCERS MUTUALLY AIDED CO-OP. UNION LTD., VIJAYAWADA 1 , , IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, VISAKHAPATNAM BENCH, VISAKHAPATNAM . , . , $ BEFORE SHRI V. DURGA RAO, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI G. MANJUNATHA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ./I.T.A.NOS.70, 71, 72 & 73/VIZAG/2013 ( / ASSESSMENT YEARS: 2008-09, 2009-10, 2010-11 & 2011-12 RESPECTIVELY) THE DCIT, CIRCLE - 3(1)(TDS), VIJAYAWADA VS. THE KRISHNA DISTRICT MILK PRODUCERS MUTUALLY AIDED CO-OP. UNION LTD. VIJAYAWADA [ T AN: HYDT01870B ] ( % / APPELLANT) ( &'% / RESPONDENT) / APPELLANT BY : SHRI M.K. SETHI & SHRI T.S.N. MURTHY, DRS / RESPONDENT BY : SHRI C. SUBRAHMANYAM, AR / DATE OF HEARING : 29. 0 3.2016 / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 19.04.2016 / O R D E R PER BENCH: THESE FOUR APPEALS FILED BY THE REVENUE ARE DIRECT ED AGAINST THE COMMON ORDER OF CIT(A), VIJAYAWADA DATED 14.11.2010 FOR THE ITA NOS.70 TO 73/VIZAG/2013 THE KRISHNA DISTRICT MILK PRODUCERS MUTUALLY AIDED CO-OP. UNION LTD., VIJAYAWADA 2 ASSESSMENT YEARS 2008-09 TO 2010-12. SINCE, THE IS SUES ARE COMMON, THEY ARE CLUBBED, HEARD TOGETHER AND DISPOSED OFF, BY WAY OF THIS COMMON ORDER FOR THE SAKE OF CONVENIENCE. 2. THE BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT THE ASSESSE E M/S. THE KRISHNA DISTRICT MILK PRODUCERS MUTUALLY AIDED CO-OPERATIV E UNION LTD. IS ENGAGED IN THE BUSINESS OF PROCURING, PROCESSING AN D SELLING MILK. A SURVEY U/S 133A OF THE INCOME-TAX, 1961 (HEREINAFTE R CALLED AS THE ACT) WAS CONDUCTED IN THE BUSINESS PREMISES OF THE ASSESSEE ON 4.12.2009. DURING THE COURSE OF SURVEY PROCEEDINGS , IT WAS NOTICED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS BEEN MAKING PAYMENTS TO THE RETAIL AGENTS, THROUGH WHOM SALE OF MILK IS EFFECTED UNDER THREE DIFFERENT HEADS VIZ. TRADE DISCOUNTS, MAINTENANCE CHARGES AND COMPENSATION FOR LEAKED MILK PACKETS @ 1%, 3.2% AND 0.3% RESPECTIVELY. IT WAS F URTHER NOTICED THAT THOUGH THESE PAYMENTS ARE IN THE NATURE OF COMMISSI ON AS DEFINED U/S 194H OF THE ACT, THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT DEDUCTED TDS ON SUCH PAYMENTS. HENCE, A SHOW CAUSE NOTICE WAS ISSUED TO THE ASSESS EE ON 30.12.2009 AND ASKED TO EXPLAIN WHY IT SHOULD NOT BE TREATED A S ASSESSEE IN DEFAULT U/S 201(1) OF THE ACT. IN RESPONSE TO SHOW CAUSE N OTICE, THE ASSESSEE HAS FILED ITS WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS ON 19.3.2010 AND 28.3.2011 AND RAISED OBJECTION TO THE PROPOSED ACTION OF THE ASSESSING O FFICER U/S 201(1) OF ITA NOS.70 TO 73/VIZAG/2013 THE KRISHNA DISTRICT MILK PRODUCERS MUTUALLY AIDED CO-OP. UNION LTD., VIJAYAWADA 3 THE ACT. THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT THE RELATIONS HIP BETWEEN RETAILERS AND ASSESSEE IS NOT A PRINCIPAL TO AGENT RELATIONSH IP, BUT IT IS A PRINCIPAL TO PRINCIPAL RELATIONSHIP. THE ASSESSEE FURTHER SUB MITTED THAT IT SELLS THE GOODS TO THE RETAIL SELLERS AND THE OWNERSHIP AND R ISK INVOLVED IN THE GOODS IS TRANSFERRED TO THE RETAIL DEALERS. IT WAS FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT IT HAS ENTERED INTO AN AGREEMENT WITH THE RETAIL DE ALERS FOR SALE OF MILK WITH CERTAIN CONDITIONS AND AS PER SUCH CONDITIONS, THE PROPERTY IN GOODS IS TRANSFERRED TO THE RETAIL DEALERS AND THERE IS N O PROVISION OF RETURN OF UNSOLD GOODS. THE MILK SOLD TO RETAIL OUTLETS WOULD BE THE EXCLUSIVE PROPERTY OF THE RETAIL DEALERS AND THE RETAIL DEALE RS SHOULD SELL MILK ON THEIR OWN RIGHT AND DO NOT RENDER ANY SERVICES TO T HE ASSESSEE. THE ASSESSEE FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT AS PER THE PRINCIPA LS OF CONTRACT OF AGENCY, THE PRINCIPAL WOULD INDEMNIFY THE AGENT FOR ANY LIABILITY ON ACCOUNT OF LOSS OF GOODS IN TRANSIT, WHEREAS IN THE INSTANT CASE, IT DOES NOT INDEMNIFY THE DEALERS, WHICH SHOWS THAT THERE I S NO CONTRACT OF AGENCY BETWEEN THE RETAILERS AND ASSESSEE. THEREFO RE, SUBMITTED THAT IT IS MERELY A CONTRACT OF SALE OF GOODS AND NOT A CON TRACT OF AGENCY, HENCE, THE QUESTION OF DEDUCTION OF TDS U/S 194H OF THE ACT DOES NOT ARISE. THE ASSESSEE FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT TO ATTR ACT THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 194H OF THE ACT, THERE SHOULD BE A RELATION SHIP OF AGENCY ITA NOS.70 TO 73/VIZAG/2013 THE KRISHNA DISTRICT MILK PRODUCERS MUTUALLY AIDED CO-OP. UNION LTD., VIJAYAWADA 4 BETWEEN THE PRINCIPAL AND RETAILER. IN ITS CASE, I T HAS SOLD THE GOODS AND RAISED THE INVOICE ON THE RETAILERS AND MONEY HAS B EEN COLLECTED EITHER ON THE SAME DAY OR ON THE NEXT WORKING DAY. THOUGH IT HAS RESTRICTED ITS RETAILERS THROUGH CERTAIN CONDITIONS SUCH AS SA LE PRICE, PLACE OF SALE AND MODE OF PAYMENT, THESE CONDITIONS ARE TO PUT TO FACILITATE THE SALE ACCORDING TO ITS CONVENIENCE. JUST BECAUSE THERE A RE CERTAIN CONDITIONS WHICH SUGGEST THE AGENCY AGREEMENT, IT CANNOT BE HE LD THAT IT IS A CONTRACT FOR AGENCY AND NOT A CONTRACT FOR SALE. IN SUPPORT OF ITS ARGUMENTS RELIED UPON THE DECISION OF HONBLE DELHI HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF MOTHER DIARY INDIA LTD. REPORTED IN 28 SOT 42 (DELHI). 3. THE A.O. AFTER CONSIDERING THE EXPLANATIONS FURN ISHED BY THE ASSESSEE, HELD THAT THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN THE AS SESSEE AND THE RETAILERS IS NOTHING BUT A PRINCIPAL TO AGENCY RELA TIONSHIP, THEREFORE, THE PAYMENT MADE BY THE ASSESSEE TO THE RETAILERS IS IN THE NATURE OF COMMISSION AS DEFINED U/S 194H OF THE ACT AND HENCE , LIABLE FOR TDS. THE ASSESSEE HAS FAILED TO DEDUCT TDS ON PAYMENTS M ADE TO ITS RETAIL DEALERS, THEREFORE, HELD THAT THE ASSESSEE AS AN AS SESSEE IN DEFAULT U/S 201(1) OF THE ACT AND COMPUTED THE TAX AND INTEREST . THE A.O. HAS PASSED ELABORATE ORDER WHEREIN HE HAS DISCUSSED HOW THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN THE ASSESSEE AND THE RETAILER IS PIT INTO T HE DEFINITION OF ITA NOS.70 TO 73/VIZAG/2013 THE KRISHNA DISTRICT MILK PRODUCERS MUTUALLY AIDED CO-OP. UNION LTD., VIJAYAWADA 5 COMMISSION AS DEFINED U/S 194H OF THE ACT, THEREFOR E, HELD THAT THE PAYMENTS MADE BY THE ASSESSEE TO ITS RETAIL DEALERS SUCH AS TRADE DISCOUNT, MAINTENANCE CHARGES AND COMPENSATION OR I N THE NATURE OF COMMISSION, WHICH ATTRACTS TDS U/S 194H OF THE ACT. 4. AGGRIEVED BY THE ASSESSMENT ORDER, THE ASSESSEE PREFERRED AN APPEAL BEFORE THE CIT(A). BEFORE THE CIT(A), THE A SSESSEE REITERATED THE STAND TAKEN BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER. THE A SSESSEE FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT THE AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE ASSESSEE A ND ITS RETAILERS IS MERELY A CONTRACT FOR SALE AND NOT A CONTRACT FOR S ERVICE. THE ASSESSEE FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT IT HAS SOLD THE GOODS TO ITS RETAILERS AND RAISED INVOICE. THE RISK AND OWNERSHIP IN THE GOODS IS TRA NSFERRED TO THE RETAIL OUTLETS AND ALSO THERE IS NO PROVISION FOR RETURN O F UNSOLD GOODS. THE PRODUCT SOLD TO RETAIL OUTLETS IS EXCLUSIVE PROPERT Y OF THE RETAILERS. THE RETAIL DEALERS SHOULD SELL MILK ON THEIR OWN RIGHT AND DO NOT RENDER ANY SERVICE TO THE ASSESSEE. THEREFORE, THE TRANSACTIO N BETWEEN THE ASSESSEE AND THE RETAILERS IS A SALE OF PRINCIPAL T O PRINCIPAL BASIS DOES NOT INVOLVE ANY PAYMENT OF COMMISSION. THE ASSESSEE FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT THOUGH IT HAS ENTERED INTO AN AGREEMENT WITH T HE RETAILERS AND CERTAIN CONDITIONS IN THE AGREEMENT SHOWS THAT THER E EXIST A RELATIONSHIP OF AGENCY BETWEEN THE ASSESSEE AND THE RETAILERS, M ERELY ON SUCH ITA NOS.70 TO 73/VIZAG/2013 THE KRISHNA DISTRICT MILK PRODUCERS MUTUALLY AIDED CO-OP. UNION LTD., VIJAYAWADA 6 CONDITIONS IT CANNOT BE CONCLUDED THAT IT IS A CONT RACT FOR SERVICE. THE ASSESSEE FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT IT IS INVOLVED IN T HE BUSINESS OF SALE OF MILK AND CONSIDERED TO BE ESSENTIAL COMMODITY. THE TRADE IS CONTROLLED BY STATE GOVERNMENT ACCORDINGLY THE MRP OF THE PROD UCT IS FIXED BY THE STATE GOVERNMENT. THOUGH THE RETAILERS HAVE SOLD TH E GOODS ON MRP, IT HAS BILLED THE GOODS TO ITS RETAILERS ON MRP PRICE AND PAID THE MARGIN ALLOWED TO THE RETAILERS SEPARATELY BY WAY OF CHEQU E. IT WAS FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT AS PER THE PRINCIPLES OF CONTRACT OF AGENCY, THE PRINCIPAL WOULD INDEMNIFY THE AGENT FOR ANY LIABILITY ON ACCO UNT OF LOSS OF GOODS IN TRANSIT, WHEREAS IN THE PRESENT CASE, THE ASSESSEE DOES NOT INDEMNIFY THE AGENT FOR ANY LOSS OF GOODS IN TRANSIT WHICH CL EARLY SHOWS THAT THERE IS NO CONTRACT OF AGENCY BETWEEN THE ASSESSEE AND T HE RETAILERS. IN SUPPORT OF ITS ARGUMENT RELIED UPON THE DECISION OF HONBLE DELHI HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. MOTHER DIARY INDIA LTD . (2012) 206 TAXMAN 157. 5. THE CIT(A) DURING THE COURSE OF APPELLATE PROCEE DINGS, FORWARDED THE WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS OF THE ASSESSEE TO THE ASSE SSING OFFICER FOR HIS COMMENTS. THE ASSESSING OFFICER VIDE HIS REMAND REP ORT DATED 8.10.2012 REBUTTED THE SUBMISSIONS MADE BY THE ASSE SSEE AND ARGUED THAT THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN THE ASSESSEE AND THE RETAIL AGENT IS OF ITA NOS.70 TO 73/VIZAG/2013 THE KRISHNA DISTRICT MILK PRODUCERS MUTUALLY AIDED CO-OP. UNION LTD., VIJAYAWADA 7 PRINCIPAL TO AGENT AND NOT PRINCIPAL TO PRINCIPAL B ASIS. THEREFORE, THE PAYMENT MADE BY THE ASSESSEE TO ITS RETAILERS IS NO THING BUT A COMMISSION AS DEFINED U/S 194H OF THE ACT. THE CIT( A) AFTER CONSIDERING THE ASSESSEE SUBMISSION AND ALSO TAKEN INTO ACCOUNT THE REMAND REPORT OF THE A.O., HELD THAT THE RELATION BETWEEN THE DIA RY AND ITS CONCESSIONAIRE IS NOTHING BUT PRINCIPAL TO PRINCIPA L BASIS AND AS SUCH THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 194H OF THE ACT ARE NOT APPLI CABLE. THE CIT(A) FURTHER HELD THAT IT IS A WELL SETTLED PROPOSITION OF LAW THAT THE PROPERTY IN GOODS IS TRANSFERRED AND GETS VESTED WITH THE CO NCESSIONAIRES AT THE TIME OF THE DELIVERY OF THE GOODS. THEREAFTER THE C ONCESSIONAIRES WOULD BE DEALING WITH THEM ON THEIR OWN RIGHT AS A PRINCI PAL AND NOT AN AGENT OF THE DIARY. WITH THESE OBSERVATIONS, THE CIT(A) DE LETED THE ADDITIONS MADE BY THE A.O. U/S 201(1) AND 201(1A) OF THE ACT. AGGRIEVED BY THE CIT(A) ORDER, THE REVENUE IS IN APPEAL BEFORE US. 6. THE LD. D.R. SUBMITTED THAT THE CIT(A) WAS ERRED IN DELETING THE ADDITIONS MADE BY THE A.O. U/S 201(1) & 201(1A) OF THE ACT. THE D.R. FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT THE CIT(A) WAS ERRED IN HOLD ING THAT THE RELATION BETWEEN THE ASSESSEE AND ITS CONCESSIONAIRE IS NOTH ING BUT PRINCIPAL TO PRINCIPAL BASIS AND AS SUCH THE PROVISIONS OF SECTI ON 194H OF THE ACT ARE NOT APPLICABLE. THE D.R. FURTHER ARGUED THAT IT IS CLEARLY AN AGREEMENT ITA NOS.70 TO 73/VIZAG/2013 THE KRISHNA DISTRICT MILK PRODUCERS MUTUALLY AIDED CO-OP. UNION LTD., VIJAYAWADA 8 OF AGENCY, THEREFORE, ANY PAYMENT MADE BY THE ASSES SEE TO ITS RETAILERS ATTRACTS TDS U/S 194H OF THE ACT. THE D.R. FURTHER REFERRING TO THE AGREEMENT ENTERED INTO BY THE ASSESSEE WITH HIS CON CESSIONAIRE ARGUED THAT THE CONDITIONS SPECIFIED IN THE AGREEMENT CLEA RLY SUGGEST THAT IT IS AN AGREEMENT FOR AGENCY. AS PER THE SAID AGREEMENT, THE ASSESSEE HAS EXCLUSIVE RIGHT OF TERMINATING THE AGREEMENT IN THE EVENT THE RETAILERS HAVE VIOLATED THE CONDITIONS SPECIFIED IN THE AGREE MENT WITHOUT ASSIGNING ANY REASONS. THE ASSESSEE HAS COLLECTED S ECURITY DEPOSIT AND ALSO DIRECTED THE RETAILERS TO SELL THE GOODS AT SP ECIFIED POINT AND ALSO AT SPECIFIED RATE. THE D.R. FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS PAID THE AMOUNT ON A FIXED PERCENTAGE TO ITS RETAILERS, WHIC H IS NOTHING BUT A COMMISSION AS DEFINED U/S 194H OF THE ACT. THEREFO RE, THE ORDER PASSED BY THE A.O. SHOULD BE UPHELD. 7. ON THE OTHER HAND, THE LD. A.R. OF THE ASSESSEE STRONGLY SUPPORTED THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A). THE A.R. FURTHER SUBMITTE D THAT TILL THE GOODS WERE DELIVERED AT THE RETAIL OUTLET, THEY REMAIN TH E PROPERTY OF THE ASSESSEE. THE RISK AND RIGHTS IN THE PROPERTY IS TR ANSFERRED TO THE RETAIL OUTLETS AS AND WHEN RETAIL OUTLET OWNER RECEIVES TH E GOODS. THE A.R. FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT IT IS CLEARLY A SALE OF CONT RACT AND NOT A CONTRACT FOR SERVICE. THE ASSESSEE SELLS GOODS TO ITS RETAI LERS AND RAISE SALE ITA NOS.70 TO 73/VIZAG/2013 THE KRISHNA DISTRICT MILK PRODUCERS MUTUALLY AIDED CO-OP. UNION LTD., VIJAYAWADA 9 INVOICE. THE RETAILERS ARE SELLING THE GOODS ON TH EIR OWN AT THE RATE FIXED BY THE ASSESSEE AND THE PROPERTY IN THE GOODS IS VESTED WITH THE RETAILERS. UNSOLD GOODS AT THE END OF THE DAY A RE NOT RETURNED BACK TO THE ASSESSEE AND IT IS THE RESPONSIBILITY OF THE RE TAILERS TO SELL THE GOODS. THE ALLEGATION OF THE A.O. IS THAT IT IS MERELY A C ONTRACT FOR SERVICE AS THE ASSESSEE HAS APPOINTED THE RETAIL AGENTS BY OBLIGAT ION AND ALSO ENTERED INTO AN AGREEMENT WITH THE RETAILERS WITH CERTAIN C ONDITIONS. THOUGH THE ASSESSEE ENTERED INTO AN AGREEMENT WITH THE RETAILE RS, IT IS FOR THE CONVENIENCE OF DOING THE BUSINESS. THEREFORE, THE A .O. WAS NOT CORRECT IN COMING TO THE CONCLUSION THAT IT IS A CONTRACT F OR AGENCY AND ANY PAYMENT MADE BY THE ASSESSEE IS LIABLE FOR TDS U/S 194H OF THE ACT. 8. WE HAVE HEARD BOTH THE PARTIES, PERUSED THE MATER IALS AVAILABLE ON RECORD AND GONE THROUGH THE ORDERS OF THE AUTHOR ITIES BELOW. THE FACTUAL MATRIX OF THE CASE IS THAT A SURVEY OPERATI ON U/S 133A OF THE ACT WAS CONDUCTED IN THE BUSINESS PREMISES OF THE ASSES SEE. DURING THE COURSE OF SURVEY PROCEEDINGS, IT WAS NOTICED THAT T HE ASSESSEE IS SELLING THE GOODS THROUGH ITS RETAIL CONCESSIONAIRES AND PA ID THE FIXED PERCENTAGE OF MARGIN ON SUCH SALE. THE A.O. HELD T HAT THE AMOUNT PAID BY THE ASSESSEE TO ITS RETAIL CONCESSIONAIRE IS IN THE NATURE OF COMMISSION AS DEFINED U/S 194H OF THE ACT WHICH ATT RACTS TDS. ITA NOS.70 TO 73/VIZAG/2013 THE KRISHNA DISTRICT MILK PRODUCERS MUTUALLY AIDED CO-OP. UNION LTD., VIJAYAWADA 10 THEREFORE, HELD THAT THE ASSESSEE AS AN ASSESSEE IN DEFAULT FOR NOT DEDUCTING TDS ON SUCH PAYMENTS. IT WAS THE CONTENTI ON OF THE ASSESSEE THAT IT IS MERELY A CONTRACT OF SALE AND NOT A CONT RACT FOR SERVICE. THE ASSESSEE FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT IT SELLS THE GOODS THROUGH ITS RETAIL CONCESSIONAIRE AND THE PROPERTY INVOLVED IN THE GOO DS IS VEST WITH THE RETAILERS. THEREFORE, ANY PAYMENT MADE TO ITS RETA IL CONCESSIONAIRES DOES NOT ATTRACT TDS U/S 194H OF THE ACT. 9. THE ONLY ISSUE CAME UP FOR OUR CONSIDERATION IS WHETHER OR NOT THE AMOUNT PAID BY THE ASSESSEE TO RETAIL CONCESSIONAIR ES IS IN THE NATURE OF COMMISSION AS DEFINED U/S 194H OF THE ACT WHICH ATT RACTS TDS PROVISIONS. ON GOING THROUGH THE AGREEMENT COPY ENT ERED INTO BY THE ASSESSEE WITH ITS RETAIL CONCESSIONAIRES WHICH IS A VAILABLE IN PAPER BOOK FILED BY THE ASSESSEE, WE FIND THAT IT IS ONLY A CO NTRACT FOR SALE AND NOT A CONTRACT FOR SERVICE. ON PERUSAL OF THE AGREEMENT COPY, WE FIND THAT THE MILK AND MILK PRODUCT SHALL BE EXCLUSIVE PROPERTY, ONCE THEY WERE DELIVERED TO THE RETAILERS AND IT IS THE RESPONSIBI LITY OF THE RETAILERS TO SELL THE GOODS ON ITS OWN. THE RISK AND RIGHT INVOLVED IN THE GOODS IS TRANSFERRED TO THE RETAILERS AS AND WHEN THE GOODS WERE DELIVERED. THERE WAS NO PROVISION IN THE AGREEMENT TO TAKE BAC K THE UNSOLD GOODS. THOUGH CERTAIN CONDITIONS IN THE AGREEMENT SUGGEST THAT IT IS AN ITA NOS.70 TO 73/VIZAG/2013 THE KRISHNA DISTRICT MILK PRODUCERS MUTUALLY AIDED CO-OP. UNION LTD., VIJAYAWADA 11 AGREEMENT FOR CONTRACT FOR AGENCY, IT WAS THE CONTE NTION OF THE ASSESSEE THAT THESE CONDITIONS ARE IMPOSED FOR EASY FACILITA TION OF BUSINESS. THE ASSESSEE FURTHER CONTENDED THAT THOUGH IT ALLOWS FI XED PERCENTAGE OF MARGIN TO ITS RETAILERS, IT HAS PAID THE MARGIN IN THE FORM OF TRADE DISCOUNT, MAINTENANCE CHARGES AND COMPENSATION FOR LEAKAGE OF GOODS. THE ENTIRE RISK INVOLVED IN THE GOODS IS ASSIGNED T O THE RETAILERS ONCE THE GOODS ARE DELIVERED TO THE RETAILERS. THEREFORE, I T IS ONLY A CONTRACT FOR SALE AND NOT CONTRACT FOR SERVICE. WE FIND FORCE I N THE ARGUMENT OF THE ASSESSEE FOR THE REASON THAT JUST BECAUSE CERTAIN C ONDITIONS ARE SPECIFIED IN THE AGREEMENT WHICH SUGGEST THE AGREEM ENT OF AGENCY IT CANNOT BE HELD THAT IT IS AN AGREEMENT OF AGENCY BA SED ON SUCH CONDITIONS. MAJORITY OF THE CONDITIONS SPECIFIED I N THE AGREEMENT SHOWS THAT IT IS AN AGREEMENT FOR SALE OF GOODS. THE A.O . MAINLY HARPING UPON THE ISSUE THAT THE ASSESSEE IS HAVING THE RIGHT TO CANCEL THE AGREEMENT IN THE EVENT OF THE RETAILERS VIOLATES ANY CONDITIO NS OF THE AGREEMENT. WE DO NOT SEE ANY MERITS IN THE CONTENTIONS OF THE A .O. FOR THE REASON THAT IF YOU TAKE ANY AGREEMENTS FOR THAT MATTER, AL WAYS CERTAIN CONDITIONS ARE SPECIFIED TO CONTROL THE BUSINESS. JUST BECAUSE A CONDITION IS SPECIFIED TO REVOKE THE AGREEMENT, IT CANNOT BE HELD THAT IT IS AN AGREEMENT FOR AGENCY. THE ASSESSEE CATEGORIC ALLY PROVED THAT IT IS ITA NOS.70 TO 73/VIZAG/2013 THE KRISHNA DISTRICT MILK PRODUCERS MUTUALLY AIDED CO-OP. UNION LTD., VIJAYAWADA 12 A CONTRACT FOR SALE. THEREFORE, WE ARE OF THE OPIN ION THAT THE A.O. WAS NOT CORRECT IN COMING TO THE CONCLUSION THAT AGREEM ENT ENTERED INTO BY THE ASSESSEE WITH ITS RETAIL CONCESSIONAIRES IS IN THE NATURE OF AGREEMENT OF AGENCY AND THERE EXIST A PRINCIPAL AND AGENCY RE LATIONSHIP BETWEEN THE ASSESSEE AND ITS RETAIL CONCESSIONAIRES. 10. IT WAS THE CONTENTION OF THE ASSESSEE THAT THE SALE IS OF PRINCIPAL TO PRINCIPAL BASIS. THE ASSESSEE FURTHER CONTENDED THAT AS PER THE PRINCIPLES OF CONTRACT OF AGENCY, THE PRINCIPAL WOU LD INDEMNIFY THE AGENT FOR ANY LIABILITY ON ACCOUNT OF LOSS OF GOODS IN TR ANSIT. WHEREAS IN THE INSTANT CASE, THE ASSESSEE DOES NOT INDEMNIFY THE A GENT FOR ANY LOSS OF GOODS IN TRANSIT WHICH SHOWS THAT THERE IS NO CONTR ACT OF AGENCY BETWEEN THE ASSESSEE AND RETAILERS. WE FIND FORCE I N THE ARGUMENTS OF THE ASSESSEE FOR THE REASON THAT ON PERUSAL OF THE AGREEMENT, WHICH IS AVAILABLE IN THE PAPER BOOK, WE FIND THAT THE ASSES SEE HAS CLEARLY SPECIFIED THAT ONCE THE GOODS ARE DELIVERED TO THE RETAILERS, IT IS THE EXCLUSIVE PROPERTY OF THE RETAILER AND ANY UNSOLD G OODS CANNOT BE TAKEN BACK. FROM THIS, IT IS ABUNDANTLY CLEAR THAT THE R ISK INVOLVED IN THE PROPERTY HAS BEEN TRANSFERRED TO THE RETAILERS AS A ND WHEN GOODS ARE DELIVERED. THE GOODS SOLD OR NOT, THE RETAILER HAS TO PAY THE AMOUNT AS PER THE BILL. THOUGH ASSESSEE PAYS FIXED PERCENTAG E OF MARGIN TO THE ITA NOS.70 TO 73/VIZAG/2013 THE KRISHNA DISTRICT MILK PRODUCERS MUTUALLY AIDED CO-OP. UNION LTD., VIJAYAWADA 13 RETAILERS, IT IS ONLY TO FACILITATE THE BUSINESS AN D NOT FOR ANY REASONS. THEREFORE, WE ARE OF THE OPINION THAT ON PERUSAL OF THE DOCUMENTS AVAILABLE ON RECORD, NO DOCUMENT SUGGEST THAT THE A RRANGEMENT BETWEEN THE ASSESSEE AND ITS RETAIL CONCESSIONAIRES IS A PRINCIPAL TO AGENCY AND THE PAYMENTS MADE BY THE ASSESSEE TO ITS RETAIL CONCESSIONAIRES IS IN THE NATURE OF COMMISSION WHIC H ATTRACTS TDS U/S 194H OF THE ACT. 11. IT IS PERTINENT TO DISCUSS HERE THE CASE LAW RE LIED UPON BY THE ASSESSEE. THE ASSESSEE RELIED UPON THE DECISION OF HONBLE HIGH COURT OF DELHI, IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. MOTHER DIARY INDIA AN D ANR (2012) 206 TAXMAN 157. THE HONBLE HIGH COURT OF DELHI, UNDER SIMILAR CIRCUMSTANCES HELD THAT THE ARRANGEMENT BETWEEN THE ASSESSEE AND ITS RETAILERS IS NOT A PRINCIPAL TO AGENT RELATIONSHIP AND HENCE, ANY PAYMENT MADE TO THE RETAILERS IS NOT IN THE NATURE OF COMMI SSION WHICH ATTRACTS TDS U/S 194H OF THE ACT. RELEVANT PORTION IS REPRO DUCED HEREUNDER: 12. THE REVENUE CHALLENGES THE AFORESAID ORDERS OF THE TRIBUNAL RELYING UPON SECTION 194H OF THE ACT. IT IS NOT IN DISPUTE BEFOR E US IN THE PRESENT CASE THAT THERE HAS BEEN NO REDRAFTING OF THE AGREEMENTS AND THAT T HE COPIES OF THE AGREEMENTS FOUND DURING THE SURVEY ON 912.2004 AND THE AGREEME NTS PRODUCED BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN THE COURSE OF THE PROCEEDINGS WHICH HAVE GIVEN RISE TO THE PRESENT APPEALS WERE THE SAME. THERE IS NO REFERENC E IN THE ORDERS PASSED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER UNDER 201(1)/(1A) TO ANY CHANGE I N THE TERMS BETWEEN THE AGREEMENTS FOUND DURING THE SURVEY AND THOSE PRODUC ED BEFORE THEM IN THE COURSE OF THE PROCEEDINGS UNDER SECTION 201(1)/(1A). WE HA VE TO THEREFORE, PROCEED ON THE BASIS OF THE TERMS OF THE AGREEMENT AS THEY HAV E BEEN DISCUSSED IN THE ORDERS ITA NOS.70 TO 73/VIZAG/2013 THE KRISHNA DISTRICT MILK PRODUCERS MUTUALLY AIDED CO-OP. UNION LTD., VIJAYAWADA 14 OF THE INCOME TAX AUTHORITIES AS WELL AS THE ORDERS OF THE TRIBUNAL. THE PRINCIPAL QUESTION THAT FALLS FOR CONSIDERATION IS WHETHER TH E AGREEMENTS, BETWEEN THE ASSESSEE AND THE CONCESSIONAIRES GAVE RISE TO A REL ATIONSHIP OF PRINCIPAL TO PRINCIPAL OR RELATIONSHIP OF PRINCIPAL TO AGENT. : ON A FAIR READING OF ALL THE CLAUSES OF THE AGREEMENT AS HAVE BEEN REFERRED TC IN THE ORDERS OF THE TRIBUNAL AS WELL AS THOSE OF THE INCOME TAX AUTHORITIES, WE ARE UNABLE TO 5) THA T THE VIEW TAKEN BY THE TRIBUNAL IS ERRONEOUS. IT IS A WELL-SETTLED PROPOSITION THAT IF THE PROPERTY IN THE GOODS IS TRANSFERRED AND GETS VESTED IN THE CONCESSIONAIRE A T THE TIME OF THE DELIVERY THEN HE IS THEREAFTER LIABLE FOR THE SAME AND WOULD BE DEAL ING WITH THEM IN HIS OWN RIGHT AS A PRINCIPAL AND NOT AS AN AGENT OF THE DAIRY. THE C LAUSES OF THE AGREEMENTS SHOW THAT THERE IS AN ACTUAL SALE, AND NOT MERE DELIVERY OF THE MILK AND THE OTHER PRODUCTS TO THE CONCESSIONAIRE. THE CONCESSIONAIRE PURCHASES THE MILK FROM THE DAIRY. THE DAIRY RAISES A BILL ON THE CONCESSIONAIR E AND THE AMOUNT IS PAID FOR. THE DAIRY MERELY FIXED THE MRP AT WHICH THE CONCESSIONA IRE CAN SELL THE MILK. UNDER THE AGREEMENT THE CONCESSIONAIRE CANNOT RETURN THE MILK UNDER ANY CIRCUMSTANCE, WHICH IS ANOTHER C1EAR INDICATION THAT THE RELATIONSHIP W AS THAT OF PRINCIPAL TO PRINCIPAL. EVEN IF THE MILK GETS SPOILED FOR ANY REASON AFTER DELIVERY IS TAKEN, THAT IS TO THE ACCOUNT OF THE CONCESSIONAIRE AND THE DAIRY IS NOT RESPONSIBLE FOR THE SAME. THESE CLAUSES HAVE ALL BEEN NOTICED BY THE TRIBUNAL. THE FACT THAT THE BOOTH AND THE EQUIPMENT INSTALLED THEREIN WERE OWNED BY THE DAIRY IS OF NO RELEVANCE IN DECIDING THE NATURE OF RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN THE ASS ESSEE AND THE CONCESSIONAIRE. FURTHER, THE FACT THAT THE DAIRY CAN INSPECT THE BO OTHS AND CHECK THE RECORDS MAINTAINED BY THE CONCESSIONAIRE IS ALSO NO4 DECISI VE. AS RIGHTLY POINTED OUT BY THE TRIBUNAL THE DAIRY HAVING GIVEN SPACE, MACHINER Y AND EQUIPMENT TO THE CONCESSIONAIRE WOULD NATURALLY LIKE TO INCORPORATE CLAUSES IN THE AGREEMENT TO ENSURE THAT ITS PROPERTY IS PROPERLY MAINTAINED BY THE CONCESSIONAIRE, PARTICULARLY BECAUSE MILK AND THE OTHER PRODUCTS ARE CONSUMED IN LARGE QUANTITIES BY THE GENERAL PUBLIC AND ANY DEFECT IN THE STORAGE FACILI TIES WHICH REMAINS UNATTENDED CAN CAUSE SERIOUS HEALTH HAZARDS. THESE ARE ONLY TE NHT5 INCLUDED IN THE AGREEMENT TO ENSURE THAT THE SYSTEM OPERATES SAFELY AND SMOOTHLY. FROM THE MERE EXISTENCE OF THESE CLAUSES IT CANNOT BE SAID T HAT THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN THE ASSESSEE AND THE CONCESSIONAIRE IS THAT OF A PR INCIPAL AND AN AGENT. THAT QUESTION MUST BE DECIDED, AS HAS BEEN RIGHTLY DECID ED BY THE TRIBUNAL, ON THE BASIS OF THE FACT AS TO WHEN AND AT WHAT POINT OF T IME THE PROPERTY IN THE GOODS PASSED TO THE CONCESSIONAIRE. IN THE CASES BEFORE US, THE CONCESSIONAIRE BECOMES THE OWNER OF THE MILK AND THE PRODUCTS ON TAKING DE LIVERY OF THE SAME FROM THE DAIRY. HE THUS PURCHASED THE MILK AND THE PRODUCTS FROM THE DAIRY AND SOLD THEM AT THE MRP. THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE MRP AND THE PRICE WHICH HE PAYS TO THE DAIRY IS HIS INCOME FROM BUSINESS. IT CANNOT BE CAT EGORIZED AS COMMISSION. THE LOSS AND GAIN IS OF THE CONCESSIONAIRE. THE DAIRY M AY HAVE FIXED THE MRP AND THE PRICE AT WHICH THEY SELL THE PRODUCTS TO THE CONCES SIONAIRE BUT THE PRODUCTS ARE SOLD AND OWNERSHIP VESTS AND IS TRANSFERRED TO THE CONCESSIONAIRES. THE SALE IS SUBJECT TO CONDITIONS, AND STIPULATIONS. THIS BY IT SELF DOES NOT SHOW AND ESTABLISH PRINCIPAL AND AGENT RELATIONSHIP. THE SUPERVISION A ND CONTROL REQUIRED IN CASE OF AGENCY IS MISSING. 13. IT IS IRRELEVANT THAT THE CONCESSIONAIRES WERE OPERA TING FROM THE BOOTHS OWNED ITA NOS.70 TO 73/VIZAG/2013 THE KRISHNA DISTRICT MILK PRODUCERS MUTUALLY AIDED CO-OP. UNION LTD., VIJAYAWADA 15 BY THE DAIRY AND WERE ALSO USING THE EQUIPMENT AND FURNITURE PROVIDE D BY THE DAIRY. THAT FACT IS NOT DETERMINATIVE OF THE RELATI ONSHIP BETWEEN THE DAIRY AND THE CONCESSIONAIRES WITH REGARD TO THE SALE OF THE MILK AND OTHER PRODUCTS. THEY WERE LICENCEES OF THE PREMISES AND WERE PERMITTED THE US E OF THE EQUIPMENT AND FURNITURE FOR THE PURPOSE OF SELLING THE MILK AND O THER PRODUCTS. BUT SO FAR AS THE MILK AND THE OTHER PRODUCTS ARE CONCERNED, THESE IT EMS BECAME THEFT PROPERTY THE MOMENT THEY TOOK DELIVERY OF THEM. THEY WERE SELLIN G THE MILK AND THE OTHER PRODUCTS IN THEIR OWN RIGHT AS OWNERS. THESE ARE TW O SEPARATE LEGAL RELATIONSHIPS. THE INCOME-TAX AUTHORITIES WERE NOT JUSTIFIED OR CO RRECT IN LAW IR MIXING UP THE TWO DISTINCT RELATIONSHIPS OR TELESCOPING ONE INTO THE OTHER TO HOLD THAT BECAUSE THE CONCESSIONAIRES WERE SELLING THE MILK AND OTHER PRO DUCTS FROM THE BOOTHS OWNED BY THE DIARY AND WERE USING THE EQUIPMENT AND FURNITUR E IN THE COURSE OF THE SALE OF THE MILK AND OTHER PRODUCTS, THEY WERE CARRYING ON THE BUSINESS ONLY AS AGENTS OF THE DIARY. 14. WE MAY REFER TO THE JUDGMENT OF THIS COURT IN THE C ASE OF DELHI MILK SCHEME VS CIT (SUPRA.) IN THAT CASE THE FACTS WERE DIFFERENT . UNDER THE TERMS OF AGREEMENT ENTERED INTO BETWEEN DMS AND ITS CONCESSIONAIRES, T HE MILK AND OTHER PRODUCTS DID NOT BECOME THE PROPERTY OF THE CONCESSIONAIRES ON D ELIVERY. THE UNSOLD MILK WAS TAKEN BACK BY THE DMS FROM THE CONCESSIONAIRES . TH E OWNERSHIP OF THE MILK AND OTHER PRODUCTS DID NOT PASS FROM DMS TO THE CONCESS IONAIRES INASMUCH AS THERE WAS NO SALE OF THE MILK OR MILK PRODUCTS TO THEM. F URTHER THE UNSOLD MILK WAS TO BE TAKEN BACK BY THE DMS FROM THE CONCESSIONAIRES. THE AGREEMENT ALSO PROVIDED THAT THE DAILY CASH COLLECTION OF THE CONCESSIONAIRES WA S TO BE HANDED OVER TO DMS. ON THESE FACTS, IT WAS HELD BY THE TRIBUNAL THAT THE C ONCESSIONAIRES ONLY TENDERED A SERVICE TO VMS FOR SELLING MILK TO THE CUSTOMERS AN D, THEREFORE, THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN DMS AND THE CONCESSIONAIRES WAS THAT OF A P RINCIPAL AND AN AGENT. THIS ATTRACTED THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 194/1. THIS IS APART FROM THE FACT, AS NOTICED EARLIER, THAT THE OMS REDRAFTED THE AGREEMENTS AND FILED THEM BEFORE THE CIT(A) AND THE TRIBUNAL AND SUCH REDRAFTED AGREEMENTS WERE FOUND TO BE DIFFERENT FROM THE AGREEMENTS FOUND DURING THE SURVEY UNDER SECTIO N 133,4. THIS COURT, ON THE ABOVE FACTS - !JE/D THAT SECTION 194/4 WAS ATTRACTE D. AS ALREADY POINTED OUT, THE TERMS OF THE AGREEMENT ENTERED INTO BETWEEN THE PRE SENT ASSESSEES AND THEIR CONCESSIONAIRES ARE DIFFERENT IN CRUCIAL ASPECTS. T HEREFORE, THE JUDGMENT OF THIS COURT IN THE CASE OF DMS (SUPRA) IS NOT APPLICABLE TO THE PRESENT CASES. 12. THE ASSESSEE RELIED UPON THE DECISION OF COORDI NATE BENCH OF VISAKHAPATNAM TRIBUNAL, IN THE CASE SRI VIJAYA VISA KHA MILK PRODUCERS COMPANY LTD. IN ITA NO.71/VIZAG/2012. THE COORDINAT E BENCH OF THIS TRIBUNAL, UNDER SIMILAR CIRCUMSTANCES HELD THAT THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION ITA NOS.70 TO 73/VIZAG/2013 THE KRISHNA DISTRICT MILK PRODUCERS MUTUALLY AIDED CO-OP. UNION LTD., VIJAYAWADA 16 194H OF THE ACT WOULD NOT BE APPLICABLE WHERE THE A SSESSEE PAID TO ITS RETAIL CONCESSIONAIRES. 13. THE LD. D.R. RELIED UPON THE JUDGEMENT OF HONB LE HIGH COURT OF DELHI IN THE CASE OF DELHI MILK SCHEME VS. CIT AND OTHERS REPORTED IN 301 ITR 373. WE HAVE GONE THROUGH THE CASE LAW RELIE D UPON BY THE LD. D.R. IN THE LIGHT OF THE FACTS OF THE PRESENT CASE AND FINDS THAT THE CASE LAW RELIED UPON BY THE D.R. IS NOT APPLICABLE TO TH E FACTS OF THE PRESENT CASE. THE FACT BEFORE THE HONBLE DELHI HIGH COURT WAS THAT THE ASSESSEE USED TO SELL MILK AND MILK PRODUCTS THROUG H CONCESSIONAIRES APPOINTED BY IT. FOR GOODS SOLD, COMMISSION WAS BE ING PAID, UNSOLD MILK WAS TAKEN BACK AND CASH COLLECTION WAS MADE DA ILY. UNDER THESE CIRCUMSTANCES, THE HONBLE HIGH COURT HAS HELD THAT IN VIEW OF THE FACTS THAT MILK BOOTHS WERE OWNED BY THE ASSESSEE, THE AS SESSEE HAD A RIGHT TO ENTER MILK BOOTH AND TAKE CHARGE THERE OF ANY TI ME, UNSOLD MILK IS TAKEN BACK, CASH COLLECTION WAS MADE DAILY BY ASSES SEE, THE CONCESSIONARIES ONLY RENDER SERVICE TO ASSESSEE AND OWNERSHIP OF GOODS DID NOT PASS FROM ASSESSEE TO CONCESSIONAIRES. THE REFORE, HELD THAT THE RELATION BETWEEN ASSESSEE AND ITS RETAIL CONCESSION AIRES IS A PRINCIPAL AND AGENCY AND ACCORDINGLY, AMOUNT PAID ATTRACTS TD S U/S 194H OF THE ACT. IN THE PRESENT CASE ON HAND, THE FACTS ARE TO TALLY DIFFERENT. THE ITA NOS.70 TO 73/VIZAG/2013 THE KRISHNA DISTRICT MILK PRODUCERS MUTUALLY AIDED CO-OP. UNION LTD., VIJAYAWADA 17 ASSESSEE HAS SOLD THE GOODS TO ITS RETAIL CONCESSIO NAIRES AND THE RISK AND PROPERTY OF THE GOODS HAS BEEN TRANSFERRED TO THE R ETAILERS AS AND WHEN THE DELIVERY IS MADE AND THE UNSOLD GOODS ARE NOT T AKEN BACK. THEREFORE, THE FACTS OF THE CASE ARE DIFFERENT FROM THE FACTS OF THE CASE BEFORE THE DELHI HIGH COURT AND HENCE NOT RELIED UP ON. 14. THE LD. D.R. RELIED UPON ANOTHER DECISION OF HO NBLE MADRAS HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF TUBE INVESTMENTS OF INDIA LTD. VS. ACIT (2009) 223 CTR 99. WE HAVE GONE THROUGH THE CASE LAW RELIED UP ON BY THE LD. D.R. IN THE LIGHT OF THE FACTS OF THE PRESENT CASE AND FIND THAT THE CASE LAW RELIED UPON BY THE D.R. IS NOT APPLICABLE TO TH E FACTS OF THE PRESENT CASE. THE CASE BEFORE THE HONBLE MADRAS HIGH COUR T WAS THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS PAID TRADE INCENTIVE TO ITS DEALERS. B OTH LOWER AUTHORITIES TREATED SAME AS COMMISSION OR BROKERAGE ATTRACTING PROVISIONS OF SECTION 194H OF THE ACT. THE TRIBUNAL REMITTED MAT TER BACK TO THE A.O. TO ASCERTAIN AS TO WHETHER TRADE DISCOUNT ALLOWED T O DEALERS BY ASSESSEE WAS COMMISSION OR DISCOUNT. THE HIGH COURT COULD N OT INTERFERE WITH THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL AND DECLINED TO ANSWER TH E QUESTION OF LAW RAISED BEFORE IT. THEREFORE, THE CASE LAW RELIED U PON BY LD. D.R. IS NOT APPLICABLE TO THE PRESENT CASE. ITA NOS.70 TO 73/VIZAG/2013 THE KRISHNA DISTRICT MILK PRODUCERS MUTUALLY AIDED CO-OP. UNION LTD., VIJAYAWADA 18 15. CONSIDERING THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND ALSO RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING THE DECISION OF HONBLE HIGH COURT OF DELHI IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. MOTHER DIARY INDIA LTD.(SUPRA), WE ARE OF THE OPINION THAT THE ARRANGEMENT BETWEEN ASSESSEE AND ITS RETAI L CONCESSIONAIRE IS NOT IN THE NATURE OF PRINCIPAL TO AGENCY BASIS AND WHICH IS PRINCIPAL TO PRINCIPAL BASIS. THEREFORE, THE AMOUNT PAID BY THE ASSESSEE TO ITS RETAIL CONCESSIONAIRES IS NOT IN THE NATURE OF COMMISSION WHICH ATTRACT THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 194H OF THE ACT. THE CIT(A) HAS RIGHTLY DELETED THE ADDITIONS MADE BY THE A.O. WE DO NOT SEE ANY RE ASONS TO INTERFERE WITH THE ORDER PASSED BY THE CIT(A). HENCE, WE ARE INCLINED TO UPHOLD THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A) AND REJECT THE APPEAL FILED BY THE REVENUE. 14. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEALS FILED BY THE REVENUE ARE DISMISSED. THE ABOVE ORDER WAS PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 19 TH APR16. SD/- SD/- ( . ) ( . ) (V. DURGA RAO) (G. MANJUNATHA) /JUDICIAL MEMBER /ACCOUNTANT MEMBER # /VISAKHAPATNAM: ' /DATED : 19.04.2016 VG/SPS ITA NOS.70 TO 73/VIZAG/2013 THE KRISHNA DISTRICT MILK PRODUCERS MUTUALLY AIDED CO-OP. UNION LTD., VIJAYAWADA 19 )# *# /COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO:- 1. / THE APPELLANT THE DCIT, CIRCLE-3(1)(TDS), VIJA YAWADA 2. / THE RESPONDENT THE KRISHNA DISTRICT MILK PRODU CERS MUTUALLY AIDED CO-OP. UNION LTD., ONE TOWN, VIJAYAWADA-520 009. 3. + / THE CIT(TDS), VIJAYAWADA 4. + / THE CIT(TDS), HYDERABAD 5. + ( ) / THE CIT (A), VIJAYAWADA 6. # . , . , # / DR, ITAT, VISAKHAPATNAM 7 . / GUARD FILE / BY ORDER // TRUE COPY // 12 . (SR.PRIVATE SECRETARY) . , # / ITAT, VISAKHAPATNAM