DDIT(IT)-I, Hyderabad V. Aurobindo Pharma Limited, Hyderabad

ITA 843/HYD/2014

• Counselvise Citation: [2017] 128 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 2450 (ITAT-HYDERABAD)
• Duration Of Justice: 3 year(s) 21 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 26-05-2017
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Bench Allotted: B
• Next Hearing Date: 18-10-2016
• Assessment Year: 2011-2012
• Appeal Filed On: 05-05-2014
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: U MINICHANDRAN
• Assessee Lawyers: C P RAMASWAMI
• Keywords: Double taxation relief; Revised return
• Section: 206AA; 90; 2

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL HYDERABAD BENCHES B, HYDERABAD BEFORE SHRI D. MANMOHAN, VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI B. RAMAKOTAIAH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO. ASST. YEAR APPELLANT RESPONDENT 843/HYD/14 2011-12 THE DCIT(IT)-I, HYDERABAD AUROBINDO PHARMA LIMITED, HYDERABAD [PAN: AABCA7366H] 844/HYD/14 2012-13 FOR REVENUE : SMT U. MINICHANDRAN, DR FOR ASSESSEE : SHRI C.P. RAMASWAMI, AR DATE OF HEARING : 22-05-2017 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 26-05-2017 O R D E R PER B. RAMAKOTAIAH, A.M. : THESE TWO APPEALS ARE BY REVENUE AGAINST THE COMMON ORDER OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS)-V, HYDER ABAD, DATED 07-11-2013 FOR THE AYS. 2011-12 & 2012-13 ON THE ISS UE OF SHORT DEDUCTION OF TDS, INVOKING THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 2 06AA OF THE INCOME TAX ACT [ACT]. 2. BRIEFLY STATED FACTS ARE THAT ASSESSEE HAD PAID CERTAI N AMOUNTS TO NON-RESIDENTS AND TDS HAS BEEN MADE U/S. 1 95 OF THE ACT AT 10% OF THE AMOUNT INVOKING THE PROVISIONS OF DOUB LE TAXATION AVOIDANCE AGREEMENT [DTAA] WITH RESPECT TO COU NTRIES TO WHICH NON-RESIDENTS BELONG. ASSESSEE FILED THE RETURNS OF TDS IN FORM NO. 27Q FOR ALL THE FOUR QUARTERS IN RESPECTIVE ASSESSMENT I.T.A. NOS. 843 & 844/HYD/14 :- 2 - : YEARS. AO APPLIED 20% OF DEDUCTION RATE U/S. 195, SI NCE NO PERMANENT ACCOUNT NUMBER OF THE DEDUCTEES WERE AVAILABL E IN THE RELEVANT COLUMNS OF THE RETURNS. ASSESSING OFFICER (A O) ACCORDINGLY ARRIVED AT A SHORT DEDUCTION OF TAX AND INTEREST ON SUCH PAYMENTS AGGREGATING TO RS. 1,04,94,160/- FOR AY. 2011-12 AND RS. 68,18,600/- FOR AY. 2012-13. AFTER PREFERRING THE AP PEALS BEFORE CIT(A), ASSESSEE, HOWEVER, FILED REVISED FORM NO. 2 7Q MENTIONING THE PAN NUMBERS TO THE EXTENT IT COULD OBTAIN FROM THE NO N- RESIDENT DEDUCTEES AND THOSE REVISED FORMS HAVE BEEN A CCEPTED AND THE DEMANDS HAVE BEEN REDUCED TO RS. 10,94,301/- AND RS. 28,33,577/- FOR THE AYS. 2011-12 AND 2012-13 RESPECTI VELY. 3. BEFORE THE CIT(A), IT WAS SUBMITTED BY ASSESSEE THAT TH EY HAD DEDUCTED TAX AT SOURCE FROM THE PAYMENTS MADE TO THE NO N- RESIDENTS AT THE RATES PRESCRIBED UNDER DTAAS WITH THE R ESPECTIVE COUNTRIES, IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 90(2) OF THE ACT. ASSESSEE ACCORDINGLY ENCLOSED THE LISTS OF SUCH DEDUCTEES FOR BOTH THE ASSESSMENT YEARS, THEIR COUNTRY, NATURE OF SER VICES RENDERED BY THESE NON-RESIDENTS AND CLAIMED THAT THE SHO RT DEDUCTION WORKED OUT IN THE INTIMATION U/S. 200A GOES A GAINST THE DTAAS IN FORCE WITH THESE COUNTRIES. IT WAS FURTHER SU BMITTED THAT DTAA PROVISIONS PREVAIL OVER THE PROVISIONS OF THE I. T. ACT, 1961 AND PLACED RELIANCE ON THE DECISION OF THE HON'BLE AP EX COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. P.V.A.L. KULANDAGAN CHETTIAR (DEAD ) THROUGH LRS [267 ITR 654] (SC) AND THE HON'BLE AP HIGH COURT JUDGMENT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. VISAKHAPATNAM PORT TRUST [144 ITR 1 46] (AP). FURTHER, ASSESSEE ALSO RELIED ON THE BOARD CIRCULAR N O. 333 DT. 02- 04-1991 AND 621 DT. 19-09-1991, WHEREIN IT WAS POINTE D OUT THAT I.T.A. NOS. 843 & 844/HYD/14 :- 3 - : IF THE PROVISIONS OF DTAA ARE MORE CONCESSIONAL, THE BENEFIT OF SUCH CONCESSION SHOULD BE GRANTED TO ASSESSEE. 4. LD.CIT(A) AFTER CONSIDERING THE FACTS AND LAW INVOL VED, HAS DECIDED THE ISSUE IN FAVOUR OF ASSESSEE BY STATING AS UNDER: 6.3 I HAVE GONE THROUGH THE INTIMATIONS, SUBMISSIO NS OF THE APPELLANT AND THE RECENT DEFAULT STATUS AFTER PROCE SSING THE REVISED RETURNS ON 22.09.2013 AND 02.11.2013. BEFORE ADJUDI CATING ON THE OVERALL SUBMISSIONS OF THE APPELLANT, I FEEL THAT WITH THE REVISED PROCESSING RESULTS, THE EFFECTIVE ADJUDICATION HAS COME DOWN T O THE ADOPTABLE RATE OF DEDUCTION OF TAX ON THE AMOUNTS PAID TO THE DEDUCTE ES WITHOUT PAN, SINCE WHERE PAN WAS MADE AVAILABLE BY THE APPELLANT IN TH E REVISED RETURNS, THE SHORT DEDUCTION WAS REDUCED IN THE REVISED PROC ESSING. NOW COMING TO THE REST OF THE CLAIM OF THE APPELLANT, IT IS SETTL ED LAW THAT THE PROVISIONS OF DTAA PREVAIL OVER THE PROVISIONS OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961. IN THE CASE ON HAND, THE APPELLANT DEDUCTED TAX AT SOURCE AT 10 % OF THE PAYMENTS MADE U/S 195 TO THE NON RESIDENTS RELYING ON DTAAS PREVAILING WITH THE COUNTRIES IN WHICH THE DEDUCTEES ARE RESIDING. WHIL E PROCESSING THESE RETURNS, AS THE PAN OF SUCH DEDUCTEES WAS NOT MENTI ONED IN THE RETURNS, HIGHER RATE OF TAX, I.E., 20% WAS APPLIED, AS PER P ROVISIONS OF SECTION 206AA. AT THE SAME TIME, THERE CANNOT BE ANY DOUBT OVER THE CLAIM OF THE APPELLANT THAT PROVISIONS OF DTAA OVERRIDE THE PROV ISIONS OF INCOME TAX ACT, 1961. HOWEVER, IT APPEARS THAT THERE IS NO CHA NNEL AVAILABLE TO THE APPELLANT TO PUT THIS STAND BEFORE THE ASSESSING OF FICER WHILE PROCESSING THE TDS RETURN. AS SEEN FROM THE LIST OF DEDUCTEES AND THE PANS NOW MADE AVAILABLE FOR BOTH THE ASSESSMENT YEARS, THE D EDUCTEES ARE MOSTLY FROM USA, CHINA, KOREA, FINLAND AND ITALY. DTAAS AR E AVAILABLE WITH ALL THESE FIVE COUNTRIES. 6.4 IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE, THE AO IS DIRECTED TO VER IFY THE DEDUCTIONS MADE IN RESPECT OF THE PAYMENTS MADE TO THE ABOVE P ARTIES WHERE DTAA IS APPLICABLE AND IF THE DEDUCTIONS ARE IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE RATES SPECIFIED IN THE RESPECTIVE DTAAS AGREEMENT, THE AO IS DIRECT ED TO REDUCE THE DEMAND IN RESPECT OF THE ABOVE PARTIES BY ADOPTING THE RATE AS APPLICABLE IN THE RESPECTIVE DTAA AGREEMENTS. 5. REVENUE HAS RAISED THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS WHICH AR E COMMON IN BOTH THE YEARS: (1) THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A) IS ERRONEOUS ON FA CTS AND IN LAW. I.T.A. NOS. 843 & 844/HYD/14 :- 4 - : (2) THE LD. CIT(A) ERRED IN LAW IN HOLDING THAT THE PROVISIONS OF SEC.206AA CANNOT BE APPLIED TO THE CASES OF PAYMENTS MADE TO NON-RESIDENTS WITHOUT PAN WHO ARE RESIDENTS IN THE COUNTRIES WITH WHICH I NDIA HAS DOUBLE TAXATION AVOIDANCE AGREEMENT (DTAA) ON THE GROUNDS THAT THE PROVISIONS OF DTAA PREVAIL OVER THE PROVISIONS OF I.T.ACT. (3) THE LD. CIT(A) OUGHT TO HAVE APPRECIATED THAT S EC.206AA STARTS WITH A NON-OBSTANTE CLAUSE ON ACCOUNT OF WHICH THE PROVISI ONS OF THE SAID SECTION OVERRIDE ALL OTHER PROVISIONS OF THE I.T.ACT INCLUD ING THE PROVISIONS OF SEC.90(2), WHICH PROVIDE THAT THE PROVISIONS OF THE ACT SHALL APPLY TO THE EXTENT THEY ARE MORE BENEFICIAL TO THE ASSESSEE TO WHOM ANY AGREEMENT FOR AVOIDANCE OF DOUBLE TAXATION IS APPLICABLE. (4) THE LD.CIT(A) OUGHT TO HAVE HELD THAT DUE TO OV ERRIDING NATURE OF SEC.206AA, THE BENEFICIAL PROVISIONS OF DTAA WILL N OT BE APPLICABLE TO A NON-RESIDENT AS PER SEC.90(2) IN A CASE WHERE HE DO ES NOT HAVE PAN AND TDS IS REQUIRED TO BE MADE AT 20% IN SUCH CASES AS PER SEC.206AA. (5) THE LD. CIT(A) OUGHT TO HAVE RELIED ON THE DECI SION OF THE ITAT, BANGALORE IN THE CASE OF BOSCH LTD VS ITO (2013) 14 1 ITD 0038 WHEREIN IT WAS HELD THAT THE PROVISIONS OF SEC.206AA CLEARLY O VERRIDE THE OTHER PROVISIONS OF THE ACT. (6) THE LD. CIT(A) ERRED IN DIRECTING THAT THE PANS OF VARIOUS NON-RESIDENTS MADE AVAILABLE NOW SHOULD BE TAKEN INTO CONSIDERATI ON AND THE DEMAND SHOULD BE REDUCED IN RESPECT OF SUCH PARTIES BY ADO PTING THE RATE OF TDS AS APPLICABLE IN THE RESPECTIVE DTAAS AS THE SAID D IRECTION IS BASED ON PRESUMPTION OF THE FACT OF AVAILABILITY OF PAN FOR THE NON-RESIDENTS AS ON THE DATE OF CREDITING THE INCOME TO THE ACCOUNT OF THE NON-RESIDENTS/DATE OF PAYMENT TO THE NONRESIDENTS. WITHOUT PREJUDICE TO T HE ABOVE GROUNDS, THE LD.CIT(A) OUGHT TO HAVE DIRECTED THAT THE PANS MADE AVAILABLE NOW SHOULD BE CONSIDERED ONLY IF SUCH PANS WERE ALLOTTED/AVAIL ABLE AT THE POINT OF TIME WHEN DEDUCTION WAS REQUIRED TO BE MADE AS PER SEC.195. (7) ANY OTHER GROUND THAT MAY BE URGED AT THE TIME OF HEARING. GROUND NOS. 1 & 7 ARE GENERAL IN NATURE. 6. LD.DR REITERATED THE CONTENTIONS AS RAISED IN THE G ROUNDS OF APPEAL, WHEREAS LD. COUNSEL RELIED ON THE SPECIAL B ENCH DECISION IN THE CASE OF NAGARJUNA FERTILIZERS AND CHEMICALS LTD ., VS. ACIT [55 ITR (TRIB) 1], HYDERABAD (SPECIAL BENCH) FOR THE PROPOSITION THAT THE PROVISIONS OF DTAA OVERRIDE THE PROVISIONS OF TDS. I.T.A. NOS. 843 & 844/HYD/14 :- 5 - : 7. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS AND PERUSE D THE ORDERS ON RECORD. ADMITTEDLY, LD.CIT(A) FOLLOWED THE PRINCIPLES LAID DOWN BY THE HON'BLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT V S. P.V.A.L. KULANDAGAN CHETTIAR (DEAD) THROUGH LRS [267 ITR 654] (SC) WHERE IT IS CLEARLY REITERATED THAT THE PROVISIONS OF D TAA PREVAIL OVER THE PROVISIONS OF I.T. ACT, 1961. EVEN THOUGH THE REVENUE IN ITS GROUNDS RELIED ON THE DECISION OF THE CO-ORDINATE B ENCH AT ITAT, BANGALORE IN THE CASE OF BOSCH LTD., VS. ITO [141 ITD 38], THERE IS A CONTRARY DECISION OF ITAT, PUNE BENCH IN THE CASE O F DDIT VS. SERUM INSTITUTE OF INDIA LTD., [40 ITR (TRIB) 684] (PUN E). DUE TO CONTRARY DECISIONS OF THE CO-ORDINATE BENCHES, THE MATT ER WAS REFERRED TO SPECIAL BENCH AND THE SPECIAL BENCH IN THE CASE OF NAGARJUNA FERTILIZERS AND CHEMICALS LTD., VS. ACIT [5 5 ITR (TRIB) 1], HYDERABAD (SPECIAL BENCH) HAS CONSIDERED AND HELD AS UNDER: THE ASSESSEE MADE CERTAIN PAYMENTS IN THE NATURE O F FEES FOR TECHNICAL SERVICES TO NON-RESIDENTS. SOME OF SUCH N ON-RESIDENTS WERE RESIDENTS OF COUNTRIES WITH WHICH INDIA DID NOT HAV E ANY DOUBLE TAXATION AVOIDANCE AGREEMENTS AND IN THEIR CASES, TAX AT THE HIGHER RATE OF 20 PER CENT WAS DEDUCTED BY THE ASSESSEE WHERE THE PAYEES FAILED TO FURNISH VALID PERMANENT ACCOUNT NUMBERS ACCORDING TO THE PR OVISIONS OF SECTION 206AA OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT, 1961. IN THE CASE OF O THER NON-RESIDENTS, WHO WERE RESIDENTS OF COUNTRIES WITH WHICH INDIA DI D HAVE AGREEMENTS, TAX AT THE LOWER RATE AS PRESCRIBED IN THE RELEVANT ARTICLES OF THE AGREEMENTS WAS DEDUCTED BY THE ASSESSEE EVEN IN CAS E OF PAYEES, WHO DID NOT FURNISH VALID PERMANENT ACCOUNT NUMBERS. WH ILE PROCESSING THE RETURNS OF TAX DEDUCTED AT SOURCE FILED BY THE ASSE SSEE FOR BOTH THE YEARS 2011-12 AND 2012-13 BY THE AUTOMATIC SYSTEM, THE AS SESSEE WAS HELD TO BE LIABLE TO DEDUCT TAX AT SOURCE AT THE HIGHER RAT E OF 20 PER CENT. IN SUCH CASES FOR WANT OF PERMANENT ACCOUNT NUMBERS OF THE NON-RESIDENT PAYEES ACCORDING TO THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 206AA. ACCOR DINGLY, INTIMATIONS UNDER SECTION 200A ALONG WITH THE DEMAND NOTICES UN DER SECTION 156 WERE ISSUED BY THE DEPARTMENT TREATING THE ASSESSEE AS IN DEFAULT FOR SHORT DEDUCTION OF TAX AND LIABLE TO TAX WITH INTER EST PAYABLE THEREON FOR BOTH THE YEARS 2011-12 AND 2012-13. ACCORDING TO TH E COMMISSIONER (APPEALS) SECTION 206AA INSERTED IN THE ACT WITH EF FECT FROM APRIL 1, 2010 WAS AN OVERRIDING PROVISION AND THERE WAS ALTERNATI VE FOR THE ASSESSEE EXCEPT TO QUOTE THE DEDUCTEE'S PERMANENT ACCOUNT NU MBERS OR TO DEDUCT I.T.A. NOS. 843 & 844/HYD/14 :- 6 - : TAX AT SOURCE AT 20 PER CENT. THE INTIMATIONS ISSUE D UNDER SECTION 200A BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER TREATING THE ASSESSEE TO BE I N DEFAULT FOR SHORT DEDUCTION OF TAX AT SOURCE, ACCORDINGLY, WERE UPHEL D AND CONFIRMED BY HIM FOR BOTH THE YEARS 2011-12 AND 2012-13. BOTH THE AP PEALS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE WERE INITIALLY FIXED FOR HEARING BEFORE TH E DIVISION BENCH AND KEEPING IN VIEW THE CONFLICTING DECISIONS OF THE BE NCHES OF THE TRIBUNAL AS WELL AS OTHER REASONS GIVEN IN ITS REFERRAL ORDER, A REFERENCE WAS MADE BY THE DIVISION BENCH TO THE PRESIDENT TO CONSTITUTE A SPECIAL BENCH TO DECIDE THE ISSUE AND RESOLVE THE CONTROVERSY. HELD, ALLOWING THE APPEAL, (I) THAT DEDUCTION OF TA X UNDER SECTION 195 FROM THE PAYMENTS MADE TO NON-RESIDENTS IN THE NATURE OF FEES FOR TECHNICAL SERVICES WAS MADE BY THE ASSESSEE AT THE RATE OR RATES OF INCOME-TAX SPECIFIED IN THE RELEVANT AGREEMENT, WHI CH WERE ADOPTED AS RATES IN FORCE FOR THE PURPOSE DEDUCTION OF TAX UND ER SECTION 195 IN VIEW OF THE SPECIFIC PROVISIONS CONTAINED IN SUB-SECTION (3 7A) OF SECTION 2. THE DEPARTMENT'S CONTENTION THAT RELEVANT AGREEMENTS DO NOT PROVIDE FOR DEDUCTION OF TAX AT SOURCE AT A RATE LOWER THAN THE RATE APPLIED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER BY INVOKING THE PROVISIONS OF SEC TION 206AA AND THAT THERE WAS NO QUESTION OF ABROGATION OF THE RELEVANT PROVISIONS OF THE AGREEMENT IN THIS REGARD WERE NOT TENABLE. EQUALLY UNTENABLE WAS ITS CONTENTION THAT THE ROLE OF THE ASSESSEE AS A PAYER OF THE SUM WAS LIMITED TO DEDUCTING TAX AT SOURCE ACCORDING TO LAW AND HE HAD NOTHING TO DO WITH THE DETERMINATION OF TAX LIABILITY EVENTUALLY IN TH E HANDS OF THE PAYEE, WHICH WAS WITHIN THE COMPLETE DOMAIN OF THE ASSESSI NG OFFICER. (II) THAT NAN-RESIDENT PAYEES WERE NOT OBLIGED TO O BTAIN PERMANENT ACCOUNT NUMBERS IN VIEW OF SECTION 139A(8) READ WIT H RULE 114C OF THE INCOME-TAX RULES, 1962. THEREFORE THERE WAS A CLEAR CONTRADICTION BETWEEN SECTION 206AA AND SECTION 139A(8) READ WITH RULE 114C. THE ASSESSEE'S CONTENTION THAT THE PROVISIONS OF SECTIO N 206AA ARE REQUIRED TO BE READ DOWN SO AS TO MAKE THEM INAPPLICABLE IN CAS ES OF NON-RESIDENTS PAYEES WHO WERE NOT UNDER AN OBLIGATION TO OBTAIN T HE PERMANENT ACCOUNT NUMBERS WAS PROPER. SMT. A. KOWSALLA BAI V. UNION OF INDIA [2012] 346 I TR 156 (KARN) FOLLOWED. (III) THAT THE CHARGING PROVISIONS CONTROL AND OVER RIDE THE MACHINERY PROVISIONS DEALING WITH TAX DEDUCTION AT SOURCE. SI MILARLY THE PROVISIONS OF THE AGREEMENT BY VIRTUE OF SECTION 90(2) TO THE EXT ENT MORE BENEFICIAL TO THE ASSESSEE OVERRIDE THE PROVISIONS OF DOMESTIC LAW. S INCE SECTION 206AA FALLS IN CHAPTER XVIL-B DEALING WITH TAX DEDUCTION AT SOURCE, IT FOLLOWS THAT THE PROVISIONS OF THE AGREEMENT WHICH OVERRIDE EVEN THE CHARGING PROVISION OF THE DOMESTIC LAW BY VIRTUE OF SECTION 90(2) WOULD ALSO OVERRIDE THE MACHINERY PROVISIONS OF SECTION 206AA IRRESPECT IVE OF THE NON OBSTANTE CLAUSE CONTAINED THEREIN. THE CLAUSE WAS TO BE REST RICTED TO THAT EXTENT I.T.A. NOS. 843 & 844/HYD/14 :- 7 - : AND READ DOWN TO GIVE EFFECT TO THE RELEVANT PROVIS IONS OF THE AGREEMENTS WHICH WERE OVERRIDING BEING BENEFICIAL TO THE ASSES SEE. THEREFORE SECTION 206AA COULD NOT OVERRIDE THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 90(2) AND THE PROVISIONS OF THE AGREEMENT TO THE EXTENT THEY WERE BENEFICIAL TO THE ASSESSEE WOULD OVERRIDE SECTION 206AA BY VIRTUE OF SECTION 90(2). THEREFORE THE ASSESSEE COULD NOT BE HELD LIABLE TO DEDUCT TAX AT THE HIGHE R OF THE RATES PRESCRIBED IN SECTION 206AA IN CASE OF PAYMENTS MADE TO NON-RE SIDENT PERSONS HAVING TAXABLE INCOME IN INDIA IN SPITE OF THEIR FA ILURE TO FURNISH THE PERMANENT ACCOUNT NUMBERS FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEARS 2011-12 AND 2012- 13. DEPUTY DIT (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION-II) V. SERUM INS TITUTE OF INDIA LTD. [2015] 40 ITR (TRIB) 684 (PUNE) APPROVED . BOSCH LTD. V. ITO, INTERNATIONAL TAXATION [2013] 11 5 TTJ (BANG) 354 DISAPPROVED. CHAPTER X-A CONTAINING PROVISIONS RELATING TO GENER AL ANTI- AVOIDANCE RULES HAS BEEN INSERTED IN THE STATUTE BY THE FINANCE ACT, 2013 WITH EFFECT FROM APRIL 1, 2016 AND ALTHOUGH THE PRO VISIONS CONTAINED IN THE CHAPTER ARE GIVEN OVERRIDING EFFECT BY VIRTUE OF TH E NON OBSTANTE CLAUSE CONTAINED IN SECTION 195, A SEPARATE PROVISION HAS BEEN INSERTED SIMULTANEOUSLY IN THE FORM OF SUB-SECTION (2A) IN S ECTION 90 PROVIDING SPECIFICALLY THAT NOTWITHSTANDING ANYTHING CONTAINE D IN SUB-SECTION (2), THE PROVISIONS OF CHAPTER X-A SHALL APPLY TO THE ASSESS EE EVEN IF SUCH PROVISIONS ARE NOT BENEFICIAL TO HIM. HOWEVER NO SU CH PROVISION IS MADE SEPARATELY AND SPECIFICALLY IN SECTION 90 TO GIVE O VERRIDING EFFECT TO SECTION 206AA OVER SECTION 90(2) WHICH CLEARLY SHOWS THAT T HE INTENTION OF THE LEGISLATURE IS NOT TO GIVE OVERRIDING EFFECT TO SEC TION 206AA OVER THE PROVISIONS OF THE RELEVANT AGREEMENTS WHICH ARE BEN EFICIAL TO THE ASSESSEE. 7.1. IN VIEW OF THE JUDGMENT OF THE SPECIAL BENCH OF TH E ITAT, WE DO NOT SEE ANY REASON TO INTERFERE WITH THE ORDER OF TH E CIT(A) WHICH IS IN TUNE WITH THE PRINCIPLES LAID DOWN THEREI N. 8. IT IS ALSO TO BE NOTED THAT WHEN ASSESSEE HAS FURNI SHED THE PAN NUMBERS OF SOME OF THE DEDUCTEES, AO HAS ACCEPTE D THEM AS CAN BE SEEN FROM THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A). IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE FACT, THE GROUNDS RAISED IN GROUND NO. 6 DOES NOT HAVE ANY VALIDITY AND I.T.A. NOS. 843 & 844/HYD/14 :- 8 - : ACCORDINGLY, THE GROUND IS TREATED AS INFRUCTUOUS. ALL THE GROUNDS ARE CONSIDERED DISMISSED. 9. IN THE RESULT, BOTH THE APPEALS OF REVENUE ARE DISMI SSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 26 TH MAY, 2017 SD/- SD/- (D. MANMOHAN) (B. RAMAKOTAIAH) VICE PRESIDENT ACCOUNTANT MEMB ER HYDERABAD, DATED 26 TH MAY, 2017 TNMM COPY TO : 1. THE DCIT(IT)-I, HYDERABAD. 2. AUROBINDO PHARMA LIMITED, PLOT NO. 2, MAITRI VIH AR, AMEER PET, HYDERABAD. 3. CIT (APPEALS)-V, HYDERABAD. 4. DIT (IT & TP), HYDERABAD. 5. D.R. ITAT, HYDERABAD. 6. GUARD FILE.