JOHN WILEY AND SONS, INC.,UNITED STATES V. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, (INT. TAXATION) 2(1)(2), NEW DELHI, NEW DELHI

ITA 3119/DEL/2023

AI Insights

The case involves John Wiley and Sons, Inc., a US-based company, which appealed against the order of the Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, International Taxation, New Delhi, concerning the assessment year 2021-22. The dispute centered on whether the income earned from Indian customers for access to online journals constituted royalty or fees for technical services under the Income Tax Act, 1961, and the India-USA tax treaty. The Dispute Resolution Panel (DRP) had earlier upheld the Assessing Officer's view, but the Tribunal, referencing its previous decisions and similar cases, ruled that such income should be treated as business profits and not taxable in India as royalty or FTS.

• Counselvise Citation: [2025] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 31710 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 19-02-2025
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Bench Allotted: D
• Assessment Year: 2021-2022
• Other Referred Cases: ACIT vs. Relx Inc., Uptodate Inc. vs. DCIT, Elsevier Information System GmbH vs. DCIT, DIT vs. Nokia Networks OY, DIT (International Taxation) vs. Dun & Bradstreet Information Elsevier Information Systems GmbH Services India (P.) Ltd., ITO vs. Cedilla Healthcare Ltd., DCIT vs. Welspun Corporation Ltd., CIT vs. Bharati Cellular Ltd., DIT vs. A.P. Moller Maersk A.S., Engineering Analysis Centre of Excellence (P.) Ltd. vs. CIT, CIT vs. ZTE Corporation
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, 1961, India-USA tax treaty
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: VIJAY B VASANTA
• Assessee Lawyers: VIHSAL KALRA; REEMA GREWAL
• Keywords: TDS; Advance ruling; Double taxation relief
• Section: 143(3); 153; 13; 234B; 9(1); 9(1); 9(1); 20

Judgement Text

"IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH, ‘D’: NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI VIKAS AWASTHY, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI BRAJESH KUMAR SINGH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No.3119/DEL/2023 [Assessment Year: 2021-22] John Wiley and Sons, Inc. C/o- Deloitte Haskins & Sells LLP, Tower-B, 7th Floor, Building 10 DLF Cyber City Complex, Phase-II, Gurugram Haryana-122002 Vs The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, International Taxation, Circle-2(1)(2), New Delhi PAN-AACCJ5564B Assessee Revenue Assessee by Shri Vihsal Kalra, Adv. & Ms. Reema Grewal, CA Revenue by Shri Vijay B Vasanta, CIT-DR Date of Hearing 10.12.2024 Date of Pronouncement 19.02.2025 ORDER PER BRAJESH KUMAR SINGH, AM, This appeal by the assessee is directed against the order of the Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-2(1)(2) (in short ‘the AO’) dated 19.09.2023 passed u/s 143(3)/144C(13) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter ‘the Act’) arising out of order of Dispute Resolution Panel (in short ‘DRP')dated 23.08.2023 pertaining to Assessment Year 2021-22. 2 ITA No.3119/Del/2023 2. Grounds of appeal raised by the assessee are as under:- 1. That on the facts and in circumstances of the case and in law, the Assessing Officer (\"AO\" has erred in assessing the total income of the Appellant for the relevant AY at INR 192,725,201 as against the returned income of INR 17,860,030, making an addition of INR 174,865,171, pursuant to the directions issued by the Dispute Resolution Panel ('DRP\"). 2 That on the facts and in circumstances of the case and in law, the AO / DRP have erred in holding the Revenues amounting to INR 174,865,171 earned by the Appellant for sale of online journals or books constitutes royalty under the provisions of section 9(1)(vi) of the Act read with Article 12 of India-USA tax treaty. 2.1. That on the facts and in circumstances of the case and in law, the AO / DRP have erred in holding that the Appellant's receipts were for use or right to use copyright of artistic, literary or scientific work. 3. That on the facts and in circumstances of the case and in law, the AO / DRP have erred in holding the Revenues amounting to INR 174,865,171 earned by the Appellant for sale of online journals or books constitutes fees for technical services (\"FTS\") / Fees for Included Services (\"FIS\") under section 9(1)(vii) of the Act read with Article 12 of India-USA tax treaty. 3.1. That on the facts and in circumstances of the case and in law, the AO / DRP have failed to appreciate that receipts for services provided to Indian customers merely constitute standard offering (Products) and thereby do not constitute FTS under section 9(1)(vii) of the Act or Article 12 of the India-USA tax treaty. 3.2. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the AO / DRP have failed to appreciate that receipts for services provided to Indian customers do not make available any technical knowledge, skill, know-how etc., and thus do not constitute FIS under Article 12 of the India-USA tax treaty. 4. That on the facts and in circumstances of the case and in law, the AO / DRP erred in holding that the application of benefits of India-USA tax treaty to the Appellant is debatable 3 ITA No.3119/Del/2023 and hence taxation is to be carried out only under the provisions of domestic tax law. 5. That on the facts and in circumstances of the case and in law, the directions issued by the DRP do not bear a valid Document Identification Number and are thus against the mandatory procedure laid down in law. The final assessment order dated September 19, 2023 passed by the AO under section 143(3) read with section 144C(13) of the Act, based on such erroneous directions, is bad in law and liable to be quashed. (Not pressed) 6. That on the facts and in circumstances of the case and in law, the final assessment order dated September 19, 2023 passed by the AO under section 143(3) read with section 144C(13) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act) is barred by limitation in terms of Section 153 of the Act and hence, bad in law and liable to be quashed. (Not Pressed) 7. That on the facts and in circumstances of the case and in law, the AO has erred in not granting the credit of Tax Deducted at Source or TDS due to the Appellant. 8. That without prejudice, on the facts and in circumstances of the case and in law, the AO has erred in computing tax and interest on INR 193,199,578 instead of assessed income of INR 192,725,201 9. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the AO has erred in levying interest under sections 234A, 234B and 234C of the Act. 10. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the AO has erred in initiating penalty proceedings under section 270A of the Act. 3. Ground No.1 is general in nature. 4. Brief facts of the case: The assessee is registered in United States of America and a tax resident and engaged in the business of providing access to online journals/online library, containing Wiley Blackwell Journals (“WB Journals”), publications, distribution of WB Journals, 4 ITA No.3119/Del/2023 online books, etc. The assessee online Library provides access to over 7.5 million articles, reference works, laboratory protocols and databases. During the year, the assessee entered into agreements from outside of India with customers in India to provide access to online journals/online library available at its online database maintained outside of India and earned revenue amounting to Rs.17,48,65,171/- in consideration for sales or providing access to online databases / journals etc. to Indian customer from outside of India. 4.1. The assessee filed its return of income on 08.03.2022, declaring taxable income of Rs.1,78,60,030/- and claiming of receipts of Rs.17,48,65,171/- as not chargeable to tax as Royalty / FTS/FIS under the provisions of the Act read with the India-US DTAA. 5. During the draft assessment proceedings, the Assessing Officer asked the assessee vide show-cause noticed 02.12.2022 to explain as to whether there was any difference/change in the factual matrix in business model during the subject assessment year as compared to that in the earlier years. The Assessing Officer further asked if the answer was yes then the assessee was requested to furnish the details along with supporting documentary evidences in this regard. The Assessing Officer in para no.7 of the draft assessment order u/s 144C(1) of the Act 5 ITA No.3119/Del/2023 dated 24.12.2022 noted the reply of the assessee stating that there was no change in the business model of the assessee during the subject assessment year as compared to that in the earlier years. The relevant extract of the show cause notice dated 02.12.2022 and the assessee’s reply regarding no change in the business and regarding the non- taxability of the amount of Rs.17,48,65,171/- in the draft assessment order is reproduced as under:- “6. Vide Show cause notice dated 02/12/2022, the assessee was again asked to explain as to whether there was any difference/change in the factual matrix in business module during the subject assessment year as compared to that in the earlier years. If yes, please furnish detail alongwith supporting documentary evidence in this regard. 7. In response to the same the assessee, filed its reply vide its letter dated 12.12.2022 stating that the receipts from Indian customers do not constitute consideration for the use or right to use of any copyright or equipment or for information concerning industrial, commercial or scientific knowledge/experience etc. Accordingly, the revenue received from Indian customers is not taxable as royalty under the Act as well as the India-US DTAA. The reply of the assessee is reproduced as under:- It is submitted that there is no change in the business model of the assessee during the subject AY as compared to that in the earlier years. As regards the characterization of assessee's receipts (claimed as exempt on return of income), it is re-iterated that assessee is a company registered in and tax resident under the laws of United States of America and is engaged in the business of providing access to online journals / online library, containing Wiley Blackwell Journals ('WB Journals'), online books, online research works, publication and distribution of print journals etc. During the year under consideration, the assessee entered into agreements from outside of India with customers in India for sale of print and online journals / books etc. In respect of print journals/ books, these are shipped physically from overseas to customers in 6 ITA No.3119/Del/2023 India. However, in respect of online journals etc. the customers are provided access to online journals / online library available at Wiley's online database outside of India. The assessee earns sale / subscription revenues from the sale of print / online journals etc. The articles / literature comprising the online journals/library are not developed and owned by the assessee and the assessee only compiles/organizes the content obtained from various authors in a structured and easily comprehendible format and provides access thereof to customers/subscribers. As against the conclusions drawn by your goodself in assessment for AY 2020-21, it is respectfully submitted that the receipts from Indian customers from sale of online journals do not constitute consideration for the use or right to use of any copyright etc. Further, the receipts are not in consideration of making available any technical knowledge / skill etc. to the customers. Accordingly, receipts from Indian customers are neither taxable as royalty nor as fee for included services (\"FTS\" under the Income-tax Act, 1961 ('the Act') read with the India-US tax treaty…………..” 6. However, the Assessing Officer did not accept the above contention of the assessee and considered the amount of Rs.17,48,65,171/- being ‘Royalty/FTS income’ taxable under section 12 of India-USA DTAA’ and held it to be taxable. 7. Aggrieved with the said order, the assessee filed objections to the ld. DRP. The DRP vide its directions dated 23.08.2023 followed its earlier order for AY 2018-19, 2019-20 and 2020-21 and agreed with the findings of the Assessing Officer and held it to be taxable. The relevant directions dated 23.08.2023 of the ld. DRP in para no.4 are reproduced as under:- 4. DRP's Direction: This case came up before the Panel for AYs 2018-19, 2019-20 & 2020-21 for which directions have already been issued. Therefore, the basis for issuing the direction for AY 2021-22, shall be the direction already issued for AYs- 2018-19, 2019-20 & 2020-21, mutatis mutandis. 7 ITA No.3119/Del/2023 4.1 Ground no. 1 to 3 (including sub-grounds)- The Panel has carefully considered the rival averments as mentioned above. The Panel takes a note that the objections of similar nature have been filed before the Panel for AYs 2018-19, 2019-20 & 2020-21 also. While issuing directions for AY 2019-20, the directions issued for AY 2018-19 was considered as the basis. The Panel for AY 2018-19 upheld the AO's proposal for the enhancement of income and the assessee's grounds of objection were rejected. The Panel disposed of the assessee's objection for AY 2019-20 as under: \"......3.1Identical objections were raised by the assessee in AY 2018-19. In view of the same factual and legal matrix, DRP directions given in AY 2018-19 shall apply for this AY as well. Grounds 2 to 5 are disposed of as above.....\" 4.1.1 However, the Panel does not find any occasion/ground to deviate from its earlier direction for AY 2020-21. The AO's order for AY 2020-21 is a self-speaking order and bears no infirmity. Accordingly, the AO is directed to complete the assessment for AY 2021-22 on similar line of directions already issued for previous assessment years by passing a speaking and reasoned order, mutatis mutandis. All the grounds of objection are disposed of accordingly. 4.2 Ground no. 4- This relates to the issue of initiating penalty proceedings u/s 270A of the Act. This ground of objection is rejected being 3/consequential and premature in nature.” 8. Against the said order, the assessee is in appeal before us. 9. At the outset, the ld. AR submitted that the issue in dispute is squarely covered in assessee’s favour by the order dated 21.08.2024 of the Tribunal in assessee’s own case in ITA No.2344/Del/2023, Assessment Year 2020-21. 10. The Ld. DR relied upon the orders of the authorities below. 8 ITA No.3119/Del/2023 11. We have considered the rival submissions and perused the materials available on record. On perusal of the Dispute Resolution Panel directions for the present assessment year in para 4, it is seen that while agreeing with the findings of the Assessing Officer, the DRP has followed its finding for AY 2018-19, 2019-20 and 2020-21. On similar facts, the Co-ordinate Bench of the Tribunal in the aforesaid order for AY 2020-21 in assessee’s own case held that similar receipts were not taxable as it was not in the nature of Royalty/FTS under Article 12 of the India USA DTAA. The relevant extract of the order is reproduced hereunder:- 10. Heard the arguments of both the parties and perused the material available on record. Amount received for sale of online or hard copy journals – Royalty/FIS – u/s 9(1)(vi) of the Act r.w. Article 12 of India-USA DTAA. 11. The facts reveal that the assessee is a copyrighted product which does not give right to the users to amend, modify or alter the product sold to them. The assessee sells compiled, indexed or curated articles obtained from other authors as copyrighted article / product, for easy access to customers. Further it is submitted that information accessed by customers on assessee’s online journals, was publicly available and could be obtained through various other means such as purchasing a book published on the subject matter. 12. It was submitted that Article 12 of the Treaty deals with the taxation of royalty and FIS. Article 12(3) of the Treaty defines ‘royalty’ mean payments of any kind received as a consideration for the use of, or the right to use, any copyright of a literary, artistic, or scientific work. Limited rights to access online journals granted by the assessee to Indian 9 ITA No.3119/Del/2023 customers, do not amount to granting of any right in the copyright in any manner whatsoever, and hence the receipts from Indian customers do not constitute royalties under the Treaty. 13. In this regard, reliance is placed on following decisions, wherein subscription fees from its Indian customers for providing access to online database and/or journals were not ‘royalty’ as customers did not acquire copyright:  ACIT vs. Relx Inc. [2024] TS-129-HC-2024(Delhi) upholding Relx Inc. vs. ACIT: [2023] 149 taxmann.com 78 (Delhi – Trib.)  Uptodate Inc. vs. DCIT: [2023] 150 taxmann.com 231 (Del. - Trib.)  Elsevier Information System GmbH vs. DCIT [2019] 106 taxmann.com 401 (Mum.) 14. For the sake of ready reference, the relevant portion in the order in the case of ACIT Vs. Relx Inc. (supra) is reproduced below: “10. We have heard the parties and perused the material available on record and gave our thoughtful consideration. 11. It is found that the assessee earns income in the nature of subscription fees from Indian subscriber for providing subscription to data base Lexis Nexis wherein host of information started on subject/topic relating to legal and tax matters. The person interested to purchase the electronic version of the books/journals/articles can be purchased it on line by paying the price of the book and in so far as the frequent customers of the books/journals /articles available on Lexis Nexis can opt to subscribe data base for certain period which allows the customers to access the e-books/e- journals/e-articles on the online data base. In both the cases, the content received by the user remains the same that is books, journal and articles in an electronic format. 12. The assessee is a part of Elsevier Group and in case of other group entities on the similar issue of access/subscription to web-site, the ITAT Tribunal of Mumbai Bench in the case of Elsevier Information Systems GmbH Vs. Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax (IT) in ITA No. 1683/Mum/2015, dealing with the similar issue for the Assessment Year 2011-12 held as under:- 10 ITA No.3119/Del/2023 \"15. A customer/subscriber can access the data stored in the database by paying subscription. The Department held the subscription paid to Dun & Brad Street Espana, S.A., for accessing the data to be in the nature of royalty. The Authority for Advance Ruling after dealing with the issue ultimately concluded that the subscription received by Dun & Brad Street Espana, S.A., for allowing access to the database is Elsevier Information Systems GmbH not in the nature of royalty/fees for technical services. Following the aforesaid decision, the Tribunal, Ahmedabad Bench, in ITO v/s Cedilla Healthcare Ltd. [2017] 77 taxmann.com 309, while considering the nature of subscription paid to a U.S. based company viz. Chemical Abstract Services, which is in the same line of business and is stated to be the competitor of the assessee, held that the subscription paid for online access to the database system \"scifinder\" is not in the nature of royalty. The observations of the Tribunal while deciding the issue in favour of the assessee are as under:- \"17. We find that as the treaty provision unambiguously requires, it is only when the use is of the copyright that the taxability can be triggered in the source country. In the present case, the payment is for the use of copyrighted material rather than for the use of copyright. The distinction between the copyright and copyrighted article has been very well pointed out by the decisions of Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of DIT v. Nokia Networks OY [2013] 358 ITR 259/212 Taxman 68/25 taxmann.com 225. In this case all that the assessee gets right is to access the copyrighted material and there is no dispute about. As a matter of fact, the AO righty noted that 'royalty' has been defined as \"payment of any kind received as a consideration for the use of, or right to use of, any copyright of literary, artistic or scientific work\" and that the expression \"literary work\", under section 2(o) of the Copyright Act, includes 'literary database' but then he fell in error of reasoning inasmuch as the payment was not for use of copyright of literary database but only for access to the literary database under limited non exclusive and non transferable licence. Even during the course of hearing before us, learned Departmental Representative could not demonstrate as to how there was use of copyright. In our considered view, it was simply a case of copyrighted material and therefore the impugned payments cannot be treated as royalty payments. This view is also supported by Hon'ble Bombay High Court's judgment in the case of DIT (International Taxation) v. Dun & Bradstreet Information Elsevier Information Systems GmbH Services India (P.) Ltd. [2011] 338 ITR 95/[2012] 20 taxmann.com 695.\" 11 ITA No.3119/Del/2023 16. The same view was again expressed by the Tribunal in DCIT v/s Welspun Corporation Ltd., [2017] 77 taxmann.com 165. If we examine the facts of the present appeal in juxtaposition to the facts of the decisions referred to herein before, it can be seen that the facts are almost identical and akin. In the referred cases the assessees were also maintaining databases of information collated from various journals and articles and allowed access to the users to use such material as required by them. Keeping in view the ratio laid down in the decisions (supra), the payment received by the assessee has to be held to have been received for use of copyrighted article rather than for use of or right to use of copyright. 17. Having held so, the next issue which arises for consideration is, whether the subscription fee can be treated as fees for technical services. As discussed earlier, it is evident that the assessee has collated data from various journals and articles and put them in a structured manner in the database to make it more user friendly and beneficial to the users/customers who want to access the database. The assessee has neither employed any technical/skilled person to provide any managerial or technical service nor there is any direct interaction between the customer/user of the database and the Elsevier Information Systems GmbH employees of the assessee. The customer/user is allowed access to the online database through various search engines provided through internet connection. There is no material on record to demonstrate that while providing access to the database there is any human intervention. As held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in CIT v/s Bharati Cellular Ltd., [2010] 193 taxman 97 (SC) and DIT v/s A.P. Moller Maersk A.S., [2017] 392 ITR 186 (SC), for providing technical / managerial service human intervention is a sin qua non. Further, Article-12(4) of India- Germany Tax Treaty provides that payment for the service of managerial, technical or consultancy nature including the provisions of services by technical or other personnel can be termed as fees for technical services. None of the features of fees for technical services as provided under Article 12(4) of the India- Germany Tax Treaty can be found in the subscription fee received by the assessee. Further, the Department has not brought any material on record to demonstrate that the assessee has employed any skilled personnel having knowledge of chemical industry either to assist in collating articles from journals / magazines which are publicly available or through them the assessee provides instructions to subscribers for accessing the online database. The assessee even does not alter or modify in any manner the articles collated and stored in the database. In the 12 ITA No.3119/Del/2023 aforesaid view of the matter, the subscription fee received cannot be considered as a fee for technical services as well.\" 13. In the case of Elsevier Information System GmbH (supra) held that receipt of the assessee therein do not qualify as FTS as per the provisions Section 9(1) (vii) of the Act, wherein the Tribunal Bench of Mumbai adjudicated the issue regarding treaty of 'Indo-German Tax Treaty' wherein the provisions of FTS are similar to Section 9(1)(7) of the Act. The only difference to the present appeal is that the applicable treaty is Indo-US Tax Treaty. The Article 7 of India-US DTAA, the income from subscription to Assessee's data base is in the nature of business profit, therefore, the same is not taxable in India as the assessee has no permanent establishment in India. By respectfully following the ratio laid down by the Mumbai Tribunal in the case of Elsevier Information System GmbH (supra), in the absence of any material available on record to prove that the assessee is providing full fledged service and solutions for legal professions, we are of the opinion that the A.O. has committed an error in making the addition. In view of the same, the payment received by the assessee is in the nature of 'Business Profit' which cannot be brought to tax in India in the absence of PE. Accordingly, the grounds of both the appeals of the assessee are allowed.” 15. Further, in view of above facts, it is clear that providing access to online database / journals is nothing but providing access to copyrighted article which does not amount to royalty. In this regard, reliance is placed on following decisions, wherein difference between a Copyright and a copyrighted article has been brought out very clearly:  Engineering Analysis Centre of Excellence (P.) Ltd. vs. CIT, [2021] 432 ITR 471 (SC)  CIT vs. ZTE Corporation, [2021] 282 Taxman 304 (SC) dismissed the SLP filed by Revenue. Review Petition filed by the Revenue also dismissed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court (TS- 741-SC-2023) 16. Even as per Explanation 2 to the Section 9(1)(vi) of the Act, the impugned receipts from Indian customers do not constitute consideration for grant of any rights in the copyright, hence are not taxable as royalty. Thus, receipts from Indian customers for offshore sales of books / journals or providing access 13 ITA No.3119/Del/2023 to online journals / online library do not qualify as Royalties under the Act as well as under the Treaty. The services are also do not fall under FIS as the services do not satisfy the clause ‘make available’ as required for the provisions of Article 12 of DTAA. 17. Since, the matter has been adjudicated on merits of the case viz., Royalties / FIS, the other grounds taken up by the assessee are not being adjudicated being academic in nature. 18. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed.” 12. On perusal of the assessment order for the present assessment year, it is seen that the Assessing Officer has not brought about any distinguishing facts about the nature of receipt amounting toRs.17,48,65,171/- as compared to similar receipt of Rs.16,12,78,571/- in AY 2020-21 and treated as Royalty/FTS by the AO, which was deleted by the Co-ordinate Bench of the Tribunal as discussed above . The Ld. CIT-DR has also not brought any contrary facts to distinguish the treatment of the said receipts during the year from the order of the Tribunal in the case of the assessee for AY 2020-21 as referred above. Therefore, following the above order of the Tribunal on identical facts, it is held that the amount of Rs.17,48,65,171/- is not taxable as the same is not in the nature of Royalty/FTS under Article 12 of the India-USA DTAA and therefore, the same is deleted. Hence, the ground nos. 2 to 4 of the appeal are allowed. 14 ITA No.3119/Del/2023 13. Ground No.5 of the appeal is that directions issued by the DRP do not bear a valid Documentation Identification Number (DIN). However, this ground is not pressed, hence, the same is dismissed as not pressed. 14. Ground No.6 is that the final assessment order dated 19.09.2023 was barred by limitation. However, this ground is not pressed, hence, the same is dismissed as not pressed. 15. In ground no. 7, the assessee submits that the AO has erred in short granting of credit of tax deducted at source in the computation sheet. The AO is directed to verify the claim of the assessee and to allow TDS credit as per law. 16. In Ground No.8, it is submitted that the AO erred in computing tax and interest on INR 193,199,578 instead of assessed income of INR 192,725,201. The AO is directed to verify the claim of the assessee and to modify the tax computation as per law. 17. Ground No.9 is with respect to the levy of interest u/s 234A, 234B and 234C of the Act. Charging of interest is consequential and the AO will levy interest as per law. 18. Ground no.10 is with respect to initiation of penalty proceeding u/s270A of the Act. This ground is premature in nature and the same is dismissed. 19. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed. 15 ITA No.3119/Del/2023 Order pronounced in the open court on 19th February, 2025. Sd/- Sd/- [VIKAS AWASTHY] [BRAJESH KUMAR SINGH] JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Dated 19.02.2025. f{x~{tÜ f{x~{tÜ f{x~{tÜ f{x~{tÜ Copy forwarded to: 1. Assessee 2. Respondent 3. PCIT 4. CIT(A) 5. DR Asst. Registrar, ITAT, New Delhi "