Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Ahmedabad
The Ito, Tds-3,, Ahmedabad vs Sichuan Fortune Projects Management ... on 9 April, 2018
आयकर अपील
य अ धकरण, अहमदाबाद यायपीठ 'Mh' अहमदाबाद ।
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
" D " BENCH, AHMEDABAD
सव ी महावीर साद, या यक सद य एवं Ekuh'k cksjM, लेखा सद य के सम ।
BEFORE SHRI MAHAVIR PRASAD, JUDICIAL MEMBER And
SHRI, MANISH BORAD, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER
आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos.3554, 3555 & 3556/Ahd/2016
( नधा रण वष / Assessment Years:2011-12, 2012-13 & 2013-14)
The ITO, Sichuan Fortune
बनाम/
TDS-3, Ahmedabad. Vs. Projects Management
Ltd.,
302, Mangalya
Apartment,
Opp. Krupa Petrol
Pump, Juna Shrda
Mandir Road,
Ellis Bridge,
Ahmedabad - 380
006
थायी ले खा सं . /जीआइआर सं . / PAN/GIR No. : AHMS 14614 F
(अपीलाथ& /Appellant) .. ( 'यथ& / Respondent)
अपीलाथ& ओर से / Appellant by : Shri V. K. Singh, D.R.
'यथ& क) ओर से/Respondent by : Shri Ira Kapoor, A.R.
ु वाई क) तार-ख /
सन Date of Hearing 05/04/2018
घोषणा क) तार-ख /Date of 09/04/2018
P ronouncement
आदे श / O R D E R
PER MAHAVIR PRASAD, JUDICIAL MEMBER :
These three captioned appeals have been filed at the instance of the revenue against the separate appellate order of the Commissioner of Income Tax(Appeals)-8, Ahmedabad [CIT(A) in ITA Nos. 3554, 3555 & 3556/Ahd/2016 ITO vs. Sichuan Fortune Projects Management Ltd..
Asst.Year - 2011-12, 2012-13 & 2013-14 -2- short] dated 04/10/2016 arising in the order passed under s.154 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act") dated 08/04/2015 relevant to Assessment Year (AY) 2011-12, 2012-13 & 2013-14 respectively.
2. Since in all three appeals issues and grounds are common only figures and assessment years are different. Therefore, for the sake of convenience, we would like to dispose of these three appeals altogether.
3. In ITA No.3554/Ahd/2016 for the Asst. Year 2011-12, following grounds have taken by the revenue:
"1. The Ld. CIT(A) has erred on facts and in law in deleting the demand raised as per section 306AA of the I.T Act for mentioning wrong PAN which attracts applicability of tax @20% on the ground that provision of TDS are to be reads along with DTAA for computing the tax liability utterly ignoring the fact that the assessee has mentioned wrong PAN at the time of filing of original TDS return in form 27Q and again while filing rectification application u/s.154 which attracts applicability of tax @20% as per section 206AA of the I.T Act.
2. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) ought to have upheld the order of the A.O. passed 201(1)."
4. The Brief facts of the case are that the assessee company had made a payment of Rs.6,25,290/- in Quarter 4 of Financial Year 2010-11 to Shanghai Electric Group Company, China ('SEC'), a non- resident. The payment is made against the consultancy services received from SEC on which the appellant has deducted TDS at the rate of 10% as per the treaty rate i.e. India-China DTAA. In this respect the TDS return was filed in Form 27Q vide Token Number 4100xxxxxxx9844. The assessee submits that as per the provisions of section 90(2) of the Act, the provisions of Income Tax Act or the Treaty whichever are more beneficial would apply. The relevant ITA Nos. 3554, 3555 & 3556/Ahd/2016 ITO vs. Sichuan Fortune Projects Management Ltd..
Asst.Year - 2011-12, 2012-13 & 2013-14 -3- extract of section India - China DTAA as well as provisions of section 90 are reproduced as under:
"India-China DTAA Article 12 - Royalties And Fees For Technical Services
1. Royalties or fees for technical services arising in a Contracting State and paid to a resident of the other Contracting State may be taxed in that other Contracting State.
2. However, such royalties or fees for technical services may also be taxed in the Contracting State in which they arise, and according to the laws of that Contracting State, but if the recipient is the beneficial owner of the royalties or fees for technical services, the tax so charged shall not exceed 10 per cent of the gross amount of the royalties or fees for technical services. "
5. Accordingly, while making payment to SEC, TDS is deducted at the rate of 10%.
"Section90. Agreement with foreign countries or specified territories (1)........
(2) Where the Central Government has entered into an agreement with the Government of any country outside India or specified territory outside India, as the case may be, under sub-section (1) for granting relief of tax, or as the case may be, avoidance of double taxation, then, in relation to the assessee to whom such agreement applies, the provisions of this Act shall apply to the extent they are more beneficial to that assessee.
........."
6. In order to get the benefit of tax treaties, non-resident are required to share Tax Residency Certificate ('TRC'), or otherwise the normal rate of Tax as per the Act would apply. SEC has obtained TRC, on the basis of which TDS is deducted as per the Treaty Rate. The copy of TRC is submitted vide Annexure-1.
7. This appeal lies against the Intimation u/s.200A r.w.s. 154 from CPC-TDS vide CPC reference number TDS/1011/27Q/D/100014342031 dated 8-Apr-15. In the aforesaid ITA Nos. 3554, 3555 & 3556/Ahd/2016 ITO vs. Sichuan Fortune Projects Management Ltd..
Asst.Year - 2011-12, 2012-13 & 2013-14 -4- Intimation, CPC-TDS has observed that the appellant has short deducted by 10% while making payment to SEC. A tax demand on short deduction of TDS of Rs.3,12,645/- is also raised on the appellant along with interest on short deduction of TDS of Rs.1,53,174/-. Being aggrieved of the said demand, the appellant has preferred an appeal before Your Honor under section 246A(l)(a) of the Act.
8. The demand arises in the appellant's case because the CPC-TDS has proceeded to compute the TDS by taking rates as per section 206AA of the Act, rates of TDS when PAN is not furnished by the deductee. However the appellant has deducted the TDS by application of beneficial provisions of section 90(2). Since the provisions of section 90 are the special provisions under the Act to avoid the double taxation, therefore they have an overriding effect over the other provisions of the Act. The appellant submits that section 206AA is introduced to check the revenue loss in order to comply with the provisions of TDS under Chapter XVII-B. In order to correctly understand the scope and purpose of the insertion of section 206AA, by the Finance (No.2) Act, 2009, it will be necessary to examine the provisions thereof, in detail. For the sake of ready reference, the provisions of section 206AA are reproduced, as follows:
"Requirement to furnish Permanent Account Number. 206AA. (1) Notwithstanding anything contained in any other provisions of this Act, any person entitled to receive any sum or income or amount, on which tax is deductible under Chapter XVIIB (hereafter referred to as deductee) shall furnish his Permanent Account Number to the person responsible for deducting such tax (hereafter referred to as deductor), failing which, fax shall be deducted at the higher of the following rates, namely:-
(i) at the rate specified in the relevant provision of this Act; or (ii) at the rate or rates in force; or
(iii) at the rate of twenty per cent.
ITA Nos. 3554, 3555 & 3556/Ahd/2016 ITO vs. Sichuan Fortune Projects Management Ltd..
Asst.Year - 2011-12, 2012-13 & 2013-14 -5- (2) No declaration under sub-section (1) or sub-section (1A) or sub-section (1C) of section 197A shall be valid unless the person furnishes his Permanent Account Number in such declaration.
(3) In case any declaration becomes invalid under sub-section (2) the deductor shall deduct the tax at source in accordance with the provisions of sub-section (1).
(4) No certificate under section 197 shall be granted unless the application made under that section contains the Permanent Account Number of the applicant.
(5) The deductee shall furnish his Permanent Account Number to the deductor and both shall indicate the same in all the correspondence, bills, vouchers and other documents which are sent to each other.
(6) Where the Permanent Account Number provided to the deductor is invalid or does not belong to the deductee, it shall be deemed that the deductee has not furnished his Permanent Account Number to the deductor and the provisions of sub-section (1) shall apply accordingly."
9. The purpose behind introducing S. 206AA(1) has been stated in the Memorandum explaining the provision of the Finance (No. 2) Bill, 2009 as under:
"d. Improving compliance with provisions of quoting PAN through the TDS regime. Statutory provisions mandating quoting of Permanent Account Number (PAN) of deductees in Tax Deduction at Source (TDS) statements exist since 2001 duly backed by penal provisions.
The process of allotment of PAN has been streamlined so that over 75 lakh PANs are being allotted every year. Publicity campaigns for quoting PAN are being run since the last three years. The average time of allotment of PAN has come down to 10 calendar days, Therefore, non-availability of PAN has ceased to be an impediment. In a number of cases, the non-quoting of PAN's by deductees is creating problems in the processing of return of income and in granting credit for tax deducted at source, leading to delays in issue of refunds. In order to strengthen the PAN mechanism, it is proposed to make amendments in the Income-tax Act to provide that any person whose ITA Nos. 3554, 3555 & 3556/Ahd/2016 ITO vs. Sichuan Fortune Projects Management Ltd..
Asst.Year - 2011-12, 2012-13 & 2013-14 -6- receipts are subject to deduction of tax at source i.e., the deductee, shall mandatorily furnish his PAN to the deductor, failing which the deductor shall deduct tax at source at higher of the following rates
(i) the rate prescribed in the Act;
(ii) at the rate in force, i.e., the rate mentioned in the Finance Act;
or
(iii) at the rate of 20%."
10. The object of S. 206AA(1) is to ensure compliance with the PAN mechanism, to address problems associated with non- quoting/non-obtaining of PAN in processing of returns, claiming credit for TDS and granting of refund, it is to further ensure that assessee do not give reason like non-issuance of PAN as a reason for not furnishing it, keeping in mind that the PAN allotment machinery has been fully strengthened and streamlined.
11. Further to correctly examine the scope of the section 206AA it would be pertinent to understand the provisions related to obtain permanent account number ('PAN') under the Act.
12. In the intimation the demand was raised in all three years for short deduction of TDS and Interest on such short deduction as under:
Default type as A.Y. 2011- A.Y. 2012-13 A.Y. 2013-
per intimation 12 14
Short Deduction 3,12,645 40,39,461 1,09,80,379
of TDS
Interest on short 1,53,174 15,43,813 28,35,075
deduction
Total 4,65,819 55,83,274 1,38,15,454
13. Against the processing by the CPC for raising and revised demand challenged before the ld. CIT(A), ld. CIT(A) allowed the appeal of the assessee.
ITA Nos. 3554, 3555 & 3556/Ahd/2016 ITO vs. Sichuan Fortune Projects Management Ltd..
Asst.Year - 2011-12, 2012-13 & 2013-14 -7-
14. Now department's appeal is before us.
15. We have gone through the relevant record and impugned order. It is fact that Assessee Company is a foreign company and section 206AA, which provides to decade TDS at a higher rate because non availability of PAN are no attracted here because respondent/non-resident cannot be compelled to obtain PAN no. when they are allowable to tax in India.
16. In this regard, ld. AR cited an order of co-ordinate bench in ITA Nos.2244, 2245 & 2246/Ahd/2016, in which, similar matter was dismissed with following observation:
"5. We find that, in the case of DDIT Vs Serum Institute of India Pvt. Ltd. [(2015) 40 ITR Trib 684 (Pune)], a coordinate bench of the Tribunal has, inter alia, observed as follows:
7. We have carefully considered the rival submissions.
Section 206AA of the Act has been included in Part B of Chapter XVII dealing with Collection and Recovery of Tax - Deduction at source. Section 206AA of the Act deals with requirements of furnishing PAN by any person, entitled to receive any sum or income on which tax is deductible under Chapter XVII-B, to the person responsible for deducting such tax. Shorn of other details, in so far as the present controversy is concerned, it would suffice to note that section 206AA of the Act prescribes that where PAN is not furnished to the person responsible for deducting tax at source then the tax deductor would be required to deduct tax at the higher of the following rates, namely, at the rate prescribed in the relevant provisions of this Act; or at the rate/rates in force; or at the rate of 20%. In the present case, assessee was responsible for deducting tax on payments made to non-residents on account of royalty and/or fee for technical services. The dispute before us relates to the payments made by the assessee to such non-
ITA Nos. 3554, 3555 & 3556/Ahd/2016 ITO vs. Sichuan Fortune Projects Management Ltd..
Asst.Year - 2011-12, 2012-13 & 2013-14 -8- residents who had not furnished their PANs to the assessee. The case of the Revenue is that in the absence of furnishing of PAN, assessee was under an obligation to deduct tax @ 20% following the provisions of section 206AA of the Act. However, assessee had deducted the tax at source at the rates prescribed in the respective DTAAs between India and the relevant country of the non- residents; and, such rate of tax being lower than the rate of 20% mandated by section 206AA of the Act. The CIT(A) has found that the provisions of section 90(2) come to the rescue of the assessee. Section 90(2) provides that the provisions of the DTAAs would override the provisions of the domestic Act in cases where the provisions of DTAAs are more beneficial to the assessee. There cannot be any doubt to the proposition that in case of non-residents, tax liability in India is liable to be determined in accordance with the provisions of the Act or the DTAA between India and the relevant country, whichever is more beneficial to the assessee, having regard to the provisions of section 90(2) of the Act. In this context, the CIT(A) has correctly observed that the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Azadi Bachao Andolan and Others vs. UOI, (2003) 263 ITR 706 (SC) has upheld the proposition that the provisions made in the DTAAs will prevail over the general provisions contained in the Act to the extent they are beneficial to the assessee. In this context, it would be worthwhile to observe that the DTAAs entered into between India and the other relevant countries in the present context provide for scope of taxation and/or a rate of taxation which was different from the scope/rate prescribed under the Act. For the said reason, assessee deducted the tax at source having regard to the provisions of the respective DTAAs which provided for a beneficial rate of taxation. It would also be relevant to observe that even the charging section 4 as well as section 5 of the Act which deals with the principle of ascertainment of total income under the Act are also subordinate to the principle enshrined in section 90(2) as held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Azadi Bachao Andolan and Others (supra). Thus, in so far as the applicability of the scope/rate of taxation with respect to ITA Nos. 3554, 3555 & 3556/Ahd/2016 ITO vs. Sichuan Fortune Projects Management Ltd..
Asst.Year - 2011-12, 2012-13 & 2013-14 -9- the impugned payments make to the non-residents is concerned, no fault can be found with the rate of taxation invoked by the assessee based on the DTAAs, which prescribed for a beneficial rate of taxation. However, the case of the Revenue is that the tax deduction at source was required to be made at 20% in the absence of furnishing of PAN by the recipient non-residents, having regard to section 206AA of the Act. In our considered opinion, it would be quite incorrect to say that though the charging section 4 of the Act and section 5 of the Act dealing with ascertainment of total income are subordinate to the principle enshrined in section 90(2) of the Act but the provisions of Chapter XVII-B governing tax deduction at source are not subordinate to section 90(2) of the Act. Notably, section 206AA of the Act which is the centre of controversy before us is not a charging section but is a part of a procedural provisions dealing with collection and deduction of tax at source. The provisions of section 195 of the Act which casts a duty on the assessee to deduct tax at source on payments to a non-resident cannot be looked upon as a charging provision. In-fact, in the context of section 195 of the Act also, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs. Eli Lily & Co., (2009) 312 ITR 225 (SC) observed that the provisions of tax withholding i.e. section 195 of the Act would apply only to sums which are otherwise chargeable to tax under the Act. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of GE India Technology Centre Pvt. Ltd. vs. CIT, (2010) 327 ITR 456 (SC) held that the provisions of DTAAs along with the sections 4, 5, 9, 90 & 91 of the Act are relevant while applying the provisions of tax deduction at source. Therefore, in view of the aforesaid schematic interpretation of the Act, section 206AA of the Act cannot be understood to override the charging sections 4 and 5 of the Act. Thus, where section 90(2) of the Act provides that DTAAs override domestic law in cases where the provisions of DTAAs are more beneficial to the assessee and the same also overrides the charging sections 4 and 5 of the Act which, in turn, override the DTAAs provisions especially section 206AA of the Act which is the controversy before us. Therefore, in our view, ITA Nos. 3554, 3555 & 3556/Ahd/2016 ITO vs. Sichuan Fortune Projects Management Ltd..
Asst.Year - 2011-12, 2012-13 & 2013-14
- 10 -
where the tax has been deducted on the strength of the beneficial provisions of section DTAAs, the provisions of section 206AA of the Act cannot be invoked by the Assessing Officer to insist on the tax deduction @ 20%, having regard to the overriding nature of the provisions of section 90(2) of the Act. The CIT(A), in our view, correctly inferred that section 206AA of the Act does not override the provisions of section 90(2) of the Act and that in the impugned cases of payments made to non-residents, assessee correctly applied the rate of tax prescribed under the DTAAs and not as per section 206AA of the Act because the provisions of the DTAAs was more beneficial. Thus, we hereby affirm the ultimate conclusion of the CIT(A) in deleting the tax demand relatable to difference between 20% and the actual tax rate on which tax was deducted by the assessee in terms of the relevant DTAAs. As a consequence, Revenue fails in its appeals.
6. The views so expressed by the coordinate bench now stand approved by Hon'ble Delhi High Court's judgment in the case of Dansico India Pvt. Ltd. (supra). No judicial precedent to the contrary has been brought to our notice. In this view of the matter, and respectfully following the binding judicial precedents, we approve the conclusions arrived at by the CIT(A) and decline to interfere in the matter.
7. In the result, the appeals are dismissed."
17. In ITA No.792/PN/2013, Bench dismissed the appeal of the revenue with following observation:
"7. We have carefully considered the rival submissions. Section 206AA of the Act has been included in Part B of Chapter XVII dealing with Collection and Recovery of Tax - Deduction at source. Section 206AA of the Act deals with requirements of furnishing PAN by any person, entitled to receive any sum or income on which tax is deductible under Chapter XVII-B, to the person responsible for deducting such tax. Shorn of other details, in so far as the present controversy is concerned, it would suffice to note that section 206AA of the Act prescribes that where PAN is not furnished to the person responsible for deducting tax at source then the tax deductor ITA Nos. 3554, 3555 & 3556/Ahd/2016 ITO vs. Sichuan Fortune Projects Management Ltd..
Asst.Year - 2011-12, 2012-13 & 2013-14
- 11 -
would be required to deduct tax at the higher of the following rates, namely, at the rate prescribed in the relevant provisions of this Act; or at the rate/rates in force; or at the rate of 20%. In the present case, assessee was responsible for deducting tax on payments made to non- residents on account of royalty and/or fee for technical services. The dispute before us relates to the payments made by the assessee to such non-residents who had not furnished their PANs to the assessee. The case of the Revenue is that in the absence of furnishing of PAN, assessee was under an obligation to deduct tax @ 20% following the provisions of section 206AA of the Act. However, assessee had deducted the tax at source at the rates prescribed in the respective DTAAs between India and the relevant country of the non-residents; and, such rate of tax being lower than the rate of 20% mandated by section 206AA of the Act. The CIT(A) has found that the provisions of section 90(2) come to the rescue of the assessee. Section 90(2) provides that the provisions of the DTAAs would override the provisions of the domestic Act in cases where the provisions of DTAAs are more beneficial to the assessee. There cannot be ITA Nos.1601 to 1604/PN/2014 any doubt to the proposition that in case of non- residents, tax liability in India is liable to be determined in accordance with the provisions of the Act or the DTAA between India and the relevant country, whichever is more beneficial to the assessee, having regard to the provisions of section 90(2) of the Act. In this context, the CIT(A) has correctly observed that the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Azadi Bachao Andolan and Others vs. UOI, (2003) 263 ITR 706 (SC) has upheld the proposition that the provisions made in the DTAAs will prevail over the general provisions contained in the Act to the extent they are beneficial to the assessee. In this context, it would be worthwhile to observe that the DTAAs entered into between India and the other relevant countries in the present context provide for scope of taxation and/or a rate of taxation which was different from the scope/rate prescribed under the Act. For the said reason, assessee deducted the tax at source having regard to the provisions of the respective DTAAs which provided for a beneficial rate of taxation. It would also be relevant to observe that even the charging section 4 as well as section 5 of the Act which deals with the principle of ascertainment of total income under the Act are also subordinate to the principle enshrined in section 90(2) as held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Azadi Bachao Andolan and Others (supra). Thus, in so far as the applicability of the scope/rate of ITA Nos. 3554, 3555 & 3556/Ahd/2016 ITO vs. Sichuan Fortune Projects Management Ltd..
Asst.Year - 2011-12, 2012-13 & 2013-14
- 12 -
taxation with respect to the impugned payments make to the non- residents is concerned, no fault can be found with the rate of taxation invoked by the assessee based on the DTAAs, which prescribed for a beneficial rate of taxation. However, the case of the Revenue is that the tax deduction at source was required to be made at 20% in the absence of furnishing of PAN by the recipient non-residents, having regard tosection 206AA of the Act. In our considered opinion, it would be quite incorrect to say that though the charging section 4 of the Act and section 5 of the Act dealing with ascertainment of total income are subordinate to the principle enshrined in section 90(2) of the Act but the provisions of Chapter ITA Nos.1601 to 1604/PN/2014 XVII-B governing tax deduction at source are not subordinate to section 90(2) of the Act. Notably, section 206AA of the Act which is the centre of controversy before us is not a charging section but is a part of a procedural provisions dealing with collection and deduction of tax at source. The provisions of section 195 of the Act which casts a duty on the assessee to deduct tax at source on payments to a non-resident cannot be looked upon as a charging provision. In-fact, in the context of section 195 of the Act also, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs. Eli Lily & Co., (2009) 312 ITR 225 (SC) observed that the provisions of tax withholding i.e. section 195 of the Act would apply only to sums which are otherwise chargeable to tax under the Act. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of GE India Technology Centre Pvt. Ltd. vs. CIT, (2010) 327 ITR 456 (SC) held that the provisions of DTAAs along with the sections 4, 5, 9, 90 & 91 of the Act are relevant while applying the provisions of tax deduction at source. Therefore, in view of the aforesaid schematic interpretation of the Act, section 206AA of the Act cannot be understood to override the charging sections 4 and 5 of the Act. Thus, where section 90(2) of the Act provides that DTAAs override domestic law in cases where the provisions of DTAAs are more beneficial to the assessee and the same also overrides the charging sections 4 and 5 of the Act which, in turn, override the DTAAs provisions especially section 206AA of the Act which is the controversy before us. Therefore, in our view, where the tax has been deducted on the strength of the beneficial provisions of section DTAAs, the provisions of section 206AA of the Act cannot be invoked by the Assessing Officer to insist on the tax deduction @ 20%, having regard to the overriding nature of the provisions of section 90(2) of the Act. The CIT(A), in our view, correctly inferred that section 206AA of the Act does not override the provisions ITA Nos. 3554, 3555 & 3556/Ahd/2016 ITO vs. Sichuan Fortune Projects Management Ltd..
Asst.Year - 2011-12, 2012-13 & 2013-14
- 13 -
of section 90(2) of the Act and that in the impugned cases of payments made to non-residents, assessee correctly applied the rate of tax prescribed under the DTAAs and not as per section 206AA of the Act because ITA Nos.1601 to 1604/PN/2014 the provisions of the DTAAs was more beneficial. Thus, we hereby affirm the ultimate conclusion of the CIT(A) in deleting the tax demand relatable to difference between 20% and the actual tax rate on which tax was deducted by the assessee in terms of the relevant DTAAs. As a consequence, Revenue fails in its appeals.
8. Resultantly, the captioned appeals of the Revenue are dismissed, as above."
18. In our considered view, CIT(A) has passed detailed and reasoned order by directing the assessing officer to delete the demand raised on the basis of application of Section 206AA in all three appeals. Thus, we do not find any infirmity in the order passed by the ld. CIT(A), therefore, these three appeals are dismissed.
19. In the result, all three appeals filed by the revenue are dismissed.
This Order pronounced in Open Court on 09/04/2018
Sd/- Sd/-
Ekuh'k cksjM egkohj izlkn
¼ys[kk lnL;½ ¼U;kf;d lnL;½
( MANISH BORAD ) (MAHAVIR PRASAD)
ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER
Ahmedabad; Dated 09/04/2018
Priti Yadav, Sr. PS
ITA Nos. 3554, 3555 & 3556/Ahd/2016
ITO vs. Sichuan Fortune Projects Management Ltd..
Asst.Year - 2011-12, 2012-13 & 2013-14
- 14 -
आदे श क त ल प अ!े षत/Copy of the Order forwarded to :
1. अपीलाथ& / The Appellant
2. 'यथ& / The Respondent.
3. संबं2धत आयकर आयु3त / Concerned CIT
4. आयकर आय3 ु त(अपील) / The CIT(A)-8, Ahmedabad.
5. 6वभागीय त न2ध, आयकर अपील-य अ2धकरण, अहमदाबाद / DR, ITAT, Ahmedabad
6. गाड फाईल / Guard file.
आदे शानुसार/ BY ORDER, स'या6पत त //True Copy// pउप/सहायक पंजीकार (Dy./Asstt.Registrar) आयकर अपील य अ धकरण, अहमदाबाद / ITAT, Ahmedabad
1. Date of dictation 05/04/2018 (dictation-pad 2 pages attached at the end of this appeal-
file)
2. Date on which the typed draft is placed before the Dictating Member ...06/04/2018
3. Other Member...
4. Date on which the approved Pdraft comes to the Sr.P.S./P.S.................
5. Date on which the fair order is placed before the Dictating Member for pronouncement......
6. Date on which the fair order comes back to the Sr.P.S./P.S.......
7. Date on which the file goes to the Bench Clerk.....................
8. Date on which the file goes to the Head Clerk..........................................
9. The date on which the file goes to the Assistant Registrar for signature on the order..........................
10. Date of Despatch of the Order...............