Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Mumbai
Aveva Information Technology India ... vs Acit 15(1)(1), Mumbai on 2 August, 2017
आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण "ए" यायपीठ मुब ं ई म ।
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL "A" BENCH, MUMBAI सव ी राजे , लेखा सद य एवं संदीप गोसांई , याियक सद य Before S/Shri Rajendra, A.M. and Sandeep Gosain,J.M. आयकर अपील सं./ITA ./ ./ No. 3506/Mum/2014, िनधा रण वष /Assessment Year: 2007-08 आयकर अपील सं./ITA ./ ./ No. 3507/Mum/2014, िनधा रण वष /Assessment Year: 2008-09 आयकर अपील सं./ITA ./ ./ No. 3508/Mum/2014, िनधा रण वष /Assessment Year: 2009-10 आयकर अपील सं./ITA ./ ./ No. 3509/Mum/2014, िनधा रण वष /Assessment Year: 2010-11 आयकर अपील सं./ITA ./ ./ No. 3510/Mum/2014, िनधा रण वष /Assessment Year: 2011-12 आयकर अपील सं./ITA ./ ./ No. 2757/Mum/2016, िनधा रण वष /Assessment Year: 2010-11 आयकर अपील सं./ITA ./ ./ No.2758/Mum/2016, िनधा रण वष /Assessment Year: 2009-10 AVEVA Information Technology India The Income tax Officer-(Intl. Taxn.) Pvt.Ltd.,Unit No.202, A Wing, Supreme (TDS) -Range-1 Business Park, Supreme City, Powai Vs. Room No.118, Scindia House, Ballard Mumbai-400 076. Estate,Mumbai-400 039.
PAN: AADCA 0847 M
(अपीलाथ /Appellant) ( यथ / Respondent)
Revenue by: Shri M.V. Rajguru & Sh.Jasbir Chauhan
Assessee by: Shri Nitesh Joshi
सुनवाई क तारीख / Date of Hearing: 03/07/2017
घोषणा क तारीख / Date of Pronouncement: 02.08.2017
आयकर अिधिनयम,
अिधिनयम , 1961 क धारा 254(1)के
के अ तग त आदे श
Order u/s.254(1)of the Income-tax Act,1961(Act)
लेखा सद य,
सद य,राजे के अनुसार -Per Rajendra,AM:
Challenging the order dated 26/12/2013 of CIT(A)-10. Mumbai, the assessee has filed the above mentioned appeals.Effective Ground of appeal is about treating the assessee as an assessee in default(A-I-D) u/s.201 and 201(1A) of the Income tax Act(the Act) for the AY.s. 2007-08 to 2011-12.
The Assessee has also filed appeals against the orders passed by the AO u/s.143(3)of the Act that were confirmed by the CIT(A)for two AY.s.i.e.2009-10 and 2010-11. In all the appeals the last ground of appeal is about initiation of penalty proceedings u/s. 271(1)(c)of the Act.In our opinion,the issue initiation of penalty is premature and does not require adjudication by us.
ITA/3506/Mum/2014,AY.2007-08:
2.During the course of verification of 15CA certificates,the AO found that the assessee had made various foreign remittances without deduction of tax.Therefore,he issued notice to it on 16/02/2010 and directed it to file details of remittances.After considering the submission of the assessee,the AO observed that the assessee had entered into a distribution agreement with M/s. Aveva Solutions Ltd. of England(ASL)on 01/07/2005,that ASL was the license holder Aveva-3506/M/14+6 to use various software products,that it owned all Intellectual Property Rights (IPR) related to the software,that as per the agreement the assessee had to distribute and sub-license software products developed by ASL to the customers within Indian territory and to provide training and sales support to the customers,that as per the agreement ASL had appointed assessee to sub-license the software product to end users and to provide marketing services. The AO referred to the salient features of the Agreement dated 01/07/2005 and held that software was an intellectual property of the vendor, that it was developed with the intention to utilize it for performing given functions, that the vendor transfers the entire rights in the product to the customer,that thereafter the customer was free to use it as per his own will, that the vendor would sell license to use the software. He referred to the Indo-UK Double Taxation Avoidance Treaty(DTAA)Article-13(3)(a) and Explanation-2 of Section 9(vi) to define the term royalty. He observed that ASL software would qualify as invention, that same were patented and trade-marked by ASL under the copyright Act and other similar Acts, that the soft-wares were different from books of literature, music or art-work,that the softwares were composed by specifically trained personnel, that even if it was considered as literary work it was an invention,that the payments made for the use or right to use the software amounted to royalty payments, that it would receive softwares from ASIL and sub-license it to customers Indian territory,that nowhere in the agreement it was mentioned that the assessee was required to purchase the software from ASL and then to sell it to customers, that the assessee was receiving annual fee from the customers and was transferring the major portion of the same to ASL under the nomenclature of royalty,that the software licensed by ASL was not a sale to the assessee,that it was right to use the product for which ASL was charging royalty from it,that the quarterly payment made by it to ASL were royalty payments as stated in distribution agreement and as shown in payment invoices that the assessee was required to convey the support requests of customers to ASL for solutions if not resolved by it, that the claim of the assessee that it had sold copy-righted articles was nothing but a ruse to evade the taxes,that as per provisions of section 195 (1)of the Act,the assessee was required to deduct tax at prescribed rate at source on any sum paid to a non resident which was chargeable to tax in the hands of the said non-resident, that remittances made by it to ASL were liable to be taxed in India,that it had not deducted tax at source u/s.195 of the Act.Invoking the provisions of section 201 and 201(1A) the AO determined the TDS liability at Rs.61.64 lakhs (u/s.201) alongwith interest of Rs.29.58 lakhs (u/s.201(1A)in the year under consideration.He further held that tax rate had to be grossed up.2
Aveva-3506/M/14+6
3.Aggrieved by the order of the Assessing Officer, the assessee preferred an appeal before the First Appellate Authority(FAA),before whom it filed detailed submissions.The assessee also relied upon certain case laws.
After considering the submissions and order passed by the AO u/s.201 of the Act, he held that the distribution agreement specifically mentioned the terms of payment of license fee as royalty in terms of Clause 11.4.1 and 11.4.2, that there was no ambiguity in the agreement, that the assessee was liable to deduction of tax at source for such remittances as per section 195 of the Act, that the assessee had failed to do so, that the AO had rightly held the assessee as an A-I-D for not deducting tax at source,that the AO had rightly held that the assessee had to deduct tax as per Circular No.621 issued by the CBDT on 19/12/1991, that the assessee was receiving annual fee from the end users and was transferring major portion of the same to ASL as royalty,that by no stretch of imagination the software license of ASL could be sold to the assessee,that it was right to use the product for which ASL was charging royalty from the assessee as per the agreement dated 01/07/2005.Finally, he upheld the order passed by AO u/s.201/201(1A) of the Act.He also confirmed the grossing up of tax rate.
4.During the course of hearing before us, the Authorised Representative (AR) referred to various clauses of the agreement entered into by the assessee, that ASL stated that the words end user,license,delivery products, sub license and royalty had definite meaning. He argued that ASL had sold the assessee a software product i.e.a copy righted article, that no right was sold to the assessee in the copy right which ASL had, that there was difference between copyrighted article and copyright,that there was sale of copyright,that the payment could not be termed royalty, that software was a separate entity, that it was not covered by IPR, it was also not covered by section 9(1)(vi) of Explanation-2 of the Act or Article 13.3 of DTAA, that softwares are included in Explanation -4 to section 9(1)(vi), that the DTAA did not make any reference to software,that amendments were made to the Act after the payments were made by the assessee to ASL,that the amendments were retrospective, that the assessee was deducting tax after the amendment to avoid litigation.He referred to the case of Financial Software(47taxmann.com 410); Channel Guide India Ltd.(20 ITR (Trib.) 438); M.Tech India (P.)Ltd.(381ITR31);Dynamic Vertical Software(332ITR222) ;Vinzas Solution (392ITR 155) ;Baan Global BV (49ITR(Trib.)73); Halliburton Export Inc. (IT Appeal 363 of 2016, dated 11/07/2016).
3Aveva-3506/M/14+6 The DR strongly relied upon the order of the FAA and referred to Article-11.He stated that payments were made for royalty only,that in the agreement the word royalty was used , that the AO and the FAA had clearly established that payment was on account of royalty. In the rejoinder the AR stated that the term royalty had different meaning as per DTAA and provisions of the Act. That nomenclature was not decisive, that the assessee had not sold any software to the end users.
5.We have heard the rival submissions and perused the material before us.We would like to refer to some of the clauses of the agreement,entered into between the assessee and ASL, as same would help us to decide the issue before us.
As per the agreement 'Aveva end user' was defined as under :-
Aveva End User shall mean a third party within the Territory who is licensed by Aveva or an Aveva License to use one or more of the Products Clause 2 and Cl.3 deals with licence and delivery as follows:
2 Licence 2.1 AVEVA hereby grants to the Company with effect from the Effective Date a non-
exclusive, non-transferable licence to do the following only within the Territory and in
-accordance with this Agreement:
2.1.1 market, promote and demonstrate the Products;
2.1.2 grant Sub-licences of and distribute the Products;
2.1.3 provide training and First Line Support to End Users and AVEVA End Users; and 2.1.4 copy the Products for the purposes only of fulfilling its obligations under this Agreement.
Delivery of Products 3.1. AVEVA shall provide to the Company within 10 business days of the Commencement Date copies (in such number as AVEVA shall determine) of the latest version of each of the Products in object code only.
3.2. Upon receipt of an executed Sub-licence the Company shall deliver a copy of the relevant Product or Products to the End User.
3.3. AVEVA may provide New Versions to the Company from time to time. Any New Version made available to the Company shall form part of the relevant Product and shall be subject to this Agreement. The Company shall, promptly upon receipt of a New Version, provide a copy of the same to each End User of the relevant Product and ensure that all relevant marketing and promotional materials and all demonstrations of the relevant Product include such New Version.
Some of the other useful clauses of the agreement are reproduced,as same would be helpful in deciding the issue and same read as under:
7. Sub-licences 7.1. Subject to clause 7.3 below, the Company shall ensure that every End User to which the Company provides one or more of the Products shall enter into a valid and binding Sub- licence with the Company on the Standard Terms set out in Schedule C. 7.2. AVEVA may amend the Standard Terms from time to time and the Company shall, upon receipt of written notice of the same and subject to clause 7.3 below, incorporate such amendments into all subsequent Sub-licences.
7.3. Prior to entering into the first Sub-licence in any jurisdiction within the Territory the 4 Aveva-3506/M/14+6 Company shall ensure that the Standard Terms are reviewed by a reputable experienced lawyer qualified to practice in such jurisdiction and that written xxxx 4 Security codes 4.1 A valid security code is necessary in order to use each of the Products. The Company shall either:
4.1.1 request from AVEVA or such third party as directed by AVEVA a security code for each copy of one or more Products on behalf of itself and End Users; or 4.1.2 where permitted to do so by AVEVA, generate a security code for each copy of one or more Products on behalf of itself and End Users.
The Company shall generate or request as appropriate replacement security codes in good time prior to the expiry of the relevant earlier security code.
xxxxx 11 Fees and Royalty Sub-licence Fee 11.1 The Company shall set the Sub-licence Fees taking into account the Pricing Guidelines 11.2 The Company may amend such Sub-licence Fees from time to time in accordance with the Pricing Guidelines and shall promptly provide written notice of such amendment together with an updated list of Sub-licence Fee to AVEVA.
11.3 AVEVA shall be entitled at its sole option at any time to adjust the Pricing Guidelines. Such adjustments shall take effect immediately.
Royalty 11.4 Royalty shall be calculated on the remainder of all Sub-licence Fees less any relevant Third Party Royalties in accordance with the following provisions:
11.4.1 in relation to Initial Fees paid or payable by an End User during each Quarter, the Royalty shall be calculated in accordance with Schedule D on the remainder of such Initial Fees less any relevant Third Party Royalties;
11.4.2 in relation to Annual Fees paid or payable by an End User during each Quarter, the Royalty shall be calculated in accordance with Schedule D on the remainder of such Annual Fees less any relevant Third Party Royalties; and 11.4.3 in relation to any other forms of Sub-licence Fees paid or payable by an End User during each Quarter, such Sub-licence Fees shall be treated as follows for the purposes of calculating the relevant Royalty:
(i) a proportion of such Sub-licence Fees shall be deemed to be Initial Fees and Royalty shall be payable thereon in accordance with clause 11.4.1; and
(ii) the remainder of such Sub-licence Fees shall be deemed to be Annual Fees and Royalty shall be payable thereon in accordance with clause 11.4.2, and the proportions in which such Sub-licence Fees shall be deemed to be Initial Fees and Annual Fees shall be as set out in AVEVA Group plc's revenue recognition policy as amended from time to time.
13. Intellectual property rights and indemnities 13.1 The Company acknowledges that AVEVA owns or is licensed to use all copyright and other intellectual property rights of whatever nature in and relating to the Products and any related documentation.
13.2 In the event that new inventions, designs, processes or other works or materials of whatever nature evolve in the performance of or as a result of this Agreement, the Company acknowledges and agrees that all intellectual property rights in the same shall belong to AVEVA (unless otherwise agreed by AVEVA in writing) and the Company shall, on request, assign to AVEVA with full title guarantee all intellectual property rights in and to the same and shall execute and do all such instruments and things as are necessary to vest in AVEVA 5 Aveva-3506/M/14+6 full legal title in the intellectual property rights in and to the same absolutely and as sole beneficial owner.
We find that the assessee had entered into a distribution agreement with ASL to distribute the software products developed by UK Company to the customers within the territory of India. The perusal of the agreement indicate that the assessee was granted a 'non exclusive' and 'non transferable' license to market and distribution the software products developed by ASL to end customers,that the assessee did not have any right to the source code of software products and was not permitted to modify the software products, including the documenta - tion,that ASL was the sole owner of IPR of the patents copy rights trademarks modifications and updates,that assessee was not given any of these proprietary rights by ASL, the assessee would be purchasing the license for software products from ASL and would distribute it to end-customers,that the end-customers would pay sub licensing fee to the assessee. If we consider all these facts it becomes clear that the assessee was functioning as a distributor of ASL.There is no doubt that ASL is a tax resident of UK and as per the provisions of India-UK DTAA was eligible to be governed by the tax treaty to the extent it was more beneficial vis- a-vis the provisions of the Act.
5.1.The AO and the FAA had held the assessee was in receipt of royalty as the payments made by it to ASL for the distribution of software products would qualify as royalty in the hands of ASL,as per the Expl.2 to section 9(1)(vi) of the Act as well as the provisions of Article-13 of the India UK tax treaty.On the other hand,the assessee claimed that payment made by it could not be treated as royalty.
5.1.1.Before deciding the issue of Roylaty,we want to hold that ASL did not have any PE in India in terms of Article 5 of the treaty.Article-13 of the treaty defines the term royalty as under :-
(a) 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, including cinematography films or work on films, tape or other means of reproduction for use in connection with radio or television broadcasting, any patent, trade mark, design or model, plan, secret formula or process, or for information concerning industrial, commercial or scientific experience; and
(b) .. ...
From the above it is clear that consideration paid for the use of/ the right to use the copy right of any scientific work etc. would qualify as royalty.In other words if the payment is not for intellectual properties such as copyright, patents trademarks etc.,the payment cannot be treated as royalty.The assessee had acquired right to sell the copy righted article (software products)and not the right to use the copyright.We would like to refer to case of Vinzas Solutions India (P.) Ltd. of Hon'ble Madra High Court (supra), wherein it was held that there 6 Aveva-3506/M/14+6 was a difference between a transaction of sale of a copyrighted article and one of, coyrights itself, that the provisions of section 9(1)(vi) as a whole would stand attracted in case of latter and not former.
Similarly in the case of Dynamic Vertical Software India (P.) Ltd. the Hon'ble Delhi High Court dealt with similar issue.In that matter the assessee was purchasing the software from Microsoft and sold it further in Indian market.The AO treated the payment made by the assessee to Microsoft as royalty and, therefore, came to the conclusion that tax at source was to be deducted.The FAA confirmed the order of the AO,however,the Tribunal deleted the addition.The Hon'ble Court held that by no stretch of imagination it would be termed as "royalty".In the other cases,referred to by the assessee before us,similar view had been taken.
5.1.2.Here,we would also like to refer to Explanation-2 to section 9(1)(vi) wherein royalty has been defined.As per the definition term royalty envisages payment for transfer of all or any rights in intellectual properties( such as copyrights, patents etc.) by the owner of such intellectual property by any other person.It is clear that the Act does not contain a definition of such intellectual properties that are included within the scope of term royalty.
5.1.3.We are aware that a retrospective amendment has been made to Explanation to section 9(1)(vi) of the Act by Finance Act, 2012. Earlier, the explanation read as under :-
Royalty means consideration (including any lump sum consideration but excluding any consideration which would be the income of the recipient chargeable under the head "Capital gains' for....
v) the transfer of all or any rights (including the granting of a license) in respect of any copyright, literary, artistic or scientific work including films or video tapes for use in connection with television or tapes for use in connection with radio broadcasting, but not including consideration for the sale, distribution or exhibition of cinematographic films.
The Finance Act 2012 inserted Explanation 4 to the Section 9(1)(vi) of the Act with retrospe - ctive effect from 1/06/1976. The same is reproduced below:
Explanation 4. - For the removal of doubts, it is hereby clarified that the transfer of all or any rights in respect of any right, property or information includes and has always included transfer of all or any right for use or right to use a computer software (including granting of a license) irrespective of the medium through which such right is transferred. From the amendment it is clear that it covers the transfer of all or any right for use/right to use of computer software including grant of licence.The amendment has been made to the section i.e., to domestic law.But,there is no corresponding change in Tax Treaty.It is also to be remembered that the assessee had already made the payment before the amendment was introduced.At the point of making payment to ASL,the assessee was not liable to deduct tax at source.So,now it cannot be compelled to deduct tax.The basic principal of taxation 7 Aveva-3506/M/14+6 stipulates that nobody is supposed to perform the impossible.We find that in the case of B4U International Holding Ltd.(ITA/3326/Mum/2006)the Tribunal had held as under :-
"17.Coming to the argument of the Learned Departmental Representative that the amendment to the Finance Act, 2012 changes the position, we find that there is no change in the DTAA between India and USA. Thus, the amendment have no affect on our decision."
In the case of Leonhardt Andra (249ITR418) the Hon'ble Calcutta High Court has held as under :-
"royalty was not defined in the Agreement for Avoidance of Double Taxation between India and Germany and was not included within the term "industrial and commercial profits". The term "royalty" not being defined in the Agreement for Avoidance of Double Taxation the definition in the Act would prevail. Therefore, the sums received by the assessee for design and technical services for the construction work were in the nature of royalty within the meaning of the term in section 9(1)(vi) of the Act, which was taxable and did not constitute industrial and commercial profits. The fact that the assessee had no permanent establishment in India was of little consequence".
Similar is the position of Indo-UK DTAA,where term Royalty has not been defined. Considering the above,we are of the opinion that definition of term royalty as appearing in the India UK DTAA apply and amendments made by Finance Act,2012 would have no bearing on the present case.Even the Cir.No.333 of CBDT states that where a DTAA provides for a particular mode of computation of income, the same should be followed irrespective of the provisions of the Act.In the case before us,the DTAA is providing particular mode of computation for royalty.As per the agreement the assessee did not have any right to generate the license key or make copies of license key or was provided access to source code in the software.The ASL software products were developed and marketed by it were in the nature of shrink-wrap-software-products that are also known as off the shelf software products.The assessee had no role in developing a software,it was just distributing the software to the end users.Therefore, we are of the opinion that payment by the assessee to ASL for procuring and distributing copyrighted software on principal to principal basis could not be treated as payment towards royalty.ASL was not having a PE in India, therefore, the assessee was not liable to deduct tax at source as per the provision of section 195 of the Act,hence,for its failure it cannot be treated as A-I-D u/s. 201.Reversing the order of the FAA we decide effective First effective Ground of appeal(Gs.OA-1to3)in favour of the assessee.
6.With regard to grossing up of tax rate(GOA-4),the AR stated that liability to pay tax,as per the agreement,dtd.01.07.2005,was on UK Co.The DR supported the order of the FAA.
As far as grossing of tax-rate is concerned,we want to state that we have already held that assessee was not liable to deduct tax at source,therefore,the issue of grossing up would not arise.Secondly,even if the taxes were to be paid same were to be paid by ASL.But,we have 8 Aveva-3506/M/14+6 already held that as it was not having PE in India so ASL was not supposed to pay tax in India.Fourth ground of appeal is allowed.
7.Ground no.5 deals with levy of interest u/s.201(1A)of the Act.We have already held that the assessee was not liable to deduct tax for the payments made by it.Therefore,there would not be any liability towards payment of interest under section 201(1A).Fifth ground stands allowed.
ITA.s/3507-3510/Mum/2014,AY.s.2008-09 to 2011-12
9.Following our order for the AY.2007-08,we hold that assessee was not liable to deduct tax at source for the above mentioned AY.s also,that it cannot be treated as A-I-D,that the interest charged by the AO u/s.201(1A)was not leviable for these years also.We decide the effective Ground of appeal for all the years in favour of the assessee.
ITA.s/2758 & 2759/Mum/2016,AY.s.2009-10 to 2010-10:
9.As stated earlier,the assessee has filed appeals against the orders,dated 07.12.2015,of the FAA for the above mentioned two AY.s also.Details of dates of filing of returns,retunred incomes,assessed incomes can be summarised as under:
AY. ROI filed on Returned income Assessment date Assessed income 2009-10 30.09.209 7.55crores 21.03.2013 23.28crores 2010-11 15.10.2010 4.73 crores 21.03.2013 16.51 crores The assessee has raised identical grounds of appeal in both the appeals.First two grounds for both the AY.s.are general in nature,hence,are not being adjudicated. ITA/2758/Mum/2016:
10.First effective ground of appeal(GOA-3)is about payment made by the assessee to ASL. The AO and the FAA had held that the payments made by it to ASL was Royalty,as per the provisions of section 9(1)(vi)of the Act.In the earlier part of our order,we have held that payment made by the assessee to its parent company is not Royalty.Following the same,we decide third ground of appeal in favour of the assessee.
11.Ground no.4 is about disallowance made u/s.40(a)(ia)of the Act.During the assessment proceedings,the AO asked the assessee to explain as to why payment made by it to ASL amounting to Rs.15.72 crores should not be disallowed u/s.40(a)(ia)of the Act,as it had not deducted tax at source before making the payment.The FAA,during the appellate proceedings confirmed the order of the AO.
11.1.With regard to failure of the assessee to deduct tax and application of section 40a(ia) of the Act,we would like to mention that in the case of Dynamic Vertical Software India (P.) 9 Aveva-3506/M/14+6 Ltd.,(supra)the Hon'ble Delhi High Court had held the identical issue.In that case the Hon'ble Court had observed that the assessee had purchased a software from Microsoft and had sold in the Indian market,that it acted as a dealer,that payment made by it could not be termed as royalty,that section 40(a)(i) of the Act had no application.Respectfully,following the above judgment,we allow ground no.4.
12.Ground No.5 deals with MAT Credit. Representatives of both sides agreed that it needs verification on part of the AO.Therefore, we are restoring the issue of MAT credit to the file of the AO.The assessee is directed to furnish necessary details before AO.Ground No.5 is allowed in favour of the assessee,in part.
13.Grounds no.6,dealing with levy of interest u/s.234B,is of consequential nature. ITA/2759/Mum/2016:
14.Following our order for the earlier year,we allow grounds no.3 and 4.Grounds no. 6 and 7 dealing with interest levied u/s.234 B and 234C of the Act are of consequential nature.
15.GOA-5 is about erroneous computation of business income.In our opinion,the issue needs verification at the level of AO.Hence,we direct the AO to decide the issue afresh after hearing the assessee.GAO-5 stands partly allowed.
As a result appeals no.3506-10(AY.s.2007-08 to 2011-12)stand allowed and appeals no.2758
-59(AY.s.2009-10 and 2010-11)are partly allowed..
फलतः अपील सं. 3506-10(िन.व. 2007-08 से 2011-12)मंजूर क जाती ह एवं अपील सं.2758-59(िन.व.2009-10 तथा 2010-
11)अंशतः मंजूर क जाती ह .
Order pronounced in the open court on 2nd August, 2017.
आदेश क घोषणा खुले यायालय म दनांक 02 अग त, 2017 को क गई ।
Sd/- Sd/-
( संदीप गोसांई /Sandeep Gosain) (राजे / RAJENDRA)
याियक सद य / JUDICIAL MEMBER लेखा सद य / ACCOUNTANT MEMBER
मुंबई Mumbai; दनांक/Dated : 02.08.2017.
Jv.Sr.PS.
आदेश क ितिलिप अ ेिषत/Copy of the Order forwarded to :
1.Appellant /अपीलाथ 2. Respondent / यथ
3.The concerned CIT(A)/संब अपीलीय आयकर आयु , 4.The concerned , CIT /संब आयकर आयु
5.DR "A " Bench, ITAT, Mumbai /िवभागीय ितिनिध ए खंडपीठ,आ.अ. याया.मुंबई
6.Guard File/गाड! फाईल स यािपत ित //True Copy// आदेशानुसार/ BY ORDER, उप/सहायक पंजीकार Dy./Asst. Registrar आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, मुंबई /ITAT, Mumbai.
10