Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Chandigarh
Mobisoft Telesolutions Private ... vs Assessee on 3 July, 2015
1
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
CHANDIGARH BENCHES, CHANDIGARH
BEFORE SHR I BHAVNESH SAINI, JUDIC IAL MEMBER AND
SHRI T.R. SOOD, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER
ITA No. 1217/Chd/2012
Assessment Year: 2009-10
Mobisoft Telesolutions Private Limited, Vs. The AC IT, Circle 4(1),
Chandigarh Chandigarh
PAN No. AAACII3573P
&
ITA No. 1274/Chd/2012
Assessment Year: 2009-10
The AC IT, Circle 4(1), Vs. Mobisoft Telesolutions Private Limited,
Chandigarh Chandigarh
PAN No. AAACII3573P
(Appellant) (Respondent)
Appellant By : Shri Rohit Goyal
Respondent By : Shri Manjit Singh
Date of hearing : 30.06.2015
Date of Pronouncement : 03/07/2015
ORDER
PER T.R.SOOD, A.M.
The appeals by the assessee and Revenue are directed against the order dated 25.09.2012 of C IT(A), Chandigarh.
2. First we shall deal with the appeal of assessee in ITA No. 1217/Chd/2012 wherein following grounds have been raised.
1. That the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and facts in confirming the additions of Rs. 17,97,785/- on account of royalty paid to Director holding the same to be capital expenditure.
22. That Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and facts in confirming the disallowance of Rs. 2,03,78,978/- treating the usage charges paid to Copy Right Holders and debited as Copy Right Expenses, as Capital Expenses.
3. That Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and facts in making an adhoc disallowance of 20% out of GPRS/SMS testing expenses.
3. After hearing both the parties we find that during assessment proceedings the Assessing Officer noticed that assessee has paid an amount of Rs. 17,97,858/-
as royalt y to Director Shri Taron Mohan. After some enquiries from assessee this amount was disallowed following the order for assessment year 2008-09.
4. On appeal following the earlier order disallowance was confirmed.
5. Before us Ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that in earlier years this disallowance was deleted by the Tribunal in assessee's own case in ITA No. 684, 1206 & 1207/Chd/2011.
6. On the other hand Ld. DR strongl y supported the impugned order.
7. After considering the rival submissions we find that identical issue was adjudicated by the Tribunal in assessee's own case for assessment year 2006-07, 2007-08, 2008-09 vide paras 10 to 13 which are as under:-
"10 We have considered the rival submissions carefully in the light of material on record and paper book filed by the assessee. We find that Shri Tarun Mohan was running a proprietary concern known as Phoneytunes.com which was engaged in the business of providing value added telecom services to various mobile companies for ring tones/images/wall papers etc. Phoneytunes.com had entered into an agreement with various music companies like Sound Buzz India, Phone Graphic, Cuber Music Ltd etc. Through these agreements Phoneytunes. Com had acquired rights of various music companies and also the right to make a ring tone on the basis of such songs which could be 3 provided to an individual mobile user through cellular operating companies. Phoneytones.com was required to pay some royalty to such music company and in turn was charging money from cellular company. This shows why phoneygues.com was paying charges to outsiders. We further find that said mobile company i.e. cellular company would collect from the customers for down loading ring tone and out of above charges some fees was paid to the phoneytunes.com. Therefore the Assessing officer and the Ld. CIT(A) are not right that phonetunes.com has not invented anything. Phoneytones.com had invented the technology through which ring tones can be created of various filmy songs on the basis of above rights obtained from music companies and such ring tones can be down loaded by the individual mobile user. This business was being done by phoneytunes.com as a proprietary concern of Tarun Mohan. For this phoneytunes.com had obtained copy right from the Registrar of Copy Rights, New Delhi and copy of certificate has been placed at page 106 which clearly shows that copy rights /certificate of trade mark was registered in the name of Tarun Mohan. It is further shown that this is a case under class no. 42 and the services have been described as "software services towards mobile application, content and platforms included in class 42."
11 In 2003 it was decided to sell the business of phonetunes.com to a company known as ITIDA Cad Services Pvt Ltd. This company is also owned by a family member of Tarun Mohan. The Assessing officer as well as the Ld. CIT(A) has refused to recognize the sale agreement because I has been signed by Tarun Mohan as proprietor of phoneytunes.com on one side and on the other side again by Shri Tarun Mohan as Director of ITIDA Cad Services Pvt Ltd. According to authorities below same person cannot enter into an agreement with himself. We find that this is not correct. Every company under Companies Act has separate legal entity known as juristic entity. In other words, the company has a separate entity crated by the law and the company can deal on its behalf with any one. It can purchase or sell the property, register the property in its own name and carry on any business. Even u/s 2(31) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 which defines a person the company is recognized as a separate person different from individual. In fact a particular person can have different capacities say as an individual or as a partner or as a Director in a company. In the case before us, Shri Tarun Mohan has clearly acted into two capacities namely as individual being proprietor of phoneytunes.com and at the same time his second capacity is on behalf of ITIDA Cad Services Pvt Ltd as an director of that company. There is nothing illegal about this. As per the copy of business agreement all the fixed assets and other assets were required to be taken over by the assessee-company from phoneytunes.com. Authorities below have observed that no 4 asset has been taken over which is not correct. Copies of balance sheet have been filed for phoneytunes.com as well as ITIDA Cad Services Pvt Ltd before us. Balance sheet of phoneytunes.com clearly show that total assets were for Rs. 27,50,583/- as on 31.3.2003. Perusal of balance sheet of ITIDA Cad services Pvt Ltd clearly show that these assets have been added in the fixed assets schedule as well as current assets have been added in the respective heads. In fact note No. 2 to the accounts reads as under:
"Acquisition of running business of phoneytunes.com During the year, the company entered into an agreement with one of its director, Tarun Mohan to acquire the business of his Sole Proprietary concern running in the name and style of phoneytunes.com. All assets and liabilities of the concern were acquired at the book value as on Ist April, 2003. As per the agreement for the takeover of the firm, the company has to pay royalty after 2 years of takeover at scaling down slabs of 5% to 3% of gross revenue receipts under the relevant business:
The book value at which the assets and liabilities were acquired, are as follows:
Assets Amount (Rs.)
Fixed assts 530,788
Cash and bank balance 372,014
Sundry debtors 1542,533
Other current assts 305,247
2750,582
Less liabilities
Account payable 328,945
Sundry creditors & advances 1840,406
2169,351
Balance due to proprietor 581,231
As a result, there does not arise any goodwill or capital reserve."
Above clearly show that these assets and liabilities have been taken over by the assessee-company.
12 As seen above phoneytunes.com had invented technology of creating ring tones and it can be down loaded by individual 5 mobile user and for this invention the company has agreed to pay a royalty @ 2%. The Revenue has rejected this contention in the absence of any documentary evidence. It has to be appreciated that in case of intellectual property, it is not necessary that there would be a documentary evidence because invention is a technology and stored in the computer. The last allegation of revenue is that this is a colourable device used by the assessee to reduce the profits. We have already seen that this is not a colorable device but a pure and simple transaction through which the business of phoneytunes.com have been sold to the assessee- company and the assessee-company has agreed further to give royalty @ 2%. Secondly it is very important that the assessee- company and Tarun Mohan have duly paid the taxes on full amts received against royalty and have not been set off against any losses etc. Page 108 of paper book gives chart of comparative tax paid by the assessee-company and Tarun Mohan:
Ay Gross Net Net Tax Effectiv Royalt Salary Tarun Tax Effectiv receipts profit taxable liabilit e rate y @ to Mohan's liabilit e rate before income y of tax 2% to Tarun taxable y of tax tax Tarun Mohan income Mohan 2006 10193325 19161981 1603531 550219 34.31 203177 240000 3149877 100414 31.88 -07 2 0 6 4 0 0 6 10161741 17999359 2016967 683739 33.90 192007 300000 5828500 190577 32.70 2007 2 8 0 7 7 0 includin 3
-08 g royalty) 2008 14597891 18774204 1662541 565097 33.99 222155 480000 1038799 349791 33.67
-09 3 0 7 3 0 0 (-do) 4 Above clearly show that Tarun Mohan was paying taxes at the highest slab which is chargeable to tax paid by the assessee- company and there is no revenue loss at all.
13 In view of above discussion it is absolutely clear that the assessee-company has paid royalty for the particular invention which belonged to phoneytunes.com and therefore in our opinion, the claim for payment of royalty deserves to be allowed. Therefore we set aside the order of Ld. CIT(A) and direct the Assessing officer to allow claim for royalty."
Following the above, we decide this issue in favour of the assessee.
8. Ground No.2: After hearing both the parties we find that during assessment proceedings the Assessing Officer noticed that assessee has debited a sum of Rs.
2,71,71,970/- on account of Copyright fees. The Assessing Officer was of the opinion that these expenses were of capital nature because copyright come within 6 the purview of intangible assets. The assessee was asked to justify the claim. In response, it was stated as under:-
"Mast er Cop yrights " and "intell ectu al propert y rights"
and "software" of the products li ke s ongs, images. Vid eo Clips, Games, et c. are held b y th e owners l ike Musi c Compani es, Fil m Pr oducers, and Ga me develop ers, et c.
Compan y ta kes ri ghts- on payment basis- to use thes e "Mast er Cop yrights " and "in tell ectual propert y rights " fo r development of valu e add ed s er vi ces ( VAS) for th e t el cos.
Aft er ta king rights for Songs, Images, Vid eo Clips, Ga mes , et c. fro m the origi nal Copyright owners like Music Companies, Film Producers, and Game developers, et c. th e compan y formats and conver ts th es e in to the f orm as p er th e siz e and type of various mobile instruments in use &. requirements of the telcos.
Thes e s er vi ces for whi ch th e Co mpany takes
"cop yrights" and "intell ectual prop ert y rights" ar e not
usable on the mobile t el ephones a s it is. These ar e
formatted and converted into Value Added Downloaded Services (VAS) like Ring Ton es, Tru e Tones, Vi deo, MP3, Th emes , Games, Color ed Logo, Wallpaper, Pi ctur e Messag e, Ani mated Wallpap er, Full Songs, Musi c Messaging, Dial a Song and Caller Ri ng Back Tun es ( CRBT)/ Hel lo Tunes b y the compan y for u se in Mobil e T el ephone Ser vi ces. We provid e all th es e value add ed s er vi ces to cellular s er vi c e provid ers T el cos li ke Airt el , Id ea, Vo dafone, BS NL, Tat a, and Relian ce, et c., on payment basis, who in turn pro vid e thes e to th eir mobil e subs crib ers. "Mas ter Cop yrights" and "intel lectual rights " holders g et cop yrights fee from th e co mpany bas ed on successful do wnloa d hits as r eport ed & confir med by various tel cos.
Thes e mobil e subs cribers made th e pa yments to the t el co s, whi ch is shared b y th em with us based on our cont en t ser vi ce and th e r evenu e shar e plan. We pa y cop yrights f ee to th e original cop yright o wn ers for util izing th eir 7 cont ents. So th e payment for sof tware and cop yright s dep ends on use of thes e b y telcos . So it is not one time payment but is- lin ked to revenu e b ei ng gen erat ed an d accordingl y charged to Profit & Loss Account."
9. The Assessing Officer was not satisfied with the above repl y and treated the above expenses as capital expenditure and allowed depreciation @ 25%. In this background the balance sum of Rs. 2,03,78,978/- was disallowed
10. On appeal, submissions made before the Assessing Officer were reiterated and some case laws were also relied. The Ld. C IT(A) after considering the submissions decided the issue against the assessee vide para 5.3 which is as under:-
"5.3 I have considered the submission of the Ld. Counsel. The explanation of the appellant is that after taking rights for songs, images, video clips, games, etc. from, the original copyrights owners like music companies, film producers and game developers etc. the company formats and converts these into the format to make it compatible with the size and type of various mobile instruments in use and requirements of the telecos and so the services, for which the company takes "Copyrights" and "Intellectual Property Rights" as the music, images etc, are not usable on the mobile phones in the original format. This explanation of the appellant that since the material for which the copyrights is taken cannot be used in the original format and that the copyrights holders get the fee based on successful download hits and so the amount paid for copyrights should be allowed as revenue expenditure is not acceptable because once the appellant has taken the copyrights for the songs, images, video clips, games etc, no other person is entitled to use them. The appellant has acquired an asset, the benefit of which is available to the 8 appellant for all times to come. Where the expenditure results in a benefit of enduring nature, the expenditure has to be treated as capital expenditure. The various decisions quoted by the Ld. Counsel pertain to the assessment years prior to insertion of new Appendix-1 according to which the copyrights are allo w ed depreciation @ 25 %. In fact, by pre scribing a p articular rate of deprecia tion for the ass et in question, the legislature has made it ex plicitly clear that the expenditure on a cquiring such an asset is of cap ital nature. Grou nd of appeal N o. 4 take n by the appellant is accordingly dismissed an d the disallowance ma de by the Assessing Officer is upheld."
11. Before us, Ld. Counsel for the assessee reiterated the submissions made before Assessing Officer and C IT(A). He further argued vehementl y that assessee was merel y using the Copyright and has not become the owner of the copyright and in this regard he referred to the copy of agreement filed at pages 27 to 41 of the paper book. He also relied on the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT Vs. IAEC (Pumps) Ltd. 232 ITR 316 (SC) and Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT Vs. V.R.V. Breweries and Bottling Industries Ltd. 347 ITR 249 (Delhi)
12. On the other hand Ld. DR strongl y relied on the order of Assessing Officer and CIT(A).
13. We have considered the rival submissions and we find force in the submissions of Ld. Counsel for the assessee. The assessee has merel y acquired right to use the copyright. The perusal of the agreement with M/s Phonographic Performance Ltd shows that license has been granted only for usage of the copyright. Part of this agreement reads as under:-
9"GRANT OF LICENSE 2.1 The Licensor grants to the Licensee and its authorized representative and/or agents during the Term, throughout the Territory, a non-exclusive, non transferable license for the use of Licensed Works for the sole purpose of providing the Services as mentioned in this Agreement:
2.1.1 to use, reproduce, modify, edit, compile, and/or adapt the Licensed Works so as, and only to the extent necessary, to create Ring Tones; this right has been temporarily granted until such time that the copyright owners are not making available the Licensed Works for use as ringtones.
2.1.2 to copy the Ring Tones to Licensee's wholly owned or controlled secure servers located at the named premises within the Territory and/or in the US and / or computer servers of the Sub-Licensees / partners ("Computer Servers");
2.1.3 to Download or transmit the Ring Tones to Licensee's or the Sub-Licensee's End-Users who have subscribed to and paid or agreed to pay for such services ("Subscribers");
2.1.4 to prepare and publicly perform excerpts and samples of the Licensed Works of duration not exceeding fifteen(15) seconds for monophonic format and thirty(30) seconds for polyphonic format, solely for promotional purposes on the Licensee's and the Sub-Licence's' website/IVR/WAP or such other method or sampling.
2.1.5 to use the track title/title of the Licensed Works, names of the Licensors' members represented on the Licensed Works and any other related material, for the purpose of identifying the Licensed Works on the Service.
PROVIDED that:-
2.1.6.1 each Ring Tone can be created from only one Licensed Work;
2.1.6.2 each Ring Tone cannot exceed thirty(30) seconds in monophonic format and forty five (45) seconds in polyphonic format;
2.1.6.3 the Ring Tones shall not be copied or stored by any other third party onto whatever media except onto the a. Licensee's/Sub Licensee Computer Servers b. End Users Cellular phone, Hand held Devices or such wireless devices 10 2.1.6.4 the Licensee shall not itself or indirectly through any other person in respect of any copying pursuant to this Agreement segue, mix or re-mix or overlap, edit, change or otherwise manipulate the sounds of any Licensed Works, other than as otherwise authorized herein;
2.1.6.5 the substantial identity of any Licensed Work or relevant part thereof shall not be changed in the corresponding Ring Tone;
2.1.6.6 Licensee shall not incorporate any voice-over of any kind or interview or other commentary during the playing of any Licensed Works;
2.1.6.7 any use by Licensee of the Ring Tones for a purpose other than in furtherance of the Licensee's Service(s) shall be subject to separate negotiation and agreement between the Parties.
2.2 Notwithstanding the rights granted under 2.1.1, 2.1.2 & 2.1.3 the Licensor reserves the right to store the Licensed Works(as Ring Tones)at its wholly owned and fully controlled computer servers and make it available to the Licensee to be distributed to its End-Users.
14. The above clearl y shows that license was onl y for usage of copyright held by the licensor. The assessee has not become the owner of the license. Therefore, clearl y the payment is of Revenue nature. The Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of C IT Vs. V.R.V. Breweries and Bottling Industries Ltd (supra) after examining the reasonableness of expenditure on acquisition of copyright has held as under:-
"Held, dismissing the appeal, that the expenditure incurred by the assessee was neither for acquisition of any patents or copyrights. Under the agreement what the assessee acquired was the use of the brand names and the trademarks of SWCL. The assessee acquired no right to any secret process or formula or even any right, title and interest in the trade marks and brands under which the IMFL products were sold. As a matter of fact the assessee's rights were co-terminus with the 11 subsistence of the agreement. There was no finding recorded by the Assessing Officer that SWCL had acquired substantial interests, i.e., 20 per cent. or more of the share capital with attending voting rights, whether directly or beneficially. Hence, section 40A(2)(a) was not applicable. Both the Commissioner (Appeals) and the Tribunal had accepted the explanation given by the assessee with regard to difference in payment of bottling charges vis-a-vis B and the assessee. The payments made as royalty were deductible.
Similarl y the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT Vs. IAEC (Pumps) Ltd.
(supra) has disallowed the expenditure.
"Under an agreement entered into by the assessee with a foreign company the assessee was granted a licence to use its patents and designs exclusively in India. The agreement was for a duration of 10 years with the parties having the option to extend or renew the agreement. The foreign company undertook not to surrender its patents without the consent of the assessee and to make available to the assessee any improvements, modifications and additions to designs. It had also undertaken to enable the assessee to defend any counterfeit by others. The assessee was not to disclose to third parties any of the documents made available by the foreign company to the assessee without having received a written authorisation from the foreign company. The High Court held that these features of the agreement clearly established that what was obtained by the assessee was only a licence and what was paid by the assessee to the foreign company was only a licence fee and not the price for acquisition of any capital asset. On appeal by the Department to the Supreme Court:
Held, affirming the decision of the High Court, that the High Court had applied the proper principles of law and had rightly held that the expenditure incurred by the assessee was only revenue expenditure."
15. From the above it becomes absolutel y clear that once license is taken onl y for usage of copyright then such payments would constitute Revenue expenditure.
It would have become capital expenditure if the assessee has purchased the copyright on outright basis without any further payment which is not the case 12 before us. Therefore, we set aside the order of Ld. CIT(A) and hold that copyright of payments are of Revenue nature.
16. Ground No.3 : After hearing both the parties we find that during assessment proceedings the Assessing Officer noticed that assessee has claimed a sum of Rs.
3,91,651/- on account of GRRS/SMS testing. Since sufficient documentary evidence was not filed, the Assessing Officer disallowed 20% of the expenses. The order of the Assessing Officer had been confirmed by Ld. C IT(A).
17. Before us Ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that expenditure were incurred by way of payment to staff for testing of ring tones.
18. On the other hand Ld. DR supported the order of Ld. C IT(A).
19. After considering the rival submissions we find since no evidence was furnished before Assessing Officer or even before us, therefore, estimated 20% disallowance is justified.
20. In the result appeal of the assessee is partly allowed.
ITA No. 1274/Chd/2010 ;21. In this appeal Revenue has raised the following grounds:-
1. That learned CIT(A) has erred in law and facts in confirming the additions of Rs. 17,97,785/- on account of royalty paid to Director holding the same to be Capital Expenditure.
2. That learned CIT(A) has erred in law and facts in confirming the disallowance of Rs. 2,03,78,978/- treating the usage charges paid to Copy Right Holders and debited as Copy Right Expenses, as Capital Expenses.13
3. That learned CIT(A) has erred in law and facts in making an adhoc disallowance of 20% out of GPRS / SMS testing expenses.
22. After hearing both the parties we find that during assessment proceedings the Assessing Officer noticed that assessee has claimed depreciation @ 60% on computers. Further, perusal of the record depicted that depreciation on computer Kiosk was also claimed @ 60%. The Assessing Officer was of the opinion that Kisoks is not computer because it is basicall y a steel frame in which a personal computer is housed and, therefore, would fall in the category of furniture.
Accordingl y, depreciation on Kisoks portion was restricted to 10%.
23. On appeal, it was mainl y submitted as under:-
"The learned assessing officer in para 3 of the order, himself says that 60% depredation is allowed only on computer and computer software but has ignored definition given by assessee. The definition given is complete definition.
Computer kiosk is assembly of personal computer with touch screen, blue tooth & other computer parts loaded with software, house in a steel frame making it secure and portable for down loading various value added services like ring tones, caller ring back tone, wall papers, video etc. The learned assessing officer has ignored the whole definition and just picked up the word steel frame to make the additions.
If we look into detail the steel frame in which the system is fitted is just 5% of the total cost of the kiosk and is fitted just for safety and placement purposes. These kiosk are placed at public places like railway stations, cinema halls, malls and market places. The steel frame is made just to protect it from damage and placement becomes easier. The frame does not change the nomenclature of the system.
The learned assessing officer is clearly indicating that assesses is not denied the depreciation on computer but depreciation cannot be allowed on kiosk at the same rate, but has failed to separate the cost of the kiosk (steel frame).
The detail given on page 3 of the assessment order of the interactive kiosk also gives component specification which is the same as given in the definition.14
Otherwise also if we look into Income Tax rule depreciation schedule part A tangible assets sub point U the word kiosk is not mentioned in furniture and fittings detail.
We are of the view that the learned assessing officer has just erred in judgement from the definition given and has disallowed depredation on computer kiosk by considering it furniture & fittings which unjustified and wrong."
24. On the basis of above submissions the Ld. C IT(A) was of the opinion that Kiosks was part of the computer and, therefore, assessee was entitled to depreciation @ 60%.
25. Before us, Ld. DR submitted that Kiosks is merel y steel frame and cannot be called part of the computer and, therefore, Assessing Officer was right in allwiong 10% depreciation.
26. On the other hand Ld. Counsel reiterated the submissions made before CIT(A) and supported the impugned order.
27. After considering the rival submissions we find force in the submissions of Ld. Counsel for the assessee because computer Kiosks is an assembl y of computer with touch screen, Bluetooth and other computer parts loaded with software. In this background Ld. CIT(A) has correctl y held the same to be part of the computer, and therefore, we find nothing wrong with the order of Ld. C IT(A)a nd confirm the same.
28. Ground No.3 : After hearing both the parties we find that on the similar logic, depreciation on IVR card was also claimed @ 60% but the same has been allowed by the Assessing Officer @ 15% by holding that same would fall under the head 'plant and machinery'.
1529. On appeal before C IT(A), it was submitted as under:-
"IVR card is a device loaded with software technology that allows the computer to interact with humans through the voice and DTMF keypad inputs. The learned assessing officer has not given any reason for disallowing the depreciation @ 60% and has allowed @1 5% by covering it in the head Plant & Machinery.
IVR card is also fitted into the computer for voice replying to customer calls automatically and works with specific software. The Ld. Assessing Officer has referred in the first point of computer Kiosk that computer software is allowed depreciation @ 60% but here disallowed the same. The definition of computer in part A tangible assets sub clause 5 defines it " computer including computer software and computer software means any computer programme recorded on any disc, tape perforated media or other information storage device.
IVR card is device fitted into computer with software to answer the customer with software to answer the customer's calls automatically. Hence, the Ld. Assessing Officer is not justified in disallowing the depreciation of@ 60% on IVR card. "
30. The Ld. CIT(A) in view of the above submissions allowed the depreciation @ 60%.
31. Before us, Ld. DR supported the order of Assessing Officer.
32. On the other hand Ld. counsel for the assessee reiterated the submissions made before C IT(A).
33. After examining the rival submissions we find that once IVR card is loaded with software which allows the computer to interact with humans through the voice and DTMF, keypads inputs. This technical jargon has not been denied by the Revenue. Once IVR card is interacting with the humans through software 16 obviousl y the same would form part of the computer and hence entitled for 60% depreciation. Therefore, we find nothing wrong with the order of Ld. C IT(A) and we confirm the same.
34. In the result appeal of the Revenue is dismissed.
Order pronounced in the open Court on 03/07/2015.
Sd/- Sd/- (BHAVNESH SAINI) (T.R. SOOD) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Dated 03 r d Jul y, 2015 Rkk Copy to: 1. The Appellant 2. The Respondent 3. The CIT 4. The CIT(A) 5. The DR