Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

12. Ld. CIT(A) has mentioned at para 9 at page 94-95 of the appeal order that mere technical note without any supporting documents cannot be an evidence to establish that the appellant started a new undertaking Tulip Connect and there has to be agreement, tender acceptance letter, logistics involved etc. Ld. CIT(A) has further contended that possessing ISP Licenses does not mean that appellant has actually started providing VPN Services, more so when Mumbai, Kolkata ISP Services were not even started as per application dated 31.1.2005 filed to DOT for obtaining VPN license.

25. Ld. CIT(A) has mentioned in para 3(xii)(4) at page 108 of the appeal order that the agreement between the appellant company in M/s E.I. Dupont India P. Ltd. says that the appellant was engaged for providing round-the-clock radio connectivity and related maintenance and supports services and this is the same service which the appellant was providing even during F.Y. 2003-04 and there is no mention of providing internet or VPN Services.

26. Ld. CIT(A) has mentioned in para 3(xii)(5) at page 108 of the appeal order that in the master service agreement dated 21.07.2005 between the appellant and ONGC Videsh Ltd. (217-18 of 5160 to 5165/D/13 & C.O. Nos. 44 & 45/D/2014 appeal order). It is mentioned that DOT has issued Category-A ISP/NLD/ILD Licenses to Tulip whereas as per the copies of the licenses, the appellant had not even got license for providing VPN Service, leave alone NLD/ILD Services and that the appellant made applications seeking license for NLD Service only on 10.01.2006. Further, ld. CIT(A) has relied upon the covering letter enclosed with the application to DOT for NLD services (PB 2477-2484) which states that the company wishes to migrate to NLD Service license from the provisional IP/VPN license issued vide provisional license no. 820-820/05-LR dated 06.10.2005 (PB 2484) and alleges that whether it was a black dated agreement and that there was incorrect mentioning of the status of the affairs while entering into a back dated agreement.

31. Ld.CIT(A) has mentioned at page 111-112 of the appeal order that the claim of the appellant that EDICS business did not require license/permission from DOT is not correct.

32. Ld.CIT(A) has mentioned at page 113-115 of the appeal order that though assessee has confirmed that there were only four ISP licenses issued by DOT but on the basis of enquiries made with DOT, the assessee was served a copy of DOT's letter giving provisional permission for VPN Services which was dated 06.10.2005 and that on the one hand assessee claimed that it was rendering VPN Services immediately on receipt of ISP license & on the other hand in the application submitted before DOT dated 31.10.2005, assessee has mentioned that it has not yet started providing VPN Services, which later on was allowed by separate license dated 06.10.2005.

33. Ld. CIT(A) has mentioned at page 127, 128 of the appeal order that though the assessee has claimed that a new undertaking by the name tulip connect was started in F.Y. 2004-05 for providing VPN Services but DOT letter shows that the 5160 to 5165/D/13 & C.O. Nos. 44 & 45/D/2014 assessee was given provisional approval on 06.10.2005 to enable providing VPN Services which shows that the appellant could have started VPN Services only in F.Y. 2005-06 and this fact is corroborated from director's report for F.Y. 2005- 06, which mentions that the company has launched its wireless based VPN Services branded as Tulip Connect and that assessee was already offering VPN Services to its customers since 1999-2000 using traditional technologies and that the assessee has already taken the lease lines from MTNL/BSNL from A.Y. 2000-01.