Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, PUNE BENCH “C”, PUNE
Before: SHRI ANIL CHATURVEDI, AM & SHRI S.S. VISWANETHRA RAVI, JM
आदेश / ORDER PER ANIL CHATURVEDI, AM :
This appeal filed by the assessee is emanating out of the order of Asst.Commissioner of Income Tax (International Taxation) – 2, Pune dated 22.07.2019 for the assessment year 2016-17.
The relevant facts as culled out from the material on record are as under :-
Sandvik Tooling Sverige AB now known as Sandvik Marching Solutions AB is a non-resident (Foreign) company incorporated in
Sweden. Assessee electronically filed its return of income for A.Y.
2016-17 on 30.11.2016 declaring total taxable income at
Rs.16,68,150/-. The case was selected for scrutiny and thereafter
notices u/s 143(2) and 142(1) of the Act along with questionnaire were
issued to the assessee. On perusal of the details in return of income
furnished, it was noticed that assessee had received Rs.59,66,099/-
from Sandvik Asia Private Limited (SAPL) on account of IT support
services which are receipts for providing restricted access to in house
developed production systems such as GSS and related applications.
Apart from the aforesaid receipts, assessee had also received licence
fee, and technical fee which were offered to tax at 10% including
receipts of exports and raw-materials. The assessee was thereafter
asked to show cause as to why the total receipts should not be
considered as taxable income of the assessee, to which assessee made
the submissions inter-alia contending that the IT support service fee is
not taxable in India as per the provisions of Double Taxation Avoidance
Agreement (DTAA) between India and Sweden. The submissions made
by the assessee were not found acceptable to the AO. AO was of the
view that the payments received by the assessee constitute ‘Royalty’
and Fee for Technical Services (FTS) as per Sec.9(1)(vi) and Sec.9(1)(vii)
of the Act, respectively, as well as the Article 12(3) of DTAA between
India and Sweden. He was further of the view that the services
provided by the assessee were technical in nature and were taxable as
FTS. He therefore concluded that payment received by the assessee for
supply of Software and support services constituting Royalty and FTS
in terms of DTAA as well. He also noted that Dispute Resolution
Panel (DRP) vide order dated 29.09.2016 for A.Y. 2013-14 in assessee’s
own case had given a finding regarding IT support services. He noted
that the facts involved in the year under consideration are similar to
that of earlier years and therefore the DRP directions are also
applicable to the year under consideration. He accordingly held that IT
support services received from Sandvik Asia Private Limited are to be
assessable to tax as ‘Royalty’ at 10%. He accordingly passed draft
assessment order u/s 144C r.w.s. 143(3) of the Act vide order
dt.03.10.2018 and proposed the total assessed income at
Rs.76,34,241/-. Aggrieved by the draft assessment order of AO dated
03.10.2018, assessee carried the matter before DRP who vide
directions issued u/s 144C(5) of the At dated 27.06.2019 held that the
licence fee for granting user access to software application is to be
considered as ‘Royalty’. It further held that the maintenance service to
production system i.e., GSS to SAPL is a connected IT support service
and therefore amounts to taxable as FTS. Pursuant to the directions of
DRP, AO passed order u/s 144(3) r.w.s. 144C(13) of the Act vide order
dated 22.07.2019 determining the total taxable income at
Rs.76,34,249/-. Aggrieved by the order of AO, assessee is now in
appeal and has raised the following grounds :
“1. Ground 1.
On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Learned Dispute Resolution Panel ('Ld. DRP') and the Learned Assessing Officer ('Ld, AO') have erred in not considering the favourable order of the Hon'ble ITAT for AY 2010-11, 2011-12 and 2013-14 in appellant's own case pertaining to the taxability of receipts toward IT support services.
It is prayed that, the Hon'ble ITAT's order is binding on the Ld. AO and hence, the entire addition made by the Ld. AO and confirmed by the Ld. DRP, be deleted.
Ground 2
On the facts and circumstances of the case, and in law, the Ld. DRP has erred in confirming the action of the Ld. AO in taxing the receipts of INR 33,34,612 towards service costs for upgradation of CADI CAM and Zeiss application provided to the tooling division of Sandvik Asia Private Limited ('SAPL') in India as Royalty within the meaning of Article 12 of the India-Sweden Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement ('DTAA').
It is prayed that the addition made by the Ld. AO and confirmed by the Ld. DRP, be deleted.
Ground 3
On the facts and circumstances of the case, and in law, the Ld. DRP has erred in confirming the action of Ld. AO in taxing the receipts of INR 26,31,487 towards provision of maintenance services for production system (GSS) to the tooling division of SAPL, as Fees for Technical Services ('FTS') within the meaning of Article 12 of the India- Sweden DTAA read with India- Portugal DTAA (via protocol).
It is prayed that the addition made by the Ld. AO and confirmed by the Ld. DRP, be deleted.
Before us, at the outset, Ld.A.R. submitted that the issue in
ground No.1 is general in nature and therefore requires no
adjudication.
Grounds 2 and 3 being inter-connected are considered together.
With respect to ground Nos.2 and 3, Ld.A.R. submitted that
identical issue arose in assessee’s own case for earlier years before the
Tribunal for A.Ys. 2010-11, 2011-12, 2013-14 and 2014-15 wherein
the Tribunal has decided the issue in favour of the assessee. He placed
on record the copy of the aforesaid said orders. He pointed to the
relevant findings of the order of the Tribunal and submitted that since
the facts of the case for the year under consideration are identical to
that of earlier years, following the order of Tribunal in earlier years, the
issue be decided in assessee’s favour. Ld. D.R. on the other hand,
supported the order of lower authorities.
We have heard the rival submissions and perused the material on
record. The issue in the present appeal is with respect to taxability of
amount received by the assessee from Sandvik Asia Private Limited. It
is an undisputed fact that during the year under consideration
assessee had received fees towards granting user access to software
application and for providing IT support from SAPL. Before us, both
the parties have admitted that the facts of the case in the year under
consideration are identical to that of assessee’s own case in A.Ys 2010-
11, 2011-12, 2013-14 and 2014-15. We find that the Co-ordinate
Bench of the Tribunal while deciding the issue on identical facts in
assessee’s own case in A.Y. 2014-15 held that the payments received by
assessee from SAPL cannot be considered to be as Royalty or FTS and
not taxable in India. The relevant observations are as under :
“4. We have heard both the sides and gone through the relevant material on record. Firstly, we will examine the taxability of the amount under the Act. The claim of the assessee is that the amount received by it from SAPL for allowing limited access to CAD/CAM is a consideration for copyrighted article and not use of a copyright. In this regard, it is observed that the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in DIT Vs. Infrasoft Ltd. (2014) 264 CTR 329 (Delhi) considered almost similar issue in which consideration was received by the assessee on grant of licence for use of software. The AO held that the software was licensed and not sold in as much as the copyright of the software remained with the assessee which simply allowed the use of copyright to the person making payment to it. In view of the fact that the assessee authorized use of the copyright of the software to customers in India, which was a patented software, he held that the consideration for allowing the use of such patented software fell within the definition of ‘Royalty’ u/s. 9(1)(vi) of the Act. No relief was allowed in the first appeal. However, the Tribunal held that the amount received by the assessee under the licence agreement for allowing the use of the software was not Royalty either under the Act or under the DTAA. The Revenue approached the Hon’ble High Court, which held that the consideration received by the assessee for grant of licence for use of software was not taxable as ‘Royalty’ within the meaning of Article 12(3) to the DTAA between India and USA and hence accepted the assessee’s claim on the basis of the relevant DTAA.
Au contraire, the Hon’ble Karnataka High Court in CIT Vs. Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd. (2012) 345 ITR 494 (Kar.) has held that import of shrink wrapped software/off-the-shelf software from non-resident company under software licence agreement, whereby a licence is granted to the assessee for taking copy of the software, store the same in the hard disk of the designated computer and to take a back up copy while the ownership of the copyright continues to vest in the supplier, is nothing but Royalty under the provisions of section 9(1)(vi) of the Act as well as under Article 12 of the concerned DTAA. The Hon’ble Delhi High Court in Infrasoft (supra) recorded its dissent with the decision in Samsung (supra) and the matter is now sub-judice before the Hon’ble Supreme Court.
On a comparative analysis of the judgments of the Hon’ble Delhi and the Hon’ble Karnataka High Court, it transpires that the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in Infrasoft (supra) examined the taxability of the amount received by the assessee on the touchstone of the provisions of the DTAA and held the same to be not constituting Royalty. It did not specifically examine the position under the Act. However, in para 63, it did mention
that: `What is thus required to be examined is whether income of the Assessee is royalty income as covered by Article 12 of the DTAA if not then the same would be taxable as business income as covered by the provisions of Article 7 of the DTAA.’ A close reading of the above para fairly reveals that the Hon’ble High Court held, in principle, that if the income is not royalty, then it would be taxable as a business income. Since it held that the amount in question did not constitute Royalty within the relevant DTAA, it laid down in para 95 that : `We have not examined the effect of the subsequent amendment to section 9 (1)(vi) of the Act and also whether the amount received for use of software would be royalty in terms thereof for the reason that the Assessee is covered by the DTAA, the provisions of which are more beneficial.’ In the oppugnation, the Hon’ble Karnataka High Court in Samsung (supra) has held: `that the payment would constitute 'royalty' … even as per the provisions of s. 9(1)(vi).’
It, therefore, clearly emerges that a common thread which runs through both the above judgments is that the consideration is otherwise not exempt from tax under the Act. The dispute is only as to whether it is Business income or Royalty income under the Act. Whereas the Hon’ble Karnataka High Court held consideration for use of software as Royalty income u/s 9(1)(vi), the Hon’ble Delhi High Court had not examined the effect of the subsequent amendment to section 9 (1)(vi) of the Act.
At this juncture, it is pertinent to note that the Finance Act, 2012 has carried out an amendment to section 9(1)(vi) dealing with `income by way of royalty’ by means of insertion of Expl. 4 w.r.e.f. 1.6.1976, which reads as under: -
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 licence) irrespective of the medium through which such right is transferred.
It is evident from a bare perusal of the Explanation 4, which has been inserted with retrospective effect from 01-06-1976, 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 license. With this amendment, the legislature has made it overt and that too with retrospective effect that any consideration for the use or right to use of computer software in any form including a mere granting of a license will be considered as ‘Royalty’ in the hands of recipient u/s.9(1)(vi) of the Act. The hitherto controversy on the taxability of the income, as Business income or Royalty income, from allowing the use of computer software in any form under the Act has been put to rest by the legislature by clearly roping it within the purview of u/s 9(1)(vi) of the Act. In view of this retrospective amendment carried out to section 9(1)(vi) also covering the year under consideration, it is axiomatic that the amount in question is chargeable to tax under the Act as Royalty income in the hands of the non-resident.
Section 90(1) of the Act provides that the Central Government may enter into an agreement with the Government of any other country for the granting of relief of tax in respect of income on which tax has been paid in two different tax jurisdictions. Sub-section (2) of section 90 unequivocally provides that where the Central Government has entered into an agreement with the Government of any country outside India under sub-section (1) for granting relief of tax or for 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’. Crux of the sub-section (2) is that where a DTAA has been entered into with another country, then the provisions of the Act shall apply only if they are more beneficial to the assessee. In simple words, if there is a conflict between the provisions under the Act and the DTAA, the assessee will be subjected to the more beneficial provision out of the two. If the provision of the Act on a particular issue is more beneficial to the assessee vis-a-vis that in the DTAA, then such provision of the Act shall apply and vice versa. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT v. P.V.A.L. Kulandagan Chettiar (2004) 267 ITR 654 (SC) has held that the provisions of sections 4 and 5 are subject to the contrary provision, if any, in DTAA. Such provisions of a DTAA shall prevail over the Act and work as an exception to or modification of sections 4 and 5. Similar view has been taken by the Hon’ble jurisdictional High Court in CIT v. Siemens Aktiongesellschaft (2009) 310 ITR 320 (Bom.). In the light of the above discussion, it becomes vivid that if the provisions of the Treaty are more beneficial to the assessee vis-a- vis its counterpart in the Act, then the assessee shall be entitled to be ruled by the provisions of the Treaty. Here, it is made clear that the provisions of sub-section (2A) of section 90 inserted by the Finance Act, 2013 are not relevant to the assessment year 2014-15 under consideration as the same have been made effective w.e.f. 1.4.2016.
Now we turn to examine the taxability of the amount in the hands of the assessee under the DTAA. Relevant part of Article 12 of the DTAA with Sweden runs as under:
“1. Royalties and 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 State.
Notwithstanding the provisions of paragraph (1) such royalties and fees for technical services may also be taxed in the Contracting State in which they arise, and according to the laws of that 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.
(a) The term "royalties" as used in this Article means payments of any kind received as a consideration for the use of, or the right to use, any copyright of literary, artistic or scientific work including cinematograph films, any patent, trade mark, design or model, plan, secret formula or process, or for information concerning industrial, commercial or scientific experience.
(b) The term "fees for technical services" means payment of any kind in consideration for the rendering of any managerial, technical or consultancy services including the provision of services by technical or other personnel but does not include payments for services mentioned in Articles 14 and 15 of this Convention.”
Para 2 of the Article 12 clearly stipulates that Royalty as defined in para 3(a) may also be taxed in the contacting state in which it arises. Thus, in order to be governed by para 2, it is essential that the receipt should first pass the test of the definition of `Royalty’ as given in para 3 (a). On going through such definition, it transpires that `Royalties’ is a payment of any kind received as a consideration: `for the use of, or the right to use, any copyright of literary, artistic or scientific work’ etc. The
expression `the use of, or the right to use, any copyright’ has also been used in Article 12 of the DTAA between India and the USA, which has been discussed in the case of Infrasoft (supra). The Hon’ble Delhi High Court in that case held that what was transferred was not copyright or right to use copyright but a limited right to use copyrighted material, which did not give rise to any royalty income. It further observed that to be taxable as royalty income covered by Article 12 of DTAA, income of assessee should be generated by "use of or right to use of" any copyright and a License granted to licensee permitting him to download computer programme and storing it in computer for his own use is only incidental to facility extended to licensee to make use of copyrighted product for his internal business purpose. Finding that there was no transfer of any right in respect of copyright by assessee and it was a case of mere transfer of a copyrighted article whilst copyright remained with the owner, the Hon’ble High Court held that the payment was for a copyrighted article and represented purchase price of an article and hence could not be considered as royalty in the hands of the recipient under the DTAA.
Adverting to the facts of the instant case, it is observed that the assessee transferred a limited right in the CAD/CAM to SAPL. There was no transfer of copyright or use of any copyright. As against the requirement of para 3 of the Article 12 for royalty income to be generated by use or right to use of any copyright etc., what in the extant case has happened is that the assessee simply permitted SAPL to use the software for its limited internal business purpose only. No further right was granted to SAPL to deal with the copyright of the software. As there is no transfer of any right in respect of the copyright by the assessee to SAPL, going by the definition of the term `Royalties’ given in Article 12 (3), the consideration so received cannot be construed as `Royalties’ under the DTAA.
The ld. DR invited our attention towards the judgment of the Hon’ble Karnataka High Court in Samsung (supra), which also considered Article 12 of the DTAA between India and the USA and eventually held that the payment for use of software constituted Royalty under the DTAA.
The assessee under consideration is not governed by the jurisdiction of the Hon’ble Karnataka High Court. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in CIT Vs. Vegetable Products Ltd. (1973) 88 ITR 192 (SC) has held that when two interpretations are possible, ordinarily the Court would interpret the provision in favour of a tax-payer, and against the Revenue. Similar view has been reiterated in a series of judgments including Manish Maheshwari Vs. ACIT (2007) 289 ITR 341 (SC). As the view taken by the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in Infrasoft (supra) is in favour of the assessee, we follow the same and that is more so for the raison d`etre that the Tribunal in its order dated 29-03-2019 in ITA Nos. 195 to 197/PUN/2017 in the assessee’s own case for the A.Yrs. 2010-11, 2011-12 and 2012-13 has also decided similar issue in favour of the assessee.
Here it is essential to mention that unlike the insertion of Explanation 4 to section 9(1)(vi) engulfing consideration for use of software in any form within the ambit of `Royalty’, there is no corresponding amendment in the DTAA and hence the DTAA, in the absence of the applicability of section 90(2A) to the year under consideration, would not automatically imbibe the changes made in the Act. We have noticed above that if the provisions of DTAA are more beneficial to the assessee then those would apply in supersession of the provisions of the Act. It is, therefore, held that the sum of Rs.1.48 crore and odd cannot be construed as `Royalties’ in the hands of the assessee
as per the mandate of Article 12 of the DTAA. It is relevant to note that the assessee specifically stated before the AO that it did not have any PE in India and further it is not the case of the AO that the assessee has any PE in India, so as to warrant the consideration of the amount in question as Business profits under Article 7 of the DTAA.
The second issue is treatment of a sum of Rs.38,97,417/- which was received by the assessee from SAPL for providing maintenance services in respect of GSS software. The AO held this amount to be in the nature of ‘Fees for technical services’ u/s.9(1)(vii) of the Act and also under the DTAA. He, therefore, included it in the total income of the assessee. The DRP upheld the decision of the AO in the draft order, against which the assessee has come up in appeal before the Tribunal.
Having heard both the sides and gone through the relevant material on record, we first need to precisely ascertain the nature of service for which the instant consideration was received. No agreement was produced before us to demonstrate the nature of receipt. On a specific query, the ld. AR stated that the payment was received for maintenance of the existing software with SAPL, which was not controverted. Albeit a feeble attempt was made for showing that the amount was also towards giving access to the GSS software, but the assessee could not substantiate the same with any cogent evidence or material. Even the concerned international transaction has also been reported by the assessee as `GSS maintenance charges’. Thus, it turns out that the assessee received Rs.38.97 lakh from SAPL not for giving access to any software but only for maintenance of existing software.
The AO has treated such amount in the nature of ‘Fees for technical services’. Section 9(1)(vii) of the Act defines the term ‘fees for technical services’ as per Explanation 2 as under :-
`For the purposes of this clause, "fees for technical services" means any consideration (including any lump sum consideration) for the rendering of any managerial, technical or consultancy services (including the provision of services of technical or other personnel) but does not include consideration for any construction, assembly, mining or like project undertaken by the recipient or consideration which would be income of the recipient chargeable under the head "Salaries".
On going through the above Explanation, it is patently deciphered that any consideration, inter alia, for rendering technical or consultancy services, which is not in the nature of construction, assembly, mining or like project undertaking by the recipient, constitutes fees for technical services. When we apply the mandate of the Explanation 2 to the factual panorama obtaining before us, it clearly emerges that what the assessee received is consideration for maintenance of the existing software with SAPL which obviously involves use of technical knowledge and is nothing short of fees for technical services in the nature of technical or consultancy services. Thus, the amount in question constitutes income of the recipient-assessee u/s.9(1)(vii) of the Act.
Now we turn to examine the position under the DTAA. We have reproduced above the relevant parts of the Article 12 between India and Sweden. Para 3(b) of the Article 12 defines the expression ‘fees for technical services’ to mean payment of any kind in consideration for rendering of managerial, technical or consultancy services including the provision of services by technical or other personnel. In so far as the rendering of technical or consultancy services to constitute fees for technical services under para 3(b) is concerned, we find that the
definition of the term ‘fees for technical services’ in the DTAA to that extent is almost similar to that contained in Explanation 2 to section 9(1)(vii). However, at this stage, it is pertinent to note the terms of the Protocol with reference to Article 12 of the DTAA, which provides that : `if under any Convention, Agreement or Protocol between India and a third State which is a member of the OECD, India limits its taxation at source on dividends, interest, royalties or fees for technical services to a rate lower or a scope more restricted than the rate or scope provided for in this Convention on the said items of income, the same rate or scope as provided for in that Convention, Agreement or Protocol on the said items of income shall also apply under this Convention.’ This is in the nature of the Most Favoured Nation (MFN) clause in the DTAA between India and Sweden which seeks to provide that if India has limited, inter alia, its scope of fees for technical services in a DTAA with any other OECD country, then such limited scope shall stand substituted in the DTAA with Sweden. Portuguese Republic is a member of the OECD with which Indian has entered into a DTAA. The relevant part of the term ‘fees for included services’ has been defined in the Article 12(4) of the DTAA between India and Portuguese, which is as under : -
`For the purposes of this Article "fees for included services" means payments of any kind, other than those mentioned in Articles 14 and 15 of this Convention, to any person in consideration of the rendering of any technical or consultancy services (including through the provisions of services of technical or other personnel) if such services:….(b) make available technical knowledge, experience, skill, know-how or processes or consist of the development and transfer of a technical plan or technical design which enables the person acquiring the services to apply the technology contained therein.’
A careful circumspection of the relevant part of the definition of the expression ‘fees for included services’ in Article 12 of the DTAA with Portuguese discloses that any consideration to qualify as fees for included services must necessarily result into making available technical knowledge, experience or skill etc. to the recipient of the service. The term ‘make available’ has been judicially interpreted by the Hon’ble Karnataka High Court in CIT Vs. De Beers India Minerals Pvt. Ltd. (2012) 346 ITR 467 (Kar.) holding that the payer of the services should be able to utilise the acquired knowledge or knowhow at his own in future without the aid of service provider. The Authority for Advance Ruling in Production resources group, in Re (2018) 401 ITR 56 AAR has also held that “make available” connotes something which results in transmitting the technical knowledge so that the recipient could derive an enduring benefit and utilise the same in future on his own without the aid and assistance of the provider. On going through the above interpretation, it becomes palpable that in order to `make available’ technical services, it is sine qua non that the recipient of the services must acquire such technical know-how etc. which he can himself use in future without any assistance of the provider and the same is not any such act or service which vanishes or disappears on its provision by the payee itself.
Adverting to the facts of the instant case, it is found that the technical services provided by the assessee for maintenance of the existing GSS software supplied to SAPL amounts to rendering of technical or consultancy services simplicitor without `making available’ any technical knowledge, experience, skill, know-how or processes etc. to SAPL for use in future independently. In other words, it is a simple case of providing services involving technical knowledge which exhausted
with its provision itself. Since such services did not result into provision of any technical knowledge, experience or skill etc. to SAPL, we are satisfied that the consideration so received by the assessee cannot be categorized as ‘fees for technical services’ in terms of DTAA. Going by the beneficial provision in the DTAA vis-à-vis the Act, this amount is directed not to be considered as fees for technical services. Similar view has been taken by the Tribunal in its afore-referred order in the assessee’s own case for the earlier years. Further, it is not the case of the AO that the assessee has any permanent establishment in India, so as to necessitate the consideration of the aspect of its taxability as Business profits under Article 7 of the DTAA”.
Before us, Revenue has neither pointed out any distinguishing
feature in the facts of the present case and that of earlier years i.e.,
2010-11, 2011-12, 2013-14 & 2014-15. Further, no material has been
placed by Revenue to demonstrate that the order of Tribunal in
assessee’s own case for A.Y. 2014-15 has set aside / stayed by higher
Judicial Forum. We therefore, following the decision of the Tribunal in
assessee’s own case for A.Y. 2014-15 and for similar reasons hold that
that the amounts received by the assessee from Sandvik Asia Private
Limited (SAPL) cannot be considered as “Royalty” or “FTS” and
therefore not taxable in India. Thus, the grounds of the assessee are
allowed.
In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed.
Order pronounced on 14th day of February, 2020.
Sd/- Sd/- (S.S. VISWANETHRA RAVI) (ANIL CHATURVEDI) �या�यक सद�य / JUDICIAL MEMBER लेखा सद�य / ACCOUNTANT MEMBER
पुणे Pune; �दनांक Dated : 14th February, 2020. Yamini
आदेश क� ��त�ल�प अ�े�षत/Copy of the Order forwarded to : 1. अपीलाथ� / The Appellant 2. ��यथ� / The Respondent 3. CIT(A) – 13, Pune. 4. Pr.CIT-5, Pune. 5. �वभागीय ��त�न�ध, आयकर अपील�य अ�धकरण, “सी” / DR, ITAT, “C” Pune; 6. गाड� फाईल / Guard file.
आदेशानुसार/ BY ORDER, / / TRUE COPY / / व�र�ठ �नजी स�चव / Sr. Private Secretary आयकर अपील�य अ�धकरण ,पुणे / ITAT, Pune.