M/S. JOY GLOBAL (UK) LIMITED,(FORMERLY KNOWS AS JOY MINING MACHINERY LIMITED),KOLKATTA vs. THE DCIT (INT. TAXN.)-2,, AHMEDABAD

PER MAHAVIR PRASAD, JUDICIAL MEMBER 1. These two appeals filed by the Assessee are directed against the order of the Ld. ACIT(A)-2, Ahmedabad dated 11.08.2017 & 10.07.2018 pertaining to A.Ys. 2014-15 & 2015-16.

ITA Nos. 2303/Ahd/2017 & 2008/A/18 2 . A.Ys. 2014-15 & 2015-16 2. ITA No. 2303/Ahd/2017, the assessee has taken following grounds of appeal: 1. That the order passed by the Learned Assistant Commissioner of Income- tax (International Taxation) - 2, Ahmedabad (here-in-after referred to as 'Learned AO' or 'Ld AO') u/s 143(3) read with section 144C of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ('Act') and the directions of the Learned Dispute Resolution Panel (here-in-after referred to as 'Learned DRP') is contrary to the provisions of law and erroneous on the facts of the case and liable to be quashed. 2. That on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld AO and Ld DRP failed to appreciate that income from supply of maintenance spares from outside India cannot be taxed in India in the absence of any activity of the non-resident in India. 3. That the Ld AO erred in treating the contract for supply of equipment, scientific site l investigation and provision for services as composite contract. 4. (a) That the Ld AO and Ld DRP erred in holding that the appellant has a Permanent Establishment in India. (b) Without prejudice to the above, and even assuming but not admitting that the appellant has a PE in India, the Ld AO and Ld DRP erred in not appreciating that nothing further can be attributed to such PE on account of income from supply of maintenance spares in India in the absence of any functions performed in India. 5. That the Ld AO erred in treating the consideration from sale of maintenance spares as royalty connected to PE in India and taxable u/s 44DA of the Act read with Article 13 read with Article 7 of India-UK Treaty. 6. That the Ld AO erred in arbitrarily applying Rule 10 of the Income-tax Rules, 1962 ('Rules') and considering 60% of consideration from supply of maintenance spares thereby arriving at total taxable income of INR 83,782,830. 7. That the Ld AO has not granted credit for entire interest u/s 244A of the Act. 8. That the amount of refund for AY 2014-15 adjusted against AY 2012-13 by the Ld AO is incorrect.

ITA Nos. 2303/Ahd/2017 & 2008/A/18 3 . A.Ys. 2014-15 & 2015-16 significant presence in the Sheetaldhara Mines on account of its activity of introduction of continuous mining technology. The assessee company thus had its Permanent Establishment (PE) in India and was liable to be taxed in relation to income from such activities.

ITA Nos. 2303/Ahd/2017 & 2008/A/18 4 . A.Ys. 2014-15 & 2015-16 contract revealed that the payments for design and supply of equipments could not be termed as a payment under a standalone sales contract. Holding that 50% of the profits from the supply of equipments and initial spares will be taxable in India u/s 9(I)(i) of the IT Act read with Article 7 of the India-UK DTAA, the Assessing Officer directed the SECL to deduct tax at source @2% on the payment made to JMML under supply contract vide order u/s 195(2) of the IT Act dated 13/03/13. In relation to payment for maintenance spares made on the basis of minimum guaranteed production on per tonne basis, the same was .considered to be in the nature of Royalty wherein JMML was taking share in the profit against transfer of technology and know-how in relation to continuous miner technology. Accordingly, vide order u/s 195(2) of the IT Act dated 13/03/13, the SECL was directed to deduct tax at source @ 10% on the such payments for maintenance spares under section 9(1)(vi) of the Act read with Article 13 of India-UK DTAA. The order u/s 195(2) of the IT Act passed by the then DDIT(IT).

"We have gone through detailed submissions including case laws relied upon by the assessee and arguments in this regard. It will be proper to go through various terms of contracts and scope of work to analyse facts of the case: TERMS OF CONTRACT AND FACTS OF THE CASE: The contract entered into by the JMML with SECL is for "Introduction of continuous mining technology in the minefields of Sheetaldhara-Kurja area owned by SECL. The scope of work as per page 4 of the Bid document "includes scientific study of the mine, design, supply, installation, commissioning of equipment and thereafter its operation and maintenance for the period of five years on contract including initial warranty period and hand over equipment in good working condition to SECL for its smooth and successful operation beyond the five year contract period." It also includes training and imparting of necessary technology to SECL manpower to run the mine subsequently.

ITA Nos. 2303/Ahd/2017 & 2008/A/18 5 . A.Ys. 2014-15 & 2015-16 a) The presence of the assessee on project site has been been detailed by the AO in draft assessment order as under: "Supplier's scope of work, detailed at page 29 (overall page 487} of the bid document does not restrict itself merely to supply of equipment but includes Pre-design site investigation and monitoring study Supply of equipments Supply of initial spars and consumables Supply of maintenance spares Supply of startup consumables Supervision and assistance in erection and commissioning of equipment Supervision and assistance for one major overhaul Operating, supervision of mining operation and maintenance for five years with guaranteed production of 0.42 million tonnes in each APP, Providing mine layout, sequence of operations, detailed support system, detailed network of implementation. Transfer of technology and training of SECL personnel in operation and maintenance Assistance to SECL for compliance of safety aspects Providing of maintenance services Assist SECL in claiming warranty on defective equipments Provide details ofSECL manpower requirements with proposed productivity Supply of information on additional indigenous infrastructure like ventilation, water, material transport, power supply System installation for condition monitoring of equipments Training of personnel in India and abroad. The cost of training personnel abroad will be borne by the JMML/bidder (page 53 of the bid document). b) The AO has further noted following observations from bid document: i. The bid document, at para 13.4 and para 13.5 mandates naming of a competent representative of the supplier for dealing with all technical matters in connection with works and to render technical assistance and instructions. Such representative would be competent enough to take decisions on the spot and would remain available from start of installation to the end of contract period. ii. The Representative, as per para 14.2, who would be posted at the site, along with representative ofSECL, prepare joint production reports and record stoppages.

ITA Nos. 2303/Ahd/2017 & 2008/A/18 6 . A.Ys. 2014-15 & 2015-16 iii. As per para 14.3, the supplier's personnel would be allowed free access to the underground mine 24 hours a day in accordance with provisions of Mine's Act. iv. As per para 14.4, the management of Mine would be conducted by a Management Committee consisting of Director (Technical) SECL or his representative • GM or CGM of the Area • Two competent and experienced representatives of supplier (assessee) v. In addition to the pricing of spares on the basis of production of coal in the Mine which evidences JMML's interest in the running of the Mine, as per para 20.7.1 and 20.7.2, the JMML is entitled to bonus or liquidated damage on the annual guaranteed production in each APP indicating the risk and rewards of the JMML in conduct of its business in India. vi. The JMML has been given access and control over the mine installation area by SECL for installation of Continuous Miner Technology as well as operation of the same for five years and hence, for all practical purposes, the assessee has a fixed place of business in the form of the premises where the above technology has been Installed/being installed as well as the operations of the mine are being managed. vii. The bid documents contains sufficient indication of the participation of the JMML, including participation in Management of the Mine, running and maintenance of the Mine, presence in form of technical personnel and site representative during the course of installation and commissioning. This presence of the JMML at the site is sufficient to constitute a permanent establishment in terms of Article 5(1), 5(2)(a), 5(2)(h), 5(2)(i) as well as 5(2)(j). No specified period of presence is required for Article 5(1), 5(2)(a) 5(2)(h) and 5(2)(i)white in respect of 5(2)0), o period of six months is required. The JMML meets the criteria of PE in all such instances. 3.3 The JMML has submitted its offer to SECL in three volumes. In the second volume (internal page 30, cumulative page 688), the company has elaborated on its presence in India. Its presence in India is acknowledged by claiming that full service teams have been established in Chimiri Mine of SECL and also that oy has worked with DGMS over long period of time to get its equipments approved as per Indian standards. It has acknowledged that in respect of sales & marketing, the Indian subsidiary reports through the JMML and hence, clearly, the Indian subsidiary was rendering significant marketing service on behalf of the JMML. "Continuous Miner" is a significant packaged technology from the JMML and hence, it cannot be termed as mere sale of equipment at FOB basis. The JMML is

ITA Nos. 2303/Ahd/2017 & 2008/A/18 7 . A.Ys. 2014-15 & 2015-16 providing training in running and management of such mines, and it has built a consignment stock in Indi'a which contain all the major components required for continuous mining and it has a system of servicing continuous mining equipments at Nagpur. As per the sheet, the JMML has significant presence in India so as to constitute its PE in India. 3.4 At page 13 of its annual report (running page 723), the JMML admits having a warehouse in India in relation to providing storage facilities. 3.5 The JMML, as per page 107 of its offer (Section 5 of envelop 2 - running page 960) and page 148 (running page 1003) has subcontracted some portion of its functions to other entities. However, the payment for these services has been negotiated in the turnkey contract and it is not open to SECL to separate out these contracts from other functions. Hence, this activity, in no way, takes away the nature of establishment of the JMML in respect of this contract. The entire data generated during site investigation service are to be used in design of the Mine as detailed at page 107 to 115. 3.6 The JMML has not signed any contract for mere supply of equipment. The contract dated 15/10/2009 is a comprehensive contract between SECL and JMML, UK for "introduction of Continuous Miner Technology" and not supply of material. Unlike in the judgments quoted by the JMML, the Owner, in this case, has no right to only opt for supply of equipment and has no freedom to select its own contractors for other activities. The presence of the JMML is mandated in the contract on the site in the form of Management Committee as well as in the form of Site Representatives. This presence clearly demonstrates existence of PE for the JMML with respect to this contract. 3.7 Even the contract dated 27th January 2010 between JMML and SECL for provision of services with respect to running the Mine for a period of five years with guaranteed production as mentioned at page 8 of the contract. Partial sub- assignment of this contract to an Indian entity (subsidiary of the JMML) does not take away the nature of the contract specially in a situation where the JMML is entitled to a share of the Revenues of the Mine in the form of "cost of running spares" being supplied to SECL on the basis of per tonne of production and not on the basis of cost of spares. 3.8 The scope of work enumerated in the contract dated 27th January 2010 on page 10 of the contract includes; To supervise and assist In erection and commissioning

ITA Nos. 2303/Ahd/2017 & 2008/A/18 8 . A.Ys. 2014-15 & 2015-16 Supervise and assistance in one major overhaul during the fifth year of contract and transfer of know how to SECL for undertaking the work by SECL independently in future. Supervision of mining operation and maintenance of imported equipment during the Contract period to ensure the annual guaranteed production in each APP for a period of 5 years. Providing mine layout, sequence of operations, details of support system and detailed network of implementation. Transfer of technology and training of SECL personnel in operation and maintenance of imported equipment. Assistance to SECL for compliance of safety aspects in the district including strata control during development and depillaring. Providing of maintenance services Engagement of firm for provision of site investigation and monitoring services Assist SECL in claiming warranty replacement etc x. Providing assistance service including training of personnel xi. To supervise the district preparation work for deployment of CM package. xii. JMML will be responsible for contract work insurance, third party comprehensive insurance, insurance covering accident for all personnel of JMML. 3.9 In light of the above scope of work, the functional presence of the JMML for a prolonged period of time (over five years) is no longer in dispute. Mere partial assignment of some services to other parties will not result in reduction of the presence of the JMML. As elaborated earlier, the presence is sufficient to constitute a permanent establishment for the JMML and the JMML is liable to tax on income attributable to the permanent establishment. 3.10 Since significant amounts have been remitted to NMML in various assessment years which have direct bearing with the activity of the permanent establishment of JMML at Sheeta/dhara Mines, income accruing in India in respect of these amounts is liable to tax in India. The letter of intent issued by SECL vide letter dated 30th April, 2008 indicates that following amounts were liable to be paid to the non-resident in respect of this contract: i. Scientific investigation and Monitoring PHI & II US$ 247,144.65 ii. Scientific in vestigation and Monitoring PH3&4 US$ 549,223.98 iii. Equipment cost US$ 8544,359 iv. Site Assistance services US$1,143,698 v. Mobilisation US$ 52,234 vi. Supervision services for five years US$ 8.72 to 4,87 per tonne

ITA Nos. 2303/Ahd/2017 & 2008/A/18 9 . A.Ys. 2014-15 & 2015-16 vii. Maintenance spare parts/consumables US$ 1.50 PMT to 3.29 PMT 3.11 It is clear from above that assessee was engaged in operation of mine and was having control over it and as it revenues of assessee was dependent on production, it carried out its business activity from said mining area with the help of its agents and other personnel. Thus above activities has created its PE in India as provided in India-UK DTAA as per article 5(2)(h) and 5(2)(k).A mine was clearly in its control and its continuous presence in above mine is clear from scope of work. Further, it was furnishing services in India through its agents and other personnel's for more than 90 days within any 12 month period. In view of above, we are of confirmed opinion that assessee has PE in India. In view of above this ground of the assessee is rejected. 3.12 It abundantly evident that the equipments being supplied were to be customized so as to meet the site specification as determined on the basis of scientific investigation being carried out. The time schedule annexed vide Annexure-VI to the supply agreement dated 15th Oct 2009 provided for 8 months for the manufacturing of the equipments. Additionally, the manufacturing of equipments was to start only after the scientific investigations were completed and DGMS approvals were received. The sequence of events as per the time schedule was specified as under: i. Month-1: Signing of Contract ii. Month-1: Entry into force of Scientific Investigation Contract (SIC) iii. Month-1 to Month-3: SIC Performance iv. Month-4: DGMS Approval v. Month-4: RBI/Govt Clearance vi. Month-4: Entry into force of supply/service contracts vii. Month-5 to Month-12: Manufacturing of Equipments 3.13 If the equipment to be supplied were the standard equipments, there was no need for the assessee company to wait for completion of scientific investigations for it to start manufacturing of the equipments. The fact that the manufacturing of the equipments was to start only after the scientific investigations were completed very clearly shows that equipments supplied by the assessee company were customized to meet the site specifications. Thus the supply of equipment, in this case was not mere supply on FOB basis. Prior to supply of equipment, the scientific study of the mining area was to be conducted which was critical to decide the operational parameters of the equipment; the equipments were to be designed according to such operational parameters; and the mining process was to be approved, we agree with these findings ofAO.

ITA Nos. 2303/Ahd/2017 & 2008/A/18 10 . A.Ys. 2014-15 & 2015-16 3.14 It was observed by the AO that the invoices for the supply of 'main equipment, initial spares and consumables' were raised on SECL by the assessee under consideration towards supply of maintenance spares totaling to USD 535,851. While the 'main equipment, initial spares and consumables' were to be supplied at the fixed price, the price of the maintenance spares were linked to annual production from the mines as under: Annual Production Period (APP) Maintenance Spare Parts FOB rate/tone (In US$) 1st 1.50 2nd 4.37 3rd 4.37 4th 4.37 5th 3.29

The amount to be paid for the maintenance spares was to be calculated by multiplying the production achieved during the relevant three months of APP by the corresponding rates per tonne as provided above- A mere supply contract on FOB basis cannot have a provision wherein the price of the item is determined on the basis of production in the mine. Such supply can only be on published prices of the supplier. Such a pricing reflects a charge for transfer of technology and not a charge for supply of spares. This is an artificial division of original equipment cost between initial spares and maintenance spares, such a division being attempted to avoid payment of taxes in India. The condition that the supply of spares is on FOB basis makes no difference to the facts of this case. The arrangement clearly demonstrates presence ofJMML in the mine for a period of five years. The fact that the JMML is not charging for actual cost of spares, instead it is taking part in the profits of SECL is very important and cannot be ignored. If the payment for maintenance of spares is viewed separately from the supply contract then it is nothing but a charge for transfer of technology and providing know how to the SECL in relation to continuous miner technology and achieving minimum guaranteed production. Thus, the payment made towards maintenance spares are actually in the nature of royalty payment to the assessee company for transfer of technology towards continuous mining technology and achieving minimum production. 3.15 The assessee company has argued that consideration based on per tonne rate for maintenance spares is only a mode of recovering the actual charges and the method of recovery does not in any manner dilute the essential character of the contract. Such contention cannot be accepted. A mere supply contract on FOB

ITA Nos. 2303/Ahd/2017 & 2008/A/18 11 . A.Ys. 2014-15 & 2015-16 basis cannot have a provision wherein the price of the item is determined on the basis of production in the mine. Such supply can only be on published prices of the supplier. Such a pricing reflects a charge for transfer of technology and not a charge for supply of spares. This is an artificial division of original equipment cost between initial spares and maintenance spares, such a division being attempted to avoid payment of taxes in India, The condition that the supply of spares is on FOB basis makes no difference to the facts of this case. The arrangement clearly demonstrates presence of JMML in the mine for a period of five years. The fact that the JMML is not charging for actual cost of spares, instead it is taking part in the profits of SECL is very important and cannot be ignored. If the payment for maintenance of spares is viewed separately from the supply contract then it is nothing but a charge for providing know how to the SECL for achieving a minimum production. We agree with AO's contention that these payments are payment for royalty for knowhow provided by the assessee for continuous mining technology. Since this unique knowhow is developed for this particular project and effectively connected with PE, AO has correctly attributed 60% of the royalty payment to the PE and applied provisions of sect/on 44DA for computation purpose. The assessee's contention that no private or government organisation will allow to share its revenue is without force as it is normal practice to pay royalty on output for use of knowhow in business. Further, this is part of global tender, which has been awarded to assessee on the basis of lowest overall bidding price. In view of above discussion and detailed discussion by the AO in his order, objection no. 3&4 of the assessee are rejected. As the facts remain the same, following the decision of A.Y.2013-14, assessee's / objection for this year is also rejected. 4. Ground no. 5 is general in nature and not pressed by the assessee and hence rejected. 5. In view of the detailed discussion, all objections raised by the assessee company are dismissed. 6. The Assessing Officer shall give effect to the above directions, as per provisions of section 144C(13) of the Income-tax Act, 1961.

ITA Nos. 2303/Ahd/2017 & 2008/A/18 12 . A.Ys. 2014-15 & 2015-16 8. At the time of hearing, assessee stated that issue is squarely covered in favour of the assessee by the order of Co-ordinate Bench in assessee’s own case for A.Ys. 2012-13 & 2013-14 and the order of the ITAT is reproduced:

ITA Nos. 2303/Ahd/2017 & 2008/A/18 13 . A.Ys. 2014-15 & 2015-16 concerned, same has been rendered by JMS India and the income on account of such services has been offered to tax in India by JMSIPL. This fact has also been verified by the A.O. by issue of notice u/s. 133(6) of the Act.

“JMML has taken complete responsibilities of execution of the project right from site investigation, supply, erection and installation, semics and maintenance and training. Each assignment contract signed subsequently refers to the terms of

ITA Nos. 2303/Ahd/2017 & 2008/A/18 14 . A.Ys. 2014-15 & 2015-16 tender issued by SECL and submission of bid by JMML. Even the scope of work to be performed by the JMML in supply contract dated 15/10/2009 includes responsibility for overall project implementation including various services. The JMML has taken the responsibilities of approval of mining equipment as well as mining method from DGMS (Director General of Mines Safety). As per Annexure- VI of supply, time schedule of the whole project, starting from signing of contract till commencement of first Annual Production period is given in a chart form. It is clear from this that site investigation contract (SIC) came into force weeks before supply contract. By virtue of signing site investigation contract, JMML (or its representatives) had all the access to the mining site. JMML had the mining site at its disposal and for the purpose of designing the mining method and equipment and for taking approval of DGMS so that equipment suitable to site may be manufactured, it has its place of management at the site. It is very important to note that access of JMML was not limited or restricted in any respect to the mining site. This constituted a fixed place permanent establishment for the JMML. RMT, which carried out site investigation activity on behalf of JMML acted as its agent to that extent along with M/s Joy Mining Services India Pvt Ltd (JMSIPL). Thus, JMML had fixed place PE in India through RMT and JMSIPL with the entire mining site at its disposal.”

ITA Nos. 2303/Ahd/2017 & 2008/A/18 15 . A.Ys. 2014-15 & 2015-16 passed to SECL from outside India. This is clear from Para 16 of the contract at page 58 of the paper book which read as under:-

Passing of Risk and Title “Risk and title to the Goods and Maintenance Spares to be supplied the Contract shall pass to SECL upon delivery effected FOB at the foreign port of shipment.”

As far as obligations of ‘L’ and ‘S’ are concerned, the Contract is an indivisible one. However, for the purp of tax, the Contract does specify the amounts that are payable with respect to the various activities carried on ‘L’/’S’. Income may accrue or arise at various stages and on account of varied activities. In case of a resident tax entity any income which accrues or arises from an activity outside

ITA Nos. 2303/Ahd/2017 & 2008/A/18 16 . A.Ys. 2014-15 & 2015-16 India, would not be tax unless the same falls within the deeming provision contained in section 9(1). In these circumstances, it was not be apposite to consider the contract as a composite one for the purposes of imposition of tax under the [Para 82].

The Authority referred to the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Vodafone International Hold B.V. v. Union of India [2012] 341 ITR 1/204 Taxman 408/17 taxmann.com 202 in support of its view that in law the liability for performance of the Contract by 'L' and 'S' was joint and severable, the contract must read as an indivisible one for the purposes of tax. [Para 83].

The approach as well as the conclusion of the Authority is flawed. The Authority erred in proceeding or basis that the contract as a whole was the subject of taxation. The subject matter of taxation was not contract between the parties but the income that the petitioner derived from the Contract. Thus, the situs of object of the Contract would not be as relevant as determining the situs where the income of' ‘L’ had accrue arisen. By virtue of section 4, income tax is charged in respect of the total income of a person. By virtue of Section 5, the scope of total income of a non-resident is limited to income which is received or deemed to be received in India and income which accrues or is deemed to accrue or arise in India. It, therefore, follows the object of inquiry would have to be to determine whether any/income of 'L' accrued or arose in India whether any income could be deemed to accrue or arise in India. The fact that the contractual obligations were not limited to merely supplying equipment, but were for due performance of the entire Contract, was not necessarily imply that the entire income which was relatable to the Contract could be deemed to accrue arise in India. [Para 84]. “

ITA Nos. 2303/Ahd/2017 & 2008/A/18 17 . A.Ys. 2014-15 & 2015-16 not alter the nature of the Contract in any manner. The Authority concluded that the Contract would have to be considered as one indivisible contract and the income from the same would be taxable in India as the object of Contract was to set up a facility in India. The Authority further held that the MOU entered into between Linde and Samsung could not be understood to be overwriting the Contract or the object of the Contract. With respect to the Internal Consortium Agreement the Authority held that the same was at best only an internal arrangement between Linde and Samsung and could not be referred to for determining the nature of the Contract. The Authority was of the view that the Contract being a composite contract, a 'dissecting approach' was not permissible. Having found that the contract was an indivisible one, the Authority concluded that it was not open for Linde to plead that the sale of equipment and machinery and designing of the project and equipment should be treated as an offshore transaction. The Authority referred to the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Vodafone International Holdings B. V. (supra) in support of its view that since in law the liability for performance of for the purposes of tax.

ITA Nos. 2303/Ahd/2017 & 2008/A/18 18 . A.Ys. 2014-15 & 2015-16 deemed to accrue or arise in India. It necessarily follows that in cases where a contract entails only a part of the operations to be carried on in India, the assessee would not be liable for the part of income that arises from operations conducted outside India. In such a case, the income from the venture would have to be appropriately apportioned. The Supreme Court in the case of Ishikawajma- Harima Heavy Industries Ltd. (supra) had considered this aspect and held that merely because a project is a turnkey project would not necessarily imply that for the purposes of taxability, the entire contract be considered as an integrated one. The taxable income in execution of a contract may arise at several stages and the same would have to be considered on the anvil of territorial nexus. The decision in the case of Ishikawajma-Harima Heavy Industries Ltd. (supra) is clearly applicable to the facts of the present case as in that case also the contract in question was for a turnkey project where the object was to setup a Liquefied Natural Gas (LNG) receiving, storage and degasification facility. Indisputably, insofar as obligations of parties are concerned, this contract was also an indivisible contract. The Supreme Court held that for the purposes of determining the taxability, it was necessary to enquire as to where the income sought to be taxed had accrued or arisen. The impugned ruling is thus clearly contrary to the decision of the Supreme Court in Ishikawajma-Harima Heavy Industries Ltd’s. case (supra).

ITA Nos. 2303/Ahd/2017 & 2008/A/18 19 . A.Ys. 2014-15 & 2015-16

ITA Nos. 2303/Ahd/2017 & 2008/A/18 20 . A.Ys. 2014-15 & 2015-16

ITA Nos. 2303/Ahd/2017 & 2008/A/18 21 . A.Ys. 2014-15 & 2015-16 12. Since facts and circumstances of the case are same as ITA No. 2303/Ahd/2017 only amount and assessment year are different. Since already we have granted relief to the assessee in the connected appeal, thus, in parity with the same, we allow the appeal of the assessee. In both the appeals, ld. D.R. relied on the order passed by the DRP.

Order pronounced in Open Court on 09- 12- 2019

Sd/- Sd/- (AMARJIT SINGH) (MAHAVIR PRASAD) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER True Copy JUDICIAL MEMBER Ahmedabad: Dated 09/12/2019 Rajesh Copy of the Order forwarded to:- 1. The Appellant. 2. The Respondent. 3. The CIT (Appeals) – 4. The CIT concerned. 5. The DR., ITAT, Ahmedabad. 6. Guard File. By ORDER

Deputy/Asstt.Registrar ITAT,Ahmedabad