CIT vs. NHK JAPAN BROADCASTING CORPORATION

..- ,F IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + ITA 168 OF 2011 ITA 169 0F 2011 ITA 188 0F 2011 lrA 189 0F 2011 ITA 190 0F 2011 ITA 186 0F 2011 % IUDGMENT RESERVED ON: 19'O4'?Ql=1 tUOCtUenf OeU :11.5.2O11 (1) lrA 168 OF 2011 COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX . . . APPELLANT Through : Ms. Rashmi ChoPra, Advocate. VERSUS NHK JAPAN BROADCASTING CORPORATION ..RESPONDENT Through: Mr. Salil KaPoor, advocate with Mr. Sanat KaPoor, Advocate. (2) rTA 169 OF 2011 COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX . . . APPELLANT Through : Ms. Rashmi ChoPra, Advocate. VERSUS NHKJAPAN BROADCASTING CORPORATION ..RESPONDENT Through: Mr. Salil KaPoor, advocate with Mr. Sanat KaPoor, Advocate. (3) ITA 188 OF 2011 COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX . . . APPELLANT Through : Ms. Rashmi ChoPra, Advocate. VERSUS rTA168/201 l,lrA 169/2011,1rA 188/2011, ITA 189/20lL,lTA 190/20Ll.,lTA l-86/201 1 ( Page 1 of 3 2011:DHC:14369-DB

, NHKJAPAN BROADCASTING CORPORATION ..RESPONDENT Through: Mr. Salil KaPoor, advocate with Mr. Sanat KaPoor, Advocate. (4) rTA 189 0F 2011 COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX . . . APPELLANT Through : Ms. Rashmi ChoPra, Advocate. VERSUS NHK JAPAN BRoADCASTING CORPORATION ..RESPONDENT Through: Mr. Salil KaPoor, advocate with Mr. Sanat KaPoor, Advocate. (s) rrA 190 0F 2011 COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX . . . APPELLANT Through : Ms. Rashmi ChoPra, Advocate. VERSUS NHKJAPAN BROADCASTING CORPORATION ..RESPONDENT Through: Mr. Salil KaPoor, advocate with Mr. Sanat KaPoor, Advocate. (6) lrA 186 OF 2O1L COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX . . . APPELLANT Through : Ms. Rashmi ChoPra, Advocate. VERSUS NHKJAPAN BROADCASTING CORPORATION ..RESPONDENT Through: Mr. Salil KaPoor, advocate with Mr. Sanat KaPoor, Advocate. rTAl.68/201 l,lTA 1.69/2011,1TA 188/2011, ITA 189/2011,1TA 1902011,1TA 186/2011 ( Page 2 of 3 2011:DHC:14369-DB

S CORAM. :- HON',BLE MR. JUSTICE A.K. SIKRI HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.L. MEHTA 1. Whether Reporters of Local newspapers may be allowed to see theJudgment? 2. To be referred to the Reporter or not? 3. Whether the Judgment should be reported in the Digest? A.K. SIKRI, I. 1. For orders, see ITA L64 of 2011. tu (M.L. MEHTA) JUDGE {i MAY 11, 2011 skb rrAr.68/201 r.,lTA 169/2011,1TA 188/2011, rrA r.89/201r.,1rA 190/2011,|TA 186/2011 Mf (nk. srKRr) JUDGE Page 3 of 3 2011:DHC:14369-DB

l i-i\ ,I;2' !, - t-l I et ,vr .t (1) rT'A n64 OF 2O!.1 COMMISSIOT{ER OF INCOME TAX , Through : VERSUS lT A t6 4 I 20LL,lTA 1 6 B/2 0 1 1, ITA I 6 9/2 0 1 1, ITA 1 I 8/2 0 I 1, rrA 189/20r.1, rrA rdo/zor r,rrn 186/2011 t' rt IT ir !I\I T[.IE !.flIGFI COURT OF DELH! hT NIEW DELHi ITA X64 0F 2011 rTA 168 OF 2q11 . rnA r.69 oF 2qr.1 ITA 188 OF 2dft tTA LEg 0F 20XL tTA L90 0F'z(rln 'tTA L86 0F 20lL + % ' Advotate. VERSUS :. ; NX{K.nApAN BROADCASTII\lG CORPORATIOIU ..RESPONDE[ST' . Through: Mr. Salil l(apoor, advocate with j Mr. Sanat Kapoor, Advoeate. (2) rT'A rL68 OF zOLX. €oMMrssroNIER tf 'Tfr8,[H I^. Ms. i *rrn't""tSSTJ fldvoIate VERSUS I Nr-rK JApAN BROADCASTTNG C@RPORATICJIV ..RESPOhIDIEIUT Through: Mr. Splil Kapoor, advocate with iMr. Sanat 'KaPoor, Advocate. (3) rrA n 69 OF 2011 t I. ,I . i. coMMlssroNERoF[I\ncoMETAX I "..APPGLLAINT Through : Ms. ^'1 Rashmi Chopra, Advocate. i i ; .".APPE[-Ll\htr Ms. : Rashmi Chopra; Page 1 of 13 li 'r- -'-' -+ - n 9.04.20111 2011:DHC:14369-DB

. r.t :: {' .$. ,ti N t-t K .!A[rANt ts,R OADCASTI IU G CORPO RAT',I C.PN! .. R,Es POIU DE NT i Through: Mr. Salil t(apooi, advocate with i Mr. Sanat l(apoor, Advoiate. (4) lTA L88 OF 20n1 ,i t ': I coMMtsstoNER oF tl{coME TAX .i . " " APpE[-LAhtT Through :, Ms. - ,:. Rashmi Chopra, ' Advocate. VERSUS i .l 'r NHK.IAPAN BROADCASTIT{G CORPORATTOT{ ..RESpONDEfi\rT', . Through: Mr. Sllil l(apoor, advocate with i Mr. Sanat Kapoor, Advo$ate. (s) .rT'l\ L89 OF.2O1I. :: tr, COMMISSIONIEROFINCOMETAX ;[ ...APPEI.LAhIT Through : Ms. i Rastrmi Chopra, Advo'tate. VERSUS i ' Ril{K.IAPAN i BROADCASTIT{G CORPORAT'IC)TV ..RESPONDENT Through: wtr. S,.htil Kapoor, advocate with 'i Mr. Sanat Kapoor, Advocate, (7) rTA rL86 OF 2Or"1 COMMISSIOIVER OF INICOME TAX tTA 164/20r.L,rTA l-68/2011-,tTA 169/20il.,tTA 188/2011, rrA 189/20il. jTA r.90/2011,trA 186/20].1 . . . APPELLAIUT Page 2 of L3 ;'ir; ,i (6) lllA lLgO OF 201,3. j COMMISSIOINER OF INCOME TAX ,l . " . APPELLAIUT Through : Ms. 'i Rashmi Chopra, Advodate VERSUS i ,1 NHK JAFTAN BROADCASTIIVG CORPORATIOrU ..RESpOtUDElUT Through: Mr. S,alil Kapoor, advocate with ; Mr. Sanat Kapoor, Advodate. 2011:DHC:14369-DB

g Through : VERSUS Ms. i Rashmi Chopra, Advogate. I ; Nn-rK JAPAN BROADCASTTNIG CORPORAT|qnl ..RESpOlUDE[\rT Through: Mr. S'alil Kapoor, advocate ! ^_ with 1 Mr. Sanat Kapoor, Advoreate. \l CORAM :. Ftontr'BLE MR. .f IJSTICE A.K. StKRt i HOIU'ELE NlR. JUSTICE M.L. [vlEHTA ,ii ({ .': 1. Whether Reporters of Local ifewspapers may be allowed to see theJudgment? .i 2. To be referred to the Reporter or not? 3. Whethei the Judgmeni should'ibe reported in the . Digest? j A.K. S[KRI, I. 'ii 1. The respondent assessee which is aj Public Broadcasting :; ,Company of Japan (and, therefore, naturially a Non-Resident Company) is treated as an assessee in, default under the provisions of Section 201 and 201 (1) and 201 (1A) of the Income Tax Act (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), i, i it" ':, \.' I ',) . Before we spell out the exact nature of defaul't'attributed to ;, the assessee, we deem it apposite to recountlthe facts in brief. i The respondent, N.HK Japan is a govefnment owned public ;i broadcasting company of Japan having neil,s bureaus in many countries including India. The respondent natO deputed expatriate rTA L64/20r.1,rTA r.68/2oLL,tTA 1 69/2011,tTA 1.88/201 1, . rTA 189/20L1,tTA 190/201I,|TA 186/2011 ' Page 3 of L3 2011:DHC:14369-DB

q employees from Japan for working in its (:ffice in India. The il expatriates were receiving salary in India arfO a portion of salary and allowances in Japan, Under the law in Japan, citizens/nationals i of Japan are liable to levy of an annual munijcipal Citizen Tax also referred to as Inhabitant tax which is cfraige'd on account of being an inhabitant of Japan. In case a Japanesi citizen is rendering services in an employment in Japan or anro$d on a transfer from i Japan for which he receives any salary in Jappn,'the citizen tax for i a year in which he was in Japan on the first day of January of that year is required to be withheld . by his Lrptoy". from such i employee's salary income in Japan and [aid direcily to the :,. concerned Municipality. NHK, was accoroirqolv, withholding and j paying over to the concerned municipal auithority in Japan, the I citizen's tax levied under the Japanese lur*, from the salaries 'i payable by it in Japan to its expatriate emOloiees assigned by it to I its news bureau in India. The citizen tax withheld from the salaries in accordance with the law in Japan was clai,lned to be excludible :i and deductible in the computation of seilary intome of the employees liable to tax in lndia. .,1 'l ,7, ,r' | The AO passed order under Section 201 (f) the Act on 16th December, L999 for the Finapcial :t and 201 (1A) of year 1988-89 to deduction and Page 4 of L3 rTA l.64/201r.,rTA 168/20LL,tTA 169/20LL,ITA 118/20l.t, ITA 189/2011,1TA r.90/201L,tTA 186/2011 n .l rjt ,I rl -- 2011:DHC:14369-DB

. l I .i "l i made additions by working out the differencE of additional tax and I interest taking into account (i) number of wcjrk days outside India I (ii) Citizen tax and (iii) Housing norm. -l I i; i On appeal before the Commissioner of jlncome Tax (Appeals) it was held that citizen tax is a statutory levyl in Japan on Japanese l citizens and that such tax constitutes an ovdrriding charge on the ; salary income and therefore the same hab to be excluded in 'i computation of taxable. income. On the issile of assessee being i' held to be in default uls ZOL (1) and 201 (fA) and housing norm ,l deduction, the matter was decided against ttle assessee. The CIT i (A) decided the appeals for 11 financial yedrs i.e. Fy 19BB-89 to 1998-99 by way of a common order dated 30{n March, 2001. i Against the order of CIT (A); .11 uOOu5,, were filed by the .: assessee before the ITAT on the grounOs bt assessee being in i default, housing norm deduction and . alir additional ground I regarding orders for FY 1988-89 to 1994195 being barrecl by I limitation. LL appeals were filed by the Revjenue before the lrAT 'i on issue of citizen tax deduction. . All apperjr *ur" decided by a f common order dated 10th March, 2006. ]fhu appeals of the :' 'assessee were allowed and those of the Revi:nue were dismissed. orders for FY 1988-89 to 1994-95 were trdto as invalid on the ground of limitation and for FY 19g5-96 to ri'bga-99 assessee was ITA 1 64/201 1, tTA 1 68/20 L L,tTA 1 69/2 0 lL,tTA 188/201 1, rrA r-89/20l.L,trA rgo/zori,rra LB6/2011 : TI :t 'I I I .t '.i, .1i 1 I I ;l ri 't :! I r!l .l",i - Page 5 of 13 lo i ,"- r-l 2011:DHC:14369-DB

Y1 '{. held not to be in default. The Tribunal uphelp tne Commissioner's order on citizen tai issue, i fhe Revenue fiied 22 appeals in this Ccigrt against the above '{ mentioned orders of the ITAT, which .werej all dismissed. This li 'Court vide orders dated 30th Marcn,2OOT dn 11 appeals by the i ' revenue on citizen tax issue dismissed if'.t" same basing its i decision on the judgment of the Supreme CoUrt in the case of CIT i Vs. Sitaldas Tirathdas [1961] 4I ITR 36',7. Vide a separate /'1'. ti , :r' aa-r i \-\ orders dated 23'd April, 2008, other 11 gOOuutr filed by the Revenue on the issue of order under Sectionj20l (1) and 201 (1A) .i were dismissed on the ground tlrat action waF barred by limitation. I The Revenue went in appeal before the SUpreme Court in two batches. In the 1't batch, it agitated the citizen tax issue and in ,l , the.2no batch, it challenged the issue of limitation. The Supreme' Court vide orders dated 16th March, zoO8i in the l,t batch of I appeals directed the Tribunal to consider;the matter afresh in I /l' izen taX rl.: . .t trx issue. lt would be 1 pertinent to quote the exact direction given Py ilre supreme court j in the aforesaid order as much turns on tlroseldirections:- ' t'Without going into the merits gf the case, suffice it to state that in the presJent case, in our view, the Commissioner (Appeals) ought to have examined the scope of tJre Japanese j i trA 164/2oLt,trA 168/20'1L,trA 169/2o1L,trA 188/201r, i rrA lag/2o1r,trA l-90/2oLl.,trA LB6/2011 i page 6 of 13 {7, accordance with law as regard citi 1 ,f t; 2011:DHC:14369-DB

I ,i l law, namely, Citizens lndividual lnirabitant Tax Act. ln the letter of appointment ibsued, there is a reference to the words. ljhe relevant Clause reads as under: { "Tour emoluments shall be q,lubject to deduction of taxes as per applicable laws" and the tax liability ion host . country (lndia) shall be biorne by . NHK-'JapanBroadcasting Corpirration." Analysing the said Clause one n.lrOs that the emoluments paid by the assesseeiwas subject to deduction of tax as per applicable laws. Therefore,. in our view, Crpmmissioner (Appeals) ought to have exqmined the provisions of Citizens Individual Inhabitant Tax Act which is a Japanese law andj it ought to have analysed the piovisions Af that law, particularly, when it was requir(d to decide the question as to nature of the l$vy being an overriding charge on the salaryf income, as stated hereinabove. The contro{ersy in the present case is that citizens tax is a statutory levy in Japan on the Japanqse citizens constituting an overriding chargg. lf it is an overriding charge then of 'bourse the Commissioner (Appeals) was right in saying that it would not be an income.'iHowever, in our view, since the provisions of tjhe Act have not been examined, the matter ireeds to be considered afresh by thgl Tribunal. Accordingly, we remit the mafter to the Tribunal for fresh consideration ini accordance trx | .r) ..\ ',,1 'l with law. We express no opinion oin the merits of the case." It is clear from the above that the Suprqme Court was of the I view that issue at hand could not be decidgd without going into i the specific provisions contained in Citizensj lndividual Inhabitant .l Tax Act (hereinafter referred to as 'the Citizens Tax I I 1; ITA 164/2o11,tTA 168/2on,rA 169/2011,tTA t88l2ott, 'i ITA 189/2011,tTA 190/201L,tTA 186/2011 Act') of Japan Page 7 of 13 ,1: I I I :l'I I ; I .l ll .I I {.\,'t' 2011:DHC:14369-DB

LY r{ I . 'li Japanese law was not examined, the suprem.ie court remitted the case back to the Tribunal for fresh consioei'ation "in accordance I with law" and to ascertain from the provisiorls of the citizens Tax 'i !ir Act as to whether the statutory levy in jlbpan constituted an :l' overriding charge. The supreme court maoe'l it clear that if it was ,i an overriding charge, then it would not be anilncome. .,i 3. When the matter reached back to Tribulnal, the parties were I directed to place on record copy of the afore'said citizens Tax Act I 'l duly translated into English vide orders datbd 16rh March, 2009. ,! The counsel for the assessee filed the copyiof the aforesaid Act alongwith its English translation but did.not tite ttre responsibility il with respect to the authenticity of its English {;-anslation. ln such a situation, the order dated 9th December, 20clg was passed by the I Tribunal directing the Departmental nelresentative of the i Revenue to place on record the copies of theprovisions translated l\ . into English. Even after seeking adjournmentd, the Revenue failed 'l to file the translated copy of the relevant Fjrovisions of the said Act. This posed a dilemma in the minds or the Tribunal. on the I { one hand, ther€ was a direction given by thle supreme Court to i decide the issue with reference to the provisions of the citizens and analyzing those . provisions. Since thei scope o rTA 164/2011,tTA 168/2011.,tTA 1.69/2011,1TA 188/2011., ITA l.89/2011,tTA 1 90/201L,tTA 186/2011 f aforesaid Page B of L3 i;r: .,. l 2011:DHC:14369-DB

:i 1 li Tax Act and on the other hand, the Tribunal iielt helpless as it was unable to proceed unless the authenticatedl copy of the Englislr i translation version _of the said Act was pro$uced before it. The Tribunal was conscious of the directions giten by the Supreme I Court which is specifically taken note in Oarja a of the impugned order. However, two reasons prevailed in thej mind of the Tribunal I which led to passing of the impugned order dismissing the appeal .i of the Revenue namely: :jri (i) As already pointed ou$ above, the department failed to placef on record the English version of the Citizeiis Tax Act in the absence of which it'becami impossible for the Tribunal,to decide the is$ue. t which 'r'r"ufirv weish with the Tribunal was the subsecfuent decision of the Supreme Court itself ,whereby it had , upheld the quashing of the orders passed under Section 201.(1) ancti ZOf 11A) of the Act. From this, the Tribunajl concluded that it would be a futile exercise lo determine the issue namely whether the pitizens Tax Act had an overriding charge llover the salary income of the assessee or not. i 1 4. ln so far as first reason given by the f,ribunal is concerned, 1 -* no doubt, the Tribunal felt helpless to deterlnine the issue as per. direction of the Supreme Court for no fault otlits own. Normally, in such a situation, it could have asked the otl;rer party namely the t assessee to approach the Supreme Court for variations of the t\ ; 'tJ \ ,A.i{'i i .1.' ./\ I fTA r-641201-1,rTA r.68/20r-1,rTA 169/2011,tTA L88l20Lr, rTA r.89/20L l,tTA r.90/2011,tTA 186/201.1 1' I I i J I h "l I .il 'i ,II '!i,I'lt '1 t- _l I ; Page 9 of L3 2011:DHC:14369-DB

i t directions given by the Supreme Court in lits order dated 16th ! 'I March, 2OOg inasmuch as, the Tribunal is bo{nd to carry out such 11 directions. However, if the second ground qiven by the Tribunal .. I i has merit, there may not be'any fault with,{the impugned ordbr "t passed by the Tribunal, therefore, w€ prodeed to examine the veracity of the second ground taken by the trjiOunat ,f! l ( ll Ti 5. As pointed out above, there were tw$ Oatches of appeals ii .b.efore the Supreme Court. l't batch was,f concerned with the Citizens Tax Act in which directions dated thtn Vlur.h, 2009 were i: passed by the Supreme Court, as noted uOJu". The 2nd batch of { . appeals was concerned with the issue of llimitation. As noted I above, the orders in'respbtt of financial yea.lr 1988-89 to 1994-95 were held to be invalid on the ground of timfi:ation by the Tribunal which order was upheld by this Court and Slpecial Leave Petition was' filed against that order. This natctr ,iff appeals was still 't pending. i ';i 6. ln the meantime, the question of nonl;deduction of tax at source on overseas payments to expatriat"'f"rptoyees came up 'l - \.1 for consideration before the Supreme Cc{urt in the case of .41 Coimmlssianer of lncome Tax Vs. Eli l-iily & Co. Fvt. t-td. ilt ts fi ,11 rTA 1 64/20 r. r-, rTA 168/201 1, tTA 169/2 0L L,tTA 188/201 1, rTA 189/20r1,rTA 190/2011,rA 186/2011 ii 'lI I ':j, n I I I I .rl j I I I I I .1r . i: 'rls--'- - Page L0 of.13 2011:DHC:14369-DB

I j lr (2009) 372 tTR 22. These cases included thef appeal pertaining to .1 the present assessee also. When the 2nd blitch of appeals came li , up for hearing before the Supreme Court, g(Ding by the aforesaid /iii orders dated 25s' March, 2009 in Eli Liilrt e Ca, (supra), the :i Supreme Court passed the following order,5 dated 2Oth lanLtary, .i[ 2010:- "Delay condoned. Leave granted. .:-- \.li{ I The following substantial questionlof law arises for consideration in this batch of civil pRReats:- 't "Whether the Income Tafi Appellate - Tribunal was correct in lar,t{ in holding that the orders passed uncller Sections ' 20I(1) and 201(1A) of the income Tax Act, 1961 are invalid andl barred by time having been passedl beyond a reasonable period." 'i; n Having heard learned counsel o',i both sides, we are of the view that, on .ithe facts and circumstances of these cases, thei question on the point of limitation formulated byj the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal in the presend cases need not be gone into for the simple [€tsison that, at the .relevant time, there was a debatQ on the question as to whether TDS was deduqtible under the Income Tax Act, 1961, on foreigr.i salary payment as a component of the total salary paid to an expatriate working in lndia? '[-his controversy came to an end vide judgment ofithis Court in the case of Commissioner of Income'iax Vs. Eli Lilly & Co. (lndia) Pvt. Ltd., reported ini (2009) 3LZ tTR . 2235. The questlon on Iirnitatition has become acaden'lic !n these cases foecause, even assun'ling that the Depaftmen{ is niElrt on the .. t- '/Y ITA 1 64/20 r- 1, tTA 168/20 t 1, tTA 169/201 1, tTA 1 88/20 1 1, ITA r. 19/201r.,tTA 190/20LL,tTA l.86/201 L ,i .l I . rlr ';l 't tl Page 11 of L3 :' ;l { .t.l "4 I ---il .li 2011:DHC:14369-DB

+ i I issue Of limitation sti[[ tlre $uestion would arlse wfirethen on sutclr ddbatq'lole points, the assesbee (s) courld he ,i declared as . assessee9s) In default und$r Section L92 nead with Section ZOL of the lircorne Tax Act, ' L961. Further, we are informed that the assessee ' have paid the differential tax. fhley have paid the interest and they fu.rther underlbke not to claim refund for the amounts paid. Bgfore concluding, we may also state that, in Eli Lilly,l& Co. (lndia) Pvt. . Ltd. (supra) vide paragraph 2I,l this Court has clarified that the law laid down in the said case was ' only applicable to the provisions pf Section 192 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. ,1, Leaving the question of law open on limitation, these civil gppeals filed by tFe Department are disposed of with rio order as to cotts." rj il . lt is thus clear that the same Bench ilf the Supreme Court 'i - which issued direction on 16th March, 2009:lpassed the aforesaid J ; order making it emphatically clear thaf even the issue of limitation had become academic as the as$essee could not be declared as assessee in default under Secition !g2 read with l Section 201 of the Act. The fallout of the iiforesaid order dated 2Oth Janu ary, 2OLO is that the Supreme'Co!rt has held that the i assessee for the assessment years in questiQn, cannot be treated as assessee in default. The consequence wfould be to quash the .ll 'l proceeding initiated by the AO treating thF assessee to be in I default under Section 201 (1) and 201 (1A) of the Act. tFr rl l7 Ir-l \' '{r Y ITA r- 64/20 1 1, tTA r-68/201 1, tTA 169/20 1 1, tTA 188/20 I 1, ITA l. 89/20r.r., ITA L90/20L1,tTA tA6l20Lt i {' ji ,l I I iil ' :l 'l rl I rl 'i 1 '1. .l i ,l .l ,'t{ ;1{r ri Irl __.*____*--.-_.t_ *----.'t----' Page 12 of 13 2011:DHC:14369-DB

g !i 'ti 'l I 7. We, thus agree with the Tribunal that tfre issue had become I academic in nature and there was no r."u='bn left to decide this ,: issue. This happened because of the subdequent order of the ,! Supreme Court itseif. This resulted as 6 ,lconsequence of the "! ,l orders passed by the Supreme Court, that tcJo, in the case of this rertaining to the upp"ut, "t ii'.r" assdssment years very assessee perrarnrng ro rne 1 on the same question. We thus find no mprit in these appeals 'I which are dismissed on this ground alone. I .li{,4i a^w1r"* ii <{l tl\- ti "l.lz!-->-- I tn-r. srKRI) ' | .lt'!DGE ti La"^-eo* (M.L. MEHII.A) JUDGE {-,t'.\ I .l- .i ii MAY LL, 20Ln skb trA 164/20i.r.,tTA r.68/201r.,tTA 169/2011,tTA 188/2011, tTA 189/201 r.,tTA r-90/20r.r.,tTA 186/20r.1 Page 13 of 13 i I I I { 2011:DHC:14369-DB