Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, MUMBAI BENCH “D”, MUMBAI
Before: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA & SHRI RAMIT KOCHAR
आदेश ORDER अिमत शु�ला : �या. स.: PER AMIT SHUKLA, JM: The aforesaid appeals filed by the revenue against separate orders dated 02.04.2012 and 27.08.2012 passed by CIT(A)-13 Mumbai, for the quantum of assessment passed under section 143(3) for the assessment year 2007-08 and 2008-09 respectively. Since the issues involved in both the appeals are common arising out of identical set of facts, therefore, same were heard together and are being disposed off by way of this consolidated order. As a
�रलायंस कूमु�नकेशन इं�ा���चर �ल�मटेड 2 Reliance Communications Infrastructure Ltd ITA No. 4677 /Mum/2014 ITA No.6726/Mum/2012 lead case, we are taking-up the appeal in ITA No. 4677/Mum/2012 for the assessment year 2007-08, wherein the revenue has raised following grounds:
(i) The Learned CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in deleting the addition of Rs.1,96,91,62,889/- paid to distributors as discount on sale of prepaid services ignoring the fact that the distributors are acting as agents of the assessee company and the margin enjoyed by the distributors are the commission/brokerage allowed by the assessee company and assessee is liable to deduct TDS u/s 194H (ii) The Learned CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in deleting the disallowance u/s.40a(ia) r.w.s.194H as worked out by the Assessing Officer without properly appreciating the factual and legal matrix a clearly brought out by the Assessing Officer in the Assessment Order. (iii) The Leaned CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in holding that discount given to distributor by RCIL is not commission and therefore the disallowance u/s.40a(ia) r.w.s.194H is not called for. (iv) The Learned CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in relying on the decision of CIT(A) in which it is held that in those cases the surplus generated by the Distributors by virtue of discount offered by RCIL on the MRP is not a commission as the TDS on commission is already deducted by RCL while making the payment to RCIL in the form of discount on MRP of RCV. (v) The Learned CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in not appreciating the facts that each entity is different assessee and all the compliances of TDS has to be carried out by each assessee on its side. (vi) The Learned CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in not appreciating that the expression "commission or brokerage" which is inclusively defined in Explanation-(i) to Section 194H includes any payment by a person action on behalf of another person for any services in the course of buying and selling of goods. (vii) The Learned CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in not appreciating that assessee was selling pre-paid SIMs and recharge vouchers of RCOM to the distributors and the services rendered by the distributors were similar to services where High Courts in the case of CIT vs Idea Cellular Ltd., (325 ITR 148), Vodafone Essar Cellular Ltd vs ACIT and Bharti Cellular Ltd vs ACIT (2011) 12 Taxman 30 (Cal) as reported have held that the amount retained by distributors is in nature of commission and therefore the distributors who collected the amounts of sale proceeds from customers were acting s agent of assessee and therefore TDS was liable to be deducted in request of this commission.
�रलायंस कूमु�नकेशन इं�ा���चर �ल�मटेड 3 Reliance Communications Infrastructure Ltd ITA No. 4677 /Mum/2014 ITA No.6726/Mum/2012 (viii) Learned CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in not Appreciating the facts that the nature of payment and the liability for deduction of tax at source arises from the manner in which the transactions are carried out and the purpose of payment. The various distributors rendered the service at next level to RCIL and therefore the provisions of Section 194H will be applicable as the nature of payment remains the same as transaction between RCOM and RCIL. (ix) The Learned CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in not appreciating the facts that various judicial pronouncements relied upon by the CIT(A) in CIT(A)-14/IT09/TDS.RG.3/10-11 were equally applicable to the case of the assessee for fact that there existed the relationship of agency between the assessee and its distributors. (x) The Learned CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in holding that TDS was not deductable in respect of margins retained by the distributors and allowed by the assessee on sale of prepaid SIMs and recharging vouchers despite the fact that distributors were acting on behalf of the assessee and rendering services in connection with the sale of pre-paid SIMs and recharge vouchers and such services were within the scope of definition as contained in Explanation-(i) to Section 194H. (xi) The Learned CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in deleting the disallowance of Rs.8,65,06,770/- u/s.14A ignoring the fact that the Department has not accepted the decision of Bombay High Court in the case of Godrej & Boyce Mfg.Ltd.vs DCIT(2010) 328 ITR 81(B0m). (xii) The Learned CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in deleting the disallowance of Rs.8,65,06,770/- u/s.14A for the purpose of computing book profit u/s.115JB of the Act, ignoring the fact that the decision of disallowance has not accepted by the Department. (xiii) The Ld.CIT(A)'s order is contrary in law and on facts and deserves to be set aside.
Thus, the main issue involved is addition of Rs.1,96,91,62,889/- on account of disallowance under section 40(a)(ia) made by the AO for non-deduction of TDS under section 194H on payments made to distributors as discount on sale of pre-paid recharge vouchers and secondly, disallowance under section 14A of Rs. 8,65,06,770/-.
Brief facts qua the first issue, is that assessee is a subsidiary of Reliance Communications Ltd (RCOM). RCOM had entered into a ‘Marketing Agreement’ with the assessee, to market and
�रलायंस कूमु�नकेशन इं�ा���चर �ल�मटेड 4 Reliance Communications Infrastructure Ltd ITA No. 4677 /Mum/2014 ITA No.6726/Mum/2012 distribute Starter Packs / Pre-paid Recharge Vouchers through the assessee’s extensive distribution network. The assessee had entered into “Distributor Agreement” with various distributors and provided these Prepaid Recharge Vouchers to the Distributors at the discounted price. The Distributors in turn sells the same to the ultimate customers at a price as may be decided by them on the prevailing market condition. The Distributors is liable to pay the assessee the discounted price upfront irrespective whether they in turn are able to re-sale the Prepaid Vouchers at a higher price/ lower price or not at all. The AO, in the course of the assessment proceedings noted that, the assessee had claimed an amount of Rs. 196,91,67,889/- as amount paid to distributors as adjustment on sale of pre-paid vouchers and other pre-paid services and therefore, such an amount paid is in the nature of commission on which assessee was liable to deduct TDS under section 194H. The failure to deduct TDS by the assessee, entails disallowance under section 40(a)(ia). In response to the show cause notice by the AO, as to why disallowance under section 40(a)(ia) should not be made, the assessee filed detailed reply, which was incorporated from pages 2 to 4 of the assessment order. The sum and substance of the assessee’s contention was that, as per the “Distributor Agreement”, the assessee sells the Prepaid vouchers at a discounted price and assessee gets the money upfront and such an agreement is entered into principal to principal basis. They are not the agents of the assessee. Once the Pre-paid vouchers have been sold to these Distributors, the assessee recovers the whole cost upfront and whether the Distributors are able to sale at a higher prices or a lower price, the assessee has no role at all. The margin retained by the Distributors, that is, the profit earned by them is the difference between the price paid to the company and the price at which they decide to provide to the ultimate buyer or subscribers. The margin retained by the Distributor cannot be subjected to the TDS, which has been treated as discount by the
�रलायंस कूमु�नकेशन इं�ा���चर �ल�मटेड 5 Reliance Communications Infrastructure Ltd ITA No. 4677 /Mum/2014 ITA No.6726/Mum/2012 assessee. Hence, it does not fall within the ambit of “commission” which entails deduction of TDS under section 194H.
The AO did not accept the assessee’s contention and after detailed analysis and relying upon various decisions, held that, the amount paid to the Distributors as discount on sale of pre-paid vouchers and other pre-paid services is to be treated as “commission” and since, assessee has not deducted TDS, therefore, disallowance under section 40(a)(ia) should be made. While coming to this conclusion, the AO has strongly referred to the decision of Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs Idea Cellular Ltd, reported in [2010] 325 ITR 148 and ITAT Kolkata decision in the case of ACIT vs Bharati Cellular Ltd, reported in [2007] 290 ITR (AT) 283 (Kolkata).
Before the CIT(A), it was brought to the notice that, in the proceedings under section 201(1) for the same assessment year the Ld. CIT(A) vide order dated 28.02.2011 has held that the trade discount given by the assessee to the distributors is not in the nature of commission payment and, therefore, there is no liability of the assessee to deduct TDS under section 194H and accordingly, assessee was held not to be defaulter under section 201(1). The Ld. CIT(A), in view of this finding given in 201(1) proceeding observed that, once it has been held that, assessee is not liable to deduct TDS in the assessee’s own case by the CIT(A), then no disallowance under section 40(a)(ia) can be made. The relevant finding of the CIT(A) in this regard in the impugned order is reproduced hereunder:-
“The ld. Authorized Representative also admitted written submissions & pointed out that question of disallowance u/s 40(a)(ia) of the Act by considering Discount to Distributors as Commission is not warranted as the issue as regards non- deduction of tax u/s 194H came up before the Ld. CIT(A) 14 who in the case of Appellant vide Order dated 28/02/11 has held that
�रलायंस कूमु�नकेशन इं�ा���चर �ल�मटेड 6 Reliance Communications Infrastructure Ltd ITA No. 4677 /Mum/2014 ITA No.6726/Mum/2012 Appellant cannot be held to be in default u/s 201(1) of the Act by holding the trade discount given by Appellant is not in the nature of commission payment to distributors liable to TDS u/s 194H of the Act. The copy of Order of the ld. CIT(A) -14 is placed on record.
The Ld. CIT(A) -14 Mumbai in his order dated 28/2/11 has held that: “In the light o the foregoing discussion, I hold that that the trade discount given by the Appellant is not in the nature of commission payment to the distributors liable for TDS u/s 194H of the Act. Thus, the Appellant cannot be held to be a defaulter u/s 201(1) of the Act and the demand raised on this count stands deleted. Therefore, this ground of appeal is allowed.”
Following the orders of CIT(A)-14 and to maintain judicial consistency – disallowance u/s 40(a)(ia) of the Act made by the AO is deleted”.
At the outset, the Ld. Counsel for the assessee, Shri Yogesh Thar, submitted that, the decision of Ld. CIT(A) in 201(1) proceedings has been accepted by the Department specifically on this issue as the Department has not preferred any appeal before the Tribunal. He further pointed out though the revenue had preferred the appeal before the Tribunal on various other issues against the same order but on this issue no appeal or grounds was filed or raised. Thus, in the case of the assessee, it has attained finality that, assessee was not liable to deduct TDS on such a payment and, therefore, consequentially no disallowance under section 40(a)(ia) should be made. In support of his contention, he drew our attention to the order of the CIT(A) and the grounds of appeal raised by the Department in Form No.36 before the Tribunal against the said order.
The Ld. CIT DR Shri A K Srivastava, admitted that, Department has accepted the order of the CIT(A) holding that
�रलायंस कूमु�नकेशन इं�ा���चर �ल�मटेड 7 Reliance Communications Infrastructure Ltd ITA No. 4677 /Mum/2014 ITA No.6726/Mum/2012 assessee was not liable to deduct TDS on such a payment and no grounds were raised on this score before the Tribunal.
We have heard the rival submissions, perused the relevant finding given in the impugned orders as well as material placed on record. Before us, the main issue for disallowance under section 40(a)(ia) is that, whether the assessee was liable to deduct TDS on the discount on sale of pre-paid vouchers and pre-paid services, which has been treated to be as a ‘commission’ by the AO, on which the assessee was liable to deduct TDS under section 194H. The Ld. AO though in the assessment order dated 29.12.2010 has discussed this issue in detail, however, it is a matter of that in subsequent proceedings under section 201(1), where on similar ground assessee was treated as assessee-in-default for non- deduction of TDS on similar payments by the AO, the Ld. CIT(A) after detailed discussion has held that, the trade discount given by the assessee is not in the nature of commission, therefore, it was not liable for deduction of TDS under section 194H and assessee accordingly was not treated to be defaulter under section 201(1). Operating portion of the Ld. CIT(A)’s order dated 28.02.2011 reads as under:-
“In short, a commission payment, in order to attract the provisions of section 194H must have been revised by a person who is acting on behalf of another. In other words, he must be acting as a agent of another person. The person, if any, represented by the Distributor is RCOM and not the Appellant. The deduction of tax at source on commission paid by RCOM is already upheld. Accordingly, in the light of the foregoing discussion, I hold that the trade discount given by the Appellant is not in the nature of “commission” payment to the distributors liable for TDS u/s 194H of the Act. Thus, the Appellant cannot be held to be a defaulter u/s 201(1) of the Act and the demand raised on this count stands deleted. Therefore, this ground of appeal is, allowed”.
�रलायंस कूमु�नकेशन इं�ा���चर �ल�मटेड 8 Reliance Communications Infrastructure Ltd ITA No. 4677 /Mum/2014 ITA No.6726/Mum/2012 It is an admitted position by the parties that, the said order of the CIT(A) had attained finality and no appeal was preferred by the revenue against the said finding, even though on other issues, the Department had preferred appeal before the Tribunal. Once in assessee’s own case, it has been categorically held that, assessee was not liable to deduct TDS on such a trade discount given by the assessee to the Distributors then it cannot be reckoned as a “commission”, and consequentially disallowance under section 40(a)(ia) does not has any legs to stand. There could not be a situation where on one hand, a finding has attained finality that assessee was not liable to deduct TDS on trade discount given by the assessee and cannot be treated as commission payment to the distributors; and on the other hand, a disallowance of expenditure under section 40(a)(ia) is being made on the same amount by holding that that assessee should have deducted TDS. Thus, we do not find any infirmity in the order of the CIT(A) in deleting the said disallowance. Accordingly, the issue is allowed on this ground alone.
However, by way of a academic discussion, we find that, the revenue in the grounds of appeal has relied upon following decisions in favour of making the disallowance: (1) CIT vs Idea Cellular Ltd [2010] 325 ITR 148; (2) Vodafone Essar Cellular Ltd v ACIT 352 ITR 255 (Ker); (3) Bharti Celular Ltd v ACIT [2011] 12 taxman 30 (Cal)/ 354 ITR 507 We find that, all these decisions of the High Courts, have been considered at length by the Hon’ble Karnataka High Court in the case of Bharti Airtel; Vodafone Essar Cellular Ltd and Tata Telecommunication Services Ltd v CIT, reported in [2015] 372 ITR 33, wherein, the Hon’ble High Court has decided this issue in favour of the assessee holding that, the condition precedent for deduction of tax at source is that income should have accrued to the distributors from such discount and on sale of pre-paid Sim
�रलायंस कूमु�नकेशन इं�ा���चर �ल�मटेड 9 Reliance Communications Infrastructure Ltd ITA No. 4677 /Mum/2014 ITA No.6726/Mum/2012
Cards. The relevant observation and the finding of the CIT(A) after discussing various provisions of the Act and catena of decisions including that of decisions referred by the Department in their grounds of appeal, the High Court has concluded in the following manner:- “The provisions for deduction of tax at source which are in Chapter XVII of the Income-tax Act, 1961, dealing with collection of taxes and the charging provisions of the income-tax form one single integral, inseparable code. Therefore, the provisions relating to deduction of tax at source apply only to those sums which are “chargeable to tax” under the Act. While interpreting the provisions of the Act one cannot read the charging sections of that Act de hors the machinery sections. The Act is to be read as an integrated code. In order to deduct tax at source the amount being paid out must necessarily be ascertainable as income chargeable to tax in the hands of the payee. Tax deduction at source is a vicarious liability and it presupposes existence of pri- mary liability. Therefore, the provisions have to be read in conformity with the charging provisions, i.e., section 4, 5 and 9. Section 194H deals with deduction of tax at source in respect of any income by way of commission or brokerage. The following three conditions are to be fulfilled for attracting the provisions. They are : (1) the assessee should be responsible for paying an income by way of commission or brokerage to the distributor; (2) there should be a payment either in cash or by issue of a cheque or draft or any other mode or credit of such income to the distributor in the accounts of the assessee ; (3) tax is to be deducted at the time of payment or credit thereof, whichever is earlier. The word "income" has been defined under section 2(24) of the Act. Income includes profits and gains. A commission is defined in Explanation (i) to section 194H as any payment received or receivable, directly or indirectly by an agent for services rendered acting on behalf of the principal. The element of agency is to be there in case of all services or transactions contemplated by Explanation (i) to section 194H. The mere fact that the word "agent" or "agency" is
�रलायंस कूमु�नकेशन इं�ा���चर �ल�मटेड 10 Reliance Communications Infrastructure Ltd ITA No. 4677 /Mum/2014 ITA No.6726/Mum/2012 used or the words "buyer" and "seller" are used to describe the status of the parties concerned is not sufficient to lead to the irresistible inference that the parties did in fact intend that the status would be conferred. While interpreting the terms of the agreement, the court has to look to the substance rather than the form of it. Thus, the mere formal description of a person as an agent or buyer is not conclusive, unless the context shows that the parties clearly intended to treat a buyer as a buyer and not as an agent. If the property in the goods is transferred and gets vested in the concessionaire at the time of the delivery then he is thereafter liable for them and would be dealing with them in his own right as a principal and not as an agent. For section 194H to be attracted, the income being paid out by the assessee must be in the nature of commission or brokerage. The element of agency is to be there in case of all services or transactions contemplated by Explanation (i) to section 194H. The word "discount" is normally used to describe a deduction from the full amount or value of something, especially a price. whereas a commission is defined in Explanation (i) to section 194H as any payment received or receivable, directly or indirectly by an agent for services rendered acting on behalf of the principal. The word "discount" is normally used to describe a deduction from the full amount or value of something especially a price. Cash discount cannot be confused with trade discount. The two concepts are wholly distinct and separate. Cash discount is allowed when the purchaser makes payment promptly or within the period of credit allowed. It is discount granted in consideration of expeditious payment. A trade dis- count is a deduction from the catalogue price of goods allowed by wholesalers to retailers engaged in the trade. The allowance enables the retailer to sell the goods at the catalogue price and yet make a reasonable margin of profit after taking into account his business expense. The question has to be determined having regard to the terms and recitals of the agreement, the intention of the parties as may be spelt out from the terms of the document and the surrounding circumstances and having regard to the course of dealings between the parties and the statutory provisions and the interpretation placed by courts in the judgments on the point.
�रलायंस कूमु�नकेशन इं�ा���चर �ल�मटेड 11 Reliance Communications Infrastructure Ltd ITA No. 4677 /Mum/2014 ITA No.6726/Mum/2012 The assessees were in the business of provisions of telecommunications services. They had channel partners or appointed distributors to purchase starter packs (SIM cards), refill packs (refill/re-charge slips, refill/recharge cards, e-top-up, etc., in bulk and then sell them to sub-dealers or retailers. After going through the agreement entered into between the assessee and its dealers, the assessing authority was of the view that the agreement established a principal and agent relationship between the two parties and, therefore, any discount or commission paid to such parties was liable for deduction of tax at under section 194H. This view was upheld by the Commissioner (Appeals) and the Tribunal. On appeals to the High Court: Held, allowing the appeals, (i) that SIM cards had no intrinsic sale value and were supplied to customers for providing mobile services to them. There was no relationship of principal and agency. On the contrary, it was expressly stated that the relationship was that of principal to principal. Secondly, the distributor or channel partner had to pay consideration for the product supplied and it was treated as sale consideration. There was a clause, which specifically stated that after such sale of products, the distributor or channel partner could not return the goods to the assessee for whatever reason. What was given by the assessee to its distributor or channel partner was a trade discount. It was not commission. (ii) That the assessee sold pre-paid cards and vouchers to the distributors. At the time of the assessee selling these pre-paid cards for a consideration to the distributor, the distributor did not earn any income. In fact, rather than earning income, the distributors incurred expenditure for the purchase of pre-paid cards. Only after the resale of those pre- paid cards, would the distributors derive income. At the time of the assessee selling these pre-paid cards, it was not in possession of any income belonging to the distributor. Therefore, the question of any income accruing or arising to the distributor at the point of time of sale of pre-paid cards by the assessee to the distributor did not arise. Section 194H was not applicable”.
�रलायंस कूमु�नकेशन इं�ा���चर �ल�मटेड 12 Reliance Communications Infrastructure Ltd ITA No. 4677 /Mum/2014 ITA No.6726/Mum/2012 Since the aforesaid decision of the High Court is a later decision considering all the decisions on this subject then, such a decision has a great persuasive value and following the same, we are inclined to follow the same conclusion. Accordingly, following the aforesaid decision and ratio laid down by the Hon’ble High Court, we hold even otherwise also the assessee was not liable to deduct TDS on such discount therefore, no disallowance under section 40(a)(ia) could not have been made.
Thus, first issue raised vide ground no.(i) to (x), is decided in favour of the assessee and against the revenue and accordingly grounds raised by the revenue are treated as dismissed.
The second issue relates to disallowance of Rs.8,65,06,770/- under section 14A. The brief facts are that, Ld. AO noted that, assessee has made investment in mutual funds and other securities and accordingly, assessee was liable to allocate certain expenditure for making such investment, which are capable of earning exempt income. Accordingly, he calculated the indirect expenditure by taking 0.5% of the average value of investment and in accordance with the Rule 8D even though in AY 2007-08, Rule 8D was not applicable and, therefore, such a disallowance could not have been made at least under Rule 8D.
The Ld. CIT(A) held that since AO has not pointed out any default in the matter of apportionment or allocation of expenses, therefore, no ad-hoc disallowance can be made especially when Rule 8D is not applicable in this year. He also noted down the fact that, in this year, the assessee has not earned any exempt income accordingly, disallowance made by the AO was deleted by him.
Before us, it has been admitted by both the parties that, there is no exempt income in this year. However, the Ld. CIT DR submitted that, even though there is no exempt income in this year but such an investment are capable of earning exempt income in
�रलायंस कूमु�नकेशन इं�ा���चर �ल�मटेड 13 Reliance Communications Infrastructure Ltd ITA No. 4677 /Mum/2014 ITA No.6726/Mum/2012 future, therefore, it cannot be held that no disallowance should be made and this was not the intention of the Legislature. On the other hand, Ld. Counsel relied upon the decision of Delhi High Court in the case Cheminvest Ltd vs CIT, reported in 378 ITR 33 (Delhi).
After considering the rival submissions and on perusal of the impugned orders, we find that, it is an admitted fact that, assessee has not earned any exempt income during the year. This fact has been noted by the Ld. CIT(A) in the following manner: “3.4 Further the Authorized Representative submitted that the disallowances so made of Rs.8,65,06,770/- is grossly disproportionate specifically considering the fact that the Appellant has not earned any Exempt Income during the year under review. Therefore, it was urged that the disallowance is made without any basis and on presumption, hence, same be deleted. 3.5 I have considered the facts and perused the material on record. The provisions of section 14A(1) read with section 14A(2) provides that for the purpose of total income computed under this chapter, no deduction shall be allowed in respect of expenditure incurred by the appellant in relation to income which does not form part of total income under this Chapter and the AO will determine the amount of expenditure incurred in relation to exempt income if he is not satisfied with the correctness of the claim of the Appellant. The perusal of Profit and Loss Account of the appellant shows that the appellant has not made any claim of expenditure incurred in relation to exempt income”.
Once the assessee has not earned any exempt income then in view of the ratio laid down by the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of Cheminvest Ltd. (supra), no disallowance under section 14A can be made. The Hon’ble Delhi High Court after taking the note of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs Rajendra Prasad Mody, reported in [1978] 115 ITR 519 (SC), held that if no exempt income has been earned during the year, then no disallowance can be made under section 14A. Thus, following the aforesaid ratio, we uphold the disallowance made by the Ld. CIT(A) and accordingly, ground no. (xi) is decided in favour of the assessee and against the revenue.
�रलायंस कूमु�नकेशन इं�ा���चर �ल�मटेड 14 Reliance Communications Infrastructure Ltd ITA No. 4677 /Mum/2014 ITA No.6726/Mum/2012
In ground no. (xii), the revenue has challenged the disallowance of 14A for the purpose of computing book profit under section 115JB. Though in principle we agree with the ground raised by the revenue, however, in this case, since we have already held that no disallowance u/s 14A is called for, therefore, this ground become purely academic, accordingly ground no. (xii) is treated as dismissed as same being academic.
In the result, appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed.
Now, coming to second appeal filed by the revenue being ITA No.6726/Mum/2012.
The only issue involved in the impugned appeal is addition on account of disallowance under section 40a(i) made by the AO for non-deduction of TDS under section 194H and payments made to distributors as discount on sale of pre-paid recharge vouchers. As we have already decided appeal of the revenue on identical ground, in the appeal for AY 2007-08, therefore, the finding given in aforesaid appeal will apply mutatis mutandis to the impugned appeal also accordingly, ground no. (i) to (x) does not stand and same are dismissed.
In the result, both the appeals filed by the revenue stands dismissed. Order pronounced in the open court on 23rd March, 2016. Sd/- Sd/- (रिमत कोचर) (अिमत शु�ला) लेखा सद�य �याईक सद�य (RAMIT KOCHAR) (AMIT SHUKLA) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER Mumbai, Date: 23rd March, 2016
�रलायंस कूमु�नकेशन इं�ा���चर �ल�मटेड 15 Reliance Communications Infrastructure Ltd ITA No. 4677 /Mum/2014 ITA No.6726/Mum/2012 ��त/Copy to:- 1) अपीलाथ� /The Appellant. 2) ��यथ� /The Respondent. 3) The CIT(A) -13, Mumbai. 4) The Commissioner of Income Tax-City -7, Mumbai. 5) िवभागीय �ितिनिध “डी”, आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, मुंबई/ The D.R. “A” Bench, Mumbai. 6) गाड� फाईल \ Copy to Guard File. आदेशानुसार/By Order / / True Copy / /
उप/सहायक पंजीकार आयकर अपील�य अ�धकरण, मुंबई Dy./Asstt. Registrar I.T.A.T., Mumbai *च�हान व.िन.स *Chavan, Sr.PS