Delhi High Court
Rolls Royce Plc vs Director Of Income Tax, ... on 30 August, 2011
Author: A.K.Sikri
REPORTABLE
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ ITA 493/2008,ITA 743/2006
ITA 494/2008,ITA 495/2008
ITA 496/2008,ITA 497/2008
ITA 498/2008,ITA 498/2008
ITA 584/2008,ITA 647/2008
ITA 648/2008,ITA 649/2008
ITA 650/2008,ITA 663/2008
% Judgment Reserved On: 19.7.2011
Judgment Delivered On: 30.8.2011
(1) ITA 493/2008
ROLLS ROYCE PLC . . . APPELLANT
Through: Mr. S. Ganesh, Sr. Advocate with Mr.
Mukesh Butani, Mr. H. Raghavendra
Rao, Mr. Arjit Prasad, Advocates.
VERSUS
DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX, . ..RESPONDENT
INTERNATIONAL TAXATION
Through: Mr. Sanjeev Sabharwal, Sr. Standing
Counsel
(2) ITA 743/2006
ROLLS ROYCE PLC . . . APPELLANT
Through: Mr. S. Ganesh, Sr. Advocate with Mr.
Mukesh Butani, Mr. H. Raghavendra
Rao, Mr. Arjit Prasad, Advocates.
VERSUS
DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX, . ..RESPONDENT
INTERNATIONAL TAXATION
Through: Mr. Sanjeev Sabharwal, Sr. Standing
Counsel.
(3) ITA 494/2008
ITA 493/2008, 743/2006, 494/2008,495/2008, Page 1 of 19
496/2008, 497/2008, 498/2008,498/2008 584/2008,
647/2008, 648/2008, 649/2008, 650/2008,663/2008
ROLLS ROYCE PLC . . . APPELLANT
Through: Mr. S. Ganesh, Sr. Advocate with Mr.
Mukesh Butani, Mr. H. Raghavendra
Rao, Mr. Arjit Prasad, Advocates.
VERSUS
DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX, . ..RESPONDENT
INTERNATIONAL TAXATION
Through: Mr. Sanjeev Sabharwal, Sr. Standing
Counsel
(4) ITA 495/2008
ROLLS ROYCE PLC . . . APPELLANT
Through: Mr. S. Ganesh, Sr. Advocate with Mr.
Mukesh Butani, Mr. H. Raghavendra
Rao, Mr. Arjit Prasad, Advocates.
VERSUS
DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX, . ..RESPONDENT
INTERNATIONAL TAXATION
Through: Mr. Sanjeev Sabharwal, Sr. Standing
Counsel
(5) ITA 496/2008
ROLLS ROYCE PLC . . . APPELLANT
Through: Mr. S. Ganesh, Sr. Advocate with Mr.
Mukesh Butani, Mr. H. Raghavendra
Rao, Mr. Arjit Prasad, Advocates.
VERSUS
DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX, . ..RESPONDENT
INTERNATIONAL TAXATION
Through: Mr. Sanjeev Sabharwal, Sr. Standing
Counsel
(6) ITA 497/2008
ROLLS ROYCE PLC . . . APPELLANT
Through: Mr. S. Ganesh, Sr. Advocate with Mr.
Mukesh Butani, Mr. H. Raghavendra
Rao, Mr. Arjit Prasad, Advocates.
ITA 493/2008, 743/2006, 494/2008,495/2008, Page 2 of 19
496/2008, 497/2008, 498/2008,498/2008 584/2008,
647/2008, 648/2008, 649/2008, 650/2008,663/2008
VERSUS
DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX, . ..RESPONDENT
INTERNATIONAL TAXATION
Through: Mr. Sanjeev Sabharwal, Sr. Standing
Counsel
(7) ITA 498/2008
ROLLS ROYCE PLC . . . APPELLANT
Through: Mr. S. Ganesh, Sr. Advocate with Mr.
Mukesh Butani, Mr. H. Raghavendra
Rao, Mr. Arjit Prasad, Advocates.
VERSUS
DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX, . ..RESPONDENT
INTERNATIONAL TAXATION
Through: Mr. Sanjeev Sabharwal, Sr. Standing
Counsel
(8) ITA 584/2008
DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX, . ..APPELLANT
INTERNATIONAL TAXATION
Through: Mr. Sanjeev Sabharwal, Sr. Standing
Counsel
VERSUS
ROLLS ROYCE PLC . . . RESPONDENT
Through: Mr. S. Ganesh, Sr. Advocate with Mr.
Mukesh Butani, Mr. H. Raghavendra
Rao, Mr. Arjit Prasad, Advocates.
(9) ITA 647/2008
DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX, . ..APPELLANT
INTERNATIONAL TAXATION
ITA 493/2008, 743/2006, 494/2008,495/2008, Page 3 of 19
496/2008, 497/2008, 498/2008,498/2008 584/2008,
647/2008, 648/2008, 649/2008, 650/2008,663/2008
Through: Mr. Sanjeev Sabharwal, Sr. Standing
Counsel
VERSUS
ROLLS ROYCE PLC . . . RESPONDENT
Through: Mr. S. Ganesh, Sr. Advocate with Mr.
Mukesh Butani, Mr. H. Raghavendra
Rao, Mr. Arjit Prasad, Advocates
(10) ITA 648/2008
DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX, . ..APPELLANT
INTERNATIONAL TAXATION
Through: Mr. Sanjeev Sabharwal, Sr. Standing
Counsel
VERSUS
ROLLS ROYCE PLC . . . RESPONDENT
Through: Mr. S. Ganesh, Sr. Advocate with Mr.
Mukesh Butani, Mr. H. Raghavendra
Rao, Mr. Arjit Prasad, Advocates
(11) ITA 649/2008
DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX, . ..APPELLANT
INTERNATIONAL TAXATION
Through: Mr. Sanjeev Sabharwal, Sr. Standing
Counsel
VERSUS
ROLLS ROYCE PLC . . . RESPONDENT
Through: Mr. S. Ganesh, Sr. Advocate with Mr.
Mukesh Butani, Mr. H. Raghavendra
Rao, Mr. Arjit Prasad, Advocates
(12) ITA 650/2008
DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX, . ..APPELLANT
ITA 493/2008, 743/2006, 494/2008,495/2008, Page 4 of 19
496/2008, 497/2008, 498/2008,498/2008 584/2008,
647/2008, 648/2008, 649/2008, 650/2008,663/2008
INTERNATIONAL TAXATION
Through: Mr. Sanjeev Sabharwal, Sr. Standing
Counsel
VERSUS
ROLLS ROYCE PLC . . . RESPONDENT
Through: Mr. S. Ganesh, Sr. Advocate with Mr.
Mukesh Butani, Mr. H. Raghavendra
Rao, Mr. Arjit Prasad, Advocates
(13) ITA 663/2008
DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX, . ..APPELLANT
INTERNATIONAL TAXATION
Through: Mr. Sanjeev Sabharwal, Sr. Standing
Counsel
VERSUS
ROLLS ROYCE PLC . . . RESPONDENT
Through: Mr. S. Ganesh, Sr. Advocate with Mr.
Mukesh Butani, Mr. H. Raghavendra
Rao, Mr. Arjit Prasad, Advocates
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
the Judgment?
2. To be referred to the Reporter or not?
3. Whether the Judgment should be reported in the Digest?
A.K. SIKRI, J.
496/2008, 497/2008, 498/2008,498/2008 584/2008,
647/2008, 648/2008, 649/2008, 650/2008,663/2008
1. These appeals of the assessee were admitted on the following
questions of law vide orders dated 25th September, 2008:-
"1. Whether the Income Tax Appellate
Tribunal was correct in holding that the
reassessment proceedings under Section
147/148 of the Income-Tax Act 1961 were
valid?
2. Whether the office of Rolls Royce India
Limited at New Delhi constituted a
permanent establishment of the assessee
under Article 5 of the Double Taxation
Avoidance Agreement between India and the
United Kingdom?
are against the assessee, then what would be
the appropriate amount of profits attributable
to the permanent establishment of the
assessee in India?
4. Whether the findings of the Income Tax
appellate Tribunal with regard to the
existence of the permanent establishment of
the assessee in India are perverse?"
2. On an application preferred by the appellant/ assessee, following
additional question of law was framed as substantial question of law, to
be addressed at the time of hearing:-
"Whether a coordinate bench of the tribunal
while passing an order can take a contrary
view that has been expressed by an earlier
coordinate bench in respect of the same
assessee where similar issues are involved or
should the bench refer it to a larger bench"?
496/2008, 497/2008, 498/2008,498/2008 584/2008,
647/2008, 648/2008, 649/2008, 650/2008,663/2008
3. We may point out at the outset that Mr. Ganesh, learned Senior
Counsel appearing for the appellant/assessee did not press all these
questions at the time of hearing. The learned counsel for the assessee
did not argue the validity of reopening of assessment under Section 147
of the Income-Tax Act. Even on additional question framed vide orders
dated 7th July, 2010, no arguments were raised. Accordingly, questions
no. 1 and additional question framed on 7th July, 2010 are decided against
the assessee, as not pressed.
4. Even on the question of permanent establishment on which aspect
question of law no. 2 and 4 have been framed, there was no serious
contest. As would be noticed later, the only attempt on the part of Mr.
Ganesh was to persuade this Court to refer the matter back to the ITAT
and decide this issue afresh in the light of the objections filed by the
assessee. We may mention that Rolls Royce India Limited (RRIL) is 100%
subsidiary set up in India and it is held to be the PE of the assessee.
Since this was the submission in the alternative and main focus of attack
on the findings of ITAT rested on question of law no.3, we will first deal
with that question. Reason is obvious. Mr. Ganesh argued that even if it
is so, the payment made by the assessee to RRIL for the services
496/2008, 497/2008, 498/2008,498/2008 584/2008,
647/2008, 648/2008, 649/2008, 650/2008,663/2008
rendered by RRIL on behalf of the assessee constitutes arm's length price
(ALP) and, therefore, nothing more was to be taxed at the hands of the
assessee.
5. We may capture some material facts needed to answer this
question of law no.3.
6. The appellant is a company incorporated under the laws of England
and Wales and is a tax resident in the United Kingdom. The appellant is a
Non-Resident under the provisions of the Indian Income Tax Act. The
appellant supplies certain parts and equipment to Indian customers who
are mainly Indian Navy, Indian Air Force and Hindustan Aeronautics
Limited (HAL). There is another company namely Ms/ Rolls Royce Indian
Limited (RRIL) which is a company incorporated under the Laws of
England and Wales and is tax resident in the United Kingdom. RRIL has
offices in India which render liaison services. The liaison offices have
been established after taking approval from the Reserve Bank of India.
RRIL renders liaison services and such services are rendered inter alia by
the liaison offices of RRIL in India for which RRIL is remunerated on a cost
plus basis.
496/2008, 497/2008, 498/2008,498/2008 584/2008,
647/2008, 648/2008, 649/2008, 650/2008,663/2008
7. The Assessing Officer after holding that RRIL was PE of the assessee
and there were business connection between the two as the marketing
and sale of goods to Indian customer were carried out by the assessee
through RRIL substituted in India. He was of the view that profits
attributable from PE was liable to tax in India in terms of Article 7 of
DTAA. The Assessing Officer accordingly invoked Rule 10 of the Income
Tax Rules , 1962 and attributed 100% of profits earning from sale of
goods from Indian customer in the assessment year 1997-98 to 2000-01
and 75% of profits in the assessment year 2002-03 and 2003-04.
8. The CIT (A) upheld the order of the Assessing Officer for the
Assessment years 1997-98, 1998-99, 1999-00, 2000-01 and held that the
offices of the RRIL in India constitute permanent establishment of the
appellant in India under Article 5 of the Double Taxation Avoidance
Agreement Between India and United Kingdom (hereinafter referred to as
"DTAA"). However, the CIT (A) had modified the order of the Assessing
Officer to the extent that the profits attributable to the activities carried
on India were deemed to be 75% instead of 100% of the estimated profits
as held by the assessing Officer. The order of the CIT (A) was carried in
appeal before the ITAT and ITAT also upheld the order of the CIT (A).
However, it modified the order of the CIT (A) to the extent that the profits
496/2008, 497/2008, 498/2008,498/2008 584/2008,
647/2008, 648/2008, 649/2008, 650/2008,663/2008
attributable to the activities carried on in India were estimated at 35%
instead of 75% as held by the CIT (A).
9. Mr. Ganesh has not challenged the order of the ITAT insofar as it has
attributed 35% of the global profits to the activities carried out in India.
His grievance on this aspect was also very limited and confined to the set
off of net research and development expenses while computing the
income. To put it precisely, the submission was that though the Tribunal
had held that 35% of the global profits in respect of sale effected in India
were chargeable to tax in India in the impugned order the Tribunal had
not satisfied as to which profit is to be adopted for this purpose.
10. After the impugned decision, the assessee had preferred MA 55-
60/Del/2008 before the Tribunal raising various issues including the one
raised above. It was contended that even if the income is to be
computed, only net profit to be taxed should be considered and not the
trading profit. The assessee had sought clarification by means of
aforesaid application, inter alia, on this point as well contending that in
the absence of clarity, there may be confusion while giving effect to the
order of the Tribunal. The Tribunal disposed of this application vide order
dated 30th January, 2009 clarifying that in para 24.1 of the impugned
order it had held that out of the total profits on global basis, 50% of the
496/2008, 497/2008, 498/2008,498/2008 584/2008,
647/2008, 648/2008, 649/2008, 650/2008,663/2008
profit is to be attributed to the manufacturing activity, 15% to research
and development activities and balance to marketing activities and since
marketing activities are carried out in India to the extent of sales in India
and proportionate profit is to be attributed to the global profits.
11. It is also remarked that the Assessing Officer had adopted the global
profits being trading profit which represents gross profit less commercial
marketing product support cost and general administration cost, but
before net of the research and development expenses and exceptional
items. The contention of the learned counsel for the assessee that net
research and development expenses should also be reduced while
computing operating profits was rejected by the Tribunal on the ground
that no part of research and development activities is carried out in India.
There is a sufficient clarification on this aspect by the Tribunal in the
following words:-
"The contention of the learned counsel for the
assessee is that net research and development
expenses should also be reduced while computing
operating profit. We are unable to accept such
contention. It is an admitted fact that no part of
the research and development activities are
carried out in India. The research and
development do contribute to t the profit and in
respect of which Tribunal have apportioned 15%
thereof and directed to exclude the same while
computing global profits. While computing the
496/2008, 497/2008, 498/2008,498/2008 584/2008,
647/2008, 648/2008, 649/2008, 650/2008,663/2008
profit which is to be attributed to the activities in
India, only those factors affecting such profit are to
be considered. Thus, if some activities are carried
out by the assessee wholly outside India in respect
of which no profit can be attributable to the
activities in India, then such profit cannot be taxed
in India. In the same fashion if some activities are
carried outside India resulting into loss to the
assessee, such loss is also to be ignored while
computing the profit, which is composite, to the
proportionate of activities in India. The activities in
India are in the form of marketing and sales.
Therefore, all the expenses incurred till the
marketing are to be reduced. The research and
development activities which result into loss to the
assessee and admittedly not being carried out in
India is to be ignored while computing global
profits to be attributed to Indian operations.
Therefore, the computation of profit as done by the
Assessing Officer is to be upheld subject to our
observations in para 24.1 of the order of Tribunal."
12. We are in agreement with the aforesaid view of the Tribunal. While
restricting the attribution to 35%, the reason given by the Tribunal was
that profit attributed to manufacturing activity and research and
development activities i.e. 50% and 15% respectively had to be
excluded. Thus the expenses on research and development were
already taken care of when remuneration @ 35% was attributed to
marketing activities in India on which global profits was apportioned and
there was no question of setting off the research and development
496/2008, 497/2008, 498/2008,498/2008 584/2008,
647/2008, 648/2008, 649/2008, 650/2008,663/2008
expenses again in respect of marketing activities . We, thus, answer
question no.3 against the assessee.
13. With this, we revert back to the issue of PE on which questions of
law no. 2 & 4 are framed. As already pointed out, there is no serious
contest to the findings arrived at by the Tribunal touching various facets
of the business relation between RRIL and the assessee on the basis of
which RRIL, which is a 100% subsidiary setup in India is held to be as PE
of the assessee. Only a limited challenge was laid to the impugned order
was predicated on the objections which the assessee had filed to the
Remand Report obtained by the CIT (A) from the Assessing Office. It was
argued that the assessee had filed its objections which is duly
acknowledged by the ITAT in para 19 of the impugned order. Alongwith
objections, the assessee had filed various documents which fact is also
acknowledged by the ITAT in the impugned order. The grievance is that
the objections as well as those documents were not even considered
properly. From these documents the assessee only wanted to show that
the RRIL does not constitute its PE in India.
14. When we examine the discussion of the CIT (A) as well ITAT on the
aspects of PE, we are convinced that for sufficient and adequate reasons,
the authorities below have held that RRIL to be the PE of the assessee in
496/2008, 497/2008, 498/2008,498/2008 584/2008,
647/2008, 648/2008, 649/2008, 650/2008,663/2008
India and in the process, the objections of the assessee are duly met with
and answered. Though, there is an elaborate discussion on this aspect,
we may summarise the same by pointing out that the Tribunal delineated
six questions which had arisen for consideration and those are stated in
para-16 of the impugned order. Questions no. 2 and 3 were precisely on
this very issue which are as under:
"(2) Whether the assessee has any income
chargeable to tax in India u/s 5 (2) of the Act
and whether the assessee has any business
connection in India as per Section 9 (1) (i) of
the Act?
(3) If the answer to Question No.2 is in
affirmative, whether, in terms of DTAA
between India and UK, the appellant has any
PE in India?"
15. The Tribunal first considered the question of business connection.
After taking note of the relevant provisions which existed at that time as
well as the case law, in para-19, the Tribunal took note of the fact that an
agreement was entered into by the assessee with RRIL whereby RRIL was
to render certain services to the assessee. From the extent and scope of
these services, the Tribunal held that the assessee had a business
connection in India within the meaning of Section 9(1) (i) of the Act. It
would be relevant to point out at this stage that the aforesaid conclusion
of the Tribunal was not rested solely on the agreement with RRIL. It also
496/2008, 497/2008, 498/2008,498/2008 584/2008,
647/2008, 648/2008, 649/2008, 650/2008,663/2008
took into consideration and analysed various papers which were found
during the course of the survey and which were not there earlier when
the Tribunal had decided the appeal of the assessee for the assessment
year 2001-02. It is not necessary to state in detail the nature of those
documents having regard to the fact that before us this aspect of
business connection was not disputed. However, we would still like to
reproduce the following observations of the Tribunal in this behalf:-
"The material existed for all the time to come and
it is unfortunate that the assessee never disclosed
its true relationship vis-à-vis RRIL. Only after the
survey was conducted, the true face has come out.
Once this material was found, the appellate
proceedings were pending and were being
considered by learned CIT (A) after calling for a
remand report from the AO. The objections of
assessee against the remand report were also
considered. However, since the material relates to
the entire business activity even for all the years
under appeal, there is no case that the same
should be ignored only because the same were not
found after the conclusion of assessment
proceedings but before the conclusion of appellate
proceedings. Prima facie these papers itself show
the extent of work being handled by RRIL for
appellant in India. RRIL is not only 100%
subsidiary of the appellant but also maintains a
permanent office in India to undertake all such
activities. Thus, it can be concluded that the
appellant has a business connection in India within
the meaning of Section 9(1) (i) of the Act and
under the Income-Tax Act, its income is chargeable
to tax in India arising out of such business
connections."
496/2008, 497/2008, 498/2008,498/2008 584/2008,
647/2008, 648/2008, 649/2008, 650/2008,663/2008
16. After holding that the assessee had business connection in India,
the Tribunal adverted to the question as to whether there was any PE in
India within the meaning of Article 5 of the Indo-UK DTAA. The Tribunal
extracted the provisions of Article 5 and stated the legal position that
emerged therefrom. Thereafter, it referred to various documents in para
22 and narrated its effect in detail. Our purpose would be served by
extracting para 23 of the impugned order which reads as under:-
"23. It is also seen that the appellant has a dependent
agent in India in the form of RRIL. The fact that RRIL is
totally dependent upon the appellant is not denied.
However, the contention of the appellant is that even
though RRIL is a dependent agent and such agency is
to be deemed as PE, so long such dependent agent
has no authority to negotiate and enter into contracts,
under Article 5 (4), there is no PE in India. It is to be
noted that Article 5 (4) has three clauses, namely, a, b
& c. Thus, even if one has to hold that the dependent
agent has no authority to negotiate and enter into
contracts for and on behalf of appellant, still as per
clause (c) of sub Article (4), it is found that RRIL
habitually secures orders in India for the appellant. It is
a set practice that no customers in India are directly to
send orders to the appellant in UK. Such orders are
required to be routed only through RRIL. This fact is
evident from the letter of Mr. L.M. Morgan to Mr.
Prateek Dabral and Ms. Usha. In the said letter, it is
made clear that even request for quotation/extension
could not be communicated directly to the appellant
but are to be routed through the office of RRIL. This is
applicable even to the orders. The fact is not denied
that the orders are firstly received by RRIL from the
customers in India and only then communicated to the
appellant. Thus, as per Para 4(c) of Article 5, the
dependent agent habitually secures orders wholly for
496/2008, 497/2008, 498/2008,498/2008 584/2008,
647/2008, 648/2008, 649/2008, 650/2008,663/2008
the enterprise itself and hence, is deemed to be a
permanent establishment of the appellant. The
contention of appellant that the role of RRIL is merely
of a post office is, therefore, unacceptable in view of
the facts of the case as evidenced by various
documents and correspondence found during the
course of survey. It can, therefore be summarized that
in the light of the facts as well as documents
mentioned above, RRIL's presence n India is a
permanent establishment of appellant because:
(a) It is a fixed place of business at the disposal of
the Rolls Royce Plc and its group companies in India
through which their business are carried on.
(b) The activity of this fixed place is not a
preparatory or auxiliary, but is a core activity of
marketing, negotiating, selling of the product. This is a
virtual extension/projection of its customer facing
business unit, who has the responsibility to sell the
products belonging to the group.
(c) RRIL acts almost like a sales office of RR Plc and
its group companies.
(d) RRIL and its employees work wholly and
exclusively for the Rolls Royce Plc and the Group.
(e) RRIL and its employees are soliciting and
receiving orders wholly and exclusively on behalf of the
Rolls Royce Group.
(f) Employees of Rolls Royce Group are also present
in various locations in India and they report to the
Director of RRIL in India.
(g) The personnel functioning from the premises of
RRIL are in fact employees of Rolls Royce Plc. This has
been admitted by the MD Mr. Tim Jones, GM, and can
be discerned from statement of Mr. Ajit Thosar and
documents like terms of employment of GMS.
Thus, the appellant can be said to have a PE in India
within the meaning of Article 5 (1), 5(2) and 5(4) of the
Indo UK DTAA. Since we have found that the appellant
496/2008, 497/2008, 498/2008,498/2008 584/2008,
647/2008, 648/2008, 649/2008, 650/2008,663/2008
has a business connection in India as well as PE in
India, the income arising from its operation in India are
chargeable to tax in India."
17. We are thus convinced that there is a detailed discussion after
taking into consideration all the relevant aspects while holding that RRIL
constituted PE of the assessee in India. While undertaking critical analysis
of the material on record, the Tribunal kept in mind the objections filed by
the assessee as well as the documents on which it wanted to rely upon.
Those objections were duly met and answered.
18. We thus, do not find any need to remand the case back to the
Tribunal for this purpose which was the plea raised by the learned
Counsel for the appellant/assessee. Agreeing with the view taken by the
ITAT in the impugned order as well as in the Misc. Application, we answer
questions no.2 & 4 against the assessee. As a result, we find no merits
in the appeals of the assessee which are accordingly dismissed.
19. In the appeals preferred by the Revenue only the extent of income
attributable to the PE is questioned. The case of the Revenue is that it
should not have been restricted as done by the CIT (A) and modified by
the ITAT. The submission is that the order of the Assessing Officer be
maintained.
496/2008, 497/2008, 498/2008,498/2008 584/2008,
647/2008, 648/2008, 649/2008, 650/2008,663/2008
20. Since we have upheld the order of the ITAT in its entirety including
on this aspect while discussing the appeals of the assessee, as a
consequence, all the appeals of the Revenue on this aspect are also
dismissed.
(A.K. SIKRI)
JUDGE
(M.L. MEHTA)
JUDGE
AUGUST 30, 2011
Skb
496/2008, 497/2008, 498/2008,498/2008 584/2008,
647/2008, 648/2008, 649/2008, 650/2008,663/2008
