2008-VIL-562--DT

Equivalent Citation: [2008] 25 SOT 184 (MUM.)

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, MUMBAI

4494 (MUM.) OF 2003 AND 403/(MUM.) OF 2005

Date: 31.07.2008

VENTURE INFOTEK GLOBAL (P.) LTD.

Vs

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX

D.P. Bapat for the Appellant. Sishir Srivastava for the Respondent.

BENCH

ASHA VIJAY RAGHAVAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND A.L. GEHLOT, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER

JUDGMENT

A.L. Gehlot, Accountant Member. - These appeals filed by the assessee being ITA No. 403/Mum./05 as well as the revenue being ITA No. 4494/Mum./03 are directed against the order of learned CIT(A) - XXIX, Mumbai, passed on 29-10-2004, for the assessment year 2001-02 and the order of learned CIT(A)-XXV, dated 26-3-2003 for assessment year 1999-2000 respectively. Since common grounds are involved in both these appeals, a consolidated order is passed for the sake of convenience.

2. Ground No. 2 of the assessee’s appeal reads as under :—

"The learned CIT(A) further erred in confirming the disallowance of technical service charges paid to FBS Software Inc., USA of Rs. 2,45,46,000 on the ground that the said expenditure is of capital nature."

3. Ground No. (i) of revenue’s appeal read as under :—

"On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the CIT(A) erred in directing the Assessing Officer to treat the foreign travel expenditure of Rs. 13,99,568 incurred to acquire enduring benefit in the right of lease licence as revenue expenditure instead of capital expenditure without appreciating the facts in proper perspective."

4. The facts of the case are that the assessee is engaged in providing infrastructure for automation of consumer payment system. The assessee paid Rs. 2,45,46,000 to FBS software Inc. USA towards software upgradation, modification and customization charges. The assessee also incurred travelling expenditure of Rs. 13,99,568. The assessee claimed both expenditure as revenue expenditure of Rs. 13,99,568 in assessment year 1999-2000 and Rs. 2,45,46,000 in assessment year 2001-02 on fulfilment of condition laid down in section 40(a)( i) of the Act on payment of tax. The Assessing Officer treated both expenditure as capital in nature and disallowed both the claims. The CIT(A) allowed the claim of assessee of Rs. 13,99,568 treating it as revenue expenditure in assessment year 1999-2000. However, as regards disallowance of Rs. 2,45,46,000 the CIT(A) confirmed the order of Assessing Officer for assessment year 2001-02. Against the order of CIT(A) in assessment year 1999-2000 revenue is in appeal and raised ground No. 1 in its appeal. The assessee is also in appeal for assessment year 2001-02 regarding Rs. 2,45,46,000.

4.1 As regards the amount of Rs. 13,99,568, the contention of the assessee is that as per the agreement the employees of the foreign collaborators have visited India to assist the assessee to modify/customize the software to suit the assessee’s business needs. The assessee was not owner of the software but merely a licensee. Therefore, travelling expenses cannot be termed as capital in nature. The Assessing Officer was of the view that expenditure incurred for purchasing asset therefore the expenditure is capital in nature. The CIT(A) did not agree with the view of Assessing Officer. The finding of CIT(A) is reproduced below :—

"The above submissions of the AR have been considered carefully. The contention of the Assessing Officer has also been considered. I have also gone through the details of travelling expenses filed in paper book on page No. 1. The appellant is only a licensee. The licence has been obtained from a foreign collaborator viz., FBS and consideration for that is being paid as a royalty on percentage basis of sales. The appellant had not acquired the asset in any manner from the foreign collaborators. The employees of the foreign collaborators have visited India to assist the appellant to modify/customize the software to suit the company’s business needs. The ownership of the software is of FBS and the appellant’s right is limited to the use of software for a period of ten years under the licence. The expenditure on travelling, therefore, cannot be termed as a capital expenditure. Thus, in my view, the Assessing Officer is not correct in treating the said expenditure as capital expenditure. The Assessing Officer is, therefore, directed to treat the said expenditure of Rs. 13,99,568 as revenue expenditure and allow the deduction accordingly."

4.2 To decide the issue we would like to refer following clauses of the agreement from assessee’s paper book :—

"Clause 12.1 - Service : For 6 months from the Effective date of this FBS agreement FBS shall make available to Licensee the number of person days of support specified in Exhibit 2 to (assist Licensee in the installation, integration, and implementation of the Software) ("Assurance Program")

Clause 12.3 - Payment : For the Assurance Program, Customer shall pay the fees specified in Exhibit 2. All sums are exclusive of expenses for materials, travel and lodging. Expenses will be invoiced in arrears to be due 30 days from receipt of the invoice. Travel time will be charged against the person days specified in Exhibit 2 at actual per person not to exceed eight hours per day per person."

4.3 From the above clauses of the agreement, we noticed that the assessee was bearing expenses for making travel and lodging in addition to specified fee. The travelling expenditure by the assessee for the purpose of business therefore same are allowable expenditure. The revenue has failed to establish that the expenditure incurred by the assessee is for the purpose of assets, therefore, the Assessing Officer’s view is not acceptable. After considering the totality of the facts of the case, we do not find any error in the order of the CIT(A). The order of CIT(A) is, accordingly, confirmed on this issue.

4.4 As regards the amount of Rs. 2,45,46,000 in appeal filed by assessee, the Assessing Officer treated this expenditure as capital in nature which has been confirmed by the CIT(A). The findings of the CIT(A) is as under :—

"The main contention of the AR is against the disallowance of the aforesaid expenditure is that the legal title in the software will remain with the FBS. There shall be no transfer by FBS to the appellant company of intellectual property rights etc. But it is seen as already discussed, appellant has acquired the right to use the multiplex computer software for ten years which is expendable further after the lapse of ten years. Though one time lump sum payment has been paid but the technical service charges of Rs. 2,45,46,000, in my opinion, represent the cost incurred by the appellant to customize the multiplex computer software to suit the Indian conditions and specific business requirements of the assessee. I am unable to understand as to how it is different from acquiring a long term right of enduring benefit. It should not be forgotten that the agreement is between the appellant company and its collaborator, who were free to devise the agreement in the manner suits to both of them. Even though the expenditure and payment of Rs. 2,45,46,000 has been calculated on the basis of US$100 per man hour the basic character of the expenditure does not get changed on this account. As per provisions of the Act, technical know-how and licence are treated as intangible capital assets. In view of the above discussion and for the reason discussed in the assessment order, I am of the opinion that assessee has acquired a long term enduring benefit and, therefore, expenditure of Rs. 2,45,46,000 is of capital nature and Assessing Officer, therefore, was right in disallowing it by treating the same as of capital nature. Disallowance, therefore, is upheld."

5. The learned DR relied upon the decision of ITAT Special Bench Delhi in the case of Amway India Enterprises v. Dy. CIT [2008] 111 ITD 112. After hearing the learned AR we find that the facts of the case are required to examine in the light of the above decision of ITAT SB Delhi (supra). We, therefore, find it proper to send the matter back to the file of the Assessing Officer with a direction to decide the issue in the light of the above decision of the ITAT SB Delhi (supra) after providing reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee.

6. The common ground raised in both the appeals pertaining to depreciation allowed by the Assessing Officer at the rate of 25 per cent against the claim of assessee at the rate of 60 per cent on computer.

7. Briefly the facts of the case are that the assessee has claimed depreciation at the rate of 60 per cent on POS terminals and ATMs on the ground that these equipments are of the nature of computers. The Assessing Officer did not accept that these equipments are of computer in nature. Therefore, he allowed depreciation at the rate of 25 per cent as against 60 per cent claimed by the assessee for both the years i.e., assessment year 1999-2000 and 2001-02. The CIT(A) in assessment year 1999-2000 accepted the assessee’s claim, therefore, the revenue is in appeal raising ground No. 2, which reads as under :—

"(ii)On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the CIT(A) erred in directing the Assessing Officer to allow the depreciation at the rate of 60 per cent instead of 25 per cent without appreciating the fact that the terminals are not computer."

7.1 In assessment year 2001-02, the CIT(A) confirmed the order of the Assessing Officer against which the assessee is in appeal raising ground No. 1, which reads as under :—

"1. The learned CIT(A) erred in upholding disallowance of depreciation to the extent of Rs. 3,55,47,515."

7.2 The assessee is engaged in the business of providing facilities for automation of consumer payment systems. The assessee claimed depreciation at the rate of 60 per cent on POS terminals and ATMs on the ground that these equipments are of the nature of computers. In support of the claim, the assessee submitted before the Assessing Officer that depreciation at the rate of 60 per cent has been claimed on the footing that the equipment comprised therein fit within the term of computer specified in Appendix I of the Income-tax Rules. The assessee referred to the definition of computer network and computer systems under the Information Technology Act, 2000. On the basis of this definition, the assessee claimed that both the equipments are in the nature of computers. The explanation of the assessee was not found acceptable to the Assessing Officer and, therefore, he treated the same as plant and machinery and applied the depreciation as applicable to the plant and machinery instead of computer. In assessment year 1999-2000, the CIT(A) decided the issue in favour of the assessee by observing as under :—

"I have considered the submissions of the learned AR carefully and I have also gone through the contentions of the Assessing Officer. The appellant’s claim of depreciation has been reduced by Rs. 1,03,59,352 on the ground that the appellant is not eligible to claim depreciation at the rate of 60 per cent on certain terminals and related accessories and support equipment. The details of such machinery as filed in the paper book on pages 46 to 52 clearly reveal that these terminals and related accessories are computers. These are the devices through which the appellant conducts its business. These terminals have hardware viz., memory, display card reader, printer, peripheral ports, modem and protocols. Physically its weight is 4.65 (116 mm), width 5.83", length 11.85" and shipping weight 3.3 lbs. This device is also having key board and the device is known as Omni-460. I have also gone through the definition of the computer given in the Information Technology Act, 2000. The definition of the ‘computer’ given therein can be very well utilized in the Income-tax proceedings due to the fact that there is no definition of computers given in the Income-tax Act, 1961. There is no prohibition in the Information Technology Act, 2000 to use the definition of computer under the Income-tax Act. Thus, in my view the Assessing Officer’s contention that the terminals and related accessories and support equipment used by the appellant for running its business are not computers is not correct. Their functioning are not only akin to the computer but they are inseparable in functioning and functionally dependent on each other. The location of terminals and sizes of its peripherals are immaterial. Basically a computer is an electronic machine that stores information and uses programs to help you find, organize or change the information according to our needs either business or personal. Thus, in my view, the claim of the appellant of depreciation at the rate of 60 per cent on the terminals and related accessories and support equipment is in order. Therefore, the Assessing Officer is directed to allow depreciation at the rate of 60 per cent on the said terminals and related accessories and support equipment. This ground of the appellant is, therefore, allowed."

In assessment year 2001-02 the CIT(A) decided the issue against assessee. The CIT(A) before confirming Assessing Officer’s view made a detailed discussion as under :—

"I have considered the facts of the case and submission made by AR of the appellant but not satisfied with the same. As far as the depreciation on POS terminals other than ATMs is concerned, AR has stated that this issue is covered in favour of the appellant by the order of CIT(A) for assessment year 1999-2000. AR has advanced no other arguments to counter the reasons and arguments discussed by the Assessing Officer in the assessment order to disallow depreciation at the rate of 60 per cent on various items of machines other than ATMs. It is seen from the appeal order No. CIT(A)XXV/ITO8(3)(4)/ IT-175/02-03, dated 26-3-2003 for assessment year 1999-2000 in appellant’s own case that AR stated before CIT(A) on the ground that the only observation which the Assessing Officer had sought to make against the appellant was that the input device also includes the cards and the terminals performs only a specialized function. In this behalf, it was submitted that the cards were not input device at all. In fact, the cards contain a database which is electronically transmitted into the terminal system by the use of the input devices inbuilt in the terminal. Further, AR placing reliance on the definition of computer given in the Information Technology Act countered by the Assessing Officer’s argument that it has not claimed depreciation at the rate of 60 per cent on the machines operated by the computer devices, AR stated before the CIT(A), during the course of appeal proceedings for assessment year 1999-2000 that the depreciation has been claimed on the computer themselves. It was in this background that the CIT(A) observed that these terminals and related accessories are computers. These are the devices through which the appellant conducts its business. These terminals have hardware viz., memory, display card reader, printer, peripheral ports, modem and protocols. This device is also having keyboard and the device is known as Omni-460. Referring to the definition of computer given in the Information Technology Act, 2000, CIT(A) observed that the definition of the computer given therein can be very well utilized in the Income-tax proceedings due to the fact that there is no definition of computers given in the Income-tax Act, 1961. There is no prohibition in the Information Technology Act, 2000 to use the definition of computer under the Income-tax Act. In view of above discussion, CIT(A) allowed depreciation at the rate of 60 per cent on the terminals and related accessories. However, it is seen and as also discussed in the assessment order, various other aspects of the machines appear not to have been taken into account. The Income-tax Act does not anywhere say that the definition of computer given in the Information Technology Act, 2000 should be followed. If the contentions of the appellant were to be accepted, it would mean that any sophisticated machines driven by computer would qualify for depreciation at the rate of 60 per cent. Definition of computer given in Information Technology Act, 2000 is to be looked into the context with which it was introduced and its legal impact. The Information Technology Act was introduced in the emerging scenario of banking, share trading, national and network security, legal sanctity of virtual information, criminal angle and frauds etc. When the computer was introduced qualifying for depreciation at the rate of 60 per cent in the Income-tax Rules, i.e., in Financial Year 1998-99, there was not a computer or network or communication boom as witnessed in the near years. The simplicity of a computer as understood by the Legislature was as stated earlier - an electronic device for storing and processing data (memory) and making calculation on the controlling machinery (microprocessor) and includes an input device like keyboard or the mouse and output device like the printer or monitor. As already stated, Board Circular No. 74/4/2004, dated 23-1-2004, F.No. 256/10/2003. CX. 4 has clarified that computers are essentially data processing machines and their function is to process analog or digital data.

‘There may be machines, which use such processed data to perform certain specified functions. These machines may involve processing of data but their principal function is not processing of data per se, but using such processed data for performing independent functions. These are not ‘computers’ but are computerized machines. ATM is one machine. For the purposes of Customs Tariff also, whereas computer falls under heading 84.73, ATMs fall under sub-heading 8472.90'.

AR has stated that circular of the Board should not be applied for adjudging the issue under consideration because circulars issued under a different legislation should not be applied, ipso facto, for resolving the issue under the Income-tax Act. Further CIT(A) while deciding appeal for assessment year 1999-2000 has considered the provisions of Information Technology Act. I am afraid aforesaid contention is not tenable. It appears that AR/appellant wants to draw benefit of depreciation at the rate of 60 per cent by reading their own version of definition of computers under the Information Technology Act by disregarding the circular issued by the Board. If the circular of the board for adjudicating the issue in the opinion of AR cannot be applied then on the same reasoning definition of computer given under the Information Technology Act can also not be applied under the Income-tax Act.

It may be stated here that Appendix-I to Income-tax Rules which contains the table of rates at which depreciation is admissible has specifically identified the items of assets on which the particular rate of depreciation is allowable. For example in the case of building, depreciation at the rate of 5 per cent is allowable on the buildings which are used mainly for residential purposes except hotels and boarding houses. Similarly, depreciation at the rate of 10 per cent is allowable on buildings other than those used mainly for residential purposes and not covered by sub-items (1) above and (3) below. Depreciation at the rate of 40 per cent is allowable on motor buses, motor lorries and motor taxis used in the business of running them on hire. Depreciation at the rate of 10 per cent is allowable on various items falling in the category of air pollution control equipment, water pollution control equipment etc. Air pollution control equipment, being—

(a )Electrostatic precipitation systems;

(b )Felt-filter systems;

(c )Dust collector systems;

(d )Scrubber-counter current/venture/packed bed/cyclonic scrubbers;

(e )Ash handling system and evaluation system.

Similar is the position in respect of other assets. From the illustration given above, it is clear that wherever the Legislature wanted to allow depreciation at a particular rate on different types of assets falling in the same category, such assets have specifically been stated in the Appendix-I containing the table or rates at which the depreciation is admissible. If had it not been so, it would have been sufficient to state that depreciation is allowable at the rate of 100 per cent on air pollution control equipment. But it is not so. Air pollution control equipment has been specified as mentioned above in five categories (a) to (e). Similar is the position in respect of water pollution control equipment and other assets. It, therefore, cannot be accepted that appellant is entitled to depreciation at the rate of 60 per cent even on POS terminals and ATMs on the ground that they are in the nature of computers.

In view of above discussion and keeping in view the life span of POS terminals and other accessories, I agree with the Assessing Officer that these are not in the nature of computers and, therefore, appellant is not entitled to depreciation at the rate of 60 per cent of the same. Similar is the position in respect of ATMs.

As regards computer software, here also, contentions of the AR are not acceptable as the depreciation at the rate of 60 per cent is allowable on computer software with effect from assessment year 2003-04. Had it been the intention of Legislature to allow depreciation at the rate of 60 per cent on the computer software even in the earlier years, the relevant provisions/rules would have been made effective retrospectively. In view of above discussion, various contentions of AR/appellant are not acceptable and it is held that Assessing Officer was right in not allowing depreciation at the rate of 60 per cent on POS terminals, ATMs, computer software and accessories. In view of above discussion, total disallowance of depreciation of Rs. 3,55,47,515 is upheld."

8. The learned AR reiterated the submissions which were made before the revenue authorities. The learned AR further submitted that these POS terminals are related assets are of computers. These are the devices through which the assessee conducts its business. These terminals have hardware viz., memory, display card reader, printer, peripheral ports, modem and protocols. This device is also having keyboard and the device is known as Omni-460. The learned AR relied upon the order of the CIT(A) for assessment year 1999-2000 and drew our attention to the observations of the CIT(A). The CIT(A) observed that the definition of the computer given therein can be very well utilized in the income-tax proceedings due to the fact that there is no definition of computers given in the Income-tax Act, 1961. There is no prohibition in the Information Technology Act, 2000 to use the definition of computer under the Income-tax Act. The learned AR distinguished the findings of CIT(A) given in assessment year 2001-02 as under :—

 

8.1 The main thrust of the argument of the learned AR is that the technical function of POS terminals and ATMs are that of the functions of the computer. The learned AR tried to demonstrate his contention by pointing out various technical terms of ATMs of which a photocopy has been placed at pages 2 and 3 of paper book. The learned AR submitted that the ITAT Kolkata in the case of ITO v. Samiran Majumdar [2006] 98 ITD 119 held that colour Xerox machine be treated as computer entitle to higher depreciation. The learned AR submitted that the assessee in the case under consideration is eligible for depreciation at the rate of 60 per cent on POS terminals and ATMs as these are computers.

9. The learned DR on the other hand relied upon the order of the Assessing Officer and submitted that the order of the CIT(A) for assessment year 2001-02 may be confirmed.

10. We have heard the learned representatives of the parties and records perused. The controversy under consideration is whether POS terminals and Automated Teller Machine "ATM" come under ‘computer’ or come under ‘plant and machinery’ for the purpose of depreciation. Depreciation rate of ‘computers’ is prescribed in Appendix 1 at S. No. (2B) which is inserted by Income-tax (Twelfth Amendment) Rule, 1998 with effect from 1-4-1999 which is 60 per cent. The word ‘computer’ has not been defined in the Income-tax Act. Where anything is not defined in the IT Act, generally we take the help of rules of interpretation. Some of the oft cited decisions on the interpretation of fiscal statute we would like to discuss as under. The oft-quoted observations of Rowlatt J. in the case of Cape Brandy Syndicate v. IRC [1921] 1 KB 64 ought also to be noticed here. The learned Judge observed :—

"In a taxing statute, one has to look merely at what is clearly said. There is no room for any intendment. There is no equity about a tax. There is no presumption as to tax. Nothing is to be read in, nothing is to be implied. One can only look fairly to the language used."

10.1 The observations of Rowlatt J. as above stand accepted and approved by the House of Lords in a later decision, in the case of Canadian Eagle Oil Co. Ltd. v. King [1946] AC 119. Lord Thankerton also in a manner similar in IRC v. Ross and Coulter [Bladnoch Distillery Co. Ltd.] 1948 1 ALL ER 616 at page 625 observed :—

"If the meaning of the provision is reasonably clear, the courts have no jurisdiction to mitigate such harshness."

10.2 The decision of the Apex Court in Keshavji Ravji & Co. v. CIT [1990] 183 ITR 1¹ also lends concurrence to the views expressed above. In that case the Hon’ble Supreme Court observed as under :—

"As long as there is no ambiguity in the statutory language, resort to any interpretative process to unfold the legislative intent becomes impermissible. The supposed intention of the Legislature cannot then be appealed to whittle down the statutory language which is otherwise unambiguous. If the intendment is not in the words used, it is nowhere else. The need for interpretation arises when the words used in the statute are, on their own terms, ambivalent and do not manifest the intention of the Legislature.

Artificial and unduly latitudinarian rules of construction, which with their general tendency to give the tax payer the breaks’ are out of place where the legislation has a fiscal mission."

10.3 It may be noted that individual cases of hardship and injustice do not and cannot have any bearing for rejecting the natural construction by attributing normal meanings to the words used since ‘hard cases do not make bad laws’. Thus a fiscal statute shall have to be interpreted on the basis of the language used therein and not de hors the same. No words ought to be added and only the language used ought to be considered so as to ascertain the proper meaning and intent of the legislation: We are to ascribe the natural and ordinary meaning to the words used by the Legislature.

10.4 Considering the above oft cited decision on interpretation of fiscal statutes, we notice that no words are to be added and only the language used have to be considered so as to ascertain the proper meaning and intent of the Legislature. As stated above in Appendix 1 of the Income-tax Act which prescribed the rate of depreciation the word ‘computer’ is used. Therefore, without adding anything in that word or without subtracting anything from that word and considering the above simple meaning of computer, we are of the considered view that POS terminals and ATMs are not a computer. We do not find any substance in the submission of the assessee that any instrument or plant and machinery of which function is based on computer technology can be said to be ‘computer’. If this submission of the assessee is accepted then in cases of all units where their large manufacturing process is controlled by computer such units are also to be called as ‘computer’. We noticed no such intention of the Legislature was there when higher rate of depreciation was not provided for computers nor it comes under the simple meaning of the word ‘computer’.

10.5 If we see the simple meaning of "computer," we find that computer means "one that computes; specifically a programmable electronic device that can store, retrieve, and process data". (201 ITR 24). Computer a hardware, a machine or apparatus, mechanical, electric or electronic for carrying on special complex calculations dealing with numerical data or with stored items of other information or used for controlling manufacturing process or co-coordinating parts of a large organization. The Institute of Chartered Accountants of India in its study material PEE II Information Technology Paper VI has defined the term computer as follows :—

"The term ‘computer’ can logically be applied to any calculating machine. However, in common usage, the definition of a computer has become more limited in a contemporary usage. We now define a computer as an electronic data processing device capable of receiving input, storing sets of instructions for solving problems and generating output with high speed and accuracy. Computers are composed of switches, wires, motors, transistors and integrated circuits assembled on frames. The frames form components such as key boards, printers, visual display units, disk drives, magnetic tape drives and central processing unit. These components are wired together into a network called a computing system often called a computer."

10.6 From the above simple meaning of definition of computer, we find that computer is an electronic data processing device which composed of various electrical and electronic parts which wired together into a network called computing system. The basic output of a computer is data processing. The POS terminals and ATMs are neither a data processing device nor a composite system of which output is data processing. Automated Teller Machine "ATM" is a machine used by bankers and others for cash payments. The Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of CIT v. IBM World Trade Corpn. [1981] 130 ITR 739 (Bom.) held that data processing Machines are not office appliances and are entitled to development rebate under section 33 of Income-tax Act, 1961. Similarly POS terminals and ATMs cannot be called as a computer. The ITAT Kolkata Bench in the case of ITO v. Samiran Majumdar ( supra) relied upon a judgment of the Apex Court in the case of CIT v. Karnataka Power Corpn. [2001] 247 ITR 268¹ wherein it was held that in such cases issue is to be decided on the facts of the case. Thus the issue under consideration has been decided considering the facts of the case under consideration that POS terminals and ATMs cannot be called as a "computer".

10.7 In the light of the above discussion, we are of the considered view that POS terminals and ATMs are not treated to be as computer and therefore the lower authorities have rightly allowed depreciation at the rate of 25 per cent which is applicable to plant and machinery. The rate of 60 per cent which is applicable to computers is not applicable to POS terminals and ATMs. We accordingly confirm the orders of the lower authorities for assessment year 2001-02.

10.8 Thus, the ground raised by the assessee is dismissed and the ground raised by the revenue is allowed.

11. In the result, both the appeals of the assessee as well as the appeal of the revenue are treated as partly allowed in the terms indicated above.

 

 

DISCLAIMER: Though all efforts have been made to reproduce the order accurately and correctly however the access, usage and circulation is subject to the condition that VATinfoline Multimedia is not responsible/liable for any loss or damage caused to anyone due to any mistake/error/omissions.