Global Offshoe International Ltd., Gurgaon v. Addl CIT, Dehradun

ITA 4587/DEL/2010 | 2007-2008
Pronouncement Date: 08-11-2011 | Result: Partly Allowed

Appeal Details

RSA Number 458720114 RSA 2010
Assessee PAN AACCG6760C
Bench Delhi
Appeal Number ITA 4587/DEL/2010
Duration Of Justice 1 year(s) 23 day(s)
Appellant Global Offshoe International Ltd., Gurgaon
Respondent Addl CIT, Dehradun
Appeal Type Income Tax Appeal
Pronouncement Date 08-11-2011
Appeal Filed By Assessee
Order Result Partly Allowed
Bench Allotted C
Tribunal Order Date 08-11-2011
Date Of Final Hearing 08-11-2011
Next Hearing Date 08-11-2011
Assessment Year 2007-2008
Appeal Filed On 15-10-2010
Judgment Text
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI C BENC H BEFORE SHRI C.L. SETHI JM & SHRI A.N. PAHUJA AM ITA NO.4587/DEL/2010 ASSESSMENT YEAR:2007-08 M/S GLOBAL OFFSHORE INTERNATIONAL LTD.C/O VIEW CORPORATE TOWER-B NEAR DLF GOLF COURSE SECTOR- 42 GURGAON (HARYANA) V/S . ADDL. CIT INTERNATIONAL TAX DEHRADUN [PAN :AACCG 6760 C ] (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) ASSESSEE BY S/SHRI VIJAY IYER & PRASHANT SHAH ARS REVENUE BY SHRI ASHWANI KUMAR MAHAJAN DR DATE OF HEARING 08-11-2011 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT 08-11-2011 O R D E R A.N.PAHUJA:- THIS APPEAL FILED ON 15 TH OCTOBER 2010 BY THE ASSESSEE AGAINST AN ORDER DATED 20 TH JULY 2010 OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER[AO IN SHORT] R EAD WITH ORDER DATED 30 TH JUNE 2010 OF DISPUTE RESOLUTION PANEL-I[DRP] U/S 144C OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT 1961(HEREINAFTER REFERRED TO AS THE ACT) RAISES THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS:- 1. BASED ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CAS E THE LEARNED ASSESSING OFFICER HAS ERRED IN LAW AND IN FACT IN HOLDING THAT THE ASSESSEES INCOME FROM SERVICES RENDERED IS NOT COVERED BY THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 44BB OF THE ACT. BASED ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE THE LEARNED ASSESSING OFFICER ERRED IN LAW AND ON FACTS IN HOLDING THAT THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 44B B OF THE ACT ARE NOT APPLICABLE TO THE SERVICES AND FACI LITIES PROVIDED BY THE APPELLANT TO BG EXPLORATION AND PRODUCTION INDIA LIMITED IN RESPECT OF OFFSHORE INSTALLATION OF PIPELINES AS A PART OF OVERALL CONSTRUCTION PROJECT IN CONNECTION WITH EXTRACTION AND PRODUCTION OF MINERAL OILS. ITA N O.4587 /DEL./2010 2 THE APPELLANT RESPECTFULLY SUBMITS THAT THE PROVISI ONS OF SECTION 44BB OF THE ACT ARE APPLICABLE TO THE NA TURE OF SERVICES RENDERED DURING THE YEAR AND THE ASSESSING OFFICER BE DIRECTED TO TAX THE INCOME ON 10 PERCENT DEEMED PROFIT BASIS U/S 44BB OF THE ACT. 2. WITHOUT PREJUDICE TO THE ABOVE BASED ON THE FAC TS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE THE LEARNED ASSESSIN G OFFICER HAS ERRED IN LAW AND IN FACT IN MAKING ARB ITRARY ESTIMATE OF TAXABLE INCOME AT 25 PERCENT OF THE GRO SS REVENUES FROM SERVICES RENDERED DURING THE YEAR. WITHOUT PREJUDICE TO THE ABOVE THE APPELLANT SUBMI TS THAT THE ARBITRARY ESTIMATE OF TAXABLE INCOME AT 25 % OF GROSS REVENUES BY THE LEARNED ASSESSING OFFICER IS UNREASONABLE EXCESSIVE AND OUGHT TO BE REDUCED SUBSTANTIALLY. 3. BASED ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE THE LEARNED ASSESSING OFFICER HAS ERRED IN LAW AND IN FACT IN LEVYING INTEREST U/S 234B OF THE ACT DISREGARDING THE FACT THAT THE APPELLANT IS A NON- RESIDENT ASSESSEE AND ITS ENTIRE REVENUE/RECEIPTS A RE SUBJECT TO TAX WITHHOLDING IN INDIA U/S 195 OF THE ACT AND THE APPELLANT IS NOT LIABLE TO PAY ADVANCE TAX IN RESPECT OF SUCH REVENUES. THE APPELLANT RESPECTFULLY SUBMITS THAT AS PER THE PROVISIONS OF THE ACT THE INTEREST U/S 234B OF THE ACT IS NOT LEVIABLE AND THE ASSESSING OFFICER BE DIRECT ED TO DELETE THE INTEREST LEVIED U/S 234B AT ` ` 8 555 080. 4. BASED ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE THE LEARNED ASSESSING OFFICER HAS ERRED IN LAW AND IN FACT IN LEVYING INTEREST U/S 234D OF THE ACT AT ` ` 320 128 COMPUTED ON THE TAX REFUND DETERMINED U/S 143(1) OF THE ACT AND DISREGARDING THE FACT THAT SU CH TAX REFUND WAS NEVER GRANTED TO THE APPELLANT. THE APPELLANT RESPECTFULLY SUBMITS THAT AS PER THE PROVISIONS OF THE ACT THE INTEREST U/S 234D OF THE ACT IS NOT LEVIABLE AND THE ASSESSING OFFICER BE DIRECT ED TO DELETE THE INTEREST LEVIED AT ` ` 320 128. ITA N O.4587 /DEL./2010 3 THE APPELLANT CRAVES LEAVE TO ADD ALTER VARY OMI T SUBSTITUTE OR AMEND THE ABOVE GROUNDS OF APPEAL AT ANY TIME BEFORE OR AT THE TIME OF HEARING OF THE APPEAL SO AS TO ENABLE THE HONBLE MEMBERS TO DECIDE THIS APPEAL ACCORDING TO LAW. 2. ADVERTING FIRST TO GROUND NOS.1 AND 2 IN THE AP PEAL FACTS IN BRIEF AS PER RELEVANT ORDERS ARE THAT RETURN IN THIS CASE WAS FI LED ON 19.10.2007. THE ASSESSEE ADMITTED THAT IT HAD A PE[PERMANENT ESTABL ISHMENT] IN INDIA IN TERMS OF A CONTRACT ENTERED INTO WITH B.G. EXPLORATION & PR ODUCTION INDIA LTD. [BGEPIL] FOR OFFSHORE TRANSPORTATION AND INSTALLATION OF PIP ELINE AND OFFERED REVENUES IN TERMS OF PROVISIONS OF SECTION 44BB OF THE ACT. HO WEVER THE AO WAS OF THE OPINION THAT THE SERVICES RENDERED BY THE ASSESSEE WERE NOT COVERED WITHIN THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 44BB OF THE ACT THE ASSESSE E HAVING LAID DOWN MERELY A PIPELINE AND DID NOT RENDER ANY SERVICES FOR EXPLOR ATION OF MINERAL OILS. SINCE THE ASSESSEE WAS BUILDING INFRASTRUCTURE USED IN EXPLORATION THE AO WHILE REJECTING THE APPLICABILITY OF PROVISIONS OF SECTIO N 44BB OF THE ACT ESTIMATED THE INCOME @25% OF THE GROSS REVENUES AMOUNTING TO ` ` 35 68 98 347/- RESULTING IN ADDITION OF ` 8 92 24 587/- VIDE DRAFT ORDER DATED 30 TH DECEMBER 2009. THE ASSESSEE THEREAFTER FILED DETAILED OBJECTION BEF ORE THE DRP. AFTER CONSIDERING THE OBJECTIONS OF THE ASSESSEE THE DRP CONCLUDED A S UNDER:- OBJECTION NO.1: THE OBJECTION OF THE ASSESSEE HAS BEEN CONSIDERED AT LENGTH. WE HAVE PERUSED THE DRAFT ORDER. THIS IS A FACT THAT THE ASSESSEE IS LAYING PIPELINES. THE CONTRACT AWARDED TO THE ASSESSEE IS FOR LAYING OF PIPELINES. THIS AMOUNTS T O CREATION OF AN INFRASTRUCTURE. SECTION 44BB IS APPLICABLE FOR SER VICES AND NOT FOR CREATION OF INFRASTRUCTURE FOR SUCH SERVICES. THE CONTRACT EXECUTED BY THE ASSESSEE IS A WORKS CONTRACT AND NOT A SERVI CE CONTRACT AND THEREFORE NOT COVERED UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF SECT ION 44BB OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT 1961 (THE ACT). THEREFORE WE AR E INCLINED NOT TO ISSUE ANY DIRECTION FOR DEVIATING FROM DRAFT ASSESS MENT ORDER. ITA N O.4587 /DEL./2010 4 OBJECTION NO.2 WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE ARGUMENTS OF THE ASSESSEE O N THE GROUND OF ESTIMATION OF INCOME @25% OF THE GROSS RE VENUE. SINCE THE ASSESSEES ACTIVITIES ASSESSMENT ORDER NOT COVE RED UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 44BB THE ASSESSEE WAS REQUIR ED TO MAINTAIN BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS AS PER THE PROVISIONS OF THE ACT AND WAS REQUIRED TO GETS ITS ACCOUNT AUDITED WHICH IT HAS NOT DONE. THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT PRODUCED ANY ACCOUNTS BEFORE THE A O NOR BEFORE THE DRP. THE AO HAS RIGHTLY ESTIMATED THE PROFITS @25%. SINCE NO BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS OR ANY REASON TO CHALLENGE THE FIGURE OF ESTIMATION HAS BEEN PROVIDED BY THE ASSESSEE WE DO NT SEE ANY REASON TO ISSUE DIRECTIONS FOR AMENDING THE ORDER O N THIS GROUND. REGARDING THE ASSESSEES SUBMISSION THAT THE AO ER RED IN STATING THE TOTAL ASSESSED INCOME AT RS.`328 965 80 0/- AS AGAINST THE INCOME COMPUTED AT RS.`89 224 587/- BEING 25% O F GROSS REVENUE OF `RS.356 898 347/- THE ASSESSING OFFICER WILL VERIFY THE RECORDS AND RECTIFY THE ERROR IF ANY. 2.1 IN TERMS OF THE AFORESAID DECISION OF DRP THE AO DETERMINED TOTAL INCOME OF ` 8 92 24 587/- VIDE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 20 TH JULY 2010. 3. THE ASSESSEE NOW IS NOW IN APPEAL BEFORE US AGAI NST THE AFORESAID FINDINGS OF THE AO AND THE DRP. AT THE OUT SET THE LD. AR ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE WHILE INVITING OUR ATTENTION TO AN ORDER D ATED 1 ST SEPTEMBER 2011 OF THE DRP FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2008-09 CONTENDED THAT THE DRP WHILE ACCEPTING THEIR OBJECTIONS HELD THAT THE ACTIVITY UNDERTAKEN BY THE ASSESSEE WOULD FALL UNDER THE SCOPE OF TERM CONSTRUCTION AS WELL AS ASSEMB LY OR LIKE PROJECT AND THAT THE NATURE OF WORK EXCECUTED BY THE ASSESSEE WAS NOT IN THE NATURE OF FEES FOR TECHNICAL SERVICES AS DEFINED IN SEC. 9 OF THE ACT. AFTER DISCUSSION BOTH THE PARTIES AGREED THAT MATTER IN THE YEAR UNDER CONSID ERATION MAY BE RESTORED TO THE FILE OF DRP FOR READJUDICATION IN THE LIGHT OF THEIR FINDINGS IN THE AY 2008-09. TOA QUERY BY THE BENCH THE LD. AR SUBMITTED THAT AGREEMENT ENTERED INTO WITH BGEPIL ON THE BASIS OF WHICH DECISION HAS BEEN REND ERED BY THE DRP IN SUBSEQUENT YEAR IS SAME AS WAS RELEVANT FOR THE YE AR UNDER CONSIDERATION AND AGREED TO SUBMIT A COPY OF THE SAID AGREEMENT .. ITA N O.4587 /DEL./2010 5 4. WE HAVE HEARD BOTH THE PARTIES AND GONE THROUGH THE FACTS OF THE CASE AS ALSO THE DECISION OF THE DRP IN THE SUBSEQUENT ASS ESSMENT YEAR 2008-09 .WE FIND THAT THE DRP AFTER CONSIDERING THE NATUR E OF ACTIVITIES SPECIFIED IN THE RELEVANT AGREEMENT APPLICABLE FOR THE SUBSEQUENT A Y 2008-09 AND THE FINDINGS OF THE AO CONCLUDED REGARDING APPLICABILITY OF PR OVISIONS OF SEC. 44BB OF THE ACT AND ESTIMATION OF PROFITS AS UNDER:- 5.4.2 THE PANEL HAS CONSIDERED CAREFULLY THE SUBM ISSIONS MADE BY THE ASSESSEE IN THIS REGARD WHICH HAVE BEEN SUMM ARIZED IN PARA 4.II ABOVE. IT IS CLEAR FROM THE SCOPE OF THE WORK TO BE PERFORMED BY THE ASSESSEE UNDER THE CONTRACT WITH B G THAT IT HAS ELEMENTS OF CONSTRUCTION AND ASSEMBLY PROJECT AS LA YING DOWN OF A PIPELINE INCLUDES BOTH THESE ACTIVITY. THE EXPLANAT ION 2 TO SEC.9(1)(VII) WHICH DEFINES THE TERM FEES FOR TECH NICAL SERVICES PROVIDES THAT IT DOES NOT INCLUDE CONSIDERATION FO R ANY CONSTRUCTION ASSEMBLY MINING OR LIKE PROJECT UNDERTAKEN BY THE RECIPIENT. THE PANEL IS OF THE VIEW THAT THE ACTIVITY UNDERTAKEN B Y THE ASSESSEE I.E. LAYING DOWN A PIPE-LINE WOULD FALL UNDER THE SCOPE OF THE TERMS CONSTRUCTION AS WELL AS ASSEMBLY OR LIKE PROJECT . FOLLOWING THIS IT LOGICALLY FOLLOWS THAT THE NATURE OF THE WORK EXECU TED BY THE ASSESSEE IS NOT IN THE NATURE OF FEES FOR TECHNICAL SERVICES AS DEFINED IN SEC.9.THE PANEL IS INCLINED TO AGREE WIT H THIS VIEW. THE WITHOUT PREJUDICE ARGUMENT MADE BY THE AO IS THEREF ORE NOT ACCEPTABLE AS IT IS NOT SUPPORTED BY THE FACTS OF T HE CASE AND THE LEGAL POSITION REFERRED TO ABOVE. 5.5 WHAT REMAINS NOW TO BE CONSIDERED IS THE ATTRI BUTION OF INCOME AT THE RATE OF 25% THAT HAS BEEN ADOPTED BY THE A.O . THE A.O. HAS FAILED TO PROVIDE ANY REASONS FOR ARRIVING AT THE R ATE OF 25%. IN THE WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS FIELD WITH FORM 35A AND DURING THE HEARING BEFORE THE PANEL THE ASSESSEE HAS TRIED TO MAKE OUT A CASE FOR TAXATION OF PROFITS AT THE RATE OF LESS THAN 10%. THIS CLAIM IS BASED ON THE FACT THAT THE INVOICES RAISED BY ASSESSEE ON BG SHOW THAT IT HAS INVOICED BG AT 8% MARK UP ON COST IN RESPECT OF SUPPLY OF GOODS AND MATERIALS AND THAT IT WAS ONLY TO AVOID L ITIGATION IT HAD OFFERED THE ENTIRE REVENUES FROM SUCH SUPPLIES TO T AX AT A DEEMED PROFIT RATE OF 10% U/S 44BB. THE ASSESSEE HAS ALSO FURNISHED A LIST OF ELEVEN COMPARABLES ACCORDING TO WHICH THE MEAN O PERATING PROFIT WORKS OUT AT 7.37%. THE SUBMISSIONS MADE BY THE ASSESSEE ABOUT APPLYING A RATE OF LESS THAN 10% CANNOT AGREE D TO CONSIDERING THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD ITSELF SOUGHT TO BE TAXED UNDER SECTION 44BB(1) WHICH PROVIDE FOR FLAT RATE OF 10% APPLICABLE ON THE GROSS RECEIPTS. IF THE ASSESSEE DESIRED TO CLAIM A LOWER RATE IT ITA N O.4587 /DEL./2010 6 SHOULD HAVE FILED ITS RETURN UNDER SUB-SECTION (3) OF SECTION 44BB AND FULFILLED THE REQUIREMENTS LAID DOWN UNDER THAT PROVISION. AS THAT IS NOT THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE THE PROFITS AR E TO BE TAXED AT THE RATE OF 10% AS APPLICABLE UNDER SUB-SECTION (1) OF SECTION 44BB. 5.5 IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE DISCUSSION THE PANEL DIREC TS THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO TAX THE GROSS RECEIPTS OF THE ASSESSEE A T THE RATE 10% U/S 44BB(1) AND NOT AT 25% AS FEES FOR TECHNICAL SERVIC ES AS PROPOSED IN THE DRAFT ORDER. THE OBJECTIONS NO.1 TO 4 THUS STAND DISPOSED OF. IN VIEW OF THIS DIRECTION THE OBJECTION AT NO.5 BEC OMES INFRUCTUOUS AND THEREFORE NEED NOT BE CONSIDERED BY THE PANEL. THE OBJECTIONS MADE BY THE ASSESSEE THUS STAND DISPOSED OF. 5. NOW COMING TO THE DECISION OF THE DRP FOR TH E YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION A MERE GLANCE AT THE IMPUGNED ORDER REVEALS THAT THE ORDER PASSED BY THE DRP IS CRYPTIC AND GROSSLY VIOLATIVE OF ONE OF THE FACETS OF THE RULES OF NATURAL JUSTICE NAMELY THAT EVERY JUDICIAL/QUASI-JUDICIAL BODY/AUT HORITY MUST PASS REASONED ORDER WHICH SHOULD REFLECT APPLICATION OF MIND BY THE CONCERNED AUTHORITY TO THE ISSUES/POINTS RAISED BEFORE IT. THE APPLICATION OF MIND TO THE MATERIAL FACTS AND THE ARGUMENTS SHOULD MANIFEST ITSELF IN THE ORDER. HONBLE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT IN THEIR DECISION IN VODAFONE ESSAR LTD. VS. DRP 196 TAXMAN423(DELHI) HELD THAT WHEN A QUASI JUDICIAL AUTHORITY DEALS WITH A LIS IT IS OBLIGATORY ON IT S PART TO ASCRIBE COGENT AND GERMANE REASONS AS THE SAME I S THE HEART AND SOUL OF THE MATTER AND FURTHER THE SAME ALSO FACILITATES APPRE CIATION WHEN THE ORDER IS CALLED IN QUESTION BEFORE THE SUPERIOR FORUM. THE REQUIREM ENT OF RECORDING OF REASONS AND COMMUNICATION THEREOF HAS BEEN READ AS AN INTEG RAL PART OF THE CONCEPT OF FAIR PROCEDURE. THE REQUIREMENT OF RECORDING OF REA SONS BY THE QUASI-JUDICIAL AUTHORITIES IS AN IMPORTANT SAFEGUARD TO ENSURE OBS ERVANCE OF THE RULE OF LAW. IT INTRODUCES CLARITY CHECKS THE INTRODUCTION OF EXTR ANEOUS OR IRRELEVANT CONSIDERATIONS AND MINIMIZES ARBITRARINESS IN THE D ECISION-MAKING PROCESS. WE MAY REITERATE THAT A DECISION DOES NOT MERELY MEA N THE CONCLUSION. IT EMBRACES WITHIN ITS FOLD THE REASONS FORMING BASIS FOR THE CONCLUSION.[MUKHTIAR SINGH VS. STATE OF PUNJAB (1995)1SCC 760(SC)]. AS I S APPARENT THE IMPUGNED ORDER OF THE DRP SUFFERS FROM LACK OF REASONING AND IS NOT A SPEAKING ORDER. THE ITA N O.4587 /DEL./2010 7 DRP DID NOT ANALYSE THE NATURE OF ACTIVITY OF THE A SSESSEE AS ENSHRINED IN THE RELEVANT AGREEMENT NOR EXAMINED THE OBJECTIONS OF THE ASSESSEE IN THE LIGHT OF RELEVANT AGREEMENT WHILE THE AGREEMENT FORMING TH E BASIS FOR DECISION IN THE AY 2008-09 HAS NOT BEEN PLACED BEFORE US DESPITE SP ECIFIC REQUEST. IN VIEW OF THE FOREGOING ESPECIALLY WHEN THE LD. DRP HAVE NOT PASSED A SPEAKING ORDER ON VARIOUS ISSUES RAISED IN GROUND NOS. 1 & 2 IN THE A PPEAL WE CONSIDER IT FAIR AND APPROPRIATE TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER OF THE LD. DRP/A O AND RESTORE THE MATTER TO THE FILE OF THE DRP FOR DECIDING THE ISSUES RAISED IN THE GROUND NOS. 1 & 2 AFRESH IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW IN THE CONTEXT OF ACTIVITIES E NSHRINED IN THE AGREEMENT RELEVANT FOR THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION KEEPING IN MIND THEIR FINDINGS FOR THE SUBSEQUENT ASSESSMENT YEAR AND OF COURSE AFTER AL LOWING SUFFICIENT OPPORTUNITY TO BOTH THE PARTIES. NEEDLESS TO SAY THAT WHILE RED ECIDING THE APPEAL THE LEARNED DRP SHALL PASS A SPEAKING ORDER BRINGING OUT CLEA RLY AS TO WHETHER OR NOT THE ACTIVITIES ENSHRINED IN THE AGREEMENT RELEVANT FOR THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION FALL WITHIN THE PROVISIONS OF SEC. 44BB OF THE ACT. WITH THESE OBSERVATIONS GROUND NOS. 1 &2 IN THE APPEAL ARE DISPOSED OF. 6. GROUND NOS.3 AND 4 RELATE TO LEVY OF INTEREST U/ S 234B AND 234D OF THE ACT. SINCE THE LEARNED AR ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSE E DID NOT MAKE ANY SUBMISSIONS ON THESE GROUNDS WHILE THE LEVY OF INTE REST U/S 234B AND 234D IS MANDATORY THESE GROUNDS ARE DISMISSED. HOWEVER DR P/AO. IS DIRECTED TO ALLOW CONSEQUENTIAL RELIEF IF ANY WHILE GIVING EFFECT T O OUR AFORESAID FINDINGS. 7 NO ADDITIONAL GROUND HAVING BEEN RAISED BEFORE US IN TERMS OF RESIDUARY GROUND IN THE APPEAL ACCORDINGLY THIS G ROUND IS DISMISSED. 8. NO OTHER SUBMISSION OR ARGUMENT WAS MADE BEFOR E US. ITA N O.4587 /DEL./2010 8 9. IN RESULT APPEAL IS PARTLY ALLOWED BUT FOR STAT ISTICAL PURPOSES. SD/- SD/- (C.L. SETHI) (A.N. PAHUJA) (JUDICIAL MEMBER) (ACCOUNTANT MEMBER) NS COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO :- 1. M/S GLOBAL OFFSHORE INTERNATIONAL LIMITED C/O S .R. BATLIBOI & CO. GOLF VIEW CORPORATE TOWER-B NEAR DLF GOLF COU RSE SECTOR-42 GURGAON (HARYANA). 2. ADDL. DIT INTERNATIONAL TAXATION DEHRADUN. 3. DIT(INTERNATIONAL TAXATION)-II NEW DELHI. 4. DRP-1 NEW DELHI. 5. DR ITAT C BENCH NEW DELHI 6. GUARD FILE. BY ORDER DEPUTY / ASSTT.REGISTRAR ITAT DELHI ORDER PRONOUNCED IN OPEN COURT