Alcatel Lucent Technologies India Pvt. Ltd., Gurgaon v. DCIT, New Delhi

ITA 5024/DEL/2010 | 2006-2007
Pronouncement Date: 23-04-2014 | Result: Partly Allowed

Appeal Details

RSA Number 502420114 RSA 2010
Assessee PAN AAACA5745K
Bench Delhi
Appeal Number ITA 5024/DEL/2010
Duration Of Justice 3 year(s) 5 month(s) 7 day(s)
Appellant Alcatel Lucent Technologies India Pvt. Ltd., Gurgaon
Respondent DCIT, New Delhi
Appeal Type Income Tax Appeal
Pronouncement Date 23-04-2014
Appeal Filed By Assessee
Order Result Partly Allowed
Bench Allotted I
Tribunal Order Date 23-04-2014
Date Of Final Hearing 22-04-2014
Next Hearing Date 22-04-2014
Assessment Year 2006-2007
Appeal Filed On 15-11-2010
Judgment Text
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI DELHI DELHI DELHI BENCH BENCH BENCH BENCH I II I : NEW DELHI : NEW DELHI : NEW DELHI : NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI BEFORE SHRI BEFORE SHRI BEFORE SHRI R.S.SYAL R.S.SYAL R.S.SYAL R.S.SYAL ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND AND AND AND SHRI SHRI SHRI SHRI RAJPAL YADAV RAJPAL YADAV RAJPAL YADAV RAJPAL YADAV JUDICIAL MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA NO ITA NO ITA NO ITA NO. .. .5024 5024 5024 5024/DEL/201 /DEL/201 /DEL/201 /DEL/2010 00 0 ASSESSMENT YEAR ASSESSMENT YEAR ASSESSMENT YEAR ASSESSMENT YEAR : : : : 200 200 200 2006 66 6- -- -07 0707 07 M/S ALCATEL LUCENT M/S ALCATEL LUCENT M/S ALCATEL LUCENT M/S ALCATEL LUCENT TECHNOLOGIES INDIA PRIVATE TECHNOLOGIES INDIA PRIVATE TECHNOLOGIES INDIA PRIVATE TECHNOLOGIES INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED LIMITED LIMITED LIMITED (NO (NO (NO (NOW MERGED WITH ALCATEL W MERGED WITH ALCATEL W MERGED WITH ALCATEL W MERGED WITH ALCATEL LUCENT INDIA LIMITED) LUCENT INDIA LIMITED) LUCENT INDIA LIMITED) LUCENT INDIA LIMITED) 15 1515 15 TH THTH TH FLOOR TOWER C FLOOR TOWER C FLOOR TOWER C FLOOR TOWER C DLF CYBER GREENS DLF CYBER GREENS DLF CYBER GREENS DLF CYBER GREENS DLF CITY PHASE III DLF CITY PHASE III DLF CITY PHASE III DLF CITY PHASE III GURGAON GURGAON GURGAON GURGAON 122 002. 122 002. 122 002. 122 002. PAN : AAACA5745K. PAN : AAACA5745K. PAN : AAACA5745K. PAN : AAACA5745K. VS. VS. VS. VS. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX INCOME TAX INCOME TAX INCOME TAX CIRCLE CIRCLE CIRCLE CIRCLE- -- -1(1) 1(1) 1(1) 1(1) NEW DELHI. NEW DELHI. NEW DELHI. NEW DELHI. (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY : SHRI ROHIT TIWARI AND MS. ANISHA RELAN CAS. RESPONDENT BY : SHRI PEEYUSH JAIN AND SHRI Y.K. VERMA CIT-DRS. ORDER ORDER ORDER ORDER PER R.S.SYAL AM PER R.S.SYAL AM PER R.S.SYAL AM PER R.S.SYAL AM : : : : THIS APPEAL BY THE ASSESSEE IS DIRECTED AGAINST TH E ORDER PASSED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER UNDER SECTION 143(3) READ WITH SECTION 144C OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT 1961 ON 24 TH SEPTEMBER 2010 IN RELATION TO ASSESSMENT YEAR 2006-07. 2. BRIEFLY STATED THE FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT T HE ASSESSEE IS A SUBSIDIARY OF LUCENT INC. WITH LUCENT INC. HOLDING 99.66 PERCENT OF ITS SHARES. THE ASSESSEE IS A SOFTWARE DEVELOPMENT CEN TRE FOR LUCENT GROUP WHEREBY IT PROVIDES SOFTWARE DEVELOPMENT AND SUPPORT SERVICES TO LUCENT INC. ON BEHALF OF ITS GROUP COMPANIES WHO CATER TO THE TELECOM INDUSTRY. THE ASSESSEE REPORTED THE FOLLOW ING INTERNATIONAL TRANSACTIONS:- ITA-5024/DEL/2010 2 (AMOUNT IN RS.) (I) SOFTWARE DEVELOPMENT SERVICES - 265 14 63 000 (II) ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPORT SERVICES - 20 66 26 000 TOTAL - 285 80 89 000 3. THE ASSESSEE FOLLOWED TRANSACTIONAL NET MARGINAL METHOD (TNMM) AS THE MOST APPROPRIATE METHOD WITH THE PROF IT LEVEL INDICATOR (PLI) OF OPERATING PROFIT/OPERATING COST (OP/OC) TO BENCHMARK ITS INTERNATIONAL TRANSACTIONS. THE ASSESSEE COMPUTED ITS OP/OC AT 14.89% WITH THE WEIGHTED AVERAGE OF LAST THREE YEAR S OP/OC OF 36 COMPARABLES GIVING OUT SUCH MARGIN AT 12.04%. ON T HIS BASIS IT WAS CLAIMED THAT ITS INTERNATIONAL TRANSACTIONS WERE AT ARMS LENGTH PRICE (ALP). THE TPO REJECTED THE USE OF MULTIPLE YEAR D ATA BUT ACCEPTED TNMM AS THE MOST APPROPRIATE METHOD WITH PLI OF OP/ OC. THE TPO REJECTED 28 COMPARABLES OUT OF 36 CHOSEN BY THE ASS ESSEE. THE FINAL BENCHMARKING WAS DONE BY THE TPO USING EIGHT COMPAR ABLES. RESULTANTLY OP/OC OF SUCH COMPARABLES WAS DETERMIN ED AT 23.55%. THIS LED TO THE TRANSFER PRICING ADJUSTMENT. THE A SSESSEE OBJECTED TO SUCH ADJUSTMENT IN THE DRAFT ORDER OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER BEFORE THE DISPUTE RESOLUTION PANEL (DRP). THE DRP PARTLY GOT CONVINCED WITH THE ASSESSEES OBJECTIONS AND DIRECTED TO EXCLUDE THE C OMPARABLE CASE OF SATYAM COMPUTERS. THE ASSESSEE AGITATED BEFORE THE DRP FOR THE EXCLUSION OF INFOSYS TECHNOLOGIES LIMITED AND ALSO MPHASIS BFL LIMITED. NOT CONVINCED WITH THE ASSESSEES SUBMISS IONS TO THIS EXTENT THE DRP WITHOUT GOING INTO THE DETAILED OBJECTIONS TAKEN BY THE ASSESSEE UPHELD THE TPOS ORDER PRO TANTO. ON THE BASIS OF THE DRPS DIRECTION THE ASSESSING OFFICER PASSED FINAL ORDER MAKING ADDITION ON ACCOUNT OF TRANSFER PRICING ADJUSTMENT AMOUNTING TO RS.24 23 12 445/-. THE ASSESSEE IS AGGRIEVED AGAINST THE INCLUSION OF INFOSYS TECHNOLOGIES LIMITED AND MPHASIS BFL LIMITED. ITA-5024/DEL/2010 3 4. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND PERUSED THE RELEVANT MATERIAL ON RECORD. AT THE OUTSET IT IS RELEVANT T O NOTE THAT THE AREA OF DISPUTE IN THE PRESENT APPEAL IS CONFINED TO INCLUS ION OR EXCLUSION OF THESE TWO CASES. THE ASSESSEE IS SATISFIED ON ALL O THER ISSUES. IT IS RELEVANT TO NOTE THAT THE ASSESSEE SUO MOTU INCLUDED THESE TWO CASES IN ITS TRANSFER PRICING STUDY. HOWEVER IT WAS ARG UED BEFORE THE AUTHORITIES BELOW THAT THESE CASES WERE NOT COMPARA BLES. THE SPECIAL BENCH OF THE TRIBUNAL IN DCIT VS. QUARK SYSTEMS (P.) LTD. [2010] 132 TTJ 1 (CHD.)(SB) HAS HELD THAT IF THE ASSESSEE HAS WRONGLY INCLUDED SOME CASES IN THE LIST OF COMPARABLES WHICH POSITI ON HAS NOT BEEN DISTURBED BY THE TPO THEN THERE CAN BE NO EMBARGO ON PLEADING BY THE ASSESSEE FOR THE EXCLUSION OF SUCH A CASE. IN THE LIGHT OF THE ABOVE SPECIAL BENCH DECISION WE HOLD THAT THE ASSESSEE C AN CONTEND FOR THE EXCLUSION OF THESE CASES BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL NOTWIT HSTANDING THE FACT THAT IT INCLUDED SUCH CASES IN THE LIST OF COMPARAB LES. 5. INSOFAR AS THE CASE OF INFOSYS TECHNOLOGIES LIMI TED IS CONCERNED THE LEARNED AR CONTENDED THAT THERE IS VAST DIFFERE NCE IN NOT ONLY THE SIZE BUT ALSO THE FUNCTIONAL PROFILE THE ASSETS EM PLOYED AND RISKS UNDERTAKEN BY INFOSYS TECHNOLOGIES LIMITED VIS-A-VI S THE ASSESSEE. RELIANCE WAS PLACED ON THE JUDGMENT OF HON'BLE DELH I HIGH COURT IN CIT VS. AGNITY INDIA TECHNOLOGIES PVT.LTD. [2013] 219 TAXMAN 26 (DELHI) TO CONTEND THAT INFOSYS TECHNOLOGIES LIMITED WAS LI ABLE TO BE EXCLUDED. IN SUPPORT OF HIS PLEA FOR THE EXCLUSION OF INFOSYS TECHNOLOGIES LIMITED THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THE FOLLOWING DETAILS:- BASIS/PARTICULAR BASIS/PARTICULAR BASIS/PARTICULAR BASIS/PARTICULAR INFOSYS TECHNOL INFOSYS TECHNOL INFOSYS TECHNOL INFOSYS TECHNOLOGIES LTD. OGIES LTD. OGIES LTD. OGIES LTD. ALCATEL L ALCATEL L ALCATEL L ALCATEL L RISK PROFILE OPERATE AS FULL-FLEDGED RISK TAKING ENTREPRENEUR OPERATE AT MINIMAL RISKS AS THE 100% SERVICES ARE PROVIDED TO AES. NATURE OF SERVICES DIVERSIFIED SOFTWARE PRODUCTS CONSULTING APPLICATION DESIGN DEVELOPMENT RE- SOFTWARE DEVELOPMENT SERVICES ITA-5024/DEL/2010 4 ENGINEERING AND MAINTENANCE SYSTEM INTEGRATION PACKAGE EVALUATION AND IMPLEMENTATION AND BUSINESS PROCESS MANAGEMENT ETC. (PLEASE REFER PG 55 88 93 OF THE ANNUAL REPORT) AND ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPORT SERVICES REVENUE RS.9 028 CRORES (PLEASE REFER PG 60 OF THE ANNUAL REPORT) RS.288.28 CRORES (PG 68 OF THE PAPERBOOK) OPERATING MARGIN (OP/TC) 39.47% (AS PER THE TPO ORDER) (PLEASE REFER PG 15 OF THE TP ORDER) 14.89% (PLEASE REFER TO PAGE 60 OF THE PAPERBOOK) OWNERSHIP OF BRANDED/PROPRIETARY PRODUCTS - DEVELOPS/OWNS PROPRIETARY PRODUCTS LIKE FINACLE. ALSO THE COMPANY DERIVES SUBSTANTIAL PORTION OF ITS REVENUE FROM SALE OF ITS PROPRIETARY PRODUCTS (INCLUDING ITS FLAGSHIP BANKING PRODUCT SUITE FINACLE)(PLEASE REFER PG 30 OF THE ANNUAL REPORT) - INFOSYS HAS SUBSTANTIAL INTANGIBLE ASSETS VALUED BY THE COMPANY AT RS.69 552 CRORES COMPRISING BRAND VALUE ITSELF AT RS.22 915 CRORES (AS ON MARCH 31 2008) AS PROVIDED IN THE ANNUAL REPORT FOR 2008 (PLEASE REFER PG 146 OF THE PAPER BOOK) NONE EXPENDITURE ON ADVERTISING/SALES PROMOTION AND BRAND BUILDING RS.499 CRORES (PLEASE REFER PG 60 OF THE PAPER BOOK) NOMINAL EXPENSE OF RS.2.7 LAKHS IS INCURRED BY THE APPELLANT (PG 75 OF THE PAPERBOOK) EXPENDITURE ON RESEARCH & DEVELOPMENT RS.102 CRORES (PLEASE REFER PG 36 OF THE PAPER BOOK) RS.NIL ONSITE VS. OFFSHORE - AS MUCH AS HALF OF THE SOFTWARE DEVELOPMENT SERVICES RENDERED BY INFOSYS ARE ONSITE (I.E. SERVICES PERFORMED AT THE CUSTOMERS LOCATION OVERSEAS) REVENUE SPLIT ONSITE (49.8%) AND OFFSHORE (50.2%). - TYPICALLY ONSITE SERVICES COMMAND 100% OFFSHORE (REMOTELY FROM INDIA) ITA-5024/DEL/2010 5 HIGHER BILLABLE RATES AND CONSEQUENTLY IT WOULD NOT BE APPROPRIATE TO COMPARE THE APPELLANT WHICH EARNS MORE THAN HALF OF ITS INCOME FROM ONSITE SERVICES. (PLEASE REFER PG 48OF THE ANNUAL REPORT) 6. THE LEARNED DR OPPOSED THE CONTENTION RAISED ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE BY STATING THAT THE DIFFERENCE IN THE REVE NUES EARNED BY THE ASSESSEE AND INFOSYS TECHNOLOGIES LIMITED WAS NOT S O VAST AS IN THE CASE OF AGNITY INDIA TECHNOLOGIES PVT.LTD. WARRANTI NG ITS EXCLUSION FROM THE LIST OF COMPARABLES. REFERRING TO THE JUDGMENT IN THE CASE OF AGNITY INDIA TECHNOLOGIES PVT. LTD. (SUPRA) THE LE ARNED DR CONTENDED THAT THE HONBLE HIGH COURT UPHELD L&T INFOTECH LTD . AS COMPARABLE DESPITE THE FACT THAT THE REVENUE OF L&T INFOTECH L TD. WAS AROUND 50 TIMES THAN THAT OF AGNITY INDIA TECHNOLOGIES. SINC E THE REVENUE OF THE ASSESSEE IN THE PRESENT CASE STANDING AT RS.288.28 CRORES WAS COMPARATIVELY LESS THAN THAT OF THE REVENUE OF INFO SYS TECHNOLOGIES LIMITED STANDING AT RS.9028 CRORES (I.E. LESS THAN 50 TIMES) THE LEARNED DR CONTENDED THAT THIS CASE SHOULD CONTINUE TO BE INCLUDED IN THE LIST OF COMPARABLES. AFTER PLEADING FOR THE CO NTINUED INCLUSION OF THIS CASE ON THE BASIS OF DIFFERENCES AS POINTED OU T AND WITHOUT PREJUDICE TO HIS MAIN STAND THE LD. DR STATED THAT THE QUESTION ABOUT THE MATCHING OF FACTS OF AGNITY INDIA TECHNOLOGIES (SUPRA) WITH THAT OF THE ASSESSEE AS TABULATED BY THE ASSESSEE IN ITS WR ITTEN SUBMISSIONS (REPRODUCED ABOVE IN THIS ORDER) COULD NOT BE READI LY ANSWERED BECAUSE CERTAIN DETAILS WERE REQUIRED TO BE EXAMINE D AT LENGTH IN THIS REGARD. 7. WE ARE UNABLE TO ACCEPT THE MAIN ARGUMENT PUT FO RTH BY THE LEARNED DR PLEADING FOR THE INCLUSION OF INFOSYS TE CHNOLOGIES LIMITED. THE OBVIOUS REASON IS THAT THE CASE OF INFOSYS TECH NOLOGIES LIMITED HAS BEEN DIRECTED TO BE EXCLUDED BY THE HON'BLE DELHI H IGH COURT IN THE ITA-5024/DEL/2010 6 CASE OF AGNITY INDIA TECHNOLOGIES PVT.LTD. (SUPRA) THE FACTS OF WHICH ARE CLAIMED TO BE MORE OR LESS SIMILAR TO THOSE OF THE ASSESSEE. HERE ALSO THE ASSESSEE IS CLAIMING TO BE OPERATING AT M INIMAL RISK AS 100% OF ITS SERVICES ARE PROVIDED TO AES. THE ASSESSEE IS CLAIMING TO BE ENGAGED INTO SOFTWARE DEVELOPMENT SERVICES AND ADMI NISTRATIVE SUPPORT SERVICES AS AGAINST THE DIVERSIFIED SERVICE S RENDERED BY INFOSYS TECHNOLOGIES LIMITED. THE ASSESSEE IS CLAIMING NOT TO HAVE ITS OWN PROPRIETARY PRODUCTS LIKE FINACLE OWNED BY INFOSYS TECHNOLOGIES LIMITED. THE ASSESSEE IS CLAIMING TO HAVE SPENT ON LY NOMINAL AMOUNT OF EXPENDITURE AT RS.2.7 LAKHS ON ADVERTISEMENT/SAL ES PROMOTION & BRAND BUILDING AS AGAINST RS.499 CRORES INCURRED BY INFOSYS TECHNOLOGIES LIMITED. THE ASSESSEE CLAIMS NOT TO H AVE INCURRED ANY EXPENDITURE ON RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT AS AGAINST INFOSYS TECHNOLOGIES LIMITED SPENDING A SUM OF RS.102 CRORE S ON IT. THE ABOVE FACTS CLEARLY INDICATE THAT PRIMA FACIE THE C ASE OF INFOSYS TECHNOLOGIES LIMITED DOES NOT APPEAR TO BE COMPARAB LE WITH THAT OF THE ASSESSEE. THE CONTENTION OF THE LEARNED DR THA T THE DIFFERENCE IN THE REVENUES EARNED BY THE ASSESSEE VIS-A-VIS INFOS YS TECHNOLOGIES LIMITED WAS NOT OF SUCH A MAGNITUDE AS WAS IN THE C ASE OF AGNITY INDIA TECHNOLOGIES PVT.LTD. DOES NOT ADVANCE THE CASE OF THE REVENUE. THE REASON IS THAT THE CASE OF INFOSYS TECHNOLOGIES LIM ITED HAS BEEN HELD TO BE EXCLUDIBLE NOT ONLY ON THE STRENGTH OF DIFFER ENCE IN THE REVENUE OF TWO COMPANIES BUT ALSO ON SEVERAL OTHER FACTORS AS HAVE BEEN TABULATED IN THE JUDGMENT BY HON'BLE DELHI HIGH COU RT. IT IS NOTICED THAT THE ASSESSEE TOOK UP SUCH OBJECTIONS BEFORE TH E AUTHORITIES BELOW ALSO AND ARGUED FOR THE EXCLUSION OF SUCH CASE. IT CAN BE SEEN FROM THE ORDERS PASSED BY THEM THAT THE ASSESSEE'S OBJECTION S IN THIS REGARD HAVE NOT BEEN APPROPRIATELY DEALT WITH. THOUGH WE H OLD IN PRINCIPLE THAT THE JUDGMENT OF THE HON'BLE DELHI HIGH COURT I N AGNITY LTD. (SUPRA) APPEARS TO BE PRIMA FACIE APPLICABLE WE EQUALLY AP PRECIATE THE CONTENTION OF THE LD. DR THAT THE RELEVANT FACTORS NEED TO BE EVALUATED AT THE TPO'S END. WE THEREFORE SET ASIDE THE IMPU GNED ORDER ON THIS ITA-5024/DEL/2010 7 ISSUE AND REMIT THE MATTER TO THE FILE OF THE AO/TP O FOR DECIDING THIS ISSUE AFRESH AS PER THE MANDATE OF THE AFORESAID VI EW OF THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT. NEEDLESS TO SAY THE ASSESSEE WILL BE G IVEN FULL OPPORTUNITY TO PUT FORTH ITS CASE AND LEAD ANY FRESH EVIDENCE I N SUPPORT OF ITS CLAIM. SIMILAR VIEW HAS BEEN TAKEN BY THE DELHI BENCH OF T HE TRIBUNAL IN ATRENTA (INDIA) PVT. LTD. DELHI VS ITO (I.T.A .NO. -5493/DEL/2013) VIDE ITS ORDER DATED 17 JANUARY 2014. 8. THE NEXT CASE IS THAT OF MPHASIS BFL LIMITED WHI CH THE LEARNED AR REQUESTED TO EXCLUDE FROM THE LIST OF COMPARABLE S. IN SUPPORT OF HIS ARGUMENT FOR THE EXCLUSION OF THIS CASE THE LEARNE D AR SUBMITTED THAT MPHASIS BFL LIMITED IS ENGAGED IN DIVERSIFIED IT SE RVICES SEGMENT OFFERING BUSINESS PROCESS OPERATIONS APPLICATION D EVELOPMENT AND MAINTENANCE ETC. AS AGAINST THE ASSESSEE BEING A CO NTRACT SOFTWARE DEVELOPMENT SERVICES. CERTAIN OTHER POINTS WERE AL SO HIGHLIGHTED TO JUSTIFY THE EXCLUSION OF THIS CASE. ON A POINTED Q UERY FROM THE BENCH THE LEARNED AR AGREED THAT SUCH POINTS OF DIFFERENC E HAVE NOT BEEN CONSIDERED BY THE AUTHORITIES BELOW. WITHOUT GOING INTO THE MERITS OF THE EXCLUSION OR OTHERWISE OF THIS CASE FROM THE LI ST OF COMPARABLES WE ARE OF THE CONSIDERED OPINION THAT THE ENDS OF JUST ICE WOULD MEET ADEQUATELY IF THE IMPUGNED ORDER ON THIS ISSUE IS A LSO SET ASIDE AND MATTER IS RESTORED TO THE AO/TPO. WE ORDER ACCORDI NGLY AND DIRECT HIM TO CONSIDER THE COMPARABILITY OR OTHERWISE OF THIS CASE ON THE STRENGTH OF THE RELEVANT DATA OF THIS COMPANY AFTER ALLOWING A REASONABLE OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD TO THE ASSESSEE. 9. SINCE THE LEARNED AR RESTRICTED HIS ARGUMENTS ON LY TO JUSTIFY THE EXCLUSION OF THESE TWO CASES WE ARE NOT TAKING UP THE OTHER GROUNDS RAISED IN THE MEMORANDUM OF APPEAL. ITA-5024/DEL/2010 8 10. IN THE FINAL ANALYSIS WE SET ASIDE THE IMPUGNE D ORDER AND REMIT THE MATTER TO THE FILE OF THE TPO FOR COMPUTING THE ALP OF THE INTERNATIONAL TRANSACTIONS AFRESH IN THE LIGHT OF O UR ABOVE DISCUSSION. 11. IN THE RESULT THE APPEAL IS ALLOWED FOR STATIS TICAL PURPOSES. DECISION PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 23 RD APRIL 2014. SD/- SD/- ( (( (RAJPAL YADAV RAJPAL YADAV RAJPAL YADAV RAJPAL YADAV) )) ) ( (( (R.S. SYAL R.S. SYAL R.S. SYAL R.S. SYAL) )) ) JUDICIAL JUDICIAL JUDICIAL JUDICIAL MEMBER MEMBER MEMBER MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER DATED : 23.04.2014 VK. COPY FORWARDED TO: - 1. APPELLANT : M/S ALCATEL LUCENT TECH M/S ALCATEL LUCENT TECH M/S ALCATEL LUCENT TECH M/S ALCATEL LUCENT TECHNOLOGIES NOLOGIES NOLOGIES NOLOGIES INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED (NOW MERGED WITH ALCATEL LUCENT INDIA LIMITED) (NOW MERGED WITH ALCATEL LUCENT INDIA LIMITED) (NOW MERGED WITH ALCATEL LUCENT INDIA LIMITED) (NOW MERGED WITH ALCATEL LUCENT INDIA LIMITED) 15 1515 15 TH THTH TH FLOOR TOWER C DLF CYBER GREENS DLF CITY FLOOR TOWER C DLF CYBER GREENS DLF CITY FLOOR TOWER C DLF CYBER GREENS DLF CITY FLOOR TOWER C DLF CYBER GREENS DLF CITY PHASE III GURGAON PHASE III GURGAON PHASE III GURGAON PHASE III GURGAON 122 002. 122 002. 122 002. 122 002. 2. RESPONDENT : DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE CIRCLE CIRCLE CIRCLE- -- -1(1) NEW DELHI. 1(1) NEW DELHI. 1(1) NEW DELHI. 1(1) NEW DELHI. 3. CIT 4. CIT(A) 5. DR ITAT ASSISTANT REGISTRAR