M/s India Gypsum Ltd., Mumbai v. DCIT, New Delhi

ITA 5677/DEL/2010 | 2006-2007
Pronouncement Date: 25-02-2011 | Result: Allowed

Appeal Details

RSA Number 567720114 RSA 2010
Bench Delhi
Appeal Number ITA 5677/DEL/2010
Duration Of Justice 2 month(s) 10 day(s)
Appellant M/s India Gypsum Ltd., Mumbai
Respondent DCIT, New Delhi
Appeal Type Income Tax Appeal
Pronouncement Date 25-02-2011
Appeal Filed By Assessee
Order Result Allowed
Bench Allotted C
Tribunal Order Date 25-02-2011
Date Of Final Hearing 21-02-2011
Next Hearing Date 21-02-2011
Assessment Year 2006-2007
Appeal Filed On 15-12-2010
Judgment Text
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH : C : NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI G.E. VEERABHADRAPPA HONBLE VICE PRESI DENT AND SHRI I.P. BANSAL JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA NO.5677/DEL/2010 ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2006-07 M/S INDIA GYPSUM LIMITED (NOW KNOWN AS SAINT GOBAIN GYPROC INDIA LTD.) 5 TH LEVEL LEELA BUSINESS PARK ANDHERI KURLA ROAD ANDHERI (EAST) MUMBAI 400 059. PAN : AAAC10687E VS. DCIT CIRCLE 11 (1) NEW DELHI. (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) ASSESSEE BY : SHRI ARVIND V. SONDE AR REVENUE BY : SHRI A.D. MEHROTRA CIT DR ORDER PER I.P. BANSAL JUDICIAL MEMBER THIS IS AN APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE UNDER THE PROVISIO NS OF SECTION 253 (1) (D) OF THE IT ACT 1961 AGAINST THE ORDER PASSED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER DATED 15 TH OCTOBER 2010 U/S 143 (3) READ WITH SECTION 144C OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT 1961 (THE ACT). THE SOLE ADDITION ASSAILED IN THE PRESENT APPEAL IS A SUM OF ` 4 99 13 402 ON ACCOUNT OF VARIATION OF INCOME AS A CONSEQUENCE OF ORDER OF TRAN SFER PRICING OFFICER (TPO) U/S 92C (3) OF THE ACT DATED 12 TH OCTOBER 2009. GROUNDS OF APPEAL READ AS UNDER:- THE APPELLANT COMPANY OBJECTS TO THE ORDER DATED 15 TH OCTOBER 2010 PASSED BY THE DCIT CIRCLE 11(1) NEW DELHI FOL LOWING THE DIRECTION ISSUED BY DISPUTE RESOLUTION PANEL (DRP) U/S 143(3) R.W.S. 144C(5) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT 1961 ON THE FOLL OWING GROUNDS: ITA NO.5677/DEL/2010 2 1. DISALLOWANCE OF SERVICE CHARGES 1. DISALLOWANCE OF SERVICE CHARGES 1. DISALLOWANCE OF SERVICE CHARGES 1. DISALLOWANCE OF SERVICE CHARGES RS. 49 913 402 RS. 49 913 402 RS. 49 913 402 RS. 49 913 402 1.1 THE LD. DCIT ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE DISALLOWANC E OF RS. 49 913 402/- IN RESPECT OF SERVICE CHARGES INCLUSIVE OF MANAGEMENT SERVICES SUPPORT SERVICES ENGINEERING SE RVICES AND GUARANTEE FEES. 1.2 THE LD. DCIT OUGHT TO HAVE APPRECIATED THAT THE PAYM ENTS BEING MADE ARE IN ACCORDANCE WITH A COST SHARING AGRE EMENT AND THAT THE PAYMENTS BEING MADE ARE ON THE BASIS OF REASONABLE AND SOUND ALLOCATION KEYS. 1.3 THE LD. DCIT ERRED IN NOT CONSIDERING THE DETAILE D SUBMISSION MADE BY APPELLANT DATE 9.11.09 WHEREIN THE APPELLANT COMPANY HAS SUBMITTED FILES CONTAINING SAMPLE EMAIL EXCHANGE AND OTHER DOCUMENTS EVIDENCING THE RECEIPT OF SERVICES. 1.4 THE LD. DCIT ERRED IN NOT APPRECIATING THE FACT THA T THE AVAILMENT OF SERVICES BY THE APPELLANT COMPANY IS BASE D ON THE COMMERCIAL EXPEDIENCIES AND EXIGENCIES AND ENABL ED IT TO CARRY BUSINESS EFFICIENTLY AND EFFECTIVELY. 1.5 THE LD. DCIT OUGHT TO HAVE APPRECIATED THAT APPELLA NT COMPANY HAS APPLIED TRANSACTIONAL NET MARGIN METHOD (T NMM) ON WHOLE ENTITY BASIS TO BENCHMARK THE TRANSACTION OF PAY MENT OF SERVICE CHARGES. 2. GENERAL 2. GENERAL 2. GENERAL 2. GENERAL 2.1 EACH ONE OF THE ABOVE GROUNDS OF APPEAL IS WITHO UT PREJUDICE TO ONE ANOTHER. 2.2 THE APPELLANT CRAVES LEAVE TO ADD ALTER OR AMEND THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL. 2. THE ASSESSEE COMPANY IS A SUBSIDIARY OF COMPAGNIE DE SA INT- GOBAIN (AROS FRAMCE (SAINT GOBAIN). THE ASSESSEE (FOR SH ORT IGL) IS IN THE BUSINESS OF MANUFACTURING OF GYPSUM BOARD CEILING TILES GYPSUM PLASTERS AND JOINTING COMPOUNDS. THESE PRODUCTS ARE USED FOR APPLICATION IN CEILINGS WALL LININGS AND PARTITIONS. THE COMPANY IS ALSO SELLING PLASTER BOARD ACCESSORIES WHICH ARE REQUIRED TO INSTALL ITS PRODUCTS. IT ENTERED INTO AN INTERNATIONAL TRANSACTI ONS WITH ITS ASSOCIATE CONCERN FOR AN AMOUNT OF ` 16 12 63 898/- THE DETAILS OF WHICH ARE AS UNDER:- ITA NO.5677/DEL/2010 3 NATURE OF TRANSACTION METHOD SELECTED TOTAL VALUE OF TRANSACTION (RS.) PURCHASE OF FINISHED GOODS RPM 6 587 032 PAYMENT OF ROYALTY CUP 28 116 734 PAYMENT OF SERVICE CHARGES CUP 49 913 402 REIMBURSEMENT OF EXPENSES NA 7 365 593 USD LOAN FACILITY CUP 69 281 137 3. DURING THE COURSE OF PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE TPO I T WAS NOTICED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD MADE PAYMENT OF SERVICE CHARGES TO ITS ASSOCIATE AMOUNTING TO ` 4 99 13 402/- THE DETAILS OF WHICH ARE AS UNDER:- S.NO. ASSOCIATED ENTERPRISE NATURE OF SERVICES AVAILED AMOUNT (RS.) MOST APPROPRIAT E METHOD 1. BPB PLC EXPERT ENGINEERING SERVICES MANAGEMENT SERVICES & GUARANTEE. 9 908 173 CUP 2. BPB ASIA LTD. MANAGEMENT AND OTHER SUPPORTING SERVICES. 40 005 229 CUP TOTAL TOTAL TOTAL TOTAL 49 913 402 49 913 402 49 913 402 49 913 402 4. THE TPO REQUIRED THE ASSESSEE TO SUBMIT THE JUSTIFICAT ION FOR MAKING THE SAID PAYMENT AND AFTER ANALYZING THE FACT S AND SUBMISSIONS HE HAS COME TO THE CONCLUSION THAT THE PAYME NT OF ` 4 99 13 402/- WAS NOT JUSTIFIED AS NO SUCH ALLEGED SERVI CE WAS PROVIDED BY THE ASSESSEE TO JUSTIFY THE ALLOWANCE OF SUCH PAYMENT AND THUS HE MADE THE ADJUSTMENT OF THE SAID AMOUNT TO THE ARMS LE NGTH PRICE AND HE DIRECTED THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO ENHANCE THE ARMS L ENGTH PRICE DETERMINED IN THE TP STUDY OF THE ASSESSEE BY A SUM OF ` 4 99 13 402/-. ITA NO.5677/DEL/2010 4 5. THE ASSESSING OFFICER MADE THE SAID ADJUSTMENT TO THE ARMS LENGTH PRICE AND THUS ADDED THE SAID AMOUNT OF `4 9 9 13 402/- TO THE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE WHEREBY THE LOSS RETURNED BY THE A SSESSEE AT ` 13 35 38 561/- WAS REDUCED TO ` 8 36 25 159 AND THE DRAFT ORDER WAS FORWARDED TO THE ASSESSEE VIDE LETTER DATED 8 TH DECEMBER 2009. 6. AGGRIEVED THE ASSESSEE OPTED FOR REDRESSAL OF THE GRI EVANCE TO DISPUTE RESOLUTION PANEL WHICH VIDE ITS ORDER DATED 3 0 TH SEPTEMBER 2010 HAS PASSED THE FOLLOWING ORDER:- DIRECTIONS U/S 144C(5) OF THE INCOME TAX ACST 196 1 DIRECTIONS U/S 144C(5) OF THE INCOME TAX ACST 196 1 DIRECTIONS U/S 144C(5) OF THE INCOME TAX ACST 196 1 DIRECTIONS U/S 144C(5) OF THE INCOME TAX ACST 196 1 THE ABOVE ASSESSEE HAS FILED OBJECTIONS U/S 144C(2) (B) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT (THE ACT) IN RESPECT OF THE DRAFT ASSESSM ENT ORDERS SERVED ON THE ASSESSEE ON 18.12.09 PROPOSED BY THE AC IT CIRCLE 11(1) NEW DELHI. WE HAVE GONE THROUGH THE DRAFT ASSESSMENT ORDER. WE H AVE ALSO HEARD THE AUTHORISED REPRESENTATIVES (ARS) AND HAVE CON SIDERED THE OBJECTIONS OF THE ASSESSEE CAREFULLY. AFTER CONSID ERING THE SAME WE ARE OF THE OPINION THAT THE DRAFT ASSESSMENT ORDER PRO POSED BY THE AO IS TO BE APPROVED. DIRECTIONS DIRECTIONS DIRECTIONS DIRECTIONS THE AO IS DIRECTED TO COMPLETE THE ASSESSMENT AS PROPOSE D IN THE DRAFT ASSESSMENT ORDER. 7. ACCORDINGLY THE IMPUGNED ASSESSMENT ORDER DATED 15 TH OCTOBER 2010 CAME TO BE PASSED BY FINALLY DETERMINING THE LOSS AS PER DRAFT ASSESSMENT ORDER AT ` 8 36 25 159/-. 8. AFTER NARRATING THE FACTS IT WAS SUBMITTED BY LEAR NED AR THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD FILED VARIOUS OBJECTIONS BEFORE THE DISPUTE R ESOLUTION PANEL ASSAILING THE ACTION OF THE TPO AND THE ASSESSING O FFICER FOR ADDITION OF THE SAID SUM OF ` 4 99 13 402/- AND THE D RP HAS NOT DELIBERATED UPON THE OBJECTIONS WHICH WERE RAISED IN DETAIL BEFORE THE ITA NO.5677/DEL/2010 5 SAID PANEL AND HAS PASSED A VERY CRYPTIC ORDER AND REASO NS HAVE NOT BEEN STATED THAT WHY THE OBJECTIONS OF THE ASSESSEE HAVE BEEN REJECTED. IN SHORT IT WAS THE CASE OF LD. AR THAT TH E MATTER MAY BE RESTORED BACK TO THE FILE OF ASSESSING OFFICER/TPO/DRP A S THE OBJECTIONS OF THE ASSESSEE HAVE NOT BEEN REJECTED BY THE DRP BY WA Y OF A SPEAKING ORDER. HE SUBMITTED THAT RECENTLY HONBLE DELHI HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF VODAFONE ESSAR LTD. VS. DISPUTE RESOLUTION PANEL-II IN WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) NO.7028/2010 HAS RESTORED THE M ATTER BACK TO THE FILE OF DRP FOR ASCRIBING COGENT AND GERMANE REASONS F OR REJECTION OF THE OBJECTIONS AS THE COGENT AND GERMANE REASONS ARE CO NSIDERED TO BE HEART AND SOUL OF THE MATTER ON WHICH THE SUPERIOR FORUM CAN APPLY ITS MIND. HE HAS PLACED BEFORE US THE COPY OF THE SAID ORDER. 9. HE SUBMITTED THAT THE FACTS OF THE ASSESSEES CASE ARE A T PAR WITH THE AFOREMENTIONED DECISION OF DRPS ORDER AND THUS HE SUBMITTED THAT THE MATTER MAY BE RESTORED BACK ACCORD INGLY AND PROPER RELIEF SHOULD BE GRANTED TO THE ASSESSEE. 10. ON THE OTHER HAND IT WAS VEHEMENTLY PLEADED BY LD. DR THAT THE TPO IN HIS ORDER HAS GIVEN THE REASONS FOR MAKING THE A FOREMENTIONED ADJUSTMENT AND THEREFORE DRP HAS RIGHTLY CONFIRMED THE DRAFT ORDER AND THEREFORE THE ORDER OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER SHOUL D BE CONFIRMED. 11. WE HAVE CAREFULLY CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS. THE ORDER PASSED BY THE DRP HAS ALREADY BEEN REPRODUCED IN THE A BOVE PART OF THIS ORDER. THE MATTER WAS REFERRED TO THE DRP U/S 14 4C OF THE IT ACT. UNDER SUB-SECTION (1) OF SECTION 144C THE ASSESSING OFFI CER IS UNDER AN OBLIGATION TO FORWARD A DRAFT OF THE PROPOSED ORD ER OF ASSESSMENT TO THE ASSESSEE IF HE PROPOSES TO MAKE ON OR AFTER THE FIRST DAY OF OCTOBER 2009 ANY VARIATION IN THE INCOME OR LOSS RE TURNED WHICH IS PREJUDICIAL TO THE INTEREST OF SUCH ASSESSEE. UNDER SUB-SE CTION (2) OF ITA NO.5677/DEL/2010 6 SECTION 144 THE ASSESSEE WITHIN 30 DAYS OF THE RECEIPT OF SUCH DRAFT ORDER CAN ACCEPT THE VARIATION MADE BY THE ASSESSING OF FICER OR HE CAN FILE OBJECTIONS EITHER TO DISPUTE RESOLUTION PANEL OR TO THE ASSESSING OFFICER. SINCE THE ASSESSEE HAD FILED HIS OBJECTIONS WIT H DRP THEN UNDER SUB-SECTION (5) THE DRP UPON RECEIPT OF OBJECT ION IS UNDER OBLIGATION TO ISSUE DIRECTIONS AS IT THINKS FIT FOR THE GUIDANCE OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO ENABLE HIM TO COMPLETE THE ASSESSMENT AND UNDER SUB-SECTION (6) SUCH DIRECTIONS WHICH ARE PUT UP UNDER SUB-SECTION (5) WOULD BE FURTHER CONSIDERING THE FOLLOWING DOCUMENTS: (A) DRAFT ORDER; (B) THE OBJECTION FILED BY THE ASSESSEE; (C) THE EVIDEN CE FURNISHED BY THE ASSESSEE; (D) REPORT IF ANY OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER VALUATION OFFICER OR TPO OR ANY OTHER AUTHORITY; (E) RECORDS RELATING TO THE DRAFT ORDER; (F) EVIDENCE COLLECTED BY OR CAUSED TO BE CO LLETED BY IT; AND (G) RESULT OF ANY INQUIRY MADE BY OR CAUSED TO BE MADE B Y IT. UNDER SUB- SECTION (7) DRP IS ALSO AUTHORIZED BEFORE ISSUING OF DI RECTION UNDER SUB-SECTION (5) TO MAKE SUCH FURTHER INQUIRY AS IT THI NK FIT OR CAUSE ANY FURTHER INQUIRY TO BE MADE BY ANY INCOME-TAX AUTHOR ITY AND REPORT THE RESULT OF THE SAME TO IT. UNDER SUB-SECTION (8) THE DR P HAS POWER TO CONFIRM REDUCE OR ENHANCE THE VARIATIONS PROPOSED IN THE DRAFT ORDER SO HOWEVER THAT IT SHALL NOT SET ASIDE ANY PROPOSED VA RIATION OR ISSUE ANY DIRECTION UNDER SUB-SECTION (5) FOR FURTHER INQUI RY AND PASSING OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER. UNDER SUB-SECTION (11) NO DIRECTIO N U/S SUB- SECTION (5) SHALL BE ISSUED UNLESS AN OPPORTUNITY OF BEIN G HEARD IS GIVEN TO THE ASSESSEE AND THE ASSESSING OFFICER ON SUCH DIRE CTIONS WHICH ARE PREJUDICIAL TO THE INTEREST OF THE ASSESSEE OR THE INTEREST OF THE REVENUE RESPECTIVELY. UNDER SUB-SECTION (12) DIR ECTIONS UNDER SUB-SECTION (5) CANNOT BE PASSED AFTER NINE MONTHS FROM THE END OF THE MONTH IN WHICH DRAFT ORDER IS FORWARDED TO THE ELIGI BLE ASSESSEE. UNDER SUB-SECTION (13) ON RECEIPT OF DIRECTIONS ISSUED UNDER SUB- SECTION (5) THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS TO PASS THE ASSESSMENT O RDER IN CONFORMITY WITH THE DIRECTIONS WITHOUT PROVIDING ANY FURTHER ITA NO.5677/DEL/2010 7 OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD TO THE ASSESSEE WITHIN ONE M ONTH FROM THE END OF THE MONTH IN WHICH SUCH DIRECTIONS ARE RECEIVE D. 12. THE DIRECTIONS PASSED BY DRP U/S 144C (5) AS IT CAN BE SEEN IN THE PRESENT CASE ARE NOT SPEAKING ABOUT WHAT OBJECTIO NS WERE RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE AND HOW THEY HAVE BEEN FOUND TO BE NOT ACCEPTABLE. IT IS SIMPLY OBSERVED BY THE DRP THAT THEY HAVE GONE T HROUGH THE DRAFT ASSESSMENT ORDER AND THEY HAVE HEARD THE AUTHORIZED REP RESENTATIVE AND HAVE CONSIDERED THE OBJECTIONS OF THE ASSESSEE CAREFU LLY AND AFTER CONSIDERING THE SAME THEY HAVE OPINED THAT DRAFT ASSESSME NT ORDER PROPOSED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS TO BE APPROVED AND T HE DIRECTIONS ISSUED TO THE ASSESSING OFFICER ARE THAT THE ASSESSING OFFI CER IS DIRECTED TO COMPLETE THE ASSESSMENT AS PROPOSED IN THE DR AFT ASSESSMENT ORDER. WE FIND THAT THIS ISSUE HAD COME UP BE FORE THE HONBLE DELHI HIGH COURT IN WRIT PETITION FILED BY VODAFONE ESSAR LTD. AGAINST THE ORDER PASSED BY THE DRP-II AND ORS. AND THE SAID WRIT PETITION HAS BEEN DECIDED BY THE HONBLE HIGH COURT VIDE THEIR ORDER DATED 2 ND DECEMBER 2010. THE ASSESSEE HAD FILED A WRIT OF CERT IORARI SEEKING THE QUASHING THE ORDER OF DRP AND THE REVENUE CONTENDED BEFORE THE HONBLE HIGH COURT THAT THE ORDER IN QUE STION DESERVE TO BE QUASHED AND THE MATTER WAS REMANDED FOR FRESH ADJUDIC ATION. THE SAID ORDER OF THE HONBLE DELHI HIGH COURT IS REPRODU CED BELOW:- JUDGEMENT JUDGEMENT JUDGEMENT JUDGEMENT HEARD MR. SYALI LD. SR. COUNSEL FOR THE PETITIONER AN D MR. SANJEEV SABHARWAL LD. STANDING COUNSEL FOR THE REVENUE. BY THIS WRIT PETITION THE PETITIONER HAS PRAYED FOR ISSUE OF A WRIT OF CERTIORARI FOR QUASHMENT OF THE ORDER DATED 30 TH SEPTEMBER 2010 PASSED BY THE DISPUTE RESOLUTION PANEL-II THE FIR ST RESPONDENT HEREIN. WHAT COULD HAVE BEEN A MATTER OF DE BATE WAS PUT TO REST BY MR. SANJEEV SABHARWAL LD. COUNSEL FOR THE REVENUE BY STATING THAT THE ORDER PASSED ON 30 TH SEPTEMBER ITA NO.5677/DEL/2010 8 2010 CONTAINED IN ANNEXURE-P1 DESERVES TO BE QUASHE D AND THE MATTER BE REMANDED TO THE SAID AUTHORITY FOR FRESH ADJUDI CATION. IN VIEW OF THE AFORESAID FAIR CONCESSION THE ORDER D ATED 30 TH SEPTEMBER 2010 PASSED BY THE RESPONDENT NO. 1 IS QUAS HED AND THE MATER IS REMANDED TO THE SAID RESPONDENT TO ADJUDICATE AFRESH. BE IT NOTED WHEN A QUASI JUDICIAL AUTHORITY D EALS WITH A LIST IT IS OBLIGATORY ON ITS PART TO ASCRIBE COGENT AND G ERMANE REASONS AS THE SAME IS THE HEARD AND SOUL OF THE MATTER AND FURTHER THE SAME ALSO FACILITATES APPRECIATION WHEN THE ORDER IS CALLED IN QUESTION BEFORE THE SUPERIOR FORUM. NEEDLE S TO SAY THAT THE COMPETENT AUTHORITY WHILE PASSING THE ORDER SHALL K EEP IN MIND THE ORDER DATED 29 TH NOVEMBER 2010 WHEREIN WE HAD DIRECTED THAT THE PERIOD FROM THE DATE OF FILING THE WRITE PETITION AND FOUR WEEKS AFTER ITS DISPOSAL SHALL STAND EXCLUDED WHILE COMPUTING THE LIMITATION FOR THE DEPARTMENT TO PASS AN ASSESSMENT ORDER. THE WRIT PETITION IS ALLOWED TO THE EXTENT INDICATED ABOVE WITHOUT ANY ORDER AS TO COSTS. ORDER DASTI UNDER THE SIGNATURES OF THE COURT MASTER. [WPO (C) 7028/2010] 13. THIS TRIBUNAL IN MANY OF SUCH CASES HAS RESTORED THE ISSUE TO THE FILE OF DRP FOR PASSING A SPEAKING ORDER ON EACH OF TH E OBJECTION OF THE ASSESSEE RAISED BEFORE IT. THEREFORE WE FIND THAT IT I S A FIT CASE WHERE THE ENTIRE MATTER SHOULD BE RESTORED BACK TO THE FILE OF DRP TO PASS A DETAILED ORDER STATING ALL THE OBJECTIONS OF THE ASSESSEE AND DISPOSING THEM BY GIVING A COGENT AND GERMANE REASONS FOR ADJUD ICATION OF THE OBJECTIONS OF THE ASSESSEE. WE DIRECT ACCORDINGLY. AFT ER RECEIVING THE ORDER FROM DRP THE ASSESSING OFFICER WILL AGAIN PASS ORD ER U/S 144C(13) AND THE PRESENT ASSESSMENT PASSED BY THE ASSESSING OF FICER IS SET ASIDE AS THE DRP IS DIRECTED TO RE-ADJUDICATE THE OBJECTIONS RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE AS PER DIRECTIONS GIVE ABOVE. WE D IRECT ACCORDINGLY. ITA NO.5677/DEL/2010 9 14. IN THE RESULT FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS TREATED AS ALLOWED. THE ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 25.2.20 11. SD/- SD/- [G.E. VEERABHADRAPPA] [I.P. BANSAL] VICE PRESIDENT JUDICIAL MEMBER DATED 25.02.2011. DK COPY FORWARDED TO: - 1. APPELLANT 2. RESPONDENT 3. CIT 4. CIT(A) 5. DR ITAT TRUE COPY BY ORDER DEPUTY REGISTRAR ITAT DELHI BENCHES ITA NO.5677/DEL/2010 10 DATE OF DICTATION DATE OF PRESENTATION OF THE DRAFT ORDER TO THE MEMBER DATE OF RETURN FROM THE BENCH AFTER PRONOUNCEMENT &SIGNING DATE OF DISPATCH OF THE ORDER TO THE BENCH ITA NO.5677/DEL/2010 11