TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2019 (9) TMI 771
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....4 and 6 of the order. However, upon assessee's miscellaneous application, this issue has been recalled by the Tribunal vide MA No.66/M/2018 order dated 27/09/2018. Accordingly, the issue has come up for fresh hearing before this bench. 1.2 During the course of hearing, the revenue has urged that it is contemplating filing of writ against the recall of the order but as per submissions from assessee's side, no writ petition has been served on the assessee till date. Therefore, finding no impediment towards rehearing of the appeal, we proceed to adjudicate the same. 1.3 The only issue to be adjudicated as contained in Ground Nos. 1 to 9 read as under: - The appellant objects to the order dated 21 September 2010 passed by the Commissio....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... accounts is only a loose / layman's connotation which cannot be appended decisive importance in isolation. 7. He erred in holding that no credible material or evidence had been brought to his attention to demonstrate that the sale of bandwidth represents rendering of internet services, more so since the appellant was never requested to elaborate on this aspect or provided an opportunity to demonstrate the same. 8. He erred in relying on the Assessing Officer's contention that the appellant had been provided an opportunity to submit confirmations from certain parties to substantiate that it was engaged in the business of providing internet services but it failed to do so, especially since this confirmation was soug....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....o sub-para (c) of para 2 of Schedule 9 of the Balance Sheet to support the same. 2.3 The aforesaid submissions fortified the observation of Ld.AO that the assessee was merely trading in bandwidth. It was also observed that the assessee received payments for providing network services to M/s Reach Global Services Ltd. (RGSL) and made payment for exactly the same nature of network services to its sister concern namely M/s Reach Data Services India Pvt. Ltd. (RDSIPL). The assessee claimed deduction on account of receipts from RGSL considering that it was the assessee who was providing the services. At the same time, it was making payment to RDSIPL for rendering exactly the same nature of services which tantamount to outsourcing of services ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ng Schedule 9-Accounting Policies & Notes to the accounts, reached a conclusion that the assessee was engaged in the business of wholesale procurement and sale of bandwidth to retail ISPs and corporate users and was not rendering any services in respect to the bandwidth. Although the assessee defended the factum of rendering the services, inter-alia, by furnishing sample copies of invoices, however, in the absence of confirmation from assessee's customers, the said submissions could not find favor with first appellate authority. Therefore, it was concluded that the income of Rs. 26.97 Crores credited to Profit & Loss Account was on account of sale of bandwidth and therefore, not an eligible business as referred to in Section 80-IA(4)(ii). ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....d earning income therefrom. The assessee is simply acquiring transmission capacity from other ISPs and in turn, providing internet services to its customers and hence, eligible to claim the said deduction u/s 80-IA(4)(ii). 4.2 To further support the aforesaid submissions, the attention of the bench has been drawn to Audit Reports in Form No. 10CCB as well as in Form No. 3CB wherein the nature of services being provided by the assessee has been described as internet services. The attention has also been drawn to various correspondences / intimations / communications done by the assessee with various government agencies / associations. Further, the assessee is stated to be listed as ISP on the website of Telecom Regulatory Authority of Ind....