ORDER

Per Shri A.K. Garodia, Accountant Member

All these three appeals are filed by the revenue which are directed against three separate orders of ld. CIT(A)-13, Bangalore all dated 14.03.2018. Out of this bunch of three appeals of revenue, two appeals are for Assessment Year 2012-13 (Quarter 3 & Quarter 4) and one appeal is for Assessment Year 2013-14.

2. The grounds raised by the revenue in ITA No. 1942/Bang/2018 are as under.

“1. The order of the Ld. CIT(A) is opposed to law & facts of the case.

2. The Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law as well as on facts in cancelling the order u/s. 201(1) & 201(1A) by stating that once it is held that the right to service can be sold then the relationship between the assessee and the distributor would be that of "Principal and Principal" and not of "Principal and Agent."

3. The Ld. CIT(A) has erred in relying on the decision of Hon’ble Karnataka High Court in the case of Bharti Airtel Ltd. (52 Taxman.com 31) (2014) which has not been accepted by the department.

For these and grounds that may be raised during the course of appeal and actual hearing, the appellant prays that the order of learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) may he set aside and cancelled.”

3. The grounds raised by the revenue in ITA No. 2206/Bang/2018 are as under.

“1) The order of the Ld. CIT(A) is opposed to law & facts of the case.

2) The Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law as well as on facts in cancelling the order u/s. 201(1) & 201(1A) by stating that once it is held that the right to service can be sold then the relationship between the assessee and the distributor would be that of "Principal and Principal" and not of "Principal and Agent.”

3) The Ld. CIT(A) has erred in relying on the decision of Hon'ble Karnataka High Court in the case of Bharti Airtel Ltd. (52 Taxman.com31)(2014) which has not been accepted by the department.

For these and grounds that may be raised during the course of appeal and actual hearing, the appellant prays that the order of learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) may be set aside and cancelled.”

4. The grounds raised by the revenue in ITA No. 2207/Bang/2018 are as under.

“1) The order of the Ld. CIT(A) is opposed to law & facts of the case.

2) The Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law as well as on facts in cancelling the order u/s. 201(1) & 201(1A) by stating that once it is held that the right to service can be sold then the relationship between the assessee and the distributor would be that of "Principal and Principal" and not of "Principal and Agent."

3) The Ld. CIT(A) has erred in relying on the decision of Hon'ble Karnataka High Court in the case of Bharti Airtel Ltd. (52 Taxman.com 31)(2014) which has not been accepted by the department.

For these and grounds that may be raised during the course of appeal and actual hearing, the appellant prays that the order of learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) may be set aside and cancelled.”

5. The ld. DR of revenue supported the order passed by the AO u/s. 201(1) and 201(1A) of IT Act, 1961 for Q3 of Financial Year 2011-12, for Q4 of Financial Year 2011-12 and for Financial Year 2012-13.

6. He submitted that this is true that there is Tribunal order in assessee’s own case in favour of the assessee, for Assessment Years 2009-10 to 2012-13 in ITA Nos. 648 to 651/Bang/2014 dated 06.11.2015 copy available on pages 88 to 109 of paper book filed by the assessee in which the Tribunal has followed the judgement of Hon'ble Karnataka High Court rendered in the case of Bharti Airtel Ltd. Vs. DCIT as reported in [2015] 372 ITR 33 (Karnataka). He placed reliance on a judgment of Hon'ble Calcutta High Court rendered in the case of Hutchison Telecom East Ltd. vs. CIT 375 ITR 566. He submitted a copy of this judgement of Hon’ble Calcutta High Court. He submitted that Hon’ble Calcutta High Court has also considered the same judgement of Hon'ble Karnataka High Court rendered in the case of Bharti Airtel Ltd. Vs. DCIT (supra) and has also considered the judgement of Hon’ble Delhi