Institutional Area, International tax, New Delhi. Gurgaon, Haryana 122001. PAN No: AACCC6131B APPELLANT RESPONDENT Assessee by : Ms. Reetika Garg (CA) & Mr. Himanshu Sinha (Adv.) Revenue by : Sh. Surender Pal (Sr. DR) Date of Hearing : 29.05.2018. Date of Pronouncement : 29/06/2018. ORDER PER : O.P.KANT, AM These two appeals filed by the Assessee are directed against a common order dated 10/12/2010 passed by the Ld. Commissioner of Incometax (Appeals)XI, New Delhi [in short the Ld. CIT(A)] for Assessment Year 200708 and 200809 respectively; in relation to tax liability under section 201(1) and 2 ITA No959 & 984/Del/2011 Ciena India Pvt. Ltd. 201(1A) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short the 'Act') for holding the assessee in default for nondeduction of tax at source. In view of the common issue involved in both these appeals, same were heard together and disposed of by way of this consolidated order for convenience and brevity. The assessee has raised common grounds of appeal in both the Assessment Years, which are reproduced as under: A.Y. 200708 " 1. That the CIT(A) has erred in law and on the facts of the case whilst confirming the demands raised by the Income Tax Officer, TDS Ward 1(1), International Taxation, New Delhi ("AO"). 2.(a) The Ld.CIT(A) has erred in law and on the facts of the case in confirming that the appellant had failed to deduct the tax of Rs. 39,09,666/. (b) The Ld.CIT(A) has erred in law in ignoring the fact that supply of hardware and software by Network Appliances BV, Netherland ("NABV") was made pursuant to outright sale and no right on such hardware and software was retained by NABV. (C) The Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and on the facts of the case without appreciating that the sale of hardware and software do not give rise to income chargeable to tax in India and hence no tax was required to be deducted in accordance with section 195 of the Act. (d) The Ld.CIT(A) has erred in law and on the facts of the case in holding that payment of Rs. 3,186,279/ made towards installation and support services and post warranty services are in the nature of "Fees for Technical Services" and "Royalty" as defined under article 12 of India Netherlands DTAA. (e) The Ld.CIT(A) has erred in law and on the facts of the case whilst observing as under: "Judging from either point of view, there is no escapement of the fact that the appellant has not deducted TDS which is obligatory on its part as per the provisions of the law. There is no such mention in the DTAA which empowers the 3 ITA No959 & 984/Del/2011 Ciena India Pvt. Ltd. assessee not to deduct tax. It was entirely on its own volition, the appellant chooses not to pay the tax which is otherwise liable to be paid....." 3. The Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and on the facts of the case in confirming the levy of interest under section 201(1A) of the Income Tax Act 1961. Each of the above grounds of appeal are independent and without prejudice to each other. The Appellant reserves its right to add, alter, amend or withdraw any of the above grounds either before or at the time of hearing. In view of the above ground, the Appellant requests you to cancel the order passed by the Ld. CIT(A)." 2. Briefly stated facts of the case are that the assessee is an Indian company, which