Bangalore 560 025. Range 12, PAN: AAACW 0387R Bangalore. APPELLANT RESPONDENT ITA Nos. 2328/Bang/2016 & 2335 to 2339/Bang/2016 Assessment years : 200708 to 201213 The Deputy M/s. Wipro Limited, Commissioner of Doddakannelli, Income Tax (International Vs. Sarjapur Road, Taxation), Bangalore 560 025. Circle 2(1), PAN: AAACW 0387R Bangalore. APPELLANT RESPONDENT Assessee by : Shri K.R. Pradeep, CA Shri K.V. Aravind, Standing Counsel & Respondent by : Shri Dilip, Advocate. Date of hearing : 24.04.2019 Date of Pronouncement : 21.06.2019 ORDER Per Bench ITA Nos.1215 to 1220/ Bang/2014 These are appeals arising out of the common order passed by the CIT(Appeals) on the following grounds: ITA Nos.1215 to 1220/ Bang/2014 & 18 to 23/Bang/2017, ITA Nos. 2328, 2335 to 2339/Bang/2016 Page 2 of 46 "1. That the order of the learned Commissioner of Incometax (Appeals) [hereinafter referred to as "the CIT(A)"] in so far as it is against the appellant is against law, facts and circumstances in the case of the appellant. 2. The notice, proceedings and order are all bad in law, without jurisdiction and invalid. 3. That the appellant denies the liabilities u/s 201(1) and 201(1A) of the Act. 4. The CIT(A)/A0 erred in declaring the assessee as in default u/s 201(1) of the Act. 5. That the order passed u/s 201(1) and 201(1A) of the IT Act is without jurisdiction, not as per law and barred by limitation, hence requires to be cancelled. 6. The CIT(A) erred in confirming the order passed u/s 201(1) & 201(1A) even after noticing that a single order was passed for multiple assessment years which is not as per law, hence requires to be cancelled. 7. That the orders of the CIT(A) /AO are liable to be cancelled as they are passed in gross violation of judicial discipline inasmuch as even the judgment of the jurisdictional High Court in appellant's own case, which upheld the appellate orders for the earlier years involving similar facts, has been disregarded. 8. That the CIT(A) merely carried out an academic exercise of analyzing various Explanations, clauses under section 9(1)(vi) of the Act, provisions of Double Taxation Avoidance Agreements and judicial decisions without actually specifying the charge having regard to the facts and circumstances in the appellant's case. 9. That the Learned CIT(A) erred in confirming the liability against the appellant contrary to the provisions of the I T Act and also DTAA. 10. That the CIT(A) erred in sustaining the order passed by the AO by upholding that payments made for purchase of software licenses, are royalty payments both under section 9(1)(vi) the Incometax Act, 1961 and as per relevant DTAA, exigible for deduction of tax at source. 11. That the learned CIT(A) / AO erred in fastening a liability on the appellant u/s 201(1) and 201(1A) based on Explanation 4 to section ITA Nos.1215 to 1220/ Bang/2014 & 18 to 23/Bang/2017, ITA Nos. 2328, 2335 to 2339/Bang/2016 Page 3 of 46 9(1)(vi) of the Act which has been inserted by the Finance Act, 2012 w.r.e.f. 161976. 12. That the learned CIT(A) / AO failed to appreciate that there cannot be retrospective default in the matter of tax deduction at source on the basis of retrospective amendment, hence on this ground alone the o