Assessee has preferred present appeal challenging order passed by ITAT. Assessee contended that ITAT had noted assessee’s submission that they assailed application of s. 194C on IUC paid to other telecom operators but, did not discuss said issue nor rendered any finding and accordingly, set aside orders passed by Lower Authorities and remanded matter to AO.  ITAT had not taken into consideration first submission made by assessee with regard to applicability of S. 194C on IUC paid to other telecom operators. ITAT had considered alternate submission of assessee and made an observation that argument of assessee was correct and it could not be considered as an assessee in default. However, ITAT further qualified this finding stating that assessee’s liability for interest would also be limited period ending on date, on which, deductees/payees had paid taxes. In any event, ITAT ought to have rendered a finding on grounds raised by assessee with regard to applicability of s. 194C on IUC paid to other telecom operators. Had ITAT considered and rendered a finding that it was not convinced with submissions made, then, it would have been well justified to proceed to consider alternate submissions. ITAT had not rendered any finding with regard to contentions advanced by assessee relating to applicability of S. 194C­. ITAT added a rider after setting aside orders passed by Lower Authorities stating that a verification had to be done as to whether payees included amounts received from assessee in their return of income and paid due taxes thereon. Further direction issued by ITAT could not be construed to be restrictive in nature thereby preventing AO to consider all grounds and more particularly, when ITAT had not rendered any finding on applicability of S. 194C. Accordingly  the order passed by ITAT should be and shall be read as an open remand to AO to consider all issues that were pleaded by assessee before ITAT. (AY. 2007-08)