Dy. CIT, C-16(1), Hyderabad V. Nyse Infrastructure P. Ltd., Hyderabad

CO 42/HYD/2013

• Counselvise Citation: [2014] 122 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 9703 (ITAT-HYDERABAD)
• Duration Of Justice: 8 month(s) 27 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Cross Objection
• Pronouncement Date: 13-06-2014
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Assessment Year: misc
• Appeal Filed On: 16-09-2013
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: P SOMASEKHAR REDDY
• Assessee Lawyers: V RAGHAVENDRA RAO
• Keywords: Capital asset; Corroborative evidences
• Section: 69C; 143(3); 147; 68; 148

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIB IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL HYDERABAD BENCHES A : HYDERABAD BEFORE S/SHRI B. RAMAKOTAIAH, A.M. & SAKTIJIT DEY, J.M. ITA.NO.836/HYD/2013 ASSESSMENT YEAR 2004-05 DCIT, CIR - 16(1), HYDERABAD. VS. M/S NYSE INFRASTRUCTURE PVT. LTD., HYDERABAD. PAN: AABCN6363M (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) C .O. NO.42/HYD/2013 (IN ITA NO.836/HYD/13- ASST. YR.2004-05) M/S NYSE INFRASTRUCTURE PVT. VS- DCI T, CIR-16(1) LTD., HYDERABAD. HYDERABAD. (APPELLANT ) (RESPONDENT) FOR REVENUE : SRI P. SOMASEKHAR REDDY FOR ASSESSEE : SRI V. RAGHAVENDRA RAO DATE OF HEARING : 06-05-2014 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 13-06-2014 ORDER PER SAKTIJIT DEY, J.M . THIS APPEAL FILED BY THE REVENUE AND THE CROSS OB JECTION BY THE ASSESSEE ARE DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 2 8-2-2013 OF CIT (A) PERTAINING TO THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2004-05. 2. THE ONLY ISSUE ARISING IN THE PRESENT APPEAL IS IN RESPECT OF ADDITION OF AN AMOUNT OF RS.23,93,53,372/- MADE BY THE ASSES SING OFFICER U/S 69C OF THE ACT BEING DELETED BY THE CIT (A). 3. BRIEFLY THE FACTS ARE, THE ASSESSEE A PRIVATE L IMITED COMPANY IS ENGAGED IN THE BUSINESS OF EXECUTING CONTRACT WORKS . FOR THE 2 ITA.NO.836 OF 2013 & CO NO.42/HYD/13 M/S NYSE INFRASTRUCTURE PVT. LTD.. ASSESSMENT YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION, THE ASSESSEE F ILED ITS RETURN OF INCOMEON1-11- 2004 DECLARING TOTAL INCOME OF RS.10, 73,OOO/-. INITIALLY, THE ASSESSMENT WAS COMPLETED U/S 143(3) OF THE ACT ON 18- 12-2006 ACCEPTING THE INCOME DECLARED BY THE ASSESS EE. SUBSEQUENTLY, THE ASSESSING OFFICER NOTED THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS AWARDED A CONTRACT TO CONSTRUCT A ROAD -CUM-BRIDGE CONSISTING OF 17 KMS ON NATIONAL HIGHWAY NO.5. OUT OF THE SAID CONTRACT, THE ASSESSEE SUB-CONTRACTED CERTAIN PORTI ONS OF WORK TO A SISTER CONCERN VIZ., M/S SOMA ENTERPRISES LIMITED. ON VERIFYING THE ANNEXURE TO POINT NO.27 TO FORM 3CD SUBMITTED BY TH E ASSESSEE, THE ASSESSING OFFICER NOTICED THAT THE ASSESSEE PAID A TOTAL SUM OF RS.22,60,62,390/- DURING THE FINANCIAL YEAR 2003-04 TO M/S SOMA ENTERPRISES LIMITED (SEL). ON CROSS VERIFICATION OF THE PAYMENT DETAILS WITH SEL, THE ASSESSING OFFICER NOTICED THAT SEL HA D ADMITTED CONTRACT RECEIPTS OF RS.45.81 CRORES FROM THE ASSESSEE FOR T HE FINANCIAL YEAR 2003-04 RELEVANT TO THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2004-05.ON THE BASIS OF THE AFORESAID INFORMATION, THE ASSESSING OFFICER FORMED AN OPINION THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS SUPPRESSED PAYMENTS OF RS.23.31CRO RESTOM/S SEL. ACCORDINGLY, HE REOPENED THE ASSESSMENT U/S 147 OF THE ACT BY ISSUING A NOTICE TO THE ASSESSEE U/S 148 OF THE ACT CALLING F OR RETURN OF INCOME. IN RESPONSE TO SUCH NOTICE, THE ASSESSEE STATED THA T THE RETURN FILED BY HIM ORIGINALLY SHOULD BE TREATED AS RETURN IN RESPO NSE TO NOTICE U/S 148 OF THE ACT. DURING RE-ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, T HOUGH THE ASSESSEE FURNISHED DETAILS TO RECONCILE THE DIFFERE NCE BUT THE ASSESSING OFFICER NOT BEING CONVINCED WITH THE SAME , TREATED THE AMOUNT OF RS.23,30,47,610/-AS UNEXPLAINED EXPENDITU RE U/S 69C OF THE ACT AND ADDED IT TO THE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE FOR THE YEAR UNDER DISPUTE. THE PRIMARY REASON FOR WHICH THE ASSESSING OFFICER CAME TO HIS CONCLUSION IS THAT WHEN BOTH THE ASSESSEE AND M/S SEL ARE FOLLOWING MERCANTILE SYSTEM OF ACCOUNTING, THERE SH OULD NOT BE ANY DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE PAYMENT AND RECEIPTS BY THE ASSESSEE AND SEL RESPECTIVELY IN THEIR BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS. BEING AGGR IEVED OF THE 3 ITA.NO.836 OF 2013 & CO NO.42/HYD/13 M/S NYSE INFRASTRUCTURE PVT. LTD.. ADDITION MADE, THE ASSESSEE PREFERRED AN APPEAL BEF ORE THE CIT (A). 4. IN COURSE OF HEARING BEFORE THE FIRST APPELLAT E AUTHORITY, THE ASSESSEE AGAIN RECONCILING THE PAYMENTS AS APPEARIN G IN THE ASSESSEE'S BOOKS AS WELL AS IN THE BOOKS OF SEL, SU BMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE IN FACT HAS PAID AN AMOUNT OF RS.44,00,62, 552/- IN THE FINANCIAL YEAR 2002-03 RELEVANT TO THE ASSESSMENT Y EAR 2003-04 OUT OF WHICH M/S SEL HAD ADMITTED CONTRACT RECEIPTS OF RS.12,01,12,205/-. EXPLAINING FURTHER IT WAS SUBMITTED THAT THE DIFFER ENCE BETWEEN THE PAYMENT OF RS.44,00,62,552/- MADE BY THE ASSESSEE A ND RECEIPTS SHOWN OF RS.12,01,12,205/- HAS BEEN SHOWN IN THE B ALANCE-SHEET OF SEL AS ADVANCE UNDER THE HEAD 'CURRENT LIABILITIES' . SIMILARLY, IN THE CURRENT YEAR I.E, FINANCIAL YEAR 2003-04 RELEVANT T O THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2004-05 THOUGH THE ASSESSEE HAS ACTUALLY PAID RS.21,23,15,674/- AFTER DEDUCTION OF TAX AT SOURCE, BUT, SEL HAS SHOWN THE RECEIPTS OF RS.45,16,69,046/- BY DRAWING AMOUNTS FROM THE ADVANCES IN THE BALANCE-SHEET AS AT THE END OF THE PRECEDING PREVIOUS YEAR. LIKEWISE FOR THE IMMEDIATELY FOLLOWING YEAR, THOUGH THE ASSESSEE HAS ACTUALLY AN AMOUNT OF RS.2, 76,21, 774 /- THE AMOUNT OFFERED BY SEL TOWARDS CONTRACT FROM THE ASSESSEE W AS RS/.10,82,18,749. IT WAS SUBMITTED THAT THE HIGHER FIGURE SHOWN BY THE SEL IS NOT ACTUAL RECEIPTS FOR THE YEAR BUT FOR DRAWING THE ADVANCE ALREADY AVAILABLE WITH THE SEL AS OUTSTANDING LIABI LITY TO THE ASSESSEE IN THE BALANCE- SHEET. IT WAS FURTHER SUBMITTED BY THE ASSESSEE THAT IN ITS BOOKS THE ADVANCES PAID TOWARDS THE EXECUTION O F THE CONTRACT WORKS ARE SHOWN AS WORK IN PROGRESS UNTIL THE WORK IS COMPLETED IN THE FINANCIAL YEAR 2004-05 RELEVANT TO THE ASSESSME NT YEAR 2005-06 WHEN THE WHOLE WORK IN PROGRESS WAS DEBITED TO THE ROAD/BRIDGE BEING THE ASSET ACQUIRED BY INCURRING THE EXPENDITURE. TH EREFORE, IT WAS EXPLAINED THAT THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE PAYMENTS MADE BY THE ASSESSEE IS BOUND TO BE THERE AS THE PAYMENTS MADE BY THE ASSESSEE WERE SHOWN OUT OF TOTAL OUTGO IN IT S BOOKS WHEREAS THE CONTRACT RECEIPTS OUT OF IT ADMITTED BY THE ASS ESSEE SEL IN A YEAR 4 ITA.NO.836 OF 2013 & CO NO.42/HYD/13 M/S NYSE INFRASTRUCTURE PVT. LTD.. WHICH DEPENDS NOT ON THE RECEIPTS OF THE CURRENT YE AR ONLY BUT ALSO ON THE ADVANCES RECEIVED AND OUTSTANDING AS K THE END OF THE EARLIER YEAR WHICH ARE ADJUSTED AGAINST BILLS RAISED FOR TH E WORKS EXECUTED. THE CIT(A) AFTER CONSIDERING THE SUBMISSION OF THE ASSESSEE AND VERIFYING ALL THE DETAILS SUBMITTED BEFORE HIM AS W ELL AS THE COMMENTS MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN THE REMAND REPORT WAS OF THE VIEW THAT THE ADDITION MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS LEGALLY UNSUSTAINABLE AS IN REALITY THERE EXISTS NO DIFFERE NCE BETWEEN THE PAYMENTS AND RECEIPTS. THE FINDING OF THE CLT (A) I N THIS REGARD IS REPRODUCED HEREUNDER:- 8. I AGREE THAT IN A GIVEN CASE IT IS NOT NECESSARY THAT THE PAYMENTS MADE BY AN EMPLOYER EVEN OF ADVANCES MUST EXACTLY C ORRESPOND TO THE WORK RECEIPTS ADMITTED BY THE CONTRACTOR BECAUSE TH E ADVANCES MIGHT NOT ALL BE SPENT TOWARDS WORKS IN THE YEAR IN WHICH THE ADVANCES ARE RECEIVED. THIS COULD BE FOR SEVERAL REASONS. FOR INSTANCE IN A CASE WHERE ALL THE ADVANCES WERE SPENT TOWARDS CONTRACT YET THE WORK B ILLS PRESENTED MIGHT NOT HAVE BEEN CERTIFIED FOR PAYMENT BY THE EMPLOYER . THIS IS SO EVEN WHERE BOTH THE PAYER AND THE RECIPIENT ARE FOLLOWING MERC ANTILE SYSTEM OF ACCOUNTING. WHETHER THE SYSTEM OF ACCOUNTING FOLLOW ED IS MERCANTILE OR CASH THE RECEIPTS AND PAYMENTS MUST TALLY. BUT WHAT PART OF RECEIPT IS ACCOUNTABLE AS INCOME IN THE HANDS OF A RECIPIENT A ND WHAT PART OF IT MAY BE ACCOUNTED AS ADVANCE IN ITS BOOKS DEPENDS ON THE EXECUTION OF THE WORK AND THE STAGE OF EXECUTION OF THE WORK. THE PAYMENT RECEIVED BY WAY OF ADVANCE WILL FIGURE IN THE BALANCE SHEET BUT NOT IN THE P&LA/C UNLESS AND UNTIL IT IS EARNED BY EXECUTING THE SUB-CONTRACT WO RK. 8.1 IN THE INSTANT CASE, WHAT WAS PAID BY THE ASSES SEE WAS ONLY AN ADVANCE TOWARDS SUB-CONTRACTS AND IT NOT SHOWN OR C LAIMED EXPENDITURE IN ITS BOOKS BECAUSE IT WAS INCURRED TOWARDS ACQUIRING A CAPITAL ASSET I.E. THE ROAD-BRIDGE FOR WHICH IT GOT BUILT, OPERATE AND TRA NSFER CONTRACT. THE ASSESSEE HAS CLEARLY RECONCILED THE PAYMENTS MADE B Y IT AND THE WORK CONTRACT RECEIPTS ADMITTED BY THE SUB-CONTRACT SEL OVER THE PERIOD OF 3 YEARS DURING WHICH THE ADVANCE PAYMENTS WERE MADE AND THE WORK EXECUTED. THE AD IS UNDER A MISCONCEPTION ABOUT THE MERCANTILE SYSTEM OF ACCOUNTING . HE IS NOT CORRECT IN HOLDING THAT THERE IS ANY ES CAPEMENT OF INCOME OR INCURRING OF EXPENDITURE WHICH IS UNEXPLAINED. WHEN ALL PAYMENTS MADE ARE ESTABLISHED TO BE BY WAY OF BANK CHEQUES AND NO CASH TRANSACTIONS WERE INVOLVED THERE COULD BE NO QUESTI ON OF NOT BEING SATISFIED WITH THE EXPLANATION OF THE ASSESSEE REGARDING EXPE NDITURE. THE ASSESSEE DID NOT MAKE THE PAYMENT OF RS. 45,16,69,046/- IN THIS YEAR, NOR EVEN INCURRED THAT AMOUNT AS EXPENDITURE IN THIS YEAR EXPENDITURE INCURRED IS NOT EXPLAINED TO THE SATISFACTION OF THE AD. IN THE INS TANT CASE, THE ASSESSEE INCURRED EXPENDITURE ON CAPITAL ACCOUNT, RECORDED I T IN THE BOOKS AND MADE ALL PAYMENTS BY WAY OF BANK CHEQUES. THE ASSESSEE H AS FULLY EXPLAINED THE 5 ITA.NO.836 OF 2013 & CO NO.42/HYD/13 M/S NYSE INFRASTRUCTURE PVT. LTD.. EXPENDITURE. NOR THE SEL RECEIVED THE AMOUNT OF RS.45,16,69,046/- IN THIS YEAR. THE ASSESSEE PAID ONLY RS. 21,23,15,674/- IN THIS YEAR TO SEL AND SEL RECEIVED ONLY RS. 21,23,15,674/- IN THIS YEAR. THE DIFFERENCE NOTICED BY AO IN SEL RECORDS IS NOT WHAT WAS RECEIVED IN THIS YEAR BUT THAT WHICH WAS RECEIVED IN IMMEDIATELY THE PRECEDING YEAR BOOKED AS ADVANCE AND TRANSFERRED IN THIS YEAR TO CONTRACT RECEIPTS AS PER CERTIFIED BOOKS FOR WORKS EXECUTED FOR THE ASSESSEE. HENCE TH E QUESTION OF APPLICABILITY OF PROVISIONS OF 69C AND PROVISIONS OF SECTION 68 DOES NOT ARISE. 8.2 THE RECEIPTS OF RS.45,16,69,046/- SHOWN BY SEL CAN BE EQUAL TO THE PAYMENTS MADE BY THE ASSESSEE IN THIS YEAR AS IMAGI NED BY THE AO ONLY IF SEL WAS EXECUTING THE WORKS FIRST WITH ITS OWN FUND S AND THEN OBTAINING THEM FROM THE ASSESSEE. THE AO APPEARS TO HAVE ASSU MED THAT THIS WAS THE CASE. AND HE REFUSED TO BUDGE EVEN AFTER BEING SHOWN THAT THIS WAS NOT SO. TO EMPHASIZE, THE ASSESSEE DID NOT INCUR TH E DIFFERENCE OF EXPENDITURE IN THIS YEAR. THE ASSESSEE PAID IN THE EARLIER YEAR AND IT IS OUTSTANDING IN THE BOOKS OF SEL. THERE IS NO INCURR ING OF EXPENDITURE IN THIS YEAR BY THE ASSESSEE THAT REMAINED UNEXPLAINED , THERE IS NO WARRANT FOR INVOKING THE PROVISIONS OF SEC 69C NOR SEC. 68 OF IT ACT AS STATED BY HIM IN THE ORDER. 8.3. THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL TAKEN ON MERITS ARE COR RECT. THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL ARE SUSTAINED AND THEREFORE I HER EBY DIRECT THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO DELETE THE ADDITION OF RS.23,9 3,53,372/-. . 5. WE HAVE HEARD THE PARTIES AND PERUSED THE ORDER S OF THE REVENUE AUTHORITIES AS WELL AS MATERIALS AVAILABLE ON RECORD. AS CAN BE SEEN FROM THE FACTS AVAILABLE ON RECORD, THE ASSESS EE WAS AWARDED CONTRACT WORK FOR CONSTRUCTION OF NELLORE BYE PASS ROAD PROJECT ON NH- 5,SECTION LINKING THE METROS OF KOLKATA AND CHENNAI . IT IS ALSO A FACT ON RECORD THAT THE ASSESSEE SUB-CONTRACTED CERTAIN PORTION OF THE WORK OF THE VALUE OF RS.68 CRORES TO ITS SISTER CONCERN M/S. SEL. THE DISPUTE LIES WITHIN A NARROW COMPASS AS TO WHETHER THE ACTUAL PAYMENT MADE BY THE ASSESSEE DURING THE YEAR TO M/S SEL IS RS.22,60,62,390 AFTER TDS. AS SHOWN BY THE ASSESSEE IN ITS BOOKS OR AN AMOUNT OF RS.45,16,69,046 SHOWN AS CONTRACT RECE IPTS BY M/S. SEL FOR THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION. THE ASSESSEE HAS RECONCILED THE PAYMENT OF RS.68 LAKH TO M/S SEL AS APPEARING IN IT S BOOKS WITH THAT OF THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS OF M/S SEL AS UNDER:- 6 ITA.NO.836 OF 2013 & CO NO.42/HYD/13 M/S NYSE INFRASTRUCTURE PVT. LTD.. S.NO. ASST. YR. EPC PAYMENT MADE TO SOMA TURNOVER OFFERED BY SOMA 1 2003-04 440062552 120112205 2 2004-05 212315674 451669046 3 2005-06 27621774 108218749 680000000 680000000 6. ON PERUSAL OF THE FIGURES APPEARING IN THE TABL E, IT CAN BE SEEN THAT THERE IS NO DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE PAYMENT OF RS.68 LAKH AND RECEIPT OF THE SAME AMOUNT AS APPEARING IN THE BOOK S OF BOTH THE ASSESSEE AND M/S SEL IN THE ASSESSMENT YEARS 2003-0 4, 2004-05 AND 2005-06. HOWEVER, THE ONLY DIFFERENCE IS WITH REGAR D TO THE YEAR WISE PAYMENT. AS CAN BE SEEN, WHILE IN ASSESSMENT YEAR20 03-04,THE ASSESSEE AS PER ITS BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS HAS SHOWN PAY MENT OF RS.44,OO,62,552/- TO M/S. SEL, WHEREAS SEL HAS SHOWN RECEIPTS OF RS.12,OL,12,205/-. SIMILARLY, THE PAYMENT SHOWN BY THE ASSESSEE FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2004-05 IS RS.21,23,15,674/- AS AGAINST RECEIPTS OF RS.45,16,69,046/- SHOWN BY M/S SEL. THIS DIFFERENCE HAS BEEN EXPLAINED BY THE ASSESSEE WITH SUPPORTING EVIDENCE BY STATING THAT WHILE THE ASSESSEE HAS PAID THE AMOUNT AS SHOWN IN ITS BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS BUT MLS SEL HAS ADMITTED THE RECEIPTS TO THE EXTENT FOR WHI CH WORK HAS BEEN EXECUTED AND BILLS RAISED. THE BALANC E AMOUNT HAS BEEN SHOWN AS ADVANCES UNDER THE HEAD 'CURRENT LIAB ILITIES' IN THE BALANCE-SHEET. IT IS ALSO A FACT THAT THE PAYMENTS MADE BY THE ASSESSEE ARE THROUGH BANKING CHANNEL AND ALSO REFLE CTED IN THE BANK ACCOUNTS WHICH HAVE BEEN SUBMITTED BY THE ASSESSEE FOR VERIFICATION. FROM THE AFORESAID FACTS, IT BECOMES ABSOLUTELY CL EAR THAT SO CALLED DIFFERENCE AS NOTED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS ON LY AN IMAGINARY ONE AND ON THAT BASIS ADDITION CANNOT BE MADE. WHEN IT HAS BEEN PROVED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS MADE THE PAYMENTS AS PER THE ENTRIES MADE IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS, WHICH IS ALSO CORROBORATED B Y THE BANK STATEMENT FURNISHED BEFORE THE DEPARTMENTAL AUTHORI TIES, ONLY BECAUSE 7 ITA.NO.836 OF 2013 & CO NO.42/HYD/13 M/S NYSE INFRASTRUCTURE PVT. LTD.. M/S SEL HAS GIVEN A DIFFERENT ACCOUNTING TREATMENT IN I TS BOOKS OF ACCOUNT, IT CANNOT BE SAID THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS ' SUPPRESSED THE EXPENDITURE. IT MAY FURTHER BE PUT ON RECORD THAT T HE RECONCILIATION MADE BY THE ASSESSEE WITH SUPPORTING EVIDENCE THOUG H HAS BEEN FORWARDED TO THE ASSESSING OFFICER, HE HAS NOT BEE N ABLE TO CONTROVERT THE SAME WITH ANY REASONABLE ARGUMENT. O N THE AFORESAID FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES, THE CONCLUSION DRAWN BY TH E CIT (A) IS APPROPRIATE AND REASONABLE AND REQUIRES NO INTERFER ENCE FROM US. ACCORDINGLY, WE UPHOLD THE ORDER OF THE CIT (A) BY DISMISSING THE GROUND RAISED BY THE DEPARTMENT. HENCE, WE DISMISS THE APPEAL FILED BY THE DEPARTMENT. C.O. NO.42/HYD/2013 :- 7. THE ASSESSEE HAS RAISED VARIOUS GROUNDS IN CROSS OBJECTION. SINCE WE HAVE UPHELD THE ORDER OF CIT (A) BY DISMI SSING THE APPEAL OF THE DEPARTMENT, THE CROSS OBJECTION FILED BY THE AS SESSEE HAS BECOME INFRUCTUOUS. 8. IN THE RESULT, BOTH THE APPEAL AS WELL AS CROSS OBJECTION ARE DISMISSED. ORDER WAS PRONOUNCED IN COURT ON 13-6-2014. SD/- SD/- (B. RAMAKOTAIAH) (SAKTIJIT DEY) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIA L MEMBER HYDERABAD, DATED 13 TH JUNE, 2014 JMR* COPY TO : 1. D CIT, CIR - 16(1), HYDERABAD. 2. M/S. NYSE INFRASTRUCTURE PVT.LTD., 14, AVENUE 4 (RO AD NO.10), BANJARA HILLS, HYDERABAD. 3. CIT (A) - V, HYDERABAD. 4. CIT - I V, HYDERABAD. 5.D.R. ITAT, A BENCH, HYDERABAD. 8 ITA.NO.836 OF 2013 & CO NO.42/HYD/13 M/S NYSE INFRASTRUCTURE PVT. LTD.. 9 ITA.NO.836 OF 2013 & CO NO.42/HYD/13 M/S NYSE INFRASTRUCTURE PVT. LTD..