Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax , Circle-1(2), Hyderabad V. Caspian Impact Investments Private Limited(Earlier known as M/s Bellwether Microfinance Fund Private Limited ), Hyderabad

ITA 1080/Hyd/2019

• Counselvise Citation: [2021] 108 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 7006 (ITAT-HYDERABAD)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 9 month(s) 7 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 09-04-2021
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: DB-A
• Next Hearing Date: 24-02-2021
• Assessment Year: 2010-2011
• Appeal Filed On: 02-07-2019
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: SUNIL KUMAR PANDEY
• Keywords: Earning of tax free income; Rule 8D
• Section: 14A; 115JB; 113

Judgement Text

ITA NOS 1080 OF 2019 AND 2116 OF 2018 CASPIAN IMPACT INVESTMENTS P LTD HYDERABAD PAGE 1 OF 8 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL HYDERABAD A BENCH, HYDERABAD (THROUGH VIDEO CONFERENCING) BEFORE SHRI S.S. GODARA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI LAXMI PRASAD SAHU, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NOS.1080/HYD/2019 & 2116/HYD/2018 ASSESSMENT YEARS: 2010-11 & 2014-15 DY./ASST. CIT CIRCLE 1(2) HYDERABAD VS. CASPIAN IMPACT INVESTMENTS (P) LTD HYDERABAD PAN:AADCS4132K (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) REVENUE BY: SRI SUNIL KUMAR PANDEY, DR ASSESSEE BY : SRI RAJAN VORA DATE OF HEARING: 24/02/2021 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT: 09/04/2021 ORDER PER S.S. GODARA, J.M. THESE TWO REVENUES APPEALS FOR AYS.2010-11 & 2014- 15 ARISE FROM THE CIT(A)-1, HYDERABADS ORDERS DATE D 24.4.2019 AND 7.8.2018 PASSED IN APPEAL NO.10584/2015-16/ITO WARD 1(1) HYD/CIT(A)-1/HYD/2019-20 AND 0098/CIT(A)-1/HYD/2017 -18/ 2018-19 RESPECTIVELY INVOLVING PROCEEDINGS U/S.143( 3) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 [IN SHORT, THE ACT]. HEARD BOTH THE PARTIES. CASE FILE PERUSED. 2. COMING TO THE A.Y 2010-11 INVOLVING ITA NO.1080/HYD/2019, WE FIND THAT THE REVENUE SOLITARY SUBSTANTIVE GRIEVANCE CHALLENGING CORRECTNESS OF THE CIT (A)S ACTION RESTRICTING THE ASSESSING OFFICERS ACTION MAKING SECTION 14A R .W. RULE 8D ITA NOS 1080 OF 2019 AND 2116 OF 2018 CASPIAN IMPACT INVESTMENTS P LTD HYDERABAD PAGE 2 OF 8 DISALLOWANCE OF RS.3,13,31,370/- INVOLVING ALLEGED DIRECT AND ADMINISTRATIVE EXPENSES OF RS.2,81,01,260 AND 32,30 ,110/- RESPECTIVELY ONLY TO THE EXTENT OF THE CORRESPONDIN G INVESTMENTS YIELDING THE EXEMPT INCOME. THE CIT (A)S DETAILED DISCUSSION TO THIS EFFECT READS AS UNDER: 6.2 DURING THE COURSE OF APPEAL PROCEEDINGS, WITH REGARD TO THE ABOVE GROUND, THE APPELLANT SUBMITS AS UNDER : 'THE COMPANY RECEIVED DIVIDEND INCOME ONLY FROM ITS INVESTMENTS MADE IN M/ S. MAS FINANCIAL SERVICES LT D THROUGH BELLWETHER MICROFINANCE TRUST. THE COMPANY HAS SUO-MOTO CONSIDERED ONLY THE INVESTMENTS WHICH HAVE YIELDED EXEMPT INCOME AND ACCORDINGLY COMPUTED DISALLOWANCE OF RS.11, 09, 716/-. THE COMPANY DISALLOWED RS. 7,84,716/ - UNDER CLAUSE (I) OF RULE 8D(2) BY CONSIDERING THE INVESTMENTS WHICH HAVE ACTUALLY YIELD EXEMPT INCOME DURING THE YEAR. THE LANGUAGE OF RULE 8D(2)(I) SUGGESTS THAT ONLY THE EXPENDITURE WHICH I S IN RELATION TO EARN SUCH EXEMPT INCOME HAS TO BE DISAL LOWED. THE APPELLANT RELIED ON ITS OWN CASE FOR THE AY 200 9-10 IN ITA NO. 1743/HYD/2013 & AY 2013-14 IN ITA NO.1462/HYD/2017 & AY 201415 IN ITA NO.0098/CIT(A)- 1/HYD/2017-18, PR.CIT VS. IL & FS ENERGY DEVELOPMEN T, CHEMIVEST LID VS. CIT [2015J 234 TAXMANN 761 AND SRINIVASA CYSTINE PVT LTD VS. ITO IN ITA NO. 1846/ HYD/ 2014, VIREET INVESTMENTS PVT LTD IN ITA NO. 502/ DEL/2012.' 6.3 WITH REGARD TO THE ABOVE GROUND, I HAVE CAREFUL LY CONSIDERED THE FACTS OF THE CASE, ASSESSMENT ORDER AND SUBMISSIONS OF THE APPELLANT. THE HON'BLE ITAT ORDE R IN THE APPELLANT'S CASE FOR THE AY 2013-14 HELD THAT T HE VALUE OF INVESTMENT WHICH YIELDED EXEMPT INCOME ALONE BE CONSIDERED FOR THE PURPOSE OF COMPUTING THE AVERAGE VALUE OF INVESTMENTS FOR THE PURPOSE OF QUANTIFYING THE A MOUNT OF DISALLOWANCE U/S.14A. SIMILARLY IN THE CASE OF S RINIVASA CYSTINE PVT LTD VS. ITO IN ITA NO.1846/HYD/2014, WHEREIN THE HON'BLE ITAT HELD THAT ONLY INVESTMENTS WHICH YIELDED EXEMPT INCOME IS CONSIDERED FOR THE DISALLOWANCE U/S.14A. APPELLANT ALREADY DISALLOWED RS.11,09,716/- U/S.14A IN ITS COMPUTATION OF INCOME . THEREFORE, THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS DIRECTED TO CON SIDER THE DISALLOWANCE U/S.14A MADE BY THE APPELLANT AND RECALCULATE THE SAME BY KEEPING IN VIEW OF THE ABOV E CASELAWS. 3. WE HAVE HEARD RIVAL ARGUMENT AGAINST AND IN SUPP ORT OF THE CIT (A)S IMPUGNED DIRECTIONS. WE NOTICE THA T HE HAS ITA NOS 1080 OF 2019 AND 2116 OF 2018 CASPIAN IMPACT INVESTMENTS P LTD HYDERABAD PAGE 3 OF 8 FOLLOWED THE TRIBUNALS ORDER IN ASSESSEES CASE IT SELF FOR A.Y 2013- 14 (SUPRA) THAT ONLY EXEMPT INCOME YIELDING INVESTM ENTS DESERVE TO BE CONSIDERED FOR THE PURPOSE OF RULE 8D DISALLO WANCE COMPUTATION. THE REVENUE IS EQUALLY FAIR IN ITS SUB STANTIVE GROUND IN NOT PINPOINTING ANY DISTINCTION ON FACTS OR LAW IN THESE TWIN ASSESSMENT YEARS. WE THUS ADOPT JUDICIAL CONSI STENCY TO AFFIRM CIT (A)S IMPUGNED DIRECTIONS. REVENUES FOR MAL APPEAL ITA NO.1080/HYD/2019 RISING THIS SOLITARY SUBSTANTIVE G RIEVANCE FAILS THEREFORE. 4. NEXT IN A.Y 2014-15 COMES REVENUES LATTER APPEAL ITA NO.2166/HYD/2018 SEEKING TO REVIVE AOS ACTION MAKI NG 14A R.W.S 8D DISALLOWANCE OF RS.1,92,70,574/-. THE CIT (A)S DETAILED DISCUSSION UNDER CHALLENGE READS AS FOLLOWS: 5.3 THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE APPELLANT HAVE BEEN CAR EFULLY CONSIDERED. THE ONLY ISSUE BEFORE ME IS REGARDING S ECTION 14A DISALLOWANCE. THE APPELLANT COMPANY HAS MADE INVESTMENT IN THE FOLLOWING CASES: 1. M/S. MIMOZA ENTERPRISES FINANCE PRIVATE LIMITED 2. M/S. JANALAKSHMI FINANCIAL SERVICES PRIVATE LIMI TED 3. M/S. EQUITAS HOLDINGS PRIVATE LIMITED 4. M/S. A LITTLE WORLD PRIVATE LIMITED 5. M/S. SONATA FINANCE PRIVATE LIMITED 6. MR. ANUP KMAR SINGH AS SEEN ABOVE, THE APPELLANT COMPANY RECEIVED DIVID END FROM ONE OF THE SIX INVESTMENT COMPANIES I.E., M/S. JANALAKSHMI FINANCIAL SERVICES PRIVATE LIMITED. NO DIVIDEND HAS BEEN RECEIVED FROM THE OTHER COMPANIES . APPELLANT HAS DISALLOWED ON ITS OWN AN EXPENDITURE OF RS.23,23,699/- FOR THIS. HOWEVER, THE ASSESSING OFF ICER HAS CALCULATED DISALLOWANCES ON BASIS OF ALL INVEST MENTS. ALSO, THE ASSESSING OFFICER TAKEN THE COGNIZANCE OF DISALLOWANCE MADE BY THE APPELLANT IN ITS RETURN OF INCOME. THE ISSUE BEFORE ME IS WHETHER THE DISALLOW ANCE SHOULD BE MADE ONLY IN THE CASE WHERE DIVIDEND IS RECEIVED OR SHOULD BE MADE ON THE TOTAL INVESTMENT. IT IS PERTINENT TO REFER TO THE FOLLOWING CASE LAWS WHICH DEALS WITH THE SAME ISSUE: ITA NOS 1080 OF 2019 AND 2116 OF 2018 CASPIAN IMPACT INVESTMENTS P LTD HYDERABAD PAGE 4 OF 8 A) HYDERABAD TRIBUNAL'S ORDER IN THE CASE OF SRINIV ASA CYSTINE PVT LTD VS. ITO, IN ITA NO.1846/HYD/2014 DA TED 18.01.2017, WHEREIN THE DECISION WAS HELD AS 'IT IS ONLY THE INVESTMENTS WHICH YIELD TAX FREE IN COME THAT HAS TO BE CONSIDERED FOR APPLYING THE FORMULA PRESC RIBED UNDER RULE 80(2)(III). SIMILAR VIEW WAS ALSO TAKEN BY THIS BENCH IN OTHER CASES ALSO. CONSIDERING THIS VIEW, W E DIRECT THE AO TO CONSIDER ONLY THE INVESTMENTS, WHICH YIEL DED THE EXEMPT INCOME IN THE FORMULA UNDER RULE 80(2)(III) AND ACCORDINGLY, DISALLOW THE EXPENSES RELATING TO EXEM PT INCOME. ' B) HON'BLE DELHI TRIBUNAL'S ORDER IN THE CASE OF M/ S. VIREET INVESTMENT PRIVATE LTD IN ITA NO.502/DEIJ2012 DATED 16.06.2017, WHEREIN IT HAD HELD THAT' '11.16. THEREFORE, IN OUR CONSIDERED OPINION, NO CO NTRARY VIEW CAN BE TAKEN UNDER THESE CIRCUMSTANCES. WE ACCORDINGLY, HOLD THAT ONLY THOSE INVESTMENTS ARE T O BE CONSIDERED FOR COMPUTING AVERAGE VALUE OF INVESTMEN TS WHICH YIELDED EXEMPT INCOME DURING THE YEAR. ' 5.4 FOLLOWING TILE JURISDICTIONAL TRIBUNAL STAND ON THE ISSUE, I ACCEPT THE CONTENTION OF THE APPELLANT. ON LY IN THE CASE WHERE THE APPELLANT RECEIVED DIVIDEND, 'THE CO ST' SHOULD BE CALCULATED. THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS DIRE CTED TO RECALCULATE DISALLOWANCE MADE ON THIS ISSUE ACCORDA NCE TO THE ACCEPTED VIEW OF THE HYDERABAD TRIBUNAL. GROUND PARTLY ALLOWED 5. LEARNED AUTHORISED REPRESENTATIVE AT THIS STAGE INVITED OUR ATTENTION TO ASSESSEES PETITION UNDER RULE 27 OF THE ITAT RULES DATED 30.12.2020 AS UNDER: RESPECTED SIR/MADAM, REF: CASPIAN IMPACT INVESTMENTS PRIVATE LIMITED (FO RMERLY KNOWN AS BELLWETHER MICROFINANCE FUND PRIVATE LIMIT ED) ('CASPIAN' OR THE 'COMPANY' OR 'WE' OR 'RESPONDENT' ) PAN: AADCS4132K; ASSESSMENT YEAR (' AY') 2014-15 ITA. NO. 21 16/HYD/2018 - DEPARTMENT'S APPEAL SUB: APPLICATION UNDER RULE 27 OF THE APPELLATE TRI BUNAL RULES, 1963 ('THE TRIBUNAL RULES') WE REFER TO THE SUBJECT APPEAL FILED BY THE DEPUTY CIT, CIRCLE 1(2), HYDERABAD ('DEPARTMENT') (ITA NO. 2116/HYD/2018 BEFORE 'A' BENCH) AGAINST THE ORDER A UGUST 07, 2018 PASSED BY THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCO ME- TAX (APPEALS) -1 ('CIT(A)'), IN RESPECT OF THE CAPT IONED YEAR. ITA NOS 1080 OF 2019 AND 2116 OF 2018 CASPIAN IMPACT INVESTMENTS P LTD HYDERABAD PAGE 5 OF 8 1. BACKGROUND DURING THE CAPTIONED YEAR, THE COMPANY EARNED EXEMP T INCOME IN THE NATURE OF DIVIDEND OF RS. 10,91,280/- . DURING THE TIME OF FILING OF RETURN OF INCOME, THE COMPANY SUO-MOTO MADE DISALLOWANCE OF RS. 23,23,699/- AS PER THE PRO VISIONS OF SECTION 14A READ WITH RULE 8D OF THE INCOME-TAX RULES, 1962 ('IT RULES'). IN THIS REGARD, THE LEARNED ASSE SSING OFFICER (' AO') HAD MADE DISALLOWANCE U/S 14A READ WITH RULE 8D OF THE IT RULES OF RS. 1,92,70,574/- UNDER NORMAL PROVISIONS AND ALSO UNDER SECTION ('U/S') 115JB OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT, 1961 ('THE ACT'). AGAINST THIS, THE COMPANY PREFERRED AN APPEAL BEFORE THE CIT(A) ON BOTH, NORM AL PROVISIONS AND SECTION 115JB OF THE ACT. 2. APPEAL BEFORE THE CIT(A) THE LEARNED CIT(A) ACCE PTED THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE COMPANY AND DIRECTED THE AO TO R ESTRICT THE DISALLOWANCE UNDER SECTION 14A READ WITH RULE 8 D(III) OF THE IT RULES BY CONSIDERING ONLY THE INVESTMENTS WH ICH YIELD EXEMPT INCOME AND NOT THE TOTAL INVESTMENTS W HILE COMPUTING DISALLOWANCE UNDER THE NORMAL PROVISIONS. HOWEVER, THE LEARNED CIT(A) UPHELD THE ORDER OF THE LEARNED AO FOR THE 14A DISALLOWANCE MADE U/S 115JB OF THE A CT. IN THIS REGARD, WITHOUT PREJUDICE TO THE FINDINGS O F THE LEARNED CIT(A) IN THE CIT(A) ORDER, THE RESPONDENT WISHES TO SUBMIT THE FOLLOWING: IT IS NOW A JUDICIALLY SETTLED PRINCIPLE THAT THE D ISALLOWANCE MADE U/S 14A R.W.R 80 OF THE IT RULES IS TO BE REST RICTED TO THE AMOUNT OF EXEMPT INCOME EARNED BY THE ASSESSEE DURING THAT YEAR. IN THIS REGARD, THE RESPONDENT WI SHES TO PLACE RELIANCE ON THE FOLLOWING JUDGEMENTS: 1. HON'BLE SUPREME COURT, IN THE CASE OF PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX-2 V. CARAF BUILDERS & CONSTRUCTIONS (P.) LTD. LI2019J 112 TAXMANN.COM 322 (SC)], WHEREIN THE SLP FILED BY THE TAX AUTHORITIES AGAINS T THE JUDGEMENT OF THE HON'BLE DELHI HIGH COURT LI2019J 1 01 TAXMANN.COM 167J WAS DISMISSED WHICH HELD THAT THE 14A DISALLOWANCE CANNOT EXCEED THE EXEMPT INCOME. 2. HON'BLE SUPREME COURT, IN THE CASE OF PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX V. STATE BANK OF PATIALA LI2018J 99 TAXMANN.COM 286 (SC)], WHEREIN THE SLP FILED BY THE TAX AUTHORITIES AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT OF THE HON'BLE DE LHI HIGH COURT LI2018J 99 TAXMANN.COM 285 (HARYANA)] WAS DISMISSED WHICH HELD THAT THE 14A DISALLOWANCE CANN OT EXCEED THE EXEMPT INCOME. 3. HON'BLE BOMBAY HIGH COURT, IN THE CASE OF PRINCI PAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX-3 VS. RELIANCE PORTS AND TERMINALS LTD.LI2020J 114 TAXMANN.COM 529 [BOMBAY] ITA NOS 1080 OF 2019 AND 2116 OF 2018 CASPIAN IMPACT INVESTMENTS P LTD HYDERABAD PAGE 6 OF 8 4. HON'BLE JURISDICTIONAL TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF M YLAN LABORATORIES LTD. V. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME- TAX, CIRCLE-16(2), HYDERABAD LI2020J 113 TAXMANN.COM 6 (HYDERABAD - TRIB)] THEREFORE, THE RESPONDENT IS FILING AN APPLICATION UNDER RULE 27 OF THE TRIBUNAL RULES IN ORDER TO PLEAD FOR REST RICTING THE DISALLOWANCE UNDER SECTION L4A TO THE EXEMPT INCOME EARNED DURING THE YEAR AND ON WITHOUT PREJUDICE BAS IS, TO DELETE THE DISALLOWANCE MADE BY THE LEARNED AO, COM PUTED U/S 14A OF THE ACT, WHILE COMPUTING THE BOOK PROFIT S U/S 115JB OF THE ACT. 3. OBJECTION AGAINST ORDER OF CIT(A) AS PER RULE 27 OF THE IT AT RULES THE RESPONDENT WISHES TO TAKE THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS BEFORE THE HON'BLE TRIBUNAL AS PER RULE 27 OF THE T RIBUNAL RULES: A) THE DISALLOWANCE U/S 14A OF THE ACT IS TO BE RES TRICTED TO THE QUANTUM OF EXEMPT INCOME EARNED DURING THE YEAR ; B) WITHOUT PREJUDICE TO THE ABOVE, THE LD. AO ERRED IN LAW AND FACT IN MAKING ADJUSTMENT TO BOO PROFIT U/S 115 JB OF THE ACT FOR THE EXPENDITURE COMPUTED U/S 14A OF THE ACT R.W.R. RULE 8D THE IT RULES. 4. ON THE POINT OF RIGHT OF RESPONDENT AS PER RULE 27 OF THE RULES, RESPONDENT WISHES TO PIA RELIANCE ON THE FOL LOWING: SKOL BREWERIES LTD VS ACIT (ITA NO. 34 OF 2009) D ATED 9 FEBRUARY 2009 (BOM HC) C1T V SUNDARAM AND CO PVT LTD - 52 ITR 763 (MAD) CIT V EDWARD KEVENTER (SUCCESSORS) PVT LTD - 123 ITR 200 (DEL) CIT V BHUMRADDI (T.M) - 33 ITR 82 (MUM) MAROLIA AND SONS V CIT - 129 ITR 475 (ALL) DY CIT V HIND INDUSTRIES LTD - 14 DTR 561 (DELHI TRIBUNAL) CIT V GILBERT AND BARKER MANUFACTURING CO, USA - 111 ITR 529 (MUM) CIT V MAHALAKSHMI TEXTILE MILLS LTD - 66 ITR 710 (SC) IV CIT V NELLIAPPAN (S) - 66 ITR 722 (SC) (\ ACIT V M/S BANK OF TOKYO-MITSUBISHI UJF LTD. (200 9- TIOL-51-ITAT-DEL) / 5. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE, WE REQUEST YOUR HONORS TO KINDLY CONSIDER OUR APPLICATION UNDER RULE 27 OF THE RULES , ON THE ADDITIONAL ISSUES, WHILE DISPOSING OF THE DEPARTMEN T'S APPEAL. ITA NOS 1080 OF 2019 AND 2116 OF 2018 CASPIAN IMPACT INVESTMENTS P LTD HYDERABAD PAGE 7 OF 8 6. WE HAVE GIVEN OUR THOUGHTFUL CONSIDERATION TO RI VAL PLEADINGS IN REVENUES MAIN APPEAL AS WELL AS ASSES SEES RULE 27M PETITION. WE FIND NO MERIT IN REVENUES STAND S INCE THE CIT (A)S HAS DIRECTED TO IDENTIFY ONLY THE EXEMPT INCO ME YIELDING INTEREST IN TUNE WITH AYS 2013-14 AND 2010-11. ITS APPEAL ITA 2116/HYD/2018 IS REJECTED THEREFORE. 7. WE NEXT ADVERT TO ASSESSEES RULE 27 PETITION. I TS FORMAL PLEA SEEKING TO RESTRICT SEC 14A READ WITH R ULE 8 DISALLOWANCE (SUPRA) TO THE EXTENT OF EXEMPT INCOME AND OTHER FACTS DESERVE TO BE DECLINED SINCE THE CIT (A)S HA S NOT DECIDED THE SAME AGAINST ITS STAND WHICH FORMS A NECESSARY COND ITION IN RULE 27. COMING TO SEC 115JB MAT ISSUE QUA SEC 14A DISAL LOWANCE, THIS TRIBUNALS SPECIAL BENCH IN INCOME TAX OFFICER VS. VINEET INVESTMENT (P) LTD (2017) 165 ITD 27(DELHI) HAS DEC IDED THE ISSUE TO ASSESSEES FAVOUR. THUS RULE 27 PETITION IS PART LY ALLOWED TO THIS LIMITED EXTENT. 8. THESE REVENUES APPEALS ITA NO.1080/HYD/2019 AND ITA NO.2116/HYD/2018 ARE DISMISSED AND ASSESSEES R ULE 27 PETITION IS PARTLY ALLOWED IN ABOVE TERMS. A COPY O F THIS COMMON ORDER BE PLACED IN RESPECTIVE CASE FILES. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 9 TH APRIL, 2021. SD/- SD/- (LAXMI PRASAD SAHU) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER (S.S. GODARA) JUDICIAL MEMBER HYDERABAD, DATED 9 TH APRIL, 2021. VINODAN/SPS ITA NOS 1080 OF 2019 AND 2116 OF 2018 CASPIAN IMPACT INVESTMENTS P LTD HYDERABAD PAGE 8 OF 8 COPY TO: 1 DY./ASSTT. CIT, CIRCLE 1(2) ROOM NO.724, 7 TH FLOOR, B BLOCK, IT TOWERS, HYDERABAD 2 M/S.CASPIAN IMPACT INVESTMENTS (P) LTD 3 RD FLOOR, 8-2- 596/5/B/1 ROAD NO.10 BANJARA HILLS, HYDERABAD 50003 4 3 CIT (A)-1 HYDERABAD 4 PR. CIT -1, HYDERABAD 5 THE DR, ITAT HYDERABAD 6 GUARD FILE BY ORDER