DCIT, Hyderabad V. M/s Soma Enterprises Ltd, Hyderabad

ITA 1117/HYD/2010

• Counselvise Citation: [2011] 134 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 3264 (ITAT-HYDERABAD)
• Duration Of Justice: 9 month(s) 23 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 15-06-2011
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Bench Allotted: A
• Next Hearing Date: 15-06-2011
• Assessment Year: 2007-2008
• Appeal Filed On: 23-08-2010
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: NIVEDITA BISWAS; HARI LAL NAIK
• Assessee Lawyers: M V R PRASAD
• Keywords: Opportunity of being heard; Proportionate interest
• Section: 14A

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL HYDERABAD BENCH A', HYDERABAD BEFORE SHRI G.C. GUPTA, VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI CHANDRA POOJARI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER I .T.A. NO. 1116/HYD/2010 A.Y. 2006-07 I .T.A. NO. 1117/HYD/2010 A.Y. 2007-08 DY. COMMISSIONER OF I.T. CIRCLE-3(2), RANGE 3, HYDERABAD VS. M/S. SOMA ENTERPRISES LTD. HYDERABAD PAN: AACCS8242F APPELLANT RESPONDENT C.O. NO. 87/HYD/2010 (ARISING OUT OF I.T.A. NO. 1116/HYD/2010) ASSESSMENT YEAR 2006-07 M/S. SOMA ENTERPRISES LTD. HYDERABAD PAN: AACCS8242F VS. DY. COMMISSIONER OF I.T. CIRCLE-3(2), RANGE 3, HYDERABAD APPELLANT RESPONDENT REVENUE BY: SHRI HARI LAL NAIK & SMT. NIVEDITA BISWAS ASSESSEE BY: SHRI M.V.R. PRASAD O R D E R PER CHANDRA POOJARI, AM : THE APPEALS BY THE REVENUE AND THE CROSS OBJECTION BY THE ASSESSEE ARE DIRECTED AGAINST THE SEPARATE ORDERS O F THE CIT(A)-IV, HYDERABAD DATED 15.06.2010 FOR ASSESSMENT YEARS 200 6-07 AND 2007- 08. SINCE THE ISSUES INVOLVED IN THESE APPEALS AR E IDENTICAL, THESE APPEALS ALONG WITH THE CO ARE HEARD TOGETHER AND AR E BEING DISPOSED OF BY THIS COMMON ORDER FOR THE SAKE OF CONVENIENCE. 2. THE FIRST GROUND RAISED IN REVENUE APPEAL NO. 11 16/HYD/2010 IS AS UNDER: THE CIT(A) OUGHT TO HAVE UPHELD THE DISALLOWANCE O F PROPORTIONATE INTEREST ON THE INVESTMENTS MADE IN T HE CONCERNS FOR THE REASON THAT THE ASSESSEE FAILED TO I.T.A. NOS. 1116&1117/HYD/10 C.O. NO. 87/HYD/2010 M/S. SOMA ENTERPRISES LTD. ======================== 2 SUBSTANTIATE ITS CLAIM THAT THE INVESTMENT WAS MADE FOR ADVANCEMENT OF BUSINESS PURPOSE. THE EFFECTIVE GROUND RAISED IN THE CO IS AS UNDER: THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (APPEALS) O UGHT TO HAVE DELETED THE DISALLOWANCE OF INTEREST ON THE INVESTMENTS MADE BY THE APPELLANT COMPANY IN THE FOLLOWING: (A) SATYAPRIYA HOLDINGS PVT. LTD. - RS. 16,00,00 0/- (B) SEVEN HILLS HEALTH CARE LTD. - RS. 3,25,00,000/ - 3. AFTER HEARING BOTH THE PARTIES, WE ARE OF THE OP INION THAT SIMILAR ISSUE WAS CONSIDERED FOR ASSESSMENT YEARS 2002-03 A ND 2003-04 IN ASSESSEES OWN CASE VIDE TRIBUNAL ORDER DATED 2 ND MAY, 2008 IN I.T.A. NO. 1210 & 1211/HYD/05. THE TRIBUNAL SET ASIDE THE ISSUE TO THE FILE OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER WITH THE FOLLOWING DIRECTIONS : 6. WE HAVE HEARD BOTH SIDES. ON A CAREFUL CONSIDERATION OF THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, WE FIND THAT THE REVENUE HAS NOT CONSIDERED THE CON TENTION OF THE ASSESSEE THAT THE INVESTMENTS WERE MADE FROM ITS OWN FUNDS AND NO MONEY WAS BORROWED FOR THE PURPOSE OF INVESTMENT IN SHARES IN THE COMPANIES AND IN SUPPOR T THE LEARNED COUNSEL PRODUCED SOME DOCUMENTS/BANK STATEMENTS TO PROVE THAT THERE IS NO NEXUS BETWEEN THE BORROWED FUNDS AND THE INVESTMENTS MADE. THE ITAT, DELHI A BENCH IN THE CASE OF M/S. MARUTI UDYOG LT D. VS. DCIT (2005) (92 TTJ 987) HELD THAT ASSESSEE HAVING INTEREST FREE FUNDS FAR IN EXCESS OF AMOUNT INVESTE D IN SHARES OF OTHER COMPANIES, NO DISALLOWANCE COULD BE MADE UNDER SECTION 14A ON THE GROUND THAT INTEREST BEARING FUNDS WERE INVESTED IN EARNING TAX-FREE DIV IDENDS. THE HONBLE ITAT, CHANDIGARH BENCH A (THIRD MEMBE R) IN THE CASE OF MALWA COTTON SPINNING MILLS VS. ASST . COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX [(2004) 89 ITD 65] HELD AS UNDER: ... THE FACTS OF THE CASE CLEARLY ESTABLISHED T HE FACT THAT THE ASSESSEES OWN CAPITAL AND CURRENT YEARS PROFITS WERE SUBSTANTIALLY MORE THAN THE ADVANCES GIVEN TO THOSE THREE SISTER-CONCERNS, WHICH PROVED THE ABSENCE OF ANY NEXUS BETWEEN THE FUNDS BORROWED ON INTEREST AND INTEREST FREE ADVANCES GIVEN TO THOSE THREE PARTIES. DISALLOWANCE OUT OF INTEREST EXPENDITURE COULD NOT I.T.A. NOS. 1116&1117/HYD/10 C.O. NO. 87/HYD/2010 M/S. SOMA ENTERPRISES LTD. ======================== 3 BE SUSTAINED IN RELATION TO INTEREST-FREE ADVANCES GIVEN IN EARLIER YEARS IN CASES WHERE, NO SUCH DISALLOWANCE OUT OF INTEREST EXPENDITURE WAS MADE IN THOSE EARLIER YEARS. IN THE LIGHT OF THE ABOVE DECISIONS OF THE TRIBUNAL , WE THINK IT IS APPROPRIATE AT THIS JUNCTURE TO RESTORE THIS ISSUE TO THE FILE OF THE A.O. TO VERIFY WHETHER THERE IS ANY NEX US BETWEEN THE BORROWED FUNDS AND INVESTMENTS MADE AND THEREAFTER DECIDE THE ISSUE IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW AFTER GIVING REASONABLE OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD. 4. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE, WE DIRECT THE ASSESSING OF FICER TO EXAMINE WHETHER THE ASSESSEE HAD BORROWED CERTAIN FUNDS ON WHICH LIABILITY TO PAY TAX IS BEING INCURRED AND ON OTHER HAND, CERTAI N AMOUNTS HAD BEEN ADVANCED/INVESTED IN SISTER CONCERN/OTHERS WITHOUT ANY BUSINESS PURPOSES THAT IS ALSO WITHOUT INTEREST AND IN SUCH CIRCUMSTANCES, THE INTEREST TO THE EXTENT THE ADVANCE/INVESTMENT HAD B EEN MADE WITHOUT CARRYING ANY INTEREST CANNOT BE ALLOWED U/S. 36(1)( III) OF THE ACT. ACCORDINGLY, WE SET ASIDE THE ENTIRE ISSUE TO THE F ILE OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER FOR FRESH CONSIDERATION. 5. THE NEXT GROUND, COMMON IN BOTH THE APPEALS OF T HE REVENUE, IS AS UNDER: THE CIT(A) OUGHT TO HAVE UPHELD THE DISALLOWANCE O F CREDIT FOR THE TDS CLAIMED BY THE ASSESSEE ON THE B ASIS OF THE TDS CERTIFICATES ISSUED IN THE NAME OF JOINT VE NTURE FOR THE REASON THAT THE ASSESSEE-COMPANY WAS NOT THE CONTRACTOR TO WHOM THE CONTRACT WAS AWARDED AND THE TDS CERTIFICATES WERE NOT STANDING IN THE NAME OF THE A SSESSEE COMPANY. 6. THIS ISSUE ALSO CAME UP FOR CONSIDERATION OF THE TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF M/S. SOMA PATEL ASI (JV) IN I.T.A. NO. 207/ HYD/2010 FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2006-07 ORDER DATED 24 TH SEPTEMBER, 2010 WHEREIN THE TRIBUNAL IN PARAGRAPHS 5 TO 10 HELD AS FOLLOWS: 5. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS ON EIT HER SIDE AND ALSO PERUSED THE MATERIAL ON RECORD. ADMI TTEDLY TAX WAS DEDUCTED FROM THE MOBILISATION ADVANCE. TH E I.T.A. NOS. 1116&1117/HYD/10 C.O. NO. 87/HYD/2010 M/S. SOMA ENTERPRISES LTD. ======================== 4 QUESTION ARISES FOR CONSIDERATION IS WHETHER THE TD S SHALL BE GIVEN CREDIT WHEN THE CORRESPONDING INCOME WAS N OT OFFERED FOR TAXATION. WE HAVE CAREFULLY GONE THROU GH THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 199 OF THE ACT WHICH READ AS FOLLOWS: '199. (1) ANY DEDUCTION MADE IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE FOREGOING PROVISIONS OF THIS CHAPTER AND PAID TO THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT SHALL BE TREATED AS A PAYMENT OF TAX ON BEHALF OF THE PERSON FROM WHOSE INCOME THE DEDUCTION WAS MADE, OR OF THE OWNER OF THE SECURITY, OR OF THE DEPOSITOR OR OF THE OWNE R OF PROPERTY OR OF THE UNIT-HOLDER, OR OF THE SHAREHOLDER, AS THE CASE MAY BE. (2) ANY SUM REFERRED TO IN SUB-SECTION (IA) OF SECTION 192 AND PAID TO THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT SHALL BE TREATED AS THE TAX PAID ON BEHALF OF THE PERSON IN RESPECT OF WHOSE INCOME SUCH PAYMENT OF TAX HAS BEEN MADE. (3) THE BOARD MAY, FOR THE PURPOSES OF GIVING CREDIT IN RESPECT OF TAX DEDUCTED OR TAX PAI D IN TERMS OF THE PROVISIONS OF THIS CHAPTER, MAKE SUCH RULES AS MAY BE NECESSARY, INCLUDING THE RULES FOR THE PURPOSES OF GIVING CREDIT TO A PERSON OTHER THAN THOSE REFERRED TO IN SUB-SECTION (1) AND SUB-SECTION (2) AND ALSO THE ASSESSMENT YEAR FOR WHICH SUCH CREDIT MAY BE GIVEN.' 6. FROM THE THIRD MEMBER DECISION OF THE CHANDIGARH BENCH OF THIS TRIBUNAL IT APPEARS THAT SECTION 199 WAS AMENDED BY FINANCE ACT, 1987. TILL JUNE 1, 1987 TH E LANGUAGE EMPLOYED BY THE PARLIAMENT IN SECTION 199 WAS DIFFERENT INSOFAR AS IT PROVIDED GIVING CREDIT TO T HE ASSESSEE IN RESPECT OF TDS FOR THE ASSESSMENTS IMMEDIATELY FOLLOWING THE ASSESSMENT YEAR. HOWEVER, BY FINANCE ACT, 1987 THE LANGUAGE OF SECTION 199 WAS SUBSTANTIALLY MODIFIED TO GIVE CREDIT TO THE TDS IN RESPECT OF TH E INCOME WHICH IS ASSESSABLE. WHILE TAKING NOTE OF THE AMEN DMENT MADE BY FINANCE ACT, 1987, THE LEARNED JUDICIAL MEM BER HAS OBSERVED AS FOLLOWS: 'IT MAY BE PERTINENT TO MENTION THAT SECTION 199 QUOTED ABOVE IS THE SECTION AS AMENDED FROM TIME TO TIME AND AS APPLICABLE FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2002-03. TILL JUNE 1, 1987, THE LANGUAGE OF SECTION 199 WAS DIFFERENT IN SO FAR AS IT PROVIDED FOR GIVING CREDIT TO THE ASSESSEE IN RESPECT OF TDS IN THE ASSESSMENT FOR THE IMMEDIATELY FOLLOWING I.T.A. NOS. 1116&1117/HYD/10 C.O. NO. 87/HYD/2010 M/S. SOMA ENTERPRISES LTD. ======================== 5 ASSESSMENT YEAR. BY THE FINANCE ACT, 1987, THE LANGUAGE OF SECTION 199 WAS MODIFIED TO THE EXTENT THAT THE CREDIT FOR THE TAX DEDUCTED AT SOURCE WAS PROVIDED TO BE GIVEN IN THE ASSESSMENT YEAR IN WHICH TDS IS ASSESSABLE. AS AGAINST THE WORDS 'CREDITS SHALL BE GIVEN FOR SUCH ASSESSMENT YEAR FOR WHICH SUCH INCOME IS ASSESSABLE', THE SECTION PROVIDED 'THE CREDIT SHALL BE GIVEN FOR THE IMMEDIATELY FOLLOWING YEAR UNDER THIS ACT'. THUS, THE LEGISLATURE HAVING MODIFIED THE LANGUAGE OF SECTION 199 WITH EFFECT FROM JUNE 1, 1987, IN MY CONSIDERED VIEW, THERE IS NO ESCAPE FROM THE VIEW THAT THE CREDIT FOR TDS IS TO BE GIVE N IN THE YEAR IN WHICH THE INCOME IN RESPECT OF WHICH TAX HAS BEEN DEDUCTED AT SOURCE IS ASSESSABLE TO TAX. IT IS NOT DISPUTED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT OFFERED THE INCOME CREDITED BY THE THREE PARTIES IN RESPECT OF WHICH TAX HAS BEEN DEDUCTED AT SOURCE ON THE GROUND THAT INCOME IS OFFERED TO TAX ON RECEIPT BASIS AND THE AMOUNTS HAVE NOT IN FACT BEEN RECEIVED. THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS, IN MY VIEW, BEEN REASONABLE TO GIVE CREDIT FOR THE TAX DEDUCTED AT SOURCE TO THE EXTENT THE INCOME HAS BEEN OFFERED FOR TAXATION BY THE ASSESSEE IN THE YEAR UNDER APPEAL. AS POINTED OUT EARLIER, THE ASSESSEE HAS DISCLOSED THE AMOUNT OF TDS AS INCOME IN THE YEAR UNDER APPEAL AS PROVIDED UNDER THE STATUTE AND CREDIT TO THE EXTENT TDS RELATES TO SUCH INCOME HAS BEEN ALLOWED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER.' 7. THE THIRD MEMBER WHILE RESOLVING THE DISPUTED QUESTION FOUND THAT GIVING CREDIT TO TDS HAS NOTHIN G TO WITH THE SYSTEM OF ACCOUNTING FOLLOWED BY THE ASSESSEE. IT IS OBSERVED THAT SECTION 199 OF THE ACT PROVIDES FOR G IVING CREDIT TO THE TDS IN RESPECT OF THE INCOME WHICH IS OFFERED FOR TAXATION. THE THIRD MEMBER HAS OBSERVED AS FOL LOWS: ' . I HAVE NO QUARREL WITH THE ABOVE PROPOSITIO N BUT I AM UNABLE TO AGREE THAT THE CREDIT FOR THE TA X DEDUCTED AT SOURCE IS TO BE ALLOWED AS PER ANY SYSTEM OF ACCOUNTING FOLLOWED BY THE ASSESSEE. IN THE PRESENT CASE, THERE IS NO DISPUTE REGARDING CASH SYSTEM OF ACCOUNTING FOLLOWED BY THE ASSESSEE AND HIS INCOME HAS BEEN COMPUTED AS PER THE ABOVE SYSTEM. NO ADDITION HAS BEEN MADE FOR INCOME WHICH THE ASSESSEE WAS I.T.A. NOS. 1116&1117/HYD/10 C.O. NO. 87/HYD/2010 M/S. SOMA ENTERPRISES LTD. ======================== 6 'ENTITLED' TO RECEIVE BUT DID NOT ACTUALLY RECEIVE. NO CREDIT FOR TDS ON SUCH NON-ASSESSABLE INCOME COULD BE CLAIMED. BENEFIT FOR THE TAX DEDUCTED AT SOURCE IS TO BE ALLOWED AS PER STATUTORY PROVISIONS CONTAINED IN SECTION 199 OF THE ACT. IT HAS NOTHIN G TO DO WITH THE SYSTEM OF ACCOUNTING FOLLOWED BY THE ASSESSEE. FURTHER THERE IS NO DISPUTE THAT THE REVENUE SHOULD HAVE A CONSISTENT APPROACH BUT THE ABOVE PRINCIPLE OF LAW HAS NO APPLICATION WHERE INTERPRETATION OF THE STATUTORY PROVISIONS IS INVOLVED. IF IN A PARTICULAR YEAR A STATUTORY PROVISION WAS WRONGLY INTERPRETED AND APPLIED, THE REVENUE CAN CORRECT THE ERROR AS INCOME IS REQUIRED TO BE COMPUTED BY CORRECTLY APPLYING AND ENFORCING LAW. ERROR CANNOT BE PERPETUATED. THEREFORE, ON CORRECT INTERPRETATION OF SECTION 199 AND FOR THE REASONS GIVEN ABOVE, I AM OF THE VIEW THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER WAS RIGHT IN ALLOWING CREDIT FOR TAX DEDUCTED AT SOURCE ON PRO-RATA BASIS . THE CREDIT FOR THE BALANCE AMOUNT MENTIONED IN THE CERTIFICATE IS TO BE ALLOWED IN THE YEAR IN WHI CH SUCH INCOME IS DISCLOSED OR IS OTHERWISE FOUND TO BE ASSESSABLE BY THE REVENUE.' 8. IN VIEW OF THE MAJORITY OPINION OF THIS TRIBUNAL IT IS VERY CLEAR THAT UNLESS THE ASSESSEE OFFERS THE INCO ME FOR TAXATION, THE TDS CANNOT BE GIVEN CREDIT. A SIMILA R VIEW WAS TAKEN BY MAJORITY OPINION BY THE MUMBAI BENCH O F THIS TRIBUNAL IN SMT. VARSHA G. SALUNKE VS. DCIT (2006) 98 ITD 141 (TM). 9. WE HAVE ALSO CAREFULLY GONE THROUGH THE DECISION OF THIS TRIBUNAL IN PROGRESSIVE CONSTRUCTION LTD. THI S TRIBUNAL AFTER CONSIDERING THE LANGUAGE OF SECTION 199 FOUND THAT NEXUS BETWEEN TDS AND THE CORRESPONDING INCOME ELEMENT WOULD REMAIN NOTIONAL. HOWEVER, THE AMENDMENT MADE BY THE PARLIAMENT BY FINANCE ACT, 19 87 WAS NOT TAKEN INTO CONSIDERATION BY THE BENCH WHILE DECIDING THE CASE IN PROGRESSIVE CONSTRUCTION LTD. (SUPRA). THIS BENCH OF THE TRIBUNAL IN PROGRESSIVE CONSTRUCT ION LTD. APPARENTLY FOLLOWED THE DECISION OF THE MUMBAI BENC H OF THIS TRIBUNAL IN TOYO ENGINEERING (I) LTD.. HOWEVE R, THE CHANDIGARH BENCH OF THIS TRIBUNAL AFTER CONSIDERING THE DECISION OF THE MUMBAI BENCH OF THIS TRIBUNAL IN TO YO ENGINEERING (I) LTD. FOUND THAT UNLESS INCOME IS OF FERED FOR TAXATION CREDIT CANNOT BE GIVEN FOR THE TDS. AS RI GHTLY SUBMITTED BY THE LEARNED DR, THE DECISION OF THE TH IRD MEMBER OF THIS TRIBUNAL WOULD HAVE MORE WEIGHTAGE T HAN THE DIVISION BENCH OF THIS TRIBUNAL. IN OTHER WORD S, THE I.T.A. NOS. 1116&1117/HYD/10 C.O. NO. 87/HYD/2010 M/S. SOMA ENTERPRISES LTD. ======================== 7 MAJORITY OPINION EXPRESSED BY THE CHANDIGARH BENCH OF THE TRIBUNAL IN PRADEEP KUMAR DHIR (SUPRA) WOULD HA VE A BINDING NATURE RATHER THAN THIS TRIBUNAL'S DECISIO N IN PROGRESSIVE CONSTRUCTION LTD. (SUPRA). EVEN OTHERW ISE, AS FOUND BY THE TRIBUNAL IN PROGRESSIVE CONSTRUCTION L TD. (SUPRA) THE MAJORITY OPINION EXPRESSED BY THE CHAND IGARH BENCH WOULD PREVAIL. 10. THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE MADE AN ATTEMPT TO DISTINGUISH THE DECISION OF THE CHANDIGA RH BENCH OF THIS TRIBUNAL ON THE GROUND THAT THE ASSES SEE BEFORE THE CHANDIGARH BENCH WAS FOLLOWING CASH SYST EM OF ACCOUNTING. HOWEVER, IN THE CASE BEFORE US THE ASSESSEE WAS FOLLOWING MERCANTILE SYSTEM OF ACCOUNT ING. THIS ISSUE WAS ALSO CONSIDERED BY THE THIRD MEMBER IN CHANDIGARH BENCH OF THIS TRIBUNAL AND FOUND THAT ME THOD OF ACCOUNTING HAS NOTHING TO DO IN GIVING CREDIT TO THE TDS. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE OBSERVATION OF THE THIRD MEMBE R AND THE MAJORITY DECISION OF THE CHANDIGARH BENCH OF TH IS TRIBUNAL, WE FIND NO SUBSTANCE IN THE ARGUMENTS OF THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE. MOREOVER, ADMITT EDLY, THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT OFFERED THE CORRESPONDING INCO ME FOR TAXATION AND THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS NOT MADE ANY ADDITION ALSO. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE DECISION, WE A RE UNABLE TO UPHOLD THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A) AND THE SAME IS S ET ASIDE AND THE ORDER OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS RESTORED. 7. RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING THE ABOVE ORDER OF THE TR IBUNAL, WE SET ASIDE THE ISSUE TO THE FILE OF THE ASSESSING OFFICE R TO EXAMINE WHETHER THE ASSESSEE OFFERED THE INCOME FOR TAXATION, AND I F THE ASSESSEE OFFERED THE INCOME FOR TAXATION FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION, CREDIT TO THE TDS IS TO BE GIVEN ACC ORDINGLY TO THE ASSESSEE. 8. IN THE RESULT, BOTH APPEALS OF THE REVENUE AND T HE CO OF THE ASSESSEE ARE ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES ONLY. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 15 TH JUNE, 2011. SD/ - (G.C. GUPTA) VICE PRESIDENT SD/ - (CHANDRA POOJARI) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER HYDERABAD, DATED THE 15 TH JUNE, 2011 TPRAO I.T.A. NOS. 1116&1117/HYD/10 C.O. NO. 87/HYD/2010 M/S. SOMA ENTERPRISES LTD. ======================== 8 COPY FORWARDED TO: 1. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE-3(2), RAN GE-3, ROOM NO. 723, 7 TH FLOOR, I.T. TOWERS, A.C. GUARDS, HYDERABAD-500 004. 2. M/S. SOMA ENTERPRISES LTD., 8-2-623/5/1/1, 14, A VENUE-4, BANJARA HILLS, HYDERABAD-500 034. 3. THE CIT(A)-IV, HYDERABAD. 4. THE CIT-III, HYDERABAD. 5. THE DR A BENCH, ITAT, HYDERABAD