M/s. eYantra Industries Private Limited, (formerly eYantra Industries Ltd), Hyderabad V. ACIT, Circle -2(2), Hyderabad

ITA 124/HYD/2012

• Counselvise Citation: 12422514 RSA 2012
• Duration Of Justice: 2 year(s) 12 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 12-02-2014
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Assessment Year: 2008-2009
• Appeal Filed On: 30-01-2012
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Assessee Lawyers: S RAVI
• Keywords: Depreciation; Revenue expenditure
• Section: 37(1)

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL HYDERABAD BENCH A ', HYDERABAD BEFORE THE HONBLE VICE PRESIDENT, SHRI D.MANMOHAN AND SHRI B.RAMAKOTAIAH, HONBLE ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO.124/HYD/2012 : ASST. YEAR 2008 - 09 M/S. EYANTRA INDUSTRIES PRIVATE LIMITED, HYDERABAD ( PAN - AAACE 8281 C) V/S. ASST COMMISSIONER OF INCOME - TAX CIRCLE 2(2), HYDERABAD (APELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY : SHRI S.RAVI RESPONDENT BY : SMT. K.HARITHA DR DATE OF HEARING 7 . 2 .201 4 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT 12.2.2014 O R D E R PER B.RAMAKOTAIAH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER: THIS IS AN APPEAL BY THE ASSESSEE AGAIN S T THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A) III, HYDERABAD DATED 24.11.2011. 2. THE ASSESSEE HAS RAI S ED FOUR GRO U NDS ON TH E ISSUE OF CLAIM OF EXPENDITU RE ON ADVER TI SEMENT, WHICH IS STATED TO BE FOR THE PURPOSES OF BUSINESS. 3. BRIEFLY STATED, ASSESSEE IS A COMPANY, WHICH IS ENGAGED IN THE BU S IN E SS OF PROMOTIONAL CORPORATE MERCHANDISE. FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2008 - 0 9, ASSESSEE FIL E D RETURN O F INCOME SHO WING INCOME OF R S .43,422 UN D ER NORMAL PROVIS I ONS AND RS.80,65,546 UN D ER THE MAT PROVISIONS, INTER ALIA CLAIMING VARIOUS EXPENDITURE OUT O F WHICH T H ERE WAS A CLAIM OF ADVERTISEMENT EXPENDITURE TO THE TUN E OF RS.1,05,76,570. THE ASSESSEE IN THE BOOK S OF AC COUNT HAS CLAIMED AN AMOUNT OF R S .21,15,314 AND THE BALAN C E OF R S .84,61,256 WERE SHOWN IN THE B ALANCE SH E ET TO B E CLAIMED O V ER A PERIOD OF BALANCE FOUR YE A RS. IN TH E COMPUTATION OF INCOME, ASSESSEE HAS CL A IM E D FULL A MOUNT OF R S .1,05,76,570 AS REVENUE EXP ENDITURE. THE ASSESSING OFFICER ON ITA NO.124/HYD/2012 M/S. EYANTRA INDUSTRIES PRIVATE LIMITED, HYDERABAD 2 PERUSAL OF THE AGREEMENT WITH M/S.BENNET COLEMAN AND CO. LTD. WAS OF THE VIEW THA T THE ASSESSEE ENTERED INTO AN AGREEMENT FOR GIVING ADVERTISEMENT FROM 1.2.2007 TO 30. 2009 AND THE SECOND TERM FROM 1.7.2009 TO 31.1.2011 A ND ACCORDINGLY, SIN C E THE BENEFIT ACCRU ING OUT OF SUCH ADVERTISEMENT S ARE OF ENDURING NATURE, HE DID NO T ALLOW THE BALANCE AMOUNT OF R S .84,61,256 CLAIMED BY THE ASSESSEE IN TH E COMPUTATION OF INCOME INVOKING THE MATCHING PRINCIPLE. 4. ASSESSEE CONTEST ED BEFORE THE LEARNED CIT(A) THAT THE ENTIRE EXPENDITURE IS REVENUE IN NATURE , EVEN THOUGH T H E ASSESSEE CLAIMED THE ADVERTISEMENT AS DEFERRED REVENUE EXPENDITURE IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT, AND THOUGH 1/5 TH ONLY WAS CHARGED TO THE PROFIT & LOSS ACCOUNT , THE NATURE OF EXPENDITURE BEIN G REVENUE, ENTIRE AMOUNT I S ALLOWABLE AS DEDU CT ION UNDER S.37 (1 ). IT WAS FUR T H E R SUBMITTED THAT THE P R IN C IPLES L A ID DOWN BY THE HONBL E SUPREME COU R T IN TH E CA S E OF M ADRAS INDUSTRIAL INV E STMENT CORPORATION LT D . (225 ITR 802), IT BEING R E VENUE EXPENDITURE , INCURRED WHOLLY AND EXCLUSIVELY FOR THE PU R PO S ES OF BUSINESS , MUST BE ALLOWED IN ITS ENTIRETY. FURTHER, THE ASSESSEE ALSO DIS T INGUISHED THE DECISION OF THE HONBL E BOMBAY HIGH COU R T IN THE CASE OF CIT V/S. TAPARIA TOOLS LTD. ( 260 ITR 102 ) , RELIED UPON BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO CLAIM THAT THE ENTIRE EXPENDITURE IS REVENUE IN NATURE. THE LEARNED CIT(A) DID NOT AGREE WITH THE CONTENTIONS OF THE ASSESSEE. HENCE THE PRESENT APPEAL. 5. THE LEARNED COUNSEL SUBMITTED THAT THERE IS NO DISPUTE WITH REFERENCE TO THE NATURE OF EXPENDITURE BEIN G REVENUE AND THE ASSESSING OFFICER WRONGLY RELIED ON THE MATCHING CONCEPT, WHEN THERE I S NO ENDURING NATURE OF BENEFIT OUT OF THI S EXPENDITURE. 6. AT OUR INSTANCE, LEARNED COU N SEL PLACED ON RECORD, ANNUAL REPO R T, BROUCHER OF THE ASSESSEE , COMPANY PROFILE AND NEWS PAPER ADVERTISEMENTS GIVEN ITA NO.124/HYD/2012 M/S. EYANTRA INDUSTRIES PRIVATE LIMITED, HYDERABAD 3 TO JUSTIFY THAT EXPENDITURE IS ROUTINE ADVERTISEMENT IN THE NEWS PAPERS JUSTIFYING THE BUSIN E SS ACTIVITY. 7. THE LEARNED DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE , HO W E VER, RELIED ON THE FINDINGS OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER THAT THE TERMS OF AGR E EMENT REFERRED TO A PERIOD BEYON D ONE YEAR, AND TH E R E F O RE, THE EXPENDITURE HAS TO BE TREATED AS DEFERRED REVENUE EXPENDITURE, AND THE ASSESSING OFFICER WAS CORR E CT IN ALLOWING ONL Y 1/5 TH OF EXPENDITURE ON MATCHING CONCEPT. 8. IN REPLY, LEARNED COUNSEL SUB M I T TED THAT THE PRINCIPLES RELIED ON BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER DO NO T APPLY TO THE F A CTS OF THE CASE AND FURTH E R RELIED ON THE COORDINATE BENCH DECISION OF THE T RIBUNAL IN THE C A S E OF AMAR RAJA BATTERIES L TD. V/S. ACIT (91 ITD 280), ALLO WI N G THE ENTIRE EXPENDITURE IN THE YEAR OF INCURRING OF SUCH EXPENDITURE. 9. WE HAVE CON S ID E RED THE ISSUE AND EXAMIN E D THE RIVAL CONTENTION S . TH E RE IS NO DISPUTE WITH REFERENCE TO TH E NATURE O F EXPENDITURE , BEIN G R E VENUE. THE RE IS ALSO NO DI S PU T E THAT ENTIRE EXPENDITURE IS INCURRED FOR THE PU R PO S ES OF ADVERTISING THE ASSESSEES MERCHANDISE I N TH E NEWS PAPER. THE ASSESSEE COMPANY , BEING A CORPORATE MERCHANDISE PROVIDER, ADVERTISING ABOUT VARIOUS BRANDS AND PRODUCTS B E IN G PROVIDED BY THE ASSESSEE IS A MUST, IN ORDER TO ATTRACT BUSIN E SS. JUST BECAU S E, ASSESSEE HAS CLAIMED THE AMOUNT AS DEFERRED REVENUE EXPENDITURE IN THE PROFIT & LOSS ACCOUNT, THE NATURE OF EXPENDITURE DOES NO T CHANGE. TH E MAT C HI NG CONCEPT INVOKED BY TH E ASSESSING OFFICER DOES NO T APPLY TO THE F A CTS OF THIS CA S E, AS NO CORRESPONDING ASSET HAS BEEN CR E ATED, NOR THERE IS ANY ENDURING BENEFIT ACCRUING OUT OF THE GENERAL ADVERTISEMENT ABOUT ASSESSEES BUSIN E SS. SI M ILAR ISSUE WAS C ON SIDERED BY THE COORDINATE BENCH IN THE CASE OF AMAR RAJA BATTERIES L TD. V/S. ACIT (91 ITD 280), WHEREIN CONSIDERING SIMILAR CLAIM, IT WAS HELD AS UNDER - ITA NO.124/HYD/2012 M/S. EYANTRA INDUSTRIES PRIVATE LIMITED, HYDERABAD 4 10. WE HAVE CAREFULLY CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS. THE UNDISPUTED FACT IS THAT THE EXPENDITURE I S IN THE REVENUE FIELD. THE ONLY ISSUE TO BE CONSIDERED IS WHETHER THE ASSESSEE CAN CLAIM THE ENTIRE EXPENDITURE IN THIS YEAR ITSELF, EVEN THOUGH IT HAD WRITTEN OFF THIS EXPENDITURE IN THE BOOKS OVER A PERIOD OF FIVE YEARS. THE HON'BLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF MADRAS HIGH COURT IN MADRAS INDUSTRIAL INVESTMENT CORPORATION V. CIT (225 ITR 802 & 803) HELD AS FOLLOWS - '..SECTION 37(1) FURTHER REQUIRES THAT THE EXPENDITURE SHOULD NOT BE OF A CAPITAL NATURE. THE QUESTION WHETHER A PARTICULAR EXPENDITURE IS REVENUE EXPENDITURE INCURRED FOR THE PURPOSE OF BUSINESS MUST BE DETERMINED ON A CONSIDERATION OF ALL THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES, AND BY THE APPLICATION OF PRINCIPLES OF COMMERCIAL TRADING. THE QUESTION MU ST BE VIEWED IN THE LARGER CONTEXT OF BUSINESS NECESSITY OR EXPEDIENCY. IF THE OUTGOING OR EXPENDITURE IS SO RELATED TO THE CARRYING ON, OR CONDUCT OF THE BUSINESS, THAT IT MAY BE REGARDED AS AN INTEGRAL PART OF THE PROFIT - MAKING PROCESS AND NOT FOR ACQUIS ITION OF AN ASSET OR A RIGHT OF A PERMANENT CHARACTER, THE POSSESSION OF WHICH IS A CONDITION OF THE CARRYING ON OF THE BUSINESS, THE EXPENDITURE MAY BE REGARDED AS REVENUE EXPENDITURE. ANY LIABILITY INCURRED FOR THE BUSINESS OF OBTAINING A LOAN WOULD BE R EVENUE EXPENDITURE. ORDINARILY, REVENUE EXPENDITURE WHICH IS INCURRED WHOLLY AND EXCLUSIVELY FOR THE PURPOSES OF BUSINESS MUST BE ALLOWED IN ITS ENTIRETY IN THE YEAR IN WHICH IT IS INCURRED. IT CANNOT BE SPREAD OVER A NUMBER OF YEARS EVEN IF THE ASSESSEE H AS WRITTEN IT OFF IN HIS BOOKS, OVER A PERIOD OF YEARS. HOWEVER, THE FACTS MAY JUSTIFY AN ASSESSEE WHO HAS INCURRED EXPENDITURE IN A PARTICULAR YEAR TO SPREAD AND CLAIM IT OVER A PERIOD OF ENSUING YEARS. IN FACT, ALLOWING THE ENTIRE EXPENDITURE IN ONE YEAR MIGHT GIVE A VERY DISTORTED PICTURE OF THE PROFITS OF A PARTICULAR YEAR. ISSUING DEBENTURES IS AN INSTANCE WHERE, ALTHOUGH THE ASSESSEE HAS INCURRED THE LIABILITY TO PAY THE DISCOUNT IN THE YEAR OF ISSUE OF DEBENTURE, THE PAYMENT IS TO SECURE A BENEFIT OV ER A NUMBER OF YEARS. THERE IS A CONTINUING BENEFIT TO THE BUSINESS OF THE COMPANY OVER THE ENTIRE PERIOD. THE LIABILITY SHOULD, THEREFORE, BE SPREAD OVER THE PERIOD OF DEBENTURES.' FROM THIS JUDGMENT, IT IS VERY CLEAR THAT THOUGH THE ASSESSEE HAS WRITTEN OFF THE EXPENDITURE IN ITS BOOKS OF ACCOUNT OVER A PERIOD OF FIVE YEARS, IT MUST BE ALLOWED IN ITS ENTIRETY IN THE YEAR IN WHICH IT WAS INCURRED, IF IT IS REVENUE EXPENDITURE, AND IF IT IS WHOLLY AND EXCLUSIVELY INCURRED FOR THE PURPOSES OF BUSINESS. THE H ON'BLE SUPREME COURT OBSERVED THAT IN CERTAIN CASES, THE FACTS MAY JUSTIFY THE ASSESSEE TO SPREAD OVER AND CLAIM THE EXPENDITURE OVER A PERIOD OF ENSUING YEARS. 11. IN THIS CASE, THE ASSESSEE HAD LAUNCHED A NEW PRODUCT AND INCURRED HEAVY ADVERTISEMENT EXPE NDITURE. THE PERIOD FOR WHICH THE ASSESSEE CAN BE SAID TO HAVE SECURED BENEFIT BY INCURRING THIS ITA NO.124/HYD/2012 M/S. EYANTRA INDUSTRIES PRIVATE LIMITED, HYDERABAD 5 EXPENDITURE CANNOT BE REASONABLY ESTIMATED. THE UNDISPUTED FACT IS THAT THE NEW PRODUCT LAUNCHED MAY FAIL TO TAKE OFF IN THE YEAR OF LAUNCH ITSELF OR MAY HAVE A LONG LIFE AS A PRODUCT. THERE IS NO WAY IN WHICH IT CAN DEFINITELY BE ESTIMATED THAT THE BENEFIT OF THE EXPENDITURE WOULD LAST FOR A PARTICULAR PERIOD OF TIME, AND ON THIS COUNT, WE AGREE WITH THE ARGUMENTS OF THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE. RELIAN CE PLACED BY THE REVENUE IN THE CASE OF SHREYAS SHIPPING LTD. (SUPRA) DOES NOT COME TO ITS RESUCE, FOR IN THAT CASE, DRY DOCK AND SPECIAL SURVEY EXPENSES WERE INCURRED BY THE ASSESSEE AND THESE EXPENSES HAVE TO BE INCURRED STATUTORILY TWICE OVER A PERIOD O F FIVE YEARS. THAT DRY DOCKING IN THE CASE OF SHIPS IS MANDATORY. THE BENEFIT OF THE EXPENDITURE CAN BE REASONABLY ESTIMATED OVER A PERIOD OF 2 - 1/2 YEARS. MORE OVER, THERE WAS A TRADE PRACTICE IN THAT CASE AND THE ASSESSEE FOLLOWED THAT TRADE PRACTICE AND WROTE OFF THAT EXPENDITURE OVER A PERIOD OF 2 - 1/2 YEARS. IT IS NOT THE CASE HERE, AS IT IS NOT A MANDATORY EXPENDITURE, NOR CAN THE PERIOD FOR WHICH THE BENEFIT OF THE EXPENDITURE CAN BE DERIVED BE ESTIMATED WITH A LEAST REASONABLE ACCURACY. THE BOMBAY BEN CH OF THE TRIBUNAL DISTINGUISHED THE JUDGMENT OF ITS JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIV V. CHOWGULE & CO. (P) LTD. (214 ITR 523) HOLDING THAT IN THAT CASE IT WAS NOT A CASE OF CURRENT REPAIRS AND WAS ALSO NOT A CASE WHICH DID NOT BRING INTO EXIST ENCE OR OBTAIN A NEW OR DIFFERENT ADVANTAGE. THEREFORE, THIS DECISION OF THE MUMBAI BENCH OF THE TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF SHREYAS SHIPPING LTD. (SUPRA) IS DISTINGUISHABLE ON FACTS. COMING TO THE SUPREME COURT DECISION IN THE CASE OF MADRAS INDUSTRIAL INVEST MENT CORPORATION LTD. (SUPRA), IT WAS A CASE WHERE THE ASSESSEE HAD PAID UPFRONT DISCOUNT FOR THE DEBENTURES ISSUED. THE LUMP SUM PAYMENT OF DISCOUNT WHICH IS AN UPFRONT, ONE TIME PAYMENT, SECURED BENEFIT TO THAT ASSESSEE OVER A NUMBER OF YEARS. IN FACT TH E UPFRONT PAYMENT IS CALCULATED BY DISCOUNTING THE FUTURE INSTALMENTS OF INTEREST PAYABLE AND IT IS LIKE PREPAID INTEREST. THE PERIOD FOR WHICH THE ASSESSEE SECURED BENEFIT IS SPECIFIED. THAT ASSESSEE BY MAKING ONE TIME PAYMENT HAD AVOIDED PAYING INTEREST ON DEBENTURES IN EACH OF THE NEXT FIVE YEARS. THE ANNUAL COMPULSORILY INCURABLE EXPENDITURE ON INTEREST HAS BEEN DISCOUNTED AND PAID UPFRONT AS A ONE TIME PAYMENT. IN FACT THE ENTIRE EXPENDITURE OF UPFRONT PAYMENT IN THAT CASE DOES NOT PERTAIN TO ONE YEAR. INTEREST IS A YEARLY COMMITMENT. THUS ON FACTS THE HON'BLE SUPREME COURT HELD THAT INTEREST OF THAT PARTICULAR YEAR ONLY IS TO BE ALLOWED. THUS, THIS DECISION IS ALSO DISTINGUISHABLE FROM THE FACTS OF THE PRESENT CASE. THUS, BOTH IN THE CASE OF SHREYAS SH IPPING LTD (SUPRA) BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL AND IN THE CASE OF MADRAS INDUSTRIAL INVESTMENT CORPORATION (SUPRA) BEFORE THE HON'BLE SUPREME COURT, THE PERIOD FOR WHICH THE ASSESSEE SECURED THE BENEFIT HAS BEEN CATEGORICALLY SPECIFIED EITHER BY WAY OF CONTRACTUAL OBLIGATIONS OR BY WAY OF STATUTORY REQUIREMENT. THERE IS NO SUCH CIRCUMSTANCE IN THIS CASE. THE MATCHING CONCEPT, WHICH IS HEAVILY RELIED UPON IN BOTH THE ABOVE 'CASES, FAILS IN THIS CASE. THE NUMBER OF YEARS FOR WHICH THE BENEFIT CAN BE SAID TO HAVE BEEN DERIVED CANNOT BE ESTIMATED IN THIS CASE. DEFERMENT IS BASED ON THE 'MATCHING CONCEPT', THAT IS MATCHING COSTS WITH REVENUE. THE ASSESSEE IS REQUIRED TO CLAIM EXPENSES YEAR - WISE TO THE EXTENT OF INCOME, WHICH CAN BE SAID TO HAVE ARISEN FROM SUCH EXPENSES. THEE INCOME RELATABLE TO THAT EXPENDITURE SHOULD ARISE FOR A NUMBER OF YEARS AND ITA NO.124/HYD/2012 M/S. EYANTRA INDUSTRIES PRIVATE LIMITED, HYDERABAD 6 WHEN A (SIC) CAN BE DEFINITELY FOUND BETWEEN THE BOTH INCOME AND EXPENDITURE, THE MATCHING CONCEPT COMES INTO PLAY. THE RATIO OF THE ORDER OF THE MUMBAI BENCH CANNOT BE UNIVE RSALLY APPLIED AND AS HELD BY THE HON'BLE SUPREME COURT, HAS TO BE RESTRICTED TO THE PARTICULAR FACTS OF THAT CASE. THE DECISIONS RELIED BY REVENUE HAVE LIMITED APPLICATION AND CAN BE INVOKED WHEN EXPENDITURE IS INCURRED IN LUMP SUM, ESSENTIALLY TO GET RID OF FUTURE ANNUAL EXPENDITURE WHICH IS NECESSARILY TO BE INCURRED TO CARRY ON THE BUSINESS. THIS IS NOT A CASE WHERE ANNUAL FUTURE MANDATORY EXPENDITURE IS DONE AWAY WITH BY A LUMP SUM UPFRONT EXPENDITURE. 12. AS FOR THE ENTRIES IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT ARE CONCERNED, IT IS WELL SETTLED THAT THEY DO NOT CLINCH THE ISSUE EITHER WAY, AND THEY DO NOT DETERMINE THE ALLOWABILITY OR OTHERWISE OF THE EXPENDITURE. THE DECISIONS OF THE HON'BLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF KEDARNATH JUTE MILLS (83 ITR 363) AND IN THE CASE OF INDIA DISCOUNTS LTD. (75 ITR 191, ARE CLEAR ON THE ISSUE. IF THE ARGUMENT OF THE LEARNED DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE THAT THE ENTRIES IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT ARE SACROSCENT AND HAVE TO BE ACCEPTED IS TO BE VALID, THEN IN THE CASE OF DEPRECIATION AL SO, THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE IS TO BE DISALLOWED, AS THE DEPRECIATION DEPICTED IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT IS SOMETHING DIFFERENT FROM WHAT IS CLAIMED AND ALLOWED, WHILE COMPUTING THE INCOME UNDER THE INCOME TAX ACT. IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES, THIS ARGUMENT OF THE LEARNED DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE HAS NECESSARILY TO BE REJECTED. WE AGREE WITH THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE ASSESSEE AND HOLD THAT THE ENTIRE ADVERTISEMENT EXPENDITURE FOR PRODUCT LAUNCHING IS TO BE ALLOWED IN THIS YEAR. RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING THE ABOVE DE CISION , WE ARE OF THE OPINION THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS CORR E CTLY CLAIMED THE EXPENDITURE IN THE YEAR UNDER APPEAL, AND TH E R E FORE, THE EXPENDITURE HAS TO B E ALLOWED IN ITS ENTIRETY. ASSESSEE S GRO U NDS ARE ACCORDINGLY ALLOWED. 10. IN THE R E SUL T , APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE COURT ON 12 TH FEBRUARY, 2014 SD/ - SD/ - (D.MANMOHAN) (B.RAMAKOTAIAH ) VICE PRESIDENT ACCOUNTANT MEMBER DT/ - 12 TH FEBRUARY 2014 ITA NO.124/HYD/2012 M/S. EYANTRA INDUSTRIES PRIVATE LIMITED, HYDERABAD 7 COPY FORWARDED TO: 1. M/S. EYANTRA INDUSTRIES PRIVATE LIMITED, C/O. M/S. SANDEEP REDDY SAMA UMA SANKAR, ADVOCATES, FLAT NO. D, 1 ST FLOOR, UMA ENCLAVE, ROAD NO.9, BANJARA HILLS, HYDERABAD 34. 2 . ASST COMMISSIONER OF INCOME - TAX CIRCLE 2(2), HYDERABAD 3. 4. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME - TAX (APPEALS) III , HYDERABAD COMMISS IONER OF INCOME - TAX HYDERABAD 5. DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE, ITAT, HYDERABAD. B.V.S