DCIT., Circle-1(1), Hyderabad, Hyderabad V. Alexandria Knowledge Park Pvt.Ltd., Hyderabad, Hyderabad

ITA 142/HYD/2015

• Counselvise Citation: [2016] 132 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 6606 (ITAT-HYDERABAD)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 2 month(s) 19 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 29-04-2016
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Bench Allotted: A
• Next Hearing Date: 23-02-2016
• Assessment Year: 2011-2012
• Appeal Filed On: 09-02-2015
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: M SITARAM
• Assessee Lawyers: SARATH RAO
• Keywords: Business income
• Section: 56(2); 56

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL HYDERABAD BENCH ES A , HYDERABAD BEFORE SMT. P. MADHAVI DEVI, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI B. RAMAKOTAIAH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER I.T.A. NO. 1 42 /H YD /201 5 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 20 11 - 12 DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE - 1 ( 1 ), HYDERABAD VS M/S. ALEXANDRIA KNOWLEDGE PARK PVT. LTD., HYDERABAD [PAN: AA F C S6041M ] (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) FOR REVENUE : SHRI M. SITARAM , D R FOR ASSESSEE : SHRI SARATH RAO , AR DATE OF HEARING : 23 - 0 2 - 201 6 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 29 - 0 4 - 201 6 O R D E R PER B. RAMAKOTAIAH, A.M. : TH I S IS AN APPEAL BY REVENUE AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX ( APPEALS ) - II , HYDERABAD DATED 1 2 - 11 - 201 4 ON THE ISSUE WHETHER ASSESSEES LEASE RECEIPTS ARE TO BE ASSESSED UNDER THE HEAD BUSINESS OR HOUSE PROPERTY? 2. ASSESSEE H AD LET OUT ITS PREMISES IN BIOTECHNOLOGY PARK AND OFFERED ITS RENTAL INCOME UNDER T HE HEAD 'INCOME FROM BUSINESS'. ASSESSING OFFICER (AO) ASSESSED THE RENTAL INCOME FROM PREMISES UNDER THE HEAD 'INCOME FROM HOUSE PROPERTY' AND I.T.A. NO. 142 / HYD / 20 1 5 : - 2 - : THE INCOME FROM MAINTENANCE UNDER THE HEAD 'INCOME FROM OTHER SOURCES'. A SSESSEE HAD FILED ITS RETURN OF LOSS OF RS.2,98,63,725/ - ON 30 - 09 - 2011. THE LOSS WAS REVISED TO RS.2,92,49,023/ - IN REVISED R ETURN FILED ON 02 - 10 - 2012. THE TOTAL INCOME ASSESSED IN SCRUTINY ASSESSMENT WAS RS.2,40,87,912/ - . 3 . THE FACTS OF THE CASE ARE, ASSESSEE HAS ITS PREMISES LOCATED IN BIOTECHNOLOGY PARK DEVELOPED BY GOVERNMENT OF ANDHRA PRADESH. IT HAS LEASED ITS PREMISES TO THE FOLLOWING LESSEES: SL. NO NAME OF THE TENANT PROPER T Y LEASED OUT LAB NO./SUITE NO. LEASE RENT COLLECTED PER ANNUM MAINTENANCE COLLECTED PER ANNUM 1. FINOSO PHARMA PVT. LTD 213, 214 26,94,000 5,38,800 2. INCOZEN THERAPEUTICS PVT. LTD., 223, 224, 233, 234 57,60,000 12,00,000 3. TATA COMMUNICATIONS LTD., 301 2,58,000 -- 4. SHAKTI BIO SYSTEMS PHASE I WEB LABS 18,40,902 2,82,702 5. BIOLOGICAL E - RENT 230 - 243 29,06,835 2,83,440 6. ITC 230 - 243 1,20,00,000 24,00,000 7. SYMPHONY PHARMA 230 - 243 32,10 ,900 6,68,938 8. AVE S THEGEN 230 - 243 16,000 25,16,076 9. HDFC BANK LTD., ATM FACILITY 16,000 -- 10 DECCAN BIO VENTURES PVT. LTD., 4,13,779 11 BIOMAX LIFESCIENCES 8,11,837 12 OTHER UTILITIES RECOVERED 12,05,567 TOTAL 2,87,02,637 1,03,21,139 3 .1 . DURING THE PERIOD , ASSESSEE HAD RENTAL INCOME OF RS.3,90,23,775/ - FROM WHICH VARIOUS EXPENSES WERE CLAIMED BY THE ASSESSEE. I.T.A. NO. 142 / HYD / 20 1 5 : - 3 - : 3.2 . THE REASONS GIVEN BY THE AO FOR TREATING THE RENTAL INCOME AS INCOME FROM HOUSE PROPERTY , AND MAINTENANCE INCOME AS I NCOME FROM OTHER SOURCES ARE AS UNDER: - A ) A SSESSEE IS PROVIDING FOLLOWING FACILITIES TO THE TENANTS: PROVISION OF EQU I PMENT FOR THE LAB SPACE PROVISION OF FILTERED WATER OF MINIMUM ASSURED STANDARD PROVISION OF COMPRESSED AIR LINE PROVISIO N OF VACUUM LINE PROVISION OF NITROGEN GAS LINE TO THE TENANTS PROVISION OF EFFLUENT TREATMENT AND WASTE MANAGEMENT FACILITIES FOR PHARMA WASTE PROVISION OF SEWAGE TREATMENT FACILITIES MAINTENANCE OF PARKS AND WET - LABS FIRE AND SAFETY MAI NTENANCE AS THE ABOVE FACILITIES ARE BEING PROVIDED, THE ASSESSEE IS CLAIM ING THE INCOME AS BUSINESS INCOME , BUT THE FACILITIES LIKE FILTERED WATER, WASTE MANAGEMENT, SEWERAGE MAINTENANCE, FIRE AND SAFETY, PARKS MAINTENANCE, ETC ., ARE COMMON TO ALL MUL TI - STORIE D BUILDIN G S, COMPLEXES, MALLS AND THERE IS NOTHING SPECIAL ABOUT THESE FACILITIES. B) REGARDING THE PROVISION OF LAB SPACE, COMPRESSED AIRLINE, VACUUM LINE, NITROGEN GAS PIPELINE TO THE TENANTS, THE ASSESSEE HAS ONLY LAID PIPELINES WHICH ARE FIX ED TO THE STRUCTURE FOR THE USE OF TENANTS. BUT THE COMPRESSED AIR, NITROGEN GAS ARE PROVIDED BY OTHERS NOT BY ASSESSEE. I.T.A. NO. 142 / HYD / 20 1 5 : - 4 - : C) ASSESSEE MERELY CONSTRUCTED A PERMANENT CONCRETE STRUCTURE SUITABLY MODIFIED AND CALLED IT TECHNOLOGY PARK AND GAVE IT ON RENT. TH EREFORE, THE INCOME THEREON SHOULD BE TREATED AS INCOME FROM HOUSE PROPERTY . D) A SSESSEE'S ALTERNATIVE CLAIM THAT ACTIVITY SHOULD BE CONSIDERED AS ADVENTURE IN THE NATURE OF TRADE AS DEFINED IN SECTION 2(13) CANNOT BE CONSIDERED AS THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT CONSTRUCTED AND SOLD ANY OTHER COMPLEX OR BUILDING. IT HAS SIMPLY CONSTRUCTED A STRUCTURE AND THEN LET IT OUT TO THE TENANTS. E) A SSESSEE LET OUT THE PREMISES NOT ONLY TO THE COMPANIES INVOLVED IN BIOTECHNOLOGY / HEALTHCARE SECTOR BUT ALSO TO TATA COMMUNI CATIONS LTD., HDFC AND ITC WHICH ARE NOT CONNECTED TO BIOTECHNOLOGY / HEALTHCARE SECTOR. THEREFORE, THE ASSESSEE CANNOT C LAIM THAT IT IS ENGAGED IN THE BUSINESS OF PROV I D I N G SERVICES EXCLUSIVELY TO BIOTECHNOLOGY AND HEALTHCARE SECTOR. F) SINCE NUMBER OF TE NANTS IS MORE THAN 10, SINCE EACH ONE OF THEM CANNOT ARRANGE COMMON FACILITIES FOR THEMSELVES, ASSESSEE PROVIDED THE ABOVE MENTIONED SERVICES ONLY FOR THE SAKE OF CONVENIENCE INSTEAD OF EACH UNIT AVAILING THE ABOVE SERVICES INDEPENDENTLY. G ) THAT ASSE SSEE COLLECTED SEPARATE AMOUNTS FOR LETTING OUT THE PREMISES AND FOR THE MAINTENANCE OF THE COMPLEX. A SSESSEE IS COLLECTING FIXED MONTHLY CHARGES TOWARDS THE RENT. THE MAINTENANCE CHARGES FOR THE PREMISES ARE EITHER COLLECTED OR RECOVERED. I.T.A. NO. 142 / HYD / 20 1 5 : - 5 - : H) FURTHER THE TDS IS DEDUCTED BY THE TENANTS U / S.194 - I, THE SECTION REFERS TO TDS ON RENT. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE , THE AO HELD THAT THE INCOME FROM LETTING OUT OF THE PREMISES IS TO BE TREATED AS INCOME FROM HOUSE PROPERTY AND THE INCOME FROM MAINTENANCE SHOULD BE TA XED UNDER THE HEAD INCOME FROM OTHER SOURCES . AO RELIED ON THE FOLLOWING CASES - I). CIT VS. LAKSHMI CO. (MADRAS HC) II). CIT VS. SHAMBHU INVESTMENTS (P) LTD. (2001) 249 ITR 47 (CAL). 4 . BEFORE LD. CIT(A), ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT: A) ASSESSEE WAS FORMED AS A JOINT VENTURE BETWEEN SHAPOORJI PALLOM JI COMPANY LIMITED AND THE GOVERNMENT OF ANDHRA PRADESH WITH AN OBJECTIVE OF DEVELOPING THE BIOTECH PARK IN THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH FOR PROVIDING NECESSARY INFRASTRUCTURE FACILITIES TO USE RS THAT INTEND TO SET UP BIOTECH BASED INDUSTRIES. B) THE APPELLANT HAS DEVELOPED AND LEASED OUT VARIOUS LAB SPACES FOR THE PURPOSE O F CARRYING OUT RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT ACTIVITIES TO PHARMACEUTICAL AND BIOTECH COMPANIES. THE LAB SPACE DEVELOPED BY THE A PPELLANT HAS BEEN LEASED OUT ALONG WITH VARIOUS LAB EQUIPMENT AND FACILITIES WHICH ARE UNIQUE TO THE LABS THAT HAVE BEEN LEASED OUT. I.T.A. NO. 142 / HYD / 20 1 5 : - 6 - : C) THE FACT THAT TD'S WAS MADE U / S .194 - I BY THE DEDUCTORS HAS NO RELEVANCE AND IT DOES NOT DETERMINE THE CHARGEABILITY OF INCOME IN THE HANDS OF ASSESSEE WHICH HAS TO BE DETERMINED INDEPENDENTLY. D) THE ACTIVITY OF LEASING OUT THE PREMISES ALONGWITH THE ACTIVITY OF PROVIDING SPECIALIZED MAINTENANCE SERVICES CONSTITUTE BUSINESS ACTIVITY. E) THE ENTIRE COMPLEX WAS DEVELOPED AND W AS APPROVED AS THE INDUSTRIAL PARK THEREFORE INCOME CANNOT BE CONSIDERED AS RENTAL INCOME. F) THAT THE WORD 'BUSINESS' DEFINED U / S.2(13) OF INCOME TAX ACT 1961 INCLUDES 'ANY TRADE, COMMERCE OR MANUFACTURE OR ANY ADVENTURE OR CONCERN IN THE NATURE OF TRADE, COMMERCE OR MANUFACTURE' IS AN INCLUSIVE DEFINITION AND NOT EXHAUSTIVE. THE WORD BUSINESS IS A WIDE IMPORT AND MUST BE CONSTRUED IN A BROAD SENSE. G) THAT THE COMMENTS OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER THAT THE PREMISES WERE LEASED TO NON BIOTECHNOLOGY, NON - HEALTHCA RE COMPANIES ARE NOT CORRECT. A SMALL PLACE WAS PROVIDED TO TATA COMMUNICATION SERVICES TO ESTABLISH ITS SERVER FOR THE BENEFIT OF ALL COMPANIES IN THE PREMISES. SIMILARLY SMALL PLACE WAS PROVIDED TO HDFC BANK TO SET UP ATM. SIMILARLY, LAB SPACE WAS LEASED TO ITC CO. FOR RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT ACTIVITY ON PALM OIL OF ITS BIO DIVISION. I.T.A. NO. 142 / HYD / 20 1 5 : - 7 - : 5 . LD. CIT(A) DECI D ED THE ISSUE AGAINST REVENUE STATING AS UNDER: 6. THE INFORMATION ON RECORD IS CAREFULLY CONSIDERED. THE APPELLANT HAS ITS PREMISES IN BIOTECHNOLOGY P ARK, SHAMIRPET MANDAI, RANGA REDDY DISTRICT, ANDHRA PRADESH, APPROVED BY GOVERNMENT OF ANDHRA PRADESH. IT IS ALSO SURROUNDED BY SEVERAL OTHER INDUSTRIES DOING THEIR ACTIVITIES IN THE FIELD OF BIOTECHNOLOGY. THE APPELLANT HAS TWO SEPARATE AGREEMENTS WITH EA CH TENANT, ONE FOR LEASING OF' THE PREMISES AND THE OTHER IS FOR THE PURPOSE OF MAINTENANCE. DURING THE COURSE OF APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS, THE APPELLANT SUBMITTED A COPY OF LEASE AGREEMENT AND MAINTENANCE AGREEMENT ENTERED WITH A PARTY N AMELY FINOSO PHARMA P VT. LTD. AS PER THIS LEASE AGREEMENT, THE LEASE IS FOR A PER I OD OF 5 YEARS FROM 01.09.2009 TO 31.08.2014. THE RENT HAS TO BE PAID ON MONTHLY BASIS. THE PREMISES LEASED OUT ARE DESCRIBED IN SCHEDULE ANNEXED TO THE AGREEMENT. AS PER THIS SCHEDULE THE PROPERT Y LEASED OUT WAS ON THE GROUND FLOOR OF 4490 SQ.FT. AS PER THE MAINTENANCE AGREEMENT, LEASE CHARGES ARE ALSO COLLECTED ON MONTHLY BASIS. THE MAINTENANCE CHARGES INCLUDE REPAIRS TO STRUCTURES, ELECTRICAL REPAIRS, PLUMBING, ETC. IN ADDITION TO FIXED MAINTENA NCE CHARGES, THE TENANTS ALSO HAVE TO PAY TELEPHONE, ELECTRICITY, WATER, DEPENDING ON THEIR USAGE. TYPES OF SERVICES RENDERED BY APPELLANT ARE - FILTERED WATER WATER SUPPLY OF METROPOLITAN BOARD NITROGEN LINE FOR SUPPLY OF NITROGEN FROM A CENTRALIZED CY LINDER BANK LOCATED IN THE SERVICE BU I LDIN G . COMPRESSED AIR LINE VACUUM LINE TELECOM LINE AIR CONDITIONING DG SET FOR 100% BACK UP IN CASE OF MAIN APSEB POWER FAILURE. LINE FOR UPS & RAW POWER ELECTRICAL LIGHTING AND SERVICE POINTS . SECURI TY SEWERAGE TREATMENT WASTE MANAGEMENT IT WAS EXPLAINED BY THE APPELLANT THAT THE GENERAL MAINTENANCE LIKE PROVIDING SECURITY, ELECTRICITY, AIR CONDITIONING, TELEPHONE LINES, SEWERAGE AND WATER MANAGEMENT, ARE CARRIED OUT BY THE APPELLANT ITSELF. THE S PECIAL SERVICES LIKE PROVIDING NITROGEN GAS, COMPRESSED AIR, ETC., W ERE PROVIDED BY THIRD PARTIES. THE APPELLANT HAS ENTERED INTO AGREEMENTS WITH THE THIRD PARTIES TO PROVIDE THE SERVICES TO THE TENANTS. 'IT IS THE OBLIGATION OF THE APPELLANT TO PROVIDE GE NERAL AND SPECIAL SERVICES TO THE TENANTS. THE THIRD PARTIES DID NOT HAVE ANY DIRECT OBLIGATION TO PROVIDE ANY SPECIAL SERVICES TO THE TENANTS. I.T.A. NO. 142 / HYD / 20 1 5 : - 8 - : THE HON'BLE ITAT, HYDERABAD, IN THE CASE OF JANAPRIYA ENGINEERS SYNDICATE VS. DCIT IN ITA.NO.1 5 77 & L 5 94/HYD/2 012 AND ANNAPURNA BUILDERS VS. ACIT I N ITA.NO.1177/HYD/2011, HELD THAT INCOME FROM LEASING OF THE UNITS OF THE ASSESSEE IN INDUSTRIAL PARK IS TO BE ASSESSED AS INCOME FRO M BUSINESS. THOUGH THIS DECISION WAS RENDERED IN CONNECTION WITH THE DEDUCTION U / S.80 IA(4), STILL THE PRINCIPLE REMAINS THE SAME' THAT INCOME FROM UNITS LOCATED IN INDUSTRIAL PARK APPROVED BY THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT IS TO BE TREATED AS BUSINESS INCOME. FURTHER, IN THE CASE OF GLOBAL TECH PARK PVT. LTD. VS. ACIT (2009) 28 SOT 45 (BANGALORE), THE HON'BLE TRIBUNAL IN EXACTLY IDENTICAL CIRCUMSTANCES OF THAT OF THE APPELLANT HELD THAT THE ENTIRE ACTIVITY WAS CARRIED OUT IN AN ORGANIZED MANNER TO EARN PROFIT FROM INVESTMENT MADE BY THE ASSESSEE AS A COMMERCIAL VENTURE. THEREFORE, THE INCOME EARNED WAS HELD AS BUSINESS INCOME. FURTHER, THE HON'BLE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS . VENLANKANI INFORMATION SYSTEMS PRIVATE LIMITED (218 TAXMAN 88) HELD THAT 'IF THE INTENTION IS TO EXPLOIT COMMERCIAL PROPERTY BY PUTTING UP CONSTRUCTION AND LETTI NG IT OUT FOR THE PURPOSE OF GETTING RENTAL INCOME, THEN NOTWITHSTANDING THE FACT THAT THE FURNITURE AND FITTINGS ARE PROVIDED TO THE LESSEE, THE INCOME FROM THE BUILDING FALL UNDER THE HEAD 'INCOME FROM HOUSE PROPERTY'. BUT IF THE ASSESSEE IS IN THE BUSIN ESS OF TAKING LAND, PUTTING UP COMMERCIAL BUILDINGS THEREON AND LETTING OUT SUCH BUILDINGS WITH ALL FURNITURE AS HIS PROFESSION OR BUSINESS, THEN NOT W ITHSTANDING THE FACT THAT HE HAS CONSTRUCTED A BUILDING AND HE HAS ALSO PROVIDED OTHER FACILITIES AND EVEN IF THERE ARE TWO SEPARATE RENTAL DEEDS, IT DOES NOT FALL WITHIN THE HEADING OF INCOME FROM HOUSE PROPERTY. THEREFORE, IN VIEW OF THE JUDICIAL PRECEDENTS, TAKING INTO ACCOUNT THE OVERALL FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, ESPECIALLY THAT THE GOVERNMEN T OF ANDHRA PRADESH HAS ALLOTTED 150 ACRES OF THE APPELLANT FOR DEVELOPMENT OF BIOTECHNOLOGY PARK, THE APPELLANT DEVELOPED THE PARK, CONSTRUCTED THE PREMISES, PROVIDED REQUIRED FACILITIES AND IS EXPLOITING THE ENTIRE PREMISES AS A COMMERCIAL VENTURE. THER EFORE, THE INCOME IS TO BE ASSESSED UNDER THE HEAD BUSINESS INCOME. THEREFORE, THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL NOS. 1 TO 14 ARE TREATED AS ALLOWED. 6 . REVENUE HAS RAISED THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS: 2. THE LEARNED CIT(A) ERRED IN IGNORING THE 'FACT THAT THE HON'BLE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF VENLANKANI INFORMATION SYSTEMS PVT. LTD. 218 TAXAMN 88 CLEARLY HELD THAT IF THE INTENTION IS TO EXPLOIT COMMERCIAL PROPERTY BY PUTTING UP CONSTRUCTION AND LETTING OUT FOR THE PURPOSE OF GETTING RENTAL INCOME, THEN NOTWITHSTANDING THE FACT THAT THE FURNITURE AND FITTINGS ARE PROVIDED TO THE LESSEE, THE INCOME FROM THE BUILDING FALL UNDER THE HEAD 'INCOME FROM HOUSE PROPERTY' IN THE PRESENT CASE, THE ASSES SEE DEVELOPED THE COMMERCIAL PROPERTY AND LET OUT THE SAME TO THE TENANTS AND GETTING THE RENTAL INCOME. I.T.A. NO. 142 / HYD / 20 1 5 : - 9 - : 3. THE CIT(A) ERRED IN IGNORING THE FACT THAT ASSESSEE HAS DEDUCTED THE TAX U / S 1941, WHICH DENOTES THAT THERE IS RELATIONSHIP OF LESSOR AND LESSEE. 4. THE LEARNED CIT(A) ERRED IN NOT CONSIDERING THE DECISION OF KOLKATA HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF SHAMBU INVESTMENTS WHICH IN TURN DISCUSSED THE APEX COURTS DECISION IN THE CASE OF SULTAN BROTHERS PVT. LTD. VIS CIT TO DECIDE THE ACTUAL SOURCE OF INCOME AS PER THE GUIDELINES OF THE APEX COURT. 5. THE LEARNED CIT(A) ERRED IN NOT CONSIDERING THE FACT THAT THE ASSESSEE ACTUALLY LET OUT THE PROPERTY WITH AN INTENTION TO EARN INCOME FROM PROPERTY. 7 . IT WAS THE CONTENTION OF THE LD. DR THAT ASSESSEE HAS C ONSTRUCTED ONLY THE BUILDINGS AND THE PROVISION OF SEWERAGE PLANT, COMPRESSED AIR, NITROGEN SUPPLY ARE ALSO PART OF THE BUILDING AND REFERRED TO THE AGREEMENTS ENTERED TO SUBMIT THAT THERE IS NO PROVISION FOR SEPARATE SERVICES. RELYING ON THE PRINCIPLES LAID DOWN BY THE HON'BLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF SHAMBHU INVESTMENTS L TD 263 ITR 143(SC) IT WAS SUBMITTED THAT THERE ARE NO COMPLEX COMMERCIAL ACTIVITIES SO AS TO CONSIDER THE LEASE RENTALS AS BUSINESS INCOME, BUT ONLY HAS A PRIMARY OBJECT OF CONSTRU CTING BUILDING S TO LET OUT , WHICH COMES UNDER THE HEAD INCOME FROM HOUSE PROPERTY. DR ALSO REFERS TO SECTION 22 OF THE ACT TO RELY ON AOS ORDER. 8 . LD. COUNSEL SUBMITTED THAT IT IS NOT A SIMPLE ACTIVITY AS CONTENDED BY LD. DR. IT WAS SUBMITTED THA T ASSESSEE HAD ENTERED INTO A JOINT VENTURE WITH GOVERNMENT OF ANDHRA PRADESH (THEN) FOR DEVELOPMENT OF A BIOTECHNOLOGY PARK IN ABOUT 150 ACRES OF LAND AND HAS TAKEN THE RISKS AND RESPONSIBILITIES AS SUCH. LD. COUNSEL ALSO REFERRED TO THE LAB EQUIPMENT FO R NECESSARY RESEARCH AND SUPPLY OF COMPRESSED GAS AND NITROGEN, NECESSARY FILTERS AND PROVIDING ENVIRONMENT WHICH IS A SPECIALIZED ACTIVITY. LD. I.T.A. NO. 142 / HYD / 20 1 5 : - 10 - : COUNSEL RELIED ON THE DECISION OF HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. VE N LANKANI INFORMATIO N SYSTEMS PRIVATE LIMITED [265 CTR 250] AND ALSO ON THE DECISION OF HON'BLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF M/S. CHENNAI PROPERTIES & INVESTMENTS LTD., 373 ITR 673 (SC). LD. COUNSEL SUPPORTED THE ORDER OF LD. CIT(A). 9 . WE HAVE CONSIDER ED THE ISSUE AND RIV AL CON TENTIONS. THERE IS NO DISPUTE WITH THE FACTS. THE ONLY ISSUE IS WHETHER THE LEASE RENTALS RECEIVED ARE TO BE ASSESSED AS INCOME FROM BUSINESS OR NOT? AS SEEN FROM THE ORDER OF AO, THE INCOME S FROM BUILDINGS ARE ASSESSED UNDER THE HEAD INCOME FR OM HOUSE PROPERTY WHERE AS THE INCOME FROM MAINTENANCE IS ASSESSED AS INCOME FROM OTHER SOURCES. EVEN THE AO ADMITS THAT WHAT ASSESSEE RECE IVED IS MORE THAN SIMPLE LETTING OUT OF PREMISES , MORE THAN 1/3 RD OF THE RECEIPTS OF THE ACTIVITY ARE ASSESSED AS INCOME FROM OTHER SOURCES, THEREBY SEGREGAT ING THE RECEIPTS UNDER TWO HEAD S AS THEY ARE RECEIVED BY WAY OF SEPARATE AGREEMENTS. THUS, AO HAS ACCEPTED THAT ASSESSEES INCOMES ARE NOT EXPLOITING TH E PROPERTY ALONE. IF THE FACILITIES PROVIDED ARE SIMPLE AS CONTENDED BY DR, THE WHOLE OF RECEIPTS SHOULD HAVE BEEN ASSESSED UNDER THE HEAD HOUSE PROPERTY. THIS WAS NOT DONE INDICATING THAT THE ACTIVITY OF PROVIDING VARIOUS FACILIT IES AND ENVIRONMENT FOR RESEARCH ARE COMPLEX IN NATURE. ON SIMILAR FACTS, THE HON'BLE HIGH C OURT OF KARNATAKA, IN THE CASE RELIED ON BY LD. CIT(A) AS WELL AS REVENUE IN THE GROUNDS , HAS HELD : THE ASSESSEE LET OUT A COMMERCIAL COMPLEX WITH CERTAIN FACILITIES LIKE SPECIALLY FURNISHED BUILDINGS, SPECIAL ELECTRICAL CONNECTIONS, ANT ENNAE INTERCONNECTIVITY AND SPECIAL FURNITURE. THESE FACILITIES WERE INSEPARABLE FROM LETTING. THE RENTAL INCOME WAS ASSESSABLE AS BUSINESS INCOME. I.T.A. NO. 142 / HYD / 20 1 5 : - 11 - : 10 . VIDE PARA 25/26 , IT WAS FURTHER HELD THAT: 25. WE HAVE TO FIND OUT IN THAT CONTEXT WHAT WAS TH E INTENTION OF THE PARTIES IN ENTERING INTO THE LEASE TRANSACTION. IT IS NOT THE NUMBER OF AGREEMENTS, WHICH ARE ENTERED INTO BETWEEN THE PARTIES WHICH IS DECISIVE IN DETERMINING THE NATURE OF TRANSACTION. WHAT IS THE OBJECT OF ENTERING INTO MORE THAN ONE SAID TRANSACTIONS IS TO BE LOOKED INTO. HOWEVER, IF FOR ENJOYMENT OF LEASE, THE SUBJECT - MATTER OF ALL THE AGREEMENTS IS NECESSARY, THEN NOTWITHSTANDING THE FACT THAT THERE ARE MORE THAN ONE AGREEMENT OR ONE LEASE DEED, THE TRANSACTION IS ONE. AS ALL THE AG REEMENTS ARE ENTERED INTO CONTEMPORANEOUSLY AND THE OBJECT IS TO ENJOY THE ENTIRE PROPERTY VIZ., BUILDING, FURNITURE AND THE ACCESSORIES AS A WHOLE WHICH IS NECESSARY FOR CARRYING ON THE BUSINESS, THEN THE INCOME DERIVED THEREFROM CANNOT BE SEPARATED BASED ON THE SEPARATE AGREEMENT ENTERED INTO BETWEEN THE PARTIES. WHAT HAS TO BE SEEN IS, WHAT WAS THE PRIMARY OBJECT OF THE ASSESSEE WHILE EXPLOITING THE PROPERTY. IF IT IS FOUND APPLYING SUCH PRINCIPLE THAT THE INTENTION IS FOR LETTING OUT THE PROPERTY OR ANY PORTION THEREOF, THE SAME MAY BE CONSIDERED AS RENTAL INCOME OR INCOME FROM PROPERTIES. IN CASE, IF IT IS FOUND THAT THE MAIN INTENTION IS TO EXPLOIT IMMOVEABLE PROPERTY BY WAY OF COMPLEX COMMERCIAL ACTIVITIES, IN THAT EVENT IT MUST BE HELD AS BUSINESS IN COME. 26. SUB - S (1) OF S. 56 MAKES IT CLEAR THAT INCOME OF EVERY KIND WHICH IS NOT TO BE EXCLUDED FROM THE TOTAL INCOME UNDER THIS ACT SHALL BE CHARGEABLE TO INCOME - TAX UNDER THE HEAD 'INCOME FROM OTHER SOURCES', IF IT IS NOT CHARGEABLE TO INCOME - TAX UND ER ANY OF THE HEADS SPECIFIED IN S. 14, ITEMS A TO E. SUB - S (2) OF S. 56 SPECIFICALLY STATES THAT THE INCOMES SHALL BE CHARGEABLE TO INCOME - TAX UNDER THE HEAD 'INCOME FROM OTHER SOURCES'. CLAUSE (II) OF S. 56(2) PROVIDES THAT INCOME FROM MACHINERY, PLANT O R FURNITURE BELONGING TO THE ASSESSEE AND LET ON HIRE, IF THE INCOME IS NOT CHARGEABLE TO INCOME - TAX UNDER THE HEAD 'PROFITS AND GAINS OF BUSINESS OR PROFESSION'. CLAUSE (III) ALSO PROVIDES THAT WHERE AN ASSESSEE LETS ON HIRE MACHINERY, PLANT OR FURNITURE BELONGING TO HIM AND ALSO BUILDINGS, AND THE LETTING OF THE BUILDINGS IS INSEPARABLE FROM THE LETTING OF THE SAID MACHINERY, PLANT OR FURNITURE, THE INCOME FROM SUCH LETTING, IF IT IS NOT CHARGEABLE TO INCOME - TAX UNDER THE HEAD 'PROFITS AND GAINS OF BUSINE SS OR PROFESSION'. THEREFORE THE INTENTION OF THE LEGISLATURE I S EXPLICIT. THE PROVISION IS CLEAR, I.E., IF THE LETTING OF B U ILDING, PLANT, MACHINERY AND FURNITURE IS INSEPARABLE, THE INCOME FROM SUCH LETTING SHOULD ORDINARILY FALL WITHIN THE HEAD 'PROFITS AND GAINS OF BUSINESS OR PROFESSION'. BUT FOR ANY REASON, IF IT DOES NOT FALL UNDER THAT HEAD, IT SHALL FALL UNDER THE HEAD 'INCOME FROM OTHER SOURCES', BUT CERTAINLY NOT UNDER THE HEADING INCOME FROM HOUSE PROPERTY. IF THE INTENTION IS TO EXPLOIT COMMERC IAL PROPERTY BY PULLING UP CONSTRUCTION AND LETTING IT OUT FOR THE PURPOSE OF GETTING RENTAL INCOME, THEN NOTWITHSTANDING THE FACT THAT THE FURNITURE AND FITTINGS ARE PROVIDED TO THE LESSEE, THE INCOME FROM THE BUILDING FALLS UNDER THE HEAD 'INCOME FROM HO USE PROPERTY'. BUT IF THE ASSESSEE IS IN THE BUSINESS OF TAKING LAND, PULLING UP COMMERCIAL BUILDINGS THEREON AND LETTING OUT SUCH I.T.A. NO. 142 / HYD / 20 1 5 : - 12 - : BUILDIN G S WITH ALL FURNITURE AS HIS PROFESSION OR BUSINESS, THEN NOTWITHSTANDING THE FACT THAT HE HAS CONSTRUCTED A B U ILDING AND HE HAS ALSO PROVIDED OTHER FACILITIES AND EVEN IF THERE ARE TWO SEPARATE RENTAL DEEDS, IT DOES NOT FALL WITHIN THE HEADING OF INCOME FRONT HOUSE PROPERTY. THEREFORE, FIRSTLY WHAT IS THE INTENTION BEHIND THE LEASE AND SECONDLY WHAT ARE THE FACILITIES GI VEN ALONG WITH THE BUILDINGS AND DOCUMENTS EXECUTED IN RESPECT OF EACH OF THEM IS TO BE SEEN. THIRDLY IT IS TO BE FOUND OUT WHETHER IT, IS INSEPARABLE OR NOT. IF THEY ARE INSEPARABLE AND THE INTENTION IS TO CARRY ON THE BUSINESS OF LETTING OUT THE COMMERCI AL PROPERTY AND CARRYING A COMPLEX COMMERCIAL ACTIVITY AND GETTING RENTAL INCOME TH EREFROM, THEN SUCH A RENTAL INCOME FALLS UNDER THE HEADING OF PROFITS AND GAINS OF BUSINESS OR PROFESSION. IN FACT, ANY OTHER INTERPRETATION WOULD DEFEAT THE VERY OBJECT OF INTRODUCTION OF S. 80 - 1A AS WELL AS THE SCHEME WHICH IS FRAMED BY THE GOVERNMENT FOR DEVELOPMENT OF INDUSTRIAL PARKS IN THE COUNTRY. IN THAT VIEW OF THE MATTER, THE FINDING RECORDED BY THE APPELLATE AUTHORITY AS WELL AS THE TRIBUNAL IS IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW AND DOES NOT SUFFER FROM ANY LEGAL INFIRMITY WHICH CALLS FOR INTERFERENCE. ACCORDINGLY, THE SUBSTANTIAL QUESTIONS 1 AND 2 ARE ANSWERED IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE AND AGAINST THE REVENUE . 1 1 . THE DISPUTES ON THE ISSUE WERE SET AT REST BY THE RECENT D ECISION OF THE HON'BLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF M/S. CHENNAI PROPERTIES & INVESTMENTS LTD., 373/673 (SC) (SUPRA). ON CONSIDERING THE FACTS AND LAW ON THE ISSUE, THE APEX COURT HAS HELD AS UNDER: WE HAVE HEARD THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE PARTIES ON THE AFORESAID ISSUE. BEFORE WE NARRATE THE LEGAL PRINCIPLE THAT NEEDS TO APPLIED TO GIVE THE ANSWER TO THE AFORESAID QUESTION, WE WOULD LIKE TO RECAPITULATE SOME SEMINAL FEATURES OF THE PRESENT CASE. THE MEMORANDUM OF ASSOCIATION OF THE APPELLANT - COMPAN Y WHICH IS PLACED ON RECORD MENTIONS MAIN OBJECTS AS WELL AS INCIDENTAL OR ANCILLARY OBJECTS IN CLAUSE III. (A) AND (B) RESPECTIVELY. THE MAIN OBJECT OF THE APPELLANT COMPANY IS TO ACQUIRE AND HOLD THE PROPERTIES KNOWN AS CHENNAI HOUSE AND FIRHAVIN ES TATE BOTH IN CHENNAI AND LET OUT THOSE PROPERTIES AS WELL AS MAKE ADVANCES UPON THE SECURITY OF LANDS AND BUILDINGS OR OTHER PROPERTIES OR ANY INTEREST THEREIN. WHAT WE EMPHASISE IS THAT HOLDING THE AFORESAID PROPERTIES AND EARNING INCOME BY LETTING OUT THOSE PROPERTIES IS THE MAIN OBJECTIVE OF THE COMPANY. IT MAY BE FURTHER BE RECORDED THAT IN THE RETURN THAT WAS FILED, ENTIRE INCOME WHICH ACCRUED AND WAS ASSESSED IN THE SAID RETURN WAS FROM LETTING OUT OF THESE PROPERTIES. IT IS SO RECORDED AND ACCEPT ED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER HIMSELF IN HIS ORDER. I.T.A. NO. 142 / HYD / 20 1 5 : - 13 - : IT TRANSPIRES THAT THE RETURN OF A TOTAL INCOME OF RS. 244030 WAS FILED FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR IN QUESTION THAT IS ASSESSMENT YEAR 1983 - 1984 AND THE ENTIRE INCOME WAS THROUGH LETTING OUT OF THE AFORESAID TWO PROPERTIES NAMELY, CHENNAI HOUSE AND FIRHAVIN ESTATE. THUS, THERE IS NO OTHER INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE EXCEPT THE INCOME FROM LETTING OUT OF THESE TWO PROPERTIES. WE HAVE TO DECIDE THE ISSUE KEEPING IN MIND THE AFORESAID ASPECTS. WITH THIS BACKG ROUND, WE FIRST REFER TO THE JUDGMENT OF THIS COURT IN EAST INDIA HOUSING AND LAND DEVELOPMENT TRUST LTDS CASE WHICH HAS BEEN RELIED UPON BY THE HIGH COURT. THAT WAS A CASE WHERE THE COMPANY WAS INCORPORATED WITH THE OBJECT OF BUYING AND DEVELOPING LANDE D PROPERTIES AND PROMOTING AND DEVELOPING MARKETS. THUS, THE MAIN OBJECTIVE OF THE COMPANY WAS TO DEVELOP THE LANDED PROPERTIES INTO MARKETS. IT SO HAPPENED THAT SOME SHOPS AND STALLS, WHICH WERE DEVELOPED BY IT, HAD BEEN RENTED OUT AND INCOME WAS DERIVE D FROM THE RENTING OF THE SAID SHOPS AND STALLS. IN THOSE FACTS, THE QUESTION AROSE FOR CONSIDERATION WAS: WHETHER THE RENTAL INCOME THAT IS RECEIVED WAS TO BE TREATED AS INCOME FROM THE HOUSE PROPERTY OR THE INCOME FROM THE BUSINESS. THIS COURT WHILE HO LDING THAT THE INCOME SHALL BE TREATED AS INCOME FROM THE HOUSE PROPERTY, RESTED ITS DECISION IN THE CONTEXT OF THE MAIN OBJECTIVE OF THE COMPANY AND TOOK NOTE OF THE FACT THAT LETTING OUT OF THE PROPERTY WAS NOT THE OBJECT OF THE COMPANY AT ALL. THE COUR T WAS THEREFORE, OF THE OPINION THAT THE CHARACTER OF THAT INCOME WAS FROM THE HOUSE PROPERTY HAD NOT ALTERED BECAUSE IT WAS RECEIVED BY THE COMPANY FORMED WITH THE OBJECT OF DEVELOPING AND SETTING UP PROPERTIES. BEFORE WE REFER TO THE CONSTITUTION BENCH JUDGMENT IN THE CASE OF SULTAN BROTHERS (P) LTD ., WE WOULD BE WELL ADVISED TO DISCUSS THE LAW LAID DOWN AUTHORITATIVELY AND SUCCINCTLY BY THIS COURT IN KARANPURA DEVELOPMENT CO. LTD., V. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, WEST BENGAL [44 ITR 362 (SC)]. THAT W AS ALSO A CASE WHERE THE COMPANY, WHICH WAS THE ASSESSEE, WAS FORMED WITH THE OBJECT, INTER ALIA, OF ACQUIRING AND DISPOSING OF THE UNDERGROUND COAL MINING RIGHTS IN CERTAIN COAL FIELDS AND IT HAD RESTRICTED ITS ACTIVITIES TO ACQUIRING COAL MINING LEASES O VER LARGE AREAS, DEVELOPING THEM AS COAL FIELDS AND THEN SUB - LEASING THEM TO COLLIERIES AND OTHER COMPANIES. THUS, IN THE SAID CASE, THE LEASING OUT OF THE COAL FIELDS TO THE COLLIERIES AND OTHER COMPANIES WAS THE BUSINESS OF THE ASSESSEE. THE INCOME WHI CH WAS RECEIVED FROM LETTING OUT OF THOSE MINING LEASES WAS SHOWN AS BUSINESS INCOME. DEPARTMENT TOOK THE POSITION THAT IT IS TO BE TREATED AS INCOME FROM THE HOUSE PROPERTY. IT WOULD BE THUS, CLEAR THAT IN SIMILAR CIRCUMSTANCES, IDENTICAL ISSUE AROSE BE FORE THE COURT. THIS COURT FIRST DISCUSSED THE SCHEME OF THE INCOME TAX ACT AND PARTICULARLY SIX HEADS UNDER WHICH INCOME CAN BE CATE G ORIZED/CLASSIFIED. IT WAS POINTED OUT THAT BEFORE INCOME, PROFITS OR GAINS CAN BE BROUGHT TO COMPUTATION, THEY HAVE TO B E ASSIGNED TO ONE OR THE OTHER HEAD. THESE HEADS ARE IN A SENSE EXCLUSIVE OF ONE ANOTHER AND INCOME WHICH FALLS WITHIN ONE HEAD CANNOT BE ASSIGNED TO, OR TAXED UNDER, ANOTHER HEAD. THEREAFTER, THE COURT POINTED OUT THAT THE DECIDING I.T.A. NO. 142 / HYD / 20 1 5 : - 14 - : FACTOR IS NOT THE OWN ERSHIP OF LAND OR LEASE BUT THE NATURE OF THE ACTIVITY OF THE ASSESSEE AND THE NATURE OF THE OPERATIONS IN RELATION TO THEM. IT WAS HIGHLIGHTED AND STRESSED THAT THE OBJECTS OF THE COMPANY MUST ALSO BE KEPT IN VIEW TO INTERPRET THE ACTIVITIES. IN SUPPORT OF THE AFORESAID PROPOSITION, NUMBER OF JUDGMENTS OF OTHER JURISDICTIONS, I.E. PRIVY COUNSEL, HOUSE OF LORDS IN ENGLAND AND US CORUTS WERE TAKEN NOTE OF. THE POSITION IN LAW, ULTIMATELY, IS SUMMED UP IN THE FOLLOWING WORDS: - AS HAS BEEN ALREADY POINT ED OUT IN CONNECTION WITH THE OTHER TWO CASES WHERE THERE IS A LETTING OUT OF PREMISES AND COLLECTION OF RENTS THE ASSESSMENT ON PROPERTY BASIS MAY BE CORRECT BUT NOT SO, WHERE THE LETTING OR SUB - LETTING IS PART OF A TRADING OPERATION. THE DIVING LINE IS DIFFICULT TO FIND; BUT IN THE CASE OF A COMPANY WITH ITS PROFESSED OBJECTS AND THE MANNER OF ITS ACTIVITIES AND THE NATURE OF ITS DEALINGS WITH ITS PROPERTY, IT IS POSSIBLE TO SAY ON WHICH SIDE THE OPERATIONS FALL AND TO WHAT HEAD THE INCOME IS TO BE ASSIG NED. AFTER APPLYING THE AFORESAID PRINCIPLE TO THE FACTS, WHICH WERE THERE BEFORE THE COURT, IT CAME TO THE CONCLUSION THAT INCOME HAD TO BE TREATED AS INCOME FROM BUSINESS AND NOT AS INCOME FROM HOUSE PROPERTY. WE ARE OF THE OPINION THAT THE AFORESAID JUDGMENT IN KARAMPURA DEVELOPMENT CO. LTD.,S CASE SQUARELY APPLIES TO THE FACTS OF THE PRESENT CASE. NO DOUBT IN SULTAN BROTHERS (P) LTDS CASE, CONSTITUTION BENCH JUDGMENT OF THIS COURT HAS CLARIFIED THAT MERELY AN ENTRY IN THE OBJECT CLAUSE SHOWING A PARTICULAR OBJECT WOULD NOT BE THE DETERMINATIVE FACTOR TO ARRIVE AT AN CONCLUSION WHETHER THE INCOME IS TO BE TREATED AS INCOME FROM BUSINESS AND SUCH A QUESTION WOULD DEPEND UPON THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF EACH CASE, VIZ., WHETHER A PARTICULAR BUSINESS IS LETT ING OR NOT. THIS IS SO STATED IN THE FOLLOWING WORDS: WE THINK EACH CASE HAS TO BE LOOKED AT FROM A BUSINESSMANS POINT OF VIEW TO FIND OUT WHETHER THE LETTING WAS THE DOING OF A BUSINESS OR THE EXPLOITATION OF HIS PROPERTY BY AN OWNER. WE DO NOT FURTH ER THINK THAT A THING CAN BY ITS VERY NATURE BE A COMMERCIAL ASSET. A COMMERCIAL ASSET IS ONLY AN ASSET USED IN A BUSINESS AND NOTHING ELSE, AND BUSINESS MAY BE CARRIED ON WITH PRACTICALLY ALL THINGS. THEREFORE, IT IS NOT POSSIBLE TO SAY THAT A PARTICULA R ACTIVITY IS BUSINESS BECAUSE IT IS CONCERNED WITH AN ASSET WITH WHICH TRADE IS COMMONLY CARRIED ON. WE FIND NOTHING IN THE CASES REFERRED, TO SUPPORT THE PROPOSITION THAT CERTAIN ASSETS ARE COMMERCIAL ASSETS IN THEIR VERY NATURE. WE ARE CONSCIOUS OF THE AFORESAID DICTA LAID DOWN BY THE CONSTITUTION BENCH JUDGMENT. IT IS FOR THIS REASON, WE HAVE, AT THE BEGINNING OF THIS JUDGMENT, STATED THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE PRESENT CASE FROM WHICH WE ARRIVE AT IRRESISTIBLE CONCLUSION THAT IN THIS CASE, LETTING OF THE PROPERTIES IS IN FACT IS THE BUSINESS OF THE ASSESSEE. T HE ASSESSEE THEREFORE, RIGHTLY DISCLOSED THE INCOME UNDER THE HEAD INCOME FROM BUSINESS. IT CANNOT BE TREATED AS INCOME FROM THE HOUSE PROPERTY. WE, ACCORDINGLY, ALLOW THIS APPEAL AND SET AS IDE THE JUDGMENT OF THE HIGH I.T.A. NO. 142 / HYD / 20 1 5 : - 15 - : COURT AND RESTORE THAT OF THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL. NO ORDERS AS TO COSTS . 1 2 . SINCE, ASSESSEE - COMPANY HAS COME INTO EXISTENCE AS JOINT VENTURE WITH GOVERNMENT OF ANDHRA PRADESH FOR DEVELOPMENT OF A BIOTECHNOLOGY P ARK AND ITS OBJECTS AND ACTIVITIES ARE COMMERCIAL IN NATURE, WE, FOLLOWING THE PRINCIPLES LAID DOWN ON THIS ISSUE, AS STATED ABOVE, CONFIRM THE ORDER OF LD. CIT(A) AND REJECT THE GROUNDS AS RAISED BY REVENUE. 1 3 . IN THE RESULT, APPEAL OF REVENUE IS DISMI SSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 29 TH APRIL, 2016 SD/ - SD/ - (P. MADHAVI DEVI) (B. RAMAKOTAIAH) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER HYDERABAD, DATED 29 TH APRIL , 2016 TNMM COPY TO : 1 . DY. COMMISS IONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE - 1 ( 1 ), 4 TH FLOOR, AAYAKAR BHAVAN, BASHEERBAGH, H YDERABAD. 2 . M/S. ALEXANDRIA KNOWLEDGE PARK PVT. LTD., 3 RD FLOOR, STANFORD PARK, ROAD NO. 02, BANJARA HILLS, HYDERABAD. 3 . CIT(APPEALS) - II , HYDERABAD. 4. CIT - I , HYDERABAD. 5 . D.R. ITAT, HYDERABAD. 6 . GUARD FILE.