Ushodaya Enterprises Ltd, Hyderabad V. DCIT, Hyderabad

ITA 1535/HYD/2010

• Counselvise Citation: [2013] 120 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 2766 (ITAT-HYDERABAD)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 year(s) 5 month(s) 1 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 10-05-2013
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Assessment Year: 2007-2008
• Appeal Filed On: 09-12-2010
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: D SUDHAKAR RAO
• Assessee Lawyers: V SIVA KUMAR
• Keywords: Depreciation; Bad and doubtful debts; Revenue expenditure
• Section: 194C

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL HYDERABAD BENCH B', HYDERABAD BEFORE SHRI CHANDRA POOJARI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SMT. ASHA VIJAYARAGHAVAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA NO.1535/HYD/10 : A SSTT. YEAR 2007-08 M/S. USHODAYA ENTERPRISES, LTD., HYDERABAD ( PAN - AAACU 2690 F) V/S. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE 16(2), HYDERABAD (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) ITA NO.1552/HYD/10 : A SSTT. YEAR 2007-08 ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME- TAX, CIRCLE 16(2), HYDERABAD V/S. M/S. USHODAYA ENTERPRISES, LTD., HYDERABAD ( PAN - AAACU 2690 F) (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) ASSESSEE BY : SHRI V.SIVA KUMAR RESPONDENT BY : SHRI D.SUDHAKAR RAO CIT-DR DATE OF HEARING 22.03.2013 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT 10.05.2013 O R D E R PER SMT. ASHA VIJAYARAGHAVAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER: THESE ARE CROSS-APPEALS FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2007-08. THEY ARE DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE COMMISSIONER OF I NCOME-TAX(APPEALS) V, HYDERABAD. SINCE COMMON ISSUES ARE INVOLVED, THESE APPEALS ARE BEING DISPOSED OFF, WITH THIS COMMON ORDER FOR THE SAKE OF CONVENI ENCE. ITA NO.1535 & 1552/ HYD/20 10 M/S. USHODAYA ENTERPRISES, LTD., HYDERABAD . 2 ASSESSEES APPEAL : ITA 1535/HYD/2010 2. GROUNDS NO.1 AND 5 ARE GENERAL IN NATURE AND DO NOT CALL FOR SEPARATE ADJUDICATION. GROUNDS NO.2(A) TO 2(E) RELATE TO T HE DISALLOWANCE OUT OF MADE UNDER S.40A(IA) OF THE ACT. 3. FACTS OF THE CASE IN BRIEF IN RELATION TO THIS ISSUE ARE THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER TREATED THE ASSESSEE AS DEFAULTER UNDER S.2 01(1) R.W.S. 194 C FOR NON- DEDUCTION OF TDS ON COST OF TELEVISION PROGRAMMES, PAID BY IT TO M/S. USHA KIRON TELEVISION, M/S. USHA KIRON MOVIES AND OTHER PARTI ES HOLDING THAT THE PROVISIONS OF S.194C ARE ATTRACTED TO SUCH PAYMENTS, FINDING N O MERIT IN THE CONTENTION OF THE ASSESSEE THAT THE PAYMENTS IN QUESTION DID NOT REPR ESENT THE COST OF THE PROGRAMMES, SINCE PROGRAMMES WERE NOT PRODUCED FOR THE ASSESSEE, AND THE ASSESSEE MERELY TELECAST THE PROGRAMMES PRODUCED AN D OWNED BY THOSE PARTIES. 4. ON APPEAL, THE CIT(A) UPHELD THE DISALLOWANCE MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. 5. THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE, REITERATI NG THE CONTENTIONS URGED BEFORE THE LOWER AUTHORITIES SUBMITTED THAT M/S. US HA KIRON TELEVISION IS ENGAGED IN THE BUSINESS OF PRODUCTION OF TV SERIALS AND M/ S. USHA KIRON MOVIES IS THE IN THE BUSINESS OF PRODUCTION OF TV SERIALS AND MOVIE S. ONE OF THE ACTIVITIES OF THE ASSESSEE IS TELECASTING VARIOUS PROGRAMMES IN ITS T V CHANNELS. THE ASSESSEE ENTERED INTO AN AGREEMENT WITH MS/. USHA KIRON TELE VISION, M/S. USHA KIRON MOVIES AND OTHER PARTIES FOR TELECASTING THEIR PROG RAMMES THROUGH THE ASSESSEES TV CHANNELS ON AN UNDERSTANDING THAT THE REVENUE GE NERATED ON ADVERTISEMENTS FOR TIME SLOTS DURING TELECASTING OF THE PROGRAMMES SUPPORTED BY THE SAID PARTIES SHALL BE SHARED BETWEEN THEM. THEREFORE, THE ASSESS EE SUBMITTED THAT IT HAD NOT ENTERED INTO ANY AGREEMENT FOR PRODUCTION OF ANY PR OGRAMME WITH MS/. USHA KIRON TELEVISION, M/S. USHA KIRON MOVIES AND OTHER PARTIE S. THE ASSESSEE ALSO SUBMITTED THAT THE SAID PARTIES ARE ABSOLUTE OWNERS OVER THEI R PROGRAMMES, FEATURE FILMS, SERIALS ETC. AND THE ASSESSEE IS NOT OWNING THE RIG HTS OVER THEIR PROGRAMMES EXCEPT TELECASTING THEIR PROGRAMMES IN ITS TV CHANNELS. TH E ASSESSEE ALSO FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT THE REVENUE PAID TO M/S. USHA KIRON TELEVISION, M/S. USHA KIRAN ITA NO.1535 & 1552/ HYD/20 10 M/S. USHODAYA ENTERPRISES, LTD., HYDERABAD . 3 MOVIES AND OTHER PARTIES OUT OF ADVERTISEMENT REVEN UE FROM THE TIME SLOTS IN TELECASTING THE PROGRAMMES IS NOT TOWARDS COST OF P ROGRAMMES, SERIALS, ETC. IN THIS CONNECTION, ASSESSEE FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT IT HAD CREDITED THE GROSS REVENUE GENERATED DURING THE SAID PROGRAMMES AND DEBITED HE AMOUNT PAID TO THE SAID PARTIES TO PROFIT & LOSS ACCOUNT UNDER THE HEAD C OST OF TV PROGRAMMES FOR ACCOUNTING PURPOSES. IN FACT, IT WOULD HAVE BEEN E NOUGH IF THE ASSESSEE HAD CREDITED ITS SHARE OF REVENUE TO ITS PROFIT AND LOS S ACCOUNT INSTEAD OF PASSING ENTRIES AS STATED ABOVE. IN THIS VIEW OF THE MATER , IT WAS SUBMITTED THAT THE PROVISIONS OF S.194C ARE NOT ATTRACTED TO THE TRANS ACTIONS BETWEEN THE ASSESSEE AND M/S.USHA KIRON TELEVISION M/S. USHA KIRON MOVIE S AND OTHERS FOR THE REASONS THAT THESE PARTIES DID NOT CARRY OUT ANY WORK FOR THE ASSESSEE, WITHIN THE MEANING OF S.194C OF THE ACT. HE FURTHER RELIED ON THE DE CISION OF THE SPECIAL BENCH OF THE TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF MERILYN SHIPPING & TRANSPO RTS, VISAKHAPATNAM V/S. ADDL. CIT(136 ITD 23)(VSP), AND SUBMITTED THAT THE DISALL OWANCE MADE IN TERMS OF S.40(A)(IA) OF THE ACT IN THIS CASE IS NOT JUSTIFIE D. 6. THE LEARNED DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE ON THE CONTRARY, BESIDES CONTESTING ON THE MERITS OF THE APPLICABILITY OF TH E TDS PROVISIONS, POINTED OUT THAT THE HONBLE HIGH COURT HAS GRANTED INTERIM STAY ON THE SPECIAL BENCH DECISION OF THE TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF MERILYN SHIPPING & TRAN SPORTS (SUPRA), ON THE I.T.T.A.M.P.NO.908 OF 2012 IN I.T.T.A. NO.384 OF 20 12 PREFERRED BY THE REVENUE. 7. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND PE RUSED THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD. THE MAIN CONTENTION OF THE AS SESSEE IS THAT THE PARTIES TO WHOM THE PAYMENTS WERE MADE, HAVE NOT DONE ANY WORK FOR THE ASSESSEE, AND THE ASSESSEE HAS MERELY TELECAST THE PROGRAMMES PRODUCE D BY THOSE PARTIES, AND AS SUCH, FOR THE PAYMENTS IN QUESTION MADE BY THE ASSE SSEE, THE TDS PROVISIONS ARE NOT ATTRACTED. WE FIND THAT THIS MAIN PLEA OF THE ASSESSEE WAS ALSO DECIDED BY THE CIT(A) FOLLOWING HIS APPELLATE ORDER FOR THE ASSESS MENT YEAR 2006-07, AND THE VIEW TAKEN BY THE CIT(A) IN THAT BEHALF FOR THAT YEAR HA S BEEN UPHELD BY THE TRIBUNAL VIDE PARA 48 OF ITS ORDER DATED 22.3.2012 AMONG OT HERS IN ITA NO.1701/HYD/2008, WHICH READS AS FOLLOWS- ITA NO.1535 & 1552/ HYD/20 10 M/S. USHODAYA ENTERPRISES, LTD., HYDERABAD . 4 48. WE HEARD BOTH THE PARTIES AND PERUSED THE MATERIALS AVAILABLE ON RECORD. FROM THE PROFIT AND LOSS ACCOUNT IT WAS SEEN THAT IN THE ETV TELUGU DIVISION AND ETV OTHER CHANNEL DIVISION, THE ASSESSEE HAS MADE PAYMENTS TOWARDS SOFTWARE EXPENSES. THESE PAYM ENTS ARE FURTHER SUBDIVIDED INTO REVENUE SHARE. OTHER PROGRAMMES AND DIRECT PURCHASES. EXPENSES TOWARDS REVENUE SHARES ARE TOWARDS THE AGREED COST FOR PRODUCTION OF TV SERIALS/PROGRAMMES. FROM THE AGREEMENTS WITH OTHER PARTIES, IT CAN BE CONCLUDED THAT THE ASSESSEE IS ASSOCIATING ITSELF WITH THE PRODUCE RS FOR GETTING THE PROGRAMMES TELECASTED ON ETCV CHANNEL AND THEREBY THE ASSESSEE GETS AS SOURCE FOR GENERAT ING ADVERTISEMENT REVENUE. HENCE, THE ASSESSEE IS MAKI NG PAYMENTS TO VARIOUS AGENCIES ON REVENUE SHARING BAS IS FROM THE INCOME GENERATED THROUGH ADVERTISEMENTS BY WAY OF TELECASTING THE SERIALS OR PROGRAMMES PRODUC ED BY THE AGENCIES. THE MODE OF PAYMENT IS NOTHING BUT A PAYMENT FOR CONTRACT OF WORK AND IS SQUARELY COVERE D BY EXPLANATION III TO SECTION 194C WHICH SAYS WORK SHALL INCLUDE PROGRAMMES FOR SUCH BROADCASTING OR TELECASTING. IN VIEW OF THE SAME, WE HOLD THAT THE NATURE OF PAYMENTS FALL WITHIN THE PURVIEW OF SECTI ON 194C. THEREFORE, WE UPHOLD THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A) ON THIS ISSUE. AS SUCH, WE DO NOT FIND ANY INFIRMITY IN THE IMPUGN ED ORDER OF THE CIT(A), INSOFAR IT RELATED TO MERITS OF THE CASE AS TO THE APPLICABILI TY OF TDS PROVISIONS TO THE PAYMENTS IN QUESTION IS CONCERNED. 8. IT IS FURTHER PLEADED THAT THE ISSUE RELATING TO APPLICABILITY OF PROVISIONS OF S.40(A)(IA) IS COVERED BY THE SPECIAL BENCH DECISION OF THE TRIBUNAL (VISAKHAPATNAM BENCH) IN THE CASE OF MERILYN SHIPPI NG & TRANSPORTS (SUPRA), SINCE. THE TRIBUNAL, IN ASSESSEES OWN CASE FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2006-07, FOLLOWING THE SPECIAL BENCH DECISION OF THE TRIBUNA L IN THE CASE OF MERILYN SHIPPING AND TRANSPORTS (SUPRA), HAS ACCEPTED THE CLAIM OF T HE ASSESSEE, AND DELETED THE DISALLOWANCE MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. HOWEV ER, AS HAS BEEN BROUGHT TO OUR NOTICE BY THE LEARNED DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE, THE HONBLE HIGH COURT IS NOW SEIZED OF THE MATTER, HAVING GRANTED INTERIM STAY A GAINST THE SAID DECISION OF THE TRIBUNAL. IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES, WE SET ASIDE THE I MPUGNED ORDER OF THE CIT(A) ON ITA NO.1535 & 1552/ HYD/20 10 M/S. USHODAYA ENTERPRISES, LTD., HYDERABAD . 5 THIS ISSUE, AND RESTORE THE MATTER TO THE FILE OF T HE ASSESSING OFFICER, TO RECONSIDER THE MATTER AFRESH IN CONSONANCE WITH THE VIEW THAT THE HONBLE HIGH COURT MAY TAKE ON THIS ISSUE. THE ASSESSING OFFICER SHALL OF COURSE AFFORD REASONABLE OPPORTUNITY OF HEARING TO THE ASSESSEE, AND THEREAF TER PASS APPROPRIATE ORDER IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW. 9. THE NEXT ISSUE, WHICH IS INVOLVED IN GROUND NO. 3 OF THE ASSESSEE IS WITH REGARD TO DISALLOWANCE OF PRIOR PERIOD EXPENSES OF RS.2,38,85,000. 10 FACTS OF THE CASE IN RELATION TO THIS ISSUE AR E THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS ADDED AN AMOUNT OF RS.2,38,85,000 ON THE GROUND THAT THE EXPENDITURE DOES NOT PERTAIN TO THE YEAR UNDER APPEAL. ON APPEAL BE FORE THE CIT(A), ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT THE SAID AMOUNT PERTAINS TO EXCESS A MOUNTS BILLED TO VARIOUS PARTIES IN THE EARLIER YEARS, WHICH WERE RECTIFIED, ON BEING POINTED OUT BY THE SAID PARTIES, AND ACCORDINGLY DEBITED TO THE PROFIT & LO SS ACCOUNT. THE LEARNED AUTHORISED REPRESENTATIVE OF THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED AN DETAILS BEFORE THE CIT(A), CLARIFYING THE NATURE OF THE AMOUNTS AND ALLOWABILI TY OF DEDUCTION IN RESPECT THEREOF. THE CIT(A), NOT FINDING MERIT IN THE CONT ENTIONS OF THE ASSESSEE, UPHELD THE ACTION OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN DISALLOWING THE AMOUNT OF RS.2,38,85,000 ON THE GROUND THAT THE EXPENDITURE IN QUESTION DOES NO T PERTAIN TO THE YEAR UNDER APPEAL, AND THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT INCURRED ANY EXP, BUT HAS WRITTEN OFF INCOME OF EARLIER YEARS. 11. BEFORE US, ON APPEAL, THE LEARNED COUNSEL F OR THE ASSESSEE, SHRI SIVA KUMAR, SUBMITTED THAT THE CIT(A) HAS NOT APPRECIATE D THAT IN THE EARLIER ASSESSMENT YEARS, BILLS WERE RAISED TO THE EXTENT OF RS.2,38,85,000, TOWARDS ADVERTISEMENTS FOR PRIME TIME SLOTS ON CERTAIN PART IES, BUT AS THE SAID PROGRAMMES WERE NOT TELECAST, DURING THE PRIME TIME OR TELECAS T FOR LESSER NUMBER OF TIMES THAN AGREED UPON, AND WHEN THE PARTIES POINTED OUT SUCH MISTAKES/DISCREPANCIES, THEY WERE GIVEN CREDIT FOR EXCESS AMOUNTS BILLED AGAINS T THEM, BY DEBITING TO PRIOR PERIOD EXPENSES. HENCE, THE CIT(A), ACCORDING TO H IM, ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE DISALLOWANCE ON THE GROUND THAT THE EXPENDITURE IS NOT RELATING TO THIS YEAR, AND THE INCOME IS WRITTEN OFF. ALTERNATIVELY, THE LEAR NED COUNSEL ARGUED THAT SINCE THE EXCESS BILLING OF RS.2,11,34,759 OUT OF RS.2,38,85, 000 WAS OFFERED TO TAX IN THE ITA NO.1535 & 1552/ HYD/20 10 M/S. USHODAYA ENTERPRISES, LTD., HYDERABAD . 6 EARLIER YEARS, AND IT IS WRITTEN OFF TO PROFIT & LO SS ACCOUNT IN THE YEAR UNDER APPEAL AS PRIOR PERIOD ADJUSTMENT, THE SAME SHOULD BE ALLO WED AS DEDUCTION AS BAD DEBT, SINCE SUCH AMOUNTS WERE CONSIDERED AS INCOME IN EAR LIER YEARS. 12. THE LEARNED DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE ON THE OTHER HAND, OPPOSING THE ABOVE CONTENTIONS OF THE ASSESSEE ON THIS ISSUE , SUPPORTED THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A). 13. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND P ERUSED THE ORDERS OF THE LOWER AUTHORITIES. THOUGH IN PRINCIPLE, WE ARE AGREEMENT WITH THE DISALLOWANCE MADE BY THE REVENUE AUTHORITIES, WE FIND MERIT IN T HE ALTERNATIVE CONTENTION OF THE ASSESSEE. INASMUCH AS IF AN AMOUNT OF RS.2,11,34,7 59 OUT OF TOTAL AMOUNT OF RS.2,38,85,000 WAS ALREADY OFFERED TO TAX IN THE EA RLIER YEARS, THE PRIOR PERIOD ADJUSTMENT MADE IN THAT BEHALF BY THE ASSESSEE, ON ACCOUNT OF THE CONCERNED PARTIES DECLINING TO MAKE THE PAYMENTS DUE TO DISCR EPANCIES IN THE BILLING, THE SAME SHOULD BE ALLOWED AS DEDUCTION AS BAD DEBTS. WE THEREFORE, SET ASIDE THE IMPUGNED ORDER OF THE CIT(A) AND DIRECT THE ASSESSI NG OFFICER ACCORDINGLY TO RESTRICT THE DISALLOWANCE MADE. ASSESSEES GROUNDS ON THIS I SSUE ARE PARTLY ALLOWED. 14. IN GROUND NO.4, THE GRIEVANCE OF THE ASSESSEE IS WITH REGARD TO CONFIRMATION BY THE CIT(A) OF THE ACTION OF THE ASS ESSING OFFICER IN COMPUTING THE BOOK PROFIT UNDER S.115JB OF THE ACT. THIS GROUND H AS BECOME INFRUCTUOUS CONSEQUENT TO OUR FINDING IN PARA 13 ABOVE WHEREIN WE HAVE HELD THAT PRIOR PERIOD EXPENSES HAS TO BE ALLOWED AS REVENUE EXPENDITURE I F RELATED INCOME HAS BEEN OFFERED TO TAX IN THE EARLIER ASSESSMENT YEAR. 15. IN THE RESULT, ASSESSEES APPEAL IS PARTLY ALL OWED. REVENUES APPEAL : ITA 1552/HYD/2010 16. GROUNDS NO.1 AND 7 ARE GENERAL AND DO NOT CALL FOR SEPARATE ADJUDICATION. THE FIRST ISSUE INVOLVED, COVERED BY GROUNDS NO.2 TO 4, RELATES TO DISALLOWANCE OF COMMISSION PAYMENTS IN TERMS OF S.40(A)(IA) OF THE ACT, ON ACCOUNT OF NON-COMPLIANCE WITH THE TDS PROVISIONS O F S.194H OF THE ACT. ITA NO.1535 & 1552/ HYD/20 10 M/S. USHODAYA ENTERPRISES, LTD., HYDERABAD . 7 17. AT THE OUTSET, IT HAS BEEN BROUGHT TO OUR NOTI CE THAT THIS ISSUE IS COVERED BY THE DECISIONS OF THE TRIBUNAL IN ASSESSE ES OWN CASE FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2006-07 IN ITA NO.426/HYD2010 DATED 9.7.2012, WHICH IN TURN HAS FOLLOWED THE STILL EARLIER DECISION OF THE TRIBUNAL IN ASSESSEES OWN CASE FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEARS 2004-05 TO 2006-07, V IDE ORDER DATED 22.3.2012, REFERRED TO ABOVE. COPIES OF BOTH THE D ECISIONS OF THE TRIBUNAL HAVE BEEN FURNISHED BEFORE US. IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY DECISION TO THE CONTRARY BROUGHT TO OUR NOTICE BY THE REVENUE, FOLL OWING THE CONSISTENT VIEW TAKEN BY THE TRIBUNAL IN ASSESSEES OWN CASES FOR T HE EARLIER YEARS NOTED ABOVE, WE DO NOT FIND ANY INFIRMITY IN THE IMPUGNED ORDER OF THE CIT(A). WE ACCORDINGLY UPHOLD THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A) ON THIS ISSUE AND REJECT THE GROUNDS OF THE REVENUE ON THIS ISSUE. 18. THE NEXT ISSUE INVOLVED, COVERED BY GROUNDS NO .5 TO 6, RELATES TO RATE OF DEPRECIATION APPLICABLE TO ACCESSORIES OF C OMPUTER, WHICH HAS BEEN HELD TO BE 15% BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER, AS AGAINST THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE AT 60%. 19. AT THE OUTSET, IT HAS BEEN BROUGHT TO OUR NOTI CE THAT THIS ISSUE IS COVERED BY THE DECISION OF THE TRIBUNAL IN ASSESSEE S OWN CASE FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2006-07 IN ITA NO.426/HYD2010 DATED 9.7.2012, WHEREIN THE TRIBUNAL FOLLOWING THE DECISION OF THE HONBLE DELHI HIGH COURT IN ASST. CIT V/S. AMADEUS INDIA (P) LTD. (79 ITD 407), UPHEL D THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A) IN ACCEPTING THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE FOR DEPRECIA TION ON COMPUTER ACCESSORIES AND PERIPHERALS AT 60% AND THUS DECIDIN G THIS ISSUE IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE FOR THAT YEAR. IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY DECISION TO THE CONTRARY BROUGHT TO OUR NOTICE BY THE REVENUE, FOLLOWING THE VIEW TAKEN BY THE TRIBUNAL IN ASSESSEES OWN CASE FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2006-07, WE DO NOT FIND ANY INFIRMITY IN THE IMPUGNED ORDER OF THE CIT (A). WE ACCORDINGLY UPHOLD THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A) ON THIS ISSUE AND REJECT TH E GROUNDS OF THE REVENUE ON THIS ISSUE. ITA NO.1535 & 1552/ HYD/20 10 M/S. USHODAYA ENTERPRISES, LTD., HYDERABAD . 8 20. IN THE RESULT, REVENUES APPEAL IS DISMISSED. 21. TO SUM UP, ASSESSEES APPEAL ITA NO.1535/HYD/2 010 IS PARTLY ALLOWED, AND REVENUES APPEAL ITA NO.1552/HYD/2010 IS DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE COURT ON 10.05.2013 SD/- SD/- (CHANDRA POOJARI) (ASHA VIJAYARAGHAVAN) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER DT/- 10 TH MAY, 2013 COPY FORWARDED TO: 1. M/S. USHODAYA ENTERPRISES, LTD., 6-3-570, SOMAJI GUDA, HYDERABAD 2. DY./ ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME - TAX 16(2), HYDERABAD 3. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX(APPEALS) V, HYDERABAD 4. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX IV HYDERABAD 5. DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE, ITAT, HYDERABAD. B.V.S