M/s Ybrant Digital Limited, Hyderabad V. DCIT, Cir-3(3), Hyderabad

ITA 1769/HYD/2012

• Counselvise Citation: [2014] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 74661 (ITAT-HYDERABAD)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 2 month(s) 29 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 05-03-2014
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Bench Allotted: B
• Assessment Year: 2008-2009
• Appeal Filed On: 07-12-2012
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: D SUDHAKAR RAO
• Keywords: Depreciation; Transfer pricing; Earning of tax free income; Difference of opinion; Change of opinion
• Section: 43B; 14A; 28; 139

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.1769/HYD/12 : ASSESSMENT YEAR 2008 - 09 M/S. YBRANT DIGIT AL LIMITED, HYDERABAD ( PAN - AAACU 4079 Q) V/S. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME - TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE 4, HYDERABAD (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY : SHRI MURALI MOHAN RAO RESPONDENT BY : SHRI D . SUDHAKAR RAO DR DATE OF HEARING 06.1.2014 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT O R D E R PER SMT. ASHA VIJAYARAGHAVAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER: THIS APPEAL BY THE ASSESSEE IS DIRECTED AGAINST THE ASSESSMENT ORDER DATED 22.10.2012, PASSED BY THE DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME - TAX CIRCLE 3(3), HYDERABAD UNDER S.143(3) READ WITH S.144C OF THE ACT FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2008 - 09, IN PURSUANCE OF THE DIRECTIONS OF THE DISPUTES RESOLUTION PANEL, HYDERABAD DATED 28.9.2012. 2. THE FIRST EFFECTIVE GROUND OF THE ASSESSEE IN THIS APPEAL RELATES TO ADD ITIONS MADE ON ACCOUNT OF DELAYED REMITTANCE OF EMPLOYEES PROVIDENT FUND CONTRIBUTIONS COLLECTED FROM EMPLOYEES OF RS.11,78,679 AND ESI SUBSCRIPTIONS OF RS.52,463 UNDER S.36(1)(VA) READ WITH S.2(24)(X) OF THE ACT. 3. WE HEARD BOTH SIDES AND PERUSED THE ORDERS OF THE REVENUE AUTHORITIES. THERE IS NO DISPUTE WITH REGARD TO THE DELAY IN THE REMITTANCE OF THE ABOVE AMOUNTS TO THE CONCERNED AUTHORITIES BY THE ASSESSEE, BUT IT IS THE CONTENTION OF THE ASSESSEE THAT SINCE SUCH REMITTANCES HAVE BEEN MADE BEFOR E ITA NO. 1769/ HYD/20 12 M/S. VYBRANT DIGITAL LIMITED, HYDERABAD 2 THE FILING OF THE RETURN OF INCOME, IT IS AN ALLOWABLE EXPENDITURE AND NO ADDITION IS CALLED FOR. IN SUPPORT OF THIS CONTENTION, RELIANCE IS PLACED ON THE FOLLOWING DECISIONS - (A) ACIT V/S. SHAKTI BHOG FOODS PVT. LTD. (ITA NO.2777 TO 2781/DEL/2010) (B) ACIT V/S. RANBAXY LABORATORIES LIMITED (ITA NO.3599/DEL/2009 (C) CIT V/S. SABARI ENTERPRISES (298 IUTR 141) - KAR. (D) CIT V/S. AIMIL LTD. (1887 TAXMAN 265) - DEL. 4. ON CAREFUL CONSIDERATION OF THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS ON THIS ISSUE, WE FIND THAT THE ISSUE UNDER CONSIDERATION, IS COVERED IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE BY THE DECISION OF THE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT IN CIT V/S. SABARI ENTERPRISES AND OF THE DELHI HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF AIMIL LTD. (SUPRA). THE HONBLE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF SABARI ENTE RPRISES (SUPRA), HAS DEALT WITH THIS ISSUE AND DECIDED THE SAME IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE IN THE FOLLOWING MANNER - 7. AFTER HEARING THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE PARTIES, WE HAVE CAREFULLY EXAMINED THE ABOVE STATUTORY PROVISIONS OF THE ACT INCLUDING DEFIN ITION OF SECTION 2(24)(X) AND SECTIONS 36(1)(VA) AND 43B(B), WHICH READ THUS: 2(24) 'INCOME' INCLUDES (X) ANY SUM RECEIVED BY THE ASSESSEE FROM HIS EMPLOYEES AS CONTRIBUTION TO ANY PF OR SUPERANNUATION FUND OR ANY FUND SET UP UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF THE EM PLOYEES STATE INSURANCE ACT, 1948 (34 OF 1948) OR ANY OTHER FUND FOR THE WELFARE OF SUCH EMPLOYEES. 36(1) THE DEDUCTIONS PROVIDED FOR IN THE FOLLOWING CLAUSES SHALL BE ALLOWED IN RESPECT OF THE MATTERS DEALT WITH THEREIN, IN COMPUTING THE INCOME REFERRED T O IN SECTION 28 (VA) ANY SUM RECEIVED BY THE ASSESSEE FROM ANY OF HIS EMPLOYEES TO WHICH THE PROVISIONS OF SUB - CLAUSE (X) OF CLAUSE (24) OF SECTION 2 APPLY, IF SUCH SUM IS CREDITED BY THE ASSESSEE TO THE EMPLOYEE'S ACCOUNT IN THE RELEVANT FUND OR FUNDS ON OR BEFORE THE DUE DATE. EXPLANATION FOR THE PURPOSES OF THIS CLAUSE, 'DUE DATE' MEANS THE DATE BY WHICH THE ASSESSEE IS REQUIRED AS AN EMPLOYER TO CREDIT AN EMPLOYEE'S CONTRIBUTION TO THE EMPLOYEE'S ACCOUNT IN THE RELEVANT FUND UNDER ANY ACT, RULE, ORDER OR NOTIFICATION ISSUED THEREUNDER OR UNDER ANY STANDING ORDER, AWARD, CONTRACT OF SERVICE OR OTHERWISE. ITA NO. 1769/ HYD/20 12 M/S. VYBRANT DIGITAL LIMITED, HYDERABAD 3 THIS CLAUSE IS INSERTED BY FINANCE ACT WITH EFFECT FROM 1 - 4 - 1988. EXPLANATION TO THIS CLAUSE IS READ VERY CAREFULLY. 'DUE DATE' HAS BEEN EXPLAINED STATI NG THAT 'MEANS THE DATE BY WHICH THE ASSESSEE IS REQUIRED AS AN EMPLOYER TO CREDIT CONTRIBUTION TO THE EMPLOYEE'S ACCOUNT IN THE RELEVANT FUND UNDER ANY ACT, RULE OR ORDER OR NOTIFICATION ISSUED THEREUNDER OR UNDER ANY STANDING ORDER, AWARD, CONTRACT OF SE RVICE OR OTHERWISE'. PRIOR TO THE ABOVE CLAUSE WAS INSERTED TO SECTION 36 GIVING STATUTORY DEDUCTIONS OF PAYMENT OF TAX UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF THE ACT, SECTION 43B(B) WAS INSERTED BY FINANCE ACT, 1983 WHICH CAME INTO FORCE WITH EFFECT FROM 1 - 4 - 1984. THERE FORE, AGAIN THE PROVISION OF SECTION 43B(B) CLEARLY PROVIDES THAT NOTWITHSTANDING ANYTHING CONTAINED IN OTHER PROVISIONS OF THE ACT INCLUDING SECTION 36(1), CLAUSE (VA) OF THE ACT, EVEN PRIOR TO THE INSERTION OF THAT CLAUSE THE ASSESSEE IS ENTITLED TO GET STATUTORY BENEFIT OF DEDUCTION OF PAYMENT OF TAX FROM THE REVENUE. IF THAT PROVISION IS READ ALONG WITH THE FIRST PROVISO OF THE SAID SECTION WHICH WAS INSERTED BY FINANCE ACT, 1987 WHICH CAME INTO EFFECT FROM 1 - 4 - 1988, THE LETTERS NUMBERED AS CLAUSE (A) O R (C) OR (D) OR (E) OR (F) ARE OMITTED FROM THE ABOVE PROVISO AND, THEREFORE, DEDUCTION TOWARDS THE EMPLOYER'S CONTRIBUTION PAID CAN BE CLAIMED BY THE ASSESSEE. THE EXPLANATION CLAUSE (VA) OF SECTION 36 OF THE INCOME TAX ACT FURTHER MAKES IT VERY CLEAR THA T THE AMOUNT ACTUALLY PAID BY THE ASSESSEE ON OR BEFORE THE DUE DATE APPLICABLE IN THIS CASE AT THE TIME OF SUBMITTING RETURNS OF INCOME UNDER SECTION 139 OF THE ACT TO THE REVENUE IN RESPECT OF THE PREVIOUS YEAR CAN BE CLAIMED BY THE ASSESSEES FOR DEDUCTI ON OUT OF THEIR GROSS INCOME. THE ABOVESAID STATUTORY PROVISIONS OF THE INCOME TAX ACT ABUNDANTLY MAKE IT CLEAR THAT, THE CONTENTION URGED ON BEHALF OF THE REVENUE THAT DEDUCTION FROM OUT OF GROSS INCOME FOR PAYMENT OF TAX AT THE TIME OF SUBMISSION OF RETU RNS UNDER SECTION 139 IS PERMISSIBLE ONLY IF STATUTORY LIABILITY OF PAYMENT OF PF OR OTHER CONTRIBUTION FUNDS REFERRED TO IN CLAUSE (B) ARE PAID WITHIN THE DUE DATE UNDER THE RESPECTIVE STATUTORY ENACTMENTS BY THE ASSESSEES AS CONTENDED BY THE LEARNED COUN SEL FOR THE REVENUE IS NOT TENABLE IN LAW AND, THEREFORE, THE SAME CANNOT BE ACCEPTED BY US. 8. THE LEARNED COUNSEL SRI PARTHASARATHY AND DR. KRISHNA, APPEARING FOR RESPONDENTS, ALSO DREW OUR ATTENTION TO THE DELETION OF SECOND PROVISO TO SECTION 43B OF TH E INCOME TAX ACT BY FINANCE ACT, 2003 WHICH PROVISION HAS COME INTO FORCE, WITH EFFECT FROM 1 - 4 - 2004. THE RELIANCE PLACED UPON THE DECISION OF THE APEX COURT IN ALLIED MOTORS (P) LTD. V. CIT (SUPRA) AN D ALSO ON THE DECISION IN GENERAL FINANCE CO. V. CIT (SUPRA) IN RESPECT OF APPLICABILITY OF SECTION 43B(B) AND ALSO OMISSION OF CLAUSE (A) OR (C) OR (D) OR (F) REFERRED TO ABOVE OCCURRED IN THE FIRST PROVISO TO SECTION 43B, SUPPORTS THE CASE OF THE ASSESSE ES AND ALSO RELEVANT PARAS EXTRACTED FROM ALLIED MOTOR'S CASE (SUPRA) AND PARA 59 REFERRED TO SUPRA IN THIS JUDGMENT FROM THE FINANCE BILL WITH ALL FOURS SUPPORT THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEES/RESPONDENTS. THEREFORE, WE HAVE TO ANSWER THE SUBSTANTIAL QUESTION O F LAW NO. 1 FRAMED BY THIS COURT IN THESE APPEALS AT THE INSTANCE OF THE REVENUE AGAINST THEM, VIZ., IN THE NEGATIVE (SIC). ACCORDINGLY, WE ANSWER THE SUBSTANTIAL QUESTION NO. 1 FRAMED IN THESE APPEALS IN THE NEGATIVE (SIC). RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING THE RAT IO ABOVE DECISIONS, BESIDES THE CONSISTENT VIEW TAKEN BY THE COORDINATE BENCHES OF THIS TRIBUNAL NOTED ABOVE, WE DELETE THE ITA NO. 1769/ HYD/20 12 M/S. VYBRANT DIGITAL LIMITED, HYDERABAD 4 IMPUGNED ADDITIONS MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER, ALLOWING THE GROUND NO.1 OF THE ASSESSEE ON THIS ISSUE. 5. THE NEXT GRIEVANCE OF THE ASSESSEE, CONTAINED IN GROUNDS NO.2 AND 3 OF THIS APPEAL, RELATES TO AN ADDITION OF RS.3,28,24,160 MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER DISALLOWING THE PROFESSIONAL CHARGES CLAIMED BY THE ASSESSEE. 6. WE HEARD BOTH SIDES AND PERUSED THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD IN THE LIGHT OF THE IMPUGNED ORDERS OF THE REVENUE AUTHORITIES ON THIS ISSUE. ASSESSEE CLAIMED TO HAVE INCURRED SERVICE CHARGES AGGREGATING TO RS.3,28,24,150. THE ASSESSING OFFICER DISALLOWED THIS EXPENDITURE ON THE GROUND THAT THE ASSESSEE COU LD NOT ESTABLISH THE NATURE OF SERVICES RENDERED BY THESE ENTITIES TO WARRANT PAYMENT OF SO MUCH AMOUNT. IN THE COURSE OF HEARING BEFORE THE DRP, THE AUTHORISED REPRESENTATIVE OF THE ASSESSEE FURNISHED THE DETAILS OF PAYMENTS MADE TO VARIOUS ENTITIES, B UT COULD NOT SUBSTANTIATE WITH ANY EVIDENCE IN SUPPORT OF SERVICES RENDERED BY THOSE ENTITIES IN ORDER TO CLAIM SO MUCH OF AMOUNT AS EXPENDITURE. IN THIS VIEW OF THE MATTER, THE DRP UPHELD THE DISALLOWANCE PROPOSED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN THE FOLLO WING MANNER - ..THE ONUS IS ON THE ASSESSEE TO DISCHARGE WITH REASONABLE EVIDENCE ABOUT THE NATURE AND THE REQUIREMENT OF SUCH EXPENDITURE IN THE COURSE OF BUSINESS CARRIED ON BY IT. THE ASSESSEE FAILED TO FURNISH EVEN THE INVOICES RAISED BY THE FOREIG N ENTITIES IN ORDER TO VERIFY THE SERVICES RENDERED BY THEM AND THE GENUINENESS OF THE CLAIM MADE BY THE ASSESSEE. EVEN THOUGH THE AO HAS MADE ADDITION BY INVOKING SEC.14A BY TREATING THESE EXPENSES AS LINKING THEM WITH EXEMPTED INCOME, THE BASIC REQUIRE MENT FOR ALLOWING SUCH DEDUCTION HAS NOT BEEN FULFILLED BY THE ASSESSEE. WE DO NOT AGREE WITH THE CONTENTION OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO BRING THESE PROFESSIONAL CHARGES UNDER THE PURVIEW OF S.14A IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY INCOME WHICH DOES NOT FORM PART OF TO TAL INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE. PROVISIONS OF SEC.14A CAN BE INVOKED IN A CASE WHERE ANY ASSESSEE HAVING ANY INCOME WHICH DO NOT FORM PART OF TOTAL INCOME. THERE IS NO SUCH INCOME IN THE HANDS OF THE ASSESSEE IN THE CURRENT FINANCIAL YEAR. THE ASSESSING OFFIC ER PROCEEDED ON THE LINES THAT AS THE ASSESSEE INVESTED IN EQUITY WHICH YIELDS EXEMPTED DIVIDEND INCOME AND NO EXPENDITURE IS TO BE ALLOWED BY VIRTUE OF SEC.14A. ON THE OTHER HAND, THERE IS NO DIVIDEND INCOME DECLARED BY THE ASSESSEE AS THE EQUITY IS IN RESPECT OF FOREIGN SUBSIDIARIES AND THE PROFITS ARE INCLUDIBLE IN THE TOTAL INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE. THEREFORE, DISALLOWANCE CANNOT BE MADE U/S. 14A OF THE I.T. ACT. ITA NO. 1769/ HYD/20 12 M/S. VYBRANT DIGITAL LIMITED, HYDERABAD 5 26.0 HOWEVER, AS DISCUSSED ABOVE, THE ASSESSEE COULD NOT SUBSTANTIATE THE GENUINENESS S O F THE CLAIM IN ITS HANDS TO INCUR THE ABOVE PROFESSIONAL CHARGES IN ITS BUSINESS. FOR ITS FAILURE TO PROVE THE GENUINENESS OF THE EXPENDITURE SO INCURRED, THE PANEL IS OF THE VIEW THAT THE SUM OF RS.3,28,24,160/ - CANNOT BE ALLOWED AS DEDUCTION IN THE COMPU TATION OF TOTAL INCOME. ACCORDINGLY, THE AO IS DIRECTED TO RESTRICT THE DISALLOWANCE TO RS.3,28,24,160 AS AGAINST RS.3,42,37,541 MADE IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER. THUS, THE DRP SUPPORTED THE ADDITION OF RS.3,28,24,160, MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER DISALL OWING PROFESSIONAL CHARGES CLAIMED IN THAT BEHALF, FOR A DIFFERENT REASON, I.E. ON THE GROUND THAT THE ASSESSEE FAILED FURNISH EVIDENCE EITHER TO BRING ON RECORD THE NATURE OF PROFESSIONAL SERVICES RECEIVED TO WARRANT SUCH AN AMOUNT OF PROFESSIONAL EXPENDI TURE, OR TO SUBSTANTIATE THE GENUINENESS OF THE CLAIM, AND NOT IN TERMS OF S.14A INVOKED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER, SINCE THE SCOPE OF S.14A IS CONFINED TO DISALLOWANCE OF ANY EXPENDITURE LINKED TO ANY INCOME CLAIMED AS EXEMPT FROM TAX. 7. AGGRIEVED, AS SESSEE PREFERRED PRESENT APPEAL BEFORE US ON THIS ISSUE. 8. THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE, REITERATING THE CONTENTIONS URGED BEFORE THE REVENUE AUTHORITIES, SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER MADE THE DISALLOWANCE INVOKING THE PROVISIONS OF S.14 A OF THE ACT. THEREFORE, THE ISSUE BEFORE THE DRP IS CONFINED TO WHETHER THE DISALLOWANCE MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS IN ORDER OR NOT. HAVING HELD THAT THE EXPENDITURE BY WAY OF PROFESSIONAL CHARGES ARE NOT LINKED TO THE EARNING OF EXEMPT INCOME BY THE ASSESSEE, AND CONSEQUENTLY, THE PROVISIONS OF S.14A HAVE NO APPLICATION, THE DRP IS CEASED OF ITS JURISDICTION. FURTHER, IT IS POINTED OUT THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS DISALLOWED THE PROFESSIONAL CHARGES UNDER S.115JB, WHEREAS THE DRP HAS CONSIDERED THE DISALLOWANCE UNDER THE NORMAL PROVISIONS OF THE ACT. IT IS SUBMITTED T HAT THE JURISDICTION OF THE DRP IS CONFINED TO THE ADJUDICATION ON THE POINT IN DISPUTE ALONE. CONSEQUENTLY, IT IS SUBMITTED THAT THE ORDER OF THE DRP IN SO FAR AS IT RELATED TO A LLOWABILITY OF DEDUCTION FOR EXPENDITURE OTHERWISE THAN BY INVOKING THE PROVISIONS OF S.14A OR WHILE COMPUTING INCOME UNDER THE ITA NO. 1769/ HYD/20 12 M/S. VYBRANT DIGITAL LIMITED, HYDERABAD 6 NORMAL PROVISIONS OF THE ACT, IS BEYOND ITS JURISDICTION. IN SUPPORT OF THIS PROPOSITION, HE PLACED RELIANCE ON THE DECISION OF THE MUMBAI BENCH D OF THE TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF DREDGING INTERNATIONAL N.V., MUMBAI V/S. ASSTT. DIRECTOR OF INCOME - TAX(INTERNATIONAL TAXATION) - 1(2), MUMBAI (ITA NO.8035/MUM/2010 FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2006 - 07 , DULY FURNISHING A COP Y THEREOF BEFORE US. 9. THE LEARNED DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE ON THE OTHER HAND, STRONGLY SUPPORTED THE ORDERS OF THE REVENUE AUTHORITIES. 10. WE HEARD BOTH SIDES AND PERUSED THE ORDERS OF THE REVENUE AUTHORITIES AND OTHER MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD. IT IS AN UNDISPU TED FACT THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN THE DRAFT ASSESSMENT ORDER MADE THE ADDITION OF RS.3,28,24,150, INVOKING THE PROVISIONS OF S.14A OF THE ACT. WHILE THE DRP BY THE IMPUGNED ORDER HAS NOT APPROVED THE DISALLOWANCE MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER INVOKIN G THE PROVISIONS OF S.14A, IT DIRECTED SUCH DISALLOWANCE ON THE GROUND THAT THE ASSESSEE FAILED TO SUBSTANTIATE THE NATURE AND GENUINENESS OF THE PROFESSIONAL SERVICES RECEIVED BY THE ASSESSEE SO AS TO WARRANT SUCH A HUGE AMOUNT OF EXPENDITURE. THE POINT OF DISPUTE RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE BEFORE US, IS THAT ONCE THE DRP ADJUDICATED ON THE POINT ARISING OUT OF THE DRAFT ASSESSMENT, VIZ. PERMISSIBILITY OF DISALLOWANCE IN TERMS OF S.14A AS MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER, WHETHER IT IS CEASED OF ITS JURISDICTION , AS CONTENDED BY THE ASSESSEE AND WHETHER IT CAN EXAMINE THE PERMISSIBILITY OF SUCH DISALLOWANCE UNDER ANY OTHER PROVISIONS OF THE ACT , AS HAS BEEN DONE IN THE PRESENT CASE . WE FIND THAT IN VIEW OF AMENDMENT TO S.144C OF THE ACT, BY THE FINANCE ACT, 2012 WITH EFFECT FROM 1.4.2009, WHEREBY IT HAS BEEN EXPLAINED THAT THE POWER OF THE DRP TO ENHANCE THE VARIATION SHALL INCLUDE AND SHALL BE DEEMED ALWAYS TO HAVE INCLUDED THE POWER TO CONSIDER ANY MATTER ARISING OUT OF THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS RELATING TO THE DRAFT ORDER, NOTWITHSTANDING THAT SUCH MATTER WAS RAISED OR NOT BY THE ELIGIBLE ASSESSEE . ITA NO. 1769/ HYD/20 12 M/S. VYBRANT DIGITAL LIMITED, HYDERABAD 7 11. IN THE CASE OF DRED G ING INTERNATIONAL N.V. (SUPRA), RELIED UPON BY THE ASSESSEE, THE ASSESSMENT YEAR INVOLVED WAS 2006 - 07, AND IN VIEW OF THE AMENDMENT TO THE PROVISIONS OF S.144C AS NOTED ABOVE, THE RATIO OF THE SAID DECISION, WHICH WAS RENDERED WITHOUT CONSIDERING THE ABOVE AMENDMENT, IS NO LONGER GOOD LAW. IT MAY BE NOTED AT THIS STAGE THAT E XAMINING SIMILAR ISSUE IN THE LIGHT OF THE SAID AMENDMENT , IN THE CASE OF AUROBINDO PHARMA LTD. V/S. ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME - TAX (ITA NO.1866/HYD/2012 FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2008 - 09), COORDINATE BENCH OF THIS TRIBUNAL, VIDE ITS ORDER DATED 29.11.2013, HELD AS FOLLOWS - 5 .2 AFTER CONSIDERING RIVAL CONTENTION S, WE ARE OF THE OPINION THAT BOTH LEGALLY AND FACTUALLY THE ADDITION CANNOT BE SUSTAINED. FIRST OF ALL, AO IS BOUND TO FOLLOW THE DIRECTIONS OF THE DRP. CONSIDERING THE OBJECTIONS OF ASSESSEE AND LEGAL PRINCIPLES ON THE ISSUE DRP DIRECTED THE AO TO ALLOW THE CLAIM U/S 35D, WHICH IS A CONSEQUENTIAL CLAIM. AO CANNOT PASS THE ORDER AGAINST THE DIRECTIONS OF DRP AS PER THE PROVISIONS OF LAW. THEREFORE, ON THIS POINT ALONE GROUND IS TO BE ALLOWED AS DRP CLEARLY DIRECTED AO TO ALLOW THE CLAIM. ....... CONSISTENT WITH THE VIEW TAKEN BY THE COORDINATE BENCH OF THE TRIBUNAL IN THE ABOVE CASE, WE DO NOT FIND ANY INFIRMITY IN THE ACTION OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER, IN SUSTAINING THE ADDITION OF RS.3,28,24,150 , NOT IN TERMS OF S.14A OF THE ACT, BUT ON GROUNDS OF ABSENCE O F EVIDENCE BROUGHT ON RECORD BY THE ASSESSEE TO SUBSTANTIATE ITS CLAIM AS TO THE GENUINENESS OF THE EXPENDITURE, AS HELD BY THE DRP. WE ACCORDINGLY UPHOLD THE SAME AND REJECT THE GROUNDS OF THE ASSESSEE ON THIS ISSUE. 1 2 . NEXT GROUND OF THE ASSESSEE IN THIS APPEAL RELATES TO ADDITION OF RS.33,77,101 MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER ON ACCOUNT OF PROFESSIONAL CHARGES, INVOKING THE PROVISIONS OF S.40(A)(IA) OF THE ACT. 1 3 . DURING THE FINANCIAL YEAR 2007 - 08, RELEVANT TO THE ASSESSMENT YEAR UNDER APPEAL, ASS ESSEE HAS PAID THE FOLLOWING AMOUNTS BY WAY OF PROFESSIONAL CHARGES - ITA NO. 1769/ HYD/20 12 M/S. VYBRANT DIGITAL LIMITED, HYDERABAD 8 SREE SOFTWARE SOLUTIONS RS.28,25,902 AD ASTRA MEDIA RS. 3,00,000 M.BHASKAR RS. 1,80,000 VENTURE CREATING CAREERS RS. 40,300 AMERICAN QUALITY ACCESSORIES(INDIA) P. LT D. RS. 30,899 TOTAL RS.33,77,101 THE ASSESSING OFFICER DISALLOWED THE ABOVE EXPENDITURE IN TERMS OF S.40A(IA) OF THE ACT ON THE GROUND THAT THE ABOVE AMOUNTS HAVE BEEN PAID WITHOUT COMPLYING WITH THE PROVISIONS OF TDS. THE ASSESSEE C ONTENDED BEFORE THE DISPUTE RESOLUTION PANEL THAT THE AMOUNT CAN BE DISALLOWED UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF S.40(A)(IA) ONLY IN THE CASES WHERE THE AMOUNT OF EXPENDITURE/TDS SHOWN AS PAYABLE, WHEREAS IN THE PRESENT CASE OF THE ASSESSEE, THE AMOUNT IS SHOWN AS P AID AND HENCE CANNOT BE DISALLOWED. THE DRP, THOUGH OBSERVED THAT THE ISSUE IS COVERED IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE BY THE DECISION OF VISAKAHAPATNAM BENCH OF THE TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF MERLYN SHIPPING AND TRANSPORT COMPANY (136 ITD 23) , IT WAS NOT INCLINED T O ACCEPT THE CONTENTION OF THE ASSESSEE, SINCE THE SAID DECISION OF THE TRIBUNAL HAS NOT BEEN ACCEPTED BY THE DEPARTMENT AND AN APPEAL IS PENDING. THE DRP ACCORDINGLY SUSTAINED THE ADDITION MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND DIRECTED ACCORDINGLY. 1 4 . WE HEARD BOTH SIDES AND PERUSED THE ORDERS OF THE REVENUE AUTHORITIES AND OTHER MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD. THE ASSESSEE HAS FILED BEFORE US, IN PAPER - BOOK - 2, THE DETAILS OF TDS PAYMENTS MADE BEFORE THE DUE DATE OF FILING OF THE RETURN. THE POINT IN DISPU TE IS WITH REGARD TO CORRECTNESS OF THE DISALLOWANCE OF PROFESSIONAL CHARGES OF RS.33,77,101 CLAIMED BY THE ASSESSEE, ON ACCOUNT OF NON - COMPLIANCE WITH THE TDS PROVISIONS, IN TERMS OF S.40A(IA) OF THE ACT. WHILE THE ASSESSEE RELIED ON THE DECISION OF THE VISAKHAPATNAM BENCH OF THE TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF MERILYN SHIPPING AND ITA NO. 1769/ HYD/20 12 M/S. VYBRANT DIGITAL LIMITED, HYDERABAD 9 TRANSPORT (SUPRA), AS NOTED ABOVE, THE DRP DECLINED TO FOLLOW IT OBSERVING THAT THE DEPARTMENT DID NOT ACCEPT THE SAID DECISION AND PREFERRED AN APPEAL. 1 5 . ON CAREFUL CONSIDERATIO N OF THE MATTER, WE FIND THAT ON THE ISSUE OF PERMISSIBILITY OF DISALLOWANCE IN TERMS OF 40A(IA) OF THE ACT, WHERE THE PAYMENTS HAVE BEEN MADE AND NOT PAYABLE, WE FIND THAT WHILE THE DRP ITSELF HAS TAKEN NOTE OF THE DECISION OF THE VISAKHAPATNAM BENCH OF T HE TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF MERILYN SHIPPING AND TRANSPORT (SUPRA), WHICH IS IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE . HOWEVER, THE OPERATION OF THE SAID DECISION OF THE VISAKHAPATNAM BENCH HAS BEEN SUSPENDED BY THE HONBLE A.P. HIGH COURT, AND THE ISSUE OF DISALLOWANCE IN TERMS OF S.40A(IA) OF THE ACT IS NOW PENDING ADJUDICATION BEFORE THE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT. IN THIS VIEW OF THE MATTER, WE DEEM IT FIT TO SET ASIDE THE IMPUGNED ORDERS OF THE REVENUE AUTHORITIES ON THIS ASPECT AND RESTORE THE MATTER TO THE FILE OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER WITH A DIRECTION TO REDECIDE THE SAME AFRESH, IN CONSONANCE WITH THE VIEW THAT THE HONBLE HIGH COURT MAY TAKE IN THE MATTER. HE SHALL ACCORDINGLY REDECIDE THIS ISSUE IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW , AFTER GIVING REASONABLE OPPORTUNITY OF HEA RING TO THE ASSESSEE. ASSESSEES GROUNDS ON THIS ISSUE ARE ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. 1 6 . THE NEXT GRIEVANCE OF THE ASSESSEE IN THIS APPEAL, CONTAINED IN GROUNDS NO.5 TO 8 RELATE TO RELATES TO DISALLOWANCE OUT OF DEPRECIATION CLAIMED BY THE ASSES SEE. IT IS THE CONTENTION OF THE ASSESSEE IN GROUND NO.5 THAT WHILE CALCULATING THE PROFITS OF THE UNDERTAKING FOR THE PURPOSE DEDUCTIONS UNDER S.10A OF THE ACT, THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS MADE DEPRECIATION ADJUSTMENT TO THE PROFIT AS PER PROFIT & LOSS ACC OUNT, I.E. ADDED BACK THE DEPRECIATION AS PER COMPANIES ACT AND DEDUCTED THE DEPRECIATION AS PER THE IT ACT, 1961 FROM THE PROFIT AS PER PROFIT & LOSS ACCOUNT. IT IS CONTENDED THAT IN THE DRAFT ASSESSMENT ORDER, THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS NOT ADDED THE DEPR ECIATION AS PER COMPANIES ACT AND DEDUCTEE THE DEPRECIATION AS PER THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 AND WHILE PASSING THE ASSESSMENT ORDER, THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS TAKEN DIFFERENT INTERPRETATION AND DEPRECIATION ADJUSTMENT WAS MADE TO THE PROFIT AS PER THE ITA NO. 1769/ HYD/20 12 M/S. VYBRANT DIGITAL LIMITED, HYDERABAD 10 PROFI T & LOSS ACCOUNT WHILE CALCULATING THE CLAIM UNDER S.10A, WHICH IS MERE CHANGE OF OPINION AND WHICH IS NOT CORRECT AND NOT JUSTIFIED. ACCORDING TO THE ASSESSEE, AS STATED IN GROUND NO.7, THIS ADJUSTMENT MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS NOT IN ACCORDANCE WI TH THE DIRECTION OF THE DRP. IT IS FURTHER STATED IN GROUND NO.8 THAT WHEN THERE IS NO SPECIFIC DIRECTION GIVEN BY THE DRP IN RESPECT OF ANY PARTICULAR ADDITION/DISALLOWANCE, THE ASSESSING OFFICER CANNOT MAKE CHANGE TO THE DRAFT ASSESSMENT ORDER. 1 7 . AT THE TIME OF HEARING, THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE DID NOT PRESS FOR THESE FOUR GROUNDS. HENCE, THESE GROUNDS ARE REJECTED AS NOT PRESSED. 1 8 . THE NEXT GRIEVANCE OF THE ASSESSEE CONTAINED IN GROUND NO.9 IS THAT THE INTEREST INCOME WAS NOT CONS IDERED AS FORMING PART OF ELIGIBLE PROFITS OF THE BUSINESS O F THE ASSESSEE FOR THE PURPOSE OF DEDUCTION UNDER S.10A. SINCE THE ASSESSEE COMPANY HAS EARNED INTEREST INCOME ON THE DEPOSITS, WHICH WERE MADE OUT OF THE INTERNAL ACCRUAL OF THE COMPANY, ACCORDIN G TO THE ASSESSEE, THE SAME HAVE TO BE CONSIDERED AS FORMING PART OF THE ELIGIBLE PROFIT FOR THE PURPOSE OF DEDUCTION UNDER S.10A. IN SUPPORT OF THIS CONTENTION, RELIANCE IS PLACED ON THE DECISION OF THE MUMBAI BENCH OF THE TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF ITO 8 (2) MUMBAI V/S. LAKSHMI JEWEL PRIVATE LIMITED (ITA NO.2165/MUM/2010) FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2004 - 05, DULY FURNISHING A COPY THEREOF BEFORE US IN THE PAPER - BOOK. 1 9 . W E HEARD BOTH SIDES AND PERU S ED THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD. WE FIND THAT THE POINT IN DISPUTE, VIZ. WHETHER THE INTEREST INCOME OF AN ASSESSEE CAN BE CONSIDERED AS FORMING PART OF ELIGIBLE PROFITS OF THE BUSINESS FOR THE PURPOSE OF DEDUC T ION UNDER S.10A OF THE ACT, THE DECISION OF THE MUMBAI BENCH OF THE TRIBU N AL IN THE CASE OF LIVINGST ONES JEWELLERY (P) LTD. V.S. DY. CIT (2009) 31 SOT 0323, RELIED UPON BY THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ITA NO. 1769/ HYD/20 12 M/S. VYBRANT DIGITAL LIMITED, HYDERABAD 11 ASSESSEE, DULY FURNISHING A COPY THEREOF BEFORE US, WHEREIN THIS I S SUE HAS BEEN DECIDED IN THE FOLLOWING MANNER - 5. COMING BACK TO SECTION 10A WE FIND T H A T SUB - S ECTION (1) ALSO EMPLOYS THE EXPRESSION DERIVED F R OM THE EXPORT OF ARTICLES. BUT IT IS NO T THE END O F THE MATER. THE EXPRESSION PROFITS DERIVED F R O M EXPORT OF ARTICLES OR THINGS OR COMPUTER SOF T WARE AS EMPLOYED IN SUB - S ECTION (1) OR (1A) HAS BEE N GIVEN A SP ECIF IC MEANING IN SUB - SECTION (4). THE SUB - SECTION ( 4) STATES THAT THE PROFITS DERIVED F R OM EXPORT OF ARTICLES OR THINGS OR COMPUTER SOF T WARE SHALL BE THE AMOUNT WHICH BEARS TO THE PROFITS OF THE BU S IN E SS O F THE UN D ERTAKING, THE SAME PROPOR TION AS THE EXPORT TURNOVER IN RESPECT OF SUCH ARTICLES OR THINGS OR COMPUTER SOFTWARE BEARS TO THE TOTAL TURNOVER OF THE BUSINESS CARRIED ON BY THE UNDERTAKING. BY PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERING THE PROFITS OF THE BUSINESS OF THE UNDERTAKING, THE POSITION HA S BEEN MADE CLEAR THAT THE RESTRICTED GENERAL MEANING GIVEN TO ELIGIBLE PROFITS AS DERIVED FROM THE EXPORT OF ARTICLES IN SUB - SECTION (1) HAS BEEN GIVEN A GO BY IN SUBS - SECTION (4) AND THE SCOPE OF THE BENEFIT HAS BEEN EXPANDED BY EXTENDING TO THE ALL PROF ITS OF THE BUSINESS CARRIED ON BY THE UN D ERTA K IN G . ONCE THE EXPRESSION DERIVED FROM HAVING RESTRICTED SCOPE HAS BEEN SP EC IFICALLY DEFINED IN THE S AME SECTION, TH E N THE MEANING OF SUCH EXPRESSION AS UN D ERSTOOD IN COMMON PARLANCE WILL NO T B E APPLICABLE. R ATHER THE SPECIFIC MEANING GIVEN TO IT WILL COME INTO PLAY. WE FURTHER NOTE THAT S UB - S EC T ION ( 4 ) HAS BEEN WORDED ON TH E P A TTERN O F SEC T ION 80 - IA, PRIOR TO ITS SUBSTITUTION WITH E F FECT FROM 1.4.2000, WHICH REFERRED TO PROFITS AND GAINS DERIV E D FROM ANY BU S IN E SS OF AN INDUSTRIAL UNDERTAKING . I N TH E CONTEXT OF S E C T ION 80IA, TH E AMRI T SAR BENCH O F TH E T RIBUNAL IN TH E CASE OF DY.CIT V/S. CHAMAN LAL & SONS (2005) 3 SOT 333 (ASR ) TO WHICH ON E OF US, NAMELY THE AM IS PARTY) HELD T H A T IN SUCH A WORDED S E CTION, THE B E NEFIT OF D EDUC T ION HAS TO BE MADE AVAILABLE IN R E SP E CT OF PURCHASE AND SALE WHICH WAS PART AND PARCEL O F THE BUSIN E SS O F THE INDU S TRIAL UNDERTAKING. THU S WHEN SUB - SE CTION (1) OF SE C TION 10A IS READ IN JUXTAPOSITION TO SUB - SECTION ( 4), WE ARE NOT IN C LIN E D TO ACCEPT THAT ONLY THE PROFIT AND GAIN S AS DERIVED BY THE UN D ERTAKIN G FRO M THE EXPORT OF ARTICLES IS EL I GI B LE FOR DEDUC T ION. ALL THE PROFITS WHICH HAVE NEXUS WITH THE BU S IN ES S O F THE UNDERTAKING WILL QUALIFY FOR DE D U CT ION. FROM THE FACTS OF THE INSTANT CA S E IT IS NO T ED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD GIVEN FDRSS TO THE BANK FOR OBT A INING CREDIT F ACILITY. SUCH INTE RE ST HAS NEXUS WITH THE BU S IN E SS O F THE UN DE RTAKING AND FALLS UNDER THE HEAD PROFITS AND GAINS O F BUSINESS OR P R OFESSI ON AS H A VIN G RELATION WITH THE CA R RYING ON OF TH E BU S IN E SS. SIMILAR VIEW HAS BEEN TAKEN IN TH E CA S E OF MOTOROLA INDIA ELECT R ONICS (P)LTD (SUPRA). IN OUR CONSID E RED OPINION THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER (APPEALS) WAS NO T JU S TIFIED IN TR E ATING THE IN T ER E ST INCOME AS NO T DERIVED FROM THE EXPOR T ACTIVITY. WE ITA NO. 1769/ HYD/20 12 M/S. VYBRANT DIGITAL LIMITED, HYDERABAD 12 THEREFORE, HOLD TH A T THE ASSESSEE WAS ENTITLED TO DEDUCTION UNDER SECTION 10A IN RESPECT OF THE IN TE REST INCOME. THE RESULTANT DENIAL OF DEDUC T ION UNDER SECTION 10A IS DELETED. SIMILAR VIEW HAS BEEN CONSISTENTLY TAKEN BY VARIOUS BENCHES O F THE TRIBUNAL ON THIS ISSUE. WE ACCORDINGLY, UPHOLD THE VIEW TAKEN BY THE REVENUE AUTHORITIES ON THIS ISSUE AND REJECT THE GROUNDS OF THE ASSESSEE IN THIS BEHALF. 20 . THE NEXT GRIEVANCE OF THE ASSESSEE, CONTAINED IN GROUND NO.10 IS THAT FOREIGN EXCHAN GE FLUCTUATION GAIN WAS NOT CONSIDERED AS FORMING PART OF ELIGIBLE PROFITS OF THE BUSINESS FOR THE PURPOSE OF DEDUCTION UNDER S.10A. SINCE THE FOREIGN EXCHANGE FLUCTUATION GAINS ARE INCIDENTAL TO THE BUSINESS OF SOFTWARE COMPANIES, WHO EXPORT THE SOFTWARE TO FOREIGN COUNTRIES, THE SAME HAS TO BE CONSIDERED AS FORMING PART OF THE ELIGIBLE PROFIT FOR THE PURPOSE OF DEDUCTION UNDER S.10A. IN SUPPORT OF THIS CONTENTION, RELIANCE IS PLACED ON THE DECISION OF THE CHENNAI BENCH OF THE TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF CHAN CEPOND TECHNOLOGIES PVT. LTD. V/S. ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME - TAX IN ITA N O.73/MDS/2007 FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2003 - 04 AND THE DECISION OF THE BOMBAY HIGH COU R T IN TH E CA S E OF GEM PLUS INDIA LTD. (194 TAXMAN 192) . 2 1 . WE HAVE HEARD BOTH SIDES AND PERUSED THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD. WE FIND THAT THE ISSUE IN DISPUTE RELATING TO ELIGIBIL I TY OF FOREIGN EXCH A N GE GAIN TO THE RELIEF UN D ER S.10A OF TH E AC T, IS COVERED IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE BY THE DECISION OF THE BOMBAY HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF GEM PL US INDIA LTD. (SUPRA) WHEREIN IT HAS BEEN HELD THAT AN ASSESSEE WOULD BE ELIGIBLE FOR RELIEF UNDER S.10A IN RESPECT OF FOREIGN EXCHANGE GAIN EARNED ON REALISATION OF EXPORT RECEIPTS IN THE YEAR OF EXPORT. W E ACCORDINGLY ACCEPT THE GROUNDS OF THE ASSESSE E ON THIS ISSUE, AND SETTING ASIDE THE IMPUGNED ORDER O F THE DRP ON THIS ASPECT , DIRECT THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO RECOMPUTE THE RELIEF UNDER S .10A OF THE ACT, BY TAKING INTO ACCOUNT EVEN FOREIGN EXCHANGE GAIN AS PART OF THE BUSINESS PROFITS OF THE ASSESSEE. ITA NO. 1769/ HYD/20 12 M/S. VYBRANT DIGITAL LIMITED, HYDERABAD 13 2 2 . THE NEXT EFFECTIVE GRIEVANCE OF THE ASSESSEE IS THAT THE ASSESSEE COMPANY HAS INCURRED EXPENDITURE IN FOREIGN EXCHANGE TOWARDS TELEPHONE AND INTERNET CHARGES AMOUNTING TO RS.11,45,631. WHILE COMPUTING THE ELIGIBLE DEDUCTION UNDER S.10A OF THE AC T, THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS DEDUCTED THE SAID EXPENDITURE FROM EXPORT TURNOVER, BUT WHILE DOING SO, HE DID NOT DEDUCT THE SAME FROM THE TOTAL TURNOVER, WHICH IS, ACCORDING TO THE ASSESSEE, IS BAD IN LAW. IN SUPPORT OF THIS CONTENTION, LEARNED COUNSEL FO R THE ASSESSEE PLACED RELIANCE ON THE DECISION OF THE HYDERABAD BENCH OF THE TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF D.E. BLOCK INDIA SOFTWARE (P)LTD. IN ITA NOS.983 & 984.HYD/2006 DATED 31.1.2007. 2 3 . WE HEARD BOTH SIDES AND PERUSED THE IMPUGNED ORDERS OF THE REV ENUE AUTHORITIES AND OTHER MATERIAL ON RECORD. WE FIND THAT THE ISSUE AS TO DEDUCTIBILITY OF TELEPHONE AND INTERNET CHARGES , ETC. FROM THE TOTAL TURNOVER, THE SAME HAVING BEEN DE D UCTED FROM TH E EXPORT TURNOVER, IS COVERED IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE BY VARI OUS DECISIONS OF THE COORDINATE BENCHES OF THE TRIBUNAL IN SIMILAR CASES, INCLUDING THE ONE OF THE HYDERABAD BENCH IN THE CA S E OF D.E. BLOCK INDIA SOFTWARE (P) LTD. (SUPRA) RELIED UPON BY THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE BEFORE US. IN THIS VIEW OF THE MATTER, SETTING ASIDE THE IMPUGNED ORDER OF THE DRP ON THIS ASPECT , WE DIRECT THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO RECOMPUTE THE ELIGIBLE DEDUCTION UNDER S.10A OF THE ACT, EXCLUDING THE EXPENDITURE IN THE FORM OF TELEPHONE , INTERNET CHARGES, ETC., WHICH HAVE BEEN DE DUCTED FROM THE EXPORT TURNOVER, FROM THE TOTAL TURNOVER AS WELL. CONSEQUENTLY, ASSESSEES GROUNDS ON THIS ISSUE ARE ALLOWED. 2 4 . IN THE RESULT, ASSESSEES APPEAL IS PARTLY ALLOWED ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE COURT ON 5 . 3 . 2014 SD/ - SD/ - (CHANDRA POOJARI ) (A SHA VIJAYARAGHAVAN) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER DT/ - 5 TH MARCH, 2014 ITA NO. 1769/ HYD/20 12 M/S. VYBRANT DIGITAL LIMITED, HYDERABAD 14 COPY FORWARDED TO: 1. M/S. YBRANT DIGITAL LIMITED , C/O. M/S.P.MURALI & CO., CHARTERED ACCOUNTANTS, 6 - 3 - 6755/2/3, 1ST FLOOR, SOMAJIGUDA, HYDERABAD - 82 2 . DY. COM MISSIONER OF INCOME - TAX CIRCLE 3(3), HYDERABAD 3. DISPTUES RESOLUTION PANEL HYDERABAD 4. ADDL. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME - TAX TRANSFER PRICING, HYDERABAD 5 DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE, ITAT, HYDERABAD. B.V.S