Energy Solutions International (India) P.Ltd., Hyd, Hyderabad V. DCIT, Circle-2(2), Hyderabad, Hyderabad

ITA 42/HYD/2016

• Counselvise Citation: [2016] 132 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 6637 (ITAT-HYDERABAD)
• Duration Of Justice: 3 month(s) 16 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 29-04-2016
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Assessment Year: 2010-2011
• Appeal Filed On: 13-01-2016
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: M SITARAM
• Keywords: Double taxation relief; Opportunity of being heard; Non-deduction of tax
• Section: 143(3)

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL HYDERABAD BENCH A, HYDERABAD BEFORE SMT P. MADHAVI DEVI, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI S. RIFAUR RAHMAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NOS. 39, 40, 41 & 42/HYD/2016 ASSESSMENT YEARS: 2004-05, 2005-06, 2009-10 & 2010- 11 ENERGY SOLUTIONS INTERNATIONAL (INDIA) PVT. LTD., HYDERABAD PAN AABCP 2325F VS. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME- TAX, CIRCLE 2(2), HYDERABAD. (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) ASSESSEE BY : SHRI SRIRAM SESHADRI REVENUE BY : SHRI M. SITARAM DATE OF HEARING 11-04-2016 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT 29-04-2016 O R D E R PER S. RIFAUR RAHMAN, A.M.: THESE APPEALS ARE PREFERRED BY ASSESSEE AGAINST A COMMON ORDER OF THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX(APP EALS) 5, HYDERABAD, DATED 26/10/2015 FOR AYS 2004-05, 2005 -06, 2009-10 AND 2010-11. AS IDENTICAL ISSUES ARE INVOLVED IN TH ESE APPEALS, THEY WERE CLUBBED AND HEARD TOGETHER AND, THEREFORE, A C OMMON ORDER IS PASSED FOR THE SAKE OF CONVENIENCE. 2. BRIEFLY THE FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT THE ASSES SEE IS A COMPANY ENGAGED IN THE BUSINESS OF PROVIDING CONSUL TING SERVICES, SOFTWARE SOLUTIONS AND SUPPORT SERVICES IN THE FIEL D OF OIL AND GAS PIPELINE NETWORKS. IN THE COURSE OF PROVIDING INSTA LLATION, AUGMENTATION, CONSULTANCY AND SUPPORT SERVICES TO T HE ULTIMATE CLIENTS FOR PIPELINE PROJECTS, THE ASSESSEE PROCURE S CERTAIN HIGH END TECHNOLOGY SOFTWARE LICENSES FROM ITS ASSOCIATE ENT ERPRISE ENERGY 2 ITA NOS. 39 TO 42 /HYD/2016 ENERGY SOLUTIONS INTERNATIONAL (INDIA) PVT. LTD. SOLUTIONS INTERNATIONAL, US (ESI US IN SHORT) AND P ROVIDES IT TO THE ULTIMATE CLIENTS. 3. WHILE COMPLETING THE ASSESSMENTS IN ALL THE YEAR S UNDER CONSIDERATION, THE AO DISALLOWED THE PAYMENTS MADE TOWARDS PURCHASE OF SOFTWARE FROM ITS GROUP COMPANIES DUE T O NON DEDUCTION OF TAX U/S 195 OF THE ACT TREATING THE REMITTANCES TOWARDS ROYALTY. 4. ON AN APPEAL, THE CIT(A) CONFIRMED THE DISALLOWA NCE MADE BY THE AO. WHEN THE ASSESSEE CARRIED THE MATTER IN APP EAL TO THE ITAT, THE ITAT VIDE ITS ORDER DATED 10 TH FEBRUARY, 2010 HAD REMITTED THE MATTER BACK TO THE FILE OF AO FOR FRESH CONSIDERATI ON. 5. BASED ON THE ORDERS OF THE TRIBUNAL, THE AO PASS ED THE ORDER U/S 143(3) R.W.S. 254 OF THE ACT REITERATING THE DI SALLOWANCE MADE TOWARDS PURCHASE OF SOFTWARE FROM ITS GROUP COMPANI ES AND TREATING THE PAYMENT AS ROYALTY. SUCH PAYMENTS ARE LIABLE TO BE TAXED IN INDIA AND DISALLOWANCE FOR NON-DEDUCTION OF TAX. AG GRIEVED, THE ASSESSEE PREFERRED APPEALS BEFORE THE CIT(A). 6. THE CIT(A) HAS DISCUSSED THE ISSUE ELABORATELY I N HIS ORDER WITH VARIOUS CASE LAWS AS WELL AS REFERRING TO THE DTAA DISMISSED THE GROUND OF APPEAL OF ASSESSEE BY HOLDING AS UNDER: 6.15 IT IS CLEAR FROM THE ABOVE SAID ANALYSIS OF TH E FACTS OF THE CASE, THE DTAA, INCOME TAX ACT, COPYRIGHT ACT AND J UDICIAL VERDICTS THAT THE PAYMENT WOULD CONSTITUTE 'ROYALTY ' WITHIN THE MEANING OF ARTICLE 12(3) OF THE DTAA AND THE PROVIS IONS OF 9(1)(VI) OF THE ACT. THE DEFINITION OF ROYALTY' UN DER CLAUSE 9(1)(VI) OF THE ACT IS BROADER THAN THE DEFINITION OF ROYAL TY' UNDER THE DTAA. IT IS CLEAR THAT THE PAYMENT MADE BY THE APPE LLANT TO THE NON-RESIDENT SUPPLIER WOULD AMOUNT TO ROYALTY. IN V IEW OF THE SAID FINDING; IT IS CLEAR THAT THERE IS OBLIGATION ON TH E PART OF THE APPELLANT TO DEDUCT TAX AT SOURCE UNDER SECTION 195 OF THE ACT AND IT FAILED TO DO SO. THE SUBMISSION MADE BY THE APPELLANT WITH RESPECT TO PURCHASE OF SOFTWARE LICENSE FAILS AND H ENCE GROUND NOS.1 TO 10 SET OUT IN GROUNDS OF APPEAL ARE DISMIS SED. 7. THE LD. AR SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE PURCHASED CERTAIN SOFTWARE PRODUCTS FROM ITS AE, BEING PIPE LINE STUD IO ('PLS'), PIPE 3 ITA NOS. 39 TO 42 /HYD/2016 ENERGY SOLUTIONS INTERNATIONAL (INDIA) PVT. LTD. LINE MANAGER ('PLM') AND PIPE LINE TRANSPORTER ('PL T') AND INSTALLED IT IN THE SYSTEMS OF THE VARIOUS OIL AND GAS COMPAN IES IN INDIA, IN THE COURSE OF DISTRIBUTION OF SOFTWARE PRODUCTS. THE BU SINESS MODEL OF ASSESSEE IS EXPLAINED BELOW: THE CUSTOMERS, BASED IN INDIA, PLACE A PURCHASE ORDER WITH THE APPELLANT, WHICH INTER ALIA CONSISTS OF: A) SUPPLY OF SOFTWARE (EITHER PLS/PLM/PLT), GENERA LLY USED BY OIL / GAS MANUFACTURING / DISTRIBUTION COMPANIES T O TRACK THE OIL FLOW, LEAK DETECTION, AND MANAGEMENT OF INVENTORY ACROSS THEIR DISTRIBUTION NETWORK FROM A CENTRAL LOCATION; AND B) OTHER SERVICES COMPRISING OF: - INSTALLATION / COMMISSIONING / TRAINING OF SUCH SOFTWARE; - SUPPORT SERVICES, POST IMPLEMENTATION; AND - PARAMETERS AND SPECIFICATIONS REQUIRED IN THE SO FTWARE. THE APPELLANT, IN TURN, BASED ON THE ABOVE ORDER FROM THE CUSTOMER ('END USERS'), PLACES BACK-TO-BACK PURCHA SE ORDERS ON AE. THE APPELLANT EITHER IMPORTS SOFTWARE CDS, OR DO WNLOADS THE SOFTWARE; AND SUBSEQUENTLY INSTALLS IT ON THE CUST OMER'S MACHINE. THE HARDWARE KEY OR THE SOFT KEY IN RELATION TO THE ABOVE SOFTWARE IS DIRECTLY PROVIDED BY THE AE TO THE USE RS/ CLIENTS IN INDIA. FURTHER, THE END USER LICENSE AGREEMENT ('EULA') , NEEDS TO BE ACCEPTED BY THE CUSTOMER DIRECTLY BEFORE INSTAL LING THE SOFTWARE ON ITS MACHINE. THE APPELLANT DOES NOT HAVE ANY ACCESS TO EITHER THE SOURCE CODE OR INTO THE ACTUAL PROGRAMMING CODES PRESENT IN THE SOFTWARE PRODUCT. NEITHER THE APPELLANT NOR THE END USER CUSTOMERS IN INDIA OBTAIN ANY RIGHT TO USE OR MAKE COPIES OF THE SOFT WARE. THE APPELLANT IS A DISTRIBUTOR SIMPLICITOR, DIST RIBUTING SOFTWARE FOR MARGIN AND ALSO RENDER INSTALLATION AND TRAINI NG SERVICES TO INDIAN CUSTOMERS FOR USING THE SOFTWARE PRODUCTS F OR A FEE. 4 ITA NOS. 39 TO 42 /HYD/2016 ENERGY SOLUTIONS INTERNATIONAL (INDIA) PVT. LTD. 7.1 IT IS SUBMITTED THAT SINCE THE PAYMENTS WERE MA DE FOR THE PURPOSE OF PURCHASE OF SOFTWARE PRODUCTS, NO TAX AT SOURCE WAS DEDUCTED ON THE SAME. THE LD. AO CLASSIFIED THE PAY MENTS MADE TO THE AE AS ROYALTY AND DISALLOWED THE SAME FOR NON-D EDUCTION OF TAX AT SOURCE. THE LD. AO WAS OF THE VIEW THAT THE PAYMENT S WERE MADE TO ACQUIRE THE RIGHT TO APPLY THE SOFTWARE FOR DEVELOP ING SOFTWARE FOR SALE IN INDIA AND HENCE IT SHOULD BE CATEGORIZED AS ROYALTY PAID TO FOREIGN COMPANY REQUIRING TAX DEDUCTION AT SOURCE U NDER SECTION 195 OF THE ACT, WHICH HAS BEEN UPHELD BY THE LD. CIT(A) . IT IS POINTED OUT BY THE LD. AR THAT DESPITE SUBMISSIONS MADE BEFORE THE AO, THE LD. AO HAD WRONGLY UNDERSTOOD THAT THE ASSESSEE IMPORTE D LICENSES SPECIFIC FOR DEVELOPMENT OF SOFTWARE, AND THAT THE ASSESSEE DOES DESIGN AND DEVELOP THE SOFTWARE, WHEREAS THE ROLE O F THE ASSESSEE IS RESTRICTED TO PURCHASE OF SOFTWARE PRODUCTS FROM AE , SALE TO END CUSTOMERS AND INSTALLATION OF THE SAME IN THE CUSTO MERS' SYSTEM. 7.2 THE LD. AR SUBMITTED THAT THE LD. AO AND THE LD . CIT(A) FAILED TO APPRECIATE THAT THE SUBJECT PAYMENT IS TOWARDS P URCHASE OF SOFTWARE PRODUCTS, WHICH DOES NOT REQUIRE DEDUCTION OF TAX AT SOURCE. THE PAYMENT IS NOT CHARGEABLE TO TAX IN THE HANDS O F AE, AND HENCE THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 195 DOES NOT APPLY IN THE PRESENT CASE BY LD. AO IN ASSESSEE'S OWN CASE 7.3 LD. AR SUBMITTED THAT IN THE CASE OF THE ASSESS EE ITSELF, FOR AY 2007-08 AND AY 2008-09, ON A SIMILAR ISSUE RELATING TO WHETHER PAYMENTS TO THE ASSESSEE TOWARDS PURCHASE OF SOFTWA RE COULD AMOUNT TO ROYALTY, THE HONBLE ITAT BY ITS ORDER IN ITA NO 1736/HYD/2012 DATED JANUARY 6, 2012 APPRECIATED THE FACTS PUT FORTH BY THE ASSESSEE AND REMANDED THE MATTER BACK TO THE LD. AO TO RE- CONSIDER THE ISSUE AND VERIFY THE FACTS TO DETERMIN E THE TAXABILITY OF SOFTWARE PAYMENTS AFTER TAKING INTO ACCOUNT THE JUD GMENT AS LAID DOWN BY THE HONBLE DELHI HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF DYNAMIC VERTICAL SOFTWARE INDIA PVT. LTD (332 ITR 222) (DEL). ACCORD INGLY, THE LD. AO HAS BY HIS ORDER DATED FEBRUARY 23,2015, AFTER CONS IDERING THE FACTS 5 ITA NOS. 39 TO 42 /HYD/2016 ENERGY SOLUTIONS INTERNATIONAL (INDIA) PVT. LTD. INVOLVED WITH RESPECT TO THE PAYMENTS BY THE ASSESS EE TOWARDS PURCHASE OF SOFTWARE PRODUCTS, ACCEPTED THE CONTENT IONS OF THE ASSESSEE THAT SUCH PAYMENTS CANNOT BE TREATED AS RO YALTY AND DELETED THE DISALLOWANCE FOR NON-DEDUCTION OF TAX A T SOURCE UNDER SECTION 4O(A)(I) OF THE ACT. 7.4 IT IS SUBMITTED THAT THOUGH THE LD. CIT(A) HAS GIVEN REFERENCE TO THE ABOVE-MENTIONED ORDERS OF THE HONBLE ITAT AND THE LD. AO FOR AY 2007-08 AND AY 2008-09, HE HAS FAILED TO APPRECI ATE THE SAME, AND HAS MISCONCEIVED THE SAID ORDER AND HAS STATED THAT THE LD. AO PASSED AN ADVERSE ORDER AFTER THE DIRECTIONS OF THE HONBLE ITAT, WHEREAS THE LD. AO HAD PASSED FAVORABLE ORDER DELET ING THE DISALLOWANCE. 7.5 THE LD. AR SUBMITTED THAT THE HON'BLE CO-ORDIN ATE BENCH OF THE HYDERABAD ITAT HAS, IN THE CASE OF ENERGY SOLUTIONS INTERNATIONAL INC ('ESI INC'), AN ASSOCIATED ENTITY OF THE ASSESSEE, HELD BY ITS ORDER DATED NOVEMBER 27, 2015 IN ITA NO 456/HYD/2015, THA T SUCH PAYMENTS TOWARDS PURCHASE OF THE SUBJECT SOFTWARE P RODUCTS CANNOT BE TREATED AS ROYALTY. THE ASSESSEE PURCHASES SIMIL AR SOFTWARE PRODUCTS FROM ESI INC FOR DISTRIBUTION IN INDIA, AN D HENCE THE ABOVE RULING SHOULD EQUALLY APPLY IN THE ASSESSEE'S CASE. 7.6 IT IS SUBMITTED THAT SIMILARLY, THE HONBLE CO- ORDINATE BENCH OF THE HYDERABAD ITAT HAS, IN THE CASES OF BARTRONICS INDIA LTD (168 TTJ 595) (HYD) AND INFOTECH ENTERPRISES LIMITED (63 SOT 23) (HYD), ALSO HELD THAT PAYMENT TOWARDS PURCHASE OF SOFTWARE CANNOT BE TREATED AS ROYALTY. 8. THE LD. DR RELIED ON THE ORDER OF CIT(A). 9. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND PER USED THE MATERIAL FACTS ON RECORD AS WELL AS THE ORDERS OF R EVENUE AUTHORITIES. ON RECORD, IT IS CLEAR THAT IN THE AYS 2007-08 AND 2008-09, THE AO PASSED ORDER CONFIRMING THE TRANSACTION AS PURCHASE AND NOT AS ROYALTY. AT THE SAME TIME, IN THE PRESENT CASES UND ER CONSIDERATION, 6 ITA NOS. 39 TO 42 /HYD/2016 ENERGY SOLUTIONS INTERNATIONAL (INDIA) PVT. LTD. AO HAS TAKEN A DIFFERENT VIEW BY CONFIRMING THE TRA NSACTIONS WITH AE AS ROYALTY AND REJECTED THE CONTENTION OF ASSESSE E. IT IS CLEAR THAT THE REVENUE HAS TAKEN DISTINCT VIEW ON THE SIMILAR TRANSACTION. 9.1 IN THE CASE OF AE I.E. ENERGY SOLUTIONS INTER NATIONAL INC. (ESI INC.), THE COORDINATE BENCH OF THIS TRIBUNAL HAS AL READY CONFIRMED THIS TRANSACTION AS PURCHASE AND DISMISSED THE REVENUE S CONTENTION THAT THESE WERE ROYALTY AFTER ANALYZING THE BUSINESS M ODULE OF AE. THE RELEVANT OBSERVATIONS OF THE COORDINATE BENCH ARE A S UNDER: 8. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE SUBMISSIONS OF BOTH THE P ARTIES AND PERUSED THE MATERIAL ON RECORD. AS POINTED OUT BY THE LD. AR, THE ORDERS PA SSED BY AO IN 2007-08 AND 2008-09 HAVE BEEN PLACED IN THE PAPER BOOK VIDE PAGES 114 T O 122, WHEREIN THE AO ACCEPTED THE CONTENTIONS OF ESI INDIA THAT SUCH PAYMENTS CANNOT BE TREATED AS ROYALTY AND DELETED THE DISALLOWANCE FOR NON-DEDUCTION OF TAX AT SOURCE UND ER SECTION 40(A)(I) OF THE ACT. THE ASSESSEE ESI US SOLD THE SOFTWARE TO ESI INDIA AND IN THE ASSESSMENT OF ESI INDIA, IT IS THE PAYMENTS ARE TREATED AS TOWARDS THE PURCHASE OF SOFTWARE AND NOT AS PAYMENT TOWARDS ROYALTY. THE PRINCIPLE NEEDS TO BE APPLIED CONSISTENTLY. IN OUR VIEW, IN THE HANDS OF THE INDIAN COMPANY, WHEN IT IS NOT TREATED AS RO YALTY, THEN, THE SAME CONSIDERATION SHOULD ALSO BE EXTENDED TO THE SAME TRANSACTION IN THE CASE OF AE I.E. ESI US. IN THE PRESENT CASE, INCOME TOWARDS SALE OF SOFTWARE TO TH E INDIAN AE CANNOT BE TREATED AS ROYALTY. HENCE, THE ADDITION MADE BY THE AO TOWAR DS ROYALTY IS DELETED. 9.2 CONSIDERING THE BUSINESS MODULE AND FOLLOWING T HE DECISION OF THIS COORDINATE BENCH OF THIS TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF ESI INC., AS WELL AS THE STAND OF THE REVENUE BY TAKING TWO DISTINCT VIEWS ON THE SIMILAR TRANSACTIONS, WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT THE ASSESSEE BUYS SOFTWARE FROM ITS AE AND ONLY FACILITATES THE INSTALLATION OF T HESE SOFTWARE IN THE PREMISES OF THE CUSTOMERS WILL NOT BE TREATED AS R OYALTY. HENCE, THESE TRANSACTIONS CAN ONLY BE TREATED AS PURCHASE OF SOFTWARE. ACCORDINGLY, THE GROUNDS RAISED ON THIS ISSUE ARE A LLOWED IN ALL THE APPEALS UNDER CONSIDERATION. 10. IN AY 2010-11 BEING ITA NO. 42/HYD/2016, THERE IS ANOTHER GROUND RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE, WHICH IS AS FOLLOWS: 1. DISALLOWANCE TOWARDS PAYMENT MADE TOWARDS FEES FOR ANNUAL MAINTENANCE SERVICES AMOUNTING TO RS. 3,96,352/-. 7 ITA NOS. 39 TO 42 /HYD/2016 ENERGY SOLUTIONS INTERNATIONAL (INDIA) PVT. LTD. 11. AS REGARDS DISALLOWANCE TOWARDS PAYMENT MADE TO WARDS FEES FOR ANNUAL MAINTENANCE SERVICES, THE AO MADE AN OBS ERVATION THAT THE TAX WAS NOT DEDUCTED ON TECHNICAL SERVICES REND ERED BY THE NON- RESIDENTS TO THE ASSESSEE COMPANY AS INDICATED IN T HE TAX AUDIT REPORT AT COL. NO. 17(F). HE, THEREFORE, ADDED THE AMOUNT OF RS. 3,96,352/- TO THE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE IN ACCORDANCE WITH TH E PROVISIONS OF SECTION 40(A)(IA) OF THE ACT. 12. ON AN APPEAL, THE CIT(A) HELD THAT THE PAYMENTS FOR AMC ARE IN THE NATURE OF FEE FOR TECHNICAL SERVICES AS DEFINED IN THE ACT U/S 9(1)(VII) AND ALSO AS PER ARTICLE OF DTAA. THUS, TH E COMPANY WAS LIABLE TO DEDUCT TAX U/S 195 OF THE ACT, SINCE IT F AILED TO DO SO, THE AO HAS RIGHT IN MAKING DISALLOWANCE U/S 40(A)(IA) OF T HE ACT. 13. LD. AR SUBMITTED THAT ESI US RENDERED AMS TO CE RTAIN CUSTOMERS OF THE ASSESSEE, ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSE E. HE FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT FOR RENDERING SUCH SERVICES, ESI US RAISED INVOICE FOR AN AMOUNT OF RS. 3,96,352/-, WHICH WAS BOOKED AS PR OFESSIONAL SERVICES FEE BY THE COMPANY. THOUGH THE INVOICE WAS RAISED DURING THE PRESENT AY 2010-11, THE PAYMENT TOWARDS THE SAM E WAS NOT MADE DURING THE PRESENT AY, BUT WAS MADE DURING THE AY 2011-12, AFTER DEDUCTION OF TAX ON THE SAME AT THE TIME OF P AYMENT. IT IS SUBMITTED THAT WHILE RENDERING SUCH SERVICES, ESI U S DID NOT MAKE AVAILABLE ANY TECHNICAL KNOWLEDGE, EXPERIENCE, SKIL L, ETC. TO THE ASSESSEE AND HENCE THE SAME CANNOT BE TREATED AS FE ES FOR INCLUDED SERVICES UNDER ARTICLE 12 OF THE INDIA USA DTAA. LD . AR CONTENDED THAT THE AO DISALLOWED THE PAYMENT FOR NON-DEDUCTIO N OF TAX AT SOURCE DURING THE PRESENT AY 2010-11, WHICH IS NOT PROPER. 14. LD. DR RELIED ON THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A). 15. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE SUBMISSIONS OF BOTH THE PARTIES AND PERUSED THE MATERIAL FACTS ON RECORD AS WELL AS THE ORDERS OF REVENUE AUTHORITIES. AS SUBMITTED BY THE LD. AR, THE ASSESS EE HAS MADE THE PAYMENT OF AMS FEES IN THE FOLLOWING AY AND TDS WAS MADE 8 ITA NOS. 39 TO 42 /HYD/2016 ENERGY SOLUTIONS INTERNATIONAL (INDIA) PVT. LTD. ACCORDINGLY. HENCE, WE DIRECT THE AO TO VERIFY THE SAME AND, IF FOUND PROPER, IT MAY BE ALLOWED. NEEDLESS TO SAY THAT ASS ESSEE MAY BE GIVEN PROPER OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD. ACCORDING LY, GROUND NOS. 8 TO 12 ARE ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. 16. IN THE RESULT, ASSESSEES APPEALS FOR THE AY 20 04-05, 2005-06 AND AY 2009-10 ARE ALLOWED. FOR AY 2010-11, ASSESSE ES APPEAL IS PARTLY ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 29 TH APRIL, 2016. SD/- SD/- (P. MADHAVI DEVI) (S. RIFAUR RAH MAN) JUDICIAL MEMBER A CCOUNTANT MEMBER HYDERABAD, DATED: 29 TH APRIL, 2016 KV COPY TO:- 1) ENERGY SOLUTIONS INTERNATIONAL (INDIA) PVT. LTD ., 1 ST FLOOR, GHB HOUSE, PLOT NO. 264/A(EXT.), ROAD NO. 1 0, JUBILEE HILLS, HYDERABAD 500 033. 2) DCIT, CIRCLE 2(2), HYDERABAD 3 CIT(A) 5, HYDERABAD 4) CCIT, HYDERABAD 5) THE DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE, I.T.A.T., HYDE RABAD.