Convergys Information Management (India) Pvt. Ltd, Hyderabad V. ACIT, Cir-1(2), Hyderabad

ITA 634/HYD/2011

• Counselvise Citation: [2013] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 69848 (ITAT-HYDERABAD)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 year(s) 5 month(s) 27 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 09-10-2013
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Next Hearing Date: 11-10-2011
• Assessment Year: 2005-2006
• Appeal Filed On: 12-04-2011
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: R LAKSHMAN
• Assessee Lawyers: ABHIROOP
• Keywords: Transfer pricing; Double taxation relief; Opportunity of being heard; International transaction; Competent authority
• Section: 143(3); 90

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL HYDERABAD BENCHES A : HYDERABAD BEFORE SHRI CHANDRA POOJARI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SMT. ASHA VIJAYARAGHAVAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA.NO.634/HYD/2011 ASSESSMENT YEAR 2005-2006 CONVERGYS INFORMATION MANAGEMENT (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED, HYDERABAD 500 081 PAN AACCC0701B VS. ACIT, CIRCLE 1 (2) , HYDERABAD (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) FOR APPELLANT : S/SHRI KANCHUN KAUSHAL AND ABHIROOP (AR) FOR RESPONDENT : SHRI R.LAKSHMAN (DR) DATE OF HEARING : 08.08.2013 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT :09.10.2013 ORDER PER SMT. ASHA VIJAYARAGHAVAN, J.M. THIS APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS DIRECTED AGAI NST THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A)-III, HYDERABAD DATED 31-01-2011 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2005-2006. 2. BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT THE ASSESSEE I S A COMPANY WHICH DERIVES INCOME FROM BUSINESS OF PROVI DING INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY ENABLED SERVICES. FOR THE AS ST. YEAR 2005-06, IT HAS FILED ITS RETURN OF INCOME ON 28.10.2005 SHOWING INCOME AT NIL, AFTER CLAIMING DEDUCTION U/S .10A OF THE ACT. AFTER PROCESSING OF THE SAID RETURN U/S.143(1) OF THE ACT, THE SAME WAS SELECTED FOR SCRUTINY ASSESSMENT. DURING THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, THE AO NOTICED THAT DURING THE PREVIOUS YEAR THE ASSESSEE HAS ENTERED INTO INTERNATIONAL TRANSACTIONS WITH ITS ASSOCIATED ENTERPRISES (AES). FOR 2 COMPUTATION OF THE ARM'S LENGTH PRICE (ALP) OF SUCH TRANSACTIONS MADE BY THE ASSESSEE, THE AO HAS MADE A REFERENCE TO THE ADDL.CIT, TRANSFER PRICING (TPO), HYDERABAD, U/S.92CA(1) OF THE ACT. IN RESPONSE TO THIS, THE TPO, AFTER MAKING NECESSARY ENQUIRIES AND VERIFICATION I N THE MATTER, VIDE HIS ORDER PASSED U/S.92CA(3) OF THE ACT, DATED 31.03.2008, DETERMINED THE ALP OF SUCH TRANSACTI ONS AT RS.87,94,50,746/-, AS AGAINST RS.78,73,25,715/- SH OWN BY THE ASSESSEE, THEREBY SUGGESTING FOR ADJUSTMENT TO BE MADE TO THE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE U/S.92CA OF THE ACT AT RS.9,2L,25,031/-. LATER, IN CONFORMITY WITH SUCH ORD ER PASSED BY THE TPO, THE AO MADE ADDITION OF THE SAID AMOUNT TO THE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE. 3. FURTHER, IN THE RETURN THE ASSESSEE HAS CLAIMED DEDUCTION U/S. L0A AT RS.5,62,41,198/-. HOWEVER, WHIL E VERIFYING SUCH CLAIM, THE AO NOTICED THAT THE ASSESSEE HA S NOT EXCLUDED A SUM OF RS.L,63,58,066/- INCURRED TOWAR DS COMMUNICATION EXPENSES, FROM THE EXPORT TURNOVER, FOR THE PURPOSE OF COMPUTING DEDUCTION U/S.L0A. SINCE, SUCH COMMUNICATION EXPENSES INCURRED BY THE ASSESSEE, WERE ATTRIBUTABLE TO DELIVERY OF COMPUTER SOFTWARE OUTSIDE INDIA, THE AO, AFTER REFERRING TO THE PROVISIONS OF CLAUSE (IV) OF EXPLANATION-2 TO SECTION 10A OF THE ACT, HELD THAT THE S AME HAS TO BE EXCLUDED FOR COMPUTING THE EXPORT TURNOVER, FOR DETERMINING DEDUCTION U/S.L0A IN THE CASE OF THE ASSE SSEE. THEREFORE, AFTER EXCLUDING THE SAID AMOUNT FROM THE FIG URE OF EXPORT TURNOVER CONSIDERED BY THE ASSESSEE, HE COMPUTE D THE ELIGIBLE EXPORT TURNOVER AT RS.77,09,67,649/- AND ON THAT BASIS DETERMINED THE ALLOWABLE EXEMPTION U/S.L0A A T RS.5,50,72,688/-. 3 4. WITH SUCH ADDITION MADE U/S.92CA OF THE ACT AND AFTER ALLOWING DEDUCTION FOR THE SAID AMOUNT OF RS.5,50,72,688/- UNDER SECTION L0A, THE AO COMPLETED TH E ASSESSMENT UNDER SECTION 143(3) OF THE ACT VIDE ORDER DATE D 22.09.2008, DETERMINING THE TOTAL INCOME AT RS.9,32,93,540/-. 5. THE NEXT ISSUE RELATES TO THE ADJUSTMENT MADE B Y THE TPO/AO TO THE ALP OF THE INTERNATIONAL TRANSACTIONS MADE BY IT U/S.92CA OF THE ACT, IN THE ASSESSMENT. 6. DURING THE HEARING OF APPEAL ON 04.02.2009 BEFO RE CIT(A), IT WAS SUBMITTED BY THE ASSESSEE THAT CONVE RGYS CORPORATION ('CONVERGYS') AND CONVERGYS INFORMATION MANAGEMENT GROUP, INC. (CIMG'), A WHOLLY OWNED US SUBSIDIARY OF CONVERGYS HAVE MADE A REQUEST FOR COM PETENT AUTHORITY ASSISTANCE PURSUANT TO ARTICLE 27 (MUTUAL AGREEMENT PROCEDURE) OF THE INDIA-US TAX TREATY AGA INST THE TRANSFER PRICING ADJUSTMENT OF RS.92,125,031/- OF W HICH RS.79,496,502/- IS ATTRIBUTABLE TO THE TRANSACTIONS BETWEEN CONVERGYS INDIA AND CIMG MADE U/S.92CA(3) OF THE AC T ON THE COMPANY. THE ASSESSEE HAD FURNISHED A COPY OF S UCH LETTER WRITTEN BY THEM TO THE CONCERNED AUTHORITY A T USA. 7. LATER, ON 17.03.2009, THE ASSESSEE HAD FURNISHE D WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS WITH REFERENCE TO DIFFERENT ISS UES PERTAINING TO TRANSFER PRICING MATTER RAISED IN THI S APPEAL. A COPY OF THE SAID WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS ALONG WITH THE PAPER BOOKS FILED, WERE FORWARDED TO THE ADDL. CIT (TRANS FER PRICING) ON 19.03.2009 FOR FURNISHING HIS COMMENTS THEREON. IN THE MEANTIME, THE ASSESSEE FILED A LETTER ON 19. 08.2010 STATING THAT THEY HAVE RECEIVED A LETTER DATED 11.0 6.2010 FROM THE ACIT, CIRCLE-1(2), HYDERABAD, SEEKING REPL Y FROM 4 THEM ABOUT THEIR ACCEPTANCE OF THE RESOLUTION REACH ED BY THE US AND INDIAN COMPETENT AUTHORITIES IN TERMS OF SECTION 90 OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 READ WITH ARTICLE 27 OF INDO- US DOUBLE TAXATION AVOIDANCE AGREEMENT BETWEEN INDI A AND USA AND REGARDING WITHDRAWAL OF APPEAL PENDING ON SUCH ISSUE WHICH WAS SUBJECT MATTER FOR ADJUDICATIO N UNDER THE MUTUAL AGREEMENT PROCEDURE (MAP) IN TERMS OF RU LE 44H OF THE INCOME TAX RULES, 1962. IN THAT LETTER T HE ASSESSEE FURTHER STATED THAT THEY CONFIRM THAT THEI R COMPANY IS IN AGREEMENT WITH THE RESOLUTION REACHED BETWEEN THE US AND INDIAN COMPETENT AUTHORITIES. HO WEVER, THE COMPANY SUBMITTED THAT IT WOULD RETAIN ITS APPE AL FOR THE ADDITION U/S.92CA TO THE INCOME OF THE COMPANY FOR SERVICES RENDERED TO EMEA LIMITED, UK, FOR WHICH SETTLEMENT VIA MAP HAS NOT BEEN APPROACHED BY THE COMPANY. IT WAS FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS ALREADY FILED A LETTER BEFORE THE AO CONFIRMING THE IR ACCEPTANCE OF SUCH RESOLUTION. VIDE THE SAID LETTER , THE ASSESSEE ENCLOSED COPIES OF THE SAID LETTER ISSUED BY THE AO AND THEIR REPLY FILED VIDE LETTER DATED 17.08.2010 IN THAT REGARD. 8. FURTHER, IN THE SAID LETTER, WHILE CLARIFYING O N WITHDRAWAL OF THEIR APPEAL, THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT THEIR COMPANY HAS PREFERRED APPEAL FOR THIS ASSESSMENT YE AR, AGAINST THE ADJUSTMENT MADE TO THE ARM'S LENGTH PRI CE U/S.92CA OF 'THE ACT OF RS.92,125,031/-, WHICH INCL UDES ADJUSTMENT OF RS.79,496,502/- TOWARDS SOFTWARE DEVELOPMENT SERVICES PROVIDED TO US BASED ASSOCIATE D ENTERPRISE AND RS.12,628,530/- TOWARDS SOFTWARE DEVELOPMENT SERVICES PROVIDED TO EMEA LIMITED, UK. IT WAS STATED THAT THE COMPANY PROPOSES TO WITHDRAW THEIR APPEAL IN RELATION TO TRANSACTION MADE WITH US BASED AE, U NDER 5 TRANSFER PRICING ISSUE, AS THE ASSESSING OFFICER HA S ACCEPTED THE RESOLUTION REACHED BETWEEN THE USA AND INDIAN COMPETENT AUTHORITIES. HOWEVER, THE COMPANY WOULD CONTINUE TO PURSUE THEIR APPEAL IN RELATION TO ADDI TION U/S.92CA TO THEIR INCOME FOR SERVICES RENDERED TO E MEA LIMITED, UK, FOR WHICH MAP HAS NOT BEEN APPROACHED BY THEIR COMPANY. IT WAS STATED THAT THE AMOUNT OF TRA NSFER PRICING ADJUSTMENT ON THAT ACCOUNT IS RS.12,628,530 /-. 9. THE CIT(A) HELD AFTER CONSIDERING SUCH SUBMISSI ON OF THE ASSESSEE, IN THEIR LETTER FILED IN HIS OFFICE O N 19.08.2010 AND SUCH LETTER DATED 17.08.2010 FILED BEFORE THE A CIT, CIRCLE-L(2), HYDERABAD, ACCEPTING SUCH RESOLUTION R EACHED BETWEEN CONCERNED COMPETENT AUTHORITIES OF USA AND INDIA, IN TERMS OF SECTION 90 OF THE ACT READ WITH ARTICLE 27 OF THE DTAA BETWEEN INDIA AND USA AND HAVING REGARD TO THE PROVISIONS OF RULE 44H OF I.T. RULES, 1962, ALL THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL PERTAINING TO TRANSFER PRICING MATTER, RELAT ING TO SUCH ADDITION OF RS.79,496,501/-, INCLUDED IN THE SAID ADJUSTMENT OF RS.92,125,031/- MADE U/S.92CA OF THE ACT IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER PASSED IN THIS CASE, ARE DISMI SSED AS WITHDRAWN, W.E.F 19.08.2010. 10. THE CIT(A) OBSERVED THAT LATER, DURING THE HEA RING OF APPEAL, IN THE WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS FILED BY THE ID. AR, IT WAS SUBMITTED THAT CONVERGYS INFORMATION MANAGEMENT (IN DIA) PVT. LTD., ('CIM') I.E., THE ASSESSEE-COMPANY, PROV IDES CONTRACT SOFTWARE DEVELOPMENT SERVICES TO ITS GROUP COMPANIES. THE ASSESSEE IS COMPENSATED ON A COST PL US BASIS FOR THE SERVICES RENDERED BY IT. DURING THE F .Y 2004-05 RELEVANT TO ASST. YEAR 2005-06, CIM EARNED AN EFFEC TIVE COST PLUS MARK-UP OF 11% FOR PROVIDING CONTRACT SOFTWARE DEVELOPMENT SERVICES TO ITS AES. IT WAS SUBMITTED T HAT THE 6 PRICE IN RESPECT OF CONTRACT SOFTWARE DEVELOPMENT A ND SUPPORT SERVICES RENDERED TO ITS AES, LOCATED IN US A AND UK HAVE BEEN SHOWN AT RS.78,73,25,715/-. OUT OF THIS, THE QUANTUM OF TRANSACTION WITH CONVERGYS INFORMATION MANAGEMENT GROUP, INC, USA LE., AE IN USA, AMOUNTS TO RS.67,93,98,843/- I.E., 86.29% OF SUCH PRICE RECEIV ED. THE QUANTUM OF TRANSACTIONS WITH CONVERGYS EMEA LIMITED , UK I.E., AE IN UK, AMOUNTS TO RS.10,79,26,872/- I.E., 13.71% OF SUCH PRICE RECEIVED. 11. IT WAS SUBMITTED BEFORE CIT(A) THAT IN ITS TRA NSFER PRICING ANALYSIS, THE ASSESSEE HAS ADOPTED TRANSACT IONAL NET MARGINAL METHOD (TNMM) AS THE MOST APPROPRIATE METH OD WITH OPERATING PROFIT/TOTAL COST RATIO AS PROFIT LE VEL INDICATOR, ARRIVING AT 11% AS THE ARITHMETICAL MEAN OPERATING MARK-UP ON COST. HOWEVER, THE TPO VIDE HIS SAID ORDER WHILE ACCEPTING SUCH METHOD ADOPTED BY THE ASSESSEE, BASE D ON COMPARABLE SELECTED BY HIM DETERMINED 24.05% AS THE ARITHMETICAL MEAN OPERATING MARK-UP ON COST (WITH WO RKING CAPITAL ADJUSTMENT) AND ON THAT BASIS MADE AN ADDITION OF RS.92,125,031/- TO THE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE U/S.92CA O F THE ACT. 12. IT WAS FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT SIMULTANEOUSLY WI TH FILING OF THE APPEAL, FOR THIS ASSESSMENT YEAR, THE AE O F THE ASSESSEE IN US HAS APPROACHED THE US COMPETENT AUTHORITY FOR RESOLUTION IN TERMS OF DTAA SUBSISTING BETWEEN IND IA AND US. THE US COMPETENT AUTHORITIES AND THE INDIAN COMPETENT AUTHORITY REACHED A NEGOTIATED SETTLEMENT, RESOLVING THAT THE ALP IN RESPECT OF SOFTWARE DEVELOPMEN T AND SUPPORT SERVICES RENDERED BY THE ASSESSEE TO BE AT A MARK-UP OF 17.50% OF THE OPERATING COST. ENCLOSING A C OPY OF THE SAID RESOLUTION DATED 12.08.2010, THE ID. AR 7 SUBMITTED THAT AFTER ACCEPTANCE OF SUCH RESOLUTION REACH ED BY THE COMPETENT AUTHORITIES BY THE ASSESSEE AND WITHDRAWAL OF THEIR APPEAL PENDING WITH REFERENCE TO SAME BEFORE THE CIT(A), THE AO HAS PASSED A CONSEQUENTIAL ORDE R GIVING EFFECT TO SUCH RESOLUTION. 13. IT WAS SUBMITTED THAT, WITHOUT PREJUDICE, IN TH E INTEREST OF RESOLUTION OF DISPUTE, CONSIDERING THAT THE INTERNATIONAL TRANSACTIONS OF THE ASSESSEE WITH EMEA, UK, THAT ARE NOT COVERED IN THE SAID MAP ARE SIMILAR IN NAT URE OF THE SERVICES PROVIDED LE, SOFTWARE DEVELOPMENT AND SUPPORT SERVICES, TO THEIR AE IN US, THE ASSESSEE REQUESTS THAT THE SAME NEGOTIATED MARK-UP ON COST OF 17.5% MAY BE APPLI ED FOR DETERMINING THE ALP OF THE INTERNATIONAL TRANSACTIO NS MADE BY THE ASSESSEE WITH THE SAID AE IN UK. 14. THE CIT(A) HELD AS FOLLOWS : 6. I HAVE CAREFULLY CONSIDERED SUCH SUBMISSIONS OF THE APPELLANT AND THE FACTS OF THE CASE. I HAVE CAREFULLY GONE THROUGH THE SAID ORDER PASSED BY THE TPO U/S.92CA(3) OF THE ACT IN THIS CASE. HOWEVER, THE LEARNED CIT(A) WAS UNABLE TO AGREE WITH SUCH CONTENTION OF THE APPELLANT. THE RESULT OF NEGOTIATIONS UNDER MAP REACHED BETWEEN US COMPETENT AUTHORITY AND INDIAN COMPETENT AUTHORITY, PERTAINING TO THE INTERNATIONAL TRANSACTIONS MADE BY THE APPELLANT WITH CIMG, US, IN MY CONSIDERED VIEW, CANNOT BE APPLIED TO THE INTERNATIONAL TRANSACTIONS MADE WITH CONVERGYS EMEA LIMITED, UK (EMEA, UK). SINCE, THE APPELLANT ACCEPTS IN PRINCIPLE, ARITHMETICAL MEAN OPERATING MARK-UP ON COST I.E., ARM'S LENGTH 8 MARGIN OF 24.5% DETERMINED BY THE TPO, THE SAME HAS TO BE TAKEN INTO ACCOUNT FOR DETERMINING THE ARM'S LENGTH PRICE OF SUCH INTERNATIONAL TRANSACTIONS MADE BY THE APPELLANT WITH EMEA, UK IN THIS CASE. 15. AS SUBMITTED BY THE ID. AR, THE APPELLANT HAS SHOWN THE PRICE IN RESPECT OF INTERNATIONAL TRANSACTIONS MADE WITH EMEA, UK AT RS.L0,79,26,872/-, WHICH STANDS INCLUDED IN THE TOTAL AMOUNT OF RS.78,73,25,715/- MENTIONED BY THE TPO IN HIS SAID ORDER PASSED U/S.92CA(3) OF THE ACT. FROM THE CERTIFIED COPY OF AUDIT REPORT IN FORM 3CEB FURNISHED BEFORE ME, DURING THE HEARING OF APPEAL, I FIND THAT THE SAID AMOUNT OF RS.L0,79,26,872/- IS SHOWN AS THE AMOUNT RECEIVED FROM CONVERGYS EMEA. SUCH RECEIPT CONSTITUTES 13.71% OF THE SAID TOTAL AMOUNT OF RS.78,73,25,715/-. SINCE, THE TPO HAS COMPUTED THE ADJUSTMENT TO THE ALP OF THE ENTIRE INTERNATIONAL TRANSACTIONS U/S.92CA OF THE ACT AT RS.9,21,25,031/-, 13.71% OF THIS AMOUNT, WHICH PERTAINS TO ADJUSTMENT IN RESPECT OF INTERNATIONAL TRANSACTIONS MADE WITH CONVERGYS EMEA, UK , THE SAME HAS TO BE ADDED TO THE INCOME OF THE APPELLANT U/S.92CA OF THE ACT IN THIS CASE 13.71% OF RS.9,21,25,031/- WORKS OUT TO RS.L,26,30,342/- THEREFORE, THE AO IS DIRECTED TO ADD THIS AMOUNT TO THE INCOME OF THE APPELLANT AND TO COMPUTE THE TOTAL INCOME FOR THIS ASSESSMENT YEAR ACCORDINGLY. 15. AGGRIEVED, THE ASSESSEE IS IN APPEAL BEFORE US. THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE SHRI KANCHUN KA USHAL 9 AT THE OUTSET POINTED OUT BEFORE US THAT THE FACTS OF THE ASSESSEES CASE IS SIMILAR TO THAT OF INTOTO SOFTWA RE INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED, HYDERABAD FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2005- 2006 WHICH WAS DECIDED BY THIS TRIBUNAL IN ITA.NO.1196/HYD/2010 ETC., VIDE ITS ORDER DATED 24.05.2013. FURTHER, HE SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE IN THE PRESENT CASE ENGAGED IN PROVIDING CONTRACT SOFTWARE DEVELOPMENT AND SUPPORT SERVICES TO ITS AES AS IN T HE CASE OF INTOTO SOFTWARE INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED (SUPRA) WH ICH IS ENGAGED IN THE BUSINESS OF DEVELOPMENT OF SOFTWARE FOR ITS AES. BOTH ASSESSEE AND INTOTO SOFTWARE INDIA PRIVAT E LIMITED (SUPRA) ARE CAPTIVE SERVICE PROVIDER HAVI NG LEAST COMPLEX OPERATIONS AND SHARES LESSER RISKS AND BOTH ARE APPLIED TNMM METHOD FOR DETERMINING ALPS AND IF THE DECISION OF THE TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF INTOTO SOFT WARE INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED (SUPRA) APPLIED THERE CAN BE NO ADJ USTMENT TOWARDS ALP. ACCORDINGLY, THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR T HE ASSESSEE PRAYED THAT THE ISSUE MAY BE REMITTED TO T HE FILE OF THE CIT(A) FOR FRESH CONSIDERATION. 16. THE LEARNED D.R. FAIRLY CONCEDED THE ARGUMENTS OF THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE. 17. CONSIDERING THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, WE ARE OF THE OPINION THAT THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNA L IN THE CASE OF INTOTO SOFTWARE INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED IN IT A.NO. 1196/HYD/2010 ETC., FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2005-20 06 DATED 24.05.2013 WHEREIN THE TRIBUNAL HAS DISCUSSED WITH THE VARIOUS COMPARABLES CONSIDERED BY THE PRESENT T PO AND GAVE FINDINGS. IN THESE CIRCUMSTANCES, WE REMIT THE ISSUE TO THE FILE OF THE CIT(A) TO EXAMINE THE COMPARABLES A S DISCUSSED IN ITA.NO.1196/HYD/2010 IN THE CASE OF IN TOTO SOFTWARE INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED (SUPRA) AND THEREAFT ER, DECIDE 10 THE ISSUE IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW, AFTER GIVING A RE ASONABLE OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD TO THE ASSESSEE. 16. IN THE RESULT, APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWE D FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 09.10.2013. SD/- SD/- (CHANDRA POOJARI) (SMT. ASHA VIJAYARAGHAVAN) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER HYDERABAD, DATE 09 TH OCTOBER, 2013. VBP/- COPY TO 1. CONVERGYS INFORMATION MANAGEMENT (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED, PLOT NO.5 & 43, SURVEY NO.64, HI-TECH CITY , MADHAPUR, HYDERABAD 500 081. PAN AACCC0701B 2. ACIT, CIRCLE 1 (2), AAYAKAR BHAVAN, HYDERABAD. 3. CIT-III, HYDERABAD 4. CIT-1, HYDERABAD 5. DR A BENCH, ITAT, HYDERABAD