Infotech Enterprises Limited, Hyderabad V. Addl.CIT, Range-2, Hyderabad

ITA 775/HYD/2013

• Counselvise Citation: [2013] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 69769 (ITAT-HYDERABAD)
• Duration Of Justice: 3 month(s) 29 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 13-09-2013
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Assessment Year: 2006-2007
• Appeal Filed On: 15-05-2013
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: P SOMASEKHAR REDDY
• Assessee Lawyers: M V R PRASAD
• Keywords: Transfer pricing; Assessment record
• Section: 43B; 143(3); 263

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL HYDERABAD A BENCH, HYDERABAD BEFORE SHRI CHANDRA POOJARI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI SAKTIJIT DEY, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA NO.775 OF 2013 ASSESSMENT YEAR 2006-07. INFOTECH ENTERPRISES LIMITED -V- ADDL. CIT, RANGE-2, HYDERABAD. HYDERABAD. PAN:AAACI4487J (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY SHRI MVR PRASAD RESPONDENT BY SHRI P. SOMA SEKHAR REDDY DATE OF HEARING 02-09-2013 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT 13-09-2013 ORDER PER SAKTIJIT DEY, J.M: THIS APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS DIRECTED AGAINST TH E ORDER DATED 27-3-2013 PASSED U/S 263 OF I.T. ACT, 1961 BY THE CIT-2, HYDERABAD PERTAINING TO THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2006-07 . 2. BRIEFLY THE FACTS ARE, THE ASSESSEE, A COMPANY, IS ENGAGED IN THE BUSINESS OF DEVELOPMENT OF SOFTWARE AND OTHE R ALLIED ACTIVITIES. FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR UNDER DISPUTE, THE ASSESSEE FILED ITS RETURN OF INCOME ON 29-11-2006 DECLARING TOTAL INCOME OF RS.16,37,87,600/- AFTER CLAIMING DEDUCTION U/S 10A OF THE ACT. DURING THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, THE ASSESSING OF FICER NOTICING THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD ENTERED INTO INTERNATIONAL TR ANSACTION 2 ITA NO.775 OF 2013 INFOTECH ENTERPRISES LIMITED, HYD. REFERRED THE MATTER TO THE ADDL. CIT (TRANSFER PRIC ING) FOR DETERMINATION OF ALP OF THE INTERNATIONAL TRANSACTI ON. IN PURSUANCE TO THE TRANSFER PRICING ADJUSTMENT MADE B Y THE TPO, THE ASSESSING OFFICER MADE A DRAFT ASSESSMENT ORDER INCORPORATING THE TRANSFER PRICING ADJUSTMENT MADE BY THE TPO AS WELL AS PROPOSING SOME OTHER DISALLOWANCES. AGAINS T THE DRAFT ASSESSMENT ORDER, THE ASSESSEE RAISED OBJECTIONS BE FORE THE DISPUTE RESOLUTION PANEL (DRP). IN COMPLIANCE WITH THE DIRECTIONS OF THE DRP, A FINAL ASSESSMENT ORDER WA S PASSED U/S 143(3) READ WITH SECTION 92CA AND 144C OF THE ACT O N 29-11- 2010 DETERMINING THE TOTAL INCOME AT RS.21,58,92,08 0 AFTER ALLOWING DEDUCTION U/S 10A OF THE ACT. THE CIT WHI LE EXAMINING THE ASSESSMENT RECORDS OF THE IMPUGNED ASSESSMENT Y EAR OF THE ASSESSEE IN EXERCISE OF POWERS U/S 263 OF THE ACT W AS OF THE VIEW THAT THE ASSESSMENT ORDER PASSED IS ERRONEOUS AND P REJUDICIAL TO THE INTERESTS OF REVENUE AND ACCORDINGLY PROPOSED T O REVISE THE ASSESSMENT ORDER AND ISSUED A SHOW CAUSE NOTICE TO THE ASSESSEE POINTING OUT THE FOLLOWING DEFECTS:- I) TECHNICAL CONSULTANCY CHARGES PAID IN FOREIGN EXCHANGE TO THE CONCERNED OUTSIDE INDIA WAS DISALLOWED U/S 40A(IA) AND ADDED TO THE RETURN OF INCOME AS THE ASSESSEE COMPANY DID NOT DEDUCT TAX A T SOURCE. HOWEVER, FOR THE PURPOSE OF DEDUCTION U/S 10A THE TECHNICAL CONSULTANCY CHARGES TO THE TUNE O F RS.11,91,05,050/- IN RESPECT OF STPI UNIT-III AND RS.57,65,917/- IN RESPECT OF STPI UNIT SITUATED IN BANGALORE WERE NOT REDUCED FROM THE EXPORT TURNOVER TO ARRIVE AT THE CORRECT ADJUSTED EXPORT TURNOVER OF RESPECTIVE UNITS IN TERMS OF CLAUSE (I V) BELOW EXPLANATION-2 TO SECTION 10A OF THE ACT. 3 ITA NO.775 OF 2013 INFOTECH ENTERPRISES LIMITED, HYD. II) COMPUTATION OF DEDUCTION U/S 10A IN RESPECT OF STPI UNIT-3 AND STPI UNIT SITUATED IN BANGALORE THAT THE DISALLOWANCE OF RS.11,91,05,050/- AND RS.57,65,917/ - RESPECTIVELY FOR NON DEDUCTION OF TAX AT SOURCE WAS ADDED TO THE PROFITS OF THE RESPECTIVE STPI UNITS WHICH RESULTED IN INCREASE OF THE ADJUSTED PROFITS FOR THE PURPOSE OF SECTION 10A. AS THE TOTAL DISALLOW ANCE OF RS.19,48,02,907/- WAS ALREADY CONSIDERED FOR COMPUTING THE OVERALL TAXABLE INCOME BEFORE ALLOWABLE DEDUCTION UNDER CHAPTER III AND CHAPTER VIA OF THE ACT. THEREFORE THE ADDITIONS MADE IN TH E ABOVE MENTIONED STPI UNITS HAVE RESULTED IN ARRIVIN G AT HIGHER ADJUSTED PROFITS OF THE UNDERTAKING THERE BY RESULTING IN EXCESS DEDUCTION U/S 10A OF THE ACT. 3. THOUGH THE ASSESSEE OBJECTED TO THE PROPOSED ACT ION OF THE CIT IN REVISING THE ASSESSMENT ORDER IN THE CONTEXT OF THE ISSUES RAISED IN THE SHOW CAUSE NOTICE, THE CIT HOWEVER RE JECTED THE CONTENTION OF THE ASSESSEE AND HELD THAT THE CONSUL TANCY CHARGES OF RS.12,48,79,067/- INCURRED IN FOREIGN CURRENCY R ELATING TO PROVIDING TECHNICAL SERVICES OUTSIDE INDIA CANNOT B E THE PART OF EXPORT TURNOVER AS DEFINED IN CLAUSE(IV) OF EXPLANA TION-2 OF SECTION 10A OF THE ACT AND ACCORDINGLY DIRECTED THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO REDUCE THE SAME FROM THE EXPORT TURNOV ER WHILE COMPUTING DEDUCTION U/S 10A OF THE ACT. SO FAR AS SECOND ISSUE CONCERNING EXCESS ALLOWANCE OF DEDUCTION U/S 10A OF THE ACT IS CONCERNED, THE CIT HELD THAT THE DISALLOWANCE MADE U/S 40(A)(IA) OF THE ACT AMOUNTING TO RS.19,48,02,907 CANNOT BE C ONSIDERED FOR THE PURPOSE OF COMPUTATION OF DEDUCTION U/S 10A OF THE ACT. IN OTHER WORDS, ACCORDING TO THE CIT, THE DISALLOWANC E MADE U/S 40(A)(IA) CANNOT BE CONSIDERED AS PART OF BUSINESS PROFIT OF THE ASSESSEE AND ACCORDINGLY DIRECTED THE ASSESSING OFF ICER TO COMPUTE 10A DEDUCTION WITHOUT INCLUDING THE AFORESA ID AMOUNT OF 4 ITA NO.775 OF 2013 INFOTECH ENTERPRISES LIMITED, HYD. RS.19,48,02,907/- TO THE TURNOVER OF THE ASSESSEE. BEING AGGRIEVED OF THE ORDER PASSED BY THE CIT, THE ASSES SEE HAS PREFERRED AN APPEAL BEFORE US WITH THE FOLLOWING RE VISED GROUNDS OF APPEAL:- 1.THE ORDER OF THE CIT-II, HYDERABAD U/S. 263 DATE D 27.03.2013 IS CONTRARY TO THE LAW AND FACTS OF THE CASE. 2.THE LEARNED CLT ERRED IN HOLDING THAT THE AMOUNT OF RS. 12A8JO,967/-, THE SO CALLED CONSULTANCY CHARGES INCURRED IN FOREIGN C URRENCY, IS TO BE REDUCED FROM THE 'EXPORT TURNOVER, IN TERMS OF CLAUSE (IV) OF EXPLANATION 2 TO SECTION LOA, FOR THE PURPOSE OF WORKING OUT THE RELIEF UNDE R SECTION LOA I) HE OUGHT TO HAVE REALIZED THAT THE SAID AMOUNT O F RS.12A8JO,967/- REPRESENTED ACTUALLY THE SOFTWARE DEVELOPMENT CHARG ES PAID TO THE FOREIGN SUBSIDIARIES OF THE APPELLANT FOR THE SERVICES REND ERED BY THEM AND NOT TECHNICAL SERVICE CHARGES. II) HAVING NOTICED THAT THE SAID AMOUNT OF RS. 12A8,02,907/- CONSTITUTED A PART OF 19A8,02,907/-WHICH WAS HELD BY THE ASSESSIN G OFFICER TO BE THE BUSINESS PROFIT OF THE NON-RESIDENTS ARISING OUT OF THEIR BUSINESS CONNECTION WITH INDIA IN TERMS OF SECTION 9(1)(I) OF THE INCOM E TAX ACT, HE OUGHT TO HAVE HELD THAT THE SAID AMOUNT COULD NOT BE REDUCED FROM THE EXPORT TURNOVER. III) HE OUGHT TO HAVE NOTICED THAT THIS AMOUNT OF R S.12A8,02,907/- WAS NOT CHARGED TO THE CLIENTS OF THE APPELLANT AND, AS SUC H, WAS NOT INCLUDED IN THE EXPORT TURNOVER AND SO COULD NOT BE REDUCED FROM TH E EXPORT TURNOVER. IV) WHAT CAN BE EXCLUDED IN TERMS OF CLAUSE (IV) OF EXPLANATION 2 TO SECTION LOA IS ONLY, INTER ALIA, EXPENSES INCURRED IN FOREI GN EXCHANGE IN PROVIDING TECHNICAL SERVICES OUTSIDE INDIA AND NOT EXPENDITUR E ON TECHNICAL SERVICES RECEIVED FROM OUTSIDE INDIA. AS THE AMOUNT OF RS.12 A8,02,907/- DOES NOT REPRESENT EXPENSES INCURRED BY THE APPELLANT IN PRO VIDING TECHNICAL SERVICES, IT CANNOT BE REDUCED FROM EXPORT TURNOVER. 3} THE ID. CIT ERRED IN HOLDING THAT THE AMOUNT OF RS. 19A8,02,907/- DISALLOWED UNDER SECTION 40(A}(I) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT AND SU CH OTHER AMOUNTS ARE TO BE EXCLUDED FROM BUSINESS PROFITS FOR THE PURPOSE O F WORKING OUT THE DEDUCTION UNDER SECTION LOA OF THE INCOME TAX ACT. I) HE ERRED IN RELYING SOLELY ON THE DECISION OF TH E AHMEDABAD BENCH OF THE TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF SRI RAMESH BHAI C PRAJA PATI WITHOUT EVEN PUTTING IT TO THE APPELLANT AND IGNORING ALL THE RELEVANT A RGUMENTS ADVANCED BY THE APPELLANT AND .THUS, VIOLATING ALL THE CANONS OF NA TURAL JUSTICE. II) HE OUGHT TO HAVE NOTICED THAT THE DEDUCTION UND ER SECTION LOA IS TO BE GIVEN FROM THE 'TOTAL INCOME' WHICH IS DEFINED IN S ECTION 2(45) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT AS INCOME COMPUTED IN THE MANNER LAI D DOWN IN THE ACT AND 5 ITA NO.775 OF 2013 INFOTECH ENTERPRISES LIMITED, HYD. SO THE DISALLOWANCE MADE UNDER SECTION 40(A}(I) CON STITUTED AN INTEGRAL PART OF TOTAL INCOME AND, AS SUCH, THERE IS NO STATUTORY WARRANT FOR REDUCING THE AMOUNT OF 19A8,02,907/- OR SUCH OTHER AMOUNTS FROM THE BUSINESS PROFITS OF THE APPELLANT. III) HE OUGHT TO HAVE REALIZED THAT THE STAND TAKEN BY HIM GOES CONTRARY TO THE DECISION OF THE HON'BLE BOMBAY HIGH COURT IN TH E CASE OF CIT VS. M/S. GEM PLUS JEWELLERY INDIA LTD [3301TR 175] AND THE R ATIO OF THE DECISION OF THE HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. ALLIED INDUS TRIES [229 CTR 462 (HP)] AND OF THE HYDERABAD BENCH OF THE TRIBUNA L IN THE CASE OF BRIGADE GLOBAL SERVICES PRIVATE LIMITED VS ITO, WARD-1(1}, HYDERABAD [143 ITD 59]. 4) THE ID. CLT GROSSLY ERRED IN IGNORING THE ESTABLI SHED LEGAL POSITION THAT, WHEN TWO VIEWS ARE POSSIBLE, REVISIONARY ACTION UND ER SECTION 263 DOES NOT LIE. 5) THE APPELLANT CRAVES LEAVE TO RAISE ANY OTHER GROU ND WITH THE PERMISSION OF THE BENCH. 4. GROUND NO.1 IS GENERAL IN NATURE AND NEEDS NO AD JUDICATION. 5. SO FAR AS GROUND NO.2 IS CONCERNED, THE LEARNED AUTHORISED REPRESENTATIVE FOR THE ASSESSEE SPECIFICALLY CONTEN DED BEFORE US THAT THE AMOUNT OF RS.12,48,70,967/- WAS NOT INCLUD ED IN THE EXPORT TURNOVER BY THE ASSESSEE ITSELF WHILE COMPUT ING THE DEDUCTION U/S 10A OF THE ACT. HENCE, THERE IS NO QU ESTION OF REDUCING IT FROM THE EXPORT TURNOVER WHEN IT HAS NO T AT ALL BEEN INCLUDED IN THE EXPORT TURNOVER BY THE ASSESSEE. T HE LEARNED AUTHORISED REPRESENTATIVE FOR THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTE D THAT THIS FACT CAN BE VERIFIED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. IN THE ALTERNATIVE, THE LEARNED AUTHORISED REPRESENTATIVE FOR THE ASSES SEE ALSO CONTENDED THAT IF AT ALL IT HAS TO BE EXCLUDED FROM THE EXPORT TURNOVER THEN FOR MAINTAINING THE PRINCIPLE OF PARI TY, IT HAS TO BE EXCLUDED FROM THE TOTAL TURNOVER AS WELL. IN SUPPO RT OF SUCH CONTENTION, THE LEARNED AUTHORISED REPRESENTATIVE F OR THE ASSESSEE RELIED ON THE DECISION OF HONBLE BOMBAY H IGH COURT IN CASE OF GEM PLUS JEWELLERY INDIA LIMITED (330 ITR 175) AND 6 ITA NO.775 OF 2013 INFOTECH ENTERPRISES LIMITED, HYD. INCOME-TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL CHENNAI BENCH IN CASE OF SAK SOFT LTD. (30 SOT 55). 6. THE LEARNED DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE ON THE O THER HAND, SUBMITTED THAT THE MATTER MAY BE REMITTED TO THE FI LE OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER FOR VERIFYING WHETHER THE ASSESSE E HAS NOT INCLUDED THIS AMOUNT IN THE EXPORT TURNOVER. 7. WE HAVE CONSIDERED RIVAL SUBMISSIONS OF THE PART IES AND PERUSED THE MATERIAL ON RECORD. IT IS THE SPECIFIC CONTENTION OF THE LEARNED AUTHORISED REPRESENTATIVE FOR THE ASSESSEE THAT THE AFORESAID AMOUNT OF RS. 12,48,70,967/- BEING THE T ECHNICAL CONSULTANCY CHARGES WERE NOT AT ALL INCLUDED IN TH E EXPORT TURNOVER BY THE ASSESSEE ITSELF WHILE COMPUTING THE DEDUCTION U/S 10A OF THE ACT. IF IT IS REALLY A FACT THEN THERE CANNOT BE ANY REDUCTION OF THE SAID AMOUNT FROM THE EXPORT TURNOV ER WHEN THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT AT ALL INCLUDED IT IN THE EXPORT T URNOVER WHILE COMPUTING DEDUCTION U/S 10A OF THE ACT. WE THEREFO RE DIRECT THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO VERIFY THIS FACT AND IF ON VE RIFICATION IT IS FOUND THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT INCLUDED THE SAID AMOUNT WHILE COMPUTING THE DEDUCTION U/S 10A THEN THERE IS NO QU ESTION OF REDUCING IT FROM EXPORT TURNOVER FOR THE PURPOSE OF COMPUTING DEDUCTION U/S 10A OF THE ACT. EVEN OTHERWISE ALSO, THE ALTERNATIVE CONTENTION OF THE ASSESSEE IS NOT WITH OUT SUBSTANCE. WHEN ANY AMOUNT BEING IN THE NATURE OF FREIGHT, TELECOMMUNICATION CHARGES OR INSURANCE ATTRIBUTABLE TO THE DELIVERY OF THE ARTICLES OR THINGS OR COMPUTER SOFT WARE OUTSIDE INDIA ARE TO BE EXCLUDED FROM THE EXPORT TURNOVER, THEN THE SAME IS ALSO REQUIRED TO BE EXCLUDED FROM THE TOTAL TURN OVER FOR THE PURPOSE OF COMPUTING DEDUCTION U/S 10A OF THE ACT. THIS VIEW OF OURS GETS SUPPORT FROM THE DECISION OF HONBLE BOMB AY HIGH COURT IN CASE OF CIT GEM PLUS JEWELLERY INDIA LTD. (330 I TR 175 AND 7 ITA NO.775 OF 2013 INFOTECH ENTERPRISES LIMITED, HYD. INCOME-TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL CHENNAI BENCH IN CASE OF SAK SOFT LTD. (30 SOT 55). HENCE THIS GROUND IS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. 8. IN GROUND NO.3, THE ASSESSEE HAS ASSAILED THE A CTION OF THE CIT IN HOLDING THAT THE AMOUNT OF RS.19,48,02,907/ - DISALLOWED U/S 40(A)(IA) OF THE ACT CANNOT BE CONSIDERED FOR T HE PURPOSE OF DEDUCTION U/S 10A OF THE ACT. 9. THE LEARNED AUTHORISED REPRESENTATIVE FOR THE AS SESSEE SUBMITTED BEFORE US THAT THE ISSUE IS SQUARELY COVE RED BY THE DECISION OF HONBLE BOMBAY HIGH COURT IN CASE OF CI T VS. GEM PLUS JEWELLERY INDIA LIMITED (330 ITR 175 AND THE D ECISION OF INCOME-TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL HYDERABAD BENCH IN CA SE OF DCIT VS. M/S SEVEN HILLS BUSINESS SOLUTIONS (ITA NO.391 /HYD/12 DATED 21-6-2012 WHICH WAS APPROVED BY THE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT IN ITTA NO.119 2013 DATED 27-6-2013. 10. THE LEARNED DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE, ON THE OTHER HAND, SUPPORTED THE ORDER OF THE CIT ON THIS ISSUE. 11. WE HAVE CONSIDERED RIVAL SUBMISSIONS OF THE PAR TIES AND PERUSED THE MATERIAL ON RECORD. AFTER PERUSING THE FACTS AND MATERIALS ON RECORD, WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT THE IS SUE IS SQUARELY COVERED IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE. THE HONBLE BOM BAY HIGH COURT WHILE CONSIDERING IDENTICAL ISSUE IN CASE OF CIT VS. GEM PLUS JEWELLERY INDIA LTD. (SUPRA) HELD THAT THE ADD ITIONS MADE TO THE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE BY VIRTUE OF DISALLOWANC E MADE U/S 43B OF THE ACT, AMOUNTS TO INCREASE IN THE BUSINES S PROFIT OF THE ASSESSEE AND THEREFORE ASSESSEE IS ENTITLED TO CLAI M EXEMPTION U/S 10A WITH REGARD TO THE ADDITION MADE ON ACCOUNT OF STATUTORY DISALLOWANCE. FOLLOWING AFORESAID DECISION OF THE H ONBLE BOMBAY HIGH COURT, THE CO-ORDINATE BENCH OF THIS TRIBUNAL IN CASE OF DCIT 8 ITA NO.775 OF 2013 INFOTECH ENTERPRISES LIMITED, HYD. VS. SEVEN HILLS BUSINESS (SUPRA) HELD THAT THE DI SALLOWANCE MADE U/S 40(A)(IA) FOR NON DEDUCTION OF TDS WOULD R ESULT IN INCREASE IN BUSINESS PROFIT OF THE ASSESSEE, HENCE THE ASSESSEE WOULD BE ENTITLED TO CLAIM DEDUCTION U/S 10A WITH R EFERENCE TO SUCH ADDITION MADE ON ACCOUNT OF DISALLOWANCE U/S 4 0(A)(IA). RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING THE RATIO LAID DOWN AS ABOVE BY THE HONBLE BOMBAY HIGH COURT AND CO-ORDINATE BENCH OF THE TRIB UNAL, WE HOLD THAT THE ASSESSEE WOULD BE ENTITLED TO CLAIM E XEMPTION U/S 10A OF THE ACT ON THE ADDITION MADE ON ACCOUNT OF D ISALLOWANCE U/S 40 (A)(IA) OF THE ACT WHICH WOULD BE CONSIDERED AS PART OF BUSINESS PROFIT OF THE ASSESSEE FOR THE IMPUGNED AS SESSMENT YEAR. IN THESE CIRCUMSTANCES, WE SET ASIDE THE ORD ER OF THE CIT ON THIS ISSUE AND DIRECT THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO C OMPUTE EXEMPTION U/S 10A KEEPING IN VIEW OUR DIRECTION GIV EN HEREINBEFORE. 12. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL IS ALLOWED IN PART. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE COURT ON 13-9-2013. SD/- ( CHANDRA POOJARI) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SD/- (SAKTIJIT DEY) JUDICIAL MEMBER HYDERABAD, DATED THE 13 TH SEPT. 2013 COPY TO:- 1) INFOTECH ENTERPRISES LIMITED, 4 TH FL;OOR, A- WING, PLOT NO.11, SOFTWARE UNITS LAYOUT, INFOCITY, MADHAPUR, HYDERABAD. 2) ADDL. CIT, RANGE-2, 8 TH FLOOR, IT TOWERS, MASAB TANK, HYDERABAD. 3) CIT HYDERABAD. 4)DRP, 4A, IT TOWERS, AC GUARDS, HYDERABAD. 5.THE DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE, I.T.A.T., HYDERA BAD. JMR* 9 ITA NO.775 OF 2013 INFOTECH ENTERPRISES LIMITED, HYD. *