VITP Private Limited, Hyderabad V. Addl.CIT, Range-3, Hyderabad

ITA 802/HYD/2011

• Counselvise Citation: [2012] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 61948 (ITAT-HYDERABAD)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 1 month(s) 26 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 28-06-2012
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Assessment Year: 2007-2008
• Appeal Filed On: 02-05-2011
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: V SRINIVAS
• Assessee Lawyers: S RAGHUNATHAN
• Section: 143(3)

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL HYDERABAD A BENCH, HYDERABAD BEFORE SHRI D. KARUNAKARA RAO, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI SAKTIJIT DAY, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA NOS. 801 & 802/HYD/2011 ASSESSMENT YEARS : 2006-07 & 2007-08 VITP PVT. LTD., APPELLANT HYDERABAD (PAN AACCV2672G)) VS. ADDL. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, RESPONDEN T RANGE 3, HYDERABAD. APPELLANT BY : SHRI S. RAGHUNATHAN RESPONDENT BY : SHRI V. SRINIVAS DATE OF HEARING : 02/05/2012 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 28/06/2012 ORDER PER SAKTIJIT DEY, J.M.: BOTH THESE APPEALS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE ARE DIRECTED AGAINST THE RESPECTIVE ORDERS OF THE CIT(A )-IV, HYDERABAD FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEARS 2006-07 AND 2007 - 08. SINCE IDENTICAL ISSUES ARE INVOLVED IN BOTH THE SE APPEALS, THEY WERE HEARD TOGETHER AND, THEREFORE, W E FIND IT CONVENIENT TO DISPOSE OF THESE APPEALS BY WAY OF CONSOLIDATED ORDER. 2. COMMON GROUNDS RAISED IN BOTH THE APPEALS AND THE SAME ARE EXTRACTED FROM AY 2006-07, AS UNDER:- 1. ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CAS E, THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN DENYING THE BENEFIT OF DEDUCTION U/S 80IA OF THE ACT IN RESPECT OF RENTAL INCOME EARNED FROM ASCENDAS PROPERTY MANAGEMENT SERVICES LTD. (ASCENDAS). 2 ITA NOS. 801 & 802/HYD/11 VITP PVT. LTD. 2. WITHOUT PREJUDICE TO THE ABOVE, ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, THE LD CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN NOT ADMITTING THE ADDITIONAL GROUND OF APPEAL, OF EXCLUDING THE CORRESPONDING EXPENDITURE INCURRED TOWARDS EARNING RENTAL INCOME EARNED FROM ASCENDAS, WHILE COMPUTING DEDUCTION U/S 80IA OF THE ACT. 3. TO DISPOSE OF THESE APPEALS, WE REFER TO THE FAC TS FROM AY 2006-07. 4. BRIEFLY THE FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT THE ASSES SEE IS ENGAGED IN THE BUSINESS OF PROVIDING INFRASTRUCTURE FACILITIES, SUCH AS, DEVELOPING, OPERATING AND MAIN TAINING INDUSTRIAL PARKS. FOR THE PURPOSE OF DEVELOPMENT, OPERATION, AND MAINTENANCE OF INDUSTRIAL PARKS, THE ASSESSEE DEVELOPED AN INDUSTRIAL PARK ON 19.39 ACRE S AT MADHAPUR, HYDERABAD. THIS PROJECT OF THE ASSESSEE STARTED IN THE YEAR 1977-78. AS PER THE SCHEME, THE ASSESSEE HAS TO DEVELOP INDUSTRIAL PARK IN FIVE PHA SES. IN THE FIRST PHASE, THE ASSESSEE IS TO DEVELOP MARINER INDUSTRIAL PARK AND AURIGA INDUSTRIAL PARK IN THE S ECOND PHASE. AS PER THE INDUSTRIAL PARKS SCHEME OF GOVT. OF INDIA, THE ASSESSEE APPLIED FOR APPROVAL TO THE DEPARTMENT OF INDUSTRIAL POLICY AND PROMOTION MINIS TRY, MINISTRY OF INDUSTRY, GOVT. OF INDIA AND OBTAINED NECESSARY PERMISSION. THE CBDT ALSO ISSUED NOTIFICA TION UNDER SUB-RULE (2) TO RULE 18C AS REQUIRED FOR CLAI MING DEDUCTION U/S 80IA(4)(III) OF THE ACT. THE ASSESSEE FILED ITS RETURN OF INCOME FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2006-0 7 DECLARING TOTAL INCOME OF RS. 8,35,33,685/-. IN CO URSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS U/S 143(3) OF THE ACT, THE ASSESSING OFFICER ON EXAMINATION OF THE ACCOUNTS OF THE 3 ITA NOS. 801 & 802/HYD/11 VITP PVT. LTD. ASSESSEE FOUND THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD CLAIMED DEDUCT ION U/S 80IA(4)(III) FROM THE INCOME RECEIVED FROM MARI NER AND AURIGA BLOCKS. FROM THE DETAILS FURNISHED BY TH E ASSESSEE, THE ASSESSING OFFICER FOUND THAT THE ASSE SSEE HAD RECEIVED RENT FROM M/S ASCENDAS PROPERTY MANAGEMENT SERVICES (INDIA) LTD., (IN SHORT M/S ASCENDAS) FOR THE PERIOD JUNE, 2005 TO MARCH, 2006 @ RS. 1,32,800/- PER MONTH AND RECEIVED A TOTAL AMOUN T OF RS. 13,28,000/- FOR 10 MONTHS PERIOD, FOR WHICH THE SAID COMPANY OCCUPIED THE PREMISES. IN REPLY TO THE QUE RIES MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER, THE ASSESSEE EXPLAIN ED THAT M/S ASCENDAS IS THE MANAGING AGENCY FOR MAINTENANCE AND OPERATION OF INDUSTRIAL PARK AND HA S SET UP ITS OFFICE IN THE MARINER BLOCK. THE ASSESSING O FFICER AFTER MAKING PHYSICAL ENQUIRY THROUGH THE INSPECTOR , CAME TO A CONCLUSION THAT THE PREMISES, WHICH M/S ASCENDAS HAS OCCUPIED, AND FROM WHICH THE ASSESSEE HAD RECEIVED RENT, WAS IN A SEPARATE STAND ALONE BUILDI NG, WHICH DID NOT FORM PART OF THE STRUCTURE CALLED MAR INER BLOCK. THE ASSESSING OFFICER FURTHER CAME TO THE CONCLUSION THAT THE ADMINISTRATIVE BUILDING DOES N OT FORM PART OF MARINER BLOCK OR AURIGA BLOCK AND, THEREFORE, THE ASSESSEE IS NOT COVERED BY THE NOTIF ICATION ISSUED BY THE CBDT. ON THE AFORESAID CONCLUSIONS, T HE ASSESSING OFFICER HELD THAT THE ASSESSEE IS NOT ELI GIBLE TO CLAIM DEDUCTION U/S 80IA(4)(III) OF THE ACT, FOR TH E RECEIPTS FROM M/S ASCENDAS. AGGRIEVED BY THE ORDER OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER, THE ASSESSEE CARRIED THE MAT ER IN APPEAL BEFORE THE CIT(A). 4 ITA NOS. 801 & 802/HYD/11 VITP PVT. LTD. 5. BEFORE THE CIT(A), THE LEARNED AR OF THE ASSESSE E REITERATED ITS STAND/SUBMISSIONS AS MADE BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND CONTENDED THAT THE ADMINISTRA TIVE BUILDING FORMS PART OF THE MARINER BLOCK AND, THERE FORE, THE RENT RECEIVED THERE FROM IS ELIGIBLE FOR DEDUCT ION U/S 80IA(4)(III) OF THE ACT. IT WAS ARGUED THAT SUCH DE DUCTION FROM THE ADMINISTRATIVE BUILDING HAS BEEN ALLOWED S INCE AY 2002-03. IN SUPPORT OF ITS CONTENTION, THE LEARN ED AR OF THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED TECHNICAL PLAN OF THE MAR INER BLOCK APPROVED BY THE HUDA AND CONTENDED THAT AT TH E TIME WHEN THE PLAN WAS APPROVED ONLY MARINER BLOCK WAS BEING DEVELOPED. THE CIT(A) WAS NOT CONVINCED WITH THE CONTENTION OF THE ASSESSEE AND CONCURRED WITH THE V IEW OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER THAT THE ADMINISTRATIVE BUILD ING, WHICH WAS GIVEN ON RENT TO M/S ASCENDAS WAS NOT PAR T OF THE MARINER BLOCK AND, THEREFORE, RENT RECEIVED THE RE FROM WILL NOT QUALIFY FOR DEDUCTION U/S 80IA(4)(III ). THE CIT(A) FURTHER HELD THAT ADMINISTRATIVE BUILDING IS ALSO NOT PART OF THE ALLOCABLE AREA AS MENTIONED IN THE APPROVAL LETTER AND ALSO THE NOTIFICATION OF THE CB DT. HE, THEREFORE, HELD THAT THE INCOME DERIVED FROM THE ADMINISTRATIVE BUILDING CANNOT BE CLAIMED AS DEDUCT ION U/S 80IA(4)(III) OF THE ACT. STILL AGGRIEVED, THE A SSESSEE IS IN APPEAL BEFORE US. 6. THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED BEFORE US THAT THE BUILDING PLAN OF THE MARINER BLO CK WAS APPROVED BY THE HUDA IN THE YEAR 1998-99 AND FROM T HE APPROVED PLAN, IT CAN BE SEEN THAT THE ADMINISTRATI VE BUILDING IS PART OF THE MARINER BLOCK. IT WAS CONTE NDED THAT IN THE COMMUNICATION LETTER FORWARDED TO THE 5 ITA NOS. 801 & 802/HYD/11 VITP PVT. LTD. DEPARTMENT OF INDUSTRIAL POLICY AND PROJECT (DIPP), THE ASSESSEE HAS CLEARLY MENTIONED THAT THE ADMINISTRAT IVE BUILDING IS PART OF THE COMMON FACILITIES. IN THIS REGARD, THE ASSESSEE INVITED OUR ATTENTION TO PAGE 53 OF TH E PAPER BOOK. REFERRING TO THE LEASE DEED ENTERED WITH M/S ASCENDAS ON 26/05/2005, THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE CONTENDED THAT THE LEASE DEED CLEARLY MENT IONES THE ADMINISTRATIVE BUILDING TO BE A PART OF THE MAR INER BLOCK. IT WAS FURTHER CONTENDED BY THE LEARNED COUN SEL FOR THE ASSESSEE THAT DURING THE RELEVANT PERIOD TH E ASSESSEE WAS OPERATING ONLY MARINER INDUSTRIAL PARK AND AURIGA INDUSTRIAL PARK, THEREFORE, THE ADMINISTRATI VE BUILDING MUST BE FORMING PART OF EITHER OF THE INDU STRIAL PARK. IN SO FAR AS THE CIT(A)S FINDING THAT ADMIN ISTRATIVE BUILDING IS NOT PART OF THE ALLOCABLE AREA, AND THE ASSESSEE IS NOT ENTITLED FOR THE DEDUCTION OF THE R ENT RECEIVED U/S 80IA(4)(III), THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE REFERRING TO THE INDUSTRIAL PARK SCHEME, 1 989, FLOATED BY THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT, WHICH IS AT PAGE 65 OF THE PAPER BOOK SUBMITTED THAT THE OBJECTIVE OF THE SCHEME DOES NOT RESTRICT THE BENEFIT OF SECTION 80I A ONLY TO THE ALLOCABLE AREA. IT WAS THE CONTENTION OF THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE THAT THE INDUSTRIAL PARK I S NOT ONLY ALLOCABLE AREA BUT ALSO INCLUDES AREAS FOR PRO VIDING OTHER INFRASTRUCTURE AND COMMON FACILITIES. IN SUP PORT OF HIS CONTENTION, THE LEARNED COUNSEL REFERRED TO THE DIPPS APPROVAL LETTER PLACED AT PAGE 32 OF THE PAPER BOOK AND THE CBDT NOTIFICATION AT PAGE 36 OF THE PAPER BOOK. THE LEARNED COUNSEL CONTENDED THAT THE TERM RELATING TO 100% UTILISATION OF INDUSTRIAL USE IS ONLY WITH RESPECT TO ALLOCABLE AREA AND IT IS NOT DISPUTED THAT THE ASSE SSEE 6 ITA NOS. 801 & 802/HYD/11 VITP PVT. LTD. HAS UTILIZED 100% ALLOCABLE AREA FOR INDUSTRIAL USE . THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE FURTHER CONTENDED THAT THE ASSESSEE ENTERED INTO A CONTRACT WITH M/S ASCEN DAS IN ORDER TO ENSURE WORLD CLASS SERVICES TO THE TENA NTS OF INDUSTRIAL PARKS. TO FACILITATE THIS, M/S ASCENDAS WAS GIVEN SPACE IN THE ADMINISTRATIVE BUILDING ON CONSIDERATION OF RENT. CHARGING OF RENT FOR THE SPA CE PROVIDED IN THE ADMINISTRATIVE BUILDING, THEREFORE, IS ELIGIBLE FOR DEDUCTION U/S 80IA(4)(III) OF THE ACT. THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE CONTENDED THAT NEI THER SECTION 80IA(4)(III) NOR NOTIFICATION ISSUED BY THE CBDT PROVIDES THAT THE DEDUCTION U/S 80IA(4)(III) SHOULD BE RESTRICTED TO INCOME DERIVED FROM THE ALLOCABLE ARE A ONLY. 7. THE LEARNED DR, ON THE OTHER HAND, BESIDES SUPPORTING THE ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW, CON TENDED THAT NEITHER ADMINISTRATIVE BUILDING IS OF MARINER BLOCK NOR THE RENT RECEIVED FOR ALLOWING THE ADMINISTRATI VE BUILDING TO M/S ASCENDAS IS FROM THE ALLOCABLE AREA . THEREFORE, HE CONTENDED THAT THE ASSESSEE IS NOT EN TITLED TO DEDUCTION U/S 80IA(4)(III) OF THE ACT, IN SO FAR AS RECEIPT OF THE RENT IS CONCERNED. 8. WE HAVE HEARD THE ARGUMENTS OF THE PARTIES AND PERUSED THE RECORD AS WELL AS GONE THROUGH THE ORDE RS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW. WE HAVE ALSO CONSIDERED THE WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS OF THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE. AS FOUND FROM THE MATERIAL ON RECORD, THE RE IS NO DISPUTE TO THE FACT THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS OPERAT ING AND MAINTAINING TWO INDUSTRIAL PARKS, WHICH ARE MAR INER INDUSTRIAL PARK AND AURIGA INDUSTRIAL PARK. THE DIS PUTE 7 ITA NOS. 801 & 802/HYD/11 VITP PVT. LTD. LIES WITHIN A NARROW COMPASS AS TO WHETHER RENT REC EIVED FROM M/S ASCENDAS TOWARDS LETTING OUT A PORTION OF THE ADMINISTRATIVE BUILDING SPACE IS ELIGIBLE FOR DEDUC TION U/S 80IA(4)(III) OF THE ACT. AS IS APPARENT FROM T HE ORDERS OF THE REVENUE AUTHORITIES RENTAL INCOME FROM M/S ASCENDAS WAS CONSIDERED INELIGIBLE FOR DEDUCTION U/ S 80IA(4)(III) ON TWO GROUNDS, I.E., I) THE ADMINISTR ATIVE BUILDING IS NOT A PART OF MARINER BLOCK AND II) IT IS NOT A PART OF THE ALLOCABLE AREA. THE ASSESSEE WAS ALLO CATED 19.96 ACRES OF LAND FOR DEVELOPING AN INDUSTRIAL PA RK IN FOUR PHASES, WHICH ARE MARINER BLOCK IN PHASE I, AU RIGA BLOCK IN PHASE II, ORION BLOCK IN PHASE III, AND CA PELLA BLOCK IN PHASE IV. MARINER WAS THE FIRST PROJECT O FF THE BLOCK AND DURING THE RELEVANT ASSESSMENT YEARS UNDE R DISPUTE ONLY MARINER BLOCK AND AURIGA BLOCK HAVE BE EN COMPLETED. THE BUILDING PLAN OF MARINER INDUSTRIAL PARK WAS APPROVED BY HUDA IN THE YEAR 1998-99. A COPY OF THE BUILDING PLAN, WHICH IS AT PAGE 44 OF THE PAPER BOOK REVEALS THAT MARINER INDUSTRIAL PARK HAS 5 BUILDING S BEING B1, B2, B3, B4 AND B5 AND ONE ADMINISTRATIVE BUILDING. THIS FACT ALSO FINDS SUPPORT FROM THE LET TER DATED 02/08/1999 OF THE ASSESSEE TO THE DEPARTMENT OF INDUSTRIAL POLICY AND PROMOTION, MINISTRY OF INDUST RY, GOVT. OF INDIA, A COPY OF WHICH IS PLACED AT PAGE 5 1 OF THE PAPER BOOK. IN THIS LETTER, THE ASSESSEE HAS CLARI FIED THAT THE MARINER BLOCK IN PHASE 1 COMPRISES OF 5 BUILDIN GS WITH 23 FLOORS AND COMMON BUILT UP AREA FOR COMMON FACILITIES WHICH INCLUDES ADMINISTRATIVE BUILDING CONSISTING OF 2 FLOORS. THESE FACTS CLEARLY PROVE T HAT ADMINISTRATIVE BUILDING IS PART OF PHASE I I.E., MA RINER BLOCK. HAVING COME TO THE CONCLUSION THAT ADMINISTR ATIVE 8 ITA NOS. 801 & 802/HYD/11 VITP PVT. LTD. BUILDING IS PART OF MARINER BLOCK, NOW IT HAS TO BE SEEN WHETHER THE RENT RECEIVED FROM M/S ASCENDAS CAN STI LL BE CONSIDERED AS INELIGIBLE FOR DEDUCTION U/S 80IA(4)I II) SINCE THE ADMINISTRATIVE BUILDING IS NOT PART OF TH E ALLOCABLE AREA. THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT IN EXERCISE OF POWER CONFERRED U/S 80IA READ WITH RULE 18C(2) ISSU ED A NOTIFICATION ON 30/03/1999 FRAMING A SCHEME FOR INDUSTRIAL PARK. THE OBJECTIVES OF THE SCHEME UNDER CLAUSE 1(B) PROVIDES AS FOLLOWS: AN INDUSTRIAL PARK FOR DEVELOPMENT OF INFRASTRUCTUR AL FACILITIES IN AN AREA AS WELL AS PROVISION OF BUILT -UP SPACE AND COMMON FACILITIES FOR THE SPECIALISED PURPOSE ACTIVITY LIKE SOFTWARE DEVELOPMENT, GEMS AND JEWELLERY, ELECTRONICS HARDWARE. 9. CLAUSE 2 OF THE SCHEME PROVIDES THAT AN UNDERTAKING DESIRING TO SET UP AN INDUSTRIAL PARK H AS TO APPLY FOR AN APPROVAL FROM DEPT. OF INDUSTRIAL POLI CY AND PROMOTION, MINISTRY OF INDUSTRY, GOVT. OF INDIA. IN TERMS WITH THE SCHEME, THE ASSESSEE HAD APPLIED FOR APPRO VAL AND DIPP IN ITS LETTER DATED 16/09/1999,( WHICH IS AT PAGE 31 OF THE PAPER BOOK) GRANTED ITS APPROVAL FOR SETTING UP THE INDUSTRIAL PARK. CLAUSE 3 OF THE APP ROVAL LETTER SPECIFIES THAT ALLOCABLE AREA WILL MEAN THE NET AREA AVAILABLE FOR INDUSTRIAL, COMMERCIAL OR RESIDENTIAL PURPOSE BUT WILL EXCLUDE AREA USED FOR COMMON FACIL ITIES. CLAUSE 4 OF THE APPROVAL LETTER PROVIDES THAT INFRASTRUCTURE DEVELOPMENT SHALL INCLUDE EXPENDITUR E ON COMMON FACILITIES. IN TERMS WITH THE APPROVAL BY TH E DIPP, THE CBDT ALSO ISSUED A NOTIFICATION ON 29/12/ 2005 NOTIFYING THE ASSESSEE AS AN INDUSTRIAL PARK FOR TH E PURPOSE OF SECTION 80IA(4)(III) OF THE ACT. SIMILAR TO CLAUSE 9 ITA NOS. 801 & 802/HYD/11 VITP PVT. LTD. 4 OF THE APPROVAL LETTER OF DIPP, THE CBDT NOTIFICA TION ALSO PROVIDED THAT INFRASTRUCTURE DEVELOPMENT SHAL L INCLUDE COMMON FACILITIES FOR COMMON USE FOR INDUST RIAL ACTIVITY. AS IS CLEAR FROM THE LETTER DT. 02/08/19 99 OF THE ASSESSEE, ADMINISTRATIVE BUILDING IS PART OF THE CO MMON FACILITIES. FOR PROVIDING SMOOTH HASSLE FREE AND Q UALITY SERVICE TO THE TENANTS OF INDUSTRIAL PARK, THE ASSE SSEE ENTERED INTO AN AGREEMENT WITH M/S ASCENDAS FOR MAINTENANCE AND MANAGEMENT OF THE INDUSTRIAL PART A ND THEY WERE PROVIDED SPACE IN THE ADMINISTRATIVE BUIL DING ON CHARGING OF RENT. THIS WAS DONE WITH AN OBJECTIV E OF PROVIDING WORLD CLASS SERVICE TO THE TENANTS OF THE INDUSTRIAL PARK. THUS, PROVIDING SPACE TO M/S ASCEN DAS IS PART OF OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE OF THE INDUSTR IAL PARK. THE CONCLUSION OF THE CIT(A) THAT INCOME DERI VED FROM THE ALLOCABLE AREA IS ONLY ELIGIBLE FOR DEDUCT ION U/S 80IA(4)(III), THEREFORE, IS NOT ACCEPTABLE. A READI NG OF THE PROVISION CONTAINED IN SECTION 80IA ALSO DOES NOT P ROVIDE ANY SCOPE FOR INTERPRETING THAT THE DEDUCTION U/S 80IA(4)(III) SHALL BE RESTRICTED TO INCOME DERIVED FROM THE ALLOCABLE AREA ONLY. IN VIEW OF OUR AFORESAID DIS CUSSION AND FINDINGS, WE HOLD THAT THE ASSESSEE IS ELIGIBLE TO CLAIM DEDUCTION U/S 80IA(4)(III) ON THE RENTAL INCO ME FROM M/S ASCENDAS PROPERTY MANAGEMENT SERVICES (INDIA) L TD. ACCORDINGLY, WE SET ASIDE THE ORDERS OF THE CIT(A) IN BOTH THE YEARS UNDER CONSIDERATION AND ALLOW THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE ON THIS COUNT. NO DECISION IS REQUIRED ON GROUND NO. 2 SINCE IT HA S BECOME ACADEMIC. 10 ITA NOS. 801 & 802/HYD/11 VITP PVT. LTD. 10. IN THE RESULT, APPEALS OF THE ASSESSEE ARE ALLO WED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 28 TH JUNE, 2012. SD/- SD/- (D. KARUNAKARA RAO) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER (SAKTIJIT DEY) JUDICIAL MEMBER HYDERABAD, DATED 28 TH JUNE, 2012 KV COPY TO:- 1) VITP PVT. LTD., PLOT NO. 17, SOFTWARE UNITS LAYO UT, MADHAPUR, HYDERABAD 500 081. 2) ADDITIONAL CIT, RANGE 3, HYDERABAD. 3) THE CIT (A)-IV, HYDERABAD 4) THE CIT-III, HYDERABAD 5) THE DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE, I.T.A.T., HYDERABAD.