Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax , Circle-16(1), Hyderabad V. Quippo Construction Equipment Limited, Hyderabad

ITA 858/Hyd/2018

• Counselvise Citation: [2019] 117 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 5238 (ITAT-HYDERABAD)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 8 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 15-05-2019
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: DB-A
• Next Hearing Date: 25-02-2019
• Assessment Year: 2014-2015
• Appeal Filed On: 07-05-2018
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: NILASNJAN DEY
• Keywords: Depreciation; Difference of opinion; Tax effect; Change of opinion
• Section: 143(3); 143(1); 32

Judgement Text

ITA NOS 856 TO 858 AND CO 34 OF 2018 QUIPPO CONSTRUCTION EQUIPMENT LTD HYDERABAD. PAGE 1 OF 9 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL HYDERABAD A BENCH, HYDERABAD BEFORE SMT. P. MADHAVI DEVI, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI S.RIFAUR RAHMAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NOS 856 TO 858/HYD/2018. (ASSESSMENT YEARS: 2012-13, 2013-14 & 2014-15) DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 16(1) HYDERABAD VS M/S. QUIPPO CONSTRUCTION EQUIPMENT LTD, HYDERABAD PAN: AAACQ1735F (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) C.O. NO.34/HYD/2018 (ARISING OUT OF ITA NO.858/HYD/2018) M/S.QUIPPO CONSTRUCTION EQUIPMENT LTD, HYDERABAD PAN: AAACQ1735F VS DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 16(1) HYDERABAD (CROSS OBJECTOR) (RESPONDENT) FOR REVENUE : SHRI NILASNJAN DEY, DR FOR ASSESSEE: SHRI AMIT AGARWAL O R D E R PER SMT. P. MADHAVI DEVI, J.M. THE APPEALS ARE FILED BY THE REVENUE FOR THE A.YS 2012-13 TO 2014-15, WHILE THE C.O IS FILED BY THE A SSESSEE FOR THE A.Y 2014-15. THE ISSUE RAISED IN THE REVENUE APPEAL S IS COMMON FOR ALL THE A.YS AND FOR THE SAKE OF CONVENIENCE, T HE APPEALS WERE HEARD TOGETHER AND ARE DISPOSED OF BY THIS COMMON A ND DATE OF HEARING : 25.02.2019 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT: 15.05.2019 ITA NOS 856 TO 858 AND CO 34 OF 2018 QUIPPO CONSTRUCTION EQUIPMENT LTD HYDERABAD. PAGE 2 OF 9 CONSOLIDATED ORDER. THE COMMON GROUNDS RAISED BY TH E REVENUE IN ALL THESE APPEALS ARE AS UNDER: 1. THE CIT (A) ERRED IN DIRECTING TO ALLOW DEPRECI ATION @ 30% ON PLANT & MACHINERY INSTEAD OF ELIGIBLE RATE OF 15 %. 2. CIT (A) ERRED IN INTERPRETING THE DEFINITION OF THE COMMERCIAL VEHICLES AS DEFINED IN ENTRY III-(3)(II) OF APPENDI X-I OF THE INCOME TAX RULES. 3. THE CIT (A) ERRED IN NOT APPRECIATING THAT FACTS OF M/S. NAC INFRASTRUCTURE EQUIPMENT LTD ARE DIFFERENCE FRO M THE FACTS OF THE PRESENT CASE AND THAT THE REVENUE DID NOT PREFER FURTHER APPEAL IN THE SAID CASE IN ITA NO.464/HYD/2 015 DATED 6.7.2016 BECAUSE OF LOW TAX EFFECT. 4. ANY OTHER GROUND THAT MAY BE URGED AT THE TIME O F HEARING. 2. BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT THE ASSESSEE CO MPANY, ENGAGED IN THE BUSINESS OF INFRASTRUCTURE/CONSTRUCT ION EQUIPMENT RENTAL SERVICES, FILED ITS RETURN OF INCOME FOR THE RELEVANT A.YS AND THE SAME WERE PROCESSED U/S 143(1) OF THE ACT. SUBS EQUENTLY, THE ASSESSEE REVISED THE RETURNS OF INCOME AND THEREAFT ER, THE ASSESSMENTS WERE PICKED UP FOR SCRUTINY. DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, THE AO OBSERVED FROM THE DE PRECIATION CHART CLAIMED AS PER THE I.T. ACT THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS CLAIMED DEPRECIATION @ 30% ON COMMERCIAL VEHICLES. HE OBSER VED THAT THE ASSETS COMPRISED OF THE FOLLOWING WHICH ARE NOT IN THE NATURE OF COMMERCIAL VEHICLES AS DEFINED IN THE MOTOR VEHIC LES ACT: I) CONCRETE BOOM PLACER II) ALL TERRAIN CRANE III) MOTOR GRADER IV) ROUGH TERRAIN CRANE V) SOIL COMPACTOR VI) MOBILE CRANE ETC ITA NOS 856 TO 858 AND CO 34 OF 2018 QUIPPO CONSTRUCTION EQUIPMENT LTD HYDERABAD. PAGE 3 OF 9 THE ASSESSEE WAS THEREFORE, ASKED TO EXPLAIN AS TO WHY DEPRECIATION SHOULD NOT BE RESTRICTED TO 15% WHICH IS THE RATE APPLICABLE TO THE VEHICLES AS THE ABOVE ARE USED FO R SPECIFIC PURPOSE BUT DOES NOT FORM PART OF MOTOR BUSINESS, M OTOR LORRIES AND MOTORS TAXIS USED IN A BUSINESS OF RUNNING THEM ON HIRE. IN REPLY TO THE SAME, THE ASSESSEE VIDE LETTER DATED 2 0.,01.2015 SUBMITTED AS UNDER: DURING THE YEAR CONSIDERATION, THE ASSESSEE CLAIME D DEPRECIATION @30% ON CRANE, CHASIS, MOTOR GRADERS, WHEEL LOADERS, SOIL COMPACTORS, JCBS, CONCRETE BOOM PLACE RS GIVEN ON HIRE. AT THE OUTSET, IT IS HUMBLY SUBMITTED THAT AS PER ENTRY-III-(3)(II) OF APPENDIX-I OF THE I.T. RULES MOTOR BUSES, MOTOR LORRIES AND MOTOR TAXIS USED IN A BUSINESS OF RUNNING THEM ON HIRE ARE ELIGIBLE FOR DEPRECIATION @30%. 3. THE AO HOWEVER, WAS NOT CONVINCED WITH THE ABOVE REPLY AND HELD THAT THE TERM COMMERCIAL VEHICLE H AS BEEN CLEARLY DEFINED IN THE NOTES TO THE TABLE OF RATES OF DEPRE CIATION ADMISSIBLE IN THE APPENDIX TO INCOME TAX RULES AND SINCE THE ASSETS LEASED BY THE ASSESSEE ARE USED FOR THE SPEC IFIC PURPOSE OF CONSTRUCTION AND ARE NOT THE COMMERCIAL VEHICLE AS DEFINED IN THE RULES AT 15% ONLY BY TREATING THEM AS PLANT & MACHI NERY. ACCORDINGLY, THE EXCESS DEPRECIATION WAS DISALLOWED AND BROUGHT TO TAX. AGGRIEVED, THE ASSESSEE PREFERRED AN APPEAL BEFORE THE CIT (A) WHO ALLOWED THE SAME BY FOLLOWING THE DECISION OF THE ITAT IN THE ASSESSEES SISTER CONCERN I.E. DY. CIT VS. NAC INFRASTRUCTURE EQUIPMENT LTD, IN ITA NO.464/HYD/2015 DATED 6.7.201 6. AGGRIEVED BY THE ORDER OF THE CIT (A), THE REVENUE IS IN APPEAL BEFORE US. 4. THE LEARNED DR SUPPORTED THE ORDERS OF THE AO AN D SUBMITTED THAT THE CIT (A) HAS ERRONEOUSLY FOLLOWED THE DECISION ITA NOS 856 TO 858 AND CO 34 OF 2018 QUIPPO CONSTRUCTION EQUIPMENT LTD HYDERABAD. PAGE 4 OF 9 OF THE ITAT IN THE CASE OF DY.CIT VS. M/S. NAC INFR ASTRUCTURE EQUIPMENT LTD (SUPRA), THOUGH THE SAID APPEAL HAS B EEN DISMISSED ON ACCOUNT OF LOW TAX EFFECT. 5. THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE HAS FILED A COPY THEREOF AND IT IS SEEN THAT THE TRIBUNAL HAS DISMIS SED THE REVENUES APPEAL THEREON BOTH ON THE ISSUE OF REOPE NING AND ALSO ON MERITS. FOR THE SAKE OF CONVENIENCE AND READY RE FERENCE, THE RELEVANT PARAGRAPH OF THE ITAT ORDER IS REPRODUCED HEREUNDER: 5. ON THE ISSUE OF DEPRECIATION ON WHEEL LOADERS AN D WHEEL GRADERS, ASSESSEE MADE DETAILED SUBMISSIONS THAT THESE ITEMS ARE NOTH ING BUT MOTOR-VEHICLE AS PER ENTRY III-(3)(II) OF APPENDIX-I OF INCOME TAX RULES . RELIANCE WAS PLACED ON THE JUDGMENT OF HON'BLE APEX COURT IN THE CASE OF BOSE ABRAHAM VS. STATE OF KERALA [AIR 2001 SC 835]. FURTHER, ASSESSEE ALSO RELIED ON THE HON'BLE GUJARAT HIGH COURT JUDGMENT IN THE CASE OF GUJCO CARRIERS VS. CI T [256 ITR 50] (GUJ.) WHEREIN, 'MOTOR LORRIES' WERE EXPLAINED TO INCLUDE FIRE TRUCKS, FORKLIFT TRUCKS AND CRANE TRUCKS WHICH ARE DESIGNED FOR SPECIAL SERVICE S. ASSESSEE ALSO RELIED ON VARIOUS DECISIONS OF THE ITAT TO JUSTIFY THAT CLAIM OF 40% ALLOWED BY THE AO IN THE ORIGINAL ASSESSMENT IS CORRECT AND RESTRICTION BY THE AO TO 25% IS NOT ACCORDING TO THE PROVISIONS OF LAW. LD. CIT(A) ALLO WED ASSESSEE'S CLAIM BY STATING AS UNDER: '9. THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE ASSESSEE, THE FACTUAL PO SITION AS BROUGHT OUT BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER AND THE D OCUMENTS PLACED ON RECORD ARE CONSIDERED. IT IS SEEN THAT THOUGH THE MOTOR GR ADERS AND WHEEL LOADERS ARE NOT DEPICTED AS MOTOR VEHICLES BY THE APPELLANT, THE SA ME HAVE BEEN REGISTERED AS 'OTHER VEHICLE-MMV' BY THE REGISTRATION AUTHORITIES . IN VIEW OF THE RATIOS LAID DOWN BY HON'BLE SUPREME COURT AND FOLLOWED BY VARIO US TRIBUNALS HOLDING THAT THE MOTOR VEHICLES DESIGNED FOR SPECIAL SERVICES AR E TO BE TREATED AS MOTOR VEHICLES, THE APPELLANT IS ELIGIBLE FOR DEPRECIATIO N @ 40% AS CLAIMED. RELIANCE IS SPECIALLY PLACED ON THE DECISIONS OF HON'BLE KARNAT AKA TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF BOTHRA SHIPPING SERVICES VS. CIT (ITA NO. 586/KOL/2 010) AND CIT VS. GAYLORD CONSTRUCTION (2010) 190 TAXMANN 406 (KER). ACCORDIN GLY, THE GROUND OF APPEAL IS ALLOWED'. 6. AFTER CONSIDERING THE DETAILED SUBMISSIONS OF TH E DR AND PERUSING THE PAPER BOOK PLACED ON RECORD, I AM OF THE OPINION THAT THE RE IS NO MERIT IN REVENUE'S CONTENTIONS. AS SEEN FROM THE ASSESSMENT ORDER PASS ED U/S. 143(3) ORIGINALLY, AO HAS CONSIDERED THE CLAIM OF DEPRECIATION AND MADE C ERTAIN DISALLOWANCES OUT OF VARIOUS DEPRECIATION CLAIMS MADE IN THE SCHEDULE. I T INDICATES THAT AO FOUND THE CLAIM OF 40% DEPRECIATION ON THE ABOVE SAID VEHICLE S APPROPRIATE AND ALLOWED THE SAME. SINCE THERE IS SPECIFIC DISCUSSION ON THE DEPRECIATION CLAIMS IN THE FIRST ITA NOS 856 TO 858 AND CO 34 OF 2018 QUIPPO CONSTRUCTION EQUIPMENT LTD HYDERABAD. PAGE 5 OF 9 ASSESSMENT ORDER, ALLOWANCE OF 40% DEPRECIATION BY THE AO CERTAINLY INDICATES THAT HE HAS CONSCIOUSLY ALLOWED THE DEPRECIATION AT THAT RATE AFTER DUE EXAMINATION. THEREFORE, ANY OPINION BY THE SUBSEQUE NT AO TO RESTRICT THE SAME TO 25% IS A CHANGE OF OPINION, WHICH IS NOT PERMITTED UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF LAW. MOREOVER THE WHEEL LOADERS AND GRADERS ARE MOTOR VE HICLES AND IS CERTAINLY ELIGIBLE FOR DEPRECIATION AT 40% AS PER SCHEDULE AN D THE CASE LAW ON THE SUBJECT. IN VIEW OF THIS, I DO NOT SEE ANY REASON TO INTERFE RE WITH THE WELL REASONED ORDER OF THE CIT(A), BOTH ON THE ISSUE OF REOPENING AND A S WELL AS ALLOWANCE OF DEPRECIATION AT 40% ON WHEEL LOADERS. FOR THESE REA SONS, I UPHOLD THE ORDER OF CIT(A) AND REJECT THE GROUNDS OF REVENUE. 6. THUS, IT CAN BE SEEN THAT THE REVENUES APPEAL W AS NOT DISMISSED ON LOW TAX EFFECT BUT WAS DISPOSED ON MER ITS. FURTHER, WE ALSO FIND THAT THE HON'BLE GUJARAT HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF GUJCO CARRIERS VS. CIT (2002) 256 ITR 50 (GUJ.) HAS CONSIDERED THE EXPRESSION MOTOR LORRIES IN ENTRY III-E(1A) O F APPENDIX I TO IT RULES, 1962 TO HOLD THAT THE VEHICLES WHICH ARE REG ISTERED AS HEAVY MOTOR VEHICLES WOULD, FOR THE REASON GIVEN, C LEARLY FALL WITHIN THE EXPRESSION MOTOR LORRIES IN ENTRY III- E(1A) OF THE TABLE IN APPENDIX I TO IT RULES AND SINCE THEY WERE USED BY THE ASSESSEE IN ITS BUSINESS OF RUNNING THEM ON HIRE, T HE ASSESSEE WAS ENTITLED TO HIGHER RATE OF DEPRECIATION. 7. SIMILAR VIEW WAS EXPRESSED BY THE COORDINATE BEN CH OF THIS TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF ANSARI HOLDINGS & INVE STMENTS (P) LTD VS. DCIT (2007) 12 SOT 438 (HYD.) WHEREIN MOBILE CR ANES REGISTERED AS HEAVY MOTOR VEHICLES WERE HELD TO WOU LD FALL WITHIN THE EXPRESSION OF MOTOR LORRIES AND HENCE ELIGIBL E FOR DEPRECIATION @ 40%. 8. HAVING REGARD TO THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS AND THE M ATERIAL ON RECORD, WE FIND THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS FILED THE COMPUTATION OF ITA NOS 856 TO 858 AND CO 34 OF 2018 QUIPPO CONSTRUCTION EQUIPMENT LTD HYDERABAD. PAGE 6 OF 9 DEPRECIATION ALLOWABLE U/S 32 IN THE FINANCIAL YEAR 31.3.2012 WHEREIN THE PLANT & MACHINERY AND COMMERCIAL VEHICL ES WERE SEPARATELY SHOWN AND DEPRECIATION HAS BEEN CLAIMED AT 30% ON SUCH COMMERCIAL VEHICLES. THE DETAILS OF THE FIXED ASSETS ON WHICH DEPRECIATION HAS BEEN CLAIMED ARE ALSO FILED BEFORE US. ON PERUSAL OF THE SAME, WE FIND THAT THE WHEEL LOADERS AND GRA DERS ARE MOTOR VEHICLES AS HELD BY THE COORDINATE BENCH OF THIS TR IBUNAL IN THE CASE OF NAC INFRASTRUCTURE EQUIPMENT LTD (SUPRA), A SSESSEES SISTER CONCERN. THEREFORE, RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING T HE DECISION OF THE COORDINATE BENCH, WE DO NOT SEE ANY REASON TO INTER FERE WITH THE ORDER OF THE CIT (A). THEREFORE, THE REVENUES APPE ALS ARE DISMISSED. 9. AS REGARDS THE CROSS OBJECTION FILED BY THE ASSE SSEE FOR THE A.Y 2014-15 IN ITA NO.858/HYD/2016, WE FIND THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS RAISED THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS OF APPEAL : 1. THAT ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF T HE CASE, THE LEARNED CIT (A) (HEREIN AFTER REFERRED TO AS LEARNED CIT (A) ERRED IN CONFIRMING DISALLOWANCE OF CLAIM OF LEAVE ENCASHMENT ON PROVISION BASIS AMOUNTING TO RS.4,50,247/- IN COMPUTING TOTAL INCOM E. 2. THAT ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF TH E CASE, THE LEARNED CIT (A) WAS NOT JUSTIFIED AND GRO SSLY ERRED IN CONFIRMING AD-HOC DISALLOWANCE OF LABOUR EXPENSES TO THE TUNE OF RS.5,00,000/-. 3. THAT THE RESPONDENT CRAVES LEAVE, TO ADD, TO AME ND, MODIFY, RESCIND, SUPPLEMENT OR ALTER ANY OF THE GRO UNDS STATED HERE-IN-ABOVE EITHER BEFORE OR AT THE TIME O F HEARING OF THE APPEAL. 10. AS REGARDS GROUND NO.1, THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT THOUGH THE ISSUE IS COVERED IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE BY THE DECISION OF THE HON'BLE CALCUTT A HIGH COURT IN ITA NOS 856 TO 858 AND CO 34 OF 2018 QUIPPO CONSTRUCTION EQUIPMENT LTD HYDERABAD. PAGE 7 OF 9 THE CASE OF EXIDE INDUSTRIES LTD VS. UNION OF INDIA (2007)292 ITR 470 (CAL.) AND THE COORDINATE BENCH OF THE TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF DCIT VS. A.P SEEDS DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LTD IN I TA NO.1459/HYD/2013 HAS FOLLOWED THE SAME TO HOLD THAT THE PROVISIONS MADE TOWARDS LEAVE ENCASHMENT IS ALLOWAB LE AS A DEDUCTION, HE SUBMITTED THAT THE DECISION OF THE HO N'BLE CALCUTTA HIGH COURT HAS BEEN STAYED BY THE HON'BLE APEX COUR T AND THE ISSUE IS PENDING FOR ADJUDICATION. HE PRAYED THAT T HE ISSUE MAY BE REMANDED TO THE FILE OF THE AO TO PASS THE FINAL OR DER AFTER THE APEX COURT DECIDES THE ISSUE. 11. THE LEARNED DR HAD NO OBJECTION TO THIS SUBMISS ION. THEREFORE, WE DEEM IT FIT AND PROPER TO REMAND THE ISSUE TO THE FILE OF THE AO WITH A DIRECTION TO GIVE EFFECT TO THE HO N'BLE SUPREME COURTS DECISION IN THE CASE OF EXIDE INDUSTRIES LT D (SUPRA). THUS, GROUND NO.1 IS TREATED AS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL P URPOSES. 12. AS REGARDS GROUND NO.2, BRIEF FACTS ARE THAT TH E AO OBSERVED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD DEBITED A SUM OF RS. 5,24,78,000/- TOWARDS LABOUR CHARGES AS AGAINST A SUM OF RS.4,83, 53,000/- CLAIMED IN THE EARLIER A.Y 2013-14. OBSERVING THAT THE EXPENDITURE CLAIMED IS NOT IN PROPORTION TO THE TUR NOVER DECLARED FOR THE A.YS 2013-14 AND 2014-15 RESPECTIVELY, THE AO DISALLOWED 5% OF THE LABOUR CHARGES. ON APPEAL, THE CIT (A) RE STRICTED THE DISALLOWANCE TO RS.5.00 LAKHS AND THE ASSESSEE IS I N CROSS OBJECTION BEFORE US. ITA NOS 856 TO 858 AND CO 34 OF 2018 QUIPPO CONSTRUCTION EQUIPMENT LTD HYDERABAD. PAGE 8 OF 9 13. THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE IS MAINTAINING BOOKS OF ACCOUNT AND TH E BOOKS HAVE NOT BEEN REJECTED BY THE AO BUT THE DISALLOWANCE WA S MADE. ON APPEAL, THE CIT (A) RESTRICTED THE DISALLOWANCE TO RS.5.00 LAKHS. THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT THE AO COULD NOT HAVE MADE THE DISALLOWANCE WITHOUT REJECTION OF THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT OF THE ASSESSEE AND THEREFORE, MAKING THE A DHOC DISALLOWANCE, IS NOT SUSTAINABLE. IN SUPPORT OF THI S CONTENTION, HE PLACED RELIANCE UPON THE DECISION OF THE CALCUTTA H IGH COURT IN THE CASE OF WASHABARIE TEA CO. (P) LTD VS. DCIT (19 97) 59 TTJ 693 (CAL.) AND ALSO IN THE CASE OF SONIC BIOCHEM EXTRAC TIONS PVT. LTD VS. ITO (2013) 59 SOT 4 (MUM). 14. THE LEARNED DR WAS ALSO HEARD. 15. HAVING REGARD TO THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS AND THE MATERIAL ON RECORD, WE FIND THAT THE AO HAS MADE AN ADHOC DI SALLOWANCE WITHOUT POINTING OUT ANY DISCREPANCY OR DEFECTS IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT. THE CIT (A) OBSERVED THAT THE DISALLOWANCE ON THE LABOUR CHARGES IS ON A HIGHER SIDE AND HENCE RESTRICTED IT TO RS.5.00 LAKHS. WE ARE OF THE OPINION THAT ONLY SUCH EXPENDI TURE WHICH IS NOT SUBSTANTIATED BY PROPER BILLS & VOUCHERS OR WHI CH COULD NOT BE EXPLAINED BY THE ASSESSEE CAN BE DISALLOWED. EVE N FOR MAKING THE ADHOC DISALLOWANCE, THERE HAS TO BE A BASIS OR COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS. SINCE THERE IS NO SUCH MATERIAL ON RECORD , WE ARE SATISFIED THAT THE ADHOC DISALLOWANCE IS NOT SUSTAI NABLE. 16. IN THE RESULT, C.O FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS PAR TLY ALLOWED. ITA NOS 856 TO 858 AND CO 34 OF 2018 QUIPPO CONSTRUCTION EQUIPMENT LTD HYDERABAD. PAGE 9 OF 9 17. TO SUM UP, REVENUES APPEALS ARE DISMISSED AND C.O. BY THE ASSESSEE IS PARTLY ALLOWED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 15 TH MAY, 2019. SD/- SD/- (S.RIFAUR RAHMAN) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER (P. MADHAVI DEVI) JUDICIAL MEMBER HYDERABAD, DATED 15 TH MAY, 2019. VINODAN/SPS COPY TO: 1 DY.CIT, CIRCLE 16(1), ROOM NO,121, 1 ST FLOOR, BLOCK B IT TOWERS, MASAB TANK, HYDERABAD 2 M/S. QUIPPO CONSTRUCTION EQUIPMENT LTD, NAC CAMPU S, IZZAT NAGAR, KONDAPUR, CYBERABAD, HYDERABAD 500084 3 CIT (A)-4 HYDERABAD 4 PR. CIT 4 HYDERABAD 5 THE DR, ITAT HYDERABAD 6 GUARD FILE BY ORDER