M/s. pipelic energy software India Pvt. Limited, V. The Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax,

ITTA/561/2006

AI Insights

The case revolves around the appellant, M/s. Pipelic Energy Software India Pvt. Limited, which challenged the decision of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal regarding the disallowance of business expenditure claims for the assessment year 1999-2000. The appellant argued that the expenditures were necessary for its business activities, as it provided support services to its parent company. However, the Tribunal and the High Court found that the expenditures were not exclusively for the appellant's business but also benefited the parent company, which is a separate legal entity. The court referenced several precedents and legal provisions to conclude that the expenditures could not be claimed as business losses by the appellant.

• Counselvise Citation: [2024] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 758080 (HC-TELANGANA)
• Appeal Type: Others
• Pronouncement Date: 28-06-2024
• Assessment Year: misc
• Other Referred Cases: Commissioner of Electronics Ltd. vs. Income Tax, Commissioner of Income Tax, West Bengal vs. Calcutta Turf Clubs, Sri Venkata Satyanarayana Rice Mill Contractors Co. vs. Commissioner of Income Tax, A.P.II, Royal Calcutta Turf Club vs. Commissioner of Income Tax
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: HIGH COURT
• Department Lawyers: VIJHAY K PUNNA
• Assessee Lawyers: S
• Keywords: Appeal; Assessment year 1999-2000; Business expenditure; Income Tax; Revenue expenditure; Scrutiny; Tribunal
• Section: 143(3); 143(2); 143(1); 260-A

Judgement Text

"IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD FRIDAY .THE TWENTY EIGHTH DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND TWENW FOUR PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE P.SAM KOSHY ANI) THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE LAXMI NARAYANA ALISHETTY . INCOME TAX TRIBUNAL APPEAL NO: 561 OF 2006 lncome Tax Tribunal Appeal under Section 260-4 of the lncome tax Act, 1961, against the order of the lncome Tax Appellate Tribunal, Hyderabad Bench \"8\" Hyderabad in l.T.A.No. 148 I HYD12005 ( Asst. Year 1999 - 2000 ) dated 8-02-2006 preferred against the order of the Commissioner of lncome Tax (Appeals) -ll, Hyderabad dated 20-12-2004 in ITA No. 0206 / CIT (A) -lU 04-05 preferred against the order of the lncome Tax Officer, Ward- 2 (1) , Hyderabad , dated 26-3-2002 in PAN /GlR No AABCP 2325 FIP-84 . Between: M/s. Pipelic Energy Software lndia Pvt. Limited, Presently known as .Energy solution! lnternatio=nal (lndia) Pvt. Ltd., Saptagiri Tower, Begumpet, Hyderabad presently al 2O1 . 2'd floor. ltr1an;eera Trinity Corporate , JNTU - Hitect City^Road. kukatpaily, Hyderabad - ( 500072) rep by its Director K. Venkata Siva Rao, S/o. Sri Nageshwar Rao, aged about 33 years, R/o. Hyderabad. (Address of Sole Appellant rs amended vide Court order dated 02'02-2024 in l.A.No. 3 of 2023 ) ..APPELLANT AND The Deputy Commissioner of lncome Tax, Circle 1(3), Hyderabad. ...RESPONDENT Counsel for the Appellant: SRI S. RAVI SENIOR COUNSEL REP. Ms-PRABHAVATHI Counsel for the Respondent: SRI VIJHAY K PUNNA , Standing Counsel for lncome Tax Department The Court delivered the following Judgment: tl lt HONOI'RABLE SRI WSTICE P.SAM KOSITY AND HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE LAXMI NARAYANA ALISHETTY INCOME TAX TRIBUNAL APPEAL NO.561 OF 2006 JIJDGMENT: (pet Hon'ble Si Justice Loxmi Narayana ALishefta) The present appeal has been filed under Section 260-A of Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short, the \"Act, 1961\") assailing the order passed by Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Bench-B, Hyderabad (for short \"Tribunal') in ITA No. A8/Hyd/2OOS, dated 08.02.2006 for the Assessment Year 1999-2OOO. Vide impugned order, dated 08.02.2006, the Tribunal allowed the appeal Iiled by the respondent herein setting aside the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) II, Hyderabad (for short, 'CIT(A)J, dated 20.12.2004. 2. Heard Sri S.Ravi learned senior counsel representing Ms. K.Prabhavathi, learned counsel for appellant and Sri Vij hay K Punna, learned standing counsel for lncome Tax Department appearing on behalf of the respondent. 3. The brief facts leading to filing of prcsent appeal are as under: 4. The appellant-company was incorporated on 19.12.1997 for carrying on business of consultants and advisors for supply of industrial computer software systems for use in oil, gas, water pipelines etc. The appellant filed its return on 24 -12.1999 for the assessment year 1999-2000 declaring a loss of Rs'55,68,141/-' The said return was processed under Section 1a3(1) of the Act, 1961 oh 2g.l2.2o}o and a refund of Rs.4,194/- was issued to t}le appellant company. 5. The case of the appellant was selected for scrutiny and notices have been issued under Section 143(21 of the Act, 1961 to the appellant. During tlte course of assessment proceedings' the Assessing Officer observed that appellant has incurred certain expenditure and claimed the same as business loss and called for explanation from the appellant That in response' the appellant submitted all the documents as called for by the Assessing oflicer in support of its claim. On due verification of the same' the Assessing Officer had disallou'ed the claim of appellant on the ground that the sarne has not been incurred for the purpose of business. In fact, the appellant has provided support services to the parent company ol the appellant and claimed the said expenditure as business loss' 6. The Assessing Officer further observed that appellant has debitedanamountofRs.42,O0o/.to ^.ardsfeepaidtotheRegistrar of Companies for increase of authorized share capital from 1'O0 1 Z. crore to 2.4 crores under the head ,rates & taxes'. However, the Assessing Officer disallowed the said expenditure taking into consideration the decision rendered by the Hon,ble Supreme Court in Punjab State Industrial Developmetrt Corporation [225 ITR 7921 anp, also Brooke Bond (Indta) Ltd,., [225 ITR 798] and consequently, a demand of Rs.7,763/- against the appellant vide assessment order dated 26.03.2002 under Section 143(3) of the Act, 196l was issued. 7. Aggrieved by the assessment order dated 26.03.2002, the appellant filed an appeal before the CIT(A). The CIT(A), on considering the memorandum and articles of association of the appellant company, held that appellant-company was set up for carrying on the activity of advisors and consultants of the parent company in India and such allied activities. That the Assessing Officer has erred in taking the view that appellant has not carried on business activity during the previous year under consideration for claim ol' expenses as revenue expenditure. The learned CIT(A) further observed that appellant was in readiness to reccive the chents to render services and consultation and fina y held that the vierv of the Assessing Officer that the business of the appellant has not commenced is to be held as not justified. Therefore, hc is directed to allow the expenses claimed as revenue expenditure and 3 determine the income/loss in the light of above observation and accordingly, allowed the appeal vide order d,aLed 2O.12.2OO4. 8. Aggrieved by the appeal order dated 20.12.2OO4, the respondent herein had filed appeal before the learned Income Tax Appellaie Tribunal, Hyderabad, (for short, 'TribunalJ. The learned Tribunal, on due consideration of the material placed on record and submissions made, held that the holding company and the subsidiary company are separate entities. The expenditure pertaining to one cannot be claimed or allowed in the hands of the other and opined that First Appellate Authority has committed an error in allowing the appeal of the appellant and, therefore, set aside the order of the CIT(A), dated 20. l2.2oo4 and allowed the appeal filed by the respondent herein vidc ordcr dated O8.02.2006. 9. Aggrieved by the order of Tribunal dated O8.O2.2006, the appellant filed the present appeal. 10. The learned standing counsel lor the appellant during the course of hearing submitted that the order of Tribunal is erroneous, unjust and contrary to the facts of thc case and bad in law. That the Tribunal has failed to apprcciatc the material on record and the explanation offered before CIT(A). That the Tribunal grossly erred in concluding that appellant-company has not engaged in business and expenditure claimed by the appellant- .l company is totally disallowed without ascertaining and apportioning for the expenditure properly attributed to the assessee business. That even if the tax liabilify determined for the assessment year under consideration is meager, the business loss to be carried forward denied by the Assessing Officer amounts to Rs.55,68,14I/-, which has substantial impact in the subsequent assessment years in which such brought forward business loss were set o[f. I I. The learned counsel for appellant further submitted that this Tribunal ought to have considered that the expenditure amounring to Rs.50,64,152/- incurred by the appellant pertains to business expenditure for participating in the project allotted to its pare nt company, which is in line with the appellant,s business objectii,c as per its memorandum of association. That the Tribunal ought to have considered that the Assessing Officer failed to verify that n'ith thc effort made by the appellant for its parent company in the assessment year 1999-2000 had resulted in earning an income oi Rs. I ,39,33, 163/ - and Rs.2,07,86,750/ - lor the subsequent assessment years and finally prayed to alk;u, the appeal. 12. Lcerrncd counsel for appellant relied upon the following decigions in supporr of appellant contentions: 5 I l: ii) Commissioner of Electroaics Ltd.,z; Income Tax vs. Samsung India iiil Commissioner of Income Tax, West Bengal vs. Calcutta Turf Clubs; 6 i) Sri Veakata Satyatrarayana Rice Mill Contractors Co. Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax, A.p.II1; Royal 13. In Sri Venkata Satyanarayana Rice Mill Contractors Co. (supra), the Hon'ble Apex Court held as under: \"15. .... that any contribution made by an assessce to a public weltare fund which is directly connected or related wirh rhc carr, -ing on of rhc assessee's business or which results in rhe benefrr to the assessee s business has to be regarded as an allowable dcduction undcr Secrion 37(1) of the Act. Such a donation, whether voluntary or at rhe insrance of the authorities concemed, when made to a Chief Mrnrster s Drought Relief Fund or a Diatrict Wetfare Fund established by rhe Disrricr Collector or any other fund for the benefit of thc publrc ancl $,irh a vreu,. to secure benefit to the assessee,s business, cannot l)e rcgarded as palrment opposed to public policy. It is not as rf rh. palment in rhe present case had been made as an illegal gratificatir:n. There is no la r, which prohibits the making of such a donarion. The mere f{rcr rhar making of a donation for charitable or public cause or in public interest results in the Government giving paronage or benefil r.an be no ground to deny the assessee a deduction of that amount und(,r Sectron 37 l o[ the Act when such payment had been made ft)r rhe purpose of assessee's business.' 14. In Saasung India Electronics Ltd., (supra), the Hon,ble Division Bench of Delhi High Court held as uncler: \"24. ...... The linding of the Tribunal that a parr of rhe advertisement expenditure is reimbursed b]-the parcnt contpan is not under challenge. This itself should settle rhe issue in far,,our ' (1996)6 SCC 611 - 2012 SCC Online Del4587 ' ntn t96t sc 1028 7 of the assessee because even if it is assumed that a part of the expenditure inured for the benefrt of the parent company, the assessee is getting compensated for it. The view that in any case, expenditure, the benetit of which inures partly to the assessee and partlv to another person, cannot be allowed as a deduction, we are afraid, is not the correct view to take in law since it has been settled bY a long line of cases that expenditure incurred by the assessee in the running of his business cannot be disallowed merely on the ground that a part of the expenditure results in some benefit to a third party. ....\" 15. In Royal Calcutta Turf Club (supra), the issue before the Bench was whether the expenditure incurred for running the school for jockeys is deductible. The business of the respondent was to run race meetings on a commercial scale for which it is necessary to have races of as high an order as possible. For the popularin. of the races run by the respondent and to make its business profitablc, it was necessary that there were jockeys of requisite skill and experience in sufficient numbers who would be a'ailablc to the o$ ners and trainers because without such efficient jockevs, the running of race meetings would not be commercially profitable. Ir.,r'as for rhis purpose that the respondent started the school for training Indran jockeys. If there were not sufficient number of cfficicnt Inclian jockeys to ride horses its interest would have suffered, and it might have had to abandon its business if it did not take steps ro make jockeys of the necessary caiibre available. Therefore any expenditure which was inanned\" for preuenting the ertinction of the respondenf,s business would\", in our opinion, be expenditure uthollg and. exclusiuelg laid out for the purpose of the business of the assessee and. would be an a owabre deduction. 16. _Per contra, learned standing counsel for respondent submitted that appear rrled by the appellant is devoid of merits and failed to make out any case, much less the substantial questions of law for consideration. L,earned standing counsel further submitted that the Tribunal, on due consideration of the facts and law, had rightly allowed the appeal filed by the Department and the same does not warrant any interference by this Court. He further submitted that the Tribunal while allowing appeal had specifically obscrved that the hoiding company and the subsidiary company are separate entities and the expenditure pertaining to one cannot be claimed or allowed in the hands of the other. The Tribunal further observed that expenditure in question is not mere administrative expenditure as in the case of a professional u.ho opens an office and is ready to receive clients, nor an expenditure which has been laid out with an intention to earning incomc. He also referred to the observations of the Tribunal that the u.ork orders in question were those of the holding companJ. and that the assessee company had deputed its engineers at its ou.n cost for fulfilling the contractual obligation of the holding compan ,. 8 i 17. The learned standing counsel for respondent placed reliance on the follovving decisions: i) Mira Kulkarni vs. Assistant Commissioner of Incone Taxa; iif Crescent Organics (P.) Ltd., v. Deputy Commlssioner of Income-tax Range-8( 1 l, Mumbals; iii) P.Amarnath Reddy v. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-I[(31, Chennaio 18. [n Mira Kulkarni (supra), the assessee was the owner of t]re property and a portion of property is leased to a company, under an agreement, for being used as a hotel and the assessee was entitled to minimum guaranteed amount per quarter or 3Oyo of gross operating profits whichever was higher; that as per the terms of agreemcnr all facilities, amenities including salaries to staff etc., to be maintained by hotel. The assessee declared income eamed under said agreemenr as income from business and she claimed reduction in respect of foreign travel expenditure, repairs, maintenance expcnscs and salary under Section 37(l) of the Act, i961. The Hon'ble High Court of Delhi held that as per the terms of agreemcnt, all facilrties, amenities and business activities were to bc maintaincd bv the hotcl and insofar as the foreign travel o 120121 l7 tar.ann.com 160 (Dethi)l - I2014)49 taxma^n.com 128 (Bombay)J +!202U 128 tdxmann.(om 244 (Madras)l I reJected the claim for reduction. The assessee also IO assessee 196 I in regard to foreign travel expenses under 961. The High Court held that assessee foreign travel expenses of directors and its business affairs, therefore, rejected expenditure, there was no evidence or material on record showing that said expense was connected with or for purpose of business lncome and, therefore, rejected the claim 19. Jn Crescent Organics (p., Ltd., (supra), the claimed for deduction under Section 36(1)(iii) of the Act, respect of interest paid on borrowals utilized for investments in a foreign company. The Honble Bombay High Court held that therefore, claimed rnvestments were not in course of assessee,s business, business expenditure with Secrion 37(1) of the Act, 1 failed to prove that entire auditors were incurred for the claim of the assessee. 20. [n P.Amaruath Reddy (supr4, the assessee claimed business expenditure of foreign travel expenses of his wife in the capacitv of marketing execudve of concern and that the same v,.crc made for the purpose of business. The High Court of Madras held that the assessee failed to place on record sufficient evidence to prove that his wife was an employee of its proprietary concern and Iurther, there is no evidence on record to establish as to u,hen she I I ll was appointed and what was her salary and ultimately, rejected the claim. Consideration: 21. Now the point for consideration is whether the business expendrture incurred by the appellant herein for fr.rlfilling contractual obligations of parent company can be considered as business loss ol appellant company. 22. Admittedly, the appellant company is a subsidiary company of LIC Energz, Denmark. The appellant company disclosed loss of Rs.55,68, ta 1/- for the asse ssment year 1999-2OOO towards salaries, travelling expenses, rent, printing and stationery, postage, telegrams and telephone charges and other administrative expenses etc. The Assessing Officer during the assessment had taken a view that the appellant company did not carry on business activity during the 1,ear, but helped its parent compaly in completing the projects of the parent company. Therefore, the expenses incurred bv the appellant were not for carrying on the business and for market survey etc. of appellant and thus, same cannot be treated .ls revenue expenscs. The A.O., fUrther observed that the appellant incurred were not exclusively for training of the manpower, but for providing support services for the works t2 contract undertaken by the parent company and are not connected or related to the business activity of the appellant. 23. The Appellate Authority by relying upon the decision of Madras High Court in case of CIT vs. Electron India? heid that business can be said to have been commenced.the very moment the party is ready to receive the clients a-trd for the purpose of being in readiness to receive the client, the party has to stay ready for which expenses are required to be incurred to provide services and consultation to its clients. By observing so, the appellate aut-hority allowed the appeal fited by the appellant company and thereby set aside the assessment order of A.O. 24. In CIT vs. Electron India (supra), the Hon,ble Madras High \"Thus in the case of a professional, the date on which he is ready to receive clients should be the date of commencement. In the case of trader, acquisition of goods for sale would amount to commencement, though no sale might have been occurred. In the case of manufacture, the fact that the production unit is set up so as to enable manufacture without actually manufacturing, operations or sale sould amount to commencement of business.\" 25. In considered opinion of this Court the facts of above case and facts of present casc are different and hence, does not come to aid of appellant. 24TilR166 Court held as under: tl 26. However, on appeal by the Department, the Tribunal had taken a different view that assessee company had deputed its engineers at its own cost for fulfilling the contractual obligation of the holding company and as such, expenditure cannot be consideied as one incurred wholly and exclusively for the purpose of the assessee's business and further the hotding company and the subsidiary company are separate entities and the expenditure pertaining to one cannot be claimed or allowed in the hands of the other. 27. The Bench relying upon the decision in CIT vs. Chandulal Keshavlal & Co,8 held that \"in ord.er to justifg a ded.uction the dbbursement must be for reasons of commercial expediency; it maA be uoluntary but incuned for the assessee s business,. and. if the expense is inanned. for the purpose of the business oJ'the assessee it d.oes not matter that the paAment olso enures b the benertt of a third partg. Another test laid douttt uas that if the transaction is properlu entered. into as a part of lhe assessee's legitimate commerclal undertaking in ord.er to facititate thE corrytng on of its business it is immateial that a third party o,lso benefits therebg.\" 28. At this stage, it is relevant to refer Section 37 of the Act, 1961, which reads as under t tssr scc qao l4 29. As per the dccision of Hon,blc Spianing Mills pvt. Ltd., (supra), rhe \"S.37. (l) Any expenditure d e sc n be i i ;,#il\"\",;l; ;\"q1 5,j -.:r.Tru if ff\",i: fil, ;? capital expenditure or personal .\"*p\".,\".\"- oi'it. '\"\"\"\".\"i.f, ,^ia out or expended whollv anr b,\"i,,\";;;';;;;\"#;\"\"r:ii;.:li:l:.jiJLff ,?:..T;::fj.*: chargeable under the hearl ,,protrts \"rJ l\"r.i\"- \"i\"ur\"]*\"\" * profession\". #i:::.'* i\";lli.ii #:i'i-\"-r-g:\"b':'ir is herebv decrared that anv o ne.,ce o. * n,l i-i; ;;\";io, il; i; ;;\"\"\", ii,. \":ii\"oJg;\"\"\"0 [T.I\", L:X rncurred for lhc purpose of busrness- or profession and no deduction or alowance shall be made in respecr of such expenditur; .- ---* Explanaton 2. _For the remov^t o[doubts, ir is hereby declared that for the purposes oI sub-section assessee on the acdviries .\",rl.ll' un, expenditure incurred by an rererrea to in \"\".,t..'i:'iTr iif':le -I: :orlorat^e- social responsibility no r be a ce m \" d- i o ;'; ; ;:;.:,1,Tjiil:\". fi' &. h.\",,\"r\";:3j ii : Hi purposes o[ lhe business or professron. IExplanation J. For thc removal expressron 'expendirure ,n.rr.\"nol.9llo^t::]'^l:.h:-bv clarified that rhe is an offence ;. *;,.; ,\" ;;;;:. _u an assessee Ior anv purpose which inctuae ana.\"nuii.il,;;:;\";,i;,,\"\" b! taw under E.@tandtion 1. aha rncurred bv an assessee - have always included the expenditure (, for any purposc whrch rs an ult.n(c undcr. or whtch ts prohiblted by, a-ny lau ,or rhe ump bprnq rn ror( F. In Irrdra , .r, \"a\" irj,aloi.\"\",.\"\" , (rd to prolrde an ben.lir or D. \" r,.,r,., ., n o, .*it;;';,1',, ;:,1 l;l: ;: ;:il:ft r:T-l:\"3,j,.:xi acceptar.e or su.h lrenefir or p.rqrrsrrr rr', .u.t p\".in ,! ii, u..r'm\"\"-\"r an]. Ia r.or rule or r.$llatton or time belns m,;.; ;;:;;;;;: .-;..1',':l:,::.fi\".ffi ly be, ror rhe Irii to,,,rrirou.nd tut oft.n,r ur(ler -ur laB lor th. rrme betng in force, in rndra or outsrde lndra) {2t r\".) (28) Notwirhsranding a n vthine arrowance ,h;ir ;;;\".j;'i,'ljl*--'^1\":'\"0 in sub-section (r), no u\"\".\"\"\". ; ';,j*;,:;\";,'-:j\":'-:' expenditure incurred bv an pam phle r .. th\" r i k\"';;;;;;J ;,\" :',-;ii.'.',';:.,f, ':'n \"\",,'\"\",, Apex Court in Saravana prerequisites for allowing reduction under Section 37 of the Act, l96l are as under l5 \"(a) if the expenditure does not fall within sections 30 to 36; (b) that it should have been incurred in the accounting (c) that it should be in respect of a business carried on by the assessee; (d) that it should not be in the nature of capital expenditure and (e) that it should be spent wholly and exclusively for business. 30. An analysis of the authorities, precedents relied upon by both the counsels would make it clear that business can be said to have been commenced, the very moment the party is ready to receive the clients. For the purpose of being ready to receive the client to provide services and consultation to its clients, the party has to stay ready for which expenses are required to be incurred. 31. Perusal of the record would show that the holding company had received five orders to supply LEAK dctection and location system to lndia apart from several enquiries on other modeling software. The appellant company incurred expenditure for overseeing and execution of contracts entered by the holding company. It is also clear that the appellant company did not undertake any business on its own and thus, the expenses incurred by the appellant company are not occasioned in the process or for its own business. Therelore, the cxpenditure incurred by the appellant company cannot be considered as expenditure business. in connection with its business or incidental to its i i6 32. For allowing loss, the expenditure must be connected with or related to the business carried on by the assessee and profits and gains therein. However, in the present case, the losses incurred are for the purpose of giving support services to the holding company and the assessee did not derive any proht and gain from such expenditure, therefore, the loss incurred by the appellant company is not related to its own business. It is relevant to note that the holding company and the subsidiary company are separate entities and the expenditure pertaining to one entity cannot be claimed or allowed in the hands of the other. 33. The judgments relied upon by the learned counsel for appellant will not support the contentions of the appellant company since the expenses incurred in those cases are part of its own business and are related to preparedness of those companies towards training and to strengthcn the busincss. However, in the present case, it is not the case of the appellant that expenses are incured for its own business or tou,ards training etc., but were incurred for overseeing the project of the holding company and was incurred towards travel, administrative and other expenses of its t--- staff and personnel. -J.J il rl t7 34. As per Section 37 of the Act, 1961, the prerequisites for allowing deduction are that the expenditure should have been incurred in respect of a business carried on by the assessee and should be spent wholly and exclusively for its own business. In the present case, admittedly, the expenditure sought to be deducted was incurred for overseeing the project of the holding company. Further, in order to be deductible as a business loss, the expenditure must be in the nature of trading loss, not as capital Ioss springing directly out of trading activity and it must be incidental to the business of the assessee. It is not sufficient that it falls on the assessee in some other capacity or is merely connected with its business and a-lso the amount incurred by the assessee which is not in the ordinary course of business cannot be alkrwed as a deduction. 35. In the light of above discussion and legal position, the amount incurred by the appellant company cannot be considered as revenue expenditure of the appellant company and thus, not eligible for reduction under Section 37 of the Act, 196 I . 36. [n view of above discussion, this Court is of the considercd vic'\",r, that the appellant failed to make out anv case to interfere w,ith the impugned order passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal I I I L I I l I I l8 and thus, the Appeal fails and is accordingly dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. Pending miscellaneous closed. applications, it any, shall stand //TRUE COPY// Sd/- B.S. CHIRANJEEVI JOINT REGISTRAR c ON OFFICER One Fair Copy to the Hon'ble Sri Justice P. Sam Koshy (For His LordshiPs Kind Perusal) One Fair Copy to the Hon 'ble Sri Justice Laxmi Narayana Alishetty (For His LordshiPs Kind Perusal) To 1. The lncome Tax Appellate Tribunal, Hyderabad Bench \"8\" Hyderabad' (With record, if any) ihe Commissioner of lncome Tax (Appeals) -ll, Hyderabad The lncome Tax Officer, Ward- 2 (1) , Hyderabad- 11 LR Copies The Under Secretary, Union of lndia Ministry of law' Justice and 2 3 4 5 Company Affairs, New Delhi' 6. The Secietary Teiangana High Court Advocates Association, Library' High Court Buildings HYderabad 7. On-e CC to Ms. K. PRABHAVATHI ,Advocate [oPUC] 8. One CC to SRl. VIJHAY K PUNNA, S.C. for l'T' Dept', IOPUCI 9. Two CD CoPies kul s I I t. I I i I HIGH COURT DATED:2810612024 JUDGMENT ITTA.No.561 of 2006 DISMISSING THE ITTA WITHOUT COSTS $ 0 0 iAr{ 2oz5 l ril: s T,q a(. ,,ATcH E-c (r' * ef4' W tr= rl /,1 fi' v "