DCIT, Hyderabad v. Soma Enterprises Ltd.,, Hyderabad

ITA 1115/HYD/2008 | 2004-2005
Pronouncement Date: 26-05-2010 | Result: Dismissed

Appeal Details

RSA Number 111522514 RSA 2008
Assessee PAN AACCS8242F
Bench Hyderabad
Appeal Number ITA 1115/HYD/2008
Duration Of Justice 1 year(s) 11 month(s) 16 day(s)
Appellant DCIT, Hyderabad
Respondent Soma Enterprises Ltd.,, Hyderabad
Appeal Type Income Tax Appeal
Pronouncement Date 26-05-2010
Appeal Filed By Department
Order Result Dismissed
Bench Allotted A
Tribunal Order Date 26-05-2010
Date Of Final Hearing 18-05-2010
Next Hearing Date 18-05-2010
Assessment Year 2004-2005
Appeal Filed On 09-06-2008
Judgment Text
ITA NO.1115/H/2008 & OTHERS M/S SOMA ENTERPRISE HYD 1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL HYDERABAD BENCH A HYDERABAD BEFORE SHRI G.C. GUPTA VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI AKBER BASHA ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NOS.1115 & 1116/HYD/08 : ASSTT. YE ARS: 2004-05 & 2005- 06 DY. CIT CIR-3(2) HYDERABAD. VS SOMA ENTERPRISES LIMITED HYDERABAD. PAN:AACCS8242F (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) ITA NOS.1057 & 1058/HYD/08 SOMA ENTERPRISES LIMITED HYDERABAD. PAN:AACCS8242F (ASSESSEE) ASSESSEE BY -VS- ASST. YEAR 2004-05 & 2005-06 DY. CIT CIR-3(2) HYDERABAD. (RESPONDENT) SHRI M.V.R. PRASAD DEPARTMENT BY : SHRI A. BHASKAR REDDY/SHRI KVN CHARYA DRS O R D E R PER AKBER BASHA ACCOUNTANT MEMBER: THESE CROSS APPEALS TWO BY THE DEPARTMENT AND O THER TWO BY THE ASSESSEE ARE DIRECTED AGAINST THE SEPARATE ORDE RS OF CIT(A)-IV HYDERABAD BOTH DATED 31-3-2008 PERTAINING TO THE ASS ESSMENT YEARS 2004- 05 AND 2005-06. SINCE COMMON & IDENTICAL ISSUES ARE INVOLVED IN ALL THESE APPEALS THESE ARE HEARD TAKEN UP TOGETHER AND DIS POSED OFF BY THIS COMBINED ORDER FOR THE SAKE OF CONVENIENCE. ITA NO.1115/H/2008 & OTHERS M/S SOMA ENTERPRISE HYD 2 2. COMMON AND IDENTICAL GROUNDS RAISED IN DEPARTMEN TAL APPEALS WHICH READ AS FOLLOWS:- 1. THE CIT (A) ERRED IN ALLOWING PROPORTIONATE INTE REST FOR MAKING INVESTMENT IN NYSE INFRASTRUCTURE (P) LTD. THE CIT (A) RELIED ON THE CASE OF SA BUILDERS LTD. VS. CIT (2007) (288 ITR 1) NOT APPLICABLE TO THE FACTS OF THE CASE. 2. THE CIT (A) ERRED IN ALLOWING LOSS ON SALE OF M KVDC BONDS. 3. THE CIT(A) OUGHT TO HAVE UPHELD THE DISALLOWANC E OF CREDIT FOR TDS IN THE LIGHT OF THE CLARIFICATION ISSUED BY THE BOARD IN F.NO.275/15/04-ITB DATED 29-4-2004 TO THE EFFECT THAT THE TDS CANNOT B E SHARED.' 3. COMMON AND IDENTICAL GROUNDS ROSE IN THE ASSESS EE'S APPEALS WHICH READ AS FOLLOWS:- 'I. THE ORDER OF THE LEARNED CIT(A)-IV HYDERABAD D ATED 31-3-2008 IN APPEAL NO.0629/DC-3(2)/CIT(A)-IV/2006-07 IS CONTRAR Y TO THE LAW AND FACTS OF THE CASE. II. THE LEARNED CIT(A) ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE DISA LLOWANCE OF PROPORTIONATE INTEREST SAID TO RELATE TO THE INVEST MENTS IN SHARES MADE BY THE ASSESSEE COMPANY IN THE FOLLOWING TWO CONCER NS:- SATYAPRIYA HOLDINGS PVT. LTD. RS.16 00 000 DOCTORS ORGANIC CHEMICALS LTD. RS.25 00 000 HAVING GIVEN THE FINDING THAT THE SAID INVESTMENTS HAD NOT BEEN MADE OUT OF BORROWED FUNDS THE LEARNED CIT (A) OUGHT TO HAVE R EALISED THAT THERE WAS NO INTEREST ON BORROWALS RELATABLE TO THE SAID INVESTM ENTS AND SO OUGHT TO HAVE DELETED THE DISALLOWANCE OF THE PROPORTIONATE INTEREST. 2.1. THE LEARNED CIT (A) OUGHT TO HEAVE NOTICED THA T THE SAID INVESTMENTS ARE IN THE NORMAL COURSE OF THE BUSINESS OF THE ASS ESSEE COMPANY AND ARE MADE AS PER THE OBJECTS OF THE COMPANY. 2.2. THE RELIANCE PLACED BY THE LEARNED CIT(A) ON THE DECISION OF THE HON'BLE KERALA HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. V. I. BABY & CO. (254 ITA NO.1115/H/2008 & OTHERS M/S SOMA ENTERPRISE HYD 3 ITR 248) IS TOTALLY MISPLACED AS IN THAT CASE INT EREST FREE ADVANCES WERE MADE TO RELATIVES OF PARTNERS AND TO SISTER CO NCERNS ITA NOS. 1115 & 1116/HYD/2008- REVENUE'S APPEALS :- 3. GROUNDS 1 AND 5 ARE GENERAL IN NATURE AND THEY D O NOT REQUIRE ANY ADJUDICATION. 4. THE EFFECTIVE ISSUE IN GROUND NO.2 HAS BEEN RAIS ED TO CONTEST THE DISALLOWANCE OF PROPORTIONATE INTEREST AMOUNTING TO RS.89 60 583. THE ASSESSING OFFICER NOTICED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD CLA IMED FINANCIAL EXPENSES OF RS.10 28 45 008 OUT OF WHICH INTEREST AND FINANCIAL CHARGES ON LIABILITIES OTHER THAN TERM LOANS WAS RS.4 33 25 917. AS PER T HE STAND TAKEN IN THE EARLIER YEAR IN THE ASSESSEE'S OWN CASE THE ASSESS ING OFFICER SOUGHT TO DISALLOW PROPORTIONATE INTEREST OF RS.89 60 583 DUR ING THE ASSESSMENT YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION. IT WAS EXPLAINED BY THE ASSES SEE THAT THE SAID INVESTMENTS WERE MADE OUT OF INTERNAL ACCRUALS OF T HE COMPANY AND WERE FOR THE PURPOSE OF BUSINESS OF THE COMPANY. UPON CONSI DERATION OF THE EXPLANATION OF THE ASSESSEE THE ASSESSING OFFICER FOUND THAT THE ASSESSEE FAILED TO ESTABLISH THE DETAILS OF CASH FLOW AND IM MEDIATE SOURCES OF FINANCE FOR MAKING SUCH INVESTMENTS AND HELD THAT IF THE AS SESSEE HAD SUFFICIENT CASH FLOW IT WOULD NOT HAVE BORROWED FUNDS OF BUSINESS PURPOSE ON WHICH IT HAD TO INCUR INTEREST LIABILITY OF RS.4.33 CRORES. IN V IEW OF THIS THE ASSESSING OFFICER HELD THAT PART OF INTEREST EXPENDITURE IS N OT WHOLLY AND EXCLUSIVELY FOR THE PURPOSE OF BUSINESS OF THE ASSESSEE. ACCORDING LY PROPORTIONATE INTEREST OF RS.89 60 583 WAS DISALLOWED. AGGRIEVED BY THE ORDER OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER THE ASSESSEE WENT IN APPEAL BEFORE THE CIT (A). THE CIT (A) BY FOLLOWING THE RATIO LAID DOWN BY THE HON'BLE KERALA HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF V.I. BABY & COMPANY CONFIRMED THE DISALLOWANCE OF INTEREST MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER RELATING TO THE INVESTMENTS IN SA TYA PRIYA HOLDINGS PVT. LTD. AND DOCTOR'S ORGANIC CHEMICALS PVT. LIMITED AND DEL ETED THE DISALLOWANCE OF ITA NO.1115/H/2008 & OTHERS M/S SOMA ENTERPRISE HYD 4 PROPORTIONATE INTEREST PAID FOR THE INVESTMENT IN N YSE. THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT IN THE ASSESSEE'S O WN CASE FOR THE EARLIER ASSESSMENT THE ITAT IN ITS ORDER IN ITA NO.1210 AND 1211/HYD/05 DATED 2- 5-2008 HAS DIRECTED THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO VERIFY THE NEXUS BETWEEN THE INVESTMENTS AND THE BORROWED FUNDS AND DECIDE THE I SSUE. CONSEQUENT TO THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN ITS CONSEQUENTIAL ORDER PASSED ON 10TH FEB. 2009 NOTICED THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS HAVING THE RESERVES MORE THAN THE INVESTMENTS MADE AND THERE IS NO NEXU S BETWEEN THE BORROWED FUNDS AND THE INVESTMENTS MADE AND HENCE T HE ADDITION MADE ON THIS ACCOUNT WAS DELETED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. HENCE IT IS SUBMITTED THAT THE CIT [A] IS RIGHT IN DELETING THE ADDITION ON AC COUNT OF DISALLOWANCE OF INTEREST. 5. ON THE OTHER HAND THE LEARNED DEPARTMENTAL REPR ESENTATIVE SUBMITTED THAT THE ISSUE OF DISALLOWANCE OF INTERES T WAS CONSIDERED BY THIS TRIBUNAL IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE WELL BEFORE THE DECISION OF THE SPECIAL BENCH (BOMBAY) IN THE CASE OF ITO VS. DAGA CAPITAL MANAGEMENT PVT. LTD REPORTED IN 312 ITR (AT) 1 AND AT PRESENT THE ISSU E IS IN FAVOUR OF THE REVENUE AFTER THE DECISION OF DAGA CAPITAL (SUPRA). 6. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND PER USED THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD. WE FIND THAT THE ASSESSING OF FICER DISALLOWED PROPORTIONATE INTEREST RELATABLE TO INVESTMENTS MAD E IN THE FOLLOWING COMPANIES VIZ. I) NYSE 2) SATYA PRIYA HOLDINGS AND 3) DOCTOR'S ORGANIC CHEMICALS. OUT OF THE ABOVE THREE INVESTMENTS TW O INTESTMENTS MADE IN NYSE AND SATYA PRIYA ARE CONTINUING INVESTMENTS FRO M THE EARLIER YEARS. FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEARS 2002-03 AND 2003-04 THIS TRIB UNAL DIRECTED THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO VERIFY THE NEXUS BETWEEN THE B ORROWED FUNDS AND INVESTMENTS MADE. THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN HIS C ONSEQUENTIAL ORDER PASSED ON 10-2-2009 IN PURSUANCE OF THE TRIBUNAL'S ORDER CLEARLY HELD THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS HAVING THE RESERVES MORE THAN THE INVE STMENTS MADE AND THERE IS NO NEXUS BETWEEN THE BORROWED FUNDS AND IN VESTMENTS MADE. IN ITA NO.1115/H/2008 & OTHERS M/S SOMA ENTERPRISE HYD 5 VIEW OF THIS IN THE ABSENCE OF SUCH NEXUS IN OUR CONSIDERED OPINION THE QUESTION OF DISALLOWANCE UNDER SECTION 14A DOES NOT ARISE. THE DECISION RELIED ON BY THE LEARNED DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIV E IN THE CASE OF DAGA CAPITAL (SUPRA) IS NOT APPLICABLE TO THE FACTS OF T HE PRESENT CASE AS IN THAT CASE THE ASSESSING OFFICER OBSERVED THAT THE BORRO WED FUNDS WERE MAINLY USED FOR MAKING INVESTMENTS IN SHARES AND SECURITIE S OF OTHER COMPANIES WITH LONG TERM PERCEPTION IN MIND TO END LUMP SUM D IVIDEND WITHOUT CONTRIBUTING ANYTHING TO THE EXCHEQUER ON ACCOUNT O F INCOME-TAX. EVEN THE CIT (A) SUSTAINED THE DISALLOWANCE IN DAGA CAPITAL (SUPRA) ON PRO RATA BASIS NOTICING THAT THE ASSESSEE MIXED THE BORROWED FUNDS AND THE ASSESSEE'S OWN FUNDS FOR INVESTMENTS IN SHARES AND SECURITIES. IN THE CASE UNDER CONSIDERATION THERE WAS NO SUCH NEXUS AND NO MONEY WAS BORROWED FOR THE PURPOSE OF INVESTMENT AS NOTICED BY THE ASSESSING O FFICER IN THE EARLIER YEARS. HENCE THE RATIO OF DECISION LAID DOWN IN DAGA CAPIT AL (SUPRA) IS NOT APPLICABLE TO THE FACTS OF THE PRESENT CASE IN SO F AR AS THE INVESTMENTS IN NYSE. HENCE INTEREST DISALLOWANCE MADE BY THE ASSE SSING OFFICER IN RESPECT OF INVESTMENT MADE IN NYSE CANNOT BE SUSTAINED. HENC E WE DO NOT SEE ANY INFIRMITY IN THE ORDERS OF THE CIT (A) ON THIS ISSU E. 7. THIRD GROUND OF APPEAL IS WITH REGARD TO THE DIS ALLOWANCE OF LOSS ON SALE OF MKVDC BONDS AMOUNTING TO RS.21.55 LAKHS. T HE ASSESSEE EXPLAINED BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER THAT THE ASSESSEE PURC HASED MKVDC BONDS AGAINST ITS DUES WITH MKVDC AND TREATED THE SAME AS STOCK IN TRADE. EVEN SOME BONDS WERE TRANSFERRED AT FACE VALUE TO THE SU B-CONTRACTOR IN LIEU OF THEIR BILL PAYMENTS AND SOME BONDS WERE SOLD IN THE MARKET THROUGH BROKERS AT DISCOUNT. THE LOSS SO INCURRED WAS DEBITED TO PROFIT & LOSS ACCOUNT WHILE THE INTEREST EARNED ON THESE BONDS WAS CREDITED TO PROFIT AND LOSS ACCOUNT. THE ASSESSING OFFICER NOTICED THAT THOUGH THE ASSES SEE CLAIMED THE LOSS ON SALE OF BONDS IT HAD FAILED TO FURNISH ANY DOCUMEN TARY EVIDENCE TO SHOW THAT THE BONDS HAD BEEN ISSUED TO IT IN LIEU OF THE CONT RACT RECEIPTS. THEREFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER HELD THAT THE LOSS INCURRED B Y THE ASSESSEE ON BONDS AT RS.21.55 LAKHS HAD NOT BEEN INCURRED WHOLLY AND EXC LUSIVELY FOR ITS BUSINESS ITA NO.1115/H/2008 & OTHERS M/S SOMA ENTERPRISE HYD 6 PURPOSE. ACCORDINGLY HE DISALLOWED THE SAME. AGG RIEVED BY THE ORDER OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER THE ASSESSEE WENT IN APPEAL BEFORE THE CIT (A). THE CIT(A) ALLOWED THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE BY ALLOWI NG THE LOSS OF RS.21.55 LAKHS INCURRED ON SALE OF MKVDC BONDS ACQUIRED BY T HE ASSESSEE IN PLACE OF RECEIVABLES. AGGRIEVED BY THE ORDER OF THE CIT (A) THE REVENUE IS IN APPEAL BEFORE US. THE LEARNED DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE IS NOT A DEALER OF SECURITIES AND THE ASSE SSEE ALSO NOT FURNISHED ANY JUSTIFICATION OR EVIDENCE IN SUPPORT OF THE CONTENT ION THAT THE BONDS HAD BEEN PURCHASED TO GET OVER THE DIFFICULTY ARISING FROM N ON PAYMENT OF BILLS BY MKVDC AND THAT IT HAD NOT ESTABLISHED THAT THE BOND S WERE ISSUED DIRECTLY TO IT AGAINST CONTRACT RECEIPTS. HENCE THE CIT (A) IS NOT CORRECT IN ALLOWING SUCH LOSS. 8. ON THE OTHER HAND THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE TREATED THE BONDS AS STOCK IN TRA DE IN ITS BOOKS OF ACCOUNT AND THE INTEREST EARNED ON BONDS AMOUNTING TO RS.2. 23 CRORES WAS OFFERED AS BUSINESS INCOME AND THE SAME WAS ALSO ACCEPTED BY T HE ASSESSING OFFICER. HENCE THE LOSS ON SALE OF BONDS IS TO BE TREATED AS ALLOWED AS BUSINESS EXPENDITURE. 9. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND PER USED THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD. WE FIND THAT THE CIT (A) AFTER GETTING A REMAND REPORT FROM THE ASSESSING OFFICER OBSERVED THAT THE ASSESS EE'S BILLS WITH MKVDC WERE OUTSTANDING FOR MORE THAN THREE YEARS AND THE ASSESSING OFFICER ALSO STATED THAT THE ASSESSEE ACCEPTED THE BONDS IN LIEU OF CONTRACT RECEIPTS FOR THE REASON BEST KNOWN TO IT. HENCE THERE IS NO DISP UTE THAT THE ASSESSEE ACQUIRED THE BONDS IN LIEU OF CONTRACT RECEIPTS FRO M MKVDC. WE ALSO FIND THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAD ACCEPTED THE INTERES T INCOME FROM BONDS AS BUSINESS INCOME AND HENCE WE FIND MERIT IN THE CONT ENTION OF THE ASSESSEE THAT THE BONDS WERE AS GOOD AS RECEIVABLE IN DIFFER ENT FORM AND HENCE THE SAME WAS CLASSIFIED AS STOCK IN TRADE BY THE ASSESS EE IN THE BALANCE SHEET. ONCE SUCH BONDS WERE SOLD AT DISCOUNT THE LOSS ARI SING THERE FROM IS ITA NO.1115/H/2008 & OTHERS M/S SOMA ENTERPRISE HYD 7 REQUIRED TO BE TREATED AS BUSINESS LOSS. THERE IS A CLEAR NEXUS BETWEEN THE LOSS AND THE ASSESSEE'S BUSINESS. THE INTENTION OF THE ASSESSEE IS NOT TO ACQUIRE THE BONDS AS INVESTMENTS AS THIS IS EVIDENT FROM THE FACT THAT THE ASSESSEE UTILISED SOME OF THE BONDS TO DISCHARGE IT S LIABILITIES. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE WE DO NOT SEE ANY INFIRMITY IN THE ORDER OF THE CIT (A) IN ALLOWING THE LOSS OF RS.21.55 LAKHS INCURRED ON SALE OF BONDS RE CEIVED BY THE ASSESSEE IN PLACE OF RECEIVABLES. HENCE WE CONFIRM HIS ORDER ON THIS ISSUE. 10. FOURTH GROUND OF APPEAL WITH REGARD TO DISALLOW ANCE OF CREDIT FOR TDS IN THE LIGHT OF THE CLARIFICATION ISSUED BY THE CBD T NO.275/15/04-ITB DATED 29-4-2004 WE FIND THAT THIS ISSUE IS COVERED IN FA VOUR OF THE ASSESSEE BY THE DECISION OF ITAT IN THE ASSESSEE'S OWN CASE IN ITA NO.1215/HYD/2004 FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2001-02 DATED 28-3-2008 WHEREIN IT WAS HELD AS FOLLOWS:- 'IT IS NOT DISPUTED THAT THE ENTIRE RECEIPTS OF THE JOINT VENTURE ARE INCLUDED IN THE GROSS RECEIPTS OF THE ASSESSEE. THE ASSESSEE I TSELF HAS OFFERED THE INCOME ARISING FROM THE SAID WORK. THEREFORE THE CIT(A) WAS JUSTIFIED IN DIRECTING THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO GIVE CREDIT OF TDS TO THE ASSESSEE AS SUCH TAX WAS DEDUCTED ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE IN WHOSE HANDS T HE INCOME IS ASSESSED. MERELY ON TECHNICAL GROUNDS THE ASSESSING OFFICER WAS NOT JUSTIFIED IN NOT ALLOWING THE SAME.' RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING THE ABOVE ORDER OF THE TRIBU NAL WE DISMISS THE GROUND RAISED BY THE REVENUE IN THIS REGARD. ITA NOS. 1057 & 1058/HYD/2008- ASSESSEES APPEALS :- 11. AT THE OUTSET IN BOTH THE APPEALS THE LEAR NED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE DID NOT PRESS THE GROUND ON THE ISSUES REL ATING TO DISALLOWANCE OF INTEREST IN RESPECT OF INVESTMENT MADE IN SATYAPRIY A HOLDINGS (P) LTD. AND CHATTISGARH INFRASTRUCTURE VENTURE (P) LTD. HENCE THE GROUND RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE IN RESPECT OF DISALLOWANCE OF PROPORTIONAT E INTEREST MADE IN THE ABOVE TWO COMPANIES ARE DISMISSED AS NOT PRESSED. I N RESPECT OF ITA NO.1115/H/2008 & OTHERS M/S SOMA ENTERPRISE HYD 8 PROPORTIONATE DISALLOWANCE OF INTEREST ON INVESTMEN TS MADE IN DOCTOR'S ORGANICS CHEMICALS LTD. AND SEVEN HILLS HEALTH CARE LIMITED WE FIND THAT THE LOWER AUTHORITIES HAD NO OPPORTUNITY TO VERIFY THE NEXUS WHETHER THERE IS ANY NEXUS BETWEEN THE BORROWED FUNDS AND THE INVEST MENTS MADE. IN THE VIEW OF THE ABOVE AND IN CONSONANCE OF OUR FINDINGS ON SIMILAR ISSUES IN THE REVENUE APPEAL WE FEEL IT PROPER TO RESTORE THIS M ATTER TO THE FILE OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO VERIFY WHETHER THERE IS ANY NE XUS BETWEEN THE BORROWED FUNDS AND INVESTMENTS MADE AND THEREAFTER DECIDE TH E ISSUE IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW AFTER GIVING REASONABLE OPPORTUNITY OF BEI NG HEARD. 12. IN THE RESULT BOTH THE APPEALS OF THE REVENUE ARE DISMISSED AND BOTH THE APPEALS OF THE ASSESSEE APPEALS ARE PA RTLY ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSE. ORDER WAS PRONOUNCED IN THE COURT ON 26. 5.2010. SD/- G.C.GUPTA SD/- AKBER BASHA VICE PRESIDENT ACCOUNTANT MEMBER. DT 26/5/2010 COPY FORWARDED TO: 1. M/S SOMA ENTERPRISES LTD. LTD. AVENUE 4 ROAD N O.10 BANJARA HILLS HYDERABAD 2 DCIT CIRCLE 3 (2) HYDERABAD 3. 4. 5. CIT(A) IV HYDERABAD CIT HYDERABAD DR HYDERABAD JMR*