Itta/229/2016 Of Modi Builders And Realtors Private Limited v. Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANAAT HYDERABAD WEDNESDAY, THE TWENTY FIRST DAY OF MAYTWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE P.SAM KOSHYANDTHE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE NARSING RAO NANDIKONDA ITTA. Nos: 167 ot 2012 229 ot 2016 and 230 ot 2016 lTTA.No.157 ol 2012 Appeal under section 260-4 of the lncome Tax, Act, 196'1 against the orderdated 22-03-2012 in l.T.A.No.1458lHydl201 1 for the Assessment Year 2008-09on the file of the lncome Tax Appellate Tribunal, Hyderabad "A" Bench,Hyderabad. Between: M/s Modi Builders & Realtors (P) Ltd., A company incorporated under theCompanies Act, 1956, having its registered office at #54-18713 & 4, 3'd Floor,Soham Mansion, M.G. Road, Secunderabad. Represented by its ManagingDirector Mr. Sourabh Modi, R/o Hyderabad. ...APPELLANT AND Asst. Commissioner of lncome tax, Circle -16 (2),Hyderabad ...RESPONDENT l.A. NO: 1 OF 2012[TTAMP. NO: 266 OF 20'l2l Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated inthe affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to passan order staying the collection of the disputed demand in the appeal for theassessment year 2008-09. Counsel for the Appellant: Mr. S. Ravi, learned Senior Counselappearing on behalf of Mr. Ch. Pushyam Kiran Counsel for the Respondent: Mr. J.V. Prasad (SC FOR INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT) lTTA.No.229 of 2016 Section [260-4 ][of ][the ][lncome ][Tax, ][Act, ][1961 against the order]Appeal under dateO Zb-Ot-2016 [in ][t.T.A.No.1565/Hyd/2013 ][for ][the Assessment Year ][2009-10]on the file of the [lncome ][Tax ][Appellate ][Tribunal, ][Hyderabad ]["A" ][Bench,]Hyderabad. Between: M/s Modi Builders & [Realtors ][(P) ][Ltd., ] [company ][incorporated ][under ][the]i;;;;;;.];t,-rbso, ni'riisits'i6g[ieied [orrice'atks'q-t1trt ][& ][4, ][3'd Floor,]5ohJ, Uin..n. M G. Roa-d, [Sec-underabad. ][Represented ][by ][its ][Managing]Director Mr. Sourabh [Modi, R/o Hyderabad.] ...APPELLANT AND Asst. Commissioner of [lncome ][tax, ][Circle ][-16 (2)' ][Aayakar ][Bhavan,]Basheerbagh, HYderabad [- ][4.] ...RESPONDENT (Cause file amended as [per ]C'O. [dt: ][19/10/150 ][in ] [101/16)] l.A. NO: 1 OF 2016[(ITTAMP. ] [: 74 OF 2016)] Petition under section [151 ][CPC praying ][that ][in ][the ][circumstances stated ][in]the affidavit filed in support [of ][the petition, ][the ][High ][court ][may ][be ][pleased ][to ][pass]an order staying the collection [of the ][disputed demand ][of ][Rs.48,58,3221 in ][the]appeal for the assessment [year 2009-10.] Counsel for the Appellant: [Mr. S. ][Ravi, ][learned ][Senior Counsel]appearing on behalf of [Mr' ][Ch. ][Pushyam ][Kiran] Counsel for the Respondent: [Mr. ][J.V. Prasad ][(SC FOR INCOME ] OEPARTMENT} lTTA.No.230 of 2016 Appeal under section 260-A [of ][the ][lncome Tax' ][Act, ][1961 against the order]OateO Zb-Ot-201G [in ][t.T.A.No.1566/Hyd/2013 ][for ][the ][Assessment ][Year ][2009-10]on the file of the [lncome ][Tax ][Appellate ][Tribunal, ][Hyderabad ]["A" ][Bench']Hyderabad. Between: M/s. Modi Shelters [(P) ]Ltd, A [Company ]' [incorporated under ][the- ][Companies ][Act,]1956, having its registered office [at ]54-18713 & 4 Floor' Soham Mansion'M.G.Road, Stcundeiabad. [Represented by its Managing Director, Sourabh ][Modi,]R/o. Hyderabad. ...APPELLANT/Appellant AND The Assistant Commissioner of lncome Tax, Circle -16(2), Aayakar Bhavan,Basheedragh, Hyderabad. Cause Title amended as per Court order dated 19-10-2016 in ITTA MP.No,104 of2016 ..RESPON DENT/Respondent l.A. NO: 1 OF 2016(ITTAMP. NO: 75 OF 2016) Between: M/s. Modi Shelters [(P) ]Ltd, A [Company ]' [incorporated under ][the- ][Companies ][Act,]1956, having its registered office [at ]54-18713 & 4 Floor' Soham Mansion'M.G.Road, Stcundeiabad. [Represented by its Managing Director, Sourabh ][Modi,]R/o. Hyderabad. ...APPELLANT/Appellant AND The Assistant Commissioner of lncome Tax, Circle -16(2), Aayakar Bhavan,Basheedragh, Hyderabad. Cause Title amended as per Court order dated 19-10-2016 in ITTA MP.No,104 of2016 ..RESPON DENT/Respondent l.A. NO: 1 OF 2016(ITTAMP. NO: 75 OF 2016) Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated inthe affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to passan order staying the collection of the disputed demand of Rs. 46,82,296/- in theappeal for the assessment year 2009-10. l.A. NO: 2 OF 2016(lTfAMP. NO: 104 OF 2016) Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated inthe affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased passan order permitting the cause title of ITTA No.230 of 20'16 to be amended byreplacing the name of respondent i.e. 'Assistant Commissioner of lncome Tax,Ward 16(2), Hyderabad' with 'The Assistant Commissioner of lncome Tax, Circle-16(2), Aayakar Bhavan, Basheerbagh, Hyderabad-4. Counsel for the Appellant: Mr. S. Ravi, Iearned Senior Counselappearing on behalf of Mr. Ch. Pushyam Kiran Counsel for the Respondent: Mr. J.V. Prasad (SC FOR INCOME TAXDEPARTMENT} The Court delivered the following: COMMON JUDGMENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE P.SAM KOSHY AND THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NARSING RAO NANDIKONDA Income Tax Tribunal Appeal No.167 of 20L2;Income Tax Tribunal Appeal No.229 of 2OL6zandIncome Tax TribunaI Appeal No.23O of 2OL6 COMMON JUDGMENT: (per the Hon'bte Sri Justice P.SAM KOSIrY) since the issue arising in the instant batch of appeals is one a,d the same, we proceed to decide the instant appeals by way of thiscommon judgment.common judgment. 2. I.T.T.A.No. 167 of 2Ol2 is Iiled by the appellant herein underSection 260-4 of the lncome Tax Act, 1961 assailing the order passedby the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Hyderabad ,,A,, Bench inLT.A.No.1458/Hyd/2011 for the Assessment year 20Og_O9, dated22.03.2012 (for short, lhe impugned order); I.T.T.A.No.229 of 2Ol6 isfiled by the appellant under section 260-A of the Income Tax Act,196 I assailing the order passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal,Hyderabad "A" Bench in I.T.A.No.rs6s/Hyd/2013 for the AssessmentYear 2009-10, dated 29.O1.2016 (for short, [.the ]impugned order,); andI.T.T'A.No.23o of 2016 is filed by the appellant under Section 260-4 ofthe Income Tax Act, 1961 assailing the order passed by the IncomeTax Appellate Tribunal, Hyderabad Bench in PSKJ &NNR,J 2009-10, [dated] I.T.A.No.1566/Hydl2Ol3 [for ][the ][Assessment ][Year]29.OL.2016 [(for ][short, ]['the impugned ][order')'] 3. Heard Mr. [S' ][Ravi, ][learned ][Senior Counsel appearing ][on ][behalf]of Mr. [C.H. ][Pushyam ][Kiran' ][learned counsel ][for ][the appellant' ][in ][all]the appeals; [and ][Mr' ][J'V' ][Prasad' learned ][Senior ][Standing ][Counsel for]the Income [Tax ][Department, ][for ][the ][sole ][respondent' ][in ][all ][the]appeals. For [convenience, ][the ][facts ][in ][I'T'T'A'No ][229 ][of ][2016 ][a-re]4, discussed [hereunder'] The appellant [[herein ][is ][a ][rea-l ][estate developer' ]][[is ][a ][rea-l ][estate developer' ]][[a ][rea-l ][estate developer' ]][[rea-l ][estate developer' ]][[estate developer' ]][[(for ][short' ]['the]][[short' ]['the]][['the]] PSKJ &NNR,J 2009-10, [dated] I.T.A.No.1566/Hydl2Ol3 [for ][the ][Assessment ][Year]29.OL.2016 [(for ][short, ]['the impugned ][order')'] 3. Heard Mr. [S' ][Ravi, ][learned ][Senior Counsel appearing ][on ][behalf]of Mr. [C.H. ][Pushyam ][Kiran' ][learned counsel ][for ][the appellant' ][in ][all]the appeals; [and ][Mr' ][J'V' ][Prasad' learned ][Senior ][Standing ][Counsel for]the Income [Tax ][Department, ][for ][the ][sole ][respondent' ][in ][all ][the]appeals. For [convenience, ][the ][facts ][in ][I'T'T'A'No ][229 ][of ][2016 ][a-re]4, discussed [hereunder'] The appellant [[herein ][is ][a ][rea-l ][estate developer' ]][[is ][a ][rea-l ][estate developer' ]][[a ][rea-l ][estate developer' ]][[rea-l ][estate developer' ]][[estate developer' ]][[(for ][short' ]['the]][[short' ]['the]][['the]] 5. The appellant [[herein ][is ][a ][rea-l ][estate developer' ]][[is ][a ][rea-l ][estate developer' ]][[a ][rea-l ][estate developer' ]][[rea-l ][estate developer' ]][[estate developer' ]][[(for ][short' ]['the]][[short' ]['the]][['the]]assessee). [The ][assessee ][is ][engaged ][in ][the business ][of ][construction ][of]residential [units ]/ [bungalows ][which ][are ][duplexes surrounded ][by ][a]compound [wall. ][Each residential ][unit ][consists ][of a ][portico and ][an]terrace. [In the ][course ][of ][business' the ][assessee ][filed ][its ][return ][of]open income for [the ][Assessment Year ][2OO9-10 ][on ][2l ]['O9 ]['2OO9 ][admitting ][an]income of [Rs.3,16,4 ][6,847 ][l- ][and ][claimed ][the ][entire ][amount ][as]deduction [under ][Section ][go-IB ][(10) ][showing ][taxable ][income ][at ][Rs'NIL.]ThesamewasprocessedunderSection143(1)ofthelncomeTaxAct,1961 on 30.03.2011' [After scrutiny' ][the ][respondent ][had ][issued ][a]notice under [Section ][A3(2\ ][of ][the Act'] \ 6. Alter assessment, the respondent determined the total income ofthe assessee at Rs.3,41,41,862 /- by making disallowances on twogrounds, viz., disallowance of deduction under Section g0-lB (10) for asum of Rs.3,16,46,847 / and disallowance under Section 14A for asum of Rs.24,95,015/-. However, uide the impugned order theTribunal rejected the claim of the assessee pertaining to deductionunder Section 8O-lB of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short, the ActJamounting to Rs.3,16,46,847 /- on the ground that the terrace whichis open to sky and portico without walls can be included in computingthe built-up area of each residentia_l unit were exceeding 1,SOO sq.ft.for the purposes of determining eligibility for deduction under Section80-lB of the Act. 7Assailing the same, the assessee preferred the instant appeal. 8. The question of law which has cropped up for consideration inthe instant appeal is : "Whether th.e tenace / balcong that is in the formof open to skg or portico / porch area without rtalls could be ad.d.edtuhile computtng the built-up area for the purpose of determining theeligibility for deduction under Section 8O-IB of the Income Tax Act,1961?" 9. As per Section BO-IB of the Act an assessee is entitled fordeductionlnrespect of profit and gain from certain industrial PSK, J & NNR, J and [other ][infrastructural ][undertakings' ][Such]undertakings deductions shall [not ][apply ][to ][housing projects carried ][out ][in]accordance with [the ][scheme ][framed ][by ][the ][Central Government or ][the]State Government [in ][the ][course ][of re-construction ][or ][re-development]of existing buildings [in ][aleas ][declared ][to ][be ][slum ][area' ][Such ][benehts]sha]lnotbehoweverbeapplicabletoresidentialunitswithabuilt-uparea of less [than ][1,500 ][sq'ft', ][in ][case ][if ][the ][residential ][units ][are]outside the metropolitan [city ][of ][Delhi ][or Bombay'] 10. For proper [understanding ][of ][the ][issue ][involved' ][it is ][also]to [refer ][to ][the ][definition ][of ][the ]['width ][of ][area" ][as ][is]necessary in [Clause (la)(a) ][of Section ][80-IB ][of ][the ][Act' which ][for ][ready]envisaged reference is [being ][reproduced ][as ][under, ][viz', ][:] -"(14) For tte [purposes ][of ][this section ] 10. For proper [understanding ][of ][the ][issue ][involved' ][it is ][also]to [refer ][to ][the ][definition ][of ][the ]['width ][of ][area" ][as ][is]necessary in [Clause (la)(a) ][of Section ][80-IB ][of ][the ][Act' which ][for ][ready]envisaged reference is [being ][reproduced ][as ][under, ][viz', ][:] -"(14) For tte [purposes ][of ][this section ] areo" [means ][the ][inner ][meosurements of ][the](a) "buitt-up residentiat unit at [the ]floor [leuel ][inclui'ding ][the projections ][and]balconies, as [increased ][by the ][thickness of ][the ][utalls but does ][not]include the common [areas shared ][uith ][other residential ][units ]["] 11. A plain reading [of ][above Clause ][(la)(a) ][of ][Section ][80-lB ][would]clearly indicate that [the ][built-up ][area ][would ][include the ][entire ][inner]measurement of a [residential ][unit on ][the ][floor ][level ][added ][by]thickness of a wall and [includes ][projections ][and ][balconies' ][However']commonareassharedwithotherresidentialunitsareexcludedfrom the same. This, in other words, would mean that to be a part of built-up area, the same must be part of the inner measurements of aresidential unit and it would exclude the open terrace space andwould also exclude a balcony which is shared by more than oneresidential owner. The area of dispute in the instant appeal so far asthe appellants are concerned is the portico for parking of cars in theground floor ald also in the open terrace space on the f,rrst floorexclusively to be used by the owner himself and is not one which is tobe shared by the others. The Tribunal, in the instant case, has goneinto to decide the appeal of the assessee based upon an order passedby the Tribunai in the case of the appellants themselves for theprevious Assessment Year 2007-08. However, the Tribunal seems tohave ignored the definition of the built-up area as defined underClause (la)(a) of Section B0-IB of the Act. What is necessary at thisjuncture to the take note of the fact is that the as per the definition of"built-up" area, it means only inner measurement of a residential unit.This, in other words, would mean that anything which is not withinthe inner measurement area of the residentia-l unit wouldautomatically get excluded from the computation of built-up area.What is further included in the definition of "built-up" area is thatarea of the inner measurement even if it be the projection from a roomor a balcony, increased by thickness of a wall, then what is also PSK,J & NNR,J to be construed is that [there ][is a ][vast difference ][between ][a]necessary projection or a balcony with that [of ][an ][open ][terrace. ][Likewise, ][there ][is]also a clear definition between [the ][area ][which ][otherwise ][falls ][within]the inner measurement of [a ][residential ][unit ][when ][it ][is ][compared ][to ][a]porticci meartt for parking of cars [by ][the ][residenLial ][unit, ][an ][area]which is outside the inner [measurement ][and ][an ][area ][which ][is ][totally]exposed to the open and is [not ][surrounded ][by the ][thickness ][of ][its]wall. A portico can neither [be ][brought ][within ][the ][ambit ][of ][a]projection, nor can it be termed as "parking". [In the ][same ma-nner, ][arl]open terrace is also quite different [than ][that ][of an ][otherwise ][closed]balcony or projection and it [was ]in [this ][context ][that the ][law ][makers]while redefining the term built-up [area ][had ][only ][included ][those ][areas]which could be easily brought within the [inner ][measurement ][of ][the]residential unit and which included [a ][balcony area ][of ][projection, ][and]the term "open terrace" or an'open [space" ][have ][all ][been ][deliberately]left out from the said definition. L2. In this context, it would be [relevant ]to [take ][note ][of the ][decision]rendered by a Division Bench of the [High ]Court [of ][Gujarat ][in ][the ][case]of Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Amaltas [Associatesr ][wherein]the Division Bench at [paragraph ][Nos.3 ]and [8 had ][discussed the ][term]"built-up" area in its proper [perspective, ][as has ][been discussed ][in ][the] preceding paragraph. For ready reference, ParagraPh Nos.3 and 8 ofthe said decision are extracted hereunder, viz., '3. The Tibuna[ allouted the assessee's appeal by the impugnedjudgment ond held that the ossessee utas a deueloper. The assessee hadundertaken full responsibility of constructtng the residential units and [had]also been responsibte for the resultant [proftt ]or loss artsing out of [such]uenture. ?he assessee thus, had undertaken fulL ri.sk. Regarding [the]Reuenue's contention regarding excess buttt-up area, the Tibunat hetd thatthe open space attached to a penthouse, cannot be included in the term"balcong'. The Tnbunal u.tas of the uieut that the case of the presentassessee was same as the cases of Radhe Deuelopers and ShaktiCorporation, tu)o sets of appeoLs, u.there the Tibunal had allou-ted thededuction under Section 80-IB(10) of the Act. 8. Section 80-lB(14) of the Act contains deftnitions for the [purpose ]ofthe said section. Clause (a) thereof prouides that built-up areo means thelnner measurements of the restderLtiaL unit at the Jloor leuel, including theprojections and balconies, as increased. bg the thickness of the ualls, butdoes not include the common areas shared u.tith other residentiol units-Thus, tle buitt-up area uould include inner measurements of a residentialuntt on the floor leuel added bg thickness of a utall as also projections andbalconies. This would hou.teuer, exclude the common areas shared tuithother residential units. Thb exclusion clause of the common areas sharedbg other units cannot be opplied in the reuerse. In other uords, tLenroment a certain area is not sltared but is exclusiuelg asstgned for the useof a particular res[dentiaL untt lTolder, would not mean that such areauould automotically be lncluded in the built-up orea. In order to be part ofthe buitt-up area, the same must be part of the inner measurements of aresidential unit or projection or balcony. The open terace space onthe topfloor [of ][a ][building ][woutd not ][satisfg ][this ][desciption. ][It ][will ][also not ][be]couered in the expression bolcong. Tenn "balcong" [has ][been ]explained inWebster's Third Intemational Dictionary (Unabridged) os unroofecl platform \ ^- PSK,J & NNR,J - projecting from the u-tall of a building, enclosed by a parapet or railing, andusuallg resting on brackets or consoles. It is ofien used os sgnonAnls togallery, loggia, ueranda, piazzo, porch, portico, stoop, etc. In the context ofusuallg resting on brackets or consoles. It is ofien used os sgnonAnls togallery, loggia, ueranda, piazzo, porch, portico, stoop, etc. In the context ofresiaential or euen ammercial compLexes, tenn 'balcong" has gained adefnite common parlance meaning. It usually consl3ts of a projection froma building couered by a parapet or railing ond mag nor maA not butusually is couered from the top. This tenn "balcong' certainlA uould notdefnite common parlance meaning. It usually consl3ts of a projection froma building couered by a parapet or railing ond mag nor maA not butusually is couered from the top. This tenn "balcong' certainlA uould notinclude an open tenace adjoining a bedroom or ang other constructed areaof a penthouse. The tenace is not a projection."of a penthouse. The tenace is not a projection." 13. From the given facts arrd circumstances if we take the literal 13. From the given facts arrd circumstances if we take the literal meaning of "built-up" a-rea as is defined Clause (la)(a) of Section 80-lBof the Act, a built-up area includes balcony and projection. If on theinclusion of balcony and projections, if any, and if the total built-uparea exceeds I ,500 sq.ft., the assessee would not be entitled fordeduction Section 8O-IB of the Act. Another fact which needs to beappreciated is that perusal of the impugned order passed by theAssessing Ofhcer so also by the Appellate authority ard the Tribunal,the factual matrix of the case does not seem to have been discussed asto whether the area which the assessee intends to get excluded fromthe built-up area is one which can be brought within the purview of aninner measurement of a residential unit or not. Admittedly, in thecase of the assessee, if it is only a projection or a balcony there can beno doubt that under the definition of "built-up" area, projections andbalconies are also included and by no stretch of imagination those canbe excluded from computation of built-up area. 14. Nonetheless, from the drawing of the construction which isavailable along u,ith the Assessment Order which is marked asAnnexure-I, the portion which is being sought to be excluded is anopen terrace and a portico. Both "open terrace" and an "open portico"has nowhere been mentioned to be a part of the built-up area. In thesaid circumstarces, relying upon the decision of the High Court ofGujarat in the case of Amaltas Associates ( 1 supra),aba-lconycertainly would not be excluded treating it as "open terrace". So also,an open terrace can never be termed to be a balcony or a projection.Likewise, an open portico in lront of the residential unit which rsotherwise on the outside part of the residential unit also calnot bebrought within the purview of an inner measurement of a residentialunit 15. Now what is to be seen is whether excluding the open terrace and the area of the portico, ald whether the built-up is exceeding1,500 sq.ft. or not (if it still exceeds 1,500 sq.ft.), the assessee wouldnot be entitled for the beneht as is otherwise enshrined under Section8O-IB of the Act. However, if the built-up area falls within the 1,500sq.ft. excluding the open space in the portico area, the appellants areentitled for the benefit under Section 80-lB of the Act. 16. From the Annexure-I attached to the assessment order, which isa drawing of the construction area and which is sought to be excluded PSIqJ & NNR,J is an open terrace and a portico, and for the reasons stated above, artopen terace and a portico cannot be brought within the ambit of thedehnition of an "built-up" area as is defined under Section 8O-lB(la)(a) of the Act, the definition that was inserted vide amendment thattook place w.e.f. 01.04.2005. Moreover, from the drawing itself, it rsevidently clear that the two spaces i.e. the open terrace and also theportico is an area which is otherwise totally open and exposed. It couldnot be under aly stretch of imagination be brought or considered tobe an area within the inner measurement of a residential unit. Since itis an open space which cannot be brought within the purview of innermeasurement of the residential unit, the said two areas i.e. the openterrace and the portico has to bc excluded from computation of thebuilt-upa_rea entitling the appellant the benefit that which isenshrined under Section 80-lB of the Act L7. For all the aforesaid reasons, we are in unanimit5z in the courseof endorsing the view expressed by the Division Bench in the case ofAmaltas Associates (1 supra). Therefore, the instant appeal hled bythe assessee to the aforesaid extent stands allowed. The impugnedorder passed by the Tribunal as well as the impugned assessmentorder passed by the Appellate Authority deserve to be and areaccordingly set aside. As a consequence, the I.T.T.A.No.167 of 2012and I.T.T.A.No.230 of 20 16 also stand allowed. No costs. 18, As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions, pending if any in these appeals, shall stand closed. sd/-t. NAGA JINT REGISTRAR L7. For all the aforesaid reasons, we are in unanimit5z in the courseof endorsing the view expressed by the Division Bench in the case ofAmaltas Associates (1 supra). Therefore, the instant appeal hled bythe assessee to the aforesaid extent stands allowed. The impugnedorder passed by the Tribunal as well as the impugned assessmentorder passed by the Appellate Authority deserve to be and areaccordingly set aside. As a consequence, the I.T.T.A.No.167 of 2012and I.T.T.A.No.230 of 20 16 also stand allowed. No costs. 18, As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions, pending if any in these appeals, shall stand closed. sd/-t. NAGA JINT REGISTRAR /ITRUE oneFairS.oeJotid:l".,rt%"fF":#aJusrrcEP'sAMKo o"",rr:'1fi .,:rJJ,:o:[".,rf LT;"J5":#aJUSTT.ENARSTNG SECTION Y RAO NANDIKONDA To ,1 The lncome Tax Appellate Tribunal' HVderab-1{'A' Bench' Hyderabad i o;; il[ Mr ch [[Pushvam ]][Kiran ][Advocate'o""laro*TMENT) ]topuc]topuc][[FoR ][INCoME ][TAx]][[INCoME ][TAx]][[TAx]] [[Pushvam ]]cc [io ][r'lt ] [V. ][Prasad ][(sc ][[FoR ][INCoME ][TAx]][[INCoME ][TAx]][[TAx]]; o;; i il"tti,eii"&".."t".v, [union ][of ][lndia ][Ministry ][of ][Law' ][Justice ][and ][companv] . t[3't;il.?t"ool'Iouo.r,". [Association ][Library' High ][court ][ror ][the ][state ][or]" i;Hs*;,-tiign Court Buildinss at Hvderabad'7. Two [CoPies]" i;Hs*;,-tiign Court Buildinss at Hvderabad'7. Two [CoPies] Kam/PSL HIGH COURT DATED:21 10512025 i ELvaa,t'2?.$Yo\!-s.)tlcrHa COMMON JUDGMENTlTTA.Nos.167 of 2012,229 ot 2016 & 230 ot 2016 ALLOWING THE APPEALS )"