Itta/387/2016 Of Director Of Income Tax v. M/S Louis Berger International Inc

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANAAT HYDERABAD WEDNESDAY ,THE TWENTY SEVENTH DAY OF SEPTEMBERTWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY THREE PRESENTTHE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE P.SAM KOSHYAND THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE LAXMI NARAYANA ALISHETTY INCOME TAX TRIBUNAL APPEAL Nos : 387 QF 2016j ITTA Uos. 47 of 2019 andITTA Nos. 107 108 1091 10 and 111 ol 2022 |TTA NO. 387 0F 2016 (Income Tax Tribunal Appeal Under Section 260 (A) of the Income Tax Act,I 961 against the order of the Incorne Tax Appellate Tribunal, Hyderabad Bench' B ', Hyderabad in ITA No 1074 I Hyd/ 2004 for assessment Year 2001-2002dated 30-08-2010 preferred against the Order of the Commissioner of IncomeTax (Appeals)-lll, Hyderabad inlTANo. l13 /ACIT2(2)/ClT (A)-III/04-05 dated 30-0F2004 prelerred against the Order of the Asst Commissionerof Income Tax, Circle -2 [(2),Hyderabad ]PANiGIR No. AAACL4067F/ L -034dated 29-03-2004. Between: Director Of lncome Tax, lnternational Taxatton, [Banglore.] ... Petitioner AND Road M/S Louis No,12, Berger lnternational lNC., Banjara Hills, Hyderabad. , [8-2-68413130,2nd Floor, ][Banjala ]...RESPONDENT[Gre_en,_ ]_- ._ Counsel for the Appellant: Ms. K. MAMATA Counsel for the Respondent: [SRt ][DEEPAK CHoPRA ][FoR ] ".aa,jfllrf;o |.T.T.A. NO. 47 0F 2019 (Incoure Tax Tribunal Appcal Under Section 1160 (A) oi the Income J'ar Act,l96l against the order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Hytlerabad Bench' I) ', Hyderabad in ITA No 720 I Hyd/ 2005 for assessrnenr year 2002_2003dated 30-6-20 t 0 preferred against the order of the conrmissioner of IncomeTax (Appeals )- III, Hyderabad in iTA Nos. 110 &221 / ACI'I 2(2) (A)_m/04-05 dated 24-03-2005 preferred against the order of the Asst commissionerof Income Tax, Circle -2 (2), Hyderabad pAN/GIR No. AAACI_4067F1 l, _034dated 09-02-2005 .l96l against the order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Hytlerabad Bench' I) ', Hyderabad in ITA No 720 I Hyd/ 2005 for assessrnenr year 2002_2003dated 30-6-20 t 0 preferred against the order of the conrmissioner of IncomeTax (Appeals )- III, Hyderabad in iTA Nos. 110 &221 / ACI'I 2(2) (A)_m/04-05 dated 24-03-2005 preferred against the order of the Asst commissionerof Income Tax, Circle -2 (2), Hyderabad pAN/GIR No. AAACI_4067F1 l, _034dated 09-02-2005 . Between: Director Of lncome Tax, lnternational Taxation, B;anglore. ... Petitioner AND M/S_ Lours Berger lnternational INC., , 8-2-6A4'30,2nd Floor, Banjara Green, RoadNo.12, Banjara Hills, Hyderabad ..ReSpOruOerufNo.12, Banjara Hills, Hyderabad ..ReSpOruOeruf Counsel for the Appellant: Ms. K. MAMATA (;HOUDARY Counsel for the Respondent: SRI DEEPAK CF|OPRA FOR SRI A. CHANDRA SHAKER |.T.T.A.NO. 107 0F 2022: Between: (Incorne Tax Tribunal Appeal Under Sectior. 260 (A) of the Incorne Tax Act,1961 against the order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Hy<Jerabad Bench' B ', Hyderabad in ITA No 1218/ / Hyd,l 2006 for assessmenr year 2000_2001 dated 30-6-2010 preferred against tte order of the comrnissioner of1961 against the order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Hy<Jerabad Bench' B ', Hyderabad in ITA No 1218/ / Hyd,l 2006 for assessmenr year 2000_2001 dated 30-6-2010 preferred against tte order of the comrnissioner of Income Tax ( Appeals ) - III, Hyderabad in ITA No. 57l ACIT 2 (2) / CIT ( A) -llv [04-05 ][dated ]30-08-2004 [pref'erred against ]the Order [of ]the [Asst]Commissioner of Income Tax, Circlc -2 (2), Flyderabad PAN/GIR No. AAACL4067Fl L -034 dated 3l-03-2003 Between: Commissioner of lncome Tax - lT & TP , HyderabadPetitionerAND M/S No.'12, Louis Banjara Berger Hills, lnternational Hyderabad lnc ,# , 8-2-684130,2nd [Floor, ]..RESPONDENT[Banjara Gleen, ][Road] Counsel for the Appellant: Ms. [K. ] Counsel for the Respondent: [A' ] SHAKER I.T.T.A.N O.108 OF [2022i] Between: Income Tax ( Appeals ) - III, Hyderabad in ITA No. 57l ACIT 2 (2) / CIT ( A) -llv [04-05 ][dated ]30-08-2004 [pref'erred against ]the Order [of ]the [Asst]Commissioner of Income Tax, Circlc -2 (2), Flyderabad PAN/GIR No. AAACL4067Fl L -034 dated 3l-03-2003 Between: Commissioner of lncome Tax - lT & TP , HyderabadPetitionerAND M/S No.'12, Louis Banjara Berger Hills, lnternational Hyderabad lnc ,# , 8-2-684130,2nd [Floor, ]..RESPONDENT[Banjara Gleen, ][Road] Counsel for the Appellant: Ms. [K. ] Counsel for the Respondent: [A' ] SHAKER I.T.T.A.N O.108 OF [2022i] Between: (lncome Tax Tribunal [Appeal Under ][Section 260 ][(A) of ][the ][lncome ][Tax Act']1961 against [the ][order ][of ][the lncome ][Tax ][Appellate ][Tribunal' ][Hyderabad Bench]' B ', [Hyderabad ][in ] [No ][l2l7l ] [Hydl ][2006 ][for ][assessment ][Year ][1998-]1999 dated [30-6-2010 ][preferred ][against ][the ][Order ][of ][the Commissioner ][of]Income [Tax ][( ][Appeals ) ]- [III' ][Hyderabad ][in ][ITA No' ][250 ][& ][251 ][tTrl ] [(]NRC) Delhi/ [(A) ][- ] [/ ][04-05 ][dated ][21-04-2005 ][preferred ][against ][the]Order [of ][the ][Deputy Commissioner ][of ][lncome ][Tax' ][Non ][Resident ][Circle' New]Delhi [(ACIT ][Cicle-2Q)'/Hyderabad) ][dated ][22-03-200 ][1'] Beween:Commissioner [of ][lncome Tax ][- ][lT ][& ] [' ][Hyderabad] Appellant I AND M/S_Louis Berger lnternational .lnc ,# , g-2-6g4t31,2nd Floor, Banjara Green, RoadNo.12, Banjara Hi[s, Hyderabad. ...RESPONDENT Counsel for the Appe ant: Ms. K. MAMATA C;HOUDARY counsel for the Respondent: sRr DEEPAK cFopRA FoR sRr A.CHANDRA SHAKER t.T T,A.N o. 109 0F 20221 (lnconrc Tax Tribunal Appeal Under Sectio, 260 (A) of the Income Tax Act,I 96 r agar'st the order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribu^a[, Flyderabacr Bench' B '''yderabad in ITA No .r073l / Hyd,t 2004 for assessrnenr year 2000_2001 datcd :10-6-2010 preferred against tle order of the comrnissioner ofIncorrrc ['fax ]( r\ppeals ) _ III, Hyderabad i.r ITA No. 57 / AC'l 2 (2) / CIT(A)- IIL',0,-05 dated 30-0g-2004 preft:rred against the or<rcr of trre Asst.comntrssioner of Income tax, circre -2 (2), Hyderabad dated 3l_03_2003 inPANi GIR No. AAACL4O 67F/ L_0i4 . Between: Commissioner of lncome Tax _ lT & Tp , Hy,Jerabad ... Appellant tri,i:H:,%'J,til llj?ii3yl;jr,l [c ],# ,8.2-68.1/30, ,,0 ,,""::.Rt*ilBr,rGl?Tino"a Counset for the Appellant: Ms. K. MAMATI| CHOUDARY Counset for the Respondenr: SRt DEEPAK CHOPRA FOR SRI A. CHANDRA SHAKER I |.T.T.A.NO. 110 0F 2022: (lncome Tax Tribunal Appeal Under Section 260 (A) of the Incorre Tax Acr,I 961 against the order of the Income Tax Appellatc Tribunal, Hyderabad BenchB ', Hyderabad in ITA No .820 / I llydl 2005 for assessrnent Year 1998-99dated 30-6-2010 preferred against the Order of the Commissioner of IncomeTax ( Appeals ) - V, Hyderabad in ITA No. 289 / AC-16 (1) / CIT (A) -V/2005 -06 dated 26-09-2006 preferred against the Order of the AsstCommissioner of Income tax, Circle [16 ][(1) ], [Hyderabad ][dated ][8-12-2005 ][in]PAN/ GIR No. AAACL4O6TF I L-34 Between:Commissioner of lncome Tax - lT & , [Hyderabad]AppellantAND M/S Louis Berger lnternational [lnc ],# , [8-2-684/30, ][2nd ][Floor, ][Banjara.G. ][re-e-n, ][Road]No.12, Banjara Hills, Hyderabad. ...RESPONDENT Counsel for the Appellant: Ms. [K. MAMATA CHOUDARY] Counsel for the Respondent: DEEPAK [CHoPRA ] ".a",.llfllpo |.T.T.A.NO. 111 OF [20221] (lncome Tax Tribunal Appeal Under Section 260 [(A) ]of [the ][Income ][Tax ][Act,]1961 against the order of the [Income Tax ][Appellate ][Tribunal, ][Hyderabad ][Bench]' B ', Hyderabad in [No ]. [721 ][I lHyrV ][2005 ][for ][assessment ][Year ][2003-04]dated 30-6-2010 [preferred ][against ][the ][order of ][the ][comrnissioner ][of ][Income]Tax ( Appeals ) - [Hyderabad ][in ] [No' ][210 ][& ][221 ] [2 ][(2\ ] L M/S Louis Berger lnternational [lnc ],# , [8-2-684/30, ][2nd ][Floor, ][Banjara.G. ][re-e-n, ][Road]No.12, Banjara Hills, Hyderabad. ...RESPONDENT Counsel for the Appellant: Ms. [K. MAMATA CHOUDARY] Counsel for the Respondent: DEEPAK [CHoPRA ] ".a",.llfllpo |.T.T.A.NO. 111 OF [20221] (lncome Tax Tribunal Appeal Under Section 260 [(A) ]of [the ][Income ][Tax ][Act,]1961 against the order of the [Income Tax ][Appellate ][Tribunal, ][Hyderabad ][Bench]' B ', Hyderabad in [No ]. [721 ][I lHyrV ][2005 ][for ][assessment ][Year ][2003-04]dated 30-6-2010 [preferred ][against ][the ][order of ][the ][comrnissioner ][of ][Income]Tax ( Appeals ) - [Hyderabad ][in ] [No' ][210 ][& ][221 ] [2 ][(2\ ] L (A) III [/ ]04-05 d:rted 21-03-2005 prefened againsr rhe order of trre Asst.conrnrissioner- of I.coure fax, circre -2 (2) , Llyderabad dated l5-02-200.5 inPAN/ GIR No ,\AACL4067L:/L_034 .Between:Commissioner of lncome Tax _ lT & Tp , Hyderabad ... AppellantANDtvl/S Louis No.12, Banjara Hi Berqer lnternationaj ,lnc s. Hyderabad ,# , 8_2_6g413,).2nd Floor, ...RESPONDENTBanjara Green. Road Counsel for the AppellantMs. K. MAMATACHOUDARYGounset for the Respondent: SRI DEEPAK CH,CPRA FOR SRI A. CHANDRASHAKERSHAKERThe Court made the following Common order THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE P,SAM KOSHYAND THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE LAXMI NARAYANA ALISHETTY ITTA No.387 of 2016: ITTA No.47 of2019 andITTA Nos.1O7. 108,109, 11O and I1l of 2o22 COMMON JUDGMEI{T:-r Hon'ble Sn Justice P.SAM KOSHY) Since common issu/e arise in these batch of appeais,they are being decided by way of this common judgment. 2. Heard Ms. K. Mamata Choudary, learned StandingCounsei for Income Tax Department appearing for theappellant and Mr. Deepak Chopra, learned counselappearing on behalf of Mr. A. Chandra Shaker, learnedcounsel lor the respondent. 3. For convenience, the facts in ITTA No.107 of 2022 aretaken up as the lead case. 4. ITTA No. 107 of 2022 is f-rled by thc appellartchallenging the common judgment datecl 3O.O6.2010passed by the Income Tax Appelate Tribunal, Hyderabad'B' Bench, Hyderabad, in ITA.No. l2ISlHyd/2006 for theassessment ycar' 2OOO-200 1. 5. [Tire ][Income ][Tax ][l\Ppeliatc][ Triltur:al (for short ][the] "Tribunal") [vide ][its ][order dated ][30'06'2010 ][had ][affirmed]the orcler [passed ][by ][the ][Commis:;roner][ of ][Income-Tax](Appeals)-lll [holding ][that ][the expen'litul'e ][incurred by ][the]asscssce [and which ][was][ reimbulsed bY ][the ][PrinciPal]employer [r,r'as ][held ][not ][to ][be ][part ][of ][the ][fees ][for ][technical]ser\/1Ces. 6. [The ][resPondent/assessee][ in ][the ][instant ][case ][was] engagerJ. [by the ][National ][Highwav ][Authority ][of ][india ][(for]short ["NHAI") ][for ][technical ][aclvice ancl ][tcchnical ][serviccs ][in]the course [of ][execution ][of ][constrrrction ][and ][road ][widening]project. [For ][the ][purpose ][of imparting ][tire ][sai'J ][technical]services , [the ][respondent/ ][assesr;ee ][haci ][incurred ][certain]meeting [the ][transPort]incidentalexpenditure [like]and other [related ][exPenses]of their [emPloYees]expenditureon the [team ][of ][exPerts][ rvhiclo ][includes ][their ][exPenses]of Providing [logistics ][to ][the]incurred [in ][the ][course]deputed [for]membersof the [resPonde'nt/assessee]the [technical ][serv:'ces' ][The ][Assessing ][Officer]providing '.i'r; {'t:'1 .1 included these expenses as part of the fees fbr technicalservices while passing the assessment order. '.i'r; {'t:'1 .1 included these expenses as part of the fees fbr technicalservices while passing the assessment order. 7. The order of the Assessing Oflicer was subjected tochallenge before the Commissioner of Income_Tax(Appeals)-Il. The Commissioner of Income_Tax (Appeals)_III on due consideration of the contentions made by therespondent/assessee in the appeal, allowed the same videorder dated 30.08.2004 holding that the expenditureincurred by the respondent/assessee in providing thetechnica.l services to NHAI would not be part of the fees fortechnical services. The said order was further challengedby appellant before the Tribunal. The Tribunal alsoconcurred with the finding of the Commissioner ofIncome-Tax Appeals-Ill and had rejected the appeal of theRevenue leading to filing of the present appeal. 8. Learned counsel for the appellatt contended that theCommissioner of Income-Tax Appeals_Ill as also theTribunal have erred in holding that the amount initiaJlyincurred by the respondent/assessee and reimbursed by the [principal ][employer does ][uot ][partake ][the ][character ][of]fees for [techr-rica'l ][services ][The ][Crlunsel ][insisted ][upou]holding [tha-r- ][the ][said anlount which ][has ][been ][reimbursed]to the [responclent/assessee ][by ][the ] [does ][in ][fact]partakes [all ][the ][char-acters ][of ][experrditure ][incurred ][by ][the]principal [employer and ][not ][one ][which ][has been ][incurred]the [respondent/asscssee ][The.refore' ][the ][rate ][of ][tax]by ought [to ][have ][been ][2Oo/o ][and ][not ][l11o ][with ][other]coilsequential [orders'] g. After having [clue ][consideration ][of ][the contentions put]forth by [the ][learned counsel ][for the ][appellant' ][at ][this]what [is ][necessary ][to ][tal<e ][note ][of ][the ][fact ][is ][that]juncture, the very [sarrle ][contentions ][of ][the ][appellant have ][been ][duly]considered [by ][the ][Tribunal ][vrherein ][the ][Tribunal ][in]paragraph [Nos.21, ][23 ][and ][27 of ][the said order ][held ][as]under: "21. [We ][haue ][olso ][carefullu qone through ][the ][judgement ][of]Oaii [uiii-ciurt ][in ][cir ][tis." ][rrutustrial ][Engineeing ][.Projects],i. ";:;";;;'it'6ssi zoz IrR 1014' It the case [before ][the ][Delti]';;;;""';,';;; ott"tt" had agreement .lDith [S'E^TAG' ][a]7o' ;'J,:.';;;;;ls, "nd"nnq [si-ices ][rhe ][ussessee ][uoutd]receiue o [minimum ][sum ][of ][hs'-l'2O'OOO ][per ][month ][lor ][the]of certain [costs ][and]senices rendered' [besides ][o{ii'u"^tnt ]uthite [rendenng the]Z7;;:;;r;';;i".'*"i [r'a th" ][o"""' ]Oaii [uiii-ciurt ][in ][cir ][tis." ][rrutustrial ][Engineeing ][.Projects],i. ";:;";;;'it'6ssi zoz IrR 1014' It the case [before ][the ][Delti]';;;;""';,';;; ott"tt" had agreement .lDith [S'E^TAG' ][a]7o' ;'J,:.';;;;;ls, "nd"nnq [si-ices ][rhe ][ussessee ][uoutd]receiue o [minimum ][sum ][of ][hs'-l'2O'OOO ][per ][month ][lor ][the]of certain [costs ][and]senices rendered' [besides ][o{ii'u"^tnt ]uthite [rendenng the]Z7;;:;;r;';;i".'*"i [r'a th" ][o"""' ] sffiil@7 :". [-,,", ][r" ]:s . [per ][the ][ogreement. ][The ][Income_tax ][Offtcer]dtsalLowed the expenses incuned,. On appeal bu the assesseebefore the Delhi Bench of this Tibunai,'it w"i hed that thereimbursement of the expendifure d.id not constitute income asthe expenses were incuned on behalf of the Surss company.On a reference to the Delhi High Coirt-at tlle instance;f t;eRlue.nu1 the Delhi High Court afier consid.eing the judgementof the Apex Court in the case of CIT Vs. iejaji' FatrasramKharautalla Ltd. (1968) 6Z ITR 95 hetd that the ieimbursabteexpenditure cannot form part of the taxable income.Accordinglg, it tuas held that the reimbursable expendituresare. lo be excluded from the total income. In uiew of thisjudgement of the Delhi Htgh Court, tn our opinion, thereimbursable expenditure receiued" by the assesiee for thepurpose of rendeing seruices cannot form part of tie totalincome. Therefore, it has to be exclud.ed. 23. We haue also carefultg gone through the jud_gement ofthe Apex Court in the case of CIT Vs. Tejaji FarasramKhnraualla Ltd. (1968) 67 ITR 95. The ossessee before theApex Court acted as a selling agent of Ciba (India) Ltd.. Theassessee u-tas entitled to commission oJ 12.5o/o on sales. Out ofthe 12.5%, 7.5ok was treated as selling commission in lieu ofthe contingency expenditure would form patt of the totatincome or not. The Apex Court fLeH thnt 5o/o of tle expen ses inlieu of the contingencg expenses was for the expenditureincuned in the perfonnance of the duttes of the respondent assetling agent. Therefore, it will not form part of the to-xabLeincome. Accordingly, the same uas exempt. In uiew of thbjudgement of the Apex Court, the reimbursable expenditurerece[ued by the assessee in pursuance to the agreementcannot form part of the toxable incom.e. Accordinglg, the samehas to be excluded. 27. For the purpose of claiming exemptton u/s. 10(6A) anagreement needs to be entered into afier 31d dag of March.1976 but before the l.t dag of June, 2OO2 in relation to mattersincluded in the industial policg of the Gouemment of India. InanA other case the approual of the Aouernment is required. Theindustial policg of Couemment of India as disclosed in thegear 1 991 clearlg sLaws that deuelopment of infrastructure isone of th.e policg included as item No.1 1. The contention of theleamed Deportment Representatiue b that the policA u.)a-sd.eclared in the gear 1991. Therefore, it is outdated. Theteamed Departmental Representatiue hou-)euer, could not bringto the notice of the Bench ang latest policg whtch wos declaredin the gear releuant for the assessment gear underconsid.eration. Moreouer, as rightlg pointed out bg the learnedaunsel for the assesseg the Assessing Olficer himsetf refers b thc uery [scme ][indusliot ][oolicu ][in ][sonLe ][of lhe ][ass'e'ssmcnl]';";;,;;';";i^'ia.'*'i"i!fi;iii,i;";"!:;3:?,i:;rT;",;2ialcing [note o[. ]'!." '.lu.'.,oar. taeJ is ,ryplicabte 1or tne aearGouenlment [of ][lndia ][n ][tne ][!]',liZ' " [i ][. ]" "", [i ][i"' ][i ][io ][n ][o ][t' ][o'i' ][i, ][" ][i ][;; ][: ][i: ][;l: ][:::; ][:i ][" ][; ][!,: ][:;' ][":;' ][?X:]of nfi [o-structu.'3 ].lt [o"",,^oJ,o.ir",-'i*, ]['iu". ]ti iin" poti"y.6ou"^^"nt [of ][lndia ][as ][ar]once deuelopment [o1 ]''1'o.si.:'icture [fatis ][in ][the ][tdustrial ][policy]of the [Gouemment ][oJ ][tncll];;;;''' ][;t ][itfitlg ][s,ubmilted ][bg ][the]llorned- [counsel ]for [rhe;t;"t;";' ][aJ'priual' ][oI ][the ][Cenlro-l]Gouernntent [is ][not a ][p" ]'"q'i"^"nt [for ][daiming ][exemptlotl]liil' [,'oiZ^t ]['.1 ][ii" ][en ][riJ'"1i'o' in ][our ][opinio'n' s'ince ][the]dsuelopmcttl [of ][in1'ostrctu'ie ][ialts ][tuittin the ]ol [industrtal ][policy].maA [not be required]"ior ^f [oouernment ][of ][Indn ][lip.j(ji' ][tip'' ]claiming [exemptior ][u/ ][s' ][10(64) oJ ][ttte ][ltcl] 10. The [hnding ][given ][by ][the ][Tribunai ][referred to ][in ][the]preceding [paragraphs ][would cleally ][give an inclication ][of]the fact [that the ][Tribuna1 ][has duly ][considered ][these]aspects [and ][have ][reached ][to ][the ][conclusion ][that ][the]arrlount [of ][reimbursement ][maile ][by ][the ] [to ][the]respondent/ [assessee ][was ][towarcls ][the ][expenses ][that ][was]incurred [by ][the ][respondent/assessee ][on ][their ][team ][of]in [the cotlrse ][of ][providing technical ][services ][and]experts therefore [it ][does ][not amount ][to ][the ][fees ][for ][the ][technical]servlces. 11. Thus, [there ][is ][clear ][concurrrent ][hnding of ][fact ][by ][the]two authorities [below' ][Moreover' ][the ][said ][frnding ][also ][is]based [upon ][the ][judicial ][precedents ][laid ][down ][in ][the] ig:i. judgment of the Honble Supreme Court in the case of CIT Vs. Tejaji Farq.sram Khqrawalla Ltd..l and. a coupleof decisions rendered by the High Court of Deihi on almostsimilar set of facts and other High Courts also.similar set of facts and other High Courts also. 12. In view of the same, we do not hnd €rny error on the 11. Thus, [there ][is ][clear ][concurrrent ][hnding of ][fact ][by ][the]two authorities [below' ][Moreover' ][the ][said ][frnding ][also ][is]based [upon ][the ][judicial ][precedents ][laid ][down ][in ][the] ig:i. judgment of the Honble Supreme Court in the case of CIT Vs. Tejaji Farq.sram Khqrawalla Ltd..l and. a coupleof decisions rendered by the High Court of Deihi on almostsimilar set of facts and other High Courts also.similar set of facts and other High Courts also. 12. In view of the same, we do not hnd €rny error on the part of the Tribunal in deciding the appeals against theappellant and concurring with the order passed by theCommissioner of Income-Tax Appeals-Ill. Moreover, wea-lso do not find any substantial question of law made outin the given factual backdrop.appellant and concurring with the order passed by theCommissioner of Income-Tax Appeals-Ill. Moreover, wea-lso do not find any substantial question of law made outin the given factual backdrop. 13. Accordingly, all these appeals fail and are rejected.No costs. Consequently, miscellaneous [.petitions ]pending, if any, shall stand closed. * trqg0 6+-L.t ? 1S SD/.B.S.CHIRANJEEVIJOINT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// sEcTtoN oFFtcER To 1. The lncome Tax Appellate Tribunal, Ilyderabad Bench ' B ',Hyderabad.1. The lncome Tax Appellate Tribunal, Ilyderabad Bench ' B ',Hyderabad. 2. The Commissioner of Income Tax ( Appeals ) - III Hyderabad. 3. The Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle [-2 ][(2) ], [Eyderabad] , 4. The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-16(1), Hyderabad. 5. The Commissioncr of lncome Tax [( ]Appeals ) - [V, Hyderabad] 6. One CC to Ms. . K [MAMATA CHOUDHARY, Advocate ] 7. One CC to SRl. A. CHANDRA SHAKER, [Advocate ] 8. Two CD Copies ?ma" HIGH COURT DATED:2710912023 .ISI.)), [r..]oL): [1 ][t:ijI ][2][ l1]'1,,:ajCOMMON JUDGMENT-.:r'INCOME TAX TRIBUNAL APPEAL No: 387 oF 2016ITTA No. 47 ot 2019 and ITTA Nos. 107 108 109 110 and 111 of 2O22 AI,L THE APPEALS ARE RUECTED WITHOUT COSTS Pr'lC1, 26\ro1>.r