M/S Yamuna Agro - Farms Private ... vs Assessee

M/s. Swarnagiri DCIT, Central Circle-9 Greenfields P. Ltd., vs. Hyderabad. Hyderabad PAN AAHCS2608G (Appellant) (Respondent) 2 ITA.No.675 to 681/Hyd/2014 M/s. Yamuna Agro Farms P. Ltd., & Others, Hyderabad.

ITA.No.680/Hyd/2014 Assessment Year 2008-2009

M/s. Vamsadhara Agro P. DCIT, Central Circle-9 Ltd., Hyderabad vs. Hyderabad. PAN AABCV6781D (Appellant) (Respondent)

ITA.No.681/Hyd/2014 Assessment Year 2008-2009

M/s. Uttarashada Bio- DCIT, Central Circle-9 Tech P. Ltd., Hyderabad vs. Hyderabad. PAN AAACU6109M (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Assessee : Mr. S. Rama Rao For Revenue : Mr. Rajat Mitra

Date of Hearing : 13.05.2015 Date of Pronouncement : 27.05.2015

ORDER

PER P.M. JAGTAP, A.M.

These seven appeals filed by seven assessees against seven separate orders dated 28.01.2014 passed by the Ld. CIT(A)-VII, Hyderabad involve a common issue relating to imposition of penalty under section 221(1) read with section 140A(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 and the same therefore, have been heard together and are being disposed of by a single composite order for the sake of convenience.

2. All the seven assessees in the present case are companies which belong to a group of companies established by Sri Ramalinga Raju and his family members. During the previous year relevant to A.Y. 2008-09, all these seven companies along with other group companies sold certain extent of land and the profit arising therefrom was declared as 3 ITA.No.675 to 681/Hyd/2014 M/s. Yamuna Agro Farms P. Ltd., & Others, Hyderabad.

long term and short term capital gain. In the returns of income filed on 30.09.2008, tax payable on the income so declared was also arrived at by the assessee which was slightly increased by the A.O. while processing the returns of income filed by the assessees companies under section 143(1) on 27.08.2009. The details of income returned by the assessees, tax shown as payable thereon and the tax determined by the A.O. as payable by the assessees are as under :

Name of the Income Tax shown as Tax payable Assessee returned payable by as determined the assessee by the A.O. on returned under income sec.143(1).

M/s. Yamuna 7,59,44,310 2,25,40,140 2,47,72,860 Agro Farms P. Ltd., M/s. Wardha 7,74,39,600 2,30,34,550 2,53,16,230 Greenfields P. Ltd.

M/s. Vindhya 8,11,09,530 2,37,12,885 2,64,34,730 Greenlands P. Ltd.

M/s. 7,25,17,590 2,15,70,490 2,37,07,140 Swarnamukhi Greenfields P. Ltd.

M/s. 3,47,82,190 1,03,46,020 1,13,70,840 Swarnagiri Greenfields P. Ltd.

M/s. 7,34,49,020 2,17,73,300 2,39,30,050 Vamsadhara Agro P. Ltd.

M/s. 5,17,36,320 1,53,89,100 1,69,13,470 Uttarashada Bio-Tech P. Ltd.

2.1. As noticed by the A.O., the assessee companies however had not paid either any advance tax or even self assessment tax before filing their returns of income. Even after 4 ITA.No.675 to 681/Hyd/2014 M/s. Yamuna Agro Farms P. Ltd., & Others, Hyderabad.

issue of intimations under section 143(1) resulting into raising of demand, no tax was paid by the assessee companies against the demand raised. Notices therefore were issued by the A.O. requiring the assessee companies to show cause as to why penalty under section 221(1) should not be imposed for their default in payment of the tax demand. During the course of penalty proceedings, statements of the Directors of the assessee companies were also recorded by the A.O. under section 131. They however could not offer any explanation to the satisfaction of the A.O. for the default in payment of tax by the assessee companies. The assessee companies also filed their reply to the show cause notices in writing offering their explanation as under :

"(i) At the outset it is submitted that there has been no willful of any kind by the assessee to evade payment taxes and the proposed initiation of penalty proceedings is unsubstantiated without cause.

(ii) We further submit that as per the reasons mentioned in the earlier show cause notice there has been no establishment of any willful intent or attempt on the part of the assessee in evading the payment of taxes. The returns were filed by the assessee on 30th September, 2008 by which date the assessee was not having immediate means to pay the tax and the monies by it for the purpose of paying tax amounts.

(iii) Further, the subsequent events are well within the knowledge of revenue including the periodical requests made to arrive at a suitable arrangement that shall enable us to discharge the tax payment. All the properties were under attachment/restraint. We have no right to dispose of the assets and pay the taxes.

(iv) In the absence of liquidity in view of what is stated above to charge us with the willful attempt in not discharging the taxes will not be justifiable int eh given facts of our case."

2.2. The above explanation of the assessees was also not found satisfactory by the A.O. for the following reasons given in the penalty orders.

5 ITA.No.675 to 681/Hyd/2014 M/s. Yamuna Agro Farms P. Ltd., & Others, Hyderabad.

(i) "The assessee company submits that there is no willful default by it and penalty proceedings initiation is unsubstantiated without cause. This submission is examined carefully. As mentioned above, during the F.Y. 2007-08, the assessee company derived income. However, it failed to honour any of the instalments of advance tax. Even no amount was paid while filing the return of income on 30.09.2008 as self-assessment tax. The concept of advance tax payment is 'Pay as you earn'. The assessee is a company and carrying out its business activities for a long time. It is properly supported by many professionals.

Despite the well established business setup and professional support, it chose not to pay any amount during the period it derived income, thus violated all the provisions of advance tax. Subsequently, it got its books of account audited and arrived at taxable income. Despite this, it chose not to pay any self-assessment tax even while filing the return of income on 30.09.2008. Even after receiving the intimation under sec.143(1) of the l.T. Act, it chose not to pay any amount against the demand raised. The facts of the case clearly shows that the assessee company resorted to non-payment of tax in every stage i.e. at the stage of advance tax payment, self-assessment tax and regular tax without good and sufficient reasons.

(ii) The submission that the earlier show cause notice could not establish any willful intention of tax evasion and the assessee company was not having any means on 30.09.2008 for tax payment is also examined carefully. The Department initiated proceedings on 17.11.2009 under sec.221(1) of the LT. Act, as the assessee company defaulted in making the tax payment. These penalty proceedings continued to exist. As there was change of incumbency of the office, a fresh opportunity of being heard was given. Hence, it is not correct to conclude that the earlier penalty proceeding has not established 6 ITA.No.675 to 681/Hyd/2014 M/s. Yamuna Agro Farms P. Ltd., & Others, Hyderabad.

any willful intention of tax default by the assessee company. The submission that, it did not have any means on 30.09.2008 while filing the return of income, for tax payment is also notacceptable. What stopped the assessee company from making any tax payment as advance tax, when it actually derived income during the F.Y. 2007-O8? The assessee is a well established company carrying out business for years, with the support of many professionals. Hence, it is appropriate to conclude that it was well aware of the tax liability also when it entered into any transactions which derived income for it. As mentioned above, the company had liquidity as per the Bank Statement and was having sufficient current assets to clear the tax dues. This dearly shows that the assessee company does not have good and sufficient reasons for non-payment of the tax.

(iii) The submission that the subsequent events are well within the knowledge of revenue and all the properties are under attachment/ restraint and they do not have any right to dispose of any asset to pay the taxes is also examined carefully. As mentioned above, the assessee company defaulted during the F.Y. 2007-08 and during the F.Y. 2008-09 also, by not honouring the Advance Tax payments and self-assessment tax. Only after the search & seizure operations by the Law Enforcement Agencies after January, 2009 the properties of the assessee company were attached. Till that time all the properties were at the disposal of the assessee company only and nothing stopped it from liquidating its assets to clear the tax dues. What were the efforts made by the assessee company prior to January, 2009 to clear the statutory tax payments? It failed to show the evidences of its efforts to mobilize the amount to meet the statutory payments. As mentioned above, the assessee company had liquidity and current assets also, to meet the statutory requirements but the same was not fulfilled by it. Simply stating that its properties are under attachment now, is not a 7 ITA.No.675 to 681/Hyd/2014 M/s. Yamuna Agro Farms P. Ltd., & Others, Hyderabad.

sufficient reason to justify its continued default for years together. Hence, the assessee's submissions just highlighting the present status to justify even its earlier year's defaults is not acceptable.

(iv) The submission that in the absence of the liquidity there was no willful default of tax payment hence it is not justified to impose any penalty is also examined carefully. As mentioned above, the assessee company is simply highlighting the present liquidity problem without giving any reasons for its continued default from the F.Y. 2007-08. The fact remains that the assessee company derived income and the present default of tax payments is, as a result of not honouring the provisions of advance tax while earning the income or not paying any self-assessment tax while filing the return of income despite having sufficient money and current assets at its disposal. Hence, the facts clearly show that there were no good and sufficient reasons for non-payment of the taxes by the assessee company."

2.3. For the reasons given above, the A.O. concluded that the default on the part of the assessee companies in payment of tax was without good and sufficient reasons and their cases were fit cases for imposition of penalty under section 221(1) read with section 140A(3) of the I.T. Act. Accordingly, penalties under section 221(1) read with section 140A(3) of the Act were imposed by the A.O. on all the seven assessee companies as under :

1. M/s. Yamuna Agro Farms P. Ltd., Rs.49,00,000

2. M/s. Wardha Greenfields P. Ltd. Rs.50,00,000

3. M/s. Vindhya Greenlands P. Ltd. Rs.52,00,000

4. M/s. Swarnamukhi Greenfields P. Ltd. Rs.47,00,000

5. M/s. Swarnagiri Greenfields P. Ltd. Rs.23,00,000

6. M/s. Vamsadhara Agro P. Ltd. Rs.47,00,000

7. M/s. Uttarashada Bio-Tech P. Ltd. Rs.34,00,000 8 ITA.No.675 to 681/Hyd/2014 M/s. Yamuna Agro Farms P. Ltd., & Others, Hyderabad.

3. The penalties imposed by the A.O. under section 221(1) read with section 140A(3) of the I.T. Act were challenged by the assessee companies in the appeals filed before the Ld. CIT(A) and elaborate submissions were made on their behalf during the course of appellate proceedings before him which, as summarized by the Ld. CIT(A) in his impugned order, were as under :

"a. The transaction covered in this case is not a sale. The appellant had transferred land to M/s Hill County Properties Ltd (formerly known as Maytas Properties Ltd) along with 14 other' land owning companies (LOCs) through a development agreement dated 30.12.2005. The land transferred in all was about 85.36 acres (the appellant's share was 7 acres) and the 14 LOCs became 96% subsidiary companies of M/s Hill Country Property. The 14 LOCs were to receive 27% of income recognized by the developer.

b. The 14 LOCs including the appellant accordingly recognized the income at mercantile basis being a corporate entity even though there was no tangible receipt of any income. The income was recognized by the appellant merely by passing journal entry wherein the developer's account was debited with Rs.7,90,82,029/- and a liability was created as payable in the books of the developer' in favour of the appellant while finalizing their (the developer M/s. HCPL) financials. The demand thus arose only because of the book entries - crediting of the sale proceeds to P&L A/c on mercantile basis. There was no actual receipt.

c. The appellant was not capable of realizing money from: HCPL due to the funds constraint experienced by the developer. The appellant could not also realize any money out of debit balances in its books even subsequent to the date of filing of tax returns. As per the ·statutory obligation ROI was filed on 30.09.08.

9 ITA.No.675 to 681/Hyd/2014 M/s. Yamuna Agro Farms P. Ltd., & Others, Hyderabad.

d. The AO listed out various deposits and bank balances but failed to mention that there was no balance "and funds were not available at the time of filing of return.

e. The return was processed u/s 143(1) on 27.08.2009 and the problems for the flag ship company of the group M/s. Satyam Computer Services Ltd had started in December, 2008 culminating in the statement of Sri Ramalinga Raju in January, 2009. This situation had its effect on all the group companies.

f. All these subsequent events and the lack of liquidity and funds post January, 2009 and especially at the time of point of imposition of penalty on 25.10.2010 are well within the knowledge of the AO. He neither considered nor appreciated them.

g. Extract from the letter dated 15/01/10 filed before CIT(C) with a prayer for suitable arrangement for the payment of taxes in relation to demand raised u/s 143(1) was also given. In this letter, the refund due from M/5 Maytas Properties Ltd for AYs 07-08, 08-09 and 09-10 amounting to Rs.11.45 crores was requested to be adjusted against six companies

- (a) Swarnamukhi Greenfields Pvt Ltd (b) Himagiri Biotech Pvt Ltd Cc) Sindhu Green lands Pvt Ltd (Goman Agro Farms Pvt Ltd) (d) Himagiri Greenfields Pvt Ltd were mentioned. It is noted that the appellant company is not among these six companies.

;

h. In terms of the Company Law Board Order, dated 13.01.2011, M/s IL&FS was inducted into HCPL in the best interest of the company, stake holders and public interest. Post induction M/s. IL&FS negotiated for suitable arrangement for payment of outstanding demand in the 14 LOC subsidiary companies and finally tax payments were made in the case of the appellant on 21/2/11 (5O lakhs), 16/3/11 (50 lakhs), 16/3/11 (77.97 lakhs), 3/6/11 (75 lakhs) and 10/04/12 (23.59 lakhs).

10 ITA.No.675 to 681/Hyd/2014 M/s. Yamuna Agro Farms P. Ltd., & Others, Hyderabad.

i. Imposition of penalty u/s' 221 is only discretionary and not mandatory.

j. There was good and sufficient reason in the appellant's case for non levy of penalty. CBDT circular nO.119 dated 26.09.1973 was cited. The appellant also extracted clause B of Para 2 of the circular which reads as under :-

"In cases where sale proceeds of the asset transferred have not been received for any reason, the income tax officer may not formally extend time for payment u/s.140(A) and 220 but may not impose penalty for non-payment of thee tax in view of the special circumstances due to which the assessee is prevented from paying the tax. However, as soon as the sale proceeds are received, the collection may be enforced and failure to pay the taxes may be visited with penalty".

k. The appellant stated that it was held in a number of cases that paucity of funds constitutes good and sufficient reason for non imposition of penalty. The appellant also stated that the paucity of funds is illustrated by subsequent attachment of accounts and the inability to recover any amount through such attachment. The appellant also cited the following case laws governing the levy of penalty. The gist of the submissions inferred from the said case laws and my remarks are given in the findings.

3.1. The Ld. CIT(A) did not find merit in the submissions made on behalf of the assessee companies as above and rejecting the same, he proceeded to confirm the penalties imposed by the A.O. under section 221(1) read with 11 ITA.No.675 to 681/Hyd/2014 M/s. Yamuna Agro Farms P. Ltd., & Others, Hyderabad.

section 140A(3) of the Act for the following reasons given in his impugned orders :

"5.1. The appellant, as it is clear from the facts, had entered into a development agreement in December, 2005 itself and so was well aware of the tax liability that is likely to arise and the need for making arrangement for that. It is also a known fact that during this period, the property being developed by M/s. HCPL had quite a good reputation as well as the hype and was quite in demand and there were a number of buyers who had deposited even advance monies to book a flat/villa as evidenced from subsequent court proceedings by the owners association of those properties. Thus, during the period 2007-08, neither the appellant nor the developer HCPL were short of funds. Yet, it chose not to pay any advance tax. It also chose not to pay any tax by way of self assessment tax even though it filed the tax return on 30.09.2008.

5.2. It is to be noted that the entire defense is built around the financial stringency and lack of funds and also the problems that the company along with other sister companies associated with M/s Satyam computers ran into since the self confessed statement of Sri Ramalinga Raju, the chairman of the group in January, 2009. The material point is that these were later events and cannot justify what transpired in FY 2007-08 when all the advance tax instalments fell due and were ignored. The appellant did receive lot of funds and deployed them elsewhere as evidenced from the balance sheet (current assets) without bothering about the tax liability, which it very well knew, would arise.

5.3. The appellant had cited the following case laws governing the levy of penalty. The gist of the submissions inferred from the said case laws and my remarks are summarized below :

12 ITA.No.675 to 681/Hyd/2014 M/s. Yamuna Agro Farms P. Ltd., & Others, Hyderabad.

Sn. Case Law Gist Remarks 1. Hindustan Steel An Order imposing the. In this case, in Ltd vs penalty for failure to the period State of Orissa carry out a statutory from June, (83 ITR obligation is the result 2007' when 26)(SC) of quasi criminal the lands were proceedings. Penalty sold till will not ordinarily be February imposed unless the 2008, the party obliged either appellant acted acted in deliberately in conscious defiance of law or was disregard of guilty of conduct its obligation contumelious/ to pay the dishonest or acted in taxes (by way conscious disregard of of advance its obligation. Penalty tax) which is a will statutory statutory not be imposed merely obligation. obligation. because it is lawful to do so. Whether a penalty should be imposed for failure to perform a statutory obligation is a matter of discretion of authority to be exercised judiciously and on a consideration of all the relevant circumstances. 2. CIT vs. Raunaq The A.O. did & Co. (P) Ltd. not levy the (140 ITR 407) penalty in an (Delhi High automatic Court). manner. He 3. CIT vs had issued Chembara Peak show cause Estates Ltd (183 notices and ITR passed the 471)(Kerala penalty orders High Court) setting forth 4. CIT vs Dadu facts and Wala & reasons for Co. (170 ITR levy of 491) penalty. (Rajasthan High Court) 5. Mahadeo Ram vs. R.T.A.(1973)(Tax 13

ITA.No.675 to 681/Hyd/2014 M/s. Yamuna Agro Farms P. Ltd., & Others, Hyderabad.

LR 2227 (Orissa High Court) 6. CIT Special Paucity of funds due to The Range 9 vs financial stringency is appellant's Viral Laminates a reasonable cause for references to (P) Ltd inability to pay tax in situation after (2006) 5 SOT time and therefore the January, 2009 160 penalty was not are of no help. (Ahd-Trib) leviable 7. Bramha Bazaz Inns(P) Ltd Vs Jt.CIT (2003) (79 TTJ (Pune) 342.

5.3.1. The Income Tax Act sets out a mechanism for payment of taxes by which, ideally, the entire tax liability is expected to be paid as the assessee earns during the previous year itself. Payment of self assessment tax itself is expected to be more of a final settlement of accounts with corrections if any and payment of residuary tax. Thus, Self assessment tax itself is a last resort. This is clear from the very opening sentence of Section 190 under the chapter XVII -

"Collection and recovery of tax" which reads as under:-

Section 190 (1) - Deduction at source and advance payment.

Notwithstanding that the regular assessment in respect of any income is to be made in a later assessment year, the tax on such income shall be payable by deduction [or collection] at source or by advance payment [or by payment under sub-section (1A) of section 192, as the case may be, in accordance with the provisions of this Chapter.

5.3.2. Section 191 provides for direct payment of taxes, if there was no TDS. The essential thing to note is the requirement to pay as you earn by any means so that revenues keep coming at a steady pace and would not cause difficulty either to the tax payer or to the Govt.

14 ITA.No.675 to 681/Hyd/2014 M/s. Yamuna Agro Farms P. Ltd., & Others, Hyderabad.

Section 191 - Direct payment [***] In the case of income in respect of which provision is not made under this Chapter for deducting income-tax at the time of payment, and in any case where income-tax has not been deducted in accordance with the provisions of this Chapter, income-tax shall be payable by the assessee direct.

5.4. The taxes are the revenue of the Govt enabling it to carry out its functions and when the liability is self determined (not through a highly disputed assessment), the responsibility on the tax payer is more and so would be consequences for default.

5.5. As remarked earlier, the entire defence was built on events that took place after 9/1/09 - nothing much is said about what prevented the appellant to pay in the period 2007-08 or up to the date on which the tax return was filed without payment of self assessment tax. This was also much before the appellant company got embroiled in the "Satyam fallout".

4. Aggrieved by the orders of the Ld. CIT(A) confirming the penalties imposed by the A.O. under section 221 (1) read with section 140A(3) of the Act, the assessee companies have preferred these appeals before the Tribunal.

5. We have heard the arguments of both the sides and also perused the relevant material on record. It is observed that similar penalties imposed by the A.O. and confirmed by the Ld. CIT(A) in the cases of other group companies involving materially the same facts have been sustained by the Tribunal to the extent of 5% of the admitted tax liability vide paragraph No. 29 and 30 of its common order dated 10.12.2014 passed in ITA.No.487,488,490, 491 and 494/Hyd/2014 which read as under :

"29. We have considered the submissions of the parties and perused the orders of revenue authorities as well as 15 ITA.No.675 to 681/Hyd/2014 M/s. Yamuna Agro Farms P. Ltd., & Others, Hyderabad.

other material on record. We have also carefully applied our mind to the decisions relied upon by ld. AR. At the outset, it needs to be mentioned that there is no dispute to the fact that assessees have failed to pay self-assessment tax u/s 140A of the Act while submitting its return of income for the impugned AY. Therefore, assessees are to be treated as assessees in default u/s 140A(3) of the Act thereby making them amenable to imposition of penalty u/s 221(1) of the Act. Section 221(1) makes it clear that AO can impose penalty in a case where assessee has defaulted in making payment of the tax liability as a result of which he is to be treated as an assessee deemed to be in default. However, it is also necessary to note that quantum of penalty has not been fixed in the said provision and it has been left to the discretion of AO. However, the first proviso to section 221(1) provides that before imposition of penalty, assessee shall be given a reasonable opportunity of being heard. Whereas, second proviso provides that where assessee proves to the satisfaction of AO that the default was for good and sufficient reasons, no penalty shall be levied. From the plain reading of the aforesaid provision, it becomes clear that imposition of penalty u/s 221(1) is not automatic or mandatory. AO has been given discretion to impose penalty in an appropriate case whereas assessee has also been given an opportunity to satisfy AO that there is good and sufficient reasons for default in making payment.

30. Keeping in view the aforesaid statutory provision, let us examine the facts of the present case. At the cost of repetition, we would like to observe that there is no dispute that assessee has defaulted in discharging its tax liability u/s 140A at the time of filing of return of income. It is the claim of assessee that due to liquidity problem, it could not pay the tax liability on the date of filing of return as assessee did not have sufficient funds with him. However, it is a fact on record that assessee has received about Rs. 16.67 crores on sale of land in June, 2007. On perusal of bank account copies submitted in the paper book, though it appears that the balance at the beginning of the year and at the end of the year is nil, but at the same time there are substantial transactions in between. In fact in case of one of the assessee on 24/10/07, an amount of Rs. 5 crores was received and the same was transferred to M/s Maytas on the very next day i.e. on 25/10/2007. The same is also the case with other assessees. Therefore, the claim of assessee that funds 16 ITA.No.675 to 681/Hyd/2014 M/s. Yamuna Agro Farms P. Ltd., & Others, Hyderabad.

were not available cannot be accepted. More so, when admittedly as per assessee's own admission the tax burden for all the group companies were discharged by M/s Maytas. In that view of the matter, the claim of assessee that admitted tax liability could not be discharged due to liquidity problem or unavailability of funds is not acceptable. Considered in the aforesaid perspective, as assessee has failed to make out a case of reasonable cause for default, assessee has to be treated as assessee in default in terms with section 140A(3) of the Act and thereby liable to be visited with penalty u/s 221(1). Though, we fully agree with the principles laid down in the decisions cited by ld. AR, ratio laid down therein cannot be applied uniformly de hors the facts involved in a particular case. Having held so, we will now examine whether the quantum of penalty imposed by AO is reasonable. As stated earlier section 221(1) of the Act has not fixed the quantum of penalty that is required to be imposed and has left it to the discretion of AO. Therefore, the discretion vested has to be used objectively and judiciously. A perusal of the penalty order does not reveal the basis on which AO has quantified the penalty. However, considering the fact that assessee has discharged the tax liability along with interest, in our view, liberal approach needs to be taken. More so, when section 221(1) itself empowers AO to increase penalty in case of continuing default. Therefore, imposition of penalty at such a high figure at the first instance, in our view, is not justified. Considering the facts and circumstances of case, we are of the view that penalty @ 5% of the admitted tax liability would be reasonable and meet the ends of justice. Accordingly, we direct AO to confine the penalty u/s 221(1) of the Act to 5% of the admitted tax liability in each case. "

6. The common issue involved in the present appeals thus is squarely covered by the order of the Tribunal dated 10.12.2014 (supra) and this position is not disputed even by the learned representatives of both the sides. We therefore respectfully follow the said order of the Tribunal dated 10.12.2014 (supra) and sustain the penalties under section 221(1) read with section 140A(3) of the I.T. Act imposed on all the seven assessee companies in the present cases to the 17 ITA.No.675 to 681/Hyd/2014 M/s. Yamuna Agro Farms P. Ltd., & Others, Hyderabad.

extent of 5% of the admitted tax liability. All the seven appeals of the assessee companies are thus partly allowed.

7. In the result, all the appeals of the assessees are partly allowed.

Order pronounced in the open Court on 27.05.2015.

Sd/- Sd/- (SAKTIJIT DEY) (P.M. JAGTAP) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER

Hyderabad, Dated 27th May, 2015.

VBP/-

Copy to

1. M/s. Yamuna Agro Farms P. Ltd., Hill County, Bachupally, Miyapur, Hyderabad - 500 072.

2. M/s. Wardha Greenfields P. Ltd., Hill County, Bachupally, Miyapur, Hyderabad - 500 072.

3. M/s. Vindhya Greenlands P. Ltd., Hill County, Bachupally, Miyapur, Hyderabad - 500 072.

4. M/s. Swarnamukhi Greenfields P. Ltd., Hill County, Bachupally, Miyapur, Hyderabad - 500 072.

5. M/s. Swarnagiri Greenfields P. Ltd., Hill County, Bachupally, Miyapur, Hyderabad - 500 072.

6. M/s. Vamsadhara Agro P. Ltd., Hill County, Bachupally, Miyapur, Hyderabad - 500 072.

7. M/s. Uttarashada Bio-Tech P. Ltd., Hill County, Bachupally, Miyapur, Hyderabad - 500 072.

8. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-9, 8th Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, Hyderabad.

9. CIT(A)-VII, Hyderabad

10. CIT-(Central), Hyderabad.

11. D.R. I.T.A.T. "B" Bench, Hyderabad.

12. Guard File