DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CIRCLE-2(2), HYDERABAD vs. GURUVAYOOR INFRASTRUCTURE PRIVAT LIMITED, HYDERABAD

PER BENCH:

These are the appeals filed by the revenue against the orders of CIT(A) – 2, Hyderabad. As the facts and grounds are identical in these appeals, the same were clubbed and heard together and, therefore, a common order is passed for the sake of convenience.

2 ITA Nos. 380/Hyd/2020 and others Guruvayoor Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd., Hyd. 2. We notice at the outset that Revenue’s instant appeals ITA No. 380 & 381/Hyd/2020 suffer from 90 days delay in filing before the ITAT. In this connection, the assessee has filed an affidavit for condonation of the said delay wherein, it was, inter-alia, affirmed that due to lock down imposed by the central government as preventive measures to contain the spread of Covid-19 form 23/03/2020, caused the impugned delay in filing the appeal belatedly. We rely on Case law Collector Land Acquisition Vs. Mst. Katiji & Ors, 1987 AIR 1353 (SC) and University of Delhi Vs. Union of India, Civil Appeal No. 9488 & 9489/2019 dated 17 December, 2019, hold that such a delay; supported by cogent reasons, deserves to be condoned so as to make way for the cause of substantial justice. We accordingly hold that revenue’s impugned delay in filing these appeals is neither intentional nor deliberate but due to the circumstances beyond its control. The same stands condoned. Cases are now taken up for adjudication on merits. 3. To dispose of these appeals, we refer to the facts from AY 2013-14 being ITA No. 380/Hyd/2020 and the decision taken in this AY shall mutatis-mutandis apply to other appeals as well. 4. Briefly the facts of the case are that the appellant filed its Return of Income (ROI) for A.Y. 2013-14 on 30.11.2013 declaring a loss of Rs. 174,40,46,381/-. Subsequently, the case was selected for scrutiny under CASS and assessment was completed u/s 143(3l of the Act on 04.03.2016 by disallowing provision for periodic maintenance amounting to Rs.7,32 ,00,000/ - and disallowing excess depreciation/ amortization claimed amounting to

3 ITA Nos. 380/Hyd/2020 and others Guruvayoor Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd., Hyd. Rs.135,77,84,054/- and thereby the AO determined a loss of Rs.31,,30,62,327/-. 5. When the assessee preferred an appeal before the CIT(A), he deleted the disallowances made by the AO. 6. Aggrieved by the order of the CIT(A), the revenue is in appeal before the ITAT. 7. The grounds raised by the revenue are identical in all the appeals under consideration except the quantum of disallowances. 8. As regards the first issue relating to provision for periodic maintenance, the AO observed that on perusal of schedule 14 (operating expenses), schedules forming part of profit & loss account, an amount of Rs 7,32,00,000/- was debited towards major periodic maintenance. When the AO asked vide order sheet entry dated 02.03.2016 to show cause as to why Rs. 7,32,00,000/- being the provision for periodic maintenance should not be disallowed, the AR agreed that the same be added to the income. The AO, therefore, following the provision for periodic maintenance of Rs. 7,32,00,000/- debited to profit and loss account was disallowed and added to the total on the ground that i) the assessee company has only created a provision and has not incurred any expenditure on maintenance work during the year under consideration and ii) Provision made for periodic maintenance is not allowable as the assessee has not incurred the same and it is merely a future liability. Further, he observed that future liability/ amount of expenditure cannot be determined with

4 ITA Nos. 380/Hyd/2020 and others Guruvayoor Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd., Hyd. certainty during the year under consideration and at best can only be estimated. 8.1 Before the CIT(A), the assessee, inter-alia, submitted that the provision for periodic maintenance was made on the basis of the agreement with the lenders and the provisions of the agreement with National Highway Authority of India that tasked the assessee with responsibility of improving, operating and maintaining the project highway and more than 90% of the provisions made have actually been utilized. 8.2 The CIT(A) after considering the submissions of the assessee and following the decision of the ITAT in the case of TN(DK) Express Ways Ltd. Vs. ACIT in ITA No. 557/Hyd/2017, directed the AO to allow the provision made by the assessee towards periodic maintenance. The decision of the ITAT was followed and directed to allow the said issue in AYs 2014-15, 2015-16 and 2016-17 also. 8.3 Before us, the ld. DR filed written submissions, which are as under: 1. During the course of assessment proceedings, it was observed that the assessee claimed major periodic maintenance at Rs.9,84,75,OOO/-. AO observed that that this is a mere provision and the assessee has not incurred any expenditure on maintenance work during the year. As the same is not ascertained liability, AO disallowed the same and added back to the income returned. 2. It is humbly submitted that the claim is not entertainable for the detailed reasons mentioned by the AO in his order. The claim that as per the concession agreement with NHAI the assessee is bound to create such a provision and hence the same needs to be allowed is also incorrect. It is humbly submitted, that any expenditure claimed by the assessee for the

5 ITA Nos. 380/Hyd/2020 and others Guruvayoor Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd., Hyd. purpose of taxation has to be considered as per the provisions of the income Tax Act and not as per any other agreement between the parties. Reliance In this regard is placed on the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Southern Technologies, wherein in the context of allowance of provision for NPAs it was held that: 'In essence, the RBI Directions are prudential/provisioning norms issued by the RBI under Chapter III-B of the RBI Act. These norms deal essentially with income recognition. They force the NBFCs to disclose the amount of NPAs in their financial accounts and to reflect 'true and correct' profits. By virtue of section 45Q,an overriding effect is given to the directions vis-a-vis 'income recognition' principles in the Companies Act. These directions constitute a code by themselves. However, these directions and the Income-tax Act operate indifferent areas. These directions have nothing to do with the computation of taxable income', These directions cannot overrule the 'permissible deductions' or 'their exclusion' under the Income-tax Act. The inconsistency between these directions and the Companies Act is only in the matter of income recognition and presentation of financial statements. The accounting policies adopted by an NBFC cannot determine the taxable income". 3. It is submitted that in light of the above decision, even if the assessee have to make a provision as per the concession agreement, the same cannot be treated as an ascertained liability under the Income Tax Act as the expenditure is neither accrued nor incurred during the year. The same has to be claimed in the year in which the expenditure is actually met or incurred. 4. The Hon'ble Supreme Court vide its order in the case of Rotorock Controls has laid down certain principles with regard to allowability of provision as expenditure. The same are as under: “( 1) A provision is a liability which can be measured only by using a substantial degree of estimation. (2) A provision is recognized when: (a) an enterprise has a present obligation as a result of a past event; (b) it is probable

6 ITA Nos. 380/Hyd/2020 and others Guruvayoor Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd., Hyd. that an outflow of resources will be required to settle the obligation; and (c) a reliable estimate can be made of the amount of the obligation. If these conditions are not met, no provision can be recognized; (3) A Liability is defined as a present obligation arising from past events, the settlement of which is expected to result in an outflow from the enterprise of resources embodying economic benefits; (4) A past event that leads to a present obligation is called as an obligating event. The obligating event is an event that creates an obligation which results in an outflow of resources. It is only those obligations arising from past events existing independently of the future conduct of the business of the enterprise that is recognized as provision. For a liability to qualify for recognition there must be not only present obligation but also the probability of an outflow of resources to settle that obligation. Where there are a number of obligations (e.g. product warranties or similar contracts) the probability that an outflow will be required in settlement, is determined by considering the said obligations as a whole; In the present case, provision for periodic maintenance is not a crystallized liability that can be charged to the Profit&Loss account. The assessee cannot reduce its profits by presuming that there might be repairs in that year. The provision made and the actual expenses incurred are as under:

• As can be seen from the above, there is huge difference in the provision made by the assessee and the actual expenditure incurred. The assessee has not incurred any expenses on account maintenance for first four years viz., AY 2012-13 to AY

7 ITA Nos. 380/Hyd/2020 and others Guruvayoor Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd., Hyd. 2015-16. Even in subsequent years, the actual expenses incurred is erratic and cannot be ascertained before hand by creating provision. This fact shows that the provision made is not based on any scientific method or on statutory obligation but based on agreement between two private parties. The assessee has not adopted any scientific method to create such a provision on the basis of expenditure incurred year to year because certain expenditure may be incurred only in the future years and the amount is not certain. It is submitted that in light of the above facts, the provision for maintenance is an unascertained liability which is not allowable expenditure. Therefore, the ground raised by the assessee on this issue is also devoid of merit.” 8.4 Referring to the above submissions, the ld. DR submitted that the assessee has not adopted any scientific method to create such a provision on the basis of expenditure incurred year to year because certain expenditure may be incurred only in the future years and the amount is not certain and, therefore, the provision for maintenance is an unascertained liability which is not allowable expenditure. 8.5 The ld. AR for the assessee also filed written submissions, which are as under: “Whether the Ld. CIT(A) is correct to allow the provision for periodic maintenance being contingent in nature and not ascertained and even not crystallized during the relevant year The learned CIT(DR) has alleged that the provision for periodic expenses is not based on scientific method or statutory obligation. In this connection, we wish to state as under: 2.29 The Concession Agreement entered into between the Respondent and NHAI stipulates that in addition to Project Highway, the Respondent is also tasked with responsibility of improving, operating and maintaining highways and the terms of operating and maintaining the project highway has been set out in Schedule L to the Concession Agreement.

8 ITA Nos. 380/Hyd/2020 and others Guruvayoor Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd., Hyd. 2.30 The terms and conditions as provided in schedule L obligate the Respondent to create the provision in order to meet periodic maintenance expenses of the Project Highway. Further, basis the terms agreed with the Senior Lender IOFC Bank Limited, the Respondent was obligated to undertake major maintenance work on the toll road to the tune of Rs.48.54 Crs before 31 March 2018 and thus a provision for the same has been created on a year on year basis. Further, the Respondent wishes to state that the said expenditure is basis financial report/analysis undertaken and has been arrived on an reliable basis. 2.31 It is a settled law that a provision is a liability which can be measured only by using a substantial degree of estimation. A provision is recognized when: (a) an enterprise has a present obligation as a result of a past event; (b) it is probable that an outflow of resources will be required to settle the obligation; and (c) a reliable estimate can be made of the amount of the obligation. 2.32 The Concession Agreement creates an obligation on the Respondent which shall result in an outflow of resources.

This obligation arises from a past event of entering into a Concession Agreement with the NHAJ and it shall have to be met irrespective of the future conduct of the business of the Respondent. Further, the provision can also be estimated reliably.

2.33 Further, the provision created by the Respondent have been utilized by the Respondent in the following years as tabulated below:

9 ITA Nos. 380/Hyd/2020 and others Guruvayoor Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd., Hyd.

2.34 As one would observe. the provision for periodic maintenance was made on the basis of the agreement with the lenders and the provisions of the agreement with National Highway Authority of India. that tasked the Respondent with the responsibility of improving. operating and maintaining the project highway. More than 90% of the provisions made have actually been utilized. thus it is evident that the provision for periodic maintenance was provided for on scientific and rational basis and provision made by the Respondent towards major maintenance is to be allowed. 2.35 Thus, in view of the above, we pray before your Honors that the provision for periodic maintenance is created to meet a contractual liability and is thus an expense laid out wholly and exclusively for the purpose of business. Accordingly, the same should be allowed as deduction while computing the tax liability of the Respondent.

Based on the above arguments and considering that the grounds raised by the Income-tax department are covered in favour of the Respondent by the orders of ITAT/Court, the above appeals filed by the Income-tax department ought to be dismissed.” 8.6 We have considered the rival submissions and perused the material on record as well as gone through the orders of the revenue authorities. As per the AO, it is a mere provision and the assessee has not incurred any expenditure on maintenance work during the year and, hence, disallowed as it is not ascertained liability. Whereas the CIT(A), following the decision of the ITAT

10 ITA Nos. 380/Hyd/2020 and others Guruvayoor Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd., Hyd. directed the AO to allow the provision created for maintenance. The contention of the revenue is that the expenditure is neither accrued nor incurred during the year and the same has to be claimed in the year in which the expenditure is actually met or incurred. Therefore, there is a force in the submission of the ld. DR. As per the table quoted supra in the written submissions of ld. AR, the assessee has not incurred any expenditure towards maintenance from AY 2012-13 to 2015-16. Therefore, on considering the totality of the facts of the case, we remit this issue to the file of the AO with a direction to verify whether the assessee has incurred any expenditure towards maintenance against the provision made in the year under consideration and decide the issue in accordance with law and on merits. Thus, the ground raised by the assessee on this issue is treated as allowed for statistical purposes. 9. As regards another issue relating to disallowance of excess depreciation/amortisation claimed, The AO noted that the appellant has capitalized cost incurred on construction of the road infrastructure under the head 'Concessionaire Right', as an intangible asset and claimed depreciation thereon u/s 32(1)(ii) at Rs. 1,557,544,503/- @ 25% and that the appellant has not adhered to the amortization on carriage way as per the CBDT Circular No. 9/ 2014 dtd: 23/04/2014. Accordingly, the AO has recomputed the amortization of carriage way as per the CBDT Circular No. 9/ 2014 dtd: 23/04/2014 and allowed deduction of Rs. 19,97,60,449/- by way of amortization of construction cost. Based on the above working, the AO had held that the appellant had claimed excess

11 ITA Nos. 380/Hyd/2020 and others Guruvayoor Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd., Hyd. depreciation/amortization of Rs. 1,35,77,84,054/- and added back the same to the income of the appellant. 9.1 After considering the submissions of the assessee, the CIT(A) following the special bench decision of the ITAT, Hyderabad in the case of ACIT Vs. M/s Progressive Construction Ltd. in ITA No. 1845/Hyd/2014 (SB) directed the AO to allow the claim of depreciation made by the assessee as per the provisions of section 32(1)(ii) of the Act on the WDV as determined for the year. 9.2 The ld. DR filed written submissions which are as under: 1. The assessee is a Spy formed for carrying out construction, development, finance and operation and development of 4/6 lanning of Thrissur(Km 270.00) and Angamali(KM 316.700) and also for improvement, operation and maintenance of Angamali(KM 316.7001 to Deappalli(KM 342.00) on NH-47 in the state of Kerala on Built, Operate and Transfer(BOT) basis which constructed highway as per contract from NHAI and operating the same on BOT basis. 2. During the Asst Year 2014-15, the assessee did not make any claim of depreciation towards 'intangible asset' and claimed amortization of expenses over the concession period as per CBDT Circular No.9/2014. 3. During the course of assessment proceedings, assessee stated that all the expenses incidental to the construction of Project Highway were being capitalized as 'Capital Work in Progress upto 4.12.2011(date of commencement of commercial operations) and thereafter, the total cost of capitalized under 'Capital Work-in-Progress' was transferred as 'Concessionaire Right-Toll Collection Right'(being the right to collect and appropriate fee from vehicles and persons using the Project Highway) under the head 'intangible asset' and claimed depreciation was claimed @25% on the same in the Asst Years 2012-13 and 2013-14. The assessee further stated that to avoid litigation, the assessee has not claimed depreciation towards

12 ITA Nos. 380/Hyd/2020 and others Guruvayoor Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd., Hyd. 'intangible asset' and only claimed amortization of expenses as per CBOT Circular No.9/2014. 4. However, during the course of assessment proceedings, assessee relied on various decisions of the ITAT including the decision of Special Bench of !TAT, Hyderabad in the case of Mis Progressive Constructions Ltd(ITA No. 1845/Hydj2014) and claimed depreciation @25% towards 'intangible asset' and withdrawn its earlier claim of amortization of expenditure as per CBOT Circular. 5. The assessee's submission for considering depreciation @25% towards 'intangible asset' was not accepted by the AO and the AO completed the assessment by making addition of the difference in the 'amortisation expenses' claimed by the assessee and 'amortisation expenses' allowable as per CBOT Circular No.9/2014. 6. The CIT(A), relied on the decision of the Spl Bench of !TAT, Hyderabad in the case of Mis Progressive Constructions Ltd and directed the AO to allow claim of depreciation @25% made by the assessee u] s 32(1(ii) of the Act. 7. It is humbly submitted that on the issue of treating the 'collection of toll' as 'intangible asset' and thereby allowing depreciation@ 25% on the same is squarely covered against the assessee for the reasons described below. 8. It is submitted that the Hon'ble Bombay High Court examined the matter in the case of North Karnataka Expressway Ltd (2014) 51 taxmann.com 214 (Bombay). In the said decision, the Hon'ble High Court examined the matter at length and held that the assessee cannot be treated as "owner" to avail depreciation. 9. It is also humbly submitted that the Special Bench decision in the case of Progressive Constructions Pvt Ltd [2018J 92 taxmann.com 104 (Hyderabad - Trib.) (SB) does not lay down the correct law on this issue on two grounds. Firstly, the decision of the Special Bench did not consider the decision of Bombay High Court referred above. Secondly, as per judicial precedence, the Hon'ble ITAT has to follow the decision of the Bombay High Court. Reliance in this regard is placed on the decision of Hon'ble ITAT Delhi Bench in the case of Minda Sai

13 ITA Nos. 380/Hyd/2020 and others Guruvayoor Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd., Hyd. Ltd [2016] 69 taxmann.com 316 (Delhi - Trib.) wherein the Hon'ble ITAT relied on the decision of Bombay High Court in the case of Smt Godavaridevi Saraf (113 ITR 589) and decision of Supreme Court in the case of Central Excise v. Dunlop India Ltd. (1985j 154 ITR 172 (sq. As per these decisions, even the decision of a nonjurisdictional High Court is binding on the Bench of Hon'ble ITAT. The relevant portion of the decision is reproduced below. "In the hierarchical judicial system that we have in our country, any bench of this Tribunal, whatever be it's numerical strength - a single member bench, a division bench, an even larger or even largest bench, is placed a tier well below Hon'ble High Courts. It is only elementary that, in the hierarchical judicial system, each judicial forums in a lower tier has to loyally accept the decisions of the authorities in the tiers above. Learned CIT(A)'s observations that "by explaining clearly that the amendment made by Finance Act, 2001" the special bench has settled the controversy are thus irrelevant because the binding nature of a judicial decision cannot be attributed to, what is perceived, as detailed analysis.. Inimitable articulation or even expertise reflected in the order, as the binding effect of a judicial order is wholly dependent on the forum at which it is delivered, and such a judicial blew only binds lower tiers of the judicial hierarchy and that too only till the time a superior forum does not take a contrary view. In that sense, every judicial view is a writing on the sand in as much as each time there is a wa ve of superior judicial view which does not approve that stand, the earlier writing on the sand just gets washed away. That is the way the hierarchical judicial system works and that is the way in which hierarchical judicial system can work. As observed by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Assistant Collector of Central Excise v. Dunlop India Ltd. (1985) J54 ITR 172(SC), where the Hon'ble Court has itself quoted from the decision of House of Lords as under: "We desire to add and as was said in Cassell & Co. ltd. v. Broome (1972) AC 1027 (HL), we hope it will never be necessary for us to say so again that "in the hierarchical system of Courts" which exists in our country, "it is necessary for each lower tier""., ... ,. , "to accept loyally the decision of the

14 ITA Nos. 380/Hyd/2020 and others Guruvayoor Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd., Hyd. higher tiers". "It is inevitable in hierarchical system of Courts that there are decisions of the Supreme appellate Tribunal which do riot attract the unanimous approval of all members of the judiciary... But the judicial system only works if someone is allowed to have the last word, and that last word, once spoken, is loyally accepted. " ... The better wisdom of the Court below must yield / to the higher wisdom of the Court above. That is the strength of the hierarchical judicial system." (Emphasis by Underlining Supplied by us)". It is also submitted that the Special Bench of ITAT, Hyderabad, while taking decision in the case of M/ s Progressive Constructions Ltd has not taken into consideration the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court decision in the case of Madras Industrial Investment Corporation. 10. It is humbly submitted that the rights if any in the BOT project of the assessee cannot be divorced from the highway being a tangible asset and there are no independent intangible rights other than the highway to make the claim of the depreciation. This is evident from the inconsistency in the approach of the assessee on this issue as clearly evident from the varying manner in which depreciation is claimed for A.Ys 2012-13 and 2013-14 in the returns of income and amortization claimed in the AY 2014-15 in the return of income. The assessee in the return of income for AY 2014-15 has claimed amortization of expenses as per CBDT Circular No.9j2014 and subsequently, during the course of assessment proceedings has claimed depreciation on 'intangible asset'. This claim is not supported by any revised return. 11. It is submitted that in the BOT agreement, the possession of land is handed over to the assessee by the NHAIjGovt for the purpose of construction of the project without any actual transfer of ownership and the assessee has only a right to develop and maintain such asset. The assessee also enjoys the benefits arising from the use of assets through toll collection fees for a specific period without having actual ownership over the asset. Therefore, the rights in land remains vested with the Government and not with the assessee. As the assessee does not holds any rights in the project except recovery of toll fee to recoup the expenditure incurred, it cannot be treated as an

15 ITA Nos. 380/Hyd/2020 and others Guruvayoor Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd., Hyd. owner of the property either wholly or partly for the purpose of allowability of depreciation ujs 32(1)9ii) of the Act. Therefore, due to non fulfillment of ownership criteria, the present provisions of Income Tax do not allow the claim of depreciation on Tollways. In order to settle this issue, the CBDT has issued a Circular No.9j2014 dated 23.4.2014 by allowing amortization of the capitalized expenditure over the concessionaire period. This also takes into consideration, 'the matching principle' on accounting wherein the expenses claimed are matched with the income earned by the assessee. The said CBDT Circular No.9j2014 has relied on the Hon'ble Supreme Court decision in the case of Madras Industrial Investment Corporation Limited vs CIT[225 ITR 8021 wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court has allowed spreading over a liability over a number of years on the ground that there was continuing benefit to the company over a period. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has clearly brought out the principle that since there is continuing benefit to the business of the company over the entire period, the liability thereof should also be spread over the period of the agreement. It is therefore, submitted that the CBOT Circular was issued affirming the principle laid out by the Hon'ble Supreme Court directing amortization of expenses over the period of concession agreement. 12. Further, by claiming depreciation @ 25%, the appellant would be able to write off nearly 80% of its investment of Rs.712.02 Cr in first four years whereas the revenue streams continue to flow for the next 35 years as per the agreement. This is directly against the principle laid down by the Honble Supreme Court in Madras Industrial Investment Corporation that liabilities need to be spread out when the benefits are received over the years. 13. Reliance is placed on Honble ITAT, Hyderabad Bench common order dated 8.6.2011 in ITA No.1171jHydj07,ITA No.1175jHydj08, 1176jHj08 and 1196jHj08 in the case of Mjs PVR Industries Ltd, Hyderabad wherein the Hon'ble Bench held that the expenditure incurred in BOT project is revenue expenditure and amortization has to be allowed to the assessee. The relevant portion of the order is reproduced below:

16 ITA Nos. 380/Hyd/2020 and others Guruvayoor Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd., Hyd. "The assessee entered into agreements with Government of India in respect of Ongole project and with Govt. of Andhra Pradesh in respect of Eluru Project. According to the agreements entered into the assessee had to incur the expenditure and develop the project i.e., construction of the projects on the national highway between Chennai and Vijayawada and construction of by-pass road for Eluru. The agreements provide that the assessee would be entitled to recover the cost of development through the toll fee collected. For this purpose, fee is prescribed by the government by issue of notice. The period for which such fee can be collected is also notified by the government. However, the cost of collection of such fee shall be borne by the assessee herein. In so far as the assessee is concerned, the receipts represent the toll fee collected by it and the expenditure for receipt of the amount is the cost of development of infrastructure facility and the cost of recovery of the toll fee. In so far as the cost of construction is concerned the same has to be recovered over a period of time for 17 years in respect of Ongole project and 7 years in respect of E1uru Project. .

It is case of the assessee that the expenditure incurred is in revenue nature and the same has to be allowed over a period 17/7 years as the case may be. In the case under consideration, the expenditure incurred by the assessee on BOT Project did bring some kind of an enduring benefit to the assessee; however, the said expenditure did not bring into existence any capital asset for the assessee. The asset which was created belongs to the Government and the assessee derived only an enduring business advantage by spending the amount. The expenditure incurred by the assessee has to be looked upon as having been made for the purpose of conducting the business of the assessee. Since the asset created by the assessee by spending the said amounts did not belong to the assessee but the assessee got the business advantage by collecting the toll charges as revenue. Thus, the assessee got the benefit of revenue collection for the period of 17/7 years and hence, the expenditure incurred by the assessee towards BOT project should be looked upon as revenue expenditure. Our view is fortified by the decision of the Apex Court in the case of CIT vs.

17 ITA Nos. 380/Hyd/2020 and others Guruvayoor Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd., Hyd. Madras Auto Services Limited (supra) relied on by the learned counsel for the assessee. Once we held that the said expenditure is to be treated as revenue expenditure, consequently, the assessee is eligible to . amortize the expenditure relating to BOT Project for the period of 17/7 years. In view of the above, after considering the totality of facts and the circumstances of the case, we allow the claim of the assessee with regard to the amortization expenditure incurred on BOT Projects as revenue expenditure. The facts of the case are similar to the assessee's case and the above decision of the Hon'ble ITAT is squarely applicable to the present assessee. 14. It is submitted that from various clauses of the concession agreement, it is clear that the Government held rights in the land and the property and they were never transferred to the assessee and a reading of the agreement would clearly indicate that the responsibility of the construction of the projects to the specifications of the government is entrusted to the assessee. The assessee shall be responsible to construct such projects at its own cost. The cost so incurred shall be reimbursed by way of recovery of toll fee in accordance with the directions given by the Government in various notifications. The assessee would never become the owner of the property. Further, the ownership of the Highways is to be decided with reference to the enactments made by the Government. 15. It is submitted that as per Section 4 of the National Highway Authority Act, 1956, all national highways shall vest in the Union only. The toll fee for services rendered on National Highways also is to be charged in accordance with section 7 of the said Act. 16. The clauses of the concessionaire agreement clearly indicate that the assessee has to act as an agent of the government during the construction period. A combined reading of Sections of the National Highway Act and the agreement entered into by the assessee clearly indicate that the ownership on the Highways is in the Union and the assessee acted only as an agent either in construction or in recovery of the expenditure by way of toll fee.

18 ITA Nos. 380/Hyd/2020 and others Guruvayoor Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd., Hyd. 17. Whether any tangible asset is created by the assessee: The assessee has invested/incurred expenditure towards construction of highway road project as per the specifications and thereby has constructed a highway road. The asset created is 'highway road' which is on behalf of the Government/NHAI. Reliance is placed on Hon'ble !TAT order in the case of M/s PVR Industries Ltd which is discussed in earlier paras of these submissions. 18. Whether the assessee is owner of the tangible asset created: As per the terms of concessionaire agreement, the construction of the highway road has to be completed as per the specifications in the concessionaire agreement and the assessee is a mere contractor/executor /developer/maintainer of the project. The tangible asset created is 'Highway Road'. However, the ownership over the land including the highway road will be with the Govt/NHAI only. The assessee cannot be the owner of the asset created on behalf of the Govt/ NHAI. The Bombay High Court decision in the case of North Karnataka Expressways Ltd is squarely applicable in this situation. Hence no depreciation is allowable to the assessee. Further reliance is placed on Hon'ble ITAT order in the case of M/s PVR Industries Ltd which is discussed in earlier paras of these submissions. 19. Whether there is any intangible asset is created in the form of right to collect toll' : As per the concessionaire agreement, there are no tolling rights. It is only an obligation to the assessee for collecting 'toll' from the users of the Project Highway facility. This can be performed either by the assessee or by any other contractor to which the assessee assigns the work on sub-contract. 20. Whether 'toll rights', are depreciable: Even if it is presumed that the asset created is 'right to collect toll', the same is not depreciable asset and in fact, it is an appreciable asset as there will not be downward revision in the toll rates year after year. 21. It is also humbly submitted that in view of the above submissions and CBDT Circular No: 9/2014, the appeals filed by the Department may kindly be allowed.”

19 ITA Nos. 380/Hyd/2020 and others Guruvayoor Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd., Hyd.

9.3 The ld. AR for the assessee also filed written submissions, which are as under: “Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case the Ld. CIT(A) is justified in allowing depreciation @25% instead of amortizing the cost of BOT project over the concession period of BOT project which is in contravention to CBDT Circular No. 9/2014. At the outset, we wish to submit that the issue is squarely covered by the decision of this Bench in the case o~ DCIT v MIs Madhurai Tuticorin Expressways Limited {supra} and other coordinate benches in the case MIs Progressive Construction Limited (IT Appeal No. 1845 (Hyd.) of2014 and MIs. Mokama Munqer v ACIT ITA Nos. 1729,2145 and 2146/Hyd/2018. Copy of M/s Progressive Construction Limited enclosed as Annexure 2 (page 132 to 161) to submission dated 15 July 2021.

Having said the above and on perusal of the submission filed by the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Departmental Representative) ['learned CIT(DR)'], we wish to state as under:

Reliance placed upon the ruling pronounced by the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of North Karnataka Expressway Limited [2014) 327 ITR 144 by the Learned CIT(OR) and non- fulfilment of ownership criteria for the purpose of claiming depreciation under section 32(1)(ii) of the Act

2.1 The Learned CIT(DR) has submitted that the ruling of MIs Progressive Constructions Private limited (supra), wherein the Hon'ble ITAT has upheld the view that capital expenditure incurred by the assessee for construction of road under BOT contract by the Government of India gives rise to an intangible asset as defined under Explanation 3(b) read with section 32(I)(ii) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ('Act') and thus the

20 ITA Nos. 380/Hyd/2020 and others Guruvayoor Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd., Hyd. assessee is eligible to claim depreciation on such asset at the specified rate (i.e., 25%), does not lay the correct law on the issue of depreciation on toll roads as it has not considered the ruling of the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of North Karnataka Expressway limited (supra). 2.2 The High Court in the case of North Karnataka Expressway Ltd (supra) had dealt with a limited question on "ownership" and it held that in view of the provisions of National Highway Act, 1956 and National Highway Authorities of India Act, 1988, the ownership of the road vests in the Union of India and further that the above said Acts are special statutes. It has been observed by the Hon'ble High Court that when the concept of ownership and vesting therein is of absolute nature, the same cannot be said to be in any manner restricted or curtailed by a general definition or understanding of the term owner as appearing in the Act and under such circumstances, the assessee's claim that he was the owner of the toll road was not acceptable and as such he was not entitled to claim the depreciation on the said road claiming itself to be owner of the road. 2.3 Further, the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in para 47 of the said order, has observed that; "the Assessee con definitely claim depreciation on the Investments. He has definitely invested In the projects of construction development and maintenance of the National Highways and such of the assets in the form of building, plant & machinery etc. The claim jor depreciation can be validly raised and granted. We are here concerned with the claim on the land or a road itself.". Special leave Petition filed before the Hon'ble Supreme Court. 2.4 It is to be appreciated that the ruling of the High Court is specifically on depreciation on 'toll roads' being land owned by the Government. Assessee's right to claim depreciation on 'right to collect toll' being an intangible right was never a question before the Hon'ble High Court. 2.5 Further, we wish to submit that the said order passed by the Bombay High Court in case of NKEl is passed for AY 2005- 06 and against assessment proceedings under section 143(3) of the Act. Subsequently, revision proceedings under section 263 of the Act were initiated against NKEl for AY 2005-06 and an

21 ITA Nos. 380/Hyd/2020 and others Guruvayoor Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd., Hyd. order was passed under section 143(3) read with section 263 of the Act wherein assessee's claim for depreciation on toll roads was disallowed. The said issue was concluded bv the Mumbai ITAT in the NKEL's own case vide order dated 24 May 2021 [ITA No. 4372 & 4373 MUM 2012 wherein after considering the Bombay High h Court ruling and the merits of the case the Mumbai ITAT has allowed the claim of depreciation on 'right to collect toll' being an intangible asset. 2.6 Relevant extract of the ruling is reproduced below: We find that the "Special bench"" of the Tribunal in the case of ACIT, Circle 10(2}, Hyderabad, Vs. Progressive Construction Ltd. (2018) 191 TTJ 549 (Hyd.(SB), had concluded, that where an Infrastructure Development company that had constructed a road on build, operate and transfer (BOT) basis on the land owned by the Central Government gets vested with a right to an intangible asset under Explanation 3(b} r.w. Sec.32(l}(ii} of the Act, the assessee would be eligible to claim depreciation on such asset as per the specified rate. Apart from that, it was observed by the Tribunal, that where the assessee had never claimed expenditure incurred for construction of the road on build, operate and transfer (BOT) basis, as a deferred revenue expenditure, the same could not have been amortized in terms of CBDT Circular No.9 of 2014, dated, 23.04.2014.' 2.7 Thus, the argument of the learned CIT(DR) that the ruling of MIs Progressive Constructions Private limited (supra) does not lay down correct law as it does not consider the ruling in the case of NKEL is not valid. The said is also discussed in the ruling of Thiruvanthapuram Road Development Company ltd. Vs. DCIT-14(3)(1), Mumbai ITA No. 622/Mum/2015, dated 23.05.2018 [Mumbai ITAT] and North Karnataka Expressway limited v ACIT ITA No. 4372 & 4373/MUM/2012 [Mumbai ITAT]. Whether there is any intangible asset in form of 'right to collect to/l' and whether 'toll rights' are depreciable 2.8 The learned CIT(DR) in his submission has contended that rights if any in the BOT project cannot be divorced from the highway being a tangible asset and there are no intangible

22 ITA Nos. 380/Hyd/2020 and others Guruvayoor Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd., Hyd. rights other than the highway to make the claim of depreciation. 2.9 In this connection, we wish to draw your Honors attention to Clause 3.2 of the Concession Agreement which entitles the Respondent to carry out the following functions (Annexure 1 of submission dated 15 July 2021 _ page 23 - Clause 3.2): • 'To develop, design, engineer, finance, procure, construct, operate and maintain the Project Highway during the Concession Period; • Upon completion of the Project Highway and during the operations period to manage, operate and maintain the 'Project Highway' and regulate the use thereof by third party; • Levy, demand, collect and appropriate fees (rom vehicles and person liable to payment of fee for using the 'Project Highway' or any part thereof and refuse entry of any vehicle if fees due is not paid . • Not assign or create any lien or Encumbrance on the Concession hereby granted on the whole or any part of the Project Highway nor transfer, lease or part possession therewith save and except as expressly permitted by this Agreement or Substitution Agreement' Your Honors will appreciate that as per the Concession Agreement, the Respondent has a right to inter alia, levy and collect appropriate fees (being the right to collect toll) on the Project Highway constructed by the Respondent. Your Honors will also observe that such a right is a non-assignable and non- transferable valuable right separate from that of the Project Highway itself. 2.10 In this connection, we wish to place reliance on the below rulings wherein the Court has appreciated that (i) Toll road is a tangible asset separate from that of right to collect toll; (ii) Right to collect toll is an intangible asset within the scope of section 32(1)(ii) of the Act and is eligible for depreciation thereunder: • North Karnataka Expressway limited [ITA No. 4372 & 4373/MUM/2012].

23 ITA Nos. 380/Hyd/2020 and others Guruvayoor Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd., Hyd. Relevant extract of the ruling is reproduced below: We find that the “Special bench" of the Tribunal in the case of ACIT, Circle 10(2), Hyderabad, Vs. Progressive Construction Ltd. (2018) 191 TTJ 549 (Hyd.)(SB), had concluded, that where an Infrastructure Development company that had constructed a road on build, operate and transfer (BOT) basis on the land owned by the Central Government gets vested with a right to an intangible asset under Explanation 3(b) r.w. Sec.32(1)(ii) of the Act, the assessee would be eligible to claim depredation on such asset as per the specified rate. Apart from that. it was observed by the Tribunal, that where the assessee had never claimed expenditure incurred for construction of the rood on build, operate and transfer (BOT) basis, as a deferred revenue expenditure, the same could not have been amortized in terms of CBOT Circular No.9 of 2014, dated, 23.04.2014. • M/s Progressive Constructions Private Umited (supra) wherein it has been held as under: We have already held earlier in the order that by incurring the expenditure of Rs.214 crore assessee has acquired the right to operate the project and collect toll charges. Therefore, such right acquired by the assessee is a valuable business or commercial right because through such means, the assessee is going to recoup not only the cost incurred in executing the project but also with some amount of profit. Therefore, there cannot be any dispute that the right to operate the project facility and collect toll charges therefrom in lieu of the expenditure incurred in executing the project is an intangible asset created for the enduring benefit of the assessee. Now, it has to be seen whether such intangible asset comes within the expression Nany other business or commercial rights of similar nature". As could be seen from the definition of intangible asset, specifically identified items like knowhow, patents, copyrights, trademarks, licenses, franchises are not of the same category, but, distinct from each other. However, one thing common amongst these assets is, they all are part Of the tool of the trade and facilitate smooth carrying on of business. Therefore, any other intangible asset which may not be identifiable with the specified items, but, is of similar nature

24 ITA Nos. 380/Hyd/2020 and others Guruvayoor Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd., Hyd. would come within the expression "any other business or commercial rights of similar nature" .... Therefore, in our considered opinion, the assessee is eligible to claim depreciation on WDV as an intangible asset. Thus, we answer the question framed by the Special Bench as under:- The expenditure incurred by the assessee for construction of road under BOT contract by the Government of India has given rise to an intangible asset as defined under Explanation 3(b) r/w section 32(1){ii) of the Act. Hence, assessee is eligible to claim depreciation on such asset at the specified rate. ' 2.11 Thus, the contention of the Learned CIT(DR) that rights if any in the BOT project cannot be divorced from the highway being a tangible asset and there are no intangible rights other than the highway to make the claim of depreciation is incorrect. 2.12 Further, the Learned CIT(DR) has also contended that due to non-fulfilment of the ownership criteria, the present provisions of the Act do not allow claim of depreciation on Tollways. In this connection, we wish to re-iterate the fact that 'right to collect toll' is the asset over which Assessee has full ownership and only the Assessee can collect toll [Clause 3.2 of the Concession Agreement - refer para 2.9 above). Separately, ownership of tangible asset being the Tollroad is not in question in the current case as the Responded is claiming depreciation on the intangible asset being the 'right to collect toll'. Allowability of depreciation on intangible asset being 'right to collect toll' has now being settled by the ruling of the Special Bench in case of Mis Progressive Construction (supra). Thus, the said contention also does not hold good on facts and in law. 2.13 Furthermore, the Learned CIT(DR) has also stated that the Respondent has an 'obligation' and not tolling rights in connection with the Project Highway. In this connection, we wish to draw your Honors attention to Clause 3.2 of the Concession Agreement [Page 23 _ Annexure 1 of submission dated 15 July 2021] wherein it has been stated that 'the Concession hereby granted shall entitle the

25 ITA Nos. 380/Hyd/2020 and others Guruvayoor Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd., Hyd. Concessionaire to enjoy, and oblige the Concessionaire to undertake the following in accordance with the provisions of this Agreement, the Applicable Laws and the Applicable Permits: iii Levy, demand, collect and appropriate fees from vehicles and person liable to payment of fee for using the 'Project Highway' or any part thereof and refuse entry of any vehicle iffees due is not paid ..... ' From the above, it is clear that the Respondent has a 'right' to collect toll under the Concession Agreement. Thus, the contention of the Learned CIT(DR) does not hold good basis the facts of our case. 2.14 Additionally, the Learned ClT(DR) has observed that 'right to collect toll' is not a depreciable asset but an appreciable asset as the toll rates would increase on a year on year basis. In this connection, we wish to draw your Honors attention to section 32 of the Act. As per section 32 of the Act, a deduction in respect of depreciation shall be allowed in respect of, inter alia, licenses or commercial rights of similar nature, being intangible assets acquired, being owned, wholly or partly, by the assessee and used for the purposes of the business or profession. Where the facts being (i) ownership of the asset; and (ii) usage of the same for the purpose of business or profession of the assessee are ascertained, such percentage in the case of any block of assets, on the written down value thereof as may be prescribed shall be allowed as depreciation. 2.15 In case of the Respondent, from paragraph 2.9 and 2.12 it should be ascertainable that the respondent is the owner of the intangible asset being 'right to collect toll' and as stated in para 1.1, GIPL is a private limited company incorporated on 24 November 2005 for the purpose of entering into a Concession Agreement with the NHAI for 'design, construction, finance, operation and maintenance' for widening of two lanes of the National Highway from Thrissur to Angamali and improvements, operations and maintenance of the National Highway between Angamali and Edapalli on BOT basis as per agreement dated 27 March 2006. Thus, the Respondent fulfils

26 ITA Nos. 380/Hyd/2020 and others Guruvayoor Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd., Hyd. both the conditions for the purpose of claiming depreciation under section 32(l)(ii) of the Act. 2.16 Thus, the contention of the Learned CIT(DR) that the 'right to collect toll' is an appreciable right and not a depreciable right and hence not eligible for depreciation does not hold good in law (as otherwise by nature all intangible assets do appreciate on a year on year basis for example trade- mark, franchise, etc). Expenditure incurred for construction/development of toll road is a capital expenditure and is outside the scope of section 37 of the Act 2.17 The learned CIT(DR) has relied upon the ruling of MIs PVR Industries ltd ITA No. 1171,1175, 1176 and 1196/Hyd/08 {2011] (Hyderabad ITAT], wherein it has been concluded that the expenditure incurred in development of toll roads is revenue expense and is eligible for amortization. 2.18 It is to be noted that the aforesaid ruling has been passed after considering the ruling of the Hyderabad ITAT in the case of Nyse Infrastructure Private limited ITA No. 301/Hyd/2009 wherein it has been held that '16. Having regard to the several Benches of the Hon'ble Tribunal, on similar facts, I hold that the right to collect toll fee granted to the assessee in consideration of constructing road for the NHAI is in the nature of licence or business right or commercial asset and therefore an intangible asset coming u/s 32(l){ii) of the IT Act. The assessee is therefore entitled to depreciation on the cost incurred to acquire the right to collect Toll for 11 years. The ruling of Nyse Infrastructure (supra) is in fact in favour of the Assessee. 2.19 Further, it is to be appreciated that the ruling by the Special Bench of the Hyderabad ITAT in the case of Progressive Constructions Private limited (supra), DClT v Mis Madhurai Tuticorin Expressways limited (supra) and Mis. Mokama Munger v ACIT (supra) are pronounced post 2011 and post considering the CBOT Circular No 9 of 2014 and have upheld the position of depreciation on 'right to collect toll' under section 32(1)(ii) of the Act.

27 ITA Nos. 380/Hyd/2020 and others Guruvayoor Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd., Hyd. Thus, reliance on the decision of MIs PVR Industries ltd may not be of any avail for the learned CIT(OR). 2.20 The Learned CIT(OR) vide submission dated 16 July 2021 has appreciated the fact that the expenditure incurred by the Assessee on development of toll roads is a capitalized expenditure. 2.21 Section 37 of the Act, which is a residuary provision, allows a deduction of an expenditure while computing the income on the satisfaction of the following conditions: • Expenditure must not be governed by the provisions of sections 30 to section 36 of the Act; • The expenditure must not be capital in nature. • The expenditure must not be personal in nature; and • The expenditure must have been laid out wholly and exclusively for the purposes of the business of the assessee; The relevant extract of section 37 of the Act has been reproduced below: -37. (l)Any expenditure (not being expenditure of the nature described in sections 30 to 36 and not being in the nature of capital expenditure or personal expenses of the assessee, laid out or expended Wholly and exclusively for ,d;e purposes of the business or profession shall be allowed In computing the Income chargeable under the head ·Profits and gains of business or profession". Whether a particular expenditure should be treated as capital expenditure or revenue expenditure for the purpose 0& business must be determined on consideration of all facts and circumstances of the case and by application of principles of commercial trading (i.e. in the context of business necessity or expediency). One of the tests which is relevant for the purpose of determining as to whether expenditure is capital or revenue in nature is test of enduring benefit. Any expenditure shall be considered to be capital in nature only when such expenditure results in any advantage or benefit of enduring nature to the Respondent.

28 ITA Nos. 380/Hyd/2020 and others Guruvayoor Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd., Hyd. 2.24 In the current case, the amount incurred towards construction cost (including per-operative expenses) is for the purpose of obtaining the 'right to collect toll' provided by the Concession Agreement which enables the Assessee's to earn toll revenue being a new source of income. The Assessee has recorded the same as a capital asset/expense and the capitalization of the cost has not been disputed during the assessment proceedings nor at the first appellate level. 2.25 The Learned CIT(DR} in his submission has appreciated the fact that the BOT project did bring some kind of an enduring benefit to the Assessee. Further the Learned CIT(DR} has also appreciated that the cost so incurred by the Assessee shall be reimbursed by way of recovery of toll in accordance with the directions given by the Government. Recovery of toll on the said BOT project is per se a source of income. 2.26 Having said the above, the cost of construction (including pre-operative expenses) should be considered as a capital expenditure. Once the same is considered a capital expenditure, the same shall fall outside the scope of section 37 of the Act as the said section clearly allows a deduction for an expenditure not being, inter alia, capital expenditure. 2.27 Thus the decision of Madras Industrial Investment Corporation Ltd v CIT [1997] 91 Taxman 340 (SC) referred in Circular No 9 of 2014 dated 23 April 2014 issued by the CBOT and relied upon by the learned CIT(OR) should not be applicable to the facts of the current case as it deals with amortization of 'discount on issue of debentures' being an expense in the nature of a deferred revenue expenditure under section 37 of the Act and as rightly held in M/s Progressive Constructions ltd (supra). 2.28 Thus, relying on the rulings In the case of DCIT v M/s Madhurai Tuticorin Expressways limited, M/s Progressive Construction limited, M/s. Mokama Munger v ACIT and others have even after having considered the Circular No 9/2014 issued by the central Board of Direct Taxes providing clarification regarding treatment of expenditure incurred for development of roads/highways in BOT agreements under the Act allowed deprecation on the right to collect toll being an intangible asset.”

29 ITA Nos. 380/Hyd/2020 and others Guruvayoor Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd., Hyd. 9.4 We have considered the rival submissions and perused the material on record as well as gone through the orders of revenue authorities. We find that the issue in dispute is squarely covered by the decision of the coordinate bench of this Tribunal in the case of DCIT Vs. M/s Madhurai Tuticorin Expressways Ltd., in ITA Nos. 2119 to 2121/Hyd/2018, vide order dated 09/06/2021, wherein the coordinate bench has held as under: “3. We have given our thoughtful consideration to the rival contentions supporting and opposing the impugned depreciation disallowance. It has come on record that this tribunal's Special Bench's decision in M/s.Progressive Construction Ltd. (supra) has already settled the issue that such a license agreement amounts to an intangible asset in the nature of right to collect toll amounts to an intangible asset u/s.32(I)(ii) of the Act. The Revenue's stand that the assessee ought to have amortised the license fee paid to "NHAI" as per the CBDT's circular (supra) also fails to make any difference since the same could not be taken as an attempt at the Board's part to deny depreciation relief in any manner; whatsoever. Hon'ble apex court's decision Taparia Tools Ltd. Vs. JCIT (2015) [372 ITR 605] (SC) holds that the mere option of amortisation would not de bar an expenditure claim which is otherwise admissible as per law. We thus affirm the CIT(A)'s findings qua the first issue of depreciation disallowance. The Revenue's corresponding grounds are rejected.” 9.5 As the issue under consideration is materially identical to the said case, respectfully following the decision of the coordinate bench, we uphold the decision of the CIT(A) in directing the AO to allow the depreciation claim as per the provisions of section 32(2)(1)(ii) and dismiss the ground raised by the revenue on this issue.

30 ITA Nos. 380/Hyd/2020 and others Guruvayoor Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd., Hyd. 10. In the result, appeal of the revenue is partly allowed for statistical purposes in above terms. 11. As the facts and grounds are similar in all other appeals filed by the revenue to ITA No. 380/Hyd/2020, following the conclusions drawn therein, these appeals are partly allowed for statistical purposes. 12. To sum up, all the appeals of the revenue are partly allowed for statistical purposes. Pronounced in the open court on 31st May, 2022

Sd/- Sd/- (R.K. PANDA) (LALIET KUMAR) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER

Hyderabad, Dated: 31st May, 2022.

kv Copy to : 1 DCIT, Circle – 2(2), Room No. 513, 5th Floor, Signature Towers, Opp. Botanical Garden, Kondapur, Hyderabad – 500 084. 2 M/s Guruvayoor Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd., Door No. 1-80/40/SP/58-65, ShilPa Homes Layout, Gachibowli, Hyderabad. 3 CIT(A) - 2, Hyderabad. Pr. CIT – 2, Hyderabad. 4 ITAT, DR, Hyderabad. 5 6 Guard File.