City and Industrial Development Corporation of Maharashtra Ltd. v. ACIT

25 Taxmann.com 333Income Tax Appellate Tribunal2012#3324 most cited

What is City and Industrial Development Corporation of Maharashtra Ltd. v. ACIT authority for?

Revenue authorities are not justified in assessing business income in the hands of an entity engaged in construction and development of residential and commercial structures entirely on behalf of the State, as such income constitutes income of the State and is not exigible to income tax. This principle was affirmed by the jurisdictional High Court, affirming the Tribunal's decision.

36

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,339 Indian tax judgments — from 2013 to 2025.

Also referred to as

City and Industrial Development Corporation of Maharashtra Ltd v. ACIT · 138 ITD 381 · 160 TTJ 477 · business income · construction and development · income of the State · not exigible to income tax · 2012 ITAT decision · CIDCO · Mumbai Tribunal

Also reported as

138 ITD 381160 TTJ 477343 ITR 102

Sections most often in play

Section 113Section 160Section 11Section 114Section 12ASection 143(3)Section 154Section 10(20)

Issues it is cited on

section 40(1)section 3asection 160section 80iabsection 262section 113section 24asection 40(3)section 114section 153(3)section 2(24)(xviii)section 10(20a)

Judgments citing City and Industrial Development Corporation of Maharashtra Ltd. v. ACIT

M/S. Bangalore Metro Rail Corporation Limited, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle - 1(1)(2), Bangalore

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee as well as revenue’s appeal are partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1113/BANG/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore06 Apr 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Chandra Poojariassessment Year: 2011-12

For Appellant: Shri Srihari Kutsa, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Sankar Ganesh K., D.R
Section 2Section 3

…of the state and consequently the same is not exigible to income tax. 2.61 The ld. A.R. in the end placed reliance on the decision of the Mumbai Tribunal in the matter of City and Industrial Development Corporation of Maharashtra Limited v. ACIT reported in 160 TTJ 477 (Mumbai) where the Hon’ble Tribunal after detailed examination of the facts held that since the assessee was engaged in construction ITA Nos.1048 & 1112 to 1116/Bang/2019 Bangalore Metro Rail Corporation Ltd., Bangalore Page 28 of 60 and development of residential and commercial structures totally on behalf of State, revenue authorities were n…

M/S. Bangalore Metro Rail Corporation Limited, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle - 1(1)(2), Bangalore

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee as well as revenue’s appeal are partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1112/BANG/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore06 Apr 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Chandra Poojariassessment Year: 2011-12

For Appellant: Shri Srihari Kutsa, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Sankar Ganesh K., D.R
Section 2Section 3

…of the state and consequently the same is not exigible to income tax. 2.61 The ld. A.R. in the end placed reliance on the decision of the Mumbai Tribunal in the matter of City and Industrial Development Corporation of Maharashtra Limited v. ACIT reported in 160 TTJ 477 (Mumbai) where the Hon’ble Tribunal after detailed examination of the facts held that since the assessee was engaged in construction ITA Nos.1048 & 1112 to 1116/Bang/2019 Bangalore Metro Rail Corporation Ltd., Bangalore Page 28 of 60 and development of residential and commercial structures totally on behalf of State, revenue authorities were n…

Additional Commissioner of Income Tax, Special Range - 1, Bangalore vs. M/S. Bangalore Metro Rail Corporation Limited, Bangalore

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee as well as revenue’s appeal are partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1048/BANG/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore06 Apr 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Chandra Poojariassessment Year: 2011-12

For Appellant: Shri Srihari Kutsa, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Sankar Ganesh K., D.R
Section 2Section 3

…of the state and consequently the same is not exigible to income tax. 2.61 The ld. A.R. in the end placed reliance on the decision of the Mumbai Tribunal in the matter of City and Industrial Development Corporation of Maharashtra Limited v. ACIT reported in 160 TTJ 477 (Mumbai) where the Hon’ble Tribunal after detailed examination of the facts held that since the assessee was engaged in construction ITA Nos.1048 & 1112 to 1116/Bang/2019 Bangalore Metro Rail Corporation Ltd., Bangalore Page 28 of 60 and development of residential and commercial structures totally on behalf of State, revenue authorities were n…

DCIT Corporate Circle 1(2), Chennai vs. Chennai Metro Rail Limited, Chennai

In the result, both the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 2181/CHNY/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai24 Jun 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri G. Manjunathaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos.2180 & 2181/Chny/2018 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2013-14 & 2014-15 The Deputy Commissioner Of Vs. M/S. Chennai Metro Rail Limited, Income Tax, Administrative Building, Chennai Metro Corporate Circle 1(2), Rail Depot, P.H. Road, Opp. To Daniel Chennai 600 034. Thomas School, Koyambedu, Chennai 600 107. [Pan: Aadcc2233K] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri M. Rajan, Cit ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri G. Baskar, Advocate सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 10.05.2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 24.06.2022 आदेश /O R D E R Per V. Durga Rao: Both The Appeals Filed By The Revenue Are Directed Against The Common Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) 4, Chennai Dated 14.05.2018 Relevant To The Assessment Years 2013-14 & 2014-15. Since Common Ground Involved, Both The Appeals Were Heard & Being Disposed Of By This Common Order For The Sake Of Convenience. The Only Common Ground Raised In Both The Appeals Relates To Deletion Of Addition Made Towards Interest Income.

For Appellant: Shri M. Rajan, CITFor Respondent: Shri G. Baskar, Advocate
Section 14Section 4

…adu in carrying out the Chennai Metro Rail Projects and, therefore, its interest income is not taxable in the light of the decisions of the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of City and Industrial Development Corporation of Maharashtra Ltd. v. ACIT [2012] 343 ITR 102 and in the light of the Hon’ble Karnataka High Court in the case of CIT v. Karnataka Urban Infrastructure Development and Finance Corporation (2009) 315 ITR 301 as well as similar decisions of Delhi and Patna High Court referred in the appellate order. 6.2 Before us, besides strongly supporting the order of the ld. CIT(A), 10 I.T.A. Nos.2180 &…

DCIT Corporate Circle 1(2), Chennai vs. Chennai Metro Rail Limited, Chennai

In the result, both the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 2180/CHNY/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai24 Jun 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri G. Manjunathaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos.2180 & 2181/Chny/2018 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2013-14 & 2014-15 The Deputy Commissioner Of Vs. M/S. Chennai Metro Rail Limited, Income Tax, Administrative Building, Chennai Metro Corporate Circle 1(2), Rail Depot, P.H. Road, Opp. To Daniel Chennai 600 034. Thomas School, Koyambedu, Chennai 600 107. [Pan: Aadcc2233K] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri M. Rajan, Cit ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri G. Baskar, Advocate सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 10.05.2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 24.06.2022 आदेश /O R D E R Per V. Durga Rao: Both The Appeals Filed By The Revenue Are Directed Against The Common Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) 4, Chennai Dated 14.05.2018 Relevant To The Assessment Years 2013-14 & 2014-15. Since Common Ground Involved, Both The Appeals Were Heard & Being Disposed Of By This Common Order For The Sake Of Convenience. The Only Common Ground Raised In Both The Appeals Relates To Deletion Of Addition Made Towards Interest Income.

For Appellant: Shri M. Rajan, CITFor Respondent: Shri G. Baskar, Advocate
Section 14Section 4

…adu in carrying out the Chennai Metro Rail Projects and, therefore, its interest income is not taxable in the light of the decisions of the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of City and Industrial Development Corporation of Maharashtra Ltd. v. ACIT [2012] 343 ITR 102 and in the light of the Hon’ble Karnataka High Court in the case of CIT v. Karnataka Urban Infrastructure Development and Finance Corporation (2009) 315 ITR 301 as well as similar decisions of Delhi and Patna High Court referred in the appellate order. 6.2 Before us, besides strongly supporting the order of the ld. CIT(A), 10 I.T.A. Nos.2180 &…

Mumbai Metroplitan Region Development Authority, Mumbai vs. DDIT (E) -1(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed and revenue is dismissed

ITA 4395/MUM/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai03 Jan 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Hon'Ble

For Appellant: Shri Saurabh SoparkarFor Respondent: Shri Parag Vyas
Section 10Section 10(20)Section 11Section 12Section 12ASection 143(2)Section 143(3)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL (VIRTUAL COURT) “D” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI S. RIFAUR RAHMAN, HON'BLE ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI PAVAN KUMAR GADALE, HON'BLE JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA NOs. 4391, 4392,4393,4394 & 4395/MUM/2019 (A.Y: 2010-11, 2012-13, 2013-14, 2014-15 & 2015-16) ITA NOs. 34 & 35/MUM/2020 (A.Y: 2011-12) Mumbai Metropolitan Region v. DDIT (Exemption) – 1(1) Development Authority (MMRDA) Room No. 519, 5th Floor Plot No. C-14 & C-15 Piramal Chambers Bandra Kurla Complex Lalbaug, Mumbai – 400012 Bandra (E), Mumbai -400051 PAN: AAATM7106R (Appellant) (Respondent) ITA NOs. 4986, 4987, 4988,4989,4990/MUM/2…

Mumbai Metroplitan Region Development Authority, Mumbai vs. DDIT (E) -1(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed and revenue is dismissed

ITA 4394/MUM/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai03 Jan 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Hon'Ble

For Appellant: Shri Saurabh SoparkarFor Respondent: Shri Parag Vyas
Section 10Section 10(20)Section 11Section 12Section 12ASection 143(2)Section 143(3)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL (VIRTUAL COURT) “D” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI S. RIFAUR RAHMAN, HON'BLE ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI PAVAN KUMAR GADALE, HON'BLE JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA NOs. 4391, 4392,4393,4394 & 4395/MUM/2019 (A.Y: 2010-11, 2012-13, 2013-14, 2014-15 & 2015-16) ITA NOs. 34 & 35/MUM/2020 (A.Y: 2011-12) Mumbai Metropolitan Region v. DDIT (Exemption) – 1(1) Development Authority (MMRDA) Room No. 519, 5th Floor Plot No. C-14 & C-15 Piramal Chambers Bandra Kurla Complex Lalbaug, Mumbai – 400012 Bandra (E), Mumbai -400051 PAN: AAATM7106R (Appellant) (Respondent) ITA NOs. 4986, 4987, 4988,4989,4990/MUM/2…

Mumbai Metroplitan Region Development Authority, Mumbai vs. DDIT (E) -1(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed and revenue is dismissed

ITA 4393/MUM/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai03 Jan 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Hon'Ble

For Appellant: Shri Saurabh SoparkarFor Respondent: Shri Parag Vyas
Section 10Section 10(20)Section 11Section 12Section 12ASection 143(2)Section 143(3)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL (VIRTUAL COURT) “D” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI S. RIFAUR RAHMAN, HON'BLE ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI PAVAN KUMAR GADALE, HON'BLE JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA NOs. 4391, 4392,4393,4394 & 4395/MUM/2019 (A.Y: 2010-11, 2012-13, 2013-14, 2014-15 & 2015-16) ITA NOs. 34 & 35/MUM/2020 (A.Y: 2011-12) Mumbai Metropolitan Region v. DDIT (Exemption) – 1(1) Development Authority (MMRDA) Room No. 519, 5th Floor Plot No. C-14 & C-15 Piramal Chambers Bandra Kurla Complex Lalbaug, Mumbai – 400012 Bandra (E), Mumbai -400051 PAN: AAATM7106R (Appellant) (Respondent) ITA NOs. 4986, 4987, 4988,4989,4990/MUM/2…

Mumbai Metroplitan Region Development Authority, Mumbai vs. DDIT (E) -1(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed and revenue is dismissed

ITA 4392/MUM/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai03 Jan 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Hon'Ble

For Appellant: Shri Saurabh SoparkarFor Respondent: Shri Parag Vyas
Section 10Section 10(20)Section 11Section 12Section 12ASection 143(2)Section 143(3)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL (VIRTUAL COURT) “D” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI S. RIFAUR RAHMAN, HON'BLE ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI PAVAN KUMAR GADALE, HON'BLE JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA NOs. 4391, 4392,4393,4394 & 4395/MUM/2019 (A.Y: 2010-11, 2012-13, 2013-14, 2014-15 & 2015-16) ITA NOs. 34 & 35/MUM/2020 (A.Y: 2011-12) Mumbai Metropolitan Region v. DDIT (Exemption) – 1(1) Development Authority (MMRDA) Room No. 519, 5th Floor Plot No. C-14 & C-15 Piramal Chambers Bandra Kurla Complex Lalbaug, Mumbai – 400012 Bandra (E), Mumbai -400051 PAN: AAATM7106R (Appellant) (Respondent) ITA NOs. 4986, 4987, 4988,4989,4990/MUM/2…

Mumbai Metroplitan Region Development Authority, Mumbai vs. DDIT (E) -1(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed and revenue is dismissed

ITA 4391/MUM/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai03 Jan 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Hon'Ble

For Appellant: Shri Saurabh SoparkarFor Respondent: Shri Parag Vyas
Section 10Section 10(20)Section 11Section 12Section 12ASection 143(2)Section 143(3)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL (VIRTUAL COURT) “D” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI S. RIFAUR RAHMAN, HON'BLE ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI PAVAN KUMAR GADALE, HON'BLE JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA NOs. 4391, 4392,4393,4394 & 4395/MUM/2019 (A.Y: 2010-11, 2012-13, 2013-14, 2014-15 & 2015-16) ITA NOs. 34 & 35/MUM/2020 (A.Y: 2011-12) Mumbai Metropolitan Region v. DDIT (Exemption) – 1(1) Development Authority (MMRDA) Room No. 519, 5th Floor Plot No. C-14 & C-15 Piramal Chambers Bandra Kurla Complex Lalbaug, Mumbai – 400012 Bandra (E), Mumbai -400051 PAN: AAATM7106R (Appellant) (Respondent) ITA NOs. 4986, 4987, 4988,4989,4990/MUM/2…

Maharshtra Airport Development Co. Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT Cir 3(2), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 5735/MUM/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Aug 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Shri M.Balaganesh, Am Maharashtra Airport Vs. Dcit Circle 3(2)(1) Room No.608, 6Th Floor Development Company Ltd., 08Th Floor, World Trade Aayakar Bhavan Centre, Tower No.1 M.K.Road, Cuffe Parade, Mumbai – 400 020 Mumbai – 400 005 Pan/Gir No.Aadcm9623M (Appellant) .. (Respondent)

Section 271(1)(c)

…grant to its 100% undertaking of Government of Maharashtra, therefore, the said grant is not liable to be treated as income of the assessee in view of the decision in the case of City and Industrial Development Corporation of Maharashtra Ltd. Vs. ACIT (2012) 138 ITD 381 (Mumbai) and in the case of CIT Vs. Karnataka Urban Infrastructure Development & Finance Corpn. (2006) 155 Taxman 228 (Kar.). However, on the other hand, the Ld. Representative of the Department has refuted the said contention. It is not in dispute that the assessee is 100% subsidiary of the Government of Maharashtra who received the grant in sum…

Maharashtra Airport Development Co. Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT Reg 3(2), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is hereby ordered to be allowed

ITA 3072/MUM/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 Jun 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri G. S. Pannu, Vp & Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.3072/Mum/2014 (ननधधारण वर्ा / Assessment Years: 2010-11) बनधम/ M/S. Maharashtra Airport Dcit, Range 3(2) Mumbai. Development. Company Vs. Ltd., 8Th Floor, World Trade Centre Tower No.1, Cuffe Parade, Mumbai-400005. स्थधयी लेखध सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aadcm9623M (अपीलाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) .. Revenue By: Shri Nishant Samaiya (Dr) Assessee By: Shri Salil Kapoor/ Sumit Lalchandani

For Appellant: Shri Salil Kapoor/ SumitFor Respondent: Shri Nishant Samaiya (DR)
Section 14ASection 271(1)(c)Section 36(1)(iii)Section 80I

…ashtra who received the grant in sum of Rs.1 crores on account of repairs and maintenance of airports. The assessee has relied upon the decision Hon‟ble ITAT in the case titled as City and Industrial Development Corporation of Maharashtra Ltd. Vs. ACIT (2012) 138 ITD 381 (Mumbai). The relevant finding is hereby reproduced as under.: - “37. We have heard the arguments advanced from either side at length and have also perused the material brought and placed before us for consideration. 38. Coming to the arguments of the Senior Counsel that the assessee must be treated as Government or surrogate or an agent, has to…

Maharashtra Industrial Development Corporation, Mumbai vs. Deputy Commissioner Income Tax (Exemptions)-2(1), Mumbai

The appeal of the assessee is partly allowed in terms of our aforesaid observations

ITA 4474/MUM/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai07 Sept 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri G.S.Pannu, Am & Shri Ravish Sood, Jm Maharashtra Industrial Deputy Commissioner Of Income Development Corporation Tax (Exemption)-2(1), बिधम/ Udyog Sarathi, Mahakali Piramal Chambers, Lalbaug, Vs. Caves Road, Andheri (East), Mumbai-400 012 Mumbai-400 093 स्थामी रेखा सं./ जीआइआय सं./ Pan No. Aaacm3560C (अऩीराथी /Appellant) (प्रत्मथी / Respondent) :

For Appellant: Shri V. Sridharan &For Respondent: Shri Purushottam Tripuri, CIT D.R
Section 143(3)Section 2Section 60Section 61Section 62

…that was constructed on the leased land would also belong to the government. The Ld. A.R further referred to the order passed by a coordinate bench of the Tribunal in the case of City and Industrial Development Corporation of Maharashtra Ltd. Vs. ACIT (2012) 138 ITD 381 (Mum), wherein it was held that as the functions undertaken by an industrial development corporation for development of industrial infrastructure were to be regarded as carrying on of sovereign functions, hence any surplus arising therefrom would not be subject to income tax. It was the claim of the Ld. A.R that as the assessee corporation had be…

Maharashtra Labour Welfare Board, Mumbai vs. ITO 18(2)(4), Mumbai

Appeal of the assessee is allowed, as above

ITA 4305/MUM/2012[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Nov 2017AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu & Shri Pawan Singh: A.Y : 2008-09

For Appellant: Shri Vipul Joshi &For Respondent: Suman Kumar
Section 10Section 10(46)Section 143(3)Section 3Section 4

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “B”, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI G.S. PANNU, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI PAWAN SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER : A.Y : 2008-09 Maharashtra Labour Welfare Board, Vs. ITO-18(2)(4), Welfare Commissioner, Mumbai (Respondent) Maharashtra Labour Welfare Board, Mumbai Girni Kamgar Kreeda Bhavan, Senapati Bapat Marg, Elphinstone, Mumbai 400 013 PAN : AAAAM3255A (Appellant) Appellant by : Shri Vipul Joshi & Shri Ashok J. Patil Respondent by : Suman Kumar Date of Hearing : 09/11/2017 Date of Pronouncement : 10/11/2017 O R D E R PER G.S. PANNU, AM : The captioned appeal by the assessee…

Commissioner of Income Tax Delhi -II vs. Kei Industries Limited

ITA/386/2013HC Delhi13 Mar 2015

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. RAVINDRA BHAT,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.K.GAUBA

Section 10BSection 143(3)Section 260A

…units in the subsequent years.‖ ITA 386/2013 Page 4 5. The ITAT, which the assessee approached, allowed the appeal. In doing so, it essentially relied on the ruling of a Division Bench of the Bombay High Court in CIT vs. Galaxy Surfactants Ltd. (343 ITR 102). The impugned order, inter alia, held that: ―11. We have heard both the sides in detail. We find that the decision of Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT vs. Galaxy Surfactants Ltd. cited supra, is applicable to the facts of the assessee's case. In that case, the facts were as follows :- "The assessee had a hundred per cent Export…

The Commissioner of Income Tax IV vs. M/s Matrix Power Pvt Ltd

ITTA/386/2013HC Telangana03 Sept 2013