KCL AMRCL Joint Venture, Hyderabad, Hyderabad v. ITO, Ward-6(4), Hyderabad, Hyderabad

ITA 793/HYD/2017 | 2013-2014
Pronouncement Date: 29-11-2017 | Result: Allowed

Appeal Details

RSA Number 79322514 RSA 2017
Assessee PAN AABAK2998M
Bench Hyderabad
Appeal Number ITA 793/HYD/2017
Duration Of Justice 6 month(s) 24 day(s)
Appellant KCL AMRCL Joint Venture, Hyderabad, Hyderabad
Respondent ITO, Ward-6(4), Hyderabad, Hyderabad
Appeal Type Income Tax Appeal
Pronouncement Date 29-11-2017
Appeal Filed By Assessee
Tags No record found
Order Result Allowed
Bench Allotted B
Tribunal Order Date 29-11-2017
Last Hearing Date 20-11-2017
First Hearing Date 20-11-2017
Assessment Year 2013-2014
Appeal Filed On 05-05-2017
Judgment Text
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL HYDERABAD BENCH A HYDERABAD BEFORE SMT. P. MADHAVI DEVI JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI S. RIFAUR RAHMAN ACCOUNTANT MEMBER S.NO. ITA NO. AY APPELLANT RESPONDENT 1 & 2 1409/H/16 & 793/H/17 2012-13 & 2013-14 KCL AMRCL JOINT VENTURE HYD. PAN AABAK 2998 M INCOME-TAX OFFICER WARD 6(4) HYD. 3 791/H/17 2013-14 PSR AMRCL JOINT VENTURE HYD. PAN AABAP 6940J -DO- 4 792/H/17 2013-14 CCPL AMRCL JOINT VENTURE HYD. PAN AABAC0801D -DO- 5 1256/H/16 2012-13 INCOME-TAX OFFICER WARD 6(4) HYD KCL AMRCL JOINT VENTURE HYD. PAN AABAK 2998 M 6 781/H/17 2013-14 -DO- PSR AMRCL JOINT VENTURE HYD. PAN AABAP 6940J ASSESSEE BY : SHRI A.V. RAGHURAM REVENUE BY : SHRI J. SIRI KUMAR DATE OF HEARING : 20-11-2017 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 29-11-2017 O R D E R PER S. RIFAUR RAHMAN A.M.: ALL THESE APPEALS ARE FILED BY ASSESSEE AS WELL AS REVENUE DIRECTED AGAINST ORDERS OF CIT(A) 6 HYDERABAD. A S IDENTICAL ISSUES ARE INVOLVED IN THESE APPEALS THEY WERE CLUBBED AN D HEARD TOGETHER 2 ITA NOS. 1409/H/16 AND OTHERS KCL AMRCL JV AND OTHERS AND THEREFORE A COMMON ORDER IS PASSED FOR THE SA KE OF CONVENIENCE. 2. THE BRIEF FACTS AS TAKEN FROM KCL AMRCL JV FOR AY 2012-13 ARE THAT THE ASSESSEE IS AN AOP COMPRISING OF TWO M EMBERS VIZ. M/S KETAN CONSTRUCTIONS LTD. (KCL) AND AMR CONSTRUC TIONS LTD. (AMRCL). IT WAS FORMED AS A JOINT VENTURE FOR SECUR ING THE CONTRACT OF WIDENING TO 2 LANE AND IMPROVEMENT FROM KM 50/0 TO 84/2000 OF GOVINDAPALLI BALIMELA CHITRAKONDA SILERU ROAD (SH-47) IN MALKARJINI DISTRICT UNDER L.W.E. SCHEME TENDERED B Y THE CHIEF ENGINEER (DPI & ROADS) GOVT. OF ORISSA. THE RETUR N WAS FILED ON A TOTAL LOSS OF RS. 30 888/-. IT CLAIMED ITSELF TO BE A PASS THROUGH ENTITY THAT HAD BEEN ONLY FORMED TO OBTAIN THE CONTRACT WO RK. 2.1 DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS TH E ASSESSING OFFICER OBSERVED THAT AN AMOUNT OF RS 9 90 37 026/- RECEIVED AS PAYMENT FROM THE CONTRACTEE HAD BEEN DEBITED TO THE P&L A/C AS PAYMENTS MADE TOWARDS SUBCONTRACTS. ON BEING ASKED TO FURNISH THE DETAILS OF TDS MADE AND REMITTED TO THE GOVT. A/C IT WAS STATED BY THE ASSESSEE THAT THE CONTRACT HAD BEEN GIVEN TO AM RCL ON BACK TO BACK BASIS. THIS FACT WAS COMMUNICATED TO THE CONTR ACTEE / EMPLOYER AND THE CONTRACTEE HAD BEEN ASKED TO DEDUCT TDS IN THE NAME OF AMRCL U/R 37B OF THE I.T RULES. THE ASSESSING OFFI CER REJECTED THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE AS ACCORDING TO HIM FOR ANY PAYMENTS MADE TO SUBCONTRACTORS PROVISION OF SEC 194C WAS APPLICABL E AND FAILURE TO DO SO WARRANTED DISALLOWANCE U/S 40(A)(IA) OF THE A CT. HE ACCORDINGLY DISALLOWED THE SUM OF RS 9 90 37 030/- U/S 40(A)(IA ) OF THE ACT. 3. AGGRIEVED BY THE ORDER OF THE AO THE ASSESSEE P REFERRED AN APPEAL BEFORE THE CIT(A). 4. THE CIT(A) NOTED THAT THE ASSESSEE REITERATED TH E SUBMISSIONS MADE BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND SUBMITTED THA T IT WAS 3 ITA NOS. 1409/H/16 AND OTHERS KCL AMRCL JV AND OTHERS CONSTITUTED BY KCL & AMRCL (LATER CALLED AMR INDIA LTD.) TO MAKE IT ELIGIBLE TO PROCURE CONTRACT WORK OF HIGH VALUE. IT HAD SUBMITTED BID FOR ROAD WIDENING ON TENDER INVITED BY THE CHIEF EN GINEER (DPI & ROADS) GOVT. OF INDIA. THE BID WAS ACCEPTED AND TH E WORK SO OBTAINED WAS DIVIDED BETWEEN THE CONSTITUENTS IN TH E RATIO OF 51: 49 BETWEEN KCL & AMRCL RESPECTIVELY FOR THE PURPOSES O F SMOOTH EXECUTION OF WORK. AS PER THE MOU BETWEEN THE JV ME MBERS IT WAS MUTUALLY AGREED THAT EACH CONSTITUENT WOULD BE RESP ONSIBLE FOR ITS PART OF WORK. SUBSEQUENTLY KCL GOT ITS PART OF WOR K EXECUTED BY THE OTHER CONSTITUENT I.E. AMRCL. THUS THE ENTIRE GRO SS RECEIPT OF THE JV FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION AMOUNTI NG TO RS 9 90 37 026/- WAS PASSED TO AMRCL WITHOUT DEDUC TION OF ANY TAX AT SOURCE. THE ASSESSEE JV HAD NOT RETAINED ANY COM MISSION/MARGIN FOR ITSELF. IT WAS SUBMITTED THAT THE SAID AMOUNT W AS DULY OFFERED AS INCOME IN THE RETURN OF INCOME FILED BY AMRCL WHICH HAD ACTUALLY EXECUTED THE WORK AND PAID TAXES THEREON. ACCORDING TO THE ASSESSEE A SPECIFIC REQUEST HAD ALSO BEEN MADE TO THE EMPLOYER I.E. CHIEF ENGINEER (DPI & ROADS) TO TRANSFER THE CREDIT OF TDS MADE BY THEM DIRECTLY IN FAVOUR OF AMRCL THAT HAD ACTUALLY EXECUTED THE WORK IN TERMS OF RULE 37BA OF THE I.T. RULES AND THEREFO RE THE ASSESSEE HAD NOT CLAIMED CREDIT FOR SUCH TDS IN ITS RETURN. IT WAS SUBMITTED THAT THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN THE ASSESSEE - JV AND ITS CONSTITUENT MEMBERS WAS NOT A CONTRACTOR - SUBCONTRACTOR RELATI ONSHIP AND AS SUCH PROVISIONS OF SEC 194C AND SEC 40(A)(IA) WERE NOT APPLICABLE. AND AS THE AMOUNT IN QUESTION WAS PAID TO AMRCL BEF ORE THE YEAR END AND CONSIDERED BY IT IN THE RETURN OF INCOME FI LED BY IT AND TAXES WERE PAID NO DISALLOWANCE WAS WARRANTED. IN SUPPOR T OF ITS CONTENTION THAT THE ENTIRE AMOUNT WAS PAID DURING T HE YEAR AND THEREFORE SEC 40(A)(IA) WAS NOT APPLICABLE IT PLA CED RELIANCE ON THE DECISION OF SPECIAL BENCH OF ITAT IN THE CASE OF ME RILYN SHIPPING & TRANSPORT V. ACIT (146 ITJ1) AND SUBMITTED THAT AS THE ENTIRE SUM WAS TAKEN INTO ACCOUNT FOR COMPUTING TOTAL INCOME B Y AMRCL AND TAXES WERE PAID BY IT DISALLOWANCE U/S 40(A)(IA) O F THE ACT WAS NOT 4 ITA NOS. 1409/H/16 AND OTHERS KCL AMRCL JV AND OTHERS CALLED FOR AND THE SAME SHOULD BE DELETED. IT FURTH ER STATED THAT THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN THE JV AND ITS CONSTITUENTS WA S NOT IN THE NATURE OF CONTRACTOR-SUBCONTRACTOR RELATIONSHIP AND THEREF ORE PROVISION OF SEC 194C WERE NOT APPLICABLE. FOR THIS IT PLACED R ELIANCE ON THE DECISION OF JURISDICTIONAL ITAT IN THE CASE OF MADH UCON SINO - HYDRO JV VS. ACIT (ITA NO.701/H/2010 DATED 27.11.2012) & DCIT VS. HINDUSTAN RATNA JV (ITA NO.1575/HYD/2014 DATED 12.0 2.2015). 4.1 AFTER CONSIDERING THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE ASSESS EE THE CIT(A) ELABORATELY DISCUSSED THE ISSUE ABOUT THE SCHEME OF AOP AND ANALYSING THE ISSUE WITH VARIOUS CASE LAWS SUMMARI ZED HER DECISION AS UNDER: I. THE ASSESSEE IS AN AOP. II. IT WAS THE CONTRACTOR IN THE BUSINESS OF ROAD C ONSTRUCTION EVEN THOUGH THE WORK WAS DONE THROUGH ITS MEMBERS. III. IT IS LIABLE TO COMPUTE THE PROFIT ARISING FRO M THE CONTRACT WORK AND PAY TAX ON THE SAME. IV. THE MEMBERS WERE NOT ITS 'SUB-CONTRACTORS' AND HENCE THERE WAS NO REQUIREMENT OF TDS ON THE AMOUNTS CRED ITED/PAID BY IT TO THEM. CONSEQUENTLY THE DISALLOWANCE U/S 4 0(A)(IA) OF THE IT ACT MADE BY THE AO IS DELETED. V. THE REMUNERATION PAID BY IT TO THE MEMBERS I.E. THE SURPLUS OVER THE EXPENDITURE INCURRED BY THEM FOR THE PURPO SE OF ITS BUSINESS IS LIABLE TO BE DISALLOWED IN VIEW OF THE EXPRESS PROVISION OF SECTION 40(BA) OF THE IT ACT. VI. THE ASSESSEE'S NET PROFIT IS ESTIMATED TO BE 8% OF ITS GROSS TURNOVER. THAT WOULD BE NET OF ALL ALLOWANCES AS WE LL AS THE DISALLOWANCES INCLUDING THE ONE U/S 40(BA) OF THE IT ACT. THE AO IS DIRECTED TO RE-COMPUTE THE ASSESSEES TOT AL INCOME ACCORDINGLY AND COMPUTE TAX THEREON AT THE MAXIMUM MARGINAL RATE IN VIEW OF THE PROVISION OF SECTION 167B(2) OF THE ACT. 5. AGGRIEVED BY THE ORDER OF CIT(A) THE ASSESSEE A ND THE REVENUE ARE IN APPEAL BEFORE US: 5 ITA NOS. 1409/H/16 AND OTHERS KCL AMRCL JV AND OTHERS 6.1 ASSESSEES GROUNDS OF APPEAL WHICH ARE COMMON IN ALL THE APPEALS UNDER CONSIDERATION: 1. ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CA SE THE ORDER OF THE LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) ALL OWING THE APPEAL ONLY IN PART IS ERRONEOUS ILLEGAL AND UNSUS TAINABLE IN LAW. THE COMMISSIONER (APPEALS) OUGHT TO HAVE ALLOW ED THE APPEAL IN ENTIRETY. 2. THE COMMISSIONER (APPEALS) ERRED IN HOLDING THAT THE APPELLANT IS LIABLE FOR THE WORK DONE IN SPITE OF T HE FACT THAT THE CONTRACT WORK WAS DONE BY ITS CONSTITUENTS. THE COM MISSIONER (APPEALS) FAILED TO APPRECIATE THAT THE TERM OF JOI NT VENTURE EVIDENTLY STATES THAT THE APPELLANT JV WAS ONLY FOR THE PURPOSE OF SECURING CONTRACT AND IN VIEW OF THE SAID UNDERS TANDING THE FINDING OF THE COMMISSIONER (APPEALS) IS ERRONEOUS AND UNSUSTAINABLE IN LAW. 3. THE COMMISSIONER (APPEALS) ERRED IN HOLDING THAT THE INCOME OF THE APPELLANT HAS TO BE ESTIMATED AT 8% OF THE G ROSS TURNOVER. THE COMMISSIONER (APPEALS) HAVING NOTICED THAT THE APPELLANT HAS NOT EXECUTED THE WORKS AND WAS FORMED ONLY FOR SECURING CONTRACT OUGHT NOT TO HAVE ESTIMATED THE INCOME IN THE HANDS OF THE APPELLANT. 4. THE COMMISSIONER (APPEALS) ERRED IN NOT FOLLOWIN G THE BINDING DECISIONS OF THE HON'BLE JURISDICTIONAL TRI BUNAL IN THE CASE OF MADHUCON SINOHYDRO JV VS. ACIT (ITA.NO.701/ H/2010 DT.27.11.2012) & DCIT VS. HINDUSTAN RATNA JV (ITA 1575/H/2014 DT.12.02.2015) IN ENTIRETY. 5. WITHOUT PREJUDICE TO THE ABOVE GROUNDS THE RATE OF PROFIT AT 8% IS QUITE ABSURD WHEN THE COMMISSIONER (APPEALS) HERSELF OBSERVED THAT NO WORK WAS PERFORMED BY THE APPELLAN T. FOR THESE AND OTHER GROUNDS THAT MAY BE URGED AT TH E TIME OF HEARING IT IS PRAYED THAT THE HON'BLE TRIBUNAL MAY BE PLEASED TO ALLOW THE APPEAL. 6.2 THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL OF THE REVENUE WHICH ARE COMMON IN BOTH THE APPEALS ARE AS UNDER: I) THE LD CIT(A) ERRED BOTH ON FACTS AND IN LAW. II) THE LD. CIT(A) ERRED IN HOLDING THAT THE MEMBER S OF AOP ARE NOT SUB-CONTRACTS AND HENCE THERE IS NO REQUIREMENT TO DEDUCT TDS AS PER PROVISIONS OF SECTION 194C OF THE ACT 1 961 AND CONSEQUENTLY NO AMOUNT IS DISALLOWABLE U/S 40((A)(I A) OF THE ACT. 6 ITA NOS. 1409/H/16 AND OTHERS KCL AMRCL JV AND OTHERS 7. THE LD. AR SUBMITTED THAT KCL AND AMRCL FORMED J V IN ORDER TOR SECURE THE CONTRACT OF WIDENING TO 2 LANE AND IMPROVEMENT FROM KM 50/0 TO 84/2000 OF GOVINDAPALLI BALIMELA CHI TRAKONDA SILERU ROAD (SH-47) IN MALKARJINI DISTRICT UNDER L.W.E. SC HEME TENDERED BY THE CHIEF ENGINEER (DPI & ROADS) GOVT. OF ORISSA. IT IS MUTUALLY AGREED WITH THE JV PARTNERS THAT PO/WO WILL BE EXEC UTED BY ONE OF THE CONSTITUENT THAT IS AMRCL/KCL ON BACK TO BACK B ASIS. ALL THE WORK ORDERS WERE EXECUTED BY AMRCL DURING THIS PERI OD AND THE SAME WAS DECLARED AS ITS REVENUE. HE SUBMITTED THAT COURTS HAVE HELD THAT CONTRACT EXECUTED BY ONE OF THE CONSTITUE NTS OF JV ARE NOT SUB-CONTRACTS. HE RELIED ON THE DECISION IN THE CAS E OF MADHUCON SINO HYDRO JV VS. ACIT (ITA NO. 701/HYD/2010 DTD. 27/ 11/2012) AND DCIT VS. HINDUSTAN RATNA JV ( ITA NO. 1575/HYD/2014 DT. 12/02/2015) 7.1 LD. AR SUBMITTED THAT THOUGH CIT(A) HAS DELETE D THE ADDITION MADE BY THE AO BUT HER FINDING THAT REMUNERATION WAS PAID BY THE ASSESSEE TO THE INDIVIDUAL MEMBER FOR THE WORK DONE BY IT IS NOT SUSTAINABLE AS THE ASSESSEE ON ITS OWN IS NOT IN A POSITION TO PAY REMUNERATION TO ANY OF THE MEMBER. HE ALSO SUBMIT TED THAT ESTIMATING THE PROFIT OF THE BUSINESS @ 8%AS WELL A S MAKING DISALLOWANCE U/S 40(BA) ALSO IS NOT PROPER. ACCORDI NG TO HIM THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 40(BA) ARE ALSO NOT APPLICABL E TO THE ASSESSEES CASE AS BUSINESS HAS NOT GENERATED ANY PROFIT TO MA KE ANY SUCH PAYMENT TO THE MEMBERS OF THE JV. 8. LD. DR ON THE OTHER HAND RELIED ON THE ORDER O F AO. 9. CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND PERUSED THE MATERIAL FACTS ON RECORD. THE TWO ENTITIES NAMELY KCL AND AMRCL FORMED A JV FOR SECURING THE CONTRACT OF WIDENING TO 2 LANE AND IM PROVEMENT FROM KM 50/0 TO 84/2000 OF GOVINDAPALLI BALIMELA CHI TRAKONDA SILERU ROAD (SH-47) IN MALKARJINI DISTRICT UNDER L.W.E. SC HEME TENDERED BY THE CHIEF ENGINEER (DPI & ROADS) GOVT. OF ORISSA. THEY FORMED THIS 7 ITA NOS. 1409/H/16 AND OTHERS KCL AMRCL JV AND OTHERS JV ONLY TO SECURE THE ORDERS AND AS PER THEIR MUTUA L AGREEMENT THE CONTRACT WILL BE EXECUTED BY ONE OF THE CONSTITUENT S I.E. AMRCL/KCL ON BACK TO BACK BASIS. AS PER THE AGREEMENT ALL TH E COSTS LIABILITY AND BANK GUARANTEES WILL BE ARRANGED BY ONLY AMRCL AND KCL WILL ONLY BE A FACILITATOR IN PROCURING THE ORDERS. AS PER OUR VIEW JV IS ONLY AN ARRANGEMENT BETWEEN TWO ENTITIES ON MUTUAL AGREEMENT JV CAN BE ANY TYPE DEPENDING UPON THE MUTUAL AGREEMENT S AND OBJECT OF SUCH AGREEMENT. THE JV CAN BE RUN ON SIMILAR TO PAR TNERSHIP BASIS OR MERE AN ENTITY TO SECURE THE ORDERS OR MAY BE JUST TO EXECUTE THE WORK ORDERS. IN THE GIVEN CASE MEMBERS OF JV DECID ED TO FORM A JV ONLY TO SECURE THE ORDERS AND EXECUTION OF THE ORDE RS WILL BE DONE BY ONE OF THE CONSTITUENTS OF THE JV. JV IS FORMED FOR THE BENEFIT OF THE INDIVIDUAL MEMBERS AND A BUSINESS IS CARRIED ON FOR THE BENEFIT OF THE BUSINESSMAN. 9.1 AS HELD BY THE COORDINATE BENCH OF THIS TRIBUNA L IN THE CASE OF HINDUSTAN RATNA JV VS. DCIT AND IN OTHER CASES THE RE IS NO SUB- CONTRACT RELATIONSHIP EXISTED BETWEEN JV PARTNERS. ACCORDINGLY THE WORK EXECUTED BY THE AMRCL IS NOT IN SUB-CONTRACT. ACCORDINGLY GROUND RAISED BY REVENUE IS DISMISSED. 9.2 COMING TO THE FINDINGS OF THE CIT(A) THAT IN TH E CASE OF ASSESSEE ESTIMATE OF THE PROFIT OF THE BUSINESS AS WELL AS DISALLOWANCE U/S 40(BA) IS THE ONLY WAY OUT THE FA CT THAT JV IS CREATED ONLY TO SECURE THE ORDERS AND NOWHERE ON RE CORD WE FIND THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS ACTUALLY EXECUTED THE WORK. JV IS FORMED MERELY TO SECURE THE ORDERS AND NOT TO EXECUTE THE ORDERS. W HEN THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT EXECUTED THE ORDER THERE IS NO QUESTION OF MAKING ANY PROFIT. AS THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT SHOWN ANY PROFIT IN THE BU SINESS AND THE ASSESSEE BEING USED AS A PASSOVER ENTITY AND SET UP ONLY TO SECURE THE ORDER THE AO HAS THE OPTION OF DISALLOWING ALL THE ADMINISTRATIVE EXPENSES IF ANY. SINCE THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT SHOWN ANY PROFIT NOR 8 ITA NOS. 1409/H/16 AND OTHERS KCL AMRCL JV AND OTHERS PAID ANY REMUNERATION TO ANY OF THE MEMBERS THE PR OVISIONS OF SECTION 40(BA) WILL NOT BE ATTRACTED. 9.3 COMING TO THE EXECUTION OF THE CONTRACT AWARDED TO THE ASSESSEE WE HAVE ALREADY ADJUDICATED THAT IT DOES NOT AMOUNT TO SUB-CONTRACT. THE PAYMENT MADE TO AMRCL WILL NEVER BE CONSIDERED AS REMUNERATION BUT PAID FOR EXECUTION OF BACK TO BACK WORK ORDER. ASSESSE HAS ALREADY CONSIDERED AS REVENUE IN CASE O F AMRCL AND OFFERED FOR TAXATION. IT SHOWS THAT THE FULL VALUE OF REVENUE IS ALREADY OFFERED FOR TAXATION BY FOLLOWING THE GOLDEN RULE THAT A SOURCE OF INCOME CAN BE TAXED ONLY ONCE. THE SOURCE OF INCOME IS A WORK CONTRACT GIVEN BY THE CORPORATION AND THE SAME WAS OFFERED TO TAX BY AMRCL. SAME SOURCE OF INCOME CAN NEVER BE SUBJECTED TO TAX TWICE FIRST BY THE ASSESSEE AND FOLLOWED BY AMRCL. AS FAR AS REVENUE IS CONCERNED THAT SOURCE IS ALREADY TAXED IN THE HAN DS OF AMRCL THEREFORE IT NEED NOT BE TAXED AGAIN IN THE HANDS OF ASSESSEE. 9.4 IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE DISCUSSION THE GROUNDS RA ISED BY THE ASSESSEE ARE ALLOWED AND GROUNDS RAISED BY THE REVE NUE ARE DISMISSED. 10. AS THE ISSUE IS IDENTICAL IN ASSESSEES (KCL AMRCL JV) FOR AY 2013-14 IN ITA NO. 793/H/17 IN CASE OF CCPL A MRCL JV IN ITA NO. 792/H/17 FOR AY 2013-14 IN CASE OF PSR AMRCL JV IN ITA NO. 791/H/17 FOR AY 2013-14 AND REVENUES APPEAL IN CAS E OF PSR AMRCL JV IN ITA NO. 781/H/17 FOR AY 2013-14 TO THA T OF ASSESSEES CASE IN KCL AMRCL JV FOR AY 2012-13 AND REVENUE S CASE IN ITA NO. 1256/H/16( IN RESPECT OF KCL AMRCL JV) FOR AY 2012-13 (SUPRA) FOLLOWING THE DECISION THEREIN WE ALLOW THE APPEALS OF THE ASSESSEES AND DISMISS THE REVENUE APPEAL. 9 ITA NOS. 1409/H/16 AND OTHERS KCL AMRCL JV AND OTHERS 11. IN THE RESULT ALL THE APPEALS OF THE ASSESSEES ARE ALLOWED AND THE APPEALS OF THE REVENUE ARE DISMISSED. PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 29 TH NOVEMBER 2017. SD/- SD/- (P. MADHAVI DEVI) (S. RIFAUR RA HMAN) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACC OUNTANT MEMBER HYDERABAD DATED: 29 TH NOVEMBER 2017. KV COPY TO:- 1) KCL AMRCL JV 2) CCPL AMRCL JV 3) PSR AMRC L JV C/O S/SHRI K. VASANTKUMAR AV RAGHURAM P. VINOD & M. NEELIMA DEVI ADVOCATES 610 BABUK HAN ESTATE BASHEERBAGH HYDERABAD 500 001. 4) ITO WARD 6(4) HYDERABAD. 3) CIT(A) - 6 HYDERABAD 4 PR. CIT - 6 HYDERABAD 5) THE DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE I.T.A.T. HYDE RABAD. 6) GUARD FILE