NATEMS SOLAR POWER PRIVATE LIMITED ,HYDERABAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 16(1), HYDERABAD
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal held that since the assessee did not claim any deduction for interest paid on supplier's credit and had no revenue from operations, the AO could not make any addition based on Transfer Pricing adjustment for this item. Consequently, the addition of Rs. 2,52,454/- was vacated.
What were the facts?
The assessee company, engaged in solar energy, filed its return for AY 2020-21. The case was selected for scrutiny, and the Assessing Officer (AO) made a reference to the Transfer Pricing Officer (TPO) regarding international transactions.
What were the issues?
Whether transfer pricing adjustments for interest on supplier's credit are valid when no deduction for such interest was claimed by the assessee and the assessee had no revenue from operations. Also, issues related to set-off of losses and computation of book profits were raised.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
Section 143(3),Section 144C(13),Section 144B,Section 92CA,Section 92(1),Section 115JB,Section 234A,Section 234B,Section 234C,Section 270A
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Cases cited in this judgment(4)Show listHide list
Detected automatically from the text. Citations are also linked where they appear in the judgment. The count shows how many other judgments on BharatTax rely on the same authority.
- CIT v. Cotton Naturals (I) (P.) Ltd.273 citing231 Taxmann 401 · 2015 · HC · Read judgment
- CIT v. Tata Autocomp Systems Ltd.119 citing230 Taxmann 649 · 2015
- PCIT v. India Debt Management (P) Ltd.8 citing106 Taxmann.com 55 · 2019 · HC
- Hyderabad Infra Tech Pvt. Limited v. DCIT6 citing171 Taxmann.com 385 · 2025
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Hyderabad ‘B’ Bench, Hyderabad
प्रनत रवीश सूद, जे.एम./PER RAVISH SOOD, J.M.
The present appeal filed by the assessee company is directed against the order passed by the Assessing Officer (“the AO”) u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 144C(13) read with section 144B of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (“the Act”) dated 20.12.2023. The assessee has assailed the impugned order on the following g
The order continues below.
Read the full judgment
A free account opens 10 full judgments a month. Re-reading one you have already opened does not count again.
The summary, the parties, the sections and the citations above are open to everyone and always will be. Only the text of the order and the PDF are metered.
More judgments on Section 144C(13)
- Gillette India Limited, Mumbai vs Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, JaipurITA 1316/JPR/2026[2018-19]Status: Disposed16 Oct 2026AY 2018-19
- Autoform Sales Gmbh, Hyderabad vs ADIT (International Taxation) - 1, HyderabadITA 486/HYD/2026[2023-24]Status: Disposed16 Oct 2026AY 2023-24
- Autoform Sales Gmbh, Hyderabad vs ADIT (International Taxation) - 1, HyderabadITA 498/HYD/2025[2022-23]Status: Disposed16 Oct 2026AY 2022-23
- Cornerstone Ondemand International Limited… vs Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax…ITA 2128/MUM/2025[2022-23]Status: Disposed16 Oct 2026AY 2022-23
- Cornerstone Ondemand International Limited… vs Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax…ITA 4558/MUM/2023[2021-22]Status: Disposed16 Oct 2026AY 2021-22
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- M/S Hindustan Coca-Cola Beverages PVT. LTD. vs. The Commissioner, CGST And Cx, Dibrugarh And AnrGauhati · 14 Oct 2026
- M/S Shree Sushruta Health Services Private Limited vs. The Union Of INDIAPatna · 14 Oct 2026
- M/S Rst Batteries vs. Deputy Commissioner CGST Delhi West & Ors.Delhi · 14 Oct 2026
- Dr.Sunil Kumar Padhi vs. The Chief Commissioner, GST And Central Excise, BhubaneswarOrissa · 14 Oct 2026
- N.K Fashion Through It Proprietor Mr. Narender Agarwal vs. Assistant Commissioner Of Central Goods And Service Tax, Delhi EastDelhi · 14 Oct 2026