HAMMOND POWER SOLUTIONS PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT, CIRCLE 2(1), HYDERABAD
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal held that the assessee failed to provide sufficient evidence to substantiate the actual rendering of services or the economic benefit derived. The Service Agreement lacked specific deliverables and cost allocation details, and the email correspondences were not contemporaneous or specific enough. The visits by foreign personnel were of supervisory nature and of short duration, insufficient to prove actual service delivery.
What were the facts?
The assessee, Hammond Power Solutions Private Limited, is aggrieved by the final assessment order determining the Arms Length Price (ALP) for technical and stewardship services as Nil. The Assessing Officer (AO) made an upward adjustment of Rs. 1,32,90,250/- based on the directions of the Dispute Resolution Panel (DRP).
What were the issues?
Whether the assessee provided sufficient evidence to prove the rendering of technical and stewardship services to warrant an adjustment to the Arms Length Price, or if the determination of ALP as Nil by the AO/TPO was justified due to lack of substantiating documentation.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Cases cited in this judgment(3)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. EKL Appliances Ltd.422 citing24 Taxmann.com 199 · 2012 · HC · Read judgment
- DIT v. Meenakshi Amma Endowment Trust5 citing143 Taxmann.com 143 · 2022
- Henkel Chembond Surface Technologies Ltd. v. ACIT4 citing125 Taxmann.com 65 · 2021 · ITAT
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, HYDERABAD BENCHES “B”, HYDERABAD
Before: SHRI VIJAY PAL RAO, HON’BLE & SHRI MADHUSUDAN SAWDIA, HON’BLE ACCOUNTANT
आदेशकी प्रतितिति अग्रेतिि/ Copy of the order forwarded to:-
1. 1. तिर्धारििी/The Assessee : Hammod Power Solutions Private Limited, Hyderabad. C/o.Prasad and Prasad, Chartered Accountants, Flat No.301, M.J. Towers, H.No.8-2- 698, Road No.12, Banjara Hills, Hyderabad. 2. िधजस्व/ The Revenue : The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 2(1), Hyderabad.
3. The Principal Commissioner of Income Tax (Central), Hyderabad.
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 →- Saraswati Phukan vs. The Union Of INDIA And 4 OrsGauhati · 14 Oct 2026
- Sanjay Maheshwari vs. Union Of INDIA & Ors.Delhi · 14 Oct 2026
- Sanjay Maheshwari vs. Union Of INDIA & Ors.Delhi · 14 Oct 2026
- Iyyanan Eswaran vs. The Appellate Deputy Commissioner (St) (GST)Madras · 14 Oct 2026
- M/S Dc Security Services vs. Commissioner Of Central Goods And Services TaxUttarakhand · 14 Oct 2026