SHAKTI HORMANN PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-3(1), HYDERABAD

Bench: Shri Manjunatha G. & Shri Ravish Soodआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.917/Hyd/2024 (निर्धारण वर्ष/Assessment Year:2020-21) Shakti Hormann Private Limited, Hyderabad. Vs. Dcit, Circle-3(1), Hyderabad. Pan: Aadcs4024Q (Appellant) (Respondent) निर्धारिती द्वारा / Assessee By: Shri P. Murali Mohan Rao, Ca राजस्व द्वारा / Revenue By: Ms. U. Mini Chandran, Cit-Dr सुनवाई की तारीख /Date Of Hearing: 15/10/2025 घोषणा की तारीख / Date Of 19/12/2025 Pronouncement: आदेश / Order Per. Ravish Sood, J.M: The Present Appeal Filed By The Assessee Company Is Directed Against The Final Assessment Order Passed By The Assessing Officer (For Short, “A.O.”) Under Section 143(3) R.W.S 144C(13) R.W.S 144B Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (For Short, “The Act”) Dated 25/07/2024 For The

TDS related disallowances; and (vii) prior year adjustments. After necessary verifications, the AO accepted the assessee's explanation on the issues other than the TP adjustment that was suggested by the TPO. 6. The AO thereafter issued a draft assessment order under section 144C(1

DR. REDDYS, LABORATORIES LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-8(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, both the appeals of the Assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Manjunatha G.आ.अपी.सं /Ita Nos.490 & 491/Hyd/2022 Assessment Years 2017-2018 & 2018-2019 Dr. Reddy’S Laboratories Limited, Hyderabad. The Acit, Vs. Pin – 500 034. Circle-8(1), Hyderabad – Telangana. 500 084. Pan Aaacd7999Q (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा"रती "ारा /Assessee By: Ca Padamchand Khincha राज" व "ारा /Revenue By: Ms. U Mini Chandran, Cit-Dr

144C(5) of the Act and read with order dated 11 July 2022 issued by Transfer Pricing Officer (TPO) u/s 92CA of the Act, in so far as it is prejudicial to the Appellant, is contrary to law, facts and circumstances of the case. Transfer Pricing Adjustment 2. That on the facts and circumstances of the case

DR. REDDYS, LABORATORIES LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-8(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, both the appeals of the Assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Manjunatha G.आ.अपी.सं /Ita Nos.490 & 491/Hyd/2022 Assessment Years 2017-2018 & 2018-2019 Dr. Reddy’S Laboratories Limited, Hyderabad. The Acit, Vs. Pin – 500 034. Circle-8(1), Hyderabad – Telangana. 500 084. Pan Aaacd7999Q (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा"रती "ारा /Assessee By: Ca Padamchand Khincha राज" व "ारा /Revenue By: Ms. U Mini Chandran, Cit-Dr

144C(5) of the Act and read with order dated 11 July 2022 issued by Transfer Pricing Officer (TPO) u/s 92CA of the Act, in so far as it is prejudicial to the Appellant, is contrary to law, facts and circumstances of the case. Transfer Pricing Adjustment 2. That on the facts and circumstances of the case

F5 NETWORKS INNOVATION PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-17(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Madhusudan Sawdia

TDS, or self-assessment tax discrepancies. 25.1 The taxpayer is notified of any adjustments via an intimation under section 143(1) of the Act, and they are given an opportunity to respond before any demand is raised. 25.2 However, an intimation under Section 143(1) is not an assessment. It is merely a preliminary check of the return filed

EPAM SYSTEMS INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT, CIRCLE -8 (1), HYDERABAD

In the result, both the appeals of the Assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Manjunatha G.आ.अपी.सं /Ita Nos.83 & 498/Hyd/2022 Assessment Years 2017-2018 & 2018-2019 Epam Systems India The Dcit & The Acit, Private Limited, Vs. Circle-8(1), Hyderabad – 500 081 Hyderabad. Pan Aaacw2012R (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा"रती "ारा /Assessee By: Ca Shreyas Sardesai राज" व "ारा /Revenue By: Ms U Mini Chandran, Cit-Dr

section 143(3) r.w.s. 144C(13) r.w.s. 1448 of the Income tax Act, 1961 ("the Act"), for the aforesaid assessment year on the following among other grounds 1:0 Transfer Pricing Adjustment of INR 16,86,23,336/- to the international transaction relating to Software development segment 1:1 The learned Assessing Officer ("AO")/ Transfer Pricing Officer ("TPO")/ Dispute Resolution

EPAM SYSTEMS INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-8(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, both the appeals of the Assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Manjunatha G.आ.अपी.सं /Ita Nos.83 & 498/Hyd/2022 Assessment Years 2017-2018 & 2018-2019 Epam Systems India The Dcit & The Acit, Private Limited, Vs. Circle-8(1), Hyderabad – 500 081 Hyderabad. Pan Aaacw2012R (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा"रती "ारा /Assessee By: Ca Shreyas Sardesai राज" व "ारा /Revenue By: Ms U Mini Chandran, Cit-Dr

section 143(3) r.w.s. 144C(13) r.w.s. 1448 of the Income tax Act, 1961 ("the Act"), for the aforesaid assessment year on the following among other grounds 1:0 Transfer Pricing Adjustment of INR 16,86,23,336/- to the international transaction relating to Software development segment 1:1 The learned Assessing Officer ("AO")/ Transfer Pricing Officer ("TPO")/ Dispute Resolution

CONCENTRIX CATALYST TECHNOLOGIES PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT., CIRCLE - 1(1), HYDERABAD

144C(5) of the Act inter-alia on the following grounds which are without prejudice to each other. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Hon'ble DRP, the learned AO and Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax, DC/ACIT TP 1, Hyderabad ("learned TPO") have: GENERAL 1. erred in determining the income

BA CONTINUUM INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT., CIRCLE-1(1), HYDERABAD

Bench: SHRI RAVISH SOOD, HON'BLE (Judicial Member), SHRI MADHUSUDAN SAWDIA HON'BLE (Accountant Member)

TDS), i.e., in the violation of the provisions of section 195(1) of the Act which attracted the provisions of section 40(a)(ia) of the Act; and (ii) and though the assessee company had during the subject year carried out international transactions with its Associated Enterprises (AEs) of Rs.23,97,35,320/-, but the AO in the course

OPTUM GLOBAL SOLUTIONS (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT CIRCLE -5(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, both the appeals of assessee are partly allowed

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri K. Narasimha Chary

1), [PAN No. AAACQ2188G] Hyderabad अपीलार्थीर्थी / Appellant प्रत्‍यर्थी / Respondent निर्धारितीती द्वारा / Assessee by: Shri Nageswar Rao, AR राजस्‍वजस्‍व द्वारा Shri K. Madhusudan, CIT-DR / Revenue by: सुनवाई ई की तारीखरीख/Date of hearing: 08/08/2023 घोषणा की तारीखरीख/Pronouncement on: 16/08/2023 आदेश / ORDER PER K. NARASIMHA CHARY, JM: Aggrieved by the final assessment orders passed consequent to the directions

OPTUM GLOBAL SOLUTIONS (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT, CIRCLE -5(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, both the appeals of assessee are partly allowed

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri K. Narasimha Chary

1), [PAN No. AAACQ2188G] Hyderabad अपीलार्थीर्थी / Appellant प्रत्‍यर्थी / Respondent निर्धारितीती द्वारा / Assessee by: Shri Nageswar Rao, AR राजस्‍वजस्‍व द्वारा Shri K. Madhusudan, CIT-DR / Revenue by: सुनवाई ई की तारीखरीख/Date of hearing: 08/08/2023 घोषणा की तारीखरीख/Pronouncement on: 16/08/2023 आदेश / ORDER PER K. NARASIMHA CHARY, JM: Aggrieved by the final assessment orders passed consequent to the directions

RAIN CEMENTS LIMITED, HYD,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-3(1), HYDERABAD, HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri K. Narasimha Charyassessment Year: 2008-09 M/S. Rain Cements Ltd Vs. Dy. Commissioner Of (Formerly Known As Rain Income Tax, Circle 3 (1) Cii Carbon (India) Ltd Hyderabad Hyderabad Pan:Aabcr8858F (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Advocate Prathishta Singh & Advocate Deepak Chopra Revenue By: Dr.Rajendra Kumar, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing: 20/03/2023 Date Of Pronouncement: 31/05/2023 Order Per R.K. Panda, A.M This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Final Assessment Order Dated 24.03.2017 Passed U/S 143(3) R.W.S. 144C(5) R.W.S. 260 Of The I.T. Act For The A.Y 2008-09. 2. This Appeal Was Earlier Decided By The Tribunal Vide Order Dated 18.10.2019. Subsequently Vide Ma No.15/Hyd/2020, Dated 23.3.2021, The Tribunal Recalled The Entire Order For Fresh Adjudication. Therefore, This Is A Recalled Matter.

144C(5) r.w.s. 260 of the I.T. Act for the A.Y 2008-09. 2. This appeal was earlier decided by the Tribunal vide order dated 18.10.2019. Subsequently vide MA No.15/Hyd/2020, dated 23.3.2021, the Tribunal recalled the entire order for fresh adjudication. Therefore, this is a recalled matter. Page 1 of 35 ITA No 864 of 2017 Rain Cements Ltd Hyderabad

NIPPON KOEI CO. LTD.,BEGUMPET vs. ADIT (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION)- 2, HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Ravish Sooda N D Shri Madhusudan Sawdiaआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.670/Hyd/2023 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2021-22) M/S Nippon Koei Co. Ltd Vs. Adit (International Hyderabad Taxation)-2, Pan:Aabcn8434F Hyderabad (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: Shri Gsv Prasad, Anand Swaroop & S K Mohanty, Cas राज" व "ारा/Revenue By:: Smt. U. Mini Chandran, Cit(Dr) सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 27/10/2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 21/11/2025 आदेश/Order Per Madhusudan Sawdia, A.M.:

1) of the Act on 31.12.2022 proposing a total addition of Rs.3,47,02,323/-. 4. Against the draft order of the Ld. AO, the assessee filed its objections before the Learned Dispute Resolution Panel (“Ld. DRP”). The Ld. DRP issued its directions under section 144C(5) of the Act on 28.09.2023. Pursuant thereto, the Ld. AO passed the final

PRASANTH NANDANURU,HYDERABAD vs. ITO, (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION)-2, HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri K.Narasimha Chary

144C(13) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short “the Act”), consequent to the directions of Hon'ble Dispute Resolution Panel, Bengaluru (“DRP”), assessee filed this appeal. 2. Assessee is an individual. He was an employee of Wells Fargo (EGS) India Pvt. Ltd (“Wells India”) and was sent on short-term assignment to ITA-IT No. 369/Hyd/2022 Wells Fargo

ITO (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION)-1, HYDERAABAD vs. DEENABABU KONDUBHATLA, HYDERABAD

Bench: Us :

Section 143(3) r.w.s. 144C(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, (for short “the Act”) dated 24-05-2024. The Revenue has assailed the impugned order on the following grounds of appeal before us : “1. The Ld. CIT(Appeals) erred both in law and on facts of the case in setting aside the assessment order passed by the Assessing

CATERPILLAR GLOBAL MINING EUROPE GMBH,PEDDAPALLI vs. ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION)-1, HYDERABAD

Appeals are partly allowed

Bench: Shri S.S. Godara & Shri L. P. Sahu

144C of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘the Act’); respectively. Heard both the parties. Case files perused. 2. We first come to the assessee's common substantive grounds in all these cases challenging correctness of the learned lower authorities’ action taxing its income from off- shore supplies; involving varying sums; respectively. We deem it appropriate at this stage to reproduce

CSATERRPILLAR GLOBAL MINING EUROPE GMBH,GODAVARIKHANI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-I (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION), HYDERABAD

Appeals are partly allowed

Bench: Shri S.S. Godara & Shri L. P. Sahu

144C of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘the Act’); respectively. Heard both the parties. Case files perused. 2. We first come to the assessee's common substantive grounds in all these cases challenging correctness of the learned lower authorities’ action taxing its income from off- shore supplies; involving varying sums; respectively. We deem it appropriate at this stage to reproduce

CATTERPILLAR MINING EUROPE GMBH-INDIA PROJECT OFFICE, KARIMNAGAR,KARIMNAGAR vs. DCIT-1, INTERNATIONAL TAXATION, HYDERABAD, HYDERABAD

Appeals are partly allowed

Bench: Shri S.S. Godara & Shri L. P. Sahu

144C of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘the Act’); respectively. Heard both the parties. Case files perused. 2. We first come to the assessee's common substantive grounds in all these cases challenging correctness of the learned lower authorities’ action taxing its income from off- shore supplies; involving varying sums; respectively. We deem it appropriate at this stage to reproduce

CATERPILLAR GLOBAL MINING EUROPE GMBH,PEDDAPALLI vs. ASSISTANT OF INCOME TAX -1,INTERNATIONAL TAXATION ,HYDERABAD, HYDERABAD

Appeals are partly allowed

Bench: Shri S.S. Godara & Shri L. P. Sahu

144C of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘the Act’); respectively. Heard both the parties. Case files perused. 2. We first come to the assessee's common substantive grounds in all these cases challenging correctness of the learned lower authorities’ action taxing its income from off- shore supplies; involving varying sums; respectively. We deem it appropriate at this stage to reproduce