ADP PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD, TELANGANA vs. DCIT., CIRCLE 1(1), HYDERABAD, TELANGANA

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed in terms of our observations given hereinabove

Bench: SHRI VIJAY PAL RAO, HON’BLE (Vice President), SHRI MANJUNATHA G, HON’BLE (Accountant Member)

144C(13) read with section 144B of the Act, dated 06 December 2024 is illegal and void in as much as it is barred by limitation as the order is passed beyond the time limit prescribed under section 153 of the Act and therefore the order, is liable to be set aside. Grounds relating to corporate tax: 2. Ground

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

Bench: Shri Manjunatha G.\Nand\Nshri Ravish Sood\Nआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.917/Hyd/2024\N(निर्धारण वर्ष/Assessment Year:2020-21)\Nshakti Hormann Private\Nlimited,\Nhyderabad.\Nvs. Dcit,\Ncircle-3(1),\Nhyderabad.\Npan: Aadcs4024Q\N(Appellant)\N(Respondent)\Nनिर्धारिती द्वारा / Assessee By: Shri P. Murali Mohan Rao,\Nca\Nराजस्व द्वारा / Revenue By: Ms. U. Mini Chandran,\Ncit-Dr\Nसुनवाई की तारीख /Date Of Hearing: 15/10/2025\Nघोषणा की तारीख / Date Of 19/12/2025\Npronouncement:\Nआदेश / Order\Nper. Ravish Sood, J.M:\Nthe Present Appeal Filed By The Assessee Company Is Directed\Nagainst The Final Assessment Order Passed By The Assessing Officer (For\Nshort, “A.O.”) Under Section 143(3) R.W.S 144C(13) R.W.S 144B Of The\Nincome Tax Act, 1961 (For Short, “The Act”) Dated 25/07/2024 For The\N Assessment Year (Ay) 2020-21. The Assessee Company Has Assailed\Nthe Impugned Order Passed By The Cit(A) On The Following Grounds Of\Nappeal Before Us:\N1. On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case, The Final Assessment\Norder Passed U/S 143(3) R.W.S.144C(13) Of The Act Dated 25.07.2024 By\Nthe Ao & Also The Order Passed U/S 92Ca (3) Dt 30.07.2023 By The Tpo\Nare Bad In The Eyes Of Law & Thus, Unsustainable To The Test Of Appeal.\N2.0 The Final Assessment Order Passed U/S 143(3) R.W.S.144C(13) R.W.S.144B\Nis Beyond The Time Limit Prescribed U/S 153 Of The Act.\N2.

TDS related\ndisallowances; and (vii) prior year adjustments. After necessary\nverifications, the AO accepted the assessee's explanation on the issues\nother than the TP adjustment that was suggested by the TPO.\n6. The AO thereafter issued a draft assessment order under section\n144C(1) of the Act, dated 26/09/2023, wherein, after incorporating the\nTP adjustments, he proposed to assess

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

TDS, without appreciating fact that, the payments are not taxable in India under the provisions of respective tax treaties. 7.2. That on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. AO/DRP erred in not appreciating the fact that, by applying most favoured nation clause as contained in India Netherlands tax treaty and by accessing India-Finland

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

TDS, without appreciating fact that, the payments are not taxable in India under the provisions of respective tax treaties. 7.2. That on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. AO/DRP erred in not appreciating the fact that, by applying most favoured nation clause as contained in India Netherlands tax treaty and by accessing India-Finland

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

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 Panel ("DRP") has erred

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

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 Panel ("DRP") has erred

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.:

b) of sub-section (15) of section 144C of the Act, the Learned Assessing Officer (“Ld. AO”) passed a draft assessment order under section 144C(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

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

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

PRAKASH KANYADARA,VIJAYAWADA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER (INT TAXN)-1, HYDERABAD

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

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

b) of section 148A of the Act of the amended law and directed the Assessing Officers to follow the procedure with respect to such notices. Central Board of Direct Taxes (CBDT) also issued instruction No. 01/2022 on 11/05/2022, and as a part of the procedure, the Assessing Officers are required to furnish the information and material relied upon for issuance

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

15 which held that adjustments made under section 143(1) of the Act can only be appealed before the ld. Commissioner (Appeals), not the DRP. 33.3 However, we are of the considered view that such a mechanical segregation between proceedings under sections 143(1) and 143(3) of the Act ignores the principle of merger of orders. In our considered

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

Bench: Us :

TDS relating to Section 195. 3 3. During the course of assessment proceedings, the A.O. observed that the assessee had, during the subject year, sold two immovable properties, on which Long Term Capital Gain aggregating to Rs. 13,18,002/-, viz. (i). Property - I: Rs. 55,887/- and (ii). Property – II: Rs.12,62,115/- was disclosed in his return

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

CYIENT LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT., CIRCLE-1(1), HYDERABAD

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

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao, Hon’Ble & Shri G. Manjunatha, Hon’Bleassessment Year: 2021-22 Cyient Limited, Vs. The Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle 1 (1), Hyderabad. Hyderabad. Apn : Aaac14887J

B” , HYDERABAD BEFORE SHRI VIJAY PAL RAO, HON’BLE VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI G. MANJUNATHA, HON’BLE ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Assessment Year: 2021-22 CYIENT LIMITED, Vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 1 (1), Hyderabad. Hyderabad. APN : AAAC14887J (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by: Shri Vijay Mehta, CA and Shri K. Abhiram, C.A. Revenue by: Shri L.V. Bhaskara Reddy

KNR CONSTRUCTIONS LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(2), HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed

15,96,857/-) for a value\nof Rs 165,45,17,014/- (Rupees One Hundred Sixty Five Crores Forty Five Lacs\nSeventeen Thousand and Fourteen Only)i.e.first party's share of contract price less 5%\n(Five percent) which includes income tax TDS on the gross value of the work done on\nFirst Party's share. The First party shall

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

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee for both the assessment years 2017-18 and 2018-19 are partly allowed

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Manjunatha G.आ.अपी.सं /Ita-Tp No.451/Hyd/2022 & 452/Hyd/2022 (निर्धारण वर्ा/Assessment Year: 2017-18 & 2018-19) Shakti Hormann Private Vs. Asst.Commissioner Of Limited Income Tax Hyderabad Circle-3(1) [Pan : Aadcs4024Q] Hyderabad (Appellant) (Respondent) निर्धाररती द्वधरध/Assessee By: Shri P.Murali Mohan Rao, Ar रधजस् व द्वधरध/Revenue By: Shri B.Bala Krishna, Cit-Dr सुिवधई की तधरीख/Date Of Hearing: 15/04/2025 घोर्णध की तधरीख/ 21/04/2025 Date Of Pronouncement: आदेश / Order Per Vijay Pal Rao: These Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Directed Against The Assessment Orders Dated 21.07.2022 & 28.07.2022 Passed U/S 143(3) R.W.S. 144C(13) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (“The Act”) In Pursuant To The Directions Of The Dispute Resolution Panel (“The Drp”) U/S 144C(5) Of The Act For The Assessment Year 2017-18 & 2018-19 Respectively. 2. For The Assessment Year 2017-18, The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal :

TDS, disallowance is not justified. Accordingly, we allow the ground raised by the assessee.” 17. Thus, it is clear that a consistent view has been taken by the Tribunal on the point that when the payment is made as per the legally binding agreement between the parties, which is duly approved by the RBI for the purpose of remittance

SANGHI INDUSTRIES LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT, CIRCLE -3 (1), HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar & Shri Madhusudan Sawdia

TDS to the tune of Rs. 30,211/- without assigning any reasons therefor. 10. The appellant craves leave to add, amend or alter any of the grounds during the course of hearing.” 2. Brief facts of the case are that the assessee-company is engaged in manufacturing of Clinker and Ordinary Portland Cement. The assessee, being the third largest cement

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