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

5. The AO further examined various corporate tax issues pursuant to the notices issued under section 142(1) of the Act. In response, the assessee company furnished explanations, supporting documents regarding the aforementioned multi-facet issues, viz., (i) reversal of provisions; (ii) deduction under section 43B of the Act; (iii) other income; (iv) sales commission; (v) Government grants; (vi) TDS

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

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

TDS credit amounting to INR 6,360 appearing in the Form 26AS as per the OGE dated 07 February 2024 pursuant to the order of Hon'ble CIT(A). 19. erred in levying interest under section 234C of the Act in the impugned order. 20. erred in initiating penalty proceedings under section 270A of the Act against the Appellant without

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

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.:

144C(13) of the Act on 31.10.2023, making the additions on account of Disallowance of interest paid under section 201(1A) of the Act of Rs.2,10,265/-, Disallowance of lead role expenditure of Rs.19,58,509/-, Disallowance of payment made to M/s. Antony Burchell of Rs. 3,08,08,089/-, Disallowance under section 44DA

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

144C(13) r.w.s. 144B of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short “the Act”) assessee filed these appeals. For the sake of convenience, we dispose of these appeals by this common order, taking appeal for the assessment year 2017-18 as a lead case. ITA-TP Nos. 145 & 482/Hyd/2022 2. Briefly stated relevant facts are that the name

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

144C(13) r.w.s. 144B of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short “the Act”) assessee filed these appeals. For the sake of convenience, we dispose of these appeals by this common order, taking appeal for the assessment year 2017-18 as a lead case. ITA-TP Nos. 145 & 482/Hyd/2022 2. Briefly stated relevant facts are that the name

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

144C of the Act. 33.5 Moreover, the disallowance of gratuity expenses was factually and legally flawed. Section 43B allows deduction for gratuity expenses paid before the due date of filing return under section 139(1) of the Act. The assessee has provided evidence that the payment was made on 15th September 2020, i.e., before the due date, and the same

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)

5. Thereafter, the AO observed based on the facts, viz., (i) that the assessee company had reimbursed some expenses of Rs.6,54,33,770/- to M/s. Countrywide Finance Corporation and M/s. CW(UK) Services without any deduction of tax at source (TDS), i.e., in the violation of the provisions of section 195(1) of the Act which attracted the provisions

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

144C of the Act on 31/03/2022 proposing an addition Rs. 1,62,16,300/-, treating the cash deposits in the assessee’s account as un-explained money under section 69 of the Act. Assessee expressed his willingness to prefer an appeal before the learned CIT(A) and, therefore, the learned Assessing Officer has to pass the final assessment order

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

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

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 :

5. Erred in upheld the addition of relating to disallowance of Rs.6,10,401/- towards Income credited to Profit and Loss account which is exempt shown in ITR. 5.1. The Ld. AO has erred in not following the directions of the Disputed Resolution Panel (‘DRP’) while passing the final assessment order; is a clear violation of provisions of section 144C

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

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed

144C(13) of the Act on 29.07.2022, making an addition of Rs.36,77,04,171/-, thereby determining the total assessed income of the assessee at Rs.94,76,61,851/-. 4. Aggrieved with the order of the Ld. AO, the assessee is in appeal before this Tribunal. At the outset, the Learned Authorized Representative (“Ld. AR”) submitted that the solitary issue

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

144C(13) read with section 144B of the Act dated 03.10.2024 relating to A.Y.2021-22. 2 2. The grounds raised by the assessee read as under : 1) The order passed by the Ld. A.O./DRP is bad in law, illegal and non-est. 2) The Ld. TPO/DRP/A.O. has erred in not accepting the characterization of the assessee as software development provider