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

MADHUCON PROJECTS LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT., CENTRAL CIRCLE-3, HYDERABAD, HYDERABAD

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Laliet Kumar

section 143(3) r/w 153A on 31.03.2013 for the A.Y. 2005-06 and 2006-07. However, in both the orders, the Assessing Officer has not given any deduction claimed by the assessee. In the assessment order dt.31.03.2013 mentioned as under : “Search and seizure operations u/s. 132 of the I.T. Act, 1961 were carried out in the case of M/.s. Madhucon

MADHUCON PROJECTS LTD, HYDERABAD,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3, HYD, HYDERABAD

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Laliet Kumar

section 143(3) r/w 153A on 31.03.2013 for the A.Y. 2005-06 and 2006-07. However, in both the orders, the Assessing Officer has not given any deduction claimed by the assessee. In the assessment order dt.31.03.2013 mentioned as under : “Search and seizure operations u/s. 132 of the I.T. Act, 1961 were carried out in the case of M/.s. Madhucon

MADHUCON PROJECTS LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT., CENTRAL CIRCLE-3, HYDERABAD, HYDERABAD

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Laliet Kumar

section 143(3) r/w 153A on 31.03.2013 for the A.Y. 2005-06 and 2006-07. However, in both the orders, the Assessing Officer has not given any deduction claimed by the assessee. In the assessment order dt.31.03.2013 mentioned as under : “Search and seizure operations u/s. 132 of the I.T. Act, 1961 were carried out in the case of M/.s. Madhucon

DEMI REALTORS,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-6(1), HYDERABAD

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

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Laliet Kumar

234B of the Act in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the present case, deserves to be deleted. We, accordingly, delete the addition.” 6.4. In view of the above, we are of the opinion that the assessee was able to prove his case that the admitted tax liability was already paid by the assessee / adjusted by the Revenue and therefore

ADP PRIVATE LIMITED,RANGA REDDY vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-1( 1), HYDERABAD

In the result, both the appeals are partly allowed for statistical purposes in above terms

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

3,08,07,638 available to the Appellant, thereby resulting in short grant of credit of TDS of INR 2,389. :- 9 -: ITA Nos..227 & 228/Hyd/2021 ADP Pvt. Ltd., Hyd. 23. On the facts and circumstance of the case and in law, the ld. AO erred by granting credit of advance tax of INR 28,30,00,000 as against

ADP PRIVATE LIMITED (31/10/2015),RANGA REDDY vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-1( 1), HYDERABAD

In the result, both the appeals are partly allowed for statistical purposes in above terms

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

3,08,07,638 available to the Appellant, thereby resulting in short grant of credit of TDS of INR 2,389. :- 9 -: ITA Nos..227 & 228/Hyd/2021 ADP Pvt. Ltd., Hyd. 23. On the facts and circumstance of the case and in law, the ld. AO erred by granting credit of advance tax of INR 28,30,00,000 as against

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

TDS short credit and interest under section 234B and 234C of the Act. Apart from these, there were certain other issues including the transfer pricing adjustment qua the provision of IT services. 3

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

TDS short credit and interest under section 234B and 234C of the Act. Apart from these, there were certain other issues including the transfer pricing adjustment qua the provision of IT services. 3

ACIT, CIRLCE-5 (1), , HYDERABAD vs. MARKET TOOLS RESEARCH PRIVATE LIMITED , HYDERABAD

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar, Hon’Ble & Shri Manjunatha G, Hon’Ble

234B of the Act on: a. TP adjustment on provision of IT Enabled Services ; and b. TP adjustment arising on account of retrospective amendment to the section 92C(2) 15. Initiating the penalty proceedings u/s 271(1(C) of the Act. 16. Initiating penalty proceedings u/s 271BA and u/s 271AA.” 2.1. Additional grounds raised by the assessee

MACROMILL RESEARCH INDIA LLP (FORMERLY MARKET TOOLS RESEARCH P. LTD.,),HYDERABAD vs. ACIT, CIRLCE-16(2), , HYDERABAD

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar, Hon’Ble & Shri Manjunatha G, Hon’Ble

234B of the Act on: a. TP adjustment on provision of IT Enabled Services ; and b. TP adjustment arising on account of retrospective amendment to the section 92C(2) 15. Initiating the penalty proceedings u/s 271(1(C) of the Act. 16. Initiating penalty proceedings u/s 271BA and u/s 271AA.” 2.1. Additional grounds raised by the assessee

MACROMILL RESEARCH INDIA LLP (FORMERLY MARKET TOOLS RESEARCH PRIVATE LIMITED),HYDERABAD vs. ACIT., CIRCLE-16(2), , HYDERABAD

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar, Hon’Ble & Shri Manjunatha G, Hon’Ble

234B of the Act on: a. TP adjustment on provision of IT Enabled Services ; and b. TP adjustment arising on account of retrospective amendment to the section 92C(2) 15. Initiating the penalty proceedings u/s 271(1(C) of the Act. 16. Initiating penalty proceedings u/s 271BA and u/s 271AA.” 2.1. Additional grounds raised by the assessee

ACIT., CIRCLE-5(1) , HYDERABAD vs. MARKET TOOLS & RESEARCH PRIVATE LIMITED, HYDERABAD

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar, Hon’Ble & Shri Manjunatha G, Hon’Ble

234B of the Act on: a. TP adjustment on provision of IT Enabled Services ; and b. TP adjustment arising on account of retrospective amendment to the section 92C(2) 15. Initiating the penalty proceedings u/s 271(1(C) of the Act. 16. Initiating penalty proceedings u/s 271BA and u/s 271AA.” 2.1. Additional grounds raised by the assessee

PURPLETALK INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX ,CIRCLE-9(1), HYDERABAD

section 92C(3) of the Act, if the\nTPO finds that the price charged or paid in an international\ntransaction has not been determined in accordance with\nsecs.(1) and (2) or any information and document relating to\n16\nITA.No.193/Hyd./2021\nan international transaction have not been kept and\nmaintained by the assessee-company in accordance with\nthe provisions

MICROSOFT GLOBAL SERVICES CENTRE (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-5(1), HYDERABAD

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

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Laliet Kumar

TDS credit. 5. That on the facts and in law, on disposal of this appeal material adjustment would be required in computing total income, tax, interest under section 234B of the Act. Necessary directions may please be given to the Ld. AO in this regard.” 12. At the time of argument, the assessee has only restricted his above argument

ACIT., CIRCLE-6(1), HYDERABAD vs. PATEL SEW JOINTVENTURE, HYDERABAD

In the result, the cross-objection filed by the assessee is dismissed

234B of the Act. 5) On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Learned A.O. erred in charging interest u/s 234C of the Act.” 3. The brief facts of the case are that, the assessee is a Joint Venture between M/s. Patel Engineering Ltd. and M/s. SEW Infrastructure Ltd., executing infrastructure project for Narmada Valley Development

PATEL SEW JOINT VENTURE,TELANGANA vs. DCIT., CIRCLE-6(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, the cross-objection filed by the assessee is dismissed

234B of the Act. 5) On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Learned A.O. erred in charging interest u/s 234C of the Act.” 3. The brief facts of the case are that, the assessee is a Joint Venture between M/s. Patel Engineering Ltd. and M/s. SEW Infrastructure Ltd., executing infrastructure project for Narmada Valley Development

SUSHEE INFRA & MINING LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT., CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(2), HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is partly\nallowed for statistical purposes

3) of the Act are satisfied in the present case.\ne. disregarding the arm's length price ('ALP\") as determined\nby the Assessee in the Transfer Pricing (TP) documentation\nmaintained in terms of section 92D of the Act read with\nRule 100 of the Income-tax Rules, 1962 ('Rules').\nf. modifying the comparability analysis in the TP\ndocumentation