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

TDS on ESOP is an international transaction with its AE which was not at arm's length. 4:2 The Appellant submits that considering the facts and circumstances of its case and the law prevailing on the subject the international transactions relating to recovery of expenses were at arm's length and hence no adjustment in respect thereof was called

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

TDS on ESOP is an international transaction with its AE which was not at arm's length. 4:2 The Appellant submits that considering the facts and circumstances of its case and the law prevailing on the subject the international transactions relating to recovery of expenses were at arm's length and hence no adjustment in respect thereof was called

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

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

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed in\nterms of our aforesaid observations

TDS credit amounting to INR 6,360 appearing in the Form 26AS as per the\nOGE dated 07 February 2024 pursuant to the order of Hon'ble CIT(A).\n19. erred in levying interest under section 234C of the Act in the impugned order.\n20. erred in initiating penalty proceedings under section 270A of the Act against the Appellant without

BHUPAL INFRASTRUCTURE PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT., CENTRAL CIRCLE -1(2), HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee for A

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

Section 40(a)(ia) of the Act, for non-deduction of TDS on payment made to subcontractors, advertisement expenses, interest on TDS. The A.O. disallowed 30% of expenditure incurred towards subcontract payment of Rs. 41,90,848/- and made addition of Rs. 12,57,254/-. Similarly, the A.O. has made addition of Rs. 45,000/- @ 30% of advertisement expenses

BHUPAL INFRASTRUCTURE PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT., CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(2), HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee for A

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

Section 40(a)(ia) of the Act, for non-deduction of TDS on payment made to subcontractors, advertisement expenses, interest on TDS. The A.O. disallowed 30% of expenditure incurred towards subcontract payment of Rs. 41,90,848/- and made addition of Rs. 12,57,254/-. Similarly, the A.O. has made addition of Rs. 45,000/- @ 30% of advertisement expenses

BHUPAL INFRASTRUCTURE PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT., CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(2), HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee for A

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

Section 40(a)(ia) of the Act, for non-deduction of TDS on payment made to subcontractors, advertisement expenses, interest on TDS. The A.O. disallowed 30% of expenditure incurred towards subcontract payment of Rs. 41,90,848/- and made addition of Rs. 12,57,254/-. Similarly, the A.O. has made addition of Rs. 45,000/- @ 30% of advertisement expenses

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)

TDS Credit of the transferor company to successor or transferee company even though the income of the transferor company is already considered by the successor company. 18.3 The Ld. AO erred in law and facts by not granting any TCS credit vis-à-vis INR 1,29,734/- as claimed by the Appellant in its Return of Income

GAINSIGHT SOFTWARE PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT., CIRCLE-2(1), HYDERSABAD

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)

TDS payments, assets, borrowings, and other supporting documents. The assessee submitted partial and complete responses on various dates and also participated in video- conference proceedings on 12.09.2023, furnishing explanations on ICDS and related issues. Since the assessee had reported large 6 Gainsight Software Private Limited value international transactions in respect of provision of software development services, a reference was made

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

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

254(2) of the Act. 2. The grounds raised by the assessee in ITA No.1937 and 1938/Hyd/2014 are similar except the amounts involved. Hence, we are reproducing the grounds in ITA No.1937/Hyd/2014 for A.Y. 2005-06 only for the sake of brevity. Madhucon Projects Limited, Hyderabad. “1) The order of the ld.CIT(A) – VII, Hyderabad is erroneous both on facts

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

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

254(2) of the Act. 2. The grounds raised by the assessee in ITA No.1937 and 1938/Hyd/2014 are similar except the amounts involved. Hence, we are reproducing the grounds in ITA No.1937/Hyd/2014 for A.Y. 2005-06 only for the sake of brevity. Madhucon Projects Limited, Hyderabad. “1) The order of the ld.CIT(A) – VII, Hyderabad is erroneous both on facts

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

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

254(2) of the Act. 2. The grounds raised by the assessee in ITA No.1937 and 1938/Hyd/2014 are similar except the amounts involved. Hence, we are reproducing the grounds in ITA No.1937/Hyd/2014 for A.Y. 2005-06 only for the sake of brevity. Madhucon Projects Limited, Hyderabad. “1) The order of the ld.CIT(A) – VII, Hyderabad is erroneous both on facts

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

section is very clear and the appellant has incurred the expenditure and the appellant has made the payment to the various parties and persons. The appellant has, to circumvent, not accounted for the same and has also not brought out any evidence from M/s.DLF that they have accounted for such transactions in their books as cash payments. The MoU cannot

ACIT,CIRCLE-13(1), HYDERABAD vs. M/S SURESH PRODUCTIONS PVT. LTD.,, HYDERABAD

Accordingly, the ground of the revenue is allowed

Bench: Shri K. Narasimha Chary & Shri Madhusudan Sawdia

254 of the Act on 31/03/2014 determining the total income at Rs.5,39,24,455/-, disallowing deduction of Rs.13,49,408/- u/s. 80IA of the Act and making additions Rs.11,82,480/- u/s.40(a)(ia) of the Act & Rs.2,25,00,000/- u/s. 40A(2)(b) of the Act. ITA NO.1633/HYD/2014 : 6. The Revenue has raised as many

COSYN LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , TDS, CIRCLE-1(1), HYDERABAD

Bench: Shri S.S. Godara & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahum.A.Nos.85 & 86/Hyd/2021 (Arising Out Of Ita Nos.64 & 65/Hyd/2019) Assessment Years: 2016-17 & 2017-18 M/S. Cosyn Limited, The Deputy Commissioner (Formerly Known As Of Income Tax, Css Technergy Limited). Tds, Circle 1(1), Hyderabad. Hyderabad. Pan No.Aabcc3628G. (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Sri Praveen Nair For Sri Karan Talwar. Revenue By: Sri Swapnil Patil. Date Of Hearing: 04/02/2022 Date Of Pronouncement: 16/02/2022 Order Per S. S. Godara, J.M. These Revenue’S Twin Miscellaneous Applications Filed U/S 254(2) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short ‘Act’) Seek To Recall Our Impugned Common Order 11.06.2021 Deleting Section 200A R.W.S. 234E Late Filing Fee; Involving Varying Sums, Respectively. Heard Both The Parties. Case Files Perused.

TDS, Circle 1(1), Hyderabad. Hyderabad. PAN No.AABCC3628G. (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by: Sri Praveen Nair for Sri Karan Talwar. Revenue by: Sri Swapnil Patil. Date of hearing: 04/02/2022 Date of pronouncement: 16/02/2022 ORDER Per S. S. Godara, J.M. These Revenue’s twin miscellaneous applications filed u/s 254(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short ‘Act’) seek to recall

COSYN LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , TDS, CIRCLE-1(1), HYDERABAD

Bench: Shri S.S. Godara & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahum.A.Nos.85 & 86/Hyd/2021 (Arising Out Of Ita Nos.64 & 65/Hyd/2019) Assessment Years: 2016-17 & 2017-18 M/S. Cosyn Limited, The Deputy Commissioner (Formerly Known As Of Income Tax, Css Technergy Limited). Tds, Circle 1(1), Hyderabad. Hyderabad. Pan No.Aabcc3628G. (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Sri Praveen Nair For Sri Karan Talwar. Revenue By: Sri Swapnil Patil. Date Of Hearing: 04/02/2022 Date Of Pronouncement: 16/02/2022 Order Per S. S. Godara, J.M. These Revenue’S Twin Miscellaneous Applications Filed U/S 254(2) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short ‘Act’) Seek To Recall Our Impugned Common Order 11.06.2021 Deleting Section 200A R.W.S. 234E Late Filing Fee; Involving Varying Sums, Respectively. Heard Both The Parties. Case Files Perused.

TDS, Circle 1(1), Hyderabad. Hyderabad. PAN No.AABCC3628G. (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by: Sri Praveen Nair for Sri Karan Talwar. Revenue by: Sri Swapnil Patil. Date of hearing: 04/02/2022 Date of pronouncement: 16/02/2022 ORDER Per S. S. Godara, J.M. These Revenue’s twin miscellaneous applications filed u/s 254(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short ‘Act’) seek to recall

DCIT CIRCLE -8(1), HYDERABAD vs. EDELWEISS BROKING LIMITED, MUMBAI

In the result, both the appeals are treated as allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri K. Narasimha Charyआ.अपी.सं निर्धारण अपीलधर्थी / प्रत्‍यर्थी / वर्ा / A.Y. / Ita No. Appellant Respondent Nuvama Wealth & Investment Limited, Acit, (Formerly Known As Circle-17(1), 527/Hyd/2022 2017-18 Edelweiss Broking Hyderabad Limited) Mumbai [Pan: Aabce9421H] Edelweiss Broking Dcit, Limited, Circle-8(1), 528/Hyd/2022 2017-18 Mumbai Hyderabad [Pan: Aabce9421H] निर्धाररती द्वधरध/Assessee By: Shri Ravikanth S. Pathak, Ar रधजस्‍व द्वधरध/Revenue By: Shri Kprr Murthy, Dr सुिवधई की तधरीख/Date Of Hearing: 03/04/2023 घोर्णध की तधरीख/Pronouncement On: 12/04/2023

254 and other decisions in support of the contentions that incurring an expenditure by issue of shares at a price lesser than Fair Market Value could qualify as an ‘expenditure’ under the provisions of the Act. 6. Assessee also referred to the provisions under section 17(2)(vi) of the Act and submitted that the discount/benefit enjoyed by the employee