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.

1. That on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld. AO has erred in law as well as in facts in assuming jurisdiction w/s 147 of the Act and issuing notice u/s 148 of the Act to the Appellant, in as much as there has been no escapement of assessment of income chargeable to tax for the year

OCIMUM BIO SOLUTIONS (I) LTD., HYD,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-16(2), HYDERABAD, HYDERABAD

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

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri K. Narasimha Charyआ.अपी.सं / Ita No. 280/Hyd/2016 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2011-12) M/S. Ocimum Bio Solutions Asst. Commissioner Of (I) Ltd., Vs. Income Tax, Hyderabad Circle- 16(2), [Pan No. Aaaco4095L] Hyderabad अपीलधर्थी / Appellant प्रत्‍यर्थी / Respondent

TDS. We shall now deal with the same hereunder. Assessee also challenged the reference made by the learned Assessing Officer to the learned TPO vide grounds No. 1 to 6, but at the time of arguments, not pressed the same. 5. Coming to the reimbursement of expenditure, covered by grounds No. 7 to 13, according to the learned

M/S KANTAR GDC INDIA PVT. LTD. (FORMERLY TNS INDIA PVT LTD),HYDERABAD vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CIRCLE-2(2), HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Manjunatha, G.आ.अपी.सं /Ita No.2261/Hyd/2017 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2013-14) M/S. Kantar Gdc India (P) Vs. Dy. C. I. T. Ltd (Formerly Tns India (P) Circle 2(2) Ltd, Hyderabad Hyderabad Pan:Aabcn2278F (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: Advocate Harpreet Singh Ajmani राज" व "ारा/Revenue By:: Shri Shiva Sewak, Cit(Dr) सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 15/05/2024 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 03/06/2024 आदेश/Order

TDS of Rs. 12,24,29,606 instead of Rs. 12,25,25,224 as claimed in the Return of income Penalty: 7. Initiating penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c), 271AA, 271BA of the Act. The Appellant craves, to consider each of the above grounds of appeal without prejudice to each other and craves leave to add, alter, delete

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE1-(2), HYDERABAD vs. M/S. VPR MINING INFRASTRUCTURE PVT LTD, HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is partly\nallowed

sections": [ "147", "148", "143(3)", "153A", "142(1)", "129", "144C", "40(a)(ii)", "92C", "92B" ], "issues": "The primary issues were the appropriate interest rate for benchmarking international receivables, the treatment of interest paid on service tax and TDS

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 :

Section 92C of the Act 4.5. The AO/TPO erred in re-characterizing the nature of transaction from ‘Receivable’ to ‘loan’ which is not permissible u/s. 145 of the Act. 4.6. The AO/TPO Ought to have appreciated the fact that the outstanding receivables are consequential/ closely linked to the sale of services to the AE during the normal course of business

HEXAGON CAPABILITY CENTER INDIA PRIVATE ,HYDERABAD vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CIRCLE-2(2), HYDERABAD

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

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

section 92B Explanation (c) inserted vide Finance Act 2012 as applicable with retrospective effect from 1/4/2002. Hon'ble Madras high court's recent judgment in PCIT Vs Reddington India dated 10/12/2020 in Tax Appeals 590-591/2019 also holds the same view. We thus, accept the Revenue's arguments in principle that interest on receivables is indeed an international transaction

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

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

TDS was deductible on such expenditure. 11. Without prejudice to the above, the Ld. AO ought to have allowed 10A deduction on the expenditure disallowed u/s 40(a)(ia). 12. Disallowing the income tax expenditure of Rs. 5,91,248 without appreciating the fact that the Appellant has already disallowed such amount, thereby leading to double disallowance. 13. Not considering

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

TDS was deductible on such expenditure. 11. Without prejudice to the above, the Ld. AO ought to have allowed 10A deduction on the expenditure disallowed u/s 40(a)(ia). 12. Disallowing the income tax expenditure of Rs. 5,91,248 without appreciating the fact that the Appellant has already disallowed such amount, thereby leading to double disallowance. 13. Not considering

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

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

TDS was deductible on such expenditure. 11. Without prejudice to the above, the Ld. AO ought to have allowed 10A deduction on the expenditure disallowed u/s 40(a)(ia). 12. Disallowing the income tax expenditure of Rs. 5,91,248 without appreciating the fact that the Appellant has already disallowed such amount, thereby leading to double disallowance. 13. Not considering

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

TDS was deductible on such expenditure. 11. Without prejudice to the above, the Ld. AO ought to have allowed 10A deduction on the expenditure disallowed u/s 40(a)(ia). 12. Disallowing the income tax expenditure of Rs. 5,91,248 without appreciating the fact that the Appellant has already disallowed such amount, thereby leading to double disallowance. 13. Not considering