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

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

TDS on payments totaling Rs. 9,70,000/- towards Auditors' Remuneration and professional charges. Consequently, this amount was disallowed under Section 40(a)(ia) and added to the total income in the draft assessment. Subsequently, on appeal DRP upheld the said disallowance in its order dated 26.09.2014 and furthermore, the DRP directed the AO to compute income in such

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

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

TDS on payments totaling Rs. 9,70,000/- towards Auditors' Remuneration and professional charges. Consequently, this amount was disallowed under Section 40(a)(ia) and added to the total income in the draft assessment. Subsequently, on appeal DRP upheld the said disallowance in its order dated 26.09.2014 and furthermore, the DRP directed the AO to compute income in such

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 on payments totaling Rs. 9,70,000/- towards Auditors' Remuneration and professional charges. Consequently, this amount was disallowed under Section 40(a)(ia) and added to the total income in the draft assessment. Subsequently, on appeal DRP upheld the said disallowance in its order dated 26.09.2014 and furthermore, the DRP directed the AO to compute income in such

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 on payments totaling Rs. 9,70,000/- towards Auditors' Remuneration and professional charges. Consequently, this amount was disallowed under Section 40(a)(ia) and added to the total income in the draft assessment. Subsequently, on appeal DRP upheld the said disallowance in its order dated 26.09.2014 and furthermore, the DRP directed the AO to compute income in such

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

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX ,(INTERNATIONAL TAXATION)-1, HYDERABAD vs. FAIR FIELD DEVELOPMENT LIMITED , CYPRUS

In the result, the appeal of Revenue in ITA

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Laliet Kumarassessment Year: 2014-15 M/S. Fairfield Developments Vs. Dy. Commissioner Of Income Limited, Tax, Hyderabad. International Taxation – 1 Pan : Aabcf3158N Hyderabad. (Appellant) (Respondent) Ita 488/Hyd/2019 Assessment Year 2014-15 Dy. Commissioner Of Income Vs. M/S. Fairfield Developments Tax, Limited, International Taxation – 1, Hyderabad. Hyderabad. Pan : Aabcf3158N (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Akshay Surana & Siddharth Surana, C.A Revenue By: Shri K.P.R.R. Murthy Date Of Hearing: 27.03.2023 Date Of Pronouncement: 25.04.2023 O R D E R Per Laliet Kumar, J.M. These Two Appeals Filed By The Assessee & The Revenue, Respectively, Are Directed Against The Order Of Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) – 10, Hyderabad Dated 16.01.2019 For The Assessment Year 2014-15. 2 M/S. Fairfield Developments Limited

TDS made by WRPL. However, the appellant revised the return by claiming benefit of special rate of tax @ 10% relying on Article 11(2) of the India-Cyprus Double Tax Avoidance Agreement (DTAA) and offering nil income with a claim for refund of Rs.5,47,74,900/-. 8.1 The case was referred to the Transfer Pricing Officer

FAIRFIELD DEVELOPMENT LIMITED ,HYDERABAD vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX ,(INTERNATIONAL TAXATION), HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of Revenue in ITA

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Laliet Kumarassessment Year: 2014-15 M/S. Fairfield Developments Vs. Dy. Commissioner Of Income Limited, Tax, Hyderabad. International Taxation – 1 Pan : Aabcf3158N Hyderabad. (Appellant) (Respondent) Ita 488/Hyd/2019 Assessment Year 2014-15 Dy. Commissioner Of Income Vs. M/S. Fairfield Developments Tax, Limited, International Taxation – 1, Hyderabad. Hyderabad. Pan : Aabcf3158N (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Akshay Surana & Siddharth Surana, C.A Revenue By: Shri K.P.R.R. Murthy Date Of Hearing: 27.03.2023 Date Of Pronouncement: 25.04.2023 O R D E R Per Laliet Kumar, J.M. These Two Appeals Filed By The Assessee & The Revenue, Respectively, Are Directed Against The Order Of Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) – 10, Hyderabad Dated 16.01.2019 For The Assessment Year 2014-15. 2 M/S. Fairfield Developments Limited

TDS made by WRPL. However, the appellant revised the return by claiming benefit of special rate of tax @ 10% relying on Article 11(2) of the India-Cyprus Double Tax Avoidance Agreement (DTAA) and offering nil income with a claim for refund of Rs.5,47,74,900/-. 8.1 The case was referred to the Transfer Pricing Officer

INFOR (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED ,HYDERABAD vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX ,CIRCLE -2(1), HYDERABAD

Appeal is partly allowed in above terms

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

92C(3) of the Act were satisfied. SOFTWARE DEVELOPMENT SERVICES (SDS) SEGMENT 3. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld.TPO erred and the Hon'ble DRP further erred in upholding / confirming the action of the Ld.TPO in incorrectly selecting the following companies as com parables while benchmarking the software development segment

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

92C(3) of the Act were satisfied. :- 6 -: ITA Nos..227 & 228/Hyd/2021 ADP Pvt. Ltd., Hyd. 11. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in contrary to law, the Ld. TPO erred in and the Hon'ble DRP further erred in upholding / confirming the actions of the Ld. TPO in not allowing risk adjustment in accordance with

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

92C(3) of the Act were satisfied. :- 6 -: ITA Nos..227 & 228/Hyd/2021 ADP Pvt. Ltd., Hyd. 11. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in contrary to law, the Ld. TPO erred in and the Hon'ble DRP further erred in upholding / confirming the actions of the Ld. TPO in not allowing risk adjustment in accordance with

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

92C of the Act. Corporate tax matters 6.1. That on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. AO/DRP erred in disallowing the expenditure incurred for repairs and maintenance treating the same as capital in nature without considering the fact that the same does not lead to any enduring benefit. 6.2. That on the facts

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

92C of the Act. Corporate tax matters 6.1. That on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. AO/DRP erred in disallowing the expenditure incurred for repairs and maintenance treating the same as capital in nature without considering the fact that the same does not lead to any enduring benefit. 6.2. That on the facts

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

92C(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

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

DCIT, CIRCLE-17(2), HYDERABAD, HYDERABAD vs. VIJAI ELECTRICALS LIMITED, HYDERABAD

Bench: Shri S.S. Godara & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu(Through Virtual Hearing) Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle 17(2), Hyderabad. …..Appellant. Vs. M/S. Vijay Electricals Limited, 6-3-648/1 & 2,Rajbhavan Road, Hyderabad-500 082. …..Respondent. Pan Aaacv 7259B M/S. Vijay Electricals Limited, 6-3-648/1 & 2,Rajbhavan Road, Hyderabad-500 082. …..Appellant. Vs. Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle 17(2), Hyderabad. …..Respondent.

TDS. 2. The Ld. CIT(A) erred in law in ignoring the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Vijay Shipping Corporation & Others vs. CIT, Ahmedabad 314 ITR 309, decision of the Hon'ble Gujarat High Court I the case of CIT vs. Vijay Ship Breaking Corporation 261 ITR 113 and decision