ACIT., CENTRAL CIRCLE 3(4), HYDERABAD vs. HETERO LABS LIMITED, HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of Revenue in ITA No

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Laliet Kumarआ.अपी.सं / Ita Nos.312 & 313/Hyd/2023 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2017-18 & 2018-19) Hetero Labs Limited, Vs. The Assistant Commissioner Of Hyderabad. Income Tax, Central Circle – 3(4), Pan : Aaach5506R Hyderabad. अपीलाथ" / Appellant "" यथ" / Respondent आ.अपी.सं / Ita Nos.348 & 349/Hyd/2023 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2017-18 & 2-18-19) The Assistant Vs. Hetero Labs Limited, Commissioner Of Income Hyderabad. Tax, Central Circle – 3(4), Pan : Aaach5506R Hyderabad. अपीलाथ" / Appellant "" यथ" / Respondent

gains derived from the export of such article or thing' as mandated u/s. 10AA wherein no such expenses were attributed to these units and thus none of these expenses are attributable to the eligible units. 13. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the CIT(A) is justified in directing to exclude R&D expenses

ACIT., CENTRAL CIRCLE 3(4), HYDERABAD, HYDERABAD vs. HETERO LABS LIMITED, HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of Revenue in ITA No

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Laliet Kumarआ.अपी.सं / Ita Nos.312 & 313/Hyd/2023 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2017-18 & 2018-19) Hetero Labs Limited, Vs. The Assistant Commissioner Of Hyderabad. Income Tax, Central Circle – 3(4), Pan : Aaach5506R Hyderabad. अपीलाथ" / Appellant "" यथ" / Respondent आ.अपी.सं / Ita Nos.348 & 349/Hyd/2023 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2017-18 & 2-18-19) The Assistant Vs. Hetero Labs Limited, Commissioner Of Income Hyderabad. Tax, Central Circle – 3(4), Pan : Aaach5506R Hyderabad. अपीलाथ" / Appellant "" यथ" / Respondent

gains derived from the export of such article or thing' as mandated u/s. 10AA wherein no such expenses were attributed to these units and thus none of these expenses are attributable to the eligible units. 13. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the CIT(A) is justified in directing to exclude R&D expenses

TEK SYSTEMS GLOBAL SERVICES PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERBAD vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-2(1), HYDERBAD

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

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar & Shri Manjunatha G.आ.अपी.सं /Ita No.487/Hyd/2022 (निर्धारण वर्ा/Assessment Year: 2018-19) Tek Systems Global Vs. Dy. C. I. T. Services (P) Ltd, Circle 2(1) Hyderabad Hyderabad Pan:Aabcf1518Q (Appellant) (Respondent) निर्धाररती द्वधरध/Assessee By: Ms. K. Amulya, Ca रधजस् व द्वधरध/Revenue By:: Shri Jeevan Lal Lavidiya, Cit-Dr सुिवधई की तधरीख/Date Of Hearing: 29/05/2024 घोर्णध की तधरीख/Pronouncement: 05/07/2024 आदेश/Order

92B(2) involving T.P. Risk Parameter and hence the case was referred to the Transfer Pricing Officer by following the due Page 4 of 36 ITA No 487 of 2022 TEK Systems Global Services P Ltd procedure, to determine the Arm's Length Price of the transactions involved. The Transfer Pricing Officer DCIACIT TP-3, Hyderabad has submitted his report

VIVIMED LABS LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE2-(3), HYDERABAD

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

92B of the Act to its Spain based “AE”, the learned lower authorities ought to have benchmarked the combined book results at segmental level pertaining to both these units only. We therefore direct the learned TPO to go by the assessee’s consolidated book results as per the combined audit report and proceed afresh for the purpose of necessary benchmarking

VIVIMED LABS LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , HYDERABAD

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

92B of the Act to its Spain based “AE”, the learned lower authorities ought to have benchmarked the combined book results at segmental level pertaining to both these units only. We therefore direct the learned TPO to go by the assessee’s consolidated book results as per the combined audit report and proceed afresh for the purpose of necessary benchmarking

VIVIMED LABS LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. 500082 ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE2-(3), HYDERABAD

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

92B of the Act to its Spain based “AE”, the learned lower authorities ought to have benchmarked the combined book results at segmental level pertaining to both these units only. We therefore direct the learned TPO to go by the assessee’s consolidated book results as per the combined audit report and proceed afresh for the purpose of necessary benchmarking

VIVIMED LABS LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 2(3), HYDERABAD

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

92B of the Act to its Spain based “AE”, the learned lower authorities ought to have benchmarked the combined book results at segmental level pertaining to both these units only. We therefore direct the learned TPO to go by the assessee’s consolidated book results as per the combined audit report and proceed afresh for the purpose of necessary benchmarking

GOCL CORPORATION LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2(2), HYDERABAD

Appeals are partly allowed in above terms

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahuappellant Respondent

section 92B with retrospective effect as well. The assessee’s first and foremost legal argument fails therefore. 4. Next comes quantification of the impugned corporate guarantee commission. The assessee admittedly adopted 0.5% commission rate as against that adopted @1.8% in the :- 3 -: ITA Nos.579/Hyd/2017 & 2012/Hyd/2017 Transfer Pricing Officer’s (TPO) order. The fact also remains that the DRP’s order

GOCL CORPORATION LIMITED, HYDERABAD,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-2(2), HYDERABAD, HYDERABAD

Appeals are partly allowed in above terms

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahuappellant Respondent

section 92B with retrospective effect as well. The assessee’s first and foremost legal argument fails therefore. 4. Next comes quantification of the impugned corporate guarantee commission. The assessee admittedly adopted 0.5% commission rate as against that adopted @1.8% in the :- 3 -: ITA Nos.579/Hyd/2017 & 2012/Hyd/2017 Transfer Pricing Officer’s (TPO) order. The fact also remains that the DRP’s order

AUROBINDO PHARMA LIMITED (AURONEXT PHARMA PRIVATE LIMITED SINCE AMALGAMATED WITH AUROBINDO PHARMA LIMITED),HYDERABAD vs. DCIT., CIRCLE-1(1), HYDERABAD

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

Bench: Shri K. Narasimha Chary & Shri Madhusudan Sawdia

section 92B of the Act of the expression "receivables" does not mean that dehors the context every item of "receivables" appearing in the accounts of an entity, which may have dealings with foreign associated enterprises would automatically be characterized as an international transaction. There may be a delay in collection of monies for supplies made, even beyond the agreed limit

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.

section 92B would not apply to the year under consideration as it was inserted on a later date. The amendment has to be interpreted as prospective in nature. 6. The Ld. DRP/TPO erred in not appreciating the fact that Rain CII Carbon, LLC (RCC') had also provided guarantee to the loan taken by RCL and hence the transaction is reciprocating

GSS INFOTECH LIMITED ,HYDERABAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(2), HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi & Shri A. Mohan Alankamony

92B, as no income is generated from the transaction of providing loans and advances to the subsidiaries of the appellant company. 2.2 Erred in re-characterization of 'advance for investment' as 'Loans' which is not permissible under section 145 of the Act. 2.3 Erred in not appreciating the fact that the advances had been advanced by the appellant

GSS INFOTECH LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CIRCLE-2(2), HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi & Shri A. Mohan Alankamony

92B, as no income is generated from the transaction of providing loans and advances to the subsidiaries of the appellant company. 2.2 Erred in re-characterization of 'advance for investment' as 'Loans' which is not permissible under section 145 of the Act. 2.3 Erred in not appreciating the fact that the advances had been advanced by the appellant

BS LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. ASST.COMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2(3), HYDERABAD

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

Bench: Shri D. Manmohan & Shri S. Rifaur Rahmanassessment Year: 2013-14

capital assets (term loans). Loan processing charges are incurred for cash credit, finance of cars/capital assets & other borrowing costs. As such, for AY 2013-14, the same is apportioned on the basis of interest paid i.e. Rs. 88,38,25,403/- (interest on cash credit, other borrowing cost) and Rs. 1,72,60,428/- (interest on car loan/term loan

BRIGHTCOM GROUP LIMITED (FORMERLY KNOWN AS LYCOS INTERNET LIMITED),HYDERABAD vs. ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-16(1),, HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed in terms of our observations given hereinabove

capital financing' as interpreted in section 92B of the Act. 1.4. Ought to have appreciated the fact that the outstanding receivables relate to the provision of services and not in the nature of any advance/loans. These are closely linked to the provision of services and hence have to be aggregated for the purpose of economic analysis. Ought to have appreciated

M/S. BRIGHTCOM GROUP LIMITED (FORMERLY KNOWN AS LYCOS INTERNET LIMITED),HYDERABAD vs. DCIT CIRCLE -17(2), HYDERABAD

In the result, all the three appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed and the only appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

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

capital of the subsidiary outside India, the same is not in the nature of international transaction u/s 92B of the I.T. Act and the investment in equity cannot be treated as loan and therefore, no interest can be charged on the same. It is also his submission that recategorization of the nature of the asset by treating the investment

M/S. BRIGHTCOM GROUP LIMITED (FORMERLY KNOWN AS LYCOS INTERNET LIMITED),HYDERABAD vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-17(2), HYDERABAD

In the result, all the three appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed and the only appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

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

capital of the subsidiary outside India, the same is not in the nature of international transaction u/s 92B of the I.T. Act and the investment in equity cannot be treated as loan and therefore, no interest can be charged on the same. It is also his submission that recategorization of the nature of the asset by treating the investment

DCIT, CIRCLE-17(2), HYD, HYDERABAD vs. LYCOS INTERNET LTD (PRESENTLY KNOWN AS BRIGHTCOM GROUP LIMITED), HYDERABAD

In the result, all the three appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed and the only appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

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

capital of the subsidiary outside India, the same is not in the nature of international transaction u/s 92B of the I.T. Act and the investment in equity cannot be treated as loan and therefore, no interest can be charged on the same. It is also his submission that recategorization of the nature of the asset by treating the investment