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

92C(3) of the Act for Rs.1,49,75,581/- towards Interest on Receivables on the basis of hypothetical and notional basis without being any material on record to show that the interest should be charged in the present case. 3.1 Erred in re-characterizing the nature of transaction from 'Receivable' to 'loan' which is not permissible

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

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

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

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

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

ZUARI CEMENT LIMITED, KADAPA,KADAPA vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-1, KADAPA, KADAPA

Accordingly, this issue is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahusl.

92C(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred as “the Act”) in pursuance to the directions of the Dispute Resolution Panel – “DRP”, Bangalore-1’s for the assessment years 2011-12, 2012-13, 2013-14, 2012-13 and 2014-15 on the following grounds : Zuari Cement Limited, Kadapa Zuari Cement Limited, Kadapa Zuari Cement Limited, Kadapa Zuari Cement

ZUARI CEMENT LIMITED, KADAPA,KADAPA vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-1, KADAPA, KADAPA

Accordingly, this issue is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahusl.

92C(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred as “the Act”) in pursuance to the directions of the Dispute Resolution Panel – “DRP”, Bangalore-1’s for the assessment years 2011-12, 2012-13, 2013-14, 2012-13 and 2014-15 on the following grounds : Zuari Cement Limited, Kadapa Zuari Cement Limited, Kadapa Zuari Cement Limited, Kadapa Zuari Cement

ZUARI CEMENT LIMITED,KADAPA vs. ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1(1), KADAPA

Accordingly, this issue is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahusl.

92C(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred as “the Act”) in pursuance to the directions of the Dispute Resolution Panel – “DRP”, Bangalore-1’s for the assessment years 2011-12, 2012-13, 2013-14, 2012-13 and 2014-15 on the following grounds : Zuari Cement Limited, Kadapa Zuari Cement Limited, Kadapa Zuari Cement Limited, Kadapa Zuari Cement

ZUARI CEMENT LIMITED ,KADAPA vs. ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1, KADAPA

Accordingly, this issue is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahusl.

92C(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred as “the Act”) in pursuance to the directions of the Dispute Resolution Panel – “DRP”, Bangalore-1’s for the assessment years 2011-12, 2012-13, 2013-14, 2012-13 and 2014-15 on the following grounds : Zuari Cement Limited, Kadapa Zuari Cement Limited, Kadapa Zuari Cement Limited, Kadapa Zuari Cement

ZUARI CEMENT LIMITED,KADAPA vs. ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1, KADAPA

Accordingly, this issue is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahusl.

92C(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred as “the Act”) in pursuance to the directions of the Dispute Resolution Panel – “DRP”, Bangalore-1’s for the assessment years 2011-12, 2012-13, 2013-14, 2012-13 and 2014-15 on the following grounds : Zuari Cement Limited, Kadapa Zuari Cement Limited, Kadapa Zuari Cement Limited, Kadapa Zuari Cement

ADP PRIVATE LIMITED ,HYDERABAD vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CIRCLE-1(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, ground of appeal No

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi & Shri D.S. Sunder Singhassessment Year:2014-15

92C(3) of the Act were satisfied. 8. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. TPO erred in and the Hon'ble DRP further erred in upholding / confirming the action of the Ld. TPO in considering provision for bad and doubtful debts as a non- operating expenditure while computing

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

M/S. BRIGHTCOM GROUP LIMITED (FORMERLY KNOWN AS LYCOS INTERNET LIMITED),HYDERABAD vs. DCIT CIRCLE -16(1), 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