GORLAS INFRASTRUCTURE PRIVATE LIMITED ,HYDERABAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER ,WARD 2(4), HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar & Shri Madhusudan Sawdia

TP Act enacts that sale of immoveable property can be made only by a registered instrument and an agreement of sale does not create any interest or charge on its subject matter” 18. So far as the reliance of Ld. CIT(A) regarding application of the Sale of Goods Act, 1930 is concerned, section 2(7) of the said

SANGHI INDUSTRIES LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT, CIRCLE -3 (1), HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar & Shri Madhusudan Sawdia

gains of such eligible business for the purposes of the deduction under this section, take the amount of profits as may be reasonably deemed to have been derived therefrom: 18. Section 80 IA (8) refers to the assessee carrying on the eligible business with the other person with whom the assessee has a close connection, and the business

MYLAN LABORATORIES LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-5(1), HYDERABAD

In the result. appeal of the Assessee is partly\nallowed for statistical purposes and appeal of Revenue is\npartly allowed for statistical purposes

method by excluding only FDF\ntransactions covered under APA and Injectable transactions\nunder APA and then, compute the PLI at entity level by\nconsidering the remaining transactions at entity level.\n15.\nComing back to the computation of Profit Level\nIndicator [“PLI”]. Learned TPO has computed PLI by\nconsidering amortization of goodwill as operating cost.\nAccording to the TPO, the appellant

ACIT., CIRCLE-5(1), HYDERABAD vs. MYLAN LABORATORIES LIMITED, HYDERABAD

In the result. appeal of the Assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes and appeal of Revenue is partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Manjunatha G

method by excluding only FDF transactions covered under APA and Injectable transactions under APA and then, compute the PLI at entity level by considering the remaining transactions at entity level. 15. Coming back to the computation of Profit Level Indicator [“PLI”]. Learned TPO has computed PLI by considering amortization of goodwill as operating cost. According to the TPO, the appellant

INVESCO(INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT, CIRCLE -2 (1), HYDERABAD

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

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Manjunatha G

method (TNMM) for determination of ALP of the services, the impact of outstanding, receivables on the working capital adjustments is already taken into account and that there is no requirement to impute interest on outstanding receivables separately and the Hon'ble DRP has further erred in upholding the action of Ld. TPO/AO. 2.2 Without prejudice to Ground

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

method as well, the transactions with AE are at arm's length. 1.8. Without prejudice to the above grounds, ought to have appreciated the fact that no ALP adjustment is required to be made in a case where after reducing the "adjustment as a percentage of operating cost" still the margin of the assessee is more than comparables. ITA 1862/Hyd/2017

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

Method (Rs.) Lanco Global Rendering of software 5477946 TNMM Systems Inc. USA development services Global IT Inc. UISA - do - 541680 TNMM Techorbit Inc. USA -do- 1354200 TNMM Global IT Inc. USA Investment 501731400 CUP 8. He, therefore, asked the assessee vide show-cause notice dated 17.12.2013 to furnish the relevant details and documentary evidence with respect to investment in subsidiaries

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

Method (Rs.) Lanco Global Rendering of software 5477946 TNMM Systems Inc. USA development services Global IT Inc. UISA - do - 541680 TNMM Techorbit Inc. USA -do- 1354200 TNMM Global IT Inc. USA Investment 501731400 CUP 8. He, therefore, asked the assessee vide show-cause notice dated 17.12.2013 to furnish the relevant details and documentary evidence with respect to investment in subsidiaries

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

Method (Rs.) Lanco Global Rendering of software 5477946 TNMM Systems Inc. USA development services Global IT Inc. UISA - do - 541680 TNMM Techorbit Inc. USA -do- 1354200 TNMM Global IT Inc. USA Investment 501731400 CUP 8. He, therefore, asked the assessee vide show-cause notice dated 17.12.2013 to furnish the relevant details and documentary evidence with respect to investment in subsidiaries

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

Method (Rs.) Lanco Global Rendering of software 5477946 TNMM Systems Inc. USA development services Global IT Inc. UISA - do - 541680 TNMM Techorbit Inc. USA -do- 1354200 TNMM Global IT Inc. USA Investment 501731400 CUP 8. He, therefore, asked the assessee vide show-cause notice dated 17.12.2013 to furnish the relevant details and documentary evidence with respect to investment in subsidiaries

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

Bench: Us:

method of accounting to give effect to the amalgamation into the accounts is discussed at pages 206 & 207 of the annual report. 2.5.6.4 As per the Annual report, pursuant to scheme of acquisition of the abovementioned entities during the FY 2019-20 and there is no impact as such on comparability, as the transferor company is also in the same

BENU NETWORKS PACKET SWITCH PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT, CIRCLE -1 (2), HYDERABAD

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

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao, Vice-A N D Shri Manjunatha, G. & आ.अपी.सं /Ita No.86/Hyd/2022 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2017-18) Benu Networks Packet Switch Vs. Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle 1(1) Private Ltd, Hyderabad Hydrabad Pan:Aaecb4902B (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: Shri Ashish Jain, Ca राज" व "ारा/Revenue By:: Shri B Balakrishna, Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 13/11/2024 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 25/11/2024 आदेश/Order

capital adjustment which itself takes the impact of outstanding receivable on profitability. Accordingly, no separate adjustment is warranted on deferred receivable and the learned Assessing Officer and the Hon'ble DRP have erred in confirming the same. Ground No.7 The learned TPO erred in facts and law by considering foreign exchange currency fluctuation gain/loss as operating in nature

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

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, 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

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.

method. It has established two separate units which carry out manufacturing and export of CPC. It filed its return of income on 30.09.2008 declaring loss of Rs.23,71,90,124/- after claiming exemption of Rs.84,87,05,352/- u/s 10B under normal provisions of the Act and Rs.70,09,87,659/- u/s 115JB of the I.T. Act. The case

ACIT., CIRCLE-5(1), HYDERABAD vs. PENNA CEMENT INDUSTRIES LIMITED, HYDERABAD

TP Nos. 145 & 482/Hyd/2022) that, coming to the Income Tax Act, 1961, there is no express provision to support the contention of Revenue. On the other hand, section 80G(2)(iiihk) and (iiihl) of the Act expressly provide that such sums donated for Swatch Bharath Kosh and Clean Ganga Fund shall be the amounts other than the sums spent

ACIT., CIRCLE-5(1), HYDERABAD vs. PENNA CEMENT INDUSTRIES LIMITED, HYDERABAD

TP Nos. 145 &\n482/Hyd/2022) that, coming to the Income Tax Act, 1961, there is no\nexpress provision to support the contention of Revenue. On the other\nhand, section 80G(2)(iiihk) and (iiihl) of the Act expressly provide that\nsuch sums donated for Swatch Bharath Kosh and Clean Ganga Fund\nshall be the amounts other than the sums spent