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

2) of 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

DY.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-16(1), HYDERABAD vs. LABZONE ELECTRONICS CITY PRIVATE LIMITED (FORMERLY KNOWN AS M/S ALEXANDRIA LABSPACE ELECTRONICS CITY PRIVATE LIMITED), HYDERABAD

Appeal is partly allowed for statistical purposes in above terms

Bench: Shri S.S. Godara & Shri Inturi Rama Raoassessment Year: 2013-14 The Deputy Commissioner Vs. M/S. Labzone Electronics Of Income Tax, City Private Limited Circle 16(1), (Formerly Known As M/S. Hyderabad. Alexandria Labspace Electronics City Private Limited), Hyderabad. Pan :Aajca1470G. (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Shri P.V.S.S. Prasad. Revenue By: Shri Yvst Sai. Date Of Hearing: 14.02.2022 Date Of Pronouncement: 23.02.2022 O R D E R Per S. S. Godara, J.M. This Revenue’S Appeal For A.Y. 2013-14 Arises From The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) – 4, Hyderabad’S Order Dated 17.07.2019 In Case No.10331/17-18/Dcit, Cir.1(1)/Cit(A)-4/Hyd/19-20, Involving Proceedings U/S 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [In Short, ‘The Act’]. Heard Both The Parties. Case File Perused. 2. The Revenue’S Sole Substantive Grievance Raised In The Instant Appeal Challenges Correctness Of The Cit(A)’S Action Deleting Section 94A(4) Addition Of Rs.18,86,00,000/- Made In The Course Of Assessment Framed On 29.12.2016. The Cit(A)’S Lower Appellate Detailed Discussion To This Effect Reads As Follows :-

92C [except the second proviso to sub-section (2)], 92CA, 92CB, 92D, 92E and 92F shall apply accordingly. (3) Notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in this Act, no deduction,— (a) in respect of any payment made to any financial institution located in a notified jurisdictional area shall be allowed under this Act, unless the assessee furnishes an authorisation

VERMEIREN INDIA REHAB PRIVATE LIMITED,TIRUPATI vs. DCIT., CIRCLE-1(1), TIRUPATI

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

Bench: Shri Manjunatha G & Shri Ravish Sood

depreciation. The Ld. Assessing Officer's order does not provide any detailed justification against the judicial precedents cited. In support of his submissions, the Learned Counsel for the Assessee relied upon the following decisions : 1. M/s. Liquidators of Pursa Limited vs. CIT [1954] 25 ITR 265 (SC) 2. Multican Builders Ltd. v. CIT [2005] 278 ITR 142 (Calcutta

SSNC FINTECH SERVICES INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT., CIRCLE 8(1), HYDERABAD

depreciation\n5.076\n11.4\n4,088\n11.1\n12,527\n28.3\n11,015\n30.0\n29\nITA.No.916/Hyd./2024\nWhile as in the case of the assessee company no such\nexpenses have been incurred as it is catering only to its parent\ncompany.\n12.\nConsidering the above-mentioned factors, we are of the\nconsidered view that M/s. Infosys Limited is not a comparable

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

2), Hyderabad in ITA No:485/Hyd/2022 dated 27.04.2023 wherein we have also granted the credit period of 60 days, which is also in the same of line of business. No special treatment can be given to the assessee. Furthermore, once the assessee failed to justify and substantiate the credit period of 90 days before the lower authorities, it is preposterous

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

2), Hyderabad in ITA No:485/Hyd/2022 dated 27.04.2023 wherein we have also granted the credit period of 60 days, which is also in the same of line of business. No special treatment can be given to the assessee. Furthermore, once the assessee failed to justify and substantiate the credit period of 90 days before the lower authorities, it is preposterous

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

2), Hyderabad in ITA No:485/Hyd/2022 dated 27.04.2023 wherein we have also granted the credit period of 60 days, which is also in the same of line of business. No special treatment can be given to the assessee. Furthermore, once the assessee failed to justify and substantiate the credit period of 90 days before the lower authorities, it is preposterous

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

2), Hyderabad in ITA No:485/Hyd/2022 dated 27.04.2023 wherein we have also granted the credit period of 60 days, which is also in the same of line of business. No special treatment can be given to the assessee. Furthermore, once the assessee failed to justify and substantiate the credit period of 90 days before the lower authorities, it is preposterous

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

DST WORLDWIDE SERVICES INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED ,HYDERABAD vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CIRCLE-17(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, assessee’s appeal is partly allowed

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi & Shri D.S. Sunder Singhassessment Year: 2014-15 M/S Dst Worldwide Services Dcit, Circle 17(1) India Private Limited Vs. Hyderabad 5Th Floor, Block B Q City Survey # 109, 110, 111/2 Nanakramguda Village Serilingampally Mandal Gachibowli Rr Dist. Hyderabad 500 032 Pan: Aaac17097L (Appellant) (Respondent) Sh. Aliasger Rampurwala, Ar Asessee By: Revenue By: Smt. Anjala Sahu, D.R. Date Of Hearing: 02/09/2020 Date Of Pronouncement: 30/09/2020 Order Per Smt. P. Madhavi Devi, J.M. This Is Assessee’S Appeal For The A.Y. 2014-15 Against The Final Assessment Order Dated 31.10.2018 Passed U/S 143(3) R.W.S. 92Ca(3) & 144C(13) Of The I.T. Act, 1961. This Appeal Was Taken Up For Hearing On 02.09.2020 Through Video Conferencing & Both The Parties Were Heard.

depreciation and other non-cash expenses into various reportable segments have not been presented except for trade receivables as these items are used interchangeably between segments and the company is of the view that it is not practical to reasonable allocate these items to individual segments and an adhoc allocation will not be meaningful.” 13. From the above

CORTEVA AGRISCIENCE SERVICES INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-17(1), HYDERABAD, HYDERABAD

In the result, the Ground No

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar & Shri Madhusudan Sawdia

92C(2) of the Act. Corporate tax 18. That on the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned CIT(A) has erred in not granting additional deduction of Rs. 18,71,030 under section 10AA of the Act claimed by the Appellant during the course of assessment proceedings on the amounts realized from export turnover subsequent to the filing

BIOGENEX LIFE SCIENCES PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT, CIRCLE 1(1), HYDERABAD

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

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Madhusudan Sawdia

2. The Ld. DRP/AO/TPO erred in making an addition of Rs.1,05,79,088 adjustment towards determination of arm's length nature of sale of diagnostic equipments and trading of reagents. 3. The Ld. AO/TPO/DRP has erred in rejecting the search applied by the taxpayer in accordance with section 92C and Rule 10D of IT, Rules and there by undertaking

AUROBINDO PHARMA LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(2), HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao, Vice-A N D Shri Madhusudan Sawdiaआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.172/Hyd/2023 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2019-20) Aurobindo Pharma Ltd Vs. Acit Hyderabad Central Circle 1(2) Pan:Aabca7366H Hyderabad (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: Shri B.G. Reddy, Advocate राज" व "ारा/Revenue By:: Smt. M Narmada, Cit(Dr) सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 06/01/2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 19/02/2025 आदेश/Order

92C) which is much higher than the profitability relating to sales to third parties of 10.41%. 6. Without prejudice to the above, the Learned DRP/TPO erred in law in not considering the internal TNMM Workings furnished by the assessee that the operating profit margins of the non-SEZ units (OPM of 25.21%) was higher than that of the SEZ units

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

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

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri K.Narasimha Chary

2 of 11 order of the learned TPO and did not provide any relief to the assessee. Subsequently the learned Assessing Officer passed the impugned order. 5. Aggrieved by the said orders, assessee preferred this appeal before us on as many as seventeen grounds. However, during the course of arguments, assessee not pressed ground