NTT DATA BUSINESS SOLUTIOS PRIVATE LIMITED ,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-5(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Madhusudan Sawdiaआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.489/Hyd/2022 Assessment Year 2018-2019 Ntt Data Business The Dcit, Solutions Private Limited, Hyderabad. Circle-5(1), Vs. Pin -500081. Hyderabad. Pan Aadci1557Q (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा"रती "ारा /Assessee By: Ca Aliasgar Rampurawala राज" व "ारा /Revenue By: Ms U Mini Chandran, Cit-Dr

disallowing the relief claimed by the Appellant of INR 31,48,038 towards foreign tax credits under section 90/91 of the Act, without considering assessee's submission and documentary evidence. 19. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. AO has erred in disregarding Assessee's claim for additional relief

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

disallowing 50% of the expenditure, despite TPO accepting similar expenditure to be at arm's length to the extent of its actual cost in subsequent assessment year (AY 2022-23) 5. The lower authorities have erred in making an adjustment towards interest on loans advanced to subsidiaries despite the fact that, under the terms of the loan agreement, no interest

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

disallowing 50% of the expenditure, despite TPO accepting similar expenditure to be at arm's length to the extent of its actual cost in subsequent assessment year (AY 2022-23) 5. The lower authorities have erred in making an adjustment towards interest on loans advanced to subsidiaries despite the fact that, under the terms of the loan agreement, no interest

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(2), HYDERABAD vs. SEW INFRASTRUCTURE LIMITED, HYDERABAD

Bench: Justice (Retd.) C.V. Bhadang, Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri G. Manjunatha

disallowed the claim of deduction, inter-alia, on the ground that a claim not made in the original return filed under Section 139(1) and sought to be made for the first time in a return filed pursuant to a notice under Section 153A of the Act would not be maintainable. Further, the assessee was also found to be ineligible

DEMI REALTORS,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-6(1), HYDERABAD

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

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

disallowed U/s.40A(3) and is added to the total income of the assessee. 14.1 On appeal, the ld.CIT(A) had decided the issue at pages 70 to 74 of the order wherein he observed as under : “The claim of the appellant that the payments have been made by the M/s. DLF group is false and completely unsubstantiated and no confirmation

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

4 of the Rule 18BBB. As a result, ground no\n4 is allowed.\n6. Ground No.5 was raised against the addition of Rs.1,29,91,000\nshown as sales receipts from M/s Lakshin Infradev Pvt. Ltd., under\nsection 68 of the Act. An inquiry report was received from the Income\nTax Investigation – Unit New Delhi that M/s Lakshin Infradev Private

EPAM SYSTEMS INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT, 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.83 & 498/Hyd/2022 Assessment Years 2017-2018 & 2018-2019 Epam Systems India The Dcit & The Acit, Private Limited, Vs. Circle-8(1), Hyderabad – 500 081 Hyderabad. Pan Aaacw2012R (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा"रती "ारा /Assessee By: Ca Shreyas Sardesai राज" व "ारा /Revenue By: Ms U Mini Chandran, Cit-Dr

disallowing for the market risk adjustment to eliminate the difference in the risk level of the Appellant and the comparable companies. 3:3 The Appellant submits that the learned AO/TPO be directed to recalculate the adjustment made by him to the Appellant's total income and to re-compute its total income and tax liability accordingly. 4:0 Transfer Pricing

EPAM SYSTEMS INDIA PRIVATE 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.83 & 498/Hyd/2022 Assessment Years 2017-2018 & 2018-2019 Epam Systems India The Dcit & The Acit, Private Limited, Vs. Circle-8(1), Hyderabad – 500 081 Hyderabad. Pan Aaacw2012R (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा"रती "ारा /Assessee By: Ca Shreyas Sardesai राज" व "ारा /Revenue By: Ms U Mini Chandran, Cit-Dr

disallowing for the market risk adjustment to eliminate the difference in the risk level of the Appellant and the comparable companies. 3:3 The Appellant submits that the learned AO/TPO be directed to recalculate the adjustment made by him to the Appellant's total income and to re-compute its total income and tax liability accordingly. 4:0 Transfer Pricing

CHINTALAPATI HOLDINGS PVT.LTD., HYD,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(2), HYD, HYDERABAD

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

disallowance under section 14A of the Act read with rule 8D of the Income Tax Rules, 1962 (‘the Rules’). This action of the learned CIT(A) is challenged by the assessee under grounds 3 to 11 of this appeal. 15. Apart from this, learned CIT(A) also considered the addition on account of long term capital loss. She agreed with

CHINTALAPATI HOLDINGS PVT.LTD., HYD,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(2), HYD, HYDERABAD

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

disallowance under section 14A of the Act read with rule 8D of the Income Tax Rules, 1962 (‘the Rules’). This action of the learned CIT(A) is challenged by the assessee under grounds 3 to 11 of this appeal. 15. Apart from this, learned CIT(A) also considered the addition on account of long term capital loss. She agreed with

CHINTALAPATI HOLDINGS PRIVATE LIMITED, HYDERABAD,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-1(2), HYDERABAD, HYDERABAD

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

disallowance under section 14A of the Act read with rule 8D of the Income Tax Rules, 1962 (‘the Rules’). This action of the learned CIT(A) is challenged by the assessee under grounds 3 to 11 of this appeal. 15. Apart from this, learned CIT(A) also considered the addition on account of long term capital loss. She agreed with

JASPER INDUSTRIES PVT LTD,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT., CIRCLE-2(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: SHRI VIJAY PAL RAO, HON’BLE (Vice President), SHRI MANJUNATHA G, HON’BLE (Accountant Member)

4. The A.O. called upon the assessee to explain as to why disallowance should not be made under Section 14A read with Rule 8D of the Act in respect of expenditure allegedly incurred for earning exempt dividend income. In response, the assessee submitted that it has not incurred any direct expenditure for earning the dividend income and that the investments

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRLCE-2(1), HYD, HYDERABAD vs. HES INFRA PVT LTD., HYD, HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of Revenue in ITA

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri Laliet Kumar

4. Rachna Infrastructure (P.) Ltd. [2022] 138 taxmann.com 416 (Gujarat) 5. NEC NCC Maytas JV Vs. DCIT – ITA Nos. 430 to 432/Hyd/2016 and others. 6. Katira Construction Ltd. Vs. Union of India – (2013) 31 taxmann.com 250 Gujarat 7 PCIT and another Vs. M/s. Wipro Limited – Civil Appeal No.1449 of 2022 arising out of SLP (Civil) No.7620/2021

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRLCE-2(1), HYD, HYDERABAD vs. HES INFRA PVT LTD., HYD, HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of Revenue in ITA

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri Laliet Kumar

4. Rachna Infrastructure (P.) Ltd. [2022] 138 taxmann.com 416 (Gujarat) 5. NEC NCC Maytas JV Vs. DCIT – ITA Nos. 430 to 432/Hyd/2016 and others. 6. Katira Construction Ltd. Vs. Union of India – (2013) 31 taxmann.com 250 Gujarat 7 PCIT and another Vs. M/s. Wipro Limited – Civil Appeal No.1449 of 2022 arising out of SLP (Civil) No.7620/2021

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRLCE-2(1), HYD, HYDERABAD vs. HES INFRA PVT LTD., HYD, HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of Revenue in ITA

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri Laliet Kumar

4. Rachna Infrastructure (P.) Ltd. [2022] 138 taxmann.com 416 (Gujarat) 5. NEC NCC Maytas JV Vs. DCIT – ITA Nos. 430 to 432/Hyd/2016 and others. 6. Katira Construction Ltd. Vs. Union of India – (2013) 31 taxmann.com 250 Gujarat 7 PCIT and another Vs. M/s. Wipro Limited – Civil Appeal No.1449 of 2022 arising out of SLP (Civil) No.7620/2021

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRLCE-2(1), HYD, HYDERABAD vs. HES INFRA PVT LTD., HYD, HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of Revenue in ITA

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri Laliet Kumar

4. Rachna Infrastructure (P.) Ltd. [2022] 138 taxmann.com 416 (Gujarat) 5. NEC NCC Maytas JV Vs. DCIT – ITA Nos. 430 to 432/Hyd/2016 and others. 6. Katira Construction Ltd. Vs. Union of India – (2013) 31 taxmann.com 250 Gujarat 7 PCIT and another Vs. M/s. Wipro Limited – Civil Appeal No.1449 of 2022 arising out of SLP (Civil) No.7620/2021

SRI VENKAT DEVINENI,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT., CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(2), HYDERABAD

section 65B of the Evidence Act in respect of the alleged\nWhatsApp messages. In the absence of such certification, the WhatsApp\nmessages cannot be treated as admissible evidence. Accordingly, it was\nreiterated that an addition made only on the basis of an uncorroborated\nstatement of a third party is unsustainable in law.\n10.\nWe have carefully considered the rival submissions

KAUSALYA AGRO FARMS AMD DEVELOPERS PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. ITO., WARD-2(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes, in terms of our above findings

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Madhusudan Sawdia

4 6. The brief facts of the case are that the assessee is a company which filed its return of income for the Assessment Year 2016–17 on 13.10.2016, declaring total income of Rs.2,96,250/-. The case of the assessee was reopened under section 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (“the Act”), and accordingly, a notice under section