HYUNDAI MOTOR INDIA ENGINEERING PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT CIRCLE -2(1), HYDERABAD

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

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

Section 92CA of the IT Act, directions given by DRP u/s 144C(5) of the Act and “Give Effect to Directions u/s 144C order of the TPO dt.19.03.2021, the final assessment order u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 144C(13) of the Act was passed and the total income of the assessee was assessed at Rs.49,99,97,796/-. Thereafter

ACIT., CIRCLE-5(1) , HYDERABAD vs. MARKET TOOLS & RESEARCH PRIVATE LIMITED, HYDERABAD

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar, Hon’Ble & Shri Manjunatha G, Hon’Ble

271(1(C) of the Act. 16. Initiating penalty proceedings u/s 271BA and u/s 271AA.” 2.1. Additional grounds raised by the assessee for A.Y. 2010- 11 read as under : 17. The learned TPO has grossly erred in not appreciating that the outstanding receivables is not covered in the definition of international transaction as defined u/s

MACROMILL RESEARCH INDIA LLP (FORMERLY MARKET TOOLS RESEARCH P. LTD.,),HYDERABAD vs. ACIT, CIRLCE-16(2), , HYDERABAD

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar, Hon’Ble & Shri Manjunatha G, Hon’Ble

271(1(C) of the Act. 16. Initiating penalty proceedings u/s 271BA and u/s 271AA.” 2.1. Additional grounds raised by the assessee for A.Y. 2010- 11 read as under : 17. The learned TPO has grossly erred in not appreciating that the outstanding receivables is not covered in the definition of international transaction as defined u/s

ACIT, CIRLCE-5 (1), , HYDERABAD vs. MARKET TOOLS RESEARCH PRIVATE LIMITED , HYDERABAD

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar, Hon’Ble & Shri Manjunatha G, Hon’Ble

271(1(C) of the Act. 16. Initiating penalty proceedings u/s 271BA and u/s 271AA.” 2.1. Additional grounds raised by the assessee for A.Y. 2010- 11 read as under : 17. The learned TPO has grossly erred in not appreciating that the outstanding receivables is not covered in the definition of international transaction as defined u/s

MACROMILL RESEARCH INDIA LLP (FORMERLY MARKET TOOLS RESEARCH PRIVATE LIMITED),HYDERABAD vs. ACIT., CIRCLE-16(2), , HYDERABAD

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar, Hon’Ble & Shri Manjunatha G, Hon’Ble

271(1(C) of the Act. 16. Initiating penalty proceedings u/s 271BA and u/s 271AA.” 2.1. Additional grounds raised by the assessee for A.Y. 2010- 11 read as under : 17. The learned TPO has grossly erred in not appreciating that the outstanding receivables is not covered in the definition of international transaction as defined u/s

MADHUCON PROJECTS LTD, HYDERABAD,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3, HYD, HYDERABAD

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

271(1)(c) of the Act. As the Assessing Officer not passed any order for levying penalty, this ground is preposterous and cannot be adjudicated. Dismissed accordingly. 41. In the result ITA No. 1970/Hyd/2011 and 1499/Hyd/2011 are partly allowed for statistical purposes. SA Nos. 83 and 84/ Hyd/2012 are dismissed as infructuous as we have already disposed of the appeals

MADHUCON PROJECTS LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT., CENTRAL CIRCLE-3, HYDERABAD, HYDERABAD

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

271(1)(c) of the Act. As the Assessing Officer not passed any order for levying penalty, this ground is preposterous and cannot be adjudicated. Dismissed accordingly. 41. In the result ITA No. 1970/Hyd/2011 and 1499/Hyd/2011 are partly allowed for statistical purposes. SA Nos. 83 and 84/ Hyd/2012 are dismissed as infructuous as we have already disposed of the appeals

MADHUCON PROJECTS LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT., CENTRAL CIRCLE-3, HYDERABAD, HYDERABAD

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

271(1)(c) of the Act. As the Assessing Officer not passed any order for levying penalty, this ground is preposterous and cannot be adjudicated. Dismissed accordingly. 41. In the result ITA No. 1970/Hyd/2011 and 1499/Hyd/2011 are partly allowed for statistical purposes. SA Nos. 83 and 84/ Hyd/2012 are dismissed as infructuous as we have already disposed of the appeals

F5 NETWORKS INNOVATION PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-17(1), HYDERABAD

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

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Madhusudan Sawdia

144C of the Act. 33.7 It is also pertinent to highlights that the statute does not permit the collection of tax beyond what is legitimately due from the assessee. Taxation must be based on liability established under the law, and merely because of a procedural lapse, an assessee cannot be compelled to pay tax that it is not legally required

DODLA DAIRY LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT CIRCLE -8(1), HYDERABAD

Bench: Us:

penalty proceedings under section 270A of the Act by alleging that there is under reporting of income by the Appellant.” 3. Apart from that the assessee company has filed before us letters dated 14.07.2023, 21.09.2023 and 22.04.2025, wherein it has raised additional grounds of appeal, which reads as under: Filed on 14.07.2023: “1. On the facts and circumstances

M/S KANTAR GDC INDIA PVT. LTD. (FORMERLY TNS INDIA PVT LTD),HYDERABAD vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CIRCLE-2(2), HYDERABAD

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

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Manjunatha, G.आ.अपी.सं /Ita No.2261/Hyd/2017 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2013-14) M/S. Kantar Gdc India (P) Vs. Dy. C. I. T. Ltd (Formerly Tns India (P) Circle 2(2) Ltd, Hyderabad Hyderabad Pan:Aabcn2278F (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: Advocate Harpreet Singh Ajmani राज" व "ारा/Revenue By:: Shri Shiva Sewak, Cit(Dr) सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 15/05/2024 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 03/06/2024 आदेश/Order

penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c), 271AA, 271BA of the Act. The Appellant craves, to consider each of the above grounds of appeal without prejudice to each other and craves leave to add, alter, delete or modify all or any of the above grounds of appeal.” 3. Facts of the case, in brief, are that the assessee company is engaged

PRAKASH LAL POTLURI,HYDERABAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, (INT TAXN)-2,HYD, HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Laliet Kumarassessment Year: 2015-16 Prakash Lal Potluri, Vs. The Income Tax Officer, Hyderabad. (International Taxation)-2, Hyderabad. Pan : Gnkpp1085B. (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: None Revenue By: Sri M. Vijay Kumar – Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing: 29.02.2024 Date Of Pronouncement: 29.02.2024

penalty proceedings under sections 271(1)(c) and 271F. Despite the assessee's explanations, the Assessing Officer did not accept, as the assessee failed to prove that he had not received the sale consideration from said Anil Kumar and added the income from the sale of land to the return of income, totaling Rs.1,20,00,000/-. 3 Accordingly

MICROSOFT GLOBAL SERVICES CENTRE (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-5(1), HYDERABAD

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

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

u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 144C(13) r.w.s. 144B of the Act. Thereafter penalty proceedings under Section 271(1)(c) were 3 initiated separately due to reporting of inaccurate particulars of income. 4. Feeling aggrieved with final assessment order, assessee preferred appeal before us. 5. Before us, the ld. AR for the assessee has submitted that the assessee has approached

MADHUVALLI LAKAMRAJU,USA vs. ADIT, (INT TAXN)-1, HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri Laliet Kumarassessment Year: 2018-19 Smt. Madhuvalli Vs. Adit (Int Taxn)-1, Lakamraju, California, Usa. Hyderabad. C/O. B. Narsing Rao & Co., Chartered Accountants, Jubiliee Hills, Hyderabad. Pan : Aczpl9709J. (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Shri K.C. Devdas. C.A. Revenue By: Ms. Th. Vijaya Lakshmi, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing: 30.08.2023 Date Of Pronouncement: 31.08.2023 O R D E R Per Shri Laliet Kumar, J.M. This Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee, Feeling Aggrieved By The Directions Issued By The Income Tax Officer (Osd) & Secretary (Drp-1), Bengaluru Invoking Proceedings U/S 144C(5) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 For The A.Y 2013-14 On The Following Grounds :

Section 68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. Since, the assessee failed to disclose the cash deposits, the penalty u/s 271 (i)(c) of the IT Act was separately initiated for concealment of income and passed the draft assessment order. 3.2. Feeling aggrieved, the assessee has challenged the draft order dt.17.03.2022 before the DRP. Thereafter, the DRP after considering

OAKTON GLOBAL TECHNOLOGY SERVICES CENTRE (I) PRIVATE LIMITED ,HYDERABAD vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CIRCLE-16(2), HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Madhusudan Sawdia

144C(5) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ('the Act'), as per the direction of Learned Dispute Resolution Panel, Bangalore (“Ld. DRP”) on 05.10.2017 & 26.10.2018 for A.Ys. 2013-14 & 2014-15 respectively. Since these appeals are inter-related, they are heard together and one consolidated order is being passed for the sake of convenience and brevity. ITA Nos.32/Hyd/2019 & 2 2130/Hyd/2017

OAKTON GLOBAL TECHNOLOGY SERVICES CENTRE (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-16(2), HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Madhusudan Sawdia

144C(5) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ('the Act'), as per the direction of Learned Dispute Resolution Panel, Bangalore (“Ld. DRP”) on 05.10.2017 & 26.10.2018 for A.Ys. 2013-14 & 2014-15 respectively. Since these appeals are inter-related, they are heard together and one consolidated order is being passed for the sake of convenience and brevity. ITA Nos.32/Hyd/2019 & 2 2130/Hyd/2017