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

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

section 92C(2) 15. Initiating the penalty proceedings u/s 271(1(C) of the Act. 16. Initiating penalty proceedings 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

section 92C(2) 15. Initiating the penalty proceedings u/s 271(1(C) of the Act. 16. Initiating penalty proceedings 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

section 92C(2) 15. Initiating the penalty proceedings u/s 271(1(C) of the Act. 16. Initiating penalty proceedings 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

section 92C(2) 15. Initiating the penalty proceedings u/s 271(1(C) of the Act. 16. Initiating penalty proceedings u/s

BS LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. ASST.COMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2(3), HYDERABAD

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

Bench: Shri D. Manmohan & Shri S. Rifaur Rahmanassessment Year: 2013-14

penalty notices u/s. 271(1)(c) and 271AAB along with Draft assessment order dated 30.12.2016, which tantamount to passing of Final Assessment Order. 2. Erred in making adjustment u/s. 92CA(3) of the Act for Rs. 4,79,143/- in respect of transaction of Corporate Guarantee provided to DCO Bank, Singapore on behalf of loan to BS Resource Pte Limited

PALRED TECHNOLOGIES LIMITED ,HYDERABAD vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CIRCLE-16(2), HYDERABAD

Appeal is partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri S.S. Godara & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahuassessment Year: 2008-09

penalty proceedings u/s 271 (1 (C) of the Act. Page 2 of 11 ITA No 581 of 2020 Palred Technologies Ltd Hyderabad 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”. 2. We notice

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

92C of the Act relating to the 'Computation of Arms Length Price 1.7. Ought to have appreciated the fact that the assessee is following a policy of not charging interest on receivables irrespective of whether the sales are made to AE or Non-AE. Hence, considering the CUP method as well, the transactions with AE are at arm's length

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

92C(3) of the Act were satisfied. 3. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in contrary to law, the Ld. TPO erred and the Hon'ble DRP further erred in upholding the action of the Ld. TPO in confirming the application/ incorrect application of the following filters: •Rejection of companies with different financial year ending

IVY COMPTECH PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. DY.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2(1), HYDERABAD

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

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahuay : 2013-14 Ivy Comptech Pvt. Ltd., Vs. Dy. Commissioner Of Hyderabad. Income-Tax, Circle – 2(1) Hyderabad. Pan – Aaaci 8884K (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Prashant Meharchandani Revenue By: Shri R. Dipak Date Of Hearing: 27/04/2021 Date Of Pronouncement: 20/07/2021

penalty proceedings u/ s 271AA and 271 BA 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.” Based on the facts and circumstances of the case

ADAMA INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED ,HYDERABAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(3), HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi & Shri S. Rifaur Rahmanassessment Year: 2014-15 Adama India Pvt. Ltd., Vs. Income-Tax Officer, Hyderabad. Ward – 1(3), Hyderabad. Pan – Aabcm 09294F (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Raghunathan S. Revenue By : Shri Y.V.S.T. Sai Date Of Hearing : 09-04-2019 Date Of Pronouncement : 03-07-2019 O R D E R

penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act.” 6. As regards ground No. 1 ( 1.1 to 1.6) regarding receipt of management services from AEs, the TPO observed that the assessee had carried out the economic analysis in the TP documentation by clubbing management services under manufacturing function. He, therefore, requested the assessee to furnish clarification and submission along with

PLANET ONLINE PVT.LTD., HYD,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-16(2), HYDERABAD, HYDERABAD

In the result assessee’s appeal is partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi & Shri S.Rifaur Rahmana.Y.2011-12

section 92C(2) of the Act. 10. Erred in confirming the disallowance of the claim of assessee company u/ s 80G of the Act amounting to Rs. 1,12,790/-. 11. Erred in confirming the disallowance of the deduction claimed by the assessee company u/ s 10AA of the Act for Rs. 61,644/-. 11.a Ought to have appreciated