GSS INFOTECH LIMITED ,HYDERABAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(2), HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi & Shri A. Mohan Alankamony

Penalty notices u/s. 271AA, 271BA and 271(1)(c) along 2. with the draft assessment order dated 15.12.2017, would tantamount to passing of Final Assessment Order. The Ld.TPO/DRP erred in rejecting the TP Documentation maintained by the assessee without properly appreciating the submissions made by the assessee Erred in rejecting the search applied by the taxpayer which was made

GSS INFOTECH LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CIRCLE-2(2), HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi & Shri A. Mohan Alankamony

Penalty notices u/s. 271AA, 271BA and 271(1)(c) along 2. with the draft assessment order dated 15.12.2017, would tantamount to passing of Final Assessment Order. The Ld.TPO/DRP erred in rejecting the TP Documentation maintained by the assessee without properly appreciating the submissions made by the assessee Erred in rejecting the search applied by the taxpayer which was made

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

TP adjustment arising on account of retrospective amendment to the section 92C(2) 15. Initiating the penalty proceedings u/s 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

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

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

TP adjustment arising on account of retrospective amendment to the section 92C(2) 15. Initiating the penalty proceedings u/s 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

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

TP adjustment arising on account of retrospective amendment to the section 92C(2) 15. Initiating the penalty proceedings u/s 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

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

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

TP adjustment arising on account of retrospective amendment to the section 92C(2) 15. Initiating the penalty proceedings u/s 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

APACHE FOOTWEAR INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,MAMBATTU VILLAGE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX ,CIRCLE-1(1), TIRUPATI

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

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri Laliet Kumar

method, it could take care of all notional interest costs wherever it could be applied and there could be no separate upwards adjustment for export receivables for delayed realisation of bills as decided by the Hon'ble Income Tax Appellate Tribunal. Chennai in the case of Mis Gimpex Pvt Ltd Vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle

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

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

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

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

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Laliet Kumarassessment Year: 2014-15 Facebook India Online Services Vs. The Deputy Commissioner Private Limited, Of Income Tax, 12Th Floor, Building No.20, Circle – 17(1), Unit 1203 & 1204, Hitech City, Hyderabad. Madhapaur, Hyderabad. Pan : Aabcf5150G. (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Dhanesh Bafna & Chandni Shah Revenue By: Shri Rajendra Kumar – Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing: 20.07.2022 Date Of Pronouncement: 19.09.2022

penalty proceedings initiated u/s 271(1)(C) of the Act.” 2. The brief facts of the case are that assessee company is engaged in the business of Service Sector, IT Enabled Services and BPO Providers, back office support services to its associated enterprise (`ITeS'). The assessee company filed its return of income for A.Y. 2014-15 on 25.11.2014 declaring total

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. 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.” 10. The ld. AR of the assessee submitted that the TPO has adopted various filters

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

COMM VAULT SYSTEMS (INDIA) PVT.LTD., HYD,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-1(2), HYD, HYDERABAD

In the result, assessee’s appeal is partly allowed

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi & Shri B. Ramakotaiahm/S. Comm Vault Systems Vs Dy. Commissioner Of Income (India) Private Limited Tax, Circle 1(2) Hyderabad Hyderabad Pan: Aaccc 3708 L (Appellant) (Respondent)

penalty under section 271(1)(C), 272BA and 271AA 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”. 4. In addition to the above, the assessee has also raised the following

ZUARI CEMENT LIMITED,KADAPA vs. ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1(1), KADAPA

Appeal is allowed in above terms

Bench: Shri S.S. Godara & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahuassessment Year: 2009-10

penalty proceedings against the Appellant under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act as there was no concealment of facts and no willful misstatement.” 3. It is clear in nutshell that the assessee’s four folded substantive grounds challenge correctness of the lower authorities’ action interalia making arm’s length price “ALP” adjustments pertaining to payment(s) of sub-license

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

271 has no bearing on the question raised before us. There the concessional scheme tempted the assessee to disclose voluntarily all his concealed income and he agreed to pay the proper tax upon ITA Nos.32/Hyd/2019 & 9 2130/Hyd/2017 it. The agreement there related to the quantification of taxable income but in the present case what is sought to be taxed

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

271 has no bearing on the question raised before us. There the concessional scheme tempted the assessee to disclose voluntarily all his concealed income and he agreed to pay the proper tax upon ITA Nos.32/Hyd/2019 & 9 2130/Hyd/2017 it. The agreement there related to the quantification of taxable income but in the present case what is sought to be taxed

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