WESTERN UP TOLLWAY LIMITED,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT CIRCLE -8(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, all the appeals of the assessees are allowed in terms of our aforesaid observations

Bench: Shri Ravish Sooda N D Shri Madhusudan Sawdiaआ.अपी.सं /Ita Tp Nos.67/Hyd/2022 & 493/Hyd/2022 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2017-18 & 2018-19) M/S Western Up Tollway Vs. Deputy Commissioner Of Limited, New Delhi Income Tax, Circle 8(1) Pan:Aaacw6002B Hyderabad (Appellant) (Respondent) आ.अपी.सं /Ita Tp No. 170/Hyd/2022 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2017-18) M/S Mahua Bharatpur Vs. Deputy Commissioner Of Expressways Ltd, Income Tax, Circle 5(1) Hyderabad Hyderabad Pan:Aaecm4426F (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: Advocates Ajay Vohra & Ananya Kapoor राज" व "ारा/Revenue By:: Smt. U. Mini Chandran, Cit (Dr) सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 09/12/2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 12/12/2025 आदेश/Order Per Bench: These Three Appeals Are Filed By M/S. Western Up Tollway Ltd (2) & Mahua Bharatpur Expressways Ltd (1) (“The Page 1 Of 38

method and without performing any analysis in accordance with the provisions of Section 92C of the Act read with Rule 10B and 10C of the Rules. b) Rejecting the appellant's economic analysis stating that only SBI linked rate loans have been considered. 5. The Hon'ble DRP/ Learned TPOIAO has grossly erred in rejecting the economic adjustments claimed

MAHUA BHARATPUR EXPRESSWAYS LIMITED, ,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-5(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, all the appeals of the assessees are allowed in terms of our aforesaid observations

Bench: Shri Ravish Sooda N D Shri Madhusudan Sawdiaआ.अपी.सं /Ita Tp Nos.67/Hyd/2022 & 493/Hyd/2022 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2017-18 & 2018-19) M/S Western Up Tollway Vs. Deputy Commissioner Of Limited, New Delhi Income Tax, Circle 8(1) Pan:Aaacw6002B Hyderabad (Appellant) (Respondent) आ.अपी.सं /Ita Tp No. 170/Hyd/2022 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2017-18) M/S Mahua Bharatpur Vs. Deputy Commissioner Of Expressways Ltd, Income Tax, Circle 5(1) Hyderabad Hyderabad Pan:Aaecm4426F (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: Advocates Ajay Vohra & Ananya Kapoor राज" व "ारा/Revenue By:: Smt. U. Mini Chandran, Cit (Dr) सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 09/12/2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 12/12/2025 आदेश/Order Per Bench: These Three Appeals Are Filed By M/S. Western Up Tollway Ltd (2) & Mahua Bharatpur Expressways Ltd (1) (“The Page 1 Of 38

method and without performing any analysis in accordance with the provisions of Section 92C of the Act read with Rule 10B and 10C of the Rules. b) Rejecting the appellant's economic analysis stating that only SBI linked rate loans have been considered. 5. The Hon'ble DRP/ Learned TPOIAO has grossly erred in rejecting the economic adjustments claimed

ADP PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD, TELANGANA vs. DCIT., CIRCLE 1(1), HYDERABAD, TELANGANA

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed in terms of our observations given hereinabove

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

method with OP/OC as the PLI. After considering the TP documentation and submissions, the TPO made an adjustment of Rs. 13,87,33,384/- in respect of interest on delayed receivables from AE by applying the SBI short-term 11 ADP Private Limited deposit rate and allowing a credit period of 60 days, vide order dated 30.01.2024 passed under Section

CALLIDUSCLOUD (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT., CIRCLE- 1(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed in terms of our observations given hereinabove

method with OP/OC as the PLI. After considering the TP documentation and submissions, the learned TPO proposed total adjustment of Rs. 13,56,42,964/- comprising adjustment towards provision of software development services, provision of KPO services, remittance of ESPP contribution of employees and interest on delayed receivables, vide order dated 29.10.2023 passed under Section 92CA

R.A.K CERAMICS INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,SAMALKOT vs. DCIT CIRCLE -3(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed in\nterms of our aforesaid observations

methods and disregarding the Comparable Uncontrolled\ntransaction ('CUP') analysis undertaken by the Appellant in its TP Study.\nd. Disregarding the commercial / business rationale justifying the payment;\ne. the fact that the payment of royalty is forming part of TNMM analysis undertaken by the Ld.\nTPO and adjusting the payment of royalty separately will lead to double whammy to the\nAssessee

SAXON GLOBAL INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. ITO., WARD-3(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed in terms of our observations given hereinabove

method with OP/OC as the PLI. The TPO, after considering the functional profile and the filters applied by the assessee, rejected the TP study on the ground that appropriate filters such as service-income filter, related-party transactions filter, export earnings filter, and computation of margins as per Rule 10CA were not applied. The TPO conducted an independent search

CONCENTRIX CATALYST TECHNOLOGIES PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT., CIRCLE - 1(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed in\nterms of our aforesaid observations

method to identify the comparative\nborrowings from the sources namely RBI, Thomas Reuters LPC Loan calculator and Bloomberg to\nconclude the same at ALP, thus warranting no TP adjustment.\nTP adjustment in relation to provision of software development services by the Appellant to AE\n[INR NIL]\nThe below grounds are without prejudice to the fact that the TP adjustment

SEAWAY SHIPPING & LOGISTICS LIMITED ,HYDERABAD vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CIRCLE-3(1), HYDERABAD

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

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri Laliet Kumar

reassessment proceedings are valid in law as the notice was issued after a period of 4 years without any fresh material on record. 3) It is not correct for the Assessing Officer to apply the provisions of Sec.92 of the I.T.Act when the net result of the business activity for the year under consideration is a loss and the appellant

NETCRACKER TECHNOLOGY SOLUTIONS (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT., CIRCLE - 5(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed in terms of our observations given hereinabove

Bench: SHRI G. MANJUNATHA, HON’BLE (Accountant Member), SHRI RAVISH SOOD, HON’BLE (Judicial Member)

method with profit level indicator of OP/OC of 17.45%. Further, the assessee has selected 14 comparables of similar nature with an OP/OC of 17.57% and claimed that, its transactions with AE are at arm's length price. The TPO, after considering relevant TP study document submitted by the assessee and also taking note of various facts, has made TP adjustment

PRYSMIAN CAVI E SISTEMI S.R.L,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT (INT,TAXN)-2, HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

reassessment order dated 20.12.2006 under\nsection 143(3) r.w.s. 147 of the Act was adjudicated separately by the Tribunal\nvide order dated 30.11.2015. In that order, the Tribunal directed the Assessing\nOfficer to delete the addition made in respect of offshore contract receipts;\nestimate the income at 10% of the onshore contract works / services receipts;\nand specifically directed

SRESTA NATURAL BIOPRODUCTS PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT., CIRCLE-3(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Manjunatha G.आ.अपी.सं /Ita No.711/Hyd/2024 Assessment Year 2020-2021 Sresta Natural Bioproducts Private Limited, Hyderabad. The Dcit, Circle-3(1), Vs. Pin – 500 081. Hyderabad – 500 081. Telangana. Telangana. Pan Aahcs9571J (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा"रती "ारा /Assessee By: Ca P Murali Mohan Rao राज" व "ारा /Revenue By: Dr. Narendra Kumar Naik, Cit-Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 11.12.2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 19.12.2025 आदेश/Order

TP Analysis. 4.6. The Ld. AO erred in considering that the segmental results are not based on audited accounts and bifurcation of sales and cost between AE and non-AE's are not based on statutory audit. 5. ALP adjustment of Rs. 1,22,27,994/- towards interest on receivables. 5.1. The Ld. AO erred in making Arm's length

RAIN CEMENTS LIMITED, HYD,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-3(1), HYDERABAD, HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri K. Narasimha Charyassessment Year: 2008-09 M/S. Rain Cements Ltd Vs. Dy. Commissioner Of (Formerly Known As Rain Income Tax, Circle 3 (1) Cii Carbon (India) Ltd Hyderabad Hyderabad Pan:Aabcr8858F (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Advocate Prathishta Singh & Advocate Deepak Chopra Revenue By: Dr.Rajendra Kumar, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing: 20/03/2023 Date Of Pronouncement: 31/05/2023 Order Per R.K. Panda, A.M This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Final Assessment Order Dated 24.03.2017 Passed U/S 143(3) R.W.S. 144C(5) R.W.S. 260 Of The I.T. Act For The A.Y 2008-09. 2. This Appeal Was Earlier Decided By The Tribunal Vide Order Dated 18.10.2019. Subsequently Vide Ma No.15/Hyd/2020, Dated 23.3.2021, The Tribunal Recalled The Entire Order For Fresh Adjudication. Therefore, This Is A Recalled Matter.

method. It has established two separate units which carry out manufacturing and export of CPC. It filed its return of income on 30.09.2008 declaring loss of Rs.23,71,90,124/- after claiming exemption of Rs.84,87,05,352/- u/s 10B under normal provisions of the Act and Rs.70,09,87,659/- u/s 115JB of the I.T. Act. The case

DSM SHARED SERVICES INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD, TELANGANA vs. DCIT., CIRCLE 8(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Manjunatha G.आ.अपी.सं /Ita No.1358/Hyd/2024 Assessment Year 2021-2022 Dsm Shared Services India Private Limited, The Dcit, Circle-8(1), Hyderabad – 500 081. Hyderabad – 500 081. Vs. Telangana. Telangana. Pan Aadcd8407C (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा"रती "ारा /Assessee By: Ca Aliasgar Rampurawala राज" व "ारा /Revenue By: Dr. Narendra Kumar Naik, Cit-Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 09.12.2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 12.12.2025 आदेश/Order

TP documentation and application of certain filters which are not relevant to the Appellant. c. not adopting the upper turnover filter while doing the comparability analysis for the Appellant's international transaction under the segment. d. including following companies which are not functionally comparable to the Appellant: I. Infosys BPM Ltd. II. Integra Software Services Pvt. Ltd. III. Sutherland Global

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

TP Study comparable: 1. Harbinger Systems Private Limited 2. Sasken Technologies Limited 3. E-Zest Solutions Limited 4. SK Miles Software Services Limited 1:5 The learned AO/TPO/DRP has erred in appreciating the fact that the Appellate has maintained transfer pricing study report on a contemporaneous basis. Without prejudice to the appellant's contention that benchmarking analysis as per transfer

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

TP Study comparable: 1. Harbinger Systems Private Limited 2. Sasken Technologies Limited 3. E-Zest Solutions Limited 4. SK Miles Software Services Limited 1:5 The learned AO/TPO/DRP has erred in appreciating the fact that the Appellate has maintained transfer pricing study report on a contemporaneous basis. Without prejudice to the appellant's contention that benchmarking analysis as per transfer

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