DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CIRCLE-1(2), HYDERABAD vs. BHAGIRADHA CHEMICALS & INDUSTRIES LIMITED , HYDERABAD

In the result, appeals filed by the Revenue and the Cross Objections filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

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

147 dated 29.12.2017. Therefore, the Assessing Officer already examined and allowed the deduction u/s. 10B for this AY 2010-11 in the original assessment and also in the earlier AYs 2008-09 and 2009-10. 5.3.4 Hence, due to the discussions above, I am convinced with the submissions of the appellant that the appellant was eligible to claim deduction u/s

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CIRCLE-2(2), HYDERABAD vs. TRACKS & TOWERS INFRATECH PRIVATE LIMITED(PART IX), HYDERABAD

In the result, both the appeals filed by the revenue are partly allowed

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri Laliet Kumar

147 or 263 proceedings are pending. The order u/s. 143(1) is placed at pages 211-222 of paper book volume-2. Referring to pages 223-227 of the paper book volume-2, he submitted that the AO in the order passed u/s. 143(3) for AY 2020-21 has allowed the claim of deduction u/s. 80IA. Referring

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CIRCLE-2(2), HYDERABAD vs. TRACKS & TOWERS INFRATECH PRIVATE LIMITED(PART IX), HYDERABAD

In the result, both the appeals filed by the revenue are partly allowed

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri Laliet Kumar

147 or 263 proceedings are pending. The order u/s. 143(1) is placed at pages 211-222 of paper book volume-2. Referring to pages 223-227 of the paper book volume-2, he submitted that the AO in the order passed u/s. 143(3) for AY 2020-21 has allowed the claim of deduction u/s. 80IA. Referring

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.

147 of the Act and issuing notice u/s 148 of the Act to the Appellant, in as much as there has been no escapement of assessment of income chargeable to tax for the year under appeal. TRANSEER PRICING (TP) MATTERS Corporate Guarantee Fee: Page 6 of 35 ITA No 864 of 2017 Rain Cements Ltd Hyderabad

DR.REDDY'S LABORATORIES LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-17(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, we hold that the Tax Authorities were not justified in apportioning R & D expenditure and ESOP cost to the units which claimed exemption u/s 10B, 80IB and 80IC of the Act

Bench: Shri D. Manmohan & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman

147) (PB 107-177) (PB 240-244) expenses filed before the AO on 5 Date of regular 30.11.2012 26.12.2013 23.02.2015 assessment proceedings (PA178-198) (PB 178 - 193) (PB 245-265) u/s 143(3) 6 Four year time limit for 31.03.2013 31.03.2014 31.03.2015 issue of notice u/s 148 elapsed on 7 Notice for reassessment 30.03.2015 03.03.2016 03.03.2016 u/s 148 issued

DR.REDDY'S LABORATORIES LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-17(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, we hold that the Tax Authorities were not justified in apportioning R & D expenditure and ESOP cost to the units which claimed exemption u/s 10B, 80IB and 80IC of the Act

Bench: Shri D. Manmohan & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman

147) (PB 107-177) (PB 240-244) expenses filed before the AO on 5 Date of regular 30.11.2012 26.12.2013 23.02.2015 assessment proceedings (PA178-198) (PB 178 - 193) (PB 245-265) u/s 143(3) 6 Four year time limit for 31.03.2013 31.03.2014 31.03.2015 issue of notice u/s 148 elapsed on 7 Notice for reassessment 30.03.2015 03.03.2016 03.03.2016 u/s 148 issued

DR.REDDY'S LABORATORIES LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-17(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, we hold that the Tax Authorities were not justified in apportioning R & D expenditure and ESOP cost to the units which claimed exemption u/s 10B, 80IB and 80IC of the Act

Bench: Shri D. Manmohan & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman

147) (PB 107-177) (PB 240-244) expenses filed before the AO on 5 Date of regular 30.11.2012 26.12.2013 23.02.2015 assessment proceedings (PA178-198) (PB 178 - 193) (PB 245-265) u/s 143(3) 6 Four year time limit for 31.03.2013 31.03.2014 31.03.2015 issue of notice u/s 148 elapsed on 7 Notice for reassessment 30.03.2015 03.03.2016 03.03.2016 u/s 148 issued

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

Bench: SHRI RAVISH SOOD, HON'BLE (Judicial Member), SHRI MADHUSUDAN SAWDIA HON'BLE (Accountant Member)

reassessment proceedings under section 147 of the Act. b) No evidence of any new tangible material has been referred to by the Ld. AO in the reasons for re-opening the assessment and hence, it is a mere change of opinion, and the Ld. AO does not have any reason to believe that income has escaped assessment. c) There

DCIT (EXEMPTIONS), CIRCLE 1(1), HYDERABAD vs. NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF RURAL DEVELOPMENT AND PANCHAYATI RAJ, HYDERABAD

In the result, both the appeal filed by the Revenue and cross- objection filed by the assessee are dismissed

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

10B on or before the due date provided for filing the return of income under Section 139(1) of the Act, for claiming exemption under Section 11 of the Act. The assessee has also referred to the amendment to Section 12A of the Act, by the Finance Act, 2017 and the Finance Act, 2020, making it mandatory for filing return

NAVAYUGA ENGINEERING COMPANY LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT CIRCLE-1(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, all the three appeals filed by the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda, Vice- & Shri Laliet Kumar

10B or section 10BA or under any provision of the said Chapter - VI A under the heading "C.-Deduction in respect of certain incomes", no deduction would be allowed to him under the said provision. In plain terms, this sub-section (5) of section 80A of the Act imposes an additional condition for claim of deduction in relation to income

NAVAYUGA ENGINEERING COMPANY LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT CIRCLE-1(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, all the three appeals filed by the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda, Vice- & Shri Laliet Kumar

10B or section 10BA or under any provision of the said Chapter - VI A under the heading "C.-Deduction in respect of certain incomes", no deduction would be allowed to him under the said provision. In plain terms, this sub-section (5) of section 80A of the Act imposes an additional condition for claim of deduction in relation to income

NAVAYUGA ENGINEERING COMPANY LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT CIRCLE-1(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, all the three appeals filed by the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda, Vice- & Shri Laliet Kumar

10B or section 10BA or under any provision of the said Chapter - VI A under the heading "C.-Deduction in respect of certain incomes", no deduction would be allowed to him under the said provision. In plain terms, this sub-section (5) of section 80A of the Act imposes an additional condition for claim of deduction in relation to income

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

147, 148, 149 and 153 would give way to the provisions of section 153A of the Act. It was submitted that once the assessee has not claimed the benefit of deduction u/s 80IA in the original return of income, then the same cannot be claimed while filing the return of income in pursuance to the notice issued u/s 153A

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

147, 148, 149 and 153 would give way to the provisions of section 153A of the Act. It was submitted that once the assessee has not claimed the benefit of deduction u/s 80IA in the original return of income, then the same cannot be claimed while filing the return of income in pursuance to the notice issued u/s 153A

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

147, 148, 149 and 153 would give way to the provisions of section 153A of the Act. It was submitted that once the assessee has not claimed the benefit of deduction u/s 80IA in the original return of income, then the same cannot be claimed while filing the return of income in pursuance to the notice issued u/s 153A

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

147, 148, 149 and 153 would give way to the provisions of section 153A of the Act. It was submitted that once the assessee has not claimed the benefit of deduction u/s 80IA in the original return of income, then the same cannot be claimed while filing the return of income in pursuance to the notice issued u/s 153A

JEL FIANANCE & INVESTMENTS LIMITED,(FORMERLY KNOWN AS JUBILIANT ENGINEERING LIMITED), HYD, HYD,SECUNDERABAD vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-2(1), HYDERABAD, HYDERABAD

The appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri K. Narasimha Chary & Shri Madhusudan Sawdia

147 of the Act. When an assessment is re-opened based on audit objection, it cannot be said that Ld. AO had tangible material to come to conclusion that there is escapement of income from assessment and that he had reason to believe that income had escaped assessment. In the absence of both tangible material and reason to believe that

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)

10B(1)(e) of the Rules. 15. Ground 15: Adjustments for risk differences The Ld. TPO and the Hon'ble DRP erred in not adjusting the net margins of comparable companies for differences in financial and risk position. 16. Ground 16: Incorrect margin computation of comparable companies The Ld. TPO and the Hon'ble DRP erred in adopting an inconsistent