INDEED INDIA OPERATIONS PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT., CIRCLE -(1) , HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal of the Assessee for the\n

68,62,731 towards interest on outstanding receivables.\n2. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the\nLd. TPO erred and the Hon'ble DRP further erred in\nupholding/confirming the action of the Ld. TPO, in rejecting the\ntransfer pricing analysis/study prepared by the Appellant and\nconducting fresh benchmarking, without appreciating that none

INDEED INDIA OPERATIONS PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT., CIRCLE2(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal of the Assessee for the assessment year 2021-2022 is allowed

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Manjunatha G.आ.अपी.सं /Ita Nos.943 & 1359/Hyd/2024 Assessment Years 2020-2021 & 2021-2022 Indeed India Operations The Acit, Private Limited, Vs. Circle-2(1), Hyderabad – 500 081. Hyderabad. Telangana Pan Aadci5931J (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा"रती "ारा /Assessee By: Mahima Goud, Advocate राज" व "ारा /Revenue By: Ms U Mini Chandran, Cit-Dr

68,62,731 towards interest on outstanding receivables. 2. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. TPO erred and the Hon'ble DRP further erred in upholding/confirming the action of the Ld. TPO, in rejecting the transfer pricing analysis/study prepared by the Appellant and conducting fresh benchmarking, without appreciating that none

SYED AHMED ZEESHANUDDIN,HYDERABAD vs. ADIT (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION)-2 , HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee in I

Bench: Shri Manjunatha G. & Shri K.Narasimha Charyआ.अपी.सं / Ita No.156/Hyd/2024 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2017-18)

2. The Ld.A.O. grossly erred in invoking the provisions of sec.153C of the I.T.Act without there being any incriminating material found belonging to the appellant during the course of search in the premises of third party. 3. The Ld.A.O ought to have appreciated the fact that the issuance of notice u/s 153C has to be done before the completion

ASRA AHMED ,HYDERABAD vs. ADIT (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION)-2, HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee in I

Bench: Shri Manjunatha G. & Shri K.Narasimha Charyआ.अपी.सं / Ita No.156/Hyd/2024 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2017-18)

2. The Ld.A.O. grossly erred in invoking the provisions of sec.153C of the I.T.Act without there being any incriminating material found belonging to the appellant during the course of search in the premises of third party. 3. The Ld.A.O ought to have appreciated the fact that the issuance of notice u/s 153C has to be done before the completion

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

Bench: Us:

144C(3) r.w.s 144B of the Act, dated 15.07.2022 to an amount of Rs. 2,08,033/-. The Ld. AR assailed the disallowance of the aforesaid interest expenditure for two reasons, viz (i). that as the amount advanced by the assessee company to its Managing Director, i.e., an employee, at a discounted interest rate, was in the nature

PRASANTH NANDANURU,HYDERABAD vs. ITO, (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION)-2, HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri K.Narasimha Chary

144C(13) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short “the Act”), consequent to the directions of Hon'ble Dispute Resolution Panel, Bengaluru (“DRP”), assessee filed this appeal. 2. Assessee is an individual. He was an employee of Wells Fargo (EGS) India Pvt. Ltd (“Wells India”) and was sent on short-term assignment to ITA-IT No. 369/Hyd/2022 Wells Fargo

PRAKASH KANYADARA,VIJAYAWADA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER (INT TAXN)-1, HYDERABAD

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

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri K. Narasimha Chary

2 | 8 income in India from immovable property of Rs. 1.22 lakhs and interest on deposits on which TDS was deducted, that he duly declared this income in the return of income filed on 25/10/2021 in response to notice issued under section 148 dated 24/06/2021 admitting total income of Rs. 3,68,920/-. Assessee further submitted that the cash

SSNC FINTECH SERVICES INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT., CIRCLE 8(1), HYDERABAD

68,70,340/-. The appellant-\ncompany has also filed Form-3CEB and reported various\ninternational transactions including provision of ITS and\nITES. The appellant-company is a captive service provider to\nit's AE on cost plus basis as per the agreement entered into\nby it with it's AEs. The appellant-company has carried-out\nTP analysis documents

DCIT., (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION)-1, HYDERABAD vs. SYAMA REDDY MALI REDDY, HYDERABAD

2) of the Act.\n4. The A.O. vide his original order of assessment passed under\nSection 143(3) r.w Section 144C(3) of the Act, dated 30.11.2021,\nredetermined the “Long-Term Capital Gains” (“LTCG") disclosed by\nthe assessee on sale of 25 plots situated at Medipally, Uppal,\nHyderabad, and 4 plots at Bhongir District, at Rs.4,01,68

HYUNDAI MOTOR INDIA ENGINEERING PRIVATE LIMITED ,HYDERABAD vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CIRCLE-2(2), HYDERABAD

In the result, the assessee appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Laliet Kumarvs. Dy. Commissioner Of M/S. Hyundai Motor India Engineering Pvt. Ltd., Income Tax, Circle Hyderabad. 2(2), Hyderabad. Pan Aabcjh7867C Appellant Respondent Appellant By : Shri H. Srinivasulu, Adv. Respondent By : Shri Yvst Sai, Cit-Dr. Date Of Hearing : 27.07.2022. Date Of Pronouncement : 29.07.2022. O R D E R Per Shri Inturi Rama Rao, A.M. : This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-2, Hyderabad Dt.05.12.2019 For Assessment Year 2015-16. 2. The Assessee Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal :

section 144C of the Act is null and void : 1) Zuari Cement Ltd. - VS. Asst. Commr. Of IT (AP High Court) W.P. No.5557 of 2012 8 2) Asst. Commr. Of IT Vs Zuari Cement Ltd. (SC) CC 16694/2013 3) IATA Vs Dy. Commr. Of IT & Ors. (Bombay High Court) 68

BRAMHANI INDUSTRIES LIMITED, JAMMALAMADUGU,KADAPA vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-1(3), HYDERABAD, HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed and the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri A. Mohan Alankamony & Sri Chandra Mohan Garga.Y. 2010-11 Bramhani Industries Limited, Vs. Dcit, Jammalamadugu. Circle-1(3), Pan: Aadcb 1666 M Hyderabad. (Appellant) (Respondent) Ay: 2010-11 Dcit, Vs. Bramhani Industries Circle-1(2), Limited, Hyderabad. Jammalamadugu. Pan: Aadcb 1666 M (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Sri Gowtham Jain Revenue By Sri K.V. Aravind, Sr. Standing Counsel For Dr Date Of Hearing: 12/10/2021 Date Of Pronouncement: 06/01/2022 Order

144C(13) of the Act for the AY 2009-10 by the DCIT, Central Circle-1(3), Bangalore wherein entity’s income of Rs. 491,38,96,684/- is accepted and further addition is also made. (vii) Page No.202 consists of the CIN No. of the entity viz., U13209KA2001PTC029707. 2. Kireeti Power Corporation Pvt Ltd: (i) This company/entity has invested

DCIT, CIRCLE-1(2), HYDERABAD, HYDERABAD vs. BRAMHANI INDUSTRIES LIMITED, JAMMALAMADUGU, YSR DIST., YSR DIST.

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed and the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri A. Mohan Alankamony & Sri Chandra Mohan Garga.Y. 2010-11 Bramhani Industries Limited, Vs. Dcit, Jammalamadugu. Circle-1(3), Pan: Aadcb 1666 M Hyderabad. (Appellant) (Respondent) Ay: 2010-11 Dcit, Vs. Bramhani Industries Circle-1(2), Limited, Hyderabad. Jammalamadugu. Pan: Aadcb 1666 M (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Sri Gowtham Jain Revenue By Sri K.V. Aravind, Sr. Standing Counsel For Dr Date Of Hearing: 12/10/2021 Date Of Pronouncement: 06/01/2022 Order

144C(13) of the Act for the AY 2009-10 by the DCIT, Central Circle-1(3), Bangalore wherein entity’s income of Rs. 491,38,96,684/- is accepted and further addition is also made. (vii) Page No.202 consists of the CIN No. of the entity viz., U13209KA2001PTC029707. 2. Kireeti Power Corporation Pvt Ltd: (i) This company/entity has invested

SANGHI INDUSTRIES LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT, CIRCLE -3 (1), HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar & Shri Madhusudan Sawdia

144C(13) of the Act is not correct either in law or on facts and in both. 2. That the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. DRP is not justified in confirming the specified domestic transfer pricing adjustments made by the lower authorities, totalling Rs. 154,38,00,527/- U/s. 92CA

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

68,190/- in its return, which was processed under section 143(1) of the Act by the CPC, resulting in a disallowance of ₹5,13,01,761/- towards gratuity expenses under section 43B of the Act. This adjustment increased the assessee’s income to ₹ 63,40,69,950/-. Subsequently, the case of the assessee was selected for scrutiny

DR. REDDYS LABORATORIES LIMITED, HYDERABAD,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-17(1), HYDERABAD, HYDERABAD

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

Bench: Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri K.Narasimha Charyassessment Years: 2007-08 Dr.Reddy’S Laboratories Vs. Dcit,Circle-17(1) Limited Hyderabad 8-2-337, Road No.3 Banjara Hills Hyderabad-500 034

2 January 2017 at para 64 (refer Annexure 1) confirmed the DRP direction and held that corporate overhead should be allocated, however, the Hon'ble ITAT held that net corporate overhead expenditure should be allocated. However, in so far as tax holiday benefits in respect of other 3 units were not before the ITAT as it was not part

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

In the result, the appeal of the assessee company is partly allowed for statistical purposes in terms of our aforesaid observations

Bench: Us:

144C(13) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (in short, ‘the Act’) dated 23/08/2022 for the 2 Alpla India Private Limited vs. DCIT ITA 457/Hyd/2022 assessment year 2018-19. The assessee company has assailed the impugned order on the following grounds of appeal before us: “1. The A.O. / Dispute Resolution Panel (DRP) are erroneous in law and on the facts

ACIT, CIRCLE-17(1), HYDERABAD, HYDERABAD vs. DST WORLDWIDE SERVICES INDIA PVT. LTD., HYDERABAD, HYDERABAD

In the result, Revenue’s appeal is dismissed, while cross objections of the assessee are partly allowed

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi & Shri B. Ramakotaiahasstt. Commissioner Of Vs M/S. Dst Worldwide Income Tax, Circle 17(1) Services India Pvt. Ltd Hyderabad Hyderabad Pan: Aaaci7097L (Appellant) (Respondent)

144C of the I.T. Act. Page 1 of 7 ITA No 291 and CO No 24 of 2015 DST Worldwide Services India P Ltd Hyderabad. 2. Brief facts of the case are that the assessee company, engaged in the business of providing software development and IT enabled services, filed its e-return for the A.Y 2010-11 on 07.10.2010 declaring

APACHE FOOTWEAR INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,NELLORE vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-1(1), TIRUPATI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri Laliet Kumar

2) was issued to the assessee on 22.09.2019 which was duly served upon the assessee. Notices 3 Apache Footwear India Pvt.Ltd. u/s 142(1) along with questionnaire were issued on various dates for selection by CASS by AO, National Faceless Assessment Centre. In response thereto, the assessee filed e-submission(s) on 25.02.2021 and 03.09.2021. The information furnished from time