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

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/- only. The return of income was processed under section 143(1) of the Act wherein the CPC disallowed the claim of gratuity expenses for Rs. 5,13,01,761/- as per the provision of section 43B of the Act, thereby the CPC assessed the income of the assessee at Rs. 63,40,69,950/-. Subsequently

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

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

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)

144C(13) passed on 19.01.2024 is barred by limitation u/s 153B of the Act as the notice u/s 153C was issued on 30.03.2022 and the time limit to finalize the assessment is on or before 31.03.2023. 7. (a) The Ld.AO has grossly erred by not appreciating the fact that in the hands of the searched party no addition for this

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)

144C(13) passed on 19.01.2024 is barred by limitation u/s 153B of the Act as the notice u/s 153C was issued on 30.03.2022 and the time limit to finalize the assessment is on or before 31.03.2023. 7. (a) The Ld.AO has grossly erred by not appreciating the fact that in the hands of the searched party no addition for this

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

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

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

144C of the Act on 31/03/2022 proposing an addition Rs. 1,62,16,300/-, treating the cash deposits in the assessee’s account as un-explained money under section 69 of the Act. Assessee expressed his willingness to prefer an appeal before the learned CIT(A) and, therefore, the learned Assessing Officer has to pass the final assessment order

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

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

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

HM CLAUSE INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT CIRCLE -2(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri Laliet Kumar

144C(1) of the Income Tax Act at Rs.16,48,95,494/-. Thereafter, against the proposed draft order, assessee filed objections before 4 HM Clause India Private Limited the DRP – 1, Bengaluru, who vide its order dt.10.06.2022 directed the TPO to adopt SBI short term deposit rates for subject year as ALP interest rate and compute the adjustment. Taking into

ADP PRIVATE LIMITED,RANGA REDDY vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-1( 1), HYDERABAD

In the result, both the appeals are partly allowed for statistical purposes in above terms

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

144C(13) read with sections 143(3A) & 143(3B) of the Act on the following grounds: General: 1. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in contrary to law, the Additional Commissioner of Income-tax (Transfer Pricing), (hereinafter referred to as 'the Ld. TPO') and the Ld. AO under the directions issued by the Hon'ble Dispute

ADP PRIVATE LIMITED (31/10/2015),RANGA REDDY vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-1( 1), HYDERABAD

In the result, both the appeals are partly allowed for statistical purposes in above terms

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

144C(13) read with sections 143(3A) & 143(3B) of the Act on the following grounds: General: 1. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in contrary to law, the Additional Commissioner of Income-tax (Transfer Pricing), (hereinafter referred to as 'the Ld. TPO') and the Ld. AO under the directions issued by the Hon'ble Dispute

HIGHRADIUS TECHNOLOGIES PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE -2(1), HYDERABAD

Bench: Us:

section 143(1) of the Act, dated 30.11.2021 wherein the income of the assessee company is stated to have been processed at an amount of Rs. 6,55,06,350/-. 68. As is discernible from the record, the assessee company had filed its return of income for AY 2020-21 on 24/12/2020, declaring its income

PANDA SRINIVAS,HYDERABAD vs. ADIT (INT TAXN)-2, HYDERABAD

Bench: Us:

3) of Section 143 or section 147 (or section 153A or section 153C) in pursuance of the directions of the Dispute Resolution Panel or an order passed under Section 154 in respect of such order." 6.4 Therefore, the appeal against the order passed by the Assessing Officer in pursuance to the directions

BHARATHI CEMENT CORPORATION PRIVATE LIMITED,,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT CIRCLE-2(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Laliet Kumarassessment Year: 2017-18 Bharathi Cement Corporation Vs. Deputy Commissioner Of Private Limited, Income Tax, Hyderabad. Circle – 2(1), Hyderabad. Pan : Aadcr3079G. (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Shri S. Kalyanasundaram, Ca Revenue By: Shri Jeevan Lal Lavidiya, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing: 14.02.2023 Date Of Pronouncement: 17.02.2023

144C(13) of the Act and total income was assessed at Rs.268,67,58,223/-. 4. Aggrieved with the final assessment order dt.26.03.2022, assessee is now in appeal before us. 4 5. Before us Ld.AR for the assessee submitted that the only issue is whether the components like fixed demand charges, ToD charges, electric duty, and customer charge