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

ACIT, CIRCLE-16(1), HYDERABAD,HYDERABAD vs. MADHUSUDAN RAO LAGADAPATI, HYDERABAD, HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal of Revenue is dismissed”

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahuassessment Year: 2012-13

68. 2. The Ld. CIT(A), erred in holding that the creditworthiness of the lender company is proved. 3. The Ld. CIT(A), erred in accepting the genuineness of the transact-on. 4. The Ld. CIT(A), erred in holding that decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of M/s Vodafone International Holding (341 ITRI) is wrong

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

68,545 to the international transactions pertaining\nto purchase of raw materials/finished goods and sale of finished goods and INR 8,13,72,292\ntowards payment of royalty by the Appellant to its Associated Enterprises ('AEs').\nOn the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. AO / Ld. TPO / Hon'ble\nPanel erred

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

250(6) of the Act for the A.Y. 2010-11. 2. The assessee has raised several grounds in its appeal however, the cruxes of the issues are as follows: 1) The Ld. CIT (A) has erred in upholding the order of the ld.AO who had made addition of Rs. 311,88,97,970/- invoking section 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

250(6) of the Act for the A.Y. 2010-11. 2. The assessee has raised several grounds in its appeal however, the cruxes of the issues are as follows: 1) The Ld. CIT (A) has erred in upholding the order of the ld.AO who had made addition of Rs. 311,88,97,970/- invoking section 68

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(2), HYDERABAD vs. GENESIS CROP SCIENCES (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED , HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi & Shri A. Mohan Alankamonya.Y. 2012-13 Income Tax Officer, Vs. Genesis Crop Sciences Ward-2(2), (India) Pvt Limited, Hyderabad. Hyderabad. Pan: Aaccg 7207 N (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Sri K.A. Sai Prasad Revenue By: Sri Sunil Kumar Pandey Date Of Hearing: 17/02/2021 Date Of Pronouncement: 03/05/2021 Order Per A. Mohan Alankamony, Am.:

250(6) of the Act for the A.Y. 2012-13. 2. The Revenue has raised three grounds in its appeal however, the crux of the issue is that:- “The Ld. CIT (A) has erred in deleting the addition made by the Ld. AO for Rs. 4,42,69,513/- invoking the provisions of section 68

ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1, ANANTAPUR vs. SAVEERA HOSPITAL PRIVATE LIMITED , ANANTAPUR

In the result, appeals of the Revenue are accordingly allowed and consequently the cross objections preferred by the assessee are dismissed

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

250/- that escaped assessment and claim refund of Rs.1,21,540/- for the assessment year 2014-15. On verification, the learned Assessing Page 2 of 33 ITA Nos.295 & 296/Hyd/2019 C.O.Nos.12 & 13/Hyd/2019 Officer found that the assessee had received an amount of Rs.2,86,99,000/- towards the share capital during the assessment year 2014-15 and Rs.4

ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1, ANANTAPUR vs. SAVEERA HOSPITAL PRIVATE LIMITED, ANANTAPUR

In the result, appeals of the Revenue are accordingly allowed and consequently the cross objections preferred by the assessee are dismissed

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

250/- that escaped assessment and claim refund of Rs.1,21,540/- for the assessment year 2014-15. On verification, the learned Assessing Page 2 of 33 ITA Nos.295 & 296/Hyd/2019 C.O.Nos.12 & 13/Hyd/2019 Officer found that the assessee had received an amount of Rs.2,86,99,000/- towards the share capital during the assessment year 2014-15 and Rs.4

SPECTRA EQUIPMENT PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 3(1),, HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar & Shri Madhusudan Sawdiaassessment Year: 2017-18 Spectra Equipment Private Vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward 3(1), Limited, Hyderabad. Hyderabad. Pan No.Aaccs8677C. (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Ms. Akanksha, C.A. For Shri Sunil Kumar Jain, C.A. Revenue By: Ms. Narmada, Cit-Dr For Shri Madan Mohan Meena, Sr.D.R. Date Of Hearing: 11.12.2024 Date Of Pronouncement: 18.12.2024

section 68 with applicable tax rates is upheld. Accordingly, the grounds of appeal enumerated in the forgoing paragraph 2 are dismissed. 6. In the result, for statistical purpose, the appeal of the appellant is dismissed. Order passed u/s 250

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

COROMANDEL INTERNATIONAL LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT., CIRCLE-2(2), HYDERABAD

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

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Madhusudan Sawdiaआयकर अपीलसं./I.T.A. No.738/Hyd/2025 ("नधा"रणवष"/ Assessment Year:2015-16) Coromandel International Vs. Dcit, Limited, Circle-2(2), Hyderabad. Hyderabad. Pan: Aaacc7852K (अपीलाथ"/ Appellant) (""यथ"/ Respondent) करदाताका""त"न"ध"व/ : Shri Sp Chidambaram, Advocate Assessee Represented By राज"वका""त"न"ध"व/ : Ms. U. Mini Chandran, Cit-Dr Department Represented By सुनवाईसमा"तहोनेक""त"थ/ : 02/03/2026 Date Of Conclusion Of Hearing घोषणा क" तार"ख/ : 18/03/2026 Date Of Pronouncement Order Per Madhusudan Sawdia, A.M.: This Appeal Is Filed By Coromandel International Limited (“The Assessee”), Feeling Aggrieved By The Order Passed By The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi (“Ld. Cit(A)”) Dated 24/02/2025 For The Assessment Year (“A.Y.”) 2015-16. Page 1 Of 17 Coromandel International Limited Vs. Dcit 2. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal:

250 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (the Act), dated 24 February 2025 passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi (hereinafter referred as 'Ld. CIT'), in so far as it is prejudicial to the Appellant, is contrary to law, facts and circumstances of the case. b. The Ld. CIT has erred

ACIT., CIRCLE-5(1), HYDERABAD vs. PENNA CEMENT INDUSTRIES LIMITED, HYDERABAD

68 of the Act. As a result ground no 5 is allowed. 7. In result, the appeal is allowed.” 6. The revenue aggrieved with the CIT(A) order has carried the matter in appeal before us. 7. We have heard the Ld. Authorised Representatives of both parties, perused the orders of the authorities below and the material available on record

ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1, KARIMNAGAR vs. DURGA GRANITES, KARIMNAGAR

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is allowed

Bench: Shri A. Mohan Alankamony & Sri S.S. Godaraa.Y. 2014-15 Acit, Vs. Durga Granites, Circle-1, Karimnagar. Karimnagar. Pan: Aagfd 8247 C (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Sri A. Srinivas Revenue By Sri Rohit Mujumdar, Sr. Ar Date Of Hearing: 02/12/2021 Date Of Pronouncement: 31/01/2022 Order

250(6) of the Act for the A.Y. 2014-15. 2. The Revenue has raised three grounds in its appeal however, the cruxes of the issue are that (i) The Ld. CIT (A) has erred in deleting the addition made by the Ld. AO amounting to Rs. 3,25,50,207/- U/s. 68 of the Act being the unexplained partners

SHANKAR LAL AGARWAL,HYDERABAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-16(2), HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri K. Narasimha Chary

250/- per share on 31/03/2012 through Festino Vincom Pvt Ltd. for a consideration of Rs. 2,00,000/-. Subsequently. M/s. Baviscon Ltd. issued bonus shares of 79 for each share held on 20/07/2012 thereby taking the total number of shares to 12,800. Subsequently, ten shares of M/s. Unno Industries Ltd. were allotted for each share of M/s. Baviscon

ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(1), HYDERABAD vs. TUMU RAJKUMAR , HYDERABAD

In the result, all the appeals filed by the Revenue are allowed for statistical purposes and the C

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri Laliet Kumar

6 Tumu Rajkumar considered its earlier decision in the case of Kabul Chawla (supra). Lastly, it was submitted that the dismissal of the SLP petition by the Hon'ble Supreme Court does not laid down any law, unless the order of dismissal is a speaking and reasoned order. Ld.DR further submitted that Hon'ble Madhya Pradesh High Court

ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(1), HYDERABAD vs. TUMU RAJKUMAR , HYDERABAD

In the result, all the appeals filed by the Revenue are allowed for statistical purposes and the C

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri Laliet Kumar

6 Tumu Rajkumar considered its earlier decision in the case of Kabul Chawla (supra). Lastly, it was submitted that the dismissal of the SLP petition by the Hon'ble Supreme Court does not laid down any law, unless the order of dismissal is a speaking and reasoned order. Ld.DR further submitted that Hon'ble Madhya Pradesh High Court

TUMU RAJKUMAR ,HYDERABAD vs. ASST.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, all the appeals filed by the Revenue are allowed for statistical purposes and the C

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri Laliet Kumar

6 Tumu Rajkumar considered its earlier decision in the case of Kabul Chawla (supra). Lastly, it was submitted that the dismissal of the SLP petition by the Hon'ble Supreme Court does not laid down any law, unless the order of dismissal is a speaking and reasoned order. Ld.DR further submitted that Hon'ble Madhya Pradesh High Court

ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(1), HYDERABAD vs. TUMU RAJKUMAR, HYDERABAD

In the result, all the appeals filed by the Revenue are allowed for statistical purposes and the C

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri Laliet Kumar

6 Tumu Rajkumar considered its earlier decision in the case of Kabul Chawla (supra). Lastly, it was submitted that the dismissal of the SLP petition by the Hon'ble Supreme Court does not laid down any law, unless the order of dismissal is a speaking and reasoned order. Ld.DR further submitted that Hon'ble Madhya Pradesh High Court

ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(1), HYDERABAD vs. TUMU RAJKUMAR , HYDERABAD

In the result, all the appeals filed by the Revenue are allowed for statistical purposes and the C

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri Laliet Kumar

6 Tumu Rajkumar considered its earlier decision in the case of Kabul Chawla (supra). Lastly, it was submitted that the dismissal of the SLP petition by the Hon'ble Supreme Court does not laid down any law, unless the order of dismissal is a speaking and reasoned order. Ld.DR further submitted that Hon'ble Madhya Pradesh High Court