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

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

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

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

3A) and l44(3B) of the Act for the AY 2016-17, determining a net taxable income of INR 1,57,81,26,170 and thereby determined a income- tax demand of INR 37,69,92,133 under the normal provisions of the Act and a tax demand towards dividend distribution tax ('DDT') amounting

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

3A) and l44(3B) of the Act for the AY 2016-17, determining a net taxable income of INR 1,57,81,26,170 and thereby determined a income- tax demand of INR 37,69,92,133 under the normal provisions of the Act and a tax demand towards dividend distribution tax ('DDT') amounting

VARDHMAN (MAHILA) CO-OPERATIVE URBAN BANK LIMITED, HYDERABAD,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-14(1), HYDERABAD, HYDERABAD

Appeal is allowed in above terms

Bench: Shri A.Mohan Alankamony & Shri S.S.Godara

68 of 2014. High Court of Judicator of Bombay, Bench at Aurangabad) and other decisions on this point. The Ld. AR also submitted that section 43D of the Income tax Act had been amended subsequently by Finance Act 2017, by including therein the words "Co-op. banks" for the purpose of deduction with effect from 01/04/2018. Though this amendment

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)

68,00,000/- to Sri Syed Naveeduddin Quadri, Director of M/s Skill Promoters Pvt. Ltd. The details of transactions show that Syed Naveeduddin Quadri has paid Rs.3,75,00,000/- in advance and promised to pay the balance of Rs.5,25,00,000/- on or before 01.08.2016. Considering the above document, statement of Sri Naveduddin Quadri was taken on oath

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)

68,00,000/- to Sri Syed Naveeduddin Quadri, Director of M/s Skill Promoters Pvt. Ltd. The details of transactions show that Syed Naveeduddin Quadri has paid Rs.3,75,00,000/- in advance and promised to pay the balance of Rs.5,25,00,000/- on or before 01.08.2016. Considering the above document, statement of Sri Naveduddin Quadri was taken on oath

CLINASIA LABS PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. ITO WARD1(4), HYDERABAD

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

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar & Shri Manjunatha G.

3A) & 143(3B) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short “the Act”), assessee filed this appeal raising the following grounds : ITA-TP No. 202/Hyd/2021 “1. The Learned (Ld.) Assessing Officer ("AO")/Ld. Transfer pricing officer ("TPO") and the Ld. Dispute Resolution Panel ("DRP") are erroneous in law and on the facts of the case. TP Grounds on Margins

CES LIMITED ,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-1(1), HYDERABAD

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

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri Laliet Kumar

68,680/-. 4. The Ld. CIT(A) has erred in holding that the A.O has not erred in considering the total income at Rs. 7,09,32,640/- and “Income from business and profession” at Rs. 7,00,94,868/- in the computation of income. 5. a.The Ld. CIT(A) grossly erred in appreciating the provisions of section

HARSCO INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT-8(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed in above terms

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

3A) & 143(3B) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ; in short “the Act”. 2. The sole grievance of the assessee in this appeal is that imputing interest income to the assessee on the outstanding receivables from associated enterprise without :- 2 -: ITA-TP No. 222/Hyd/2021 Harsco India Pvt. Ltd., Hyd. substantiating the fact that the same