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

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

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

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

92,000/-; (ii) disallowance of the claim of the assessee company for deduction under section 80G w.r.t CSR donations: Rs. 1,88,97,644/-; (iii) disallowance of the claim of deduction of the assessee company under Section 801A of the Act: Rs. 24,35,05,411/-; and (iv) addition under section 68 in respect of alleged bogus

MUSADDILAL GEMS JEWELS PRIVATE LIMITED ,HYDERABAD vs. ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, we uphold the addition of Rs

Bench: Before Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri Laliet Kumar

3) Musaddilal Jewellers Pvt Ltd, are independent of each other doing business separately. On 08.11.2016 at around 7 PM I was at my office of M/s Musaddilal Gems & Jewels (Pvt) Ltd and M/s Vaishnavi Bullion (Pvt) Ltd, during that time some people called me for purchase of gold& then I have informed them to come to my office and they

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE3-(1), HYDERABAD vs. M/S. MUSADDILAL GEMS AND JEWELS PRIVATE LIMITED, HYDERABAD

In the result, we uphold the addition of Rs

Bench: Before Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri Laliet Kumar

3) Musaddilal Jewellers Pvt Ltd, are independent of each other doing business separately. On 08.11.2016 at around 7 PM I was at my office of M/s Musaddilal Gems & Jewels (Pvt) Ltd and M/s Vaishnavi Bullion (Pvt) Ltd, during that time some people called me for purchase of gold& then I have informed them to come to my office and they

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE3-(1), HYDERABAD vs. VAISHNAVI BULLION PRIVATE LIMITED, HYDERABAD

In the result, we uphold the addition of Rs

Bench: Before Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri Laliet Kumar

3) Musaddilal Jewellers Pvt Ltd, are independent of each other doing business separately. On 08.11.2016 at around 7 PM I was at my office of M/s Musaddilal Gems & Jewels (Pvt) Ltd and M/s Vaishnavi Bullion (Pvt) Ltd, during that time some people called me for purchase of gold& then I have informed them to come to my office and they

VAISHNAVI BULLION PRIVATE LIMITED ,HYDERABAD vs. ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, we uphold the addition of Rs

Bench: Before Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri Laliet Kumar

3) Musaddilal Jewellers Pvt Ltd, are independent of each other doing business separately. On 08.11.2016 at around 7 PM I was at my office of M/s Musaddilal Gems & Jewels (Pvt) Ltd and M/s Vaishnavi Bullion (Pvt) Ltd, during that time some people called me for purchase of gold& then I have informed them to come to my office and they

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

section 11 is already considered in the regular assessment and that issue is already in appeal before FAA. Therefore, reviewing the same is uncalled for.” 8. Accordingly, in view of the above cited judgement of the Hon'ble Allahabad High Court as well as the decision of the Delhi Benches of the Tribunal, we hold that the processing

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

92,000/-; (ii)\ndisallowance of the claim of the assessee company for deduction under\nsection 80G w.r.t CSR donations: Rs. 1,88,97,644/-; (iii) disallowance of\nthe claim of deduction of the assessee company under Section 801A of\nthe Act: Rs. 24,35,05,411/-; and (iv) addition under section 68 in respect\nof alleged bogus transactions

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CIRCLE-16(1), HYDERABAD vs. NSL RENEWABLE POWER PRIVATE LIMITED, HYDERABAD

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

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

68,75,000/- towards ROC fee, the CIT(A) confirmed the same. 4.2 As regards deduction u/s 80IA of the Act, the AO denied the deduction u/s 80IA from the gross total income, while the CIT(A) allowed the same following the decision of the coordinate bench of this Tribunal in assessee’s own case in ITA No. 2146/Hyd/2017

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CIRCLE-16(1), HYDERABAD vs. NSL RENEWABLE POWER PRIVATE LIMITED, HYDERABAD

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

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

68,75,000/- towards ROC fee, the CIT(A) confirmed the same. 4.2 As regards deduction u/s 80IA of the Act, the AO denied the deduction u/s 80IA from the gross total income, while the CIT(A) allowed the same following the decision of the coordinate bench of this Tribunal in assessee’s own case in ITA No. 2146/Hyd/2017

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

section 68 of the Act. From the balance sheet filed by the assessee, the Ld. AO observed that the assessee company had received aggregate amount of Rs. 311,88,97,970/- towards share subscription from various parties as detailed herein below: Sl Name of the shareholder No. of shares Amount Amount no received upto received upto 31/3/2010 31/3/2009

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

section 68 of the Act. From the balance sheet filed by the assessee, the Ld. AO observed that the assessee company had received aggregate amount of Rs. 311,88,97,970/- towards share subscription from various parties as detailed herein below: Sl Name of the shareholder No. of shares Amount Amount no received upto received upto 31/3/2010 31/3/2009

ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3(1), HYDERABAD vs. SRI CHAITANYA EDUCATIONAL COMMITTE, VIJAYAWADA

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Manjunatha G

92,202/-, and calculated the tax liability at Rs.11,77,72,357/-. The AO gave a demand notice of Rs. 20 ITA.No.325/Hyd./2023 11,84,85,235/- plus Rs.11,77,72,357/- thus arriving at a total demand of Rs.23,62,37,592/-. Thus, the AO has calculated the income twice for the same disallowance and gave a demand

MYLAN LABORATORIES LIMITED ,HYDERABAD vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CIRCLE-16(2), HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman

68 of the Act. 4.6. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT (A) has erred in disregarding all the documents/evidence already on record, which proves the nature of the transaction as well as its genuineness as a loan given by the Appellant to its wholly owned subsidiaries to settle their subsisting

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CIRCLE-16(2), HYDERABAD vs. MYLAN LABORATORIES LIMITED , HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman

68 of the Act. 4.6. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT (A) has erred in disregarding all the documents/evidence already on record, which proves the nature of the transaction as well as its genuineness as a loan given by the Appellant to its wholly owned subsidiaries to settle their subsisting

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

Bench: Us:

92 and Section 80IB r.w.s 80IA(8) of the Act. 19 ITA TP 466/Hyd/2022 and 1301/Hyd/2024 Dodla Dairy Limited. 25. Thereafter, the TPO vide his “SCN”, dated 30.07.2021, inter alia, observed that the chilling units, i.e., the eligible units were not making any actual profit if the chilled milk was transferred by them to the processing plants at rates