INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, CHITTOOR vs. G VIJAYASIMHA REDDY, BENGALURU

In the result, the appeal of Revenue in ITA

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Laliet Kumar

price fluctuations and salability. (Flats at common pool listed at Pg. 132 of the material paper book) 17. Also, if at the end, some flats are left unsold, their advantage and diiadvantage will be shared proportionately between the owners and the developer. (Relevant page of Development agreement dated 17-03-2011 at Pg. 62 of the material paper book

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

Bench: Us:

Income tax (Appellate Tribunal) Rules, 1963, Page Nos. 4 – 6). It is deposed by Shri. Madhusudhana Reddy Ambavaram (supra) in his “affidavit”, viz. (i). that the assessee company had filed its return of income for A.Y 2018-19 on 29.11.2018, declaring a total taxable income of Rs. 35.77 crores and had claimed deduction u/s 80IB(11A) of Rs. 19.43 crores

VITP PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT., CIRCLE8(1), HYDERABAD

incomes\", where any\ngoods or services held for the purposes of the undertaking or unit or enterprise\nor eligible business are transferred to any other business carried on by the\nassessee or where any goods or services held for the purposes of any other\nbusiness carried on by the assessee are transferred to the undertaking or unit or\nenterprise

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

transfer is by eligible business to another non eligible business of the same assessee and the consideration recorded in the accounts of the eligible business does not correspond to market value of such goods. Term "Market Value" is further explained in explanation to said sub-section to mean in relation to any goods or services, price that such goods

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CIRCLE-2(1), HYDERABAD vs. BLUJAY SOLUTIONS (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED (FORMERLY KNOWN AS KEWILL INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED), HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri K. Narasimha Charyassessment Year:2014-15

income for the A.Y 2014-15 on 30.11.2014 admitting loss of Rs. 1,76,35,021/-. The return was processed u/s 143(1) on 22.4.2015 and refund of Rs.10,97,340/- was issued. Subsequently, the case was selected for scrutiny through CASS and statutory notices u/s 143(2) & 142(1) were Page 1 of 24 ITA 1148 of 2018 Blujay

HYDERABAD INFRATECH PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CIRCLE-2(2), HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Madhusudan Sawdia

Transfer Pricing Officer (“Ld. TPO”) applied LIBOR for determining the Arm’s Length Price (“ALP”). In this regard, the Ld. AR submitted that, the issue under consideration was referred to Special Bench of this Tribunal and the Special Bench vide its order dated 29.01.2025, has adjudicated the issue at para no.23 of its order, which is to the following effect

DCIT, CIRCLE-1(1), HYDERABAD, HYDERABAD vs. PRAKASH NIMMAGADDA, HYDERABAD, SECUNDERABAD

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao, Vice-A N D Shri Manjunatha, G.आ.अपी.सं /Ita No.974/Hyd/2017 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2008-09) Dy.Cit Vs. Shri Prakash Nimmagadda Circle 1(1) Hyderabad Hyderabad Pan:Acbpn4246R (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: Shri K.C. Devdas, Ca राज" व "ारा/Revenue By:: Dr. Meghnath Chowhan, Cit(Dr) सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 06/11/2024 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 16/12/2024 आदेश/Order Per Vijay Pal Raothis Appeal Filed By The Revenue Is Directed Against The Order, Dated 20/03/2017 Of The Learned Cit (A)-9, Hyderabad, Relating To A.Y.2008-09. 2. The Revenue Has Raised The Following Grounds:

transfer of a capital asset to income-tax. The asset must be one which falls within the contemplation of the section. It must bear that quality which brings section 45 into play. To determine whether the goodwill of a new business is such an asset, it is permissible, as we shall presently show, to refer to certain other section

OAKTON GLOBAL TECHNOLOGY SERVICES CENTRE (I) PRIVATE LIMITED ,HYDERABAD vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CIRCLE-16(2), HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Madhusudan Sawdia

business of providing Software Development Services (“SDS”), filed its Return of Income (“ROI”) for A.Y. 2013-14 on 30.11.2013 declaring a total income at Rs.3,10,23,252/-. In view of the international transactions involved during the year under consideration, for determination of Arm’s Length Price (“ALP”), the case was referred to Learned Transfer

OAKTON GLOBAL TECHNOLOGY SERVICES CENTRE (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-16(2), HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Madhusudan Sawdia

business of providing Software Development Services (“SDS”), filed its Return of Income (“ROI”) for A.Y. 2013-14 on 30.11.2013 declaring a total income at Rs.3,10,23,252/-. In view of the international transactions involved during the year under consideration, for determination of Arm’s Length Price (“ALP”), the case was referred to Learned Transfer

VERMEIREN INDIA REHAB PRIVATE LIMITED,TIRUPATI vs. DCIT., CIRCLE-1(1), TIRUPATI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Manjunatha G & Shri Ravish Sood

Transfer Pricing Officer [in short “TPO”] for determination of Arm’s Length Price [in short “ALP”] in respect of international transactions u/sec. 92CA(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The TPO had issued u/sec.92CA of the Act dated 07.11.2022 calling the 7 ITA.No.1315 /Hyd./2024 assessee for documentation maintained as prescribed u/sec.92D(3) of the Act. In response

LIMAGRAIN INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT, CIRCLE -5(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Shri Manjunatha G. (Accountant Member), Shri K. Narasimha Chary (Judicial Member)

transfer pricing adjustment of INR 63,22,848 by treating the ALP as Nil in relation to the international transaction involving payment of seed testing and trial charges to its AEs. 9. The Ld.ao/Hon’ble DRP erred in law and on facts in going beyond the scope under section 92CA in questioning the commercial rationale of the legitimate business

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CIRCLE-2(2), HYDERABAD vs. HSBC ELECTRONIC DATA PROCESSING INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED, , HYDERABAD

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

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar & Shri Madhusudan Sawdia

transferred to unclaimed liabilities account. The assessee, during the appellate proceedings furnished the details of these unclaimed liabilities as additional evidence and the same was sent to Assessing officer for factual report. However, till date no report is received. 7.1 On perusal of the details furnished it is seen that in case of many entries there is not even

SIGNODE INDIA LIMITED ,HYDERABAD vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX ,CIRCLE-3(1), HYDERABAD

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Manjunatha G

Transfer Pricing: Erroneous Quantitative filters 4.1. In law and facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld. DRP and Ld. TPO/AO have erred in conducting the fresh search process on the following grounds. 4.1.1. Have erred in applying the filter Income from manufacturing activity greater than 75 percent to sales. 4 ITA.No.434/Hyd/2021 & ITA 240/Hyd/2023 M/s. Signode India Limited

SIGNODE INDIA LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-3(1), HYDERABAD

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Manjunatha G

Transfer Pricing: Erroneous Quantitative filters 4.1. In law and facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld. DRP and Ld. TPO/AO have erred in conducting the fresh search process on the following grounds. 4.1.1. Have erred in applying the filter Income from manufacturing activity greater than 75 percent to sales. 4 ITA.No.434/Hyd/2021 & ITA 240/Hyd/2023 M/s. Signode India Limited

SIGNODE INDIA LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT., CIRCLE 3(1), HYDERABAD

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

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Madhusudan Sawdia

transfer pricing adjustment without undertaking proper benchmarking analysis and completely ignored the fact that, as a banking company, SBI is not engaged in a business, similar to the Appellant. 6. On the facts and circumstances of the case and contrary to law, the Ld. AO / Ld. TPO erred in and the Hon’ble DRP further erred in upholding / confirming

UBER INDIA SYSTEMS PRIVATE LIMITED (AS SUCCESSOR TO UBER INDIA RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT PRIVATE LIMITED),HYDERABAD vs. DCIT., CIRCLE-8(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Madhusudan Sawdia

transfer pricing study maintained as per Section 92D of the Act read with read with Rule 10D of the Income Tax Rules, 1962 ('the Rules'). Erroneous and unwarranted fresh search 6. On the facts and in circumstances of the case and in law, the learned TPO erred, and Hon'ble DRP further erred in upholding / confirming the action

EPAM SYSTEMS INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT, CIRCLE -8 (1), HYDERABAD

In the result, both the appeals of the Assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Manjunatha G.आ.अपी.सं /Ita Nos.83 & 498/Hyd/2022 Assessment Years 2017-2018 & 2018-2019 Epam Systems India The Dcit & The Acit, Private Limited, Vs. Circle-8(1), Hyderabad – 500 081 Hyderabad. Pan Aaacw2012R (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा"रती "ारा /Assessee By: Ca Shreyas Sardesai राज" व "ारा /Revenue By: Ms U Mini Chandran, Cit-Dr

Transfer Pricing Officer ("TPO")/ Dispute Resolution Panel ("DRP") has erred in making an upward adjustment of INR 16,86,23,336/- to the total income of the Appellant by holding that the international transaction relating to the Software development services entered into by the Appellant with its Associated Enterprise ("AE") was not at arm's length. 1:2 The learned

EPAM SYSTEMS INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-8(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, both the appeals of the Assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Manjunatha G.आ.अपी.सं /Ita Nos.83 & 498/Hyd/2022 Assessment Years 2017-2018 & 2018-2019 Epam Systems India The Dcit & The Acit, Private Limited, Vs. Circle-8(1), Hyderabad – 500 081 Hyderabad. Pan Aaacw2012R (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा"रती "ारा /Assessee By: Ca Shreyas Sardesai राज" व "ारा /Revenue By: Ms U Mini Chandran, Cit-Dr

Transfer Pricing Officer ("TPO")/ Dispute Resolution Panel ("DRP") has erred in making an upward adjustment of INR 16,86,23,336/- to the total income of the Appellant by holding that the international transaction relating to the Software development services entered into by the Appellant with its Associated Enterprise ("AE") was not at arm's length. 1:2 The learned