COMMVAULT SYSTEMS (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CIRCLE-1(2), HYDERABAD

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

Bench: Shri C.N.Prasad, Jm & Shri M.Balaganesh, Am M/S.Commvault Systems Vs. Deputy Commissioner Of (India) Pvt. Ltd., Income Tax, 5Th Floor, Plot No.39, Circle-1(2), B-Block, 7Th Floor, I.T. Towers Phase-Ii, Block-A Ananth Info Park A.C.Guards, Masab Tank Hitech City, Madhapur, Hyderabad – 500 004 Hyderabad Pan/Gir No.Aaccc3708L (Appellant) .. (Respondent)

carried out by the assessee with regard to the software distribution activity as against the Transaction Net Margin Method (TNMM) adopted by the ld. TPO and upheld by the ld. DRP. The ld. DR also agreed for adoption of resale price method in the instant case. We find as per 10B(1)(b) of the Income Tax Rules, re-sale

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

Bench: Us:

loss accounts and balance sheets (in 78 ITA TP 466/Hyd/2022 and 1301/Hyd/2024 Dodla Dairy Limited. tabular form) of 31 eligible units including 7 loss making units (Page Nos. 137 – 146); and (iv). computation of deduction u/s 80IB(11A) of 24 eligible units as mentioned in the “Chart” (Page Nos. 147 – 152). 61. Also, we find that Shri. Madhusudhana Reddy Ambavaram

AURONEXT PHARMA PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-1(1), HYDERABAD

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

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri Laliet Kumar

forward losses be setoff, as claimed in the return of income. As the issue is pending for adjudication before the Assessing Officer, it will be appropriate for the Assessing Officer to pass the order at the earliest. In the light of the above the issue is allowed for statistical purposes with the direction to the assessing officer to examine

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

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Manjunatha G

loss as operating in nature. 5.1.2 Have erred in considering discount provided as negative income and did not add the same to the cost base while computing the PLI of the Appellant. Ground No.6: Transfer Pricing: Erroneous Qualitative Analysis 6.1. In law and facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld. DRP and Ld. TPO/AO have erred in selecting

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

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Manjunatha G

loss as operating in nature. 5.1.2 Have erred in considering discount provided as negative income and did not add the same to the cost base while computing the PLI of the Appellant. Ground No.6: Transfer Pricing: Erroneous Qualitative Analysis 6.1. In law and facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld. DRP and Ld. TPO/AO have erred in selecting

SITAPURAM POWER LIMITED-ERSTWHILE AMALGAMATING COMPANY (NOW AMALGAMATED COMPANY-ZUARI CEMENT LIMITED),KADAPA vs. DCIT, CIRCLE 1, HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar, Hon’Ble & Shri Madhusudan Sawdia, Hon’Bleआआआआ आआआआ आआ./ I.T.A. (Tp) No.79/Hyd/2022 (आआआआआआआआ आआआआ / Assessment Year: 2017-18) Erstwhile Amalgamating Company Vs. Deputy Commissioner Of – Sitapuram Power Limited Income Tax, Pan:Aajcs2098E Circle-1, (Now Amalgamated Company – Nellore. Zuari Cement Limited), Kadapa. Pan:Aajcs2098E (आआआआआआआआआ/ Appellant) (आआआआआआआआआआ/ Respondent) आआआआआआआआआ आआ आआ आआ/ Appellant : Adv. Shri Deepak Chopra & Nitin Narang By आआआआआआआआआआआ आआ आआ आआ / : Shri Kumar Pranav, Cit-Dr Respondent By आआआआआआ आआ आआआआआ / Date Of : 15/05/2024 Hearing आआआआआ आआ आआआआआ/Date Of : 02/07/2024 Pronouncement O R D E R

Pricing) DCIT, TPO-2, Hyderabad in the name of SPL 5. March 27, Draft Assessment order passed U/s. 143(3) read with 2021 section 144C of the Act by the additional / joint / Deputy / Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax / Income Tax Officer, National e-assessment centre, Delhi in the name of SPL 2.8.2. the assessee got amalgamated with its holding company

APACHE FOOTWEAR INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,NELLORE vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-1(1), TIRUPATI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri Laliet Kumar

forward losses. 3. The learned Transfer Pricing Officer (TPO) while completing the assessment under section 92CA of the Income tax Act, 1961 made an addition of Rs. 10,62,036/- by way of notional interest on outstanding export receivables realized beyond 60 days. 4. The learned Assessing Officer passed a draft assessment order U/s 144C read with section

CAP GEMINI TECHNOLOGY SERVICES INDIA LIMITED(FORMERLY KNOWN AS IGATE GLOBAL SOLUTION LIMITED)-M/S PATNI TELECOM SOLUTIONS PVT LTD, CHANGED NAME TO M/S.IGATE INFORMATION SERVICES PRIVATE LIMITED MERGED WITH IGATE GLOBAL SOLUTIONS LIMITED ,HYDERABAD vs. ITO, WARD - 2(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal raised by the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar & Shri Manjunatha, G.आ.अपी.सं /Ita No.446/Hyd/2015 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2010-11) Cap Gemini Vs. Income Tax Officer Technology Services Ward 2(1) India Ltd(Formerly Igate Hyderabad Global Solutions Ltd) Hyderabad Pan:Aacca4255G (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: Advocate A.V. Raghuram राज" व "ारा/Revenue By:: Shri Kumar Pranav, Cit(Dr) सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 04/07/2024 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 23/07/2024 आदेश/Order

Transfer Pricing Officer resulted in selection of 19 companies as comparables and an Arm's Length Margin of 23.87% was arrived at. However, a relief was granted by the DRP to exclude Infosys Technologies Ltd. and L & T Infotech Ltd from the list of final comparables of the TPO. 3. In rejecting the objections of the assessee against the selection

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

Bench: Us:

transfer pricing issues on comparability cannot constitute a precedent to be blindly followed ad infinitum. Whether a particular company is a comparable or not is an exercise which has to be carried out every year in the case of an Assessee considering the facts of that specific year and not blindly following the precedent which has been laid down

COMMVAULT SYSTEMS INDIA PVT. LTD., HYDERABAD,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-1(2), HYDERABAD, HYDERABAD

Appeal is treated as allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi & Shri D.S. Sunder Singhassessment Year: 2012-13 M/S Commvault Systems Dcit, Circle 1(2) (India) Private Limited Vs. Hyderabad 5Th Floor, Plot No.39, Phase Ii Block A, Ananth Info Park Hitech City, Madhapur Hyderabad Pan: Aaccc3708L (Appellant) (Respondent) Sh. Ajeet Tolani Asessee By: Revenue By: Smt. Anjala Sahu, D.R. Date Of Hearing: 01/09/2020 Date Of Pronouncement: 04/09/2020 Order Per Smt. P. Madhavi Devi, J.M. This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee For The A.Y. 2012-13 Against The Final Assessment Order Dated 26.12.2016 Passed U/S 143(3) R.W.S. 144C(13) Of The I.T. Act, 1961. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Company, Engaged In The Business Of Software Development Services & Unified Data Storage Solutions, E-Filed Its Original Return Of Income For The A.Y. 2012-13 On 11.10.2012 Admitting Total Income Of

forward losses of Rs.1,26,86,715/- and Rs.3,46,41,182/- under the provisions of Sec.115 JB of the I.T.Act, 1961. During the assessment proceedings u/s 143(3) of the |Act, the AO observed that the assessee has entered into international transactions with its associate enterprises during the year. Therefore, a reference was made to the Transfer Pricing Officer

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

transfer pricing adjustment. He further submitted that, the assessee had entered into a Bilateral Advance Pricing Agreement (“BAPA”) u/s.92CC of the Act, which cover the assessment year under consideration and in the light of the BAPA, the assessee seeks the withdraw ground no.1. Accordingly, the Ld. AR invited our attention to the withdrawal request of ground no.1 placed at page

TMEIC INDUSTRIAL SYSTEMS INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT., CIRCLE 2(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed in terms of our aforesaid observations

Bench: Shri Ravish Sooda N D Shri Madhusudan Sawdiaआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.898/Hyd/2024 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2020-21) M/S. Tmeic Industrial Vs. Dy.Cit Systems India Private Limited Circle 2(1) Hyderabad Hyderabad Pan: Aadct5493J (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: C.As, K. C. Devdas, Kranthi Palivela & Mrudulatha राज" व "ारा/Revenue By: Smt. U. Mini Chandran, Cit (Dr) सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 08/12/2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 12/12/2025 आदेश/Order Per Madhusudan Sawdia, A.M.:

transfer pricing adjustment does not constitute part of the book profits. Furthermore, the Appellant had sufficient carried forward business losses

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

In the result, the assessee’s appeals for the A

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

losses for the last three years up to and including FY 2012-13 were excluded viii. Companies having different financial year ending {i.e. not March 31, 2013) or data of the company does not fall within 12 month period i.e. 01-04-2012 to 31-03- 2013~ were rejected ix. Companies that are functionally different from the taxpayer were excluded

INFOR (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED ,HYDERABAD vs. DY.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRLCLE-2(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, the assessee’s appeals for the A

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

losses for the last three years up to and including FY 2012-13 were excluded viii. Companies having different financial year ending {i.e. not March 31, 2013) or data of the company does not fall within 12 month period i.e. 01-04-2012 to 31-03- 2013~ were rejected ix. Companies that are functionally different from the taxpayer were excluded

COGNIZANT TECHNOLOGY SOLUTIONS INDIA PRIVATE LTD(ERSTWHILE EXCELLENCE DATA RESEARCH PRIVATE LIMITED),CHENNAI vs. ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-17(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi & Shri S. Rifaur Rahmanassessment Year: 2009-10 Cognizant Technology Solutions Vs. Asst. Commissioner Of India Pvt. Ltd., (Erstwhile Income-Tax, Circle – 17(1), Excellence Data Research Pvt. Hyderabad. Ltd.), Chennai Pan – Aabce 4933C (Appellant) (Respondent)

transfer pricing adjustment was proposed in the assessment. 2.2 When the assessee filed its objections before the DRP, the DRP upheld the action of AO/TPO vide its order dated 27 th November, 2013 passed u/s 144(5) of the Act. Subsequently, the AO passed a final assessment order u/s 143(3) rws 144(5) of the Act on 20/12/2013 wherein

XILINX INDIA TECHNOLOGY SERVICES PRIVATE LIMITED ,HYDERABAD vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CIRCLE-17(2), HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee is partly allowed\nfor statistical purposes

Pricing Officer, however, the\nassessee raised objections against selection of this\ncompany before the DRP as well as before us. The\ngrievance of the assessee is, the company being involved\nin development of products and since no segmental details\nare available in the annual report, it cannot be treated as\ncomparable. The Co-ordinate Bench in Tech Mahindra\nLtd. (supra

GSS INFOTECH LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CIRCLE-2(2), HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi & Shri A. Mohan Alankamony

loss. The ld. DR has also filed additional evidence to demonstrate that the expenditure incurred on these companies to whom advances have been given by the assessee are in the businesses which are totally unconnected to the business carried on by the assessee and, hence, business expediency is not proved. The ld. AR objected to the additional evidence filed

GSS INFOTECH LIMITED ,HYDERABAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(2), HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi & Shri A. Mohan Alankamony

loss. The ld. DR has also filed additional evidence to demonstrate that the expenditure incurred on these companies to whom advances have been given by the assessee are in the businesses which are totally unconnected to the business carried on by the assessee and, hence, business expediency is not proved. The ld. AR objected to the additional evidence filed