GAINSIGHT SOFTWARE PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 2(1), HYDERABAD

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

deem it appropriate to remand the\nissue back to Ld. TPO, granting liberty to the Ld. TPO to apply the turnover\nfilter uniformly to all the comparables and carryout the necessary verification.\n8.\nAs far as the exclusion of Thirdware from the list of comparable is\nconcerned, the Ld. AR invited our attention to para nos.2.4.5.1

ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-10(1), HYDERABAD vs. VERTEX PROJECTS LLP (FORMERLY M/S VERTEX PROJECTS LTD) , HYDERABAD

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

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri Laliet Kumarassessment Year: 2014-15 Acit,Circle-10(1) Vs. Vertex Projects Llp Room No.515, 5Th Floor, (Formerly M/S.Vertex A-Block, I.T.Towers, Projects Ltd.) A.C.Guards, #156-159, Paigah House Hyderabad. S.P.Road, Next To Pg College. Secunderabad-500 026. Pan : Aanfv0232C (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Sriram Seshadri, Ca Revenue By: Shri Rajendra Kumar,Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing: 15.03.2023 Date Of Pronouncement: 28.04.2023 O R D E R Per Shri Laliet Kumar, J.M. This Is An Appeal Filed By The Revenue, Feeling Aggrieved By The Order Passed By The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-5, Dated 16.03.2018 For The Ay 2014-15, On The Following Grounds :

transfer as 01.04.2011. By virtue of order of Hon’ble High Court, assessee receives shares of 11 companies which were merged with the assessee along with the other underlined properties. As per our understanding, there is a distinction between “receive of property being the shares of the amalgamating companies” and “underlying assets and transfer of said assets to the amalgamated

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

CORTEVA AGRISCIENCE SERVICES INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-17(1), HYDERABAD, HYDERABAD

In the result, the Ground No

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar & Shri Madhusudan Sawdia

Transfer Pricing Officer (“Ld. TPO”) and approved by the Ld. CIT(A) are functionally not comparable with the assessee, therefore, they are required to be excluded. In this regard, the Ld. AR had filed a written submission in support of his contention, which is to the following effect : “Exclusion of comparable companies chosen by TPO - Ground no. 9 In this

BRIGHTCOM GROUP LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1(2), HYDERABAD

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

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Madhusudan Sawdia

transfer pricing adjustment by considering the loans advanced by the assessee to both of its AEs, including Symphoni Interactive LLC, USA. Be that as it may, it is seen that the ld. CIT(A) also impliedly accepted the interest earned by the assessee from Symphoni Interactive LLC, USA, at 6% as at ALP, against which the Department has no grudge

AUROBINDO PHARMA LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(2), HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri Laliet Kumar

Transfer Pricing Grounds: 11.The Learned DRP/AO erred in law and on facts and circumstances of the case in not allowing weighted deduction U/s 35(2AB) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 in respect of expenditure incurred in connection with Clinical Trials/ Bio-Analytical and Bio-Equivalence studies without appreciating the legal implications of Explanation

THERMODYNE DYNAMICS PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD -17(3), HYDERABAD

Bench: Us :

dividend income during the subject year, therefore, no disallowance was called for in its case under Section 14A r.w. Rule 8D of the Income-tax Rules, 1962. However, the A.O. did not find favour with the aforesaid explanation of the assessee company, and drawing support from the CBDT Circular No.5/2014 (F.No.225/182/2013-ITA-III), dt.11.02.2014 worked out the disallowance

APPLABS TECHNOLOGIES PVT LTD (NOW MERGED WITH COMPUTER SCIENCE CORPORATION PVT LTD ),,HYDERABAD vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CIRCLE-1, HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee for the A

Bench: Shri K.Narasimha Chary & Shri Madhusudan Sawdia

transfer pricing.” Page 17 of 26 ITA Nos. 1793 & 1805/Hyd/2017 and 854/Hyd/2019 5.1. The Ld. AR also submitted that it can be perused from the aforesaid grounds that the assessee had raised many issues i.e. selection of comparables ( ground no. 7 to 9), erroneous computation of income of margins of comparable companies ( ground no. 10), computation of TP adjustments (ground

COMPUTER SCIENCES CORPORATION INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED (PREVIOUSLY KNOWN AS APPLABS TECHNOLOGIES PRIVATE LIMITED),HYDERABAD vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee for the A

Bench: Shri K.Narasimha Chary & Shri Madhusudan Sawdia

transfer pricing.” Page 17 of 26 ITA Nos. 1793 & 1805/Hyd/2017 and 854/Hyd/2019 5.1. The Ld. AR also submitted that it can be perused from the aforesaid grounds that the assessee had raised many issues i.e. selection of comparables ( ground no. 7 to 9), erroneous computation of income of margins of comparable companies ( ground no. 10), computation of TP adjustments (ground

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1(1), HYDERABAD vs. APPLABS TECHNOLOGIES PVT. LTD. (NOW MERGED WITH M/S COMPUTER SCIENCE INDIA PVT. LTD.), HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee for the A

Bench: Shri K.Narasimha Chary & Shri Madhusudan Sawdia

transfer pricing.” Page 17 of 26 ITA Nos. 1793 & 1805/Hyd/2017 and 854/Hyd/2019 5.1. The Ld. AR also submitted that it can be perused from the aforesaid grounds that the assessee had raised many issues i.e. selection of comparables ( ground no. 7 to 9), erroneous computation of income of margins of comparable companies ( ground no. 10), computation of TP adjustments (ground

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

Transfer Pricing Officer (TPO) in respect of specified domestic transactions reported by the assessee company. The TPO, after examining the submissions and documentation furnished by the assessee company, passed an order under section 92CA(3) of the Act, determining the arm's length price (ALP) of the specified domestic transactions and did not propose any adjustment. 4. Thereafter

PATHFINDER PUBLISHING PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT., CIRCLE -16(2), HYDERABAD

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

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar & Shri Madhusudan Sawdia

pricing model, multi-factor model, etc. Risk premium is also adjusted to incorporate risks associated with the stage and size of business and other company or project-specific risks. (c) The rate estimated by using the above will provide the discount rate, assuming only equity financing or the cost of equity. For a leveraged company, discount rate should be adjusted

LYCOS INTERNET LIMITED ,HYDERABAD vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CIRCLE-16(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

deemed to be erroneous in So far it is prejudicial to the interests of Revenue as per clause(a) and (c) of Expl. 2 to Sec.263 of the I.T Act, 1961. The same is therefore, set aside in terms of the provisions of section 263 of the I.T Act, 1961 and the assessing officer is directed to examine the above

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CIRCLE-16(1), HYDERABAD vs. NCL GREEN HABITATS PRIVATE LIMITED, HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri Laliet Kumar

price of share was arrived based on the discounted cash flow method as determined by the accountant. We request your good office to consider the above facts positively and complete the assessment.” 6. Ld. DR further submitted that (1) In appeal before the ld.CIT(A), assessee had filed valuation report and the said valuation report was not placed on record

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

Transfer Pricing Officer\n(TPO) in respect of specified domestic transactions reported by the\nassessee company. The TPO, after examining the submissions and\ndocumentation furnished by the assessee company, passed an order\nunder section 92CA(3) of the Act, determining the arm's length price\n(ALP) of the specified domestic transactions and did not propose any\nadjustment.\n4.\nThereafter

ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-16(1),, HYDERABAD vs. LYCOS INTERNET LIMITED,, HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao, Vice-A N D Shri Madhusudan Sawdiaआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.1550/Hyd/2017 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2012-13) Asstt. Commissioner Of Vs. Lycos Internet Ltd Income Tax, Circle 16 (1) Hyderabad Hyderabad Pan:Aaacl5827B (Appellant) (Respondent) आ.अपी.सं /Ita No.1769/Hyd/2018 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2012-13) Lycos Internet Ltd Vs. Asstt. Commissioner Of Hyderabad Income Tax, Circle 16 (1) Pan:Aaacl5827B Hyderabad (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: Shri P Murali Mohan Rao, Ca राज" व "ारा/Revenue By:: Shri B Bala Krishna, Cit(Dr) सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 16/12/2024 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 22/01/2025 आदेश/Order Per Vijay Pal Raothese Are Two Appeals, One By The Department Against The Order Dated 23/06/2017 Of The Learned Cit (A) & Another By The Assessee Against The Revision Order Dated 26/02/2018 Passed

dividend income during the year under consideration. Accordingly, in view of the facts as discussed above, we do not find any error or illegality in the impugned order of the learned CIT (A) qua on this issue. The same is upheld. 10. With regard to grounds of appeal No.5 & 6 are concerned, the Assessing Officer has made an addition

GORLAS INFRASTRUCTURE PRIVATE LIMITED ,HYDERABAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER ,WARD 2(4), HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar & Shri Madhusudan Sawdia

deemed to have been escaped as per explanation (2)(b) of Section 147, if no assessment has been made pursuant to the return filed by the assessee and it was noticed by the Assessing Officer that the assessee had understated the income or claimed excessive loss etc. In the present case, the Ld. AO had clearly mentioned in the reasons

ASCENTECH ENGINEERING SOLUTIONS PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT, CIRCLE 1(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is allowed

price over and above the fair market value of the share. He has relied upon the Orders of the authorities below.\n5. We have considered the rival submissions as well as relevant material on record. The Assessing Officer has made the addition of Rs.45 lakhs u/sec.56(2)(viib) of the Act in Para nos.1 to 3 of the Order