ZUARI CEMENT LIMITED, KADAPA,KADAPA vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-1, KADAPA, KADAPA

Accordingly, this issue is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahusl.

transfer pricing adjustments. 13. Per contra, the ld.DR had submitted that it is correct that the Tribunal in the second round of litigation had reiterated the finding recorded wherein it was held that the transactions are required to be determined / benchmarked on the basis of TNMM. However, it was submitted that he has to verify whether the appeal was preferred

ZUARI CEMENT LIMITED, KADAPA,KADAPA vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-1, KADAPA, KADAPA

Accordingly, this issue is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahusl.

transfer pricing adjustments. 13. Per contra, the ld.DR had submitted that it is correct that the Tribunal in the second round of litigation had reiterated the finding recorded wherein it was held that the transactions are required to be determined / benchmarked on the basis of TNMM. However, it was submitted that he has to verify whether the appeal was preferred

ZUARI CEMENT LIMITED,KADAPA vs. ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1, KADAPA

Accordingly, this issue is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahusl.

transfer pricing adjustments. 13. Per contra, the ld.DR had submitted that it is correct that the Tribunal in the second round of litigation had reiterated the finding recorded wherein it was held that the transactions are required to be determined / benchmarked on the basis of TNMM. However, it was submitted that he has to verify whether the appeal was preferred

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

nature of the business, we find no merit in his contention. It is well accepted principle in Transfer Pricing (“TP”) that companies with significantly different scales of operations face different economic and market condition, which impact their margin, cost structure and pricing strategy. Hence the contention of the Ld. DR is rejected. 8.5 Further, we observe that

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

nature of the business, we find no merit in his contention. It is well accepted principle in Transfer Pricing (“TP”) that companies with significantly different scales of operations face different economic and market condition, which impact their margin, cost structure and pricing strategy. Hence the contention of the Ld. DR is rejected. 8.5 Further, we observe that

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

natural justice. 1.2 In the facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld. Dispute Resolution Panel ("DRP") and Ld. AO/ the Learned Transfer Pricing

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

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Manjunatha G

natural justice. 1.2 In the facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld. Dispute Resolution Panel ("DRP") and Ld. AO/ the Learned Transfer Pricing

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

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Manjunatha G

natural justice. 1.2 In the facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld. Dispute Resolution Panel ("DRP") and Ld. AO/ the Learned Transfer Pricing

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 Officer (“TPO”). The Ld. TPO vide his order dated 31.10.2023 suggested upward adjustment of Rs.1,18,60,159/- on account of interest on trade receivables. Accordingly, the Ld. AO passed the draft assessment order on 12.12.2023. 4. Aggrieved with the draft assessment order passed by the Ld. AO, the assessee preferred objection before the Ld. DRP. In pursuance

ADP PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD, TELANGANA vs. DCIT., CIRCLE 1(1), HYDERABAD, TELANGANA

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed in terms of our observations given hereinabove

Bench: SHRI VIJAY PAL RAO, HON’BLE (Vice President), SHRI MANJUNATHA G, HON’BLE (Accountant Member)

nature of notional interest on receivables amounting to Rs. 5,08,183. 8 ADP Private Limited b) Not appreciating that the receivables are consequential/closely linked to the principal transaction of provision of services and hence have been aggregated for determination of Arm's Length Price ('ALP') under Transactional Net Margin Method ('TNMM'). c) Not appreciating the fact that the Assessee

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

nature of judicial, including quasi-judicial exercise of power and discretion. Even under this category, Hon'ble Supreme Court Order, applies only to a lis which needs to be pursued within a time frame fixed by the respective statutes. (iv) Wherever proceedings are pending, judicial or quasi-judicial which requires to be heard and disposed off, cannot come

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

nature of judicial, including quasi-judicial exercise of power and discretion. Even under this category, Hon'ble Supreme Court Order, applies only to a lis which needs to be pursued within a time frame fixed by the respective statutes. (iv) Wherever proceedings are pending, judicial or quasi-judicial which requires to be heard and disposed off, cannot come

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 for Rs.41,66,52,539/-, which includes TP adjustment on sale of goods for Rs.34,43,31,665/-, TP adjustment on account of receipt of intra group services for Rs.6,56,70,952/, adjustment towards royalty payment for Rs.2,96,526/-, adjustment of Rs.63,22,848/- in respect of seed testing and trial charges paid

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

natural justice by passing the Order under section 92CA(3) of the Act dated 31 October 2019 without providing the appellant with an opportunity of being heard and accordingly order passed by Ld. TPO is bad in law and liable to be quashed. Transfer Pricing

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

natural justice by passing the Order under section 92CA(3) of the Act dated 31 October 2019 without providing the appellant with an opportunity of being heard and accordingly order passed by Ld. TPO is bad in law and liable to be quashed. Transfer Pricing

SAXON GLOBAL INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. ITO., WARD-3(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed in terms of our observations given hereinabove

natural justice and thus the order of assessment needs to be set aside. 6. Rejection of Transfer Pricing Study a. The authorities

INTERWRAP CORP PRIVATE LIMITED (SUCCESSOR OF OWENS CORNING INDUSTRIES (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED),MUMBAI vs. DCIT., CIRCLE -5(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed in terms of our observations given hereinabove

Bench: SHRI VIJAY PAL RAO, HON'BLE (Vice President), SHRI MANJUNATHA G, HON’BLE (Accountant Member)

pricing adjustment of Rs. 47,92,29,000/- towards purchases. The 8 Interwrap Corp Private Ltd Hon’ble DRP also directed deletion of the addition of Rs. 5,99,097/- relating to delayed deposit of PF/ESIC, as the same had already been deleted by the CIT(A) in earlier proceedings and could not be added again. Penalty proceedings under Section

D. E. SHAW INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT., CIRCLE-8(1), HYDERABAD

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

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Madhusudan Sawdiaआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.1154/Hyd/2024 (निर्धारण वर्ा/Assessment Year:2020-21) M/S. D.E. Shaw India Pvt. Dy. Commissioner Of Income Vs. Ltd., Hyderabad. Tax, Pan:Aaacd7214J Circle 8(1), Hyderabad. (Appellant) (Respondent) निर्धाररती द्वधरध/Assessee By: Shri S.P. Chidambaram, Adv. रधजस् व द्वधरध/Revenue By: Ms. U. Mini Chandran, Sr-Dr सुिवधई की तधरीख/Date Of Hearing: 01/09/2025 घोर्णध की तधरीख/Pronouncement: 12/09/2025 आदेश/Order Per Madhusudan Sawdia, A.M.: This Appeal Is Filed By M/S. D E Shaw India Pvt. Ltd. (“The Assessee”), Feeling Aggrieved By The Assessment Order Passed By The Learned Assessing Officer (“Ld. Ao”) U/S. 143(3) R.W.S. 144C(13) R.W.S. 144B Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (“The Act”) Dated 27.06.2024 For The A.Y. 2020-21. 2. At The Outset, It Is Seen That There Is A Delay Of 66 Days In Filing Of The Present Appeal, For Which The Assessee Has Filed Condonation Petition Explaining The Reasons For Delay In Filing Of The Appeal. As Per Record, The Appeal Was Required To Be Filed On Or Before

justice. 4. Per contra, the Learned Departmental Representative (“Ld. DR”) fairly submitted that she has no serious objection to the condonation of delay in the present case, considering that the assessee had originally filed the appeal before the due date. 5. We have considered the rival submissions and perused the material available on record. It is an admitted fact that