SUSHEE INFRA & MINING LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT., CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(2), HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is partly\nallowed for statistical purposes

Transfer Pricing provisions. The rejection of the assessee's benchmarking and adoption of 'Another Method' was deemed arbitrary. The grounds related to the validity of the assessment order and the 80IA deduction were either remanded or directed for verification.", "result": "Partly Allowed", "sections": [ "143(3)", "144C(13)", "144C(5)", "80IA", "92BA", "801A(10

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

10) . The relevant findings of this Tribunal on this issue, are as under: "29. ... With regard to the assessment year 2013-14, the ld.DRP has observed that there is a little change in the statutory provision by virtue of section 80IA(8). The arm's length price of the goods sold by the assessee in the alleged captive power plant

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

Bench: Us:

Transfer Pricing Officer (for short “TPO”), vide his order passed under Section 92CA(3) of the Act, dated 31.07.2021 determined the ALP of the gain obtained on account of excess charging of overhead expenses by the Chilling Units of the assessee company by following “Other Method” at Rs. Nil. Accordingly, the TPO suggested an adjustment u/s 92CA

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 :

price lower than the Fair Market Value (F.M.V) of the shares, does not attract provisions of the section 56(2)(viia) of the Act and Ld.ClT (Appeals) erred in holding that provisions of Section 56(2)(viia) are not applicable to the transactions defined u/s.47(vi), even though the proviso to section 56(2)(viia) does not specify the transactions

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

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 Pricing Officer (“TPO”). The Ld. TPO vide his order dated 31.10.2016 suggested upward adjustment of ITA Nos.32/Hyd/2019 & 5 2130/Hyd/2017 Rs.1,19,93,961/- on account of provision

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

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 Pricing Officer (“TPO”). The Ld. TPO vide his order dated 31.10.2016 suggested upward adjustment of ITA Nos.32/Hyd/2019 & 5 2130/Hyd/2017 Rs.1,19,93,961/- on account of provision

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

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Manjunatha G

Transfer Pricing Officer [in short “TPO”] under section 92CA(1) of Income-tax Act, 1961, with the prior approval of the Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax-3, Hyderabad, for determination of arm's length price in respect of the Specified domestic/ International transactions reported by the assessee company for the financial year relevant to the assessment year

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

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Manjunatha G

Transfer Pricing Officer [in short “TPO”] under section 92CA(1) of Income-tax Act, 1961, with the prior approval of the Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax-3, Hyderabad, for determination of arm's length price in respect of the Specified domestic/ International transactions reported by the assessee company for the financial year relevant to the assessment year

HIMASAGAR KRISHNA MUTHAPPAGARI,TIRUPATI vs. ITO., WARD-2(3), TIRUPATI

Bench: Us.

10 Himsagar Krishna Vs. Pr. CIT, Tirupati Commissioner authorised by the Board in this behalf under section 120; [(iii) an order under section 92CA by the Transfer Pricing

SHAKTI HORMANN PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-3(1), HYDERABAD

Bench: Shri Manjunatha G.\Nand\Nshri Ravish Sood\Nआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.917/Hyd/2024\N(निर्धारण वर्ष/Assessment Year:2020-21)\Nshakti Hormann Private\Nlimited,\Nhyderabad.\Nvs. Dcit,\Ncircle-3(1),\Nhyderabad.\Npan: Aadcs4024Q\N(Appellant)\N(Respondent)\Nनिर्धारिती द्वारा / Assessee By: Shri P. Murali Mohan Rao,\Nca\Nराजस्व द्वारा / Revenue By: Ms. U. Mini Chandran,\Ncit-Dr\Nसुनवाई की तारीख /Date Of Hearing: 15/10/2025\Nघोषणा की तारीख / Date Of 19/12/2025\Npronouncement:\Nआदेश / Order\Nper. Ravish Sood, J.M:\Nthe Present Appeal Filed By The Assessee Company Is Directed\Nagainst The Final Assessment Order Passed By The Assessing Officer (For\Nshort, “A.O.”) Under Section 143(3) R.W.S 144C(13) R.W.S 144B Of The\Nincome Tax Act, 1961 (For Short, “The Act”) Dated 25/07/2024 For The\N Assessment Year (Ay) 2020-21. The Assessee Company Has Assailed\Nthe Impugned Order Passed By The Cit(A) On The Following Grounds Of\Nappeal Before Us:\N1. On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case, The Final Assessment\Norder Passed U/S 143(3) R.W.S.144C(13) Of The Act Dated 25.07.2024 By\Nthe Ao & Also The Order Passed U/S 92Ca (3) Dt 30.07.2023 By The Tpo\Nare Bad In The Eyes Of Law & Thus, Unsustainable To The Test Of Appeal.\N2.0 The Final Assessment Order Passed U/S 143(3) R.W.S.144C(13) R.W.S.144B\Nis Beyond The Time Limit Prescribed U/S 153 Of The Act.\N2.

Pricing Officer, as the case\nmay be], if satisfied, may allow an additional period of\nsix months to give effect to the order.\nProvided further that where an order under section\n250 or section 254 or section 260 or section 262 or\nsection 263 or section 264 requires verification of any\nissue by way of submission of any document

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

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

Section 928 of Income-tax Act, 1961 ('the Act'). 5 ITA.No.1315 /Hyd./2024 7.2. in law and facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld. DRP and Ld. TPO/AO have erred in making a transfer pricing adjustment with respect to certain receivables by the Appellant, not considering the fact that the Assessee has received advance for most

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

Bench: Us:

10,58,23,162 in respect of international transaction of provision of software development and support services 1.1. The learned AO erred, on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, in proposing a transfer pricing adjustment of INR 10.58,23,162/- to the income of the Appellant in relation to the international transection of provision of software

SHAKTI HORMANN PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT CIRCLE -3(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee for both the assessment years 2017-18 and 2018-19 are partly allowed

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Manjunatha G.आ.अपी.सं /Ita-Tp No.451/Hyd/2022 & 452/Hyd/2022 (निर्धारण वर्ा/Assessment Year: 2017-18 & 2018-19) Shakti Hormann Private Vs. Asst.Commissioner Of Limited Income Tax Hyderabad Circle-3(1) [Pan : Aadcs4024Q] Hyderabad (Appellant) (Respondent) निर्धाररती द्वधरध/Assessee By: Shri P.Murali Mohan Rao, Ar रधजस् व द्वधरध/Revenue By: Shri B.Bala Krishna, Cit-Dr सुिवधई की तधरीख/Date Of Hearing: 15/04/2025 घोर्णध की तधरीख/ 21/04/2025 Date Of Pronouncement: आदेश / Order Per Vijay Pal Rao: These Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Directed Against The Assessment Orders Dated 21.07.2022 & 28.07.2022 Passed U/S 143(3) R.W.S. 144C(13) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (“The Act”) In Pursuant To The Directions Of The Dispute Resolution Panel (“The Drp”) U/S 144C(5) Of The Act For The Assessment Year 2017-18 & 2018-19 Respectively. 2. For The Assessment Year 2017-18, The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal :

transfer pricing adjustment can be made on hypothetical and notional basis without there being any material on record justifying the fact that there had been under charging of such interest on real income. 2.9. Erred in directing TPO to adopt the six month average LIBOR plus 250 basis points. 3. Erred in upholding the upward adjustment of Arm’s Length

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

In the result, both the Writ Petitions are allowed by setting aside the impugned assessment orders dated

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao, Vice-A N D Shri Madhusudan Sawdiaआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.422/Hyd/2022 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2018-19) Tmeic Industrial Systems Vs. Dy. Cit India Private Limited Circle 2 ( 1 ) Hyderabad Hyderabad Pan:Aadct5493J (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: Cas, Kranthi Palivela & Mrudulatha Devdas राज" व "ारा/Revenue By:: Shri B Balakrishna, Cit(Dr) सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 17/12/2024 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 24/02/2025 आदेश/Order

Section 144(13) of the Act and therefore the order is void, bad in law and liable to be quashed. 2. Erred in considering the transfer pricing adjustment of Rs. 126,43,35,7 14/- under the head Income from Other Sources as against Income from Business/Profession, thereby raising an incorrect demand of Rs. 8,67,89,409/ Without prejudice

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)

section 1448 of the Income-tax Act pursuant to the directions dated 14 June 2022 by Dispute Resolution Panel, Bangalore (DRP) u/s 144C(5) of the Act, is bad in law and void ab initio so far as it is prejudicial to the Appellant. Transfer Pricing Adjustment 2. That on the facts and circumstances of the case

GAINSIGHT SOFTWARE PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT., CIRCLE-2(1), HYDERSABAD

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)

section 92D of the Act read with rule 10D of the Income Tax Rules, 1962. 5. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. TPO / Ld. AO / Ld. DRP erred in: a. rejecting certain filters adopted in the transfer pricing study; and b. application of certain filters which are not relevant to the Appellant. Comparability

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)

section 92CA(1) of the Act and has not provided an opportunity of being heard before referring the transfer pricing issues to the Ld. TPO. 5. Ground 5: Rejection of TP documentation and undertaking fresh economic analysis for determining the arm's length price ('ALP') Rejection of the transfer pricing documentation maintained by the Assessee in accordance with the provisions