SANGHI INDUSTRIES LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT, CIRCLE -3 (1), HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar & Shri Madhusudan Sawdia

transfer of goods or services referred to in sub-section (8) of section 80-IA; (iv) any business transacted between the assessee and other person as referred to in sub-section (10) of section 80-IA; (v) any transaction, referred to in any other section under Chapter VI- A or section 10AA, to which provisions of sub-section

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

Bench: Us :

10; or (g) from any trust or institution registered under section 12AA; or 29 Thermodyne Dynamics Private Limited Vs. ITO (h) by way of transaction not regarded as transfer under clause (vicb) or clause (vid) or clause (vii) of section 47. Explanation.--For the purposes of this clause,-- (a) "assessable" shall have the meaning assigned to it in the Explanation

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

SANGHI TEXTILES PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERBAD vs. ITO., WARD-3(1), HYDERABAD

Bench: Us:

10 Sanghi Textiles Privarte Limited vs. ITO that have been pressed into service by them to drive home their respective contentions. 14. Shri P. Murali Mohan Rao, the Learned Authorized Representative (for short, “Ld. AR”) for the assessee company, at the threshold of hearing of the appeal, submitted that the AO had grossly erred in law and facts

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

NATEMS SOLAR POWER PRIVATE LIMITED ,HYDERABAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 16(1), HYDERABAD

Bench: Us:

transfer Pricing provisions are not applicable to the said transaction. Setoff of losses 10. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. AO erred in in computing the assessed income by not-granting set off of losses brought forward. Computation of book profits 11. On the facts and circumstances of the case

DIABETOMICS MEDICAL PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-8(1), HYDERABAD

price of\nRs.720/- per share having face value of Rs.10/- per share at\na premium of Rs.710/- per share. In support of this issue\nprice the assessee submitted the valuation report by a\nChartered Accountant under Rule-11UA(2)(b) of the I.T.\nRules, 1962 based on DCF method. During the assessment\nproceedings, the Assessing Officer did not agree with

DIABETOMICS MEDICAL PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-8(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, all the three appeals of the Assessee\nare partly allowed

price of\nRs.720/- per share having face value of Rs.10/- per share at\na premium of Rs.710/- per share. In support of this issue\nprice the assessee submitted the valuation report by a\nChartered Accountant under Rule-11UA(2)(b) of the I.T.\nRules, 1962 based on DCF method. During the assessment\nproceedings, the Assessing Officer did not agree with

DIABETOMICS MEDICAL PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-8(1), HYDERABAD

price of\nRs.720/- per share having face value of Rs.10/- per share at\na premium of Rs.710/- per share. In support of this issue\nprice the assessee submitted the valuation report by a\nChartered Accountant under Rule-11UA(2)(b) of the I.T.\nRules, 1962 based on DCF method. During the assessment\nproceedings, the Assessing Officer did not agree with

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

Bench: Us:

2. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. Panel erred in upholding the action of the Ld. Transfer Pricing Officer ('Ld. TPO')/Ld. AO in proposing an adjustment of INR 19,43,26,338 to the specified domestic transactions ('SDTs') pertaining to inter-unit transfer of milk. 3. On the facts

OPTUM GLOBAL SOLUTIONS (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT, CIRCLE -5(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, both the appeals of assessee are partly allowed

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri K. Narasimha Chary

transfer pricing adjustment qua the provision of IT services. 3. When the assessee filed objections before the learned DRP, learned DRP, while confirming the disallowance of deduction under section 80G of the Act, issued certain directions. Though the assessee filed this appeal on several grounds, many grounds were withdrawn, stating the assessee had relief in respect of some issues

OPTUM GLOBAL SOLUTIONS (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT CIRCLE -5(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, both the appeals of assessee are partly allowed

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri K. Narasimha Chary

transfer pricing adjustment qua the provision of IT services. 3. When the assessee filed objections before the learned DRP, learned DRP, while confirming the disallowance of deduction under section 80G of the Act, issued certain directions. Though the assessee filed this appeal on several grounds, many grounds were withdrawn, stating the assessee had relief in respect of some issues

ABBAS ALI AKHIL,USA vs. ACIT-INT-TAX-1,, HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao, Hon’Ble & Shri Manjunatha G. Hon’Bleआ.अपी.सं / Ita Nos.69 & 91/Hyd/2024 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Years: 2016-17 & 2018-19)

10. Aggrieved by the final assessment order, the assessee is now in appeal before us. 11. The Learned Counsel for the assessee, Shri Mohd Afzal, Advocate, submitted that the final assessment order passed by the AO under Section 147 read with Section 144C(13) of the Act dated 08-01-2024, is barred by limitation because, as per the provisions

MIR IBRAHIM ALI,USA vs. ACIT, INT-TAX-1, HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao, Hon’Ble & Shri Manjunatha G. Hon’Bleआ.अपी.सं / Ita Nos.69 & 91/Hyd/2024 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Years: 2016-17 & 2018-19)

10. Aggrieved by the final assessment order, the assessee is now in appeal before us. 11. The Learned Counsel for the assessee, Shri Mohd Afzal, Advocate, submitted that the final assessment order passed by the AO under Section 147 read with Section 144C(13) of the Act dated 08-01-2024, is barred by limitation because, as per the provisions

MIR IBRAHIM ALI,USA vs. ACIT, INT-TAX-1, HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao, Hon’Ble & Shri Manjunatha G. Hon’Bleआ.अपी.सं / Ita Nos.69 & 91/Hyd/2024 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Years: 2016-17 & 2018-19)

10. Aggrieved by the final assessment order, the assessee is now in appeal before us. 11. The Learned Counsel for the assessee, Shri Mohd Afzal, Advocate, submitted that the final assessment order passed by the AO under Section 147 read with Section 144C(13) of the Act dated 08-01-2024, is barred by limitation because, as per the provisions

ABBAS ALI AKHIL,USA vs. ACIT-INT-TAX-1, HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao, Hon’Ble & Shri Manjunatha G. Hon’Bleआ.अपी.सं / Ita Nos.69 & 91/Hyd/2024 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Years: 2016-17 & 2018-19)

10. Aggrieved by the final assessment order, the assessee is now in appeal before us. 11. The Learned Counsel for the assessee, Shri Mohd Afzal, Advocate, submitted that the final assessment order passed by the AO under Section 147 read with Section 144C(13) of the Act dated 08-01-2024, is barred by limitation because, as per the provisions

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

2),\nPIN 500 034. PAN AACCS8560Q\nvs.\nHyderabad – 500 004\nTelangana.\n(Appellant)\n(Respondent)\nFor Assessee : | CA Abhiroop Bhargav\nFor Revenue: Dr. Narendra Kumar Naik, CIT-DR\nDate of Hearing : 21.08.2025\nDate of Pronouncement: 24.09.2025\nORDER\nPER VIJAY PAL RAO, V.P. :\nThe above appeal has been filed by the assessee\nagainst the Final Assessment Order of the Assessing Officer

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

Bench: Us.

Pricing Officer" shall have the same meaning as assigned to it in the Explanation to section 92CA.] (2) No order shall be made under sub-section (1) after the expiry of two years from the end of the financial year in which the order sought to be revised was passed. (3) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section (2), an order

ANUDEEP NIMMATOORI,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(4), HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee in ITA

Bench: Shri Manjunatha, G.A N D Shri K. Narasimha Charis.No Ita Nos. Appellant Respondent A.Y 591/Hyd/2022 Shri Ramesh Babu 1 Acit, Central Circle 2017-18 2 619/Hyd/2022 Nimmatoori Hyderabad 2(4) Hyderabad 2018-19 Pan:Acspn1659G 3 700/Hyd/2022 Acit, Central Circle 2(4) Shri Ramesh Babu 2018-19 Hyderabad Nimmatoori Hyderabad Pan:Acspn1659G 4 311/Hyd/2022 Raja Babu Nimmatoori 2013-14 589/Hyd/2022 Hyderabad Acit, Central Circle 5 2016-17 Pan:Acspn1662R 2(4) Hyderabad 6 590/Hyd/2022 2017-18 7 621/Hyd/2022 2018-19 8 701/Hyd/2022 Acit, Central Circle Raja Babu 2018-19 2(4) Hyderabad Nimmatoori Hyderabad Pan:Acspn1662R 9 337/Hyd/2022 Yashoda Nimmatoori Acit, Central Circle 2016-17 593/Hyd/2022 Hyderabad 2(4) Hyderabad 10 2017-18 618/Hyd/2022 Pan:Acspn1657J 11 2018-19 332/Hyd/2022 12 Anudeep Nimmattoori Acit, Central Circle 2016-17 13 475/Hyd/2022 Hyderabad 2(4) Hyderabad 2017-18 476/Hyd/2022 Pan:Ahbpn2081Q 14 2018-19 15 592/Hyd/2022 Sulochana Acit, Central Circle 2017-18 Nimmattoori 2(4) Hyderabad 16 620/Hyd/2022 2018-19 Pan:Acspn1664K 594/Hyd/2022 Manjusha Nimmatoori 17 Acit, Central Circle 2018-19 Hyderabad 2(4) Hyderabad Pan:Acspn1666M िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: Shri P. Murali Mohan Rao, Ca राज" व "ारा/Revenue By:: Shri Shakeer Ahmed, Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 13/06/2024 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 14/08/2024

section 56(2)(vii)(b) cannot be invoked. Page 62 of 133 ITA Nos 591 619 700 Ramesh Babu and Others 89. The learned DR, on the other hand, supporting the order of the learned CIT (A) submitted that there is a clear difference between the consideration and the guideline value and thus, the difference has been rightly brought