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)

3. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Learned Dispute Resolution Panel ("Ld. DRP") erred in upholding the action of the Ld. AO/Learned Transfer Pricing Officer ("Ld. TPO") in making an adjustment of Rs. 6,06,64,773 to the international transaction pertaining to provision of software development and support services

COMM VAULT SYSTEMS (INDIA) PVT.LTD., HYD,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-1(2), HYD, HYDERABAD

In the result, assessee’s appeal is partly allowed

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi & Shri B. Ramakotaiahm/S. Comm Vault Systems Vs Dy. Commissioner Of Income (India) Private Limited Tax, Circle 1(2) Hyderabad Hyderabad Pan: Aaccc 3708 L (Appellant) (Respondent)

10 of 12 ITA No 343 of 2016Comm Vault Systems India P Ltd Hyderabad. previous year. The effect of sub- section is that the profit or loss declared, i.e. computed by the assessee on the basis of entries in the books of account shall not be enhanced or reduced because of transfer pricing adjustments under sub-section

ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, (EXEMPTIONS), HYDERABAD vs. KAKATIYA URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, HYDERABAD

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Before Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri Laliet Kumar

3 Building Penalization Scheme receipts of are not Rs.11,54,441/- Rs.2,20,886/- Rs.12,05,651/- Rs.10,355/- Nil completely offered as receipt for the year under consideration 11. The appellant humbly submits that in so far as the Development charges is concerned, in the ground of appeal raised by the Revenue it is mentioned that the Assessing officer

KAKATIYA URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY ,WARANGAL vs. ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, (EXEMPTIONS), HYDERABAD

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Before Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri Laliet Kumar

3 Building Penalization Scheme receipts of are not Rs.11,54,441/- Rs.2,20,886/- Rs.12,05,651/- Rs.10,355/- Nil completely offered as receipt for the year under consideration 11. The appellant humbly submits that in so far as the Development charges is concerned, in the ground of appeal raised by the Revenue it is mentioned that the Assessing officer

ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, (EXEMPTIONS), HYDERABAD vs. KAKATIYA URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, WARANGAL

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Before Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri Laliet Kumar

3 Building Penalization Scheme receipts of are not Rs.11,54,441/- Rs.2,20,886/- Rs.12,05,651/- Rs.10,355/- Nil completely offered as receipt for the year under consideration 11. The appellant humbly submits that in so far as the Development charges is concerned, in the ground of appeal raised by the Revenue it is mentioned that the Assessing officer

KAKATIYA URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY ,WARANGAL vs. ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, (EXEMPTIONS), HYDERABAD

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Before Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri Laliet Kumar

3 Building Penalization Scheme receipts of are not Rs.11,54,441/- Rs.2,20,886/- Rs.12,05,651/- Rs.10,355/- Nil completely offered as receipt for the year under consideration 11. The appellant humbly submits that in so far as the Development charges is concerned, in the ground of appeal raised by the Revenue it is mentioned that the Assessing officer

ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, (EXEMPTIONS), HYDERABAD vs. KAKATIYA URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, WARANGAL

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Before Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri Laliet Kumar

3 Building Penalization Scheme receipts of are not Rs.11,54,441/- Rs.2,20,886/- Rs.12,05,651/- Rs.10,355/- Nil completely offered as receipt for the year under consideration 11. The appellant humbly submits that in so far as the Development charges is concerned, in the ground of appeal raised by the Revenue it is mentioned that the Assessing officer

KAKATIYA URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY ,WARANGAL vs. ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, (EXEMPTIONS), HYDERABAD

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Before Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri Laliet Kumar

3 Building Penalization Scheme receipts of are not Rs.11,54,441/- Rs.2,20,886/- Rs.12,05,651/- Rs.10,355/- Nil completely offered as receipt for the year under consideration 11. The appellant humbly submits that in so far as the Development charges is concerned, in the ground of appeal raised by the Revenue it is mentioned that the Assessing officer

ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, (EXEMPTIONS), HYDERABAD vs. KAKATIYA URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, WARANGAL

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Before Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri Laliet Kumar

3 Building Penalization Scheme receipts of are not Rs.11,54,441/- Rs.2,20,886/- Rs.12,05,651/- Rs.10,355/- Nil completely offered as receipt for the year under consideration 11. The appellant humbly submits that in so far as the Development charges is concerned, in the ground of appeal raised by the Revenue it is mentioned that the Assessing officer

KAKATIYA URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY ,WARANGAL vs. ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, (EXEMPTIONS), HYDERABAD

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Before Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri Laliet Kumar

3 Building Penalization Scheme receipts of are not Rs.11,54,441/- Rs.2,20,886/- Rs.12,05,651/- Rs.10,355/- Nil completely offered as receipt for the year under consideration 11. The appellant humbly submits that in so far as the Development charges is concerned, in the ground of appeal raised by the Revenue it is mentioned that the Assessing officer

KAKATIYA URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY ,WARANGAL vs. ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, (EXEMPTIONS), HYDERABAD

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Before Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri Laliet Kumar

3 Building Penalization Scheme receipts of are not Rs.11,54,441/- Rs.2,20,886/- Rs.12,05,651/- Rs.10,355/- Nil completely offered as receipt for the year under consideration 11. The appellant humbly submits that in so far as the Development charges is concerned, in the ground of appeal raised by the Revenue it is mentioned that the Assessing officer

ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, (EXEMPTIONS), HYDERABAD vs. KAKATIYA URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY , WARANGAL

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Before Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri Laliet Kumar

3 Building Penalization Scheme receipts of are not Rs.11,54,441/- Rs.2,20,886/- Rs.12,05,651/- Rs.10,355/- Nil completely offered as receipt for the year under consideration 11. The appellant humbly submits that in so far as the Development charges is concerned, in the ground of appeal raised by the Revenue it is mentioned that the Assessing officer

DCIT, EXEMPTIONS CIRCLE, HYDERABAD vs. HYDERABAD METROPOLITAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, SECUNDERABAD

In the result, both the appeals of assessee and Revenue are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Before Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri Laliet Kumar

3, Hyderabad, wherein the co-ordinate Bench of the Tribunal considering the said Circular of CBDT directed the Assessing officer to allow exemption u/s 1 l of the I.T.Act. 8. In support of its, ld. AR filed the written submissions which are to the following effect : “The appellant is a Urban Development Authority entrusted with the development of urban areas

HYDERABAD METROPOLITAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT, EXEMPTIONS CIRCLE-1(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, both the appeals of assessee and Revenue are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Before Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri Laliet Kumar

3, Hyderabad, wherein the co-ordinate Bench of the Tribunal considering the said Circular of CBDT directed the Assessing officer to allow exemption u/s 1 l of the I.T.Act. 8. In support of its, ld. AR filed the written submissions which are to the following effect : “The appellant is a Urban Development Authority entrusted with the development of urban areas

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

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)

Transfer Pricing Officer ('Ld. TPO'), the Ld. A.O. and the Hon'ble DRP have erred in law by re-computing the total income of the Appellant for the relevant AY at INR 4,15,10,08,610/- as against INR 3,03,09,85,230/- as returned by the Appellant. 1.2 Impugned order of the Ld. AO, to the extent

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)

Transfer Pricing Officer (TPO), the time limit available stands extended by another 12 months, and in the present case, the upper time limit for completion of assessment proceedings would expire on 30.09.2021. 18. In the present case, the final assessment order passed by the A.O. under Section 143(3) r.w.s. 144C(13) r.w.s. 144B dated 28.07.2022 is clearly beyond

NETCRACKER TECHNOLOGY SOLUTIONS (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD 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 G. MANJUNATHA, HON’BLE (Accountant Member), SHRI RAVISH SOOD, HON’BLE (Judicial Member)

transfer pricing analysis/ study prepared by the Appellant and conducting fresh benchmarking, without appreciating that none of the conditions mentioned in clauses (a) to (d) of Section 92C(3) of the Act were satisfied. 3 NetCracker Technology Solutions (India) Private Limited, 4. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and contrary to law, the Ld. AO/Ld