MYLAN LABORATORIES LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-5(1), HYDERABAD

In the result. appeal of the Assessee is partly\nallowed for statistical purposes and appeal of Revenue is\npartly allowed for statistical purposes

35(2AB)", "14A", "Rule 8D", "115JB", "10(34)", "32", "Section 143(3)", "Section 144C", "Section 250", "Section 92CA(3)" ], "issues": "The core issues revolve around the correctness of Transfer Pricing

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

Bench: Us:

10,484/-, while for the same was claimed in the 42 ITA TP 466/Hyd/2022 and 1301/Hyd/2024 Dodla Dairy Limited. return of income at Rs. 35,75,814/-. The Ld. AR submitted that considering its entitlement for deduction for the immediately preceding year, i.e., AY 2017-18 of Rs. 35,67,060/- (being second year of claim) its total entitlement

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

ACIT., CIRCLE-5(1), HYDERABAD vs. MYLAN LABORATORIES LIMITED, HYDERABAD

In the result. appeal of the Assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes and appeal of Revenue is partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Manjunatha G

Transfer Pricing Officer [in short “TPO”] for determination of the Arms Length Price [in short “ALP”] of international transactions of the appellant company with it’s AEs. 3.1. During the course of TP proceedings, the TPO noticed that, as per Form-3CEB report, the appellant 4 ITA.Nos.663 & 708/Hyd./2022 company has reported various international transactions with

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 it would fetch if sold in the open market on the valuation date and the assessee may obtain a report from a merchant banker or an accountant in respect of such valuation." ii. However, while computing the fair market value of such preference shares for the purpose of section 56(2)(viia) of the Act, the Ld. AO erroneously

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

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

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

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 to above, the Learned AO and the Learned Transfer Pricing Officer i.e. the Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax (Transfer Pricing Officer)- ("the Learned TPO") has erred in: 3. Rejection of 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

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

10. The Ld. CIT–DR, on the issue of Transfer Pricing adjustment, submitted that, the learned counsel for the assessee seeks restoration of the issue to the file of the TPO on the ground that, incorrect computation of margins (PLI) of comparable companies with reference to the TP order 27 ITA.No.1315 /Hyd./2024 passed

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

Bench: Us:

Section 143(3) r.w.s 144C(13) r.w.s 144B of the Act, dated 25.02.2024, has carried the matter in appeal before us. 9. We have heard the Ld. Authorized Representatives of both parties, perused the orders of the lower authorities and the material available on record, as well as considered the judicial pronouncements that have been pressed into service by them

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)

35,729/-, by incorporating the above transfer pricing adjustments. Aggrieved, the assessee filed objections before the Hon’ble Dispute Resolution Panel, DRP-1, Bengaluru, challenging the proposed variations. 7 Interwrap Corp Private Ltd The Hon’ble DRP, vide directions issued under Section 144C(5) of the Act dated 14.06.2022, adjudicated the objections raised by the assessee and issued specific directions

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

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)

pricing adjustment of Rs. 6,06,64,733/- in respect of international transactions pertaining to software development services. 4. Thereafter, the A.O. has passed the draft assessment order under Section 144C(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 on 20.09.2023, determining the total income after considering the TP adjustment proposed by the Ld. TPO. In the draft order

DR. REDDYS, LABORATORIES 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.490 & 491/Hyd/2022 Assessment Years 2017-2018 & 2018-2019 Dr. Reddy’S Laboratories Limited, Hyderabad. The Acit, Vs. Pin – 500 034. Circle-8(1), Hyderabad – Telangana. 500 084. Pan Aaacd7999Q (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा"रती "ारा /Assessee By: Ca Padamchand Khincha राज" व "ारा /Revenue By: Ms. U Mini Chandran, Cit-Dr

Pricing Officer, as the case may be], if satisfied, may allow an additional period of six months to give effect to the order. Provided further that where an order under section 250 or section 254 or section 260 or section 262 or section 263 or section 264 requires verification of any issue by way of submission of any document

DR. REDDYS, LABORATORIES 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.490 & 491/Hyd/2022 Assessment Years 2017-2018 & 2018-2019 Dr. Reddy’S Laboratories Limited, Hyderabad. The Acit, Vs. Pin – 500 034. Circle-8(1), Hyderabad – Telangana. 500 084. Pan Aaacd7999Q (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा"रती "ारा /Assessee By: Ca Padamchand Khincha राज" व "ारा /Revenue By: Ms. U Mini Chandran, Cit-Dr

Pricing Officer, as the case may be], if satisfied, may allow an additional period of six months to give effect to the order. Provided further that where an order under section 250 or section 254 or section 260 or section 262 or section 263 or section 264 requires verification of any issue by way of submission of any document

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

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