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

section 92BA of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ("the Act") that came to be inserted by the Finance Act, 2012 from 01.04.2013. During the year under consideration, CPP transferred 17.17 crore units of power to CMU and, for the purpose of computation of the afore- mentioned tax holiday, applied a rate of INR 6.29 per unit. The rate was based

COMMVAULT SYSTEMS (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CIRCLE-1(2), HYDERABAD

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

Bench: Shri C.N.Prasad, Jm & Shri M.Balaganesh, Am M/S.Commvault Systems Vs. Deputy Commissioner Of (India) Pvt. Ltd., Income Tax, 5Th Floor, Plot No.39, Circle-1(2), B-Block, 7Th Floor, I.T. Towers Phase-Ii, Block-A Ananth Info Park A.C.Guards, Masab Tank Hitech City, Madhapur, Hyderabad – 500 004 Hyderabad Pan/Gir No.Aaccc3708L (Appellant) .. (Respondent)

100 + AALM x OC) Price received - 5,37,13,991/- Adjustment - Rs.1,66,53,598/- 18 M/s.Commvault Systems (India) Pvt. Ltd., The aforesaid working and the action of the ld. TPO was upheld by the ld. DRP. 6.5. The ld. AR vehemently argued that adoption of re-sale price method (RPM) would be ideal to benchmark the transactions carried

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

Bench: Us:

Section 80IB(11A) of the Act, were duly filed online by Mr. PSRVV Surya Rao, Chartered Accountant 79 ITA TP 466/Hyd/2022 and 1301/Hyd/2024 Dodla Dairy Limited. [Membership No. 202367], Partner at A. Ramachandra Rao & Co. [FRN no. 002857S]; (iii). that the signed copies of all the “Form 10CCBs” (alongwith the screenshots of the acknowledgments downloaded from the Income

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.

Section 153 of the Act.\n2.4.\nThe Ld. AO ought to have appreciated the fact that time limit for the\ncompletion of assessment u/s 153 has lapsed on 30-09-2023 and hence the\norder u/s 143(3) r.w.s 144C(13) is invalid and bad-in-law.\n3. Erred in upholding the upward adjustment of Arm's Length Price

WATERMARK RESIDENCY LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CIRCLE-17(2), HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeals of the assessee vide ITA Nos

Bench: Before Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri Laliet Kumar

Transfer Pricing Officer (TPO) carefully. The prime lending rate of state Bank of India prevailing + p.a adopted by the tax payer cannot be treated as Arms Length Price. The LIBOR is the rate applicable in the transactions between the banks which is accepted internationally. In the following cases LIBOR was accepted as appropriate rate for bench marking purposes: 1. Aurionpro

WATERMARKE RESIDENCY LIMITED ,HYDERABAD vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CIRCLE-17(2), HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeals of the assessee vide ITA Nos

Bench: Before Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri Laliet Kumar

Transfer Pricing Officer (TPO) carefully. The prime lending rate of state Bank of India prevailing + p.a adopted by the tax payer cannot be treated as Arms Length Price. The LIBOR is the rate applicable in the transactions between the banks which is accepted internationally. In the following cases LIBOR was accepted as appropriate rate for bench marking purposes: 1. Aurionpro

WATERMARK RESIDENCY LIMITED, ,HYDERABAD vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CIRCLE-17(2), HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeals of the assessee vide ITA Nos

Bench: Before Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri Laliet Kumar

Transfer Pricing Officer (TPO) carefully. The prime lending rate of state Bank of India prevailing + p.a adopted by the tax payer cannot be treated as Arms Length Price. The LIBOR is the rate applicable in the transactions between the banks which is accepted internationally. In the following cases LIBOR was accepted as appropriate rate for bench marking purposes: 1. Aurionpro

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

Bench: Us:

transfer pricing issues on comparability cannot constitute a precedent to be blindly followed ad infinitum. Whether a particular company is a comparable or not is an exercise which has to be carried out every year in the case of an Assessee considering the facts of that specific year and not blindly following the precedent which has been laid down

GORLAS INFRASTRUCTURE PRIVATE LIMITED ,HYDERABAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER ,WARD 2(4), HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar & Shri Madhusudan Sawdia

price paid or promised or part- paid and part-promised. Sale how made. Such transfer, in the case of tangible immoveable property of the value of one hundred rupees and upwards, or in the case of a reversion or other intangible thing, can be made only by a registered instrument. In the case of tangible immoveable property of a value

ADP PRIVATE LIMITED ,HYDERABAD vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CIRCLE-1(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, ground of appeal No

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi & Shri D.S. Sunder Singhassessment Year:2014-15

Transfer Pricing Officer, however, the assessee raised objections against selection of this company before the DRP as well as before us. The grievance of the assessee is, the company being involved in development of products and since no segmental details are available in the annual report, it cannot be treated as comparable. The Co-ordinate Bench in Tech Mahindra

FACEBOOK INDIA SERVICES PRIVATE LIMITED ,HYDERABAD vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CIRCLE-17(1), HYDERABAD

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

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Laliet Kumarassessment Year: 2014-15 Facebook India Online Services Vs. The Deputy Commissioner Private Limited, Of Income Tax, 12Th Floor, Building No.20, Circle – 17(1), Unit 1203 & 1204, Hitech City, Hyderabad. Madhapaur, Hyderabad. Pan : Aabcf5150G. (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Dhanesh Bafna & Chandni Shah Revenue By: Shri Rajendra Kumar – Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing: 20.07.2022 Date Of Pronouncement: 19.09.2022

Section 271(1)(C) of the Act. It is prayed that the Ld. AO be directed to drop the penalty proceedings initiated u/s 271(1)(C) of the Act.” 2. The brief facts of the case are that assessee company is engaged in the business of Service Sector, IT Enabled Services and BPO Providers, back office support services

VENKATA KRISHNA TATINENI,SECUNDERBAD vs. ASST COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3(4), HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar & Shri Madhusudan Sawdia

100/- as unexplained u/s.69A r.w.s. 115BBE of the Act. The Ld. AR ITA No.604/Hyd/2023 5 further submitted that the assessee is a qualified M. Tech Civil Engineer and the seized cash was explained before both the revenue authorities as “income from services provided to friends and relatives for their residential and commercial real estate projects”. Therefore, the Ld. AR finally

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

Transfer Pricing Adjustment 2. That on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the TPO/AO/DRP erred in determination of Arm's Length Price ("ALP") in respect of international loans to overseas Associated Enterprises by:  Directing the Ld. A.O/TPO to adopt the LIBOR rate applicable for the year under consideration+200 basis points to arrive at ALP instead

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

Transfer Pricing Adjustment 2. That on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the TPO/AO/DRP erred in determination of Arm's Length Price ("ALP") in respect of international loans to overseas Associated Enterprises by:  Directing the Ld. A.O/TPO to adopt the LIBOR rate applicable for the year under consideration+200 basis points to arrive at ALP instead

ASTRIX LABORATORIES LIMITED (AMALGAMATED WITH MYLAN LABORATORIES LIMITED) HYDERABAD,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-16(2), HYDERABAD, HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Before Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri Laliet Kumarassessment Year: 2007-08 M/S. Astrix Laboratories Vs. The Deputy Commissioner Limited, (Amalgamated Of Income Tax, With M/S. Mylan Circle 16(2), Laboratories Limited), Hyderabad. Hyderabad. Pan : Aafca4120R. (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Sri K.A. Sai Prasad. Revenue By: Sri Rajendra Kumar, Cit Date Of Hearing: 20.06.2022 Date Of Pronouncement: 22.06.2022 O R D E R Per Laliet Kumar, J.M. This Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee Feeling Aggrieved By The Order Of Dy.Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle 16(2), Hyderabad Dt.31.03.2017 For The Assessment Year 2007-08 On The Following Grounds : “1. The Order Passed By The Assessing Officer U/S 143(3) R.W.S. 144C & 92Ca Of The Income Tax Act, Passed On 31.03.2017 Is Contrary T The Facts & Law. 2. The Tpo Erred In Not Following The Hon’Ble Tribunal’S Directions & Thereby Making An Adjustment Of Rs.4,61,00,000/- U/S 92Ca Of The Act In Respect Of Sales Made To Associated Enterprises.” 2. The Brief Facts Of The Case Are As Under :

Section 92A of the Act, the case was referred to Transfer Pricing Officer (Additional Commissioner of Income Tax), who issued Transfer Pricing Order u/s 92CA of the Act dated 29.10.2010. The Assessing Officer framed Draft Assessment Order u/s 143(3) dated 31.12.2010 taking into account the above Transfer Pricing Order. The Assessing Officer vide his draft order has determined

DCIT, CIRCLE-2(1), HYDERABAD, HYDERABAD vs. IVY COMPTECH PRIVATE LIMITED, HYD, HYDERABAD

In the result, revenue appeal is dismissed and the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Smt P. Madhavi Devi & Shri S. Rifaur Rahmanassessment Year: 2010-11 Dy. Commissioner Of Income- Vs. Ivy Comptech Pvt. Ltd., Tax, Circle – 2(1), Hyderabad. Hyderabad. Pan – Aaaci8884K (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 2010-11 Ivy Comptech Pvt. Ltd., Vs. Dy. Commissioner Of Income- Hyderabad. Tax, Circle – 2(1), Hyderabad. Pan – Aaaci8884K

100+AALM)*OC Price Received (OR) 20,44,39,576 Adjustment u/s 92CA 3,84,10,156 The TPO noted that for customer support and transaction services, the arm’s length price of the assessee is Rs. 24,28,49,732/- and the shortfall of Rs. 3,84,10,156/- is treated as adjustment u/s 92CA

IVY COMPTECH PVT.LTD., HYD,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-2(1), HYD, HYDERABAD

In the result, revenue appeal is dismissed and the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Smt P. Madhavi Devi & Shri S. Rifaur Rahmanassessment Year: 2010-11 Dy. Commissioner Of Income- Vs. Ivy Comptech Pvt. Ltd., Tax, Circle – 2(1), Hyderabad. Hyderabad. Pan – Aaaci8884K (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 2010-11 Ivy Comptech Pvt. Ltd., Vs. Dy. Commissioner Of Income- Hyderabad. Tax, Circle – 2(1), Hyderabad. Pan – Aaaci8884K

100+AALM)*OC Price Received (OR) 20,44,39,576 Adjustment u/s 92CA 3,84,10,156 The TPO noted that for customer support and transaction services, the arm’s length price of the assessee is Rs. 24,28,49,732/- and the shortfall of Rs. 3,84,10,156/- is treated as adjustment u/s 92CA

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 making the upward adjustment of Arm’s Length