ZUARI CEMENT LIMITED,KADAPA vs. ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1, KADAPA

Accordingly, this issue is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahusl.

TRANSFER PRICING ISSUES. Firstly, we will deal with ground Nos. 5(a) and 5(b): With respect to grounds 5(a) and 5(b) for A.Y. 2011-12, the ld. AR had drawn our attention to the draft assessment order dt.31.03.2015 wherein at Page 3, the Assessing Officer has mentioned as under : Zuari Cement Limited, Kadapa “The assessee debited

ZUARI CEMENT LIMITED,KADAPA vs. ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1(1), KADAPA

Accordingly, this issue is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahusl.

TRANSFER PRICING ISSUES. Firstly, we will deal with ground Nos. 5(a) and 5(b): With respect to grounds 5(a) and 5(b) for A.Y. 2011-12, the ld. AR had drawn our attention to the draft assessment order dt.31.03.2015 wherein at Page 3, the Assessing Officer has mentioned as under : Zuari Cement Limited, Kadapa “The assessee debited

ZUARI CEMENT LIMITED ,KADAPA vs. ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1, KADAPA

Accordingly, this issue is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahusl.

TRANSFER PRICING ISSUES. Firstly, we will deal with ground Nos. 5(a) and 5(b): With respect to grounds 5(a) and 5(b) for A.Y. 2011-12, the ld. AR had drawn our attention to the draft assessment order dt.31.03.2015 wherein at Page 3, the Assessing Officer has mentioned as under : Zuari Cement Limited, Kadapa “The assessee debited

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

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

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

Bench: Us:

price of international transactions entered into by the Assessee. Thus, the Panel finds no infirmity with TPO's findings and accordingly the objection raised by the Assessee are hereby rejected. 23 HighRadius Technologies Private Limited 2.5.10.8 In view of the above, we uphold the selection of this comparable.” 26. Having given thoughtful consideration, we concur with the Ld. AR that

AURONEXT PHARMA PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-1(1), HYDERABAD

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

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri Laliet Kumar

Transfer Pricing (TP) Grounds: Purchase and Sale Transactions: 1) The Honourable DRP erred in law and on facts and circumstances of the case in endorsing the rejection of the CUP method by the Learned TPO and adopting the TNMM method resulting in an adjustment of Rs. 19,84,20,000/- 2) i) The Honourable DRP erred in law in upholding

MEDPLEXUS INDIA PVT. LTD., HYD,BANGALORE vs. ACIT, CIRLCE-16(2), HYD, HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi & Shri S. Rifaur Rahmanassessment Year: 2011-12 Medpluxes India Pvt. Ltd., Vs. Asst. Commissioner Of Income- Hyderabad. Tax, Circle – 16(2), Hyderabad. Pan – Aaecm7007N (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Aliasger Rampurwala & Sri Abhiroop Bhargav Revenue By : Shri Y.V.S.T. Sai Date Of Hearing : 22-07-2019 Date Of Pronouncement : 05-09-2019 O R D E R

transfer pricing documentation and for the determination of comparables while conducting the search for the SWD and ITES segments without providing an opportunity of hearing to the Appellant. i) Arbitrary adoption of certain filters for the determination of com parables while conducting the search for the SWD and ITES segments. j) Considering certain expenses/income as non-operating in nature while

ACIT., CENTRAL CIRCLE 3(4), HYDERABAD vs. HETERO LABS LIMITED, HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of Revenue in ITA No

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Laliet Kumarआ.अपी.सं / Ita Nos.312 & 313/Hyd/2023 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2017-18 & 2018-19) Hetero Labs Limited, Vs. The Assistant Commissioner Of Hyderabad. Income Tax, Central Circle – 3(4), Pan : Aaach5506R Hyderabad. अपीलाथ" / Appellant "" यथ" / Respondent आ.अपी.सं / Ita Nos.348 & 349/Hyd/2023 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2017-18 & 2-18-19) The Assistant Vs. Hetero Labs Limited, Commissioner Of Income Hyderabad. Tax, Central Circle – 3(4), Pan : Aaach5506R Hyderabad. अपीलाथ" / Appellant "" यथ" / Respondent

Section under which Sr. Amount of Name of the Unit Deduction/Exemptio No. Deduction/ n claimed 26,21,39,692 14.06% 12.33% 1 Unit V - (SEZ Sec. 10AA Jedcharla) 75,54,69,091 67.60% 40.33% Sec. 10AA 2 Unit VA - (SEZ Jedcharla) 3 Unit IX - Sec. 10AA 2,41,02,756 15.27% 13.25% (SEZ Nakkapally) 4 Unit IV - Baddi Sec 80IC

HETERO LABS LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3(4), HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of Revenue in ITA No

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Laliet Kumarआ.अपी.सं / Ita Nos.312 & 313/Hyd/2023 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2017-18 & 2018-19) Hetero Labs Limited, Vs. The Assistant Commissioner Of Hyderabad. Income Tax, Central Circle – 3(4), Pan : Aaach5506R Hyderabad. अपीलाथ" / Appellant "" यथ" / Respondent आ.अपी.सं / Ita Nos.348 & 349/Hyd/2023 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2017-18 & 2-18-19) The Assistant Vs. Hetero Labs Limited, Commissioner Of Income Hyderabad. Tax, Central Circle – 3(4), Pan : Aaach5506R Hyderabad. अपीलाथ" / Appellant "" यथ" / Respondent

Section under which Sr. Amount of Name of the Unit Deduction/Exemptio No. Deduction/ n claimed 26,21,39,692 14.06% 12.33% 1 Unit V - (SEZ Sec. 10AA Jedcharla) 75,54,69,091 67.60% 40.33% Sec. 10AA 2 Unit VA - (SEZ Jedcharla) 3 Unit IX - Sec. 10AA 2,41,02,756 15.27% 13.25% (SEZ Nakkapally) 4 Unit IV - Baddi Sec 80IC

ACIT., CENTRAL CIRCLE 3(4), HYDERABAD, HYDERABAD vs. HETERO LABS LIMITED, HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of Revenue in ITA No

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Laliet Kumarआ.अपी.सं / Ita Nos.312 & 313/Hyd/2023 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2017-18 & 2018-19) Hetero Labs Limited, Vs. The Assistant Commissioner Of Hyderabad. Income Tax, Central Circle – 3(4), Pan : Aaach5506R Hyderabad. अपीलाथ" / Appellant "" यथ" / Respondent आ.अपी.सं / Ita Nos.348 & 349/Hyd/2023 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2017-18 & 2-18-19) The Assistant Vs. Hetero Labs Limited, Commissioner Of Income Hyderabad. Tax, Central Circle – 3(4), Pan : Aaach5506R Hyderabad. अपीलाथ" / Appellant "" यथ" / Respondent

Section under which Sr. Amount of Name of the Unit Deduction/Exemptio No. Deduction/ n claimed 26,21,39,692 14.06% 12.33% 1 Unit V - (SEZ Sec. 10AA Jedcharla) 75,54,69,091 67.60% 40.33% Sec. 10AA 2 Unit VA - (SEZ Jedcharla) 3 Unit IX - Sec. 10AA 2,41,02,756 15.27% 13.25% (SEZ Nakkapally) 4 Unit IV - Baddi Sec 80IC

HETERO LABS LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3(4), HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of Revenue in ITA No

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Laliet Kumarआ.अपी.सं / Ita Nos.312 & 313/Hyd/2023 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2017-18 & 2018-19) Hetero Labs Limited, Vs. The Assistant Commissioner Of Hyderabad. Income Tax, Central Circle – 3(4), Pan : Aaach5506R Hyderabad. अपीलाथ" / Appellant "" यथ" / Respondent आ.अपी.सं / Ita Nos.348 & 349/Hyd/2023 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2017-18 & 2-18-19) The Assistant Vs. Hetero Labs Limited, Commissioner Of Income Hyderabad. Tax, Central Circle – 3(4), Pan : Aaach5506R Hyderabad. अपीलाथ" / Appellant "" यथ" / Respondent

Section under which Sr. Amount of Name of the Unit Deduction/Exemptio No. Deduction/ n claimed 26,21,39,692 14.06% 12.33% 1 Unit V - (SEZ Sec. 10AA Jedcharla) 75,54,69,091 67.60% 40.33% Sec. 10AA 2 Unit VA - (SEZ Jedcharla) 3 Unit IX - Sec. 10AA 2,41,02,756 15.27% 13.25% (SEZ Nakkapally) 4 Unit IV - Baddi Sec 80IC

HYUNDAI MOTOR INDIA ENGINEERING PRIVATE LIMITED., HYD,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-2(2), HYDERABAD, HYDERABAD

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

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi & Shri S. Rifaur Rahmanassessment Year: 2012-13 Hyundai Motor India Engg. Pvt. Vs. Dy. Commissioner Of Income- Ltd., Hyderabad Tax, Circle – 2(2), Hyderabad.

107. The next item relates to balances written back. In our considered opinion, finding given in respect of provisions written back is equally applicable to balances written back more particularly when ld. CIT(A) has not given any separate finding and the Transfer Pricing Officer has said nothing specifically on this item. The balances written back should also be treated

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

Appeal is partly allowed in above terms

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

Transfer Pricing Officer (TPO) therefore. 4.1. Coming to M/s.Tata Elxsi Limited, we note that the tribunal’s foregoing earlier order(s) have directed exclusion of the instant third entity as well whilst holding that this company is engaged in various activities including product design services and trading wherein no segmental information was available. Learned departmental representative fails to pin point

VIVIMED LABS LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , HYDERABAD

Bench: Shri S.S. Godara & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

107 taxmann.com 220 (Bombay)] (supra) as well wherein the hon'ble high court had come across an issue of Section 80-IA deduction claim, not involving Section 153A proceedings, as are the facts before us. It rather emerges that their lordships yet another recent decision in PCIT Vs. JSW Steel Ltd. (2020) [115 taxmann.com 165 (Bombay) has taken note

VIVIMED LABS LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 2(3), HYDERABAD

Bench: Shri S.S. Godara & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

107 taxmann.com 220 (Bombay)] (supra) as well wherein the hon'ble high court had come across an issue of Section 80-IA deduction claim, not involving Section 153A proceedings, as are the facts before us. It rather emerges that their lordships yet another recent decision in PCIT Vs. JSW Steel Ltd. (2020) [115 taxmann.com 165 (Bombay) has taken note

VIVIMED LABS LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. 500082 ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE2-(3), HYDERABAD

Bench: Shri S.S. Godara & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

107 taxmann.com 220 (Bombay)] (supra) as well wherein the hon'ble high court had come across an issue of Section 80-IA deduction claim, not involving Section 153A proceedings, as are the facts before us. It rather emerges that their lordships yet another recent decision in PCIT Vs. JSW Steel Ltd. (2020) [115 taxmann.com 165 (Bombay) has taken note

VIVIMED LABS LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE2-(3), HYDERABAD

Bench: Shri S.S. Godara & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

107 taxmann.com 220 (Bombay)] (supra) as well wherein the hon'ble high court had come across an issue of Section 80-IA deduction claim, not involving Section 153A proceedings, as are the facts before us. It rather emerges that their lordships yet another recent decision in PCIT Vs. JSW Steel Ltd. (2020) [115 taxmann.com 165 (Bombay) has taken note