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

PAREXEL INTERNATIONAL (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-5(1), HYDERABAD

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

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

section 143(3) r.w.s. 144C(13) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short “the ITA-TP No. 488/Hyd/2022 Act”), consequent to the directions of Hon'ble Dispute Resolution Panel, Bengaluru (“DRP”), assessee filed this appeal. 2. Brief facts of the case as per record are that the assessee is a subsidiary of Parexel International Holdings B.V., Netherlands which

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

transfer pricing adjustment on account of the delayed realization of invoices from AEs has been upheld. The Id. DR contended that the order in the case of Kusum Healthcare Pvt. Ltd. (supra), has been passed without considering the amendment to section 92B carried out by the Finance Act, 2012 with retrospective effect from 1.4.2002, which has been duly taken into

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

transfer pricing adjustment on account of the delayed realization of invoices from AEs has been upheld. The Id. DR contended that the order in the case of Kusum Healthcare Pvt. Ltd. (supra), has been passed without considering the amendment to section 92B carried out by the Finance Act, 2012 with retrospective effect from 1.4.2002, which has been duly taken into

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

transfer pricing adjustment on account of the delayed realization of invoices from AEs has been upheld. The Id. DR contended that the order in the case of Kusum Healthcare Pvt. Ltd. (supra), has been passed without considering the amendment to section 92B carried out by the Finance Act, 2012 with retrospective effect from 1.4.2002, which has been duly taken into

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

transfer pricing adjustment on account of the delayed realization of invoices from AEs has been upheld. The Id. DR contended that the order in the case of Kusum Healthcare Pvt. Ltd. (supra), has been passed without considering the amendment to section 92B carried out by the Finance Act, 2012 with retrospective effect from 1.4.2002, which has been duly taken into

TEK SYSTEMS GLOBAL SERVICES PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERBAD vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-2(1), HYDERBAD

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar & Shri Manjunatha G.आ.अपी.सं /Ita No.487/Hyd/2022 (निर्धारण वर्ा/Assessment Year: 2018-19) Tek Systems Global Vs. Dy. C. I. T. Services (P) Ltd, Circle 2(1) Hyderabad Hyderabad Pan:Aabcf1518Q (Appellant) (Respondent) निर्धाररती द्वधरध/Assessee By: Ms. K. Amulya, Ca रधजस् व द्वधरध/Revenue By:: Shri Jeevan Lal Lavidiya, Cit-Dr सुिवधई की तधरीख/Date Of Hearing: 29/05/2024 घोर्णध की तधरीख/Pronouncement: 05/07/2024 आदेश/Order

transfer agreement ("BTA") dated 28.03.2017. 2. In the assessment proceeding concluded in the case of the Appellant for the said preceding AY, the lower authorities disallowed the depreciation claimed on the said Goodwill as a consequence of disregarding the said Goodwill. 3. In light of the above, the disallowed the depreciation claimed in the Impugned AY, on the opening

HM CLAUSE INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT CIRCLE -2(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri Laliet Kumar

transfer pricing regulations also require that it is not only the 'form but the overall arrangement/ substance of the transactions that must be kept in mind. Towards this end, the following provisions from the regulations are produced: HM Clause India Private Limited Section 92F(v) of the Income-tax Act states: "Transaction includes an arrangement; understanding or action in concert

CLINASIA LABS PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. ITO WARD1(4), HYDERABAD

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

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar & Shri Manjunatha G.

section 92CA(3) of Rs.2,17,38,030/- to the price received by the assessee from its Associated Enterprise. 3. The Ld. AO/ Ld. TPO and the Ld. DRP ought to have accepted the Profit margin of the assessee company (OP IOC) of 11.57 % as having complied with the arm's length principle. 4. The Ld. TPO / Ld. DRP erred

OPEN TEXT TECHNOLOGIES INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED ,HYDERABAD vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CIRCLE-16(2), HYDERABAD

section 271AA and 271BA of the\nAct.\"\n3. The assessee has raised the additional grounds as under :\n“10(c)(a). Choice of CUP as MAM in present case is unjustified.\nWithout prejudice, application of CUP is not in compliance with\nprovisions of Income Tax Act and Income Tax Rules, 1962.”\n4. The additional ground so filed is admissible

VALUE MOMENTUM SOFTWARE SERVICES PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-8(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed in part

Bench: Shri K. Narasimha Chary & Shri Madhusudan Sawdia

Transfer Pricing adjustment with respect to interest on delayed receivables was re-worked out to Rs. 1,20,91,130/-. Hence, the assessee gave up the grounds relating to Software Development Segment. Therefore, what remains to be adjudicated in this appeal is only the issue relating to notional interest on delayed receivables. In this regard, learned TPO took the period

SATYAM VENTURE ENGINEERING SERVICES PRIVATE LIMITED ,SECUNDERABAD vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX ,CENTRAL CIRCLE -3(2), HYDERABAD

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

Bench: Shri K.Narasimha Chary & Shri Madhusudan Sawdiaआ.अपी.सं / Ita-Tp No. 192/Hyd/2021 (धििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2016-17) Satyam Venture Assistant Commissioner Engineering Services Vs. Of Income Tax, Private Limited, Central Circle-3(2), Secunderabad Hyderabad [Pan No. Aafcs3287D] अपीलार्थी / Appellant प्रत्‍यर्थी / Respondent

108 (Bom), wherein the amendment to Section 92B of the Act by Finance Act, 2012 with retrospective effect from 01/04/2002 was considered. Basing on the view taken in a number of decisions of the Tribunal of various Benches, learned TPO held that it is incumbent upon the taxpayer to separately benchmark the arm’s length price of the international transaction

F5 NETWORKS INNOVATION PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-17(1), HYDERABAD

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

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Madhusudan Sawdia

transfer pricing adjustment. He further submitted that, the assessee had entered into a Bilateral Advance Pricing Agreement (“BAPA”) u/s.92CC of the Act, which cover the assessment year under consideration and in the light of the BAPA, the assessee seeks the withdraw ground no.1. Accordingly, the Ld. AR invited our attention to the withdrawal request of ground no.1 placed at page

RAIN CEMENTS LIMITED, HYD,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-3(1), HYDERABAD, HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri K. Narasimha Charyassessment Year: 2008-09 M/S. Rain Cements Ltd Vs. Dy. Commissioner Of (Formerly Known As Rain Income Tax, Circle 3 (1) Cii Carbon (India) Ltd Hyderabad Hyderabad Pan:Aabcr8858F (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Advocate Prathishta Singh & Advocate Deepak Chopra Revenue By: Dr.Rajendra Kumar, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing: 20/03/2023 Date Of Pronouncement: 31/05/2023 Order Per R.K. Panda, A.M This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Final Assessment Order Dated 24.03.2017 Passed U/S 143(3) R.W.S. 144C(5) R.W.S. 260 Of The I.T. Act For The A.Y 2008-09. 2. This Appeal Was Earlier Decided By The Tribunal Vide Order Dated 18.10.2019. Subsequently Vide Ma No.15/Hyd/2020, Dated 23.3.2021, The Tribunal Recalled The Entire Order For Fresh Adjudication. Therefore, This Is A Recalled Matter.

108 and that some of the items of expenditure were not apportioned on appropriate basis/ incorrectly allowed, and thus resulted In short computation of income of the taxable units, besides excess claim of exemption u/s 10B. The same are detailed as follows: a) It Is seen that 'other income' credited to P & L amounting to Rs.46,37,99,429/- included

IMEDX INFORMATION SERVICES PRIVATE LIMITED ,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-2(1), HYDERABAD

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

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri K. Narasimha Charyआ.अपी.सं / Ita-Tp No. 1755/Hyd/2019 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2015-16)

108 (Bom), wherein the amendment to Section 92B of the Act by Finance Act, 2012 with retrospective effect from 01/04/2002 was considered. Basing on the view taken in a number of decisions of the Tribunal of various Benches, learned TPO held that it is incumbent upon the taxpayer to separately benchmark the arm’s length price of the international transaction

GKC PROJECTS LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3(1), HYDERABAD

The appeals are partly allowed, accordingly

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

Transfer Pricing Officer (learned TPO), however, applied SBI PLR at 14.05% and computed the Arm’s Length Price (ALP) interest learned DRP approved the same. 4. Grievance of the assessee before us is that in respect of the loans and advances in foreign currency, the interest should be the market determined rate applicable to the currency concerned in which

GKC PROJECTS LIMITED ,HYDERABAD vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX ,CIRCLE-3(1) , HYDERABAD

The appeals are partly allowed, accordingly

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

Transfer Pricing Officer (learned TPO), however, applied SBI PLR at 14.05% and computed the Arm’s Length Price (ALP) interest learned DRP approved the same. 4. Grievance of the assessee before us is that in respect of the loans and advances in foreign currency, the interest should be the market determined rate applicable to the currency concerned in which

KANTAR GDC INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-2(1), HYDERABAD

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

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

108 (Bom), wherein the amendment to Section 92B of the Act by Finance Act, 2012 with retrospective effect from 01/04/2002 was considered. Basing on the view taken in a number of decisions of the Tribunal of various Benches, learned TPO held that it is incumbent upon the taxpayer to separately benchmark the arm’s length price of the international transaction