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

section 26(1) ought to have been made. Now, there cannot be an estoppel against statute. If in fact the procedure adopted by the Income-tax Officer was incorrect, the defect is not cured by the attitude taken up by the assessee." 33. In the case of CIT v. C. Parakh & Co. (India) Ltd. [1956] 29 ITR 661, Their Lordships

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 :

transfer, therefore section 56(2)(viia) cannot be invoked, as this is not a case of receipt of shares in isolation but the merger of all property irrespective of shares and also 56(2)(viia) is not applicable for such amalgamation, therefore the invocation of the said section in the case of appellant is incorrect and therefore, the ground

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

Transfer Pricing Officer [in short “TPO”] for determination of Arm’s Length Price [in short “ALP”] in respect of international transactions u/sec. 92CA(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The TPO had issued u/sec.92CA of the Act dated 07.11.2022 calling the 7 ITA.No.1315 /Hyd./2024 assessee for documentation maintained as prescribed u/sec.92D(3) of the Act. In response

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

section 92B of the Act. Accordingly, the contention of the assessee that the assessee did not charge any interest on outstanding receivables, either from its AEs or from its non-AEs, hence no adjustment on account of interest on outstanding trade receivables from it's AEs is required, is devoid of merit and the same is hereby rejected

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

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

D. E. SHAW INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT., CIRCLE-8(1), HYDERABAD

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

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Madhusudan Sawdiaआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.1154/Hyd/2024 (निर्धारण वर्ा/Assessment Year:2020-21) M/S. D.E. Shaw India Pvt. Dy. Commissioner Of Income Vs. Ltd., Hyderabad. Tax, Pan:Aaacd7214J Circle 8(1), Hyderabad. (Appellant) (Respondent) निर्धाररती द्वधरध/Assessee By: Shri S.P. Chidambaram, Adv. रधजस् व द्वधरध/Revenue By: Ms. U. Mini Chandran, Sr-Dr सुिवधई की तधरीख/Date Of Hearing: 01/09/2025 घोर्णध की तधरीख/Pronouncement: 12/09/2025 आदेश/Order Per Madhusudan Sawdia, A.M.: This Appeal Is Filed By M/S. D E Shaw India Pvt. Ltd. (“The Assessee”), Feeling Aggrieved By The Assessment Order Passed By The Learned Assessing Officer (“Ld. Ao”) U/S. 143(3) R.W.S. 144C(13) R.W.S. 144B Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (“The Act”) Dated 27.06.2024 For The A.Y. 2020-21. 2. At The Outset, It Is Seen That There Is A Delay Of 66 Days In Filing Of The Present Appeal, For Which The Assessee Has Filed Condonation Petition Explaining The Reasons For Delay In Filing Of The Appeal. As Per Record, The Appeal Was Required To Be Filed On Or Before

transfer pricing issues. With regard to assessee’s claim regarding non-requirement of separate benchmarking of outstanding trade receivables, the Ld. AR advanced three-fold arguments. In his first argument, the Ld. AR submitted that the assessee is engaged in two segments, namely SDS and ITES, earning segmental margins of around 20% in both the segments. The Ld. TPO, though

DSM SHARED SERVICES INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-8(1), HYDERABAD

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

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Madhusudan Sawdia

109 Taxmann.com 48 (Pune) has again discussed this issue elaborately in Para 4 to 10 as under: “4. We have heard both the sides and gone through the relevant material on record. It is observed from the order passed by the TPO that the assessee advanced loans to its two AEs, one in the USA and the other in Germany

BRIGHTCOM GROUP LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1(2), HYDERABAD

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

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Madhusudan Sawdia

section 37 of the Act towards CSR expenditure, Rs.2,07,247/- on account of disallowance towards prior period expenses and Rs.38 lakhs on account of non-reconciliation of income as per profit and ITA No.1747/Hyd/2019 14 loss account and form no.26AS. Accordingly, the Ld. AO computed the total income of the assessee at Rs.15,74,79,993/-. 6. Aggrieved with

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

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao, Hon’Ble & Shri Madhusudan Sawdia, Hon'Ble

section 271AA and 271BA of the Act." 3. The assessee has raised the additional grounds as under : “10(c)(a). Choice of CUP as MAM in present case is unjustified. Without prejudice, application of CUP is not in compliance with provisions of Income Tax Act and Income Tax Rules, 1962.” 4. The additional ground so filed is admissible in view

INFOR INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED (FORMERLY KNOWN AS INFOR GLOBAL SOLUTIONS (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED, HYDERABAD,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-2(1), HYDERABAD, HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Accountant Memebr Assessment Year: 2012-13 Infor (India) Pvt. Ltd., Vs. Dy. Commissioner Of (Formerly Known As Infor Income-Tax, Hyderabad. Global Solutions (India) Pvt. Ltd.), Hyderabad Pan – Aaacb6197Q Appellant Respondent Assessee By: Shri Sunil Motilala Revenue By: Shri Yvst Sai

transfer pricing analysis / study prepared by the Appellant, without appreciating that none of the conditions mentioned in clauses (a) to (d) of Section 92C(3) of the Act were satisfied. 14. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. AO, Ld. TPO erred in and the Hon'ble DRP further erred in upholding

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

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

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed and stay application is dismissed

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi, Hon’Ble & Shri D.S. Sunder Singh, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.1689/Hyd/2019 (धििाारण वर्ा /Asst. Year: 2015-16) M/S. Infor (India) Pvt. Ltd., 4Th Floor, Vs. Acit, Circle-2(1), Block-B, Q-City, Survey No. 109, 110, Hyderabad. 111/2, Nanakramguda (Vs.), Serilingampally (M), R.R. District, Hyderabad [Pan : Aaacb 6197 Q] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent Stay Application No.98/Hyd/2020 (Arsing Out Of I.T.A. No.1689/Hyd/2019) (धििाारण वर्ा /Asst. Year: 2015-16) M/S. Infor (India) Pvt. Ltd., 4Th Floor, Acit, Circle-2(1), Block-B, Q-City, Survey No. 109, 110, Hyderabad. 111/2, Nanakramguda (Vs.), Serilingampally (M), R.R. District, Hyderabad (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent अपीलार्थी की ओर से/ Appellant By : Shri Sunil M. Lala, Ar. प्रत्यार्थी की ओर से / Respondent By : Shri Srinivas Reddy, Dr सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 10.09.2020 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 19.10.2020

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

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

In the result, assessee’s appeal is partly allowed

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi & Shri D.S. Sunder Singhassessment Year: 2014-15 M/S Dst Worldwide Services Dcit, Circle 17(1) India Private Limited Vs. Hyderabad 5Th Floor, Block B Q City Survey # 109, 110, 111/2 Nanakramguda Village Serilingampally Mandal Gachibowli Rr Dist. Hyderabad 500 032 Pan: Aaac17097L (Appellant) (Respondent) Sh. Aliasger Rampurwala, Ar Asessee By: Revenue By: Smt. Anjala Sahu, D.R. Date Of Hearing: 02/09/2020 Date Of Pronouncement: 30/09/2020 Order Per Smt. P. Madhavi Devi, J.M. This Is Assessee’S Appeal For The A.Y. 2014-15 Against The Final Assessment Order Dated 31.10.2018 Passed U/S 143(3) R.W.S. 92Ca(3) & 144C(13) Of The I.T. Act, 1961. This Appeal Was Taken Up For Hearing On 02.09.2020 Through Video Conferencing & Both The Parties Were Heard.

109, 110, 111/2 Nanakramguda Village Serilingampally Mandal Gachibowli RR Dist. Hyderabad 500 032 PAN: AAAC17097L (Appellant) (Respondent) Sh. Aliasger Rampurwala, AR Asessee by: Revenue by: Smt. Anjala Sahu, D.R. Date of hearing: 02/09/2020 Date of pronouncement: 30/09/2020 ORDER Per Smt. P. Madhavi Devi, J.M. This is assessee’s appeal for the A.Y. 2014-15 against the final assessment order dated

IVY SOFTWARE DEVELOPMENT SERVICES PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT, CIRCLE -2(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, the ground no

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Madhusudan Sawdia

section (Page no.1873 of the paper book). These functions are qualitatively and quantitatively broader than the captive coding and development services rendered by the assessee. Further, the financial disclosures at page no. 2024 of the paper book reveal significant revenue from software products and sale of business divisions, activities not carried out by the assessee. The scale of brand-building

DEVGEM SEEDS AND CROP TECHNOLOGY PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-17(1), HYDERABAD

Appeals are dismissed in above terms

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahuappellant Respondent

Transfer Pricing Study Report which was filed with the TPO by letter dated 25.05.2015 (see pages 211, 212, 225 and 240 to 244 of the Factual Paperbook). A perusal of pages 240 to 244 shows that the Appellant had benchmarked the :- 5 -: ITA Nos.187/Hyd/2017 & 2225/Hyd/2017 interest on FCD by comparing the same with debentures issued by Indian companies, details whereof

DEVGEN SEEDS AND CROP TECHNOLOGY PRIVATE LIMITED, SECUNDERABAD,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT,CIRCLE-17(1) HYDERABAD, HYDERABAD

Appeals are dismissed in above terms

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahuappellant Respondent

Transfer Pricing Study Report which was filed with the TPO by letter dated 25.05.2015 (see pages 211, 212, 225 and 240 to 244 of the Factual Paperbook). A perusal of pages 240 to 244 shows that the Appellant had benchmarked the :- 5 -: ITA Nos.187/Hyd/2017 & 2225/Hyd/2017 interest on FCD by comparing the same with debentures issued by Indian companies, details whereof

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-17(3), HYDERABAD vs. VALUE PHARMA RETAIL(HYD) PRIVATE LIMITED , HYDERABAD

Appeal is dismissed in above terms

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

109 ITR 1 Allahabad; P.R. Textiles v. CIT. Kerala, [19801 121ITR 237 Kerala; CIT, v. Kishan Chand Maheswari Dass. [1980] 121ITR 23! P & H; Kanti Lal Purshottam and Co. v. CIT, [1985] 155 ITR 519 Raj; CIT, v. New Light Tin Mfg. Co., [1980] 121 ITR 229 P & H; Fakri Automobiles v. CIT, [1986] 160 ITR 504 Raj; Venkata Satayanarayana