DCIT, CENTRAL CIRLCE-2(1), HYD, HYDERABAD vs. HES INFRA PVT LTD., HYD, HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of Revenue in ITA

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri Laliet Kumar

prices of materials, cost of laborers, overhead expenses etc. Therefore the Assessee is not merely a works contractor, but was engaged in development of project as a whole, and therefore, entitled for claim of deduction under section 80IA(4) of the Act, though not being the owner of the facility. It was contended that 14 M/s. HES Infra

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRLCE-2(1), HYD, HYDERABAD vs. HES INFRA PVT LTD., HYD, HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of Revenue in ITA

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri Laliet Kumar

prices of materials, cost of laborers, overhead expenses etc. Therefore the Assessee is not merely a works contractor, but was engaged in development of project as a whole, and therefore, entitled for claim of deduction under section 80IA(4) of the Act, though not being the owner of the facility. It was contended that 14 M/s. HES Infra

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRLCE-2(1), HYD, HYDERABAD vs. HES INFRA PVT LTD., HYD, HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of Revenue in ITA

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri Laliet Kumar

prices of materials, cost of laborers, overhead expenses etc. Therefore the Assessee is not merely a works contractor, but was engaged in development of project as a whole, and therefore, entitled for claim of deduction under section 80IA(4) of the Act, though not being the owner of the facility. It was contended that 14 M/s. HES Infra

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRLCE-2(1), HYD, HYDERABAD vs. HES INFRA PVT LTD., HYD, HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of Revenue in ITA

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri Laliet Kumar

prices of materials, cost of laborers, overhead expenses etc. Therefore the Assessee is not merely a works contractor, but was engaged in development of project as a whole, and therefore, entitled for claim of deduction under section 80IA(4) of the Act, though not being the owner of the facility. It was contended that 14 M/s. HES Infra

COGNIZANT TECHNOLOGY SOLUTIONS INDIA PRIVATE LTD(ERSTWHILE EXCELLENCE DATA RESEARCH PRIVATE LIMITED),CHENNAI vs. ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-17(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi & Shri S. Rifaur Rahmanassessment Year: 2009-10 Cognizant Technology Solutions Vs. Asst. Commissioner Of India Pvt. Ltd., (Erstwhile Income-Tax, Circle – 17(1), Excellence Data Research Pvt. Hyderabad. Ltd.), Chennai Pan – Aabce 4933C (Appellant) (Respondent)

4,68,35,769/- under the provisions of section 115JB of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (in short ‘the Act’) and a total income of Rs. 14,19,335/- under the normal provisions of the Act. It had claimed deduction u/s 10A of the Act amounting to Rs. 6,95,70,554/- in the return of income. 2.1 The return

CORTEVA AGRISCIENCE SERVICES INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-17(1), HYDERABAD, HYDERABAD

In the result, the Ground No

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar & Shri Madhusudan Sawdia

Transfer Pricing Officer (“Ld. TPO”) and approved by the Ld. CIT(A) are functionally not comparable with the assessee, therefore, they are required to be excluded. In this regard, the Ld. AR had filed a written submission in support of his contention, which is to the following effect : “Exclusion of comparable companies chosen by TPO - Ground no. 9 In this

VITP PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT., CIRCLE8(1), HYDERABAD

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Madhusudan Sawdiaआ.अपी.सं / Ita Nos.573 & 574/Hyd/2024 (निर्धारण वर्ष/Assessment Year: 2017-18) Vitp Private Limited Vs. Dy. Cit Hyderabad Circle 8 (1) Pan:Aaccv2672G Hyderabad (Appellant) (Respondent) निर्धारिती द्वारा / Assessee By: Advocates Percy Perdiwala & Mahima Goud राजस्व द्वारा / Revenue By:: Shri Shahnawaz-Ul-Rahman, Cit(Dr) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 23/09/2025 घोषणा की तारीख / Pronouncement: 08/10/2025 आदेश/Order Per Madhusudan Sawdia, A.M.: These Two Appeals Are Filed By Vitp Private Limited (“The Assessee”), Feeling Aggrieved By The Order Passed By The Learned Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax-2, Hyderabad, (“Ld.Pcit”), Dated 30/03/2024 For The A.Y.2017-18. As Both The Appeals Are Interrelated & Belongs To The Same, Both Are Heard Together & One Consolidated Order Is Being Passed For The Sake Of Brevity.

4) Notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in section 10A or section 10AA or section 10B or section 10BA or in any provisions of this Chapter under the heading "C.-Deductions in respect of certain incomes", where, in the case of an assessee, any amount of profits and gains of an undertaking or unit or enterprise or eligible business

PALRED TECHNOLOGIES LIMITED ,HYDERABAD vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CIRCLE-16(2), HYDERABAD

Appeal is partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri S.S. Godara & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahuassessment Year: 2008-09

10A of the Act, and there is no incentive for shifting of profits; Rejection of internal comparable transactions 4. Not considering the internal uncontrolled transactions of the Appellant for determining the ALP. Information obtained under section 133(6) 5. a) Using information/ documents obtained by exercising powers u/ s 133(6) of the Act which are not available in public

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(1), HYD, HYDERABAD vs. ANNAPURNA BUSINESS SOLUTIONS, HYD, HYDERABAD

In the result appeals of the revenue are partly allowed and the appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri D.S. Sunder Singhappellant Respondent

10A, without firstly showing that there existed any arrangement between the assessee and its overseas related party, by which the transactions were so arranged as to produce more than the ordinary profits in the hands of the assessee. The assessment year under consideration is 2009-10. Neither the proviso to sub-section (10) existed at that time, nor such

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(1), HYD, HYDERABAD vs. ANNAPURNA BUSINESS SOLUTIONS, HYD, HYDERABAD

In the result appeals of the revenue are partly allowed and the appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri D.S. Sunder Singhappellant Respondent

10A, without firstly showing that there existed any arrangement between the assessee and its overseas related party, by which the transactions were so arranged as to produce more than the ordinary profits in the hands of the assessee. The assessment year under consideration is 2009-10. Neither the proviso to sub-section (10) existed at that time, nor such

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(1), HYD, HYDERABAD vs. ANNAPURNA BUSINESS SOLUTIONS, HYD, HYDERABAD

In the result appeals of the revenue are partly allowed and the appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri D.S. Sunder Singhappellant Respondent

10A, without firstly showing that there existed any arrangement between the assessee and its overseas related party, by which the transactions were so arranged as to produce more than the ordinary profits in the hands of the assessee. The assessment year under consideration is 2009-10. Neither the proviso to sub-section (10) existed at that time, nor such

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(1), HYD, HYDERABAD vs. ANNAPURNA BUSINESS SOLUTIONS, HYD, HYDERABAD

In the result appeals of the revenue are partly allowed and the appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri D.S. Sunder Singhappellant Respondent

10A, without firstly showing that there existed any arrangement between the assessee and its overseas related party, by which the transactions were so arranged as to produce more than the ordinary profits in the hands of the assessee. The assessment year under consideration is 2009-10. Neither the proviso to sub-section (10) existed at that time, nor such

ANNAPURNA BUSINESS SOLUTIONS, HYD,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3, HYD, HYDERABAD

In the result appeals of the revenue are partly allowed and the appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri D.S. Sunder Singhappellant Respondent

10A, without firstly showing that there existed any arrangement between the assessee and its overseas related party, by which the transactions were so arranged as to produce more than the ordinary profits in the hands of the assessee. The assessment year under consideration is 2009-10. Neither the proviso to sub-section (10) existed at that time, nor such

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(1), HYD, HYDERABAD vs. ANNAPURNA BUSINESS SOLUTIONS, HYD, HYDERABAD

In the result appeals of the revenue are partly allowed and the appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri D.S. Sunder Singhappellant Respondent

10A, without firstly showing that there existed any arrangement between the assessee and its overseas related party, by which the transactions were so arranged as to produce more than the ordinary profits in the hands of the assessee. The assessment year under consideration is 2009-10. Neither the proviso to sub-section (10) existed at that time, nor such

ANNAPURNA BUSINESS SOLUTIONS, HYD,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3, HYD, HYDERABAD

In the result appeals of the revenue are partly allowed and the appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri D.S. Sunder Singhappellant Respondent

10A, without firstly showing that there existed any arrangement between the assessee and its overseas related party, by which the transactions were so arranged as to produce more than the ordinary profits in the hands of the assessee. The assessment year under consideration is 2009-10. Neither the proviso to sub-section (10) existed at that time, nor such

ANNAPURNA BUSINESS SOLUTIONS, HYD,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3, HYD, HYDERABAD

In the result appeals of the revenue are partly allowed and the appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri D.S. Sunder Singhappellant Respondent

10A, without firstly showing that there existed any arrangement between the assessee and its overseas related party, by which the transactions were so arranged as to produce more than the ordinary profits in the hands of the assessee. The assessment year under consideration is 2009-10. Neither the proviso to sub-section (10) existed at that time, nor such

ANNAPURNA BUSINESS SOLUTIONS, HYD,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3, HYD, HYDERABAD

In the result appeals of the revenue are partly allowed and the appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri D.S. Sunder Singhappellant Respondent

10A, without firstly showing that there existed any arrangement between the assessee and its overseas related party, by which the transactions were so arranged as to produce more than the ordinary profits in the hands of the assessee. The assessment year under consideration is 2009-10. Neither the proviso to sub-section (10) existed at that time, nor such

ANNAPURNA BUSINESS SOLUTIONS, HYD,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3, HYD, HYDERABAD

In the result appeals of the revenue are partly allowed and the appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri D.S. Sunder Singhappellant Respondent

10A, without firstly showing that there existed any arrangement between the assessee and its overseas related party, by which the transactions were so arranged as to produce more than the ordinary profits in the hands of the assessee. The assessment year under consideration is 2009-10. Neither the proviso to sub-section (10) existed at that time, nor such

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(1), HYD, HYDERABAD vs. ANNAPURNA BUSINESS SOLUTIONS, HYD, HYDERABAD

In the result appeals of the revenue are partly allowed and the appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri D.S. Sunder Singhappellant Respondent

10A, without firstly showing that there existed any arrangement between the assessee and its overseas related party, by which the transactions were so arranged as to produce more than the ordinary profits in the hands of the assessee. The assessment year under consideration is 2009-10. Neither the proviso to sub-section (10) existed at that time, nor such