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

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar, Hon’Ble & Shri G. Manjunatha, Hon’Bleassessment Year: 2020-21 Ivy Competech Private Limited, Vs. The Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Hyderabad. Circle 2(1), Hyderabad. Pan : Aaac18884K. (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Nageswara Rao, Advocate. Revenue By: Ms. M. Narmada, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing: 20.01.2025 (Hybrid Hearing) Date Of Pronouncement: 04.02.2025

Transfer Pricing Officer revised the adjustment made u/s. 92CA in the order dated 31.03.2023. In the order dated 31.03.2023, the TPO made following adjustments: S.No. Description Adjustment u/s 92CA (in Rs.) 1 Provision of Software development 67,95,430/- expenses 2 Interest on delayed receivables 11,35,997/- Total Adjustments 79,30,427/- As per directions

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

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

transferred by the assessee to its subsidiaries during the year were working capital advances, which were later decided to be treated as investments, then the T.P. adjustment already made by the AO shall be revived and the assessment shall be completed accordingly.” 3. Mr. Sai fails to pin-point any distinction on the relevant facts involved in all these assessment

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

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

transferred by the assessee to its subsidiaries during the year were working capital advances, which were later decided to be treated as investments, then the T.P. adjustment already made by the AO shall be revived and the assessment shall be completed accordingly.” 3. Mr. Sai fails to pin-point any distinction on the relevant facts involved in all these assessment

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

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

transferred by the assessee to its subsidiaries during the year were working capital advances, which were later decided to be treated as investments, then the T.P. adjustment already made by the AO shall be revived and the assessment shall be completed accordingly.” 3. Mr. Sai fails to pin-point any distinction on the relevant facts involved in all these assessment

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

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

transferred by the assessee to its subsidiaries during the year were working capital advances, which were later decided to be treated as investments, then the T.P. adjustment already made by the AO shall be revived and the assessment shall be completed accordingly.” 3. Mr. Sai fails to pin-point any distinction on the relevant facts involved in all these assessment

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.

transferred from Infosys Consulting India Limited (Refer note 2.26). (4) During the years ended March 31, 2014 and March 31, 2013, certain assets which were old and not in use having gross book value of Nil and ` 521 crore respectively ITA No.2234/Hyd/2018 AY 2014-15 M/s DST Worldwide Services India P Ltd. Hyd. In the case of assessee company there

DR.REDDY'S LABORATORIES LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-17(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, appeals of the Revenue in ITA No

Bench: Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri K.Narasimha Charyआ.अपी.सं / "नधा"रण अपीलाथ" / "" यथ" /

transfer pricing adjustment. Before the Ld. CIT(A), assessee pleaded that during the assessment year 2006-07, the Tribunal in their own case ruled that the basis of interest shall be LIBOR+2% which is equivalent to 7% for the assessment year 2006-07. 5. Ld. CIT(A) followed the view taken by his predecessor in assessee’s own case

DR.REDDY'S LABORATORIES LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CIRCLE-17(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, appeals of the Revenue in ITA No

Bench: Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri K.Narasimha Charyआ.अपी.सं / "नधा"रण अपीलाथ" / "" यथ" /

transfer pricing adjustment. Before the Ld. CIT(A), assessee pleaded that during the assessment year 2006-07, the Tribunal in their own case ruled that the basis of interest shall be LIBOR+2% which is equivalent to 7% for the assessment year 2006-07. 5. Ld. CIT(A) followed the view taken by his predecessor in assessee’s own case

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CIRCLE-17(1), HYDERABAD vs. DR.REDDY'S LABORATORIES LIMITED , HYDERABAD

In the result, appeals of the Revenue in ITA No

Bench: Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri K.Narasimha Charyआ.अपी.सं / "नधा"रण अपीलाथ" / "" यथ" /

transfer pricing adjustment. Before the Ld. CIT(A), assessee pleaded that during the assessment year 2006-07, the Tribunal in their own case ruled that the basis of interest shall be LIBOR+2% which is equivalent to 7% for the assessment year 2006-07. 5. Ld. CIT(A) followed the view taken by his predecessor in assessee’s own case

DR.REDDY'S LABORATORIES LIMITED ,HYDERABAD vs. ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-17(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, appeals of the Revenue in ITA No

Bench: Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri K.Narasimha Charyआ.अपी.सं / "नधा"रण अपीलाथ" / "" यथ" /

transfer pricing adjustment. Before the Ld. CIT(A), assessee pleaded that during the assessment year 2006-07, the Tribunal in their own case ruled that the basis of interest shall be LIBOR+2% which is equivalent to 7% for the assessment year 2006-07. 5. Ld. CIT(A) followed the view taken by his predecessor in assessee’s own case

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CIRCLE-17(1), HYDERABAD vs. DR.REDDY'S LABORATORIES LIMITED, HYDERABAD

In the result, appeals of the Revenue in ITA No

Bench: Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri K.Narasimha Charyआ.अपी.सं / "नधा"रण अपीलाथ" / "" यथ" /

transfer pricing adjustment. Before the Ld. CIT(A), assessee pleaded that during the assessment year 2006-07, the Tribunal in their own case ruled that the basis of interest shall be LIBOR+2% which is equivalent to 7% for the assessment year 2006-07. 5. Ld. CIT(A) followed the view taken by his predecessor in assessee’s own case

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CIRCLE-17(1), HYDERABAD vs. DR.REDDY'S LABORATOREIS LIMITED, HYDERABAD

In the result, appeals of the Revenue in ITA No

Bench: Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri K.Narasimha Charyआ.अपी.सं / "नधा"रण अपीलाथ" / "" यथ" /

transfer pricing adjustment. Before the Ld. CIT(A), assessee pleaded that during the assessment year 2006-07, the Tribunal in their own case ruled that the basis of interest shall be LIBOR+2% which is equivalent to 7% for the assessment year 2006-07. 5. Ld. CIT(A) followed the view taken by his predecessor in assessee’s own case

VIRINCHI LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT., CIRCLE 8(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao, Vice-A N D Shri Manjunatha, G.आ.अपी.सं /Ita No.1185/Hyd/2024 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2021-22) M/S. Virinchi Ltd Vs. Dy.Cit Hyderabad Circle 8(1) Pan:Aaacv6672N Hyderabad (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: Shri P Murali Mohan Rao, Ca राज" व "ारा/Revenue By:: Mrs. U Mini Chandran, Cit(Dr) सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 25/08/2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 24/09/2025 आदेश/Order Per Vijay Pal Raothis Appeal By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Assessment Order Dated 09/10/2024 Passed U/S 143(3) R.W.S. 144C(3) Of The Act, In Pursuant To The Directions Of The Drp Dated 19/09/2024 Passed U/S 144C(5) Of The Act For The A.Y 2021-22. 2. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal:

111 Taxmann.com 219 Page 10 of 22 ITA No 1185 of 2024 Virinchi Ltd 7) Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of Ray-Ban Sun Optics India Ltd v. CIT (2017) 84 taxmann.com 24 (Del.) 8) ITAT Pune in the case of Renishaw Metrology Systems Ltd vs. DCIT (2022) 139 Taxmann.com 287 9) Hon'ble Supreme Court

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, CHITTOOR vs. G VIJAYASIMHA REDDY, BENGALURU

In the result, the appeal of Revenue in ITA

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Laliet Kumar

111 to Pg. 131 of the material paper book). The Hon'ble ITAT in this case held that: "We have also examined the meaning of the term 'adventure in the nature of trade' mentioned in Section 2(13) of the Act. It has not been defined in the Income-tax Act. As far as the dictionary meaning of the word

ANUDEEP NIMMATOORI,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(4), HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee in ITA

Bench: Shri Manjunatha, G.A N D Shri K. Narasimha Charis.No Ita Nos. Appellant Respondent A.Y 591/Hyd/2022 Shri Ramesh Babu 1 Acit, Central Circle 2017-18 2 619/Hyd/2022 Nimmatoori Hyderabad 2(4) Hyderabad 2018-19 Pan:Acspn1659G 3 700/Hyd/2022 Acit, Central Circle 2(4) Shri Ramesh Babu 2018-19 Hyderabad Nimmatoori Hyderabad Pan:Acspn1659G 4 311/Hyd/2022 Raja Babu Nimmatoori 2013-14 589/Hyd/2022 Hyderabad Acit, Central Circle 5 2016-17 Pan:Acspn1662R 2(4) Hyderabad 6 590/Hyd/2022 2017-18 7 621/Hyd/2022 2018-19 8 701/Hyd/2022 Acit, Central Circle Raja Babu 2018-19 2(4) Hyderabad Nimmatoori Hyderabad Pan:Acspn1662R 9 337/Hyd/2022 Yashoda Nimmatoori Acit, Central Circle 2016-17 593/Hyd/2022 Hyderabad 2(4) Hyderabad 10 2017-18 618/Hyd/2022 Pan:Acspn1657J 11 2018-19 332/Hyd/2022 12 Anudeep Nimmattoori Acit, Central Circle 2016-17 13 475/Hyd/2022 Hyderabad 2(4) Hyderabad 2017-18 476/Hyd/2022 Pan:Ahbpn2081Q 14 2018-19 15 592/Hyd/2022 Sulochana Acit, Central Circle 2017-18 Nimmattoori 2(4) Hyderabad 16 620/Hyd/2022 2018-19 Pan:Acspn1664K 594/Hyd/2022 Manjusha Nimmatoori 17 Acit, Central Circle 2018-19 Hyderabad 2(4) Hyderabad Pan:Acspn1666M िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: Shri P. Murali Mohan Rao, Ca राज" व "ारा/Revenue By:: Shri Shakeer Ahmed, Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 13/06/2024 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 14/08/2024

section 56(2)(vii)(b) cannot be invoked. Page 62 of 133 ITA Nos 591 619 700 Ramesh Babu and Others 89. The learned DR, on the other hand, supporting the order of the learned CIT (A) submitted that there is a clear difference between the consideration and the guideline value and thus, the difference has been rightly brought

RAMESH BABU NIMMATOORI,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(4), HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee in ITA

Bench: Shri Manjunatha, G.A N D Shri K. Narasimha Charis.No Ita Nos. Appellant Respondent A.Y 591/Hyd/2022 Shri Ramesh Babu 1 Acit, Central Circle 2017-18 2 619/Hyd/2022 Nimmatoori Hyderabad 2(4) Hyderabad 2018-19 Pan:Acspn1659G 3 700/Hyd/2022 Acit, Central Circle 2(4) Shri Ramesh Babu 2018-19 Hyderabad Nimmatoori Hyderabad Pan:Acspn1659G 4 311/Hyd/2022 Raja Babu Nimmatoori 2013-14 589/Hyd/2022 Hyderabad Acit, Central Circle 5 2016-17 Pan:Acspn1662R 2(4) Hyderabad 6 590/Hyd/2022 2017-18 7 621/Hyd/2022 2018-19 8 701/Hyd/2022 Acit, Central Circle Raja Babu 2018-19 2(4) Hyderabad Nimmatoori Hyderabad Pan:Acspn1662R 9 337/Hyd/2022 Yashoda Nimmatoori Acit, Central Circle 2016-17 593/Hyd/2022 Hyderabad 2(4) Hyderabad 10 2017-18 618/Hyd/2022 Pan:Acspn1657J 11 2018-19 332/Hyd/2022 12 Anudeep Nimmattoori Acit, Central Circle 2016-17 13 475/Hyd/2022 Hyderabad 2(4) Hyderabad 2017-18 476/Hyd/2022 Pan:Ahbpn2081Q 14 2018-19 15 592/Hyd/2022 Sulochana Acit, Central Circle 2017-18 Nimmattoori 2(4) Hyderabad 16 620/Hyd/2022 2018-19 Pan:Acspn1664K 594/Hyd/2022 Manjusha Nimmatoori 17 Acit, Central Circle 2018-19 Hyderabad 2(4) Hyderabad Pan:Acspn1666M िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: Shri P. Murali Mohan Rao, Ca राज" व "ारा/Revenue By:: Shri Shakeer Ahmed, Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 13/06/2024 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 14/08/2024

section 56(2)(vii)(b) cannot be invoked. Page 62 of 133 ITA Nos 591 619 700 Ramesh Babu and Others 89. The learned DR, on the other hand, supporting the order of the learned CIT (A) submitted that there is a clear difference between the consideration and the guideline value and thus, the difference has been rightly brought

SULOCHANA NIMMATOORI,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(4), HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee in ITA

Bench: Shri Manjunatha, G.A N D Shri K. Narasimha Charis.No Ita Nos. Appellant Respondent A.Y 591/Hyd/2022 Shri Ramesh Babu 1 Acit, Central Circle 2017-18 2 619/Hyd/2022 Nimmatoori Hyderabad 2(4) Hyderabad 2018-19 Pan:Acspn1659G 3 700/Hyd/2022 Acit, Central Circle 2(4) Shri Ramesh Babu 2018-19 Hyderabad Nimmatoori Hyderabad Pan:Acspn1659G 4 311/Hyd/2022 Raja Babu Nimmatoori 2013-14 589/Hyd/2022 Hyderabad Acit, Central Circle 5 2016-17 Pan:Acspn1662R 2(4) Hyderabad 6 590/Hyd/2022 2017-18 7 621/Hyd/2022 2018-19 8 701/Hyd/2022 Acit, Central Circle Raja Babu 2018-19 2(4) Hyderabad Nimmatoori Hyderabad Pan:Acspn1662R 9 337/Hyd/2022 Yashoda Nimmatoori Acit, Central Circle 2016-17 593/Hyd/2022 Hyderabad 2(4) Hyderabad 10 2017-18 618/Hyd/2022 Pan:Acspn1657J 11 2018-19 332/Hyd/2022 12 Anudeep Nimmattoori Acit, Central Circle 2016-17 13 475/Hyd/2022 Hyderabad 2(4) Hyderabad 2017-18 476/Hyd/2022 Pan:Ahbpn2081Q 14 2018-19 15 592/Hyd/2022 Sulochana Acit, Central Circle 2017-18 Nimmattoori 2(4) Hyderabad 16 620/Hyd/2022 2018-19 Pan:Acspn1664K 594/Hyd/2022 Manjusha Nimmatoori 17 Acit, Central Circle 2018-19 Hyderabad 2(4) Hyderabad Pan:Acspn1666M िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: Shri P. Murali Mohan Rao, Ca राज" व "ारा/Revenue By:: Shri Shakeer Ahmed, Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 13/06/2024 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 14/08/2024

section 56(2)(vii)(b) cannot be invoked. Page 62 of 133 ITA Nos 591 619 700 Ramesh Babu and Others 89. The learned DR, on the other hand, supporting the order of the learned CIT (A) submitted that there is a clear difference between the consideration and the guideline value and thus, the difference has been rightly brought

YASHODA NIMMATURI,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(4), HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee in ITA

Bench: Shri Manjunatha, G.A N D Shri K. Narasimha Charis.No Ita Nos. Appellant Respondent A.Y 591/Hyd/2022 Shri Ramesh Babu 1 Acit, Central Circle 2017-18 2 619/Hyd/2022 Nimmatoori Hyderabad 2(4) Hyderabad 2018-19 Pan:Acspn1659G 3 700/Hyd/2022 Acit, Central Circle 2(4) Shri Ramesh Babu 2018-19 Hyderabad Nimmatoori Hyderabad Pan:Acspn1659G 4 311/Hyd/2022 Raja Babu Nimmatoori 2013-14 589/Hyd/2022 Hyderabad Acit, Central Circle 5 2016-17 Pan:Acspn1662R 2(4) Hyderabad 6 590/Hyd/2022 2017-18 7 621/Hyd/2022 2018-19 8 701/Hyd/2022 Acit, Central Circle Raja Babu 2018-19 2(4) Hyderabad Nimmatoori Hyderabad Pan:Acspn1662R 9 337/Hyd/2022 Yashoda Nimmatoori Acit, Central Circle 2016-17 593/Hyd/2022 Hyderabad 2(4) Hyderabad 10 2017-18 618/Hyd/2022 Pan:Acspn1657J 11 2018-19 332/Hyd/2022 12 Anudeep Nimmattoori Acit, Central Circle 2016-17 13 475/Hyd/2022 Hyderabad 2(4) Hyderabad 2017-18 476/Hyd/2022 Pan:Ahbpn2081Q 14 2018-19 15 592/Hyd/2022 Sulochana Acit, Central Circle 2017-18 Nimmattoori 2(4) Hyderabad 16 620/Hyd/2022 2018-19 Pan:Acspn1664K 594/Hyd/2022 Manjusha Nimmatoori 17 Acit, Central Circle 2018-19 Hyderabad 2(4) Hyderabad Pan:Acspn1666M िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: Shri P. Murali Mohan Rao, Ca राज" व "ारा/Revenue By:: Shri Shakeer Ahmed, Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 13/06/2024 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 14/08/2024

section 56(2)(vii)(b) cannot be invoked. Page 62 of 133 ITA Nos 591 619 700 Ramesh Babu and Others 89. The learned DR, on the other hand, supporting the order of the learned CIT (A) submitted that there is a clear difference between the consideration and the guideline value and thus, the difference has been rightly brought