GORLAS INFRASTRUCTURE PRIVATE LIMITED ,HYDERABAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER ,WARD 2(4), HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar & Shri Madhusudan Sawdia

131/-. 5. Aggrieved with the order of Ld. CIT(A), the assessee is in appeal before us. The assessee raised as many as 14 grounds in this appeal. However during his submission before us the argument of Learned Authorised Representative (“Ld. AR”) was mainly on two issues. First issue is with regards to the challenge of the assessee regarding

MYLAN LABORATORIES LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER INCOME TAX , CIRCLE-5 (1) , HYDERABAD

In the result, the ground no

Bench: Shri K. Narasimha Chary & Shri Madhusudan Sawdia

131 (Andhra Pradesh)  Brahma Centre Development Pvt Ltd v. PCIT in ITA No. 4341 & 4342/Del/ 2019 dated 18.12.2019. B. No revision on the basis of an audit objection: ITA No.206/Hyd/2021 8 3.7 It is trite law that, while exercising revisional jurisdiction under section 263 of the Act, the principles of natural justice do not permit the decision of a revisionary

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

131. The ld.DR has drawn our attention to Page 196 and 197 of the order of ld.CIT(A), which is to the following effect : “Related Party Transaction (RPT) filter: Further, it is seen that the TPO has applied 25% RPT filter in the search process under TNMM, wherein companies with related party transactions more than 25% were rejected. The applicability

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

131. The ld.DR has drawn our attention to Page 196 and 197 of the order of ld.CIT(A), which is to the following effect : “Related Party Transaction (RPT) filter: Further, it is seen that the TPO has applied 25% RPT filter in the search process under TNMM, wherein companies with related party transactions more than 25% were rejected. The applicability

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

131. The ld.DR has drawn our attention to Page 196 and 197 of the order of ld.CIT(A), which is to the following effect : “Related Party Transaction (RPT) filter: Further, it is seen that the TPO has applied 25% RPT filter in the search process under TNMM, wherein companies with related party transactions more than 25% were rejected. The applicability

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

131. The ld.DR has drawn our attention to Page 196 and 197 of the order of ld.CIT(A), which is to the following effect : “Related Party Transaction (RPT) filter: Further, it is seen that the TPO has applied 25% RPT filter in the search process under TNMM, wherein companies with related party transactions more than 25% were rejected. The applicability

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

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

VAISHNAVI BULLION PRIVATE LIMITED ,HYDERABAD vs. ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, we uphold the addition of Rs

Bench: Before Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri Laliet Kumar

131 (pl. refer to para 2.6 above) averred that he got a call from Sri Nitin Gupta to rush to the bank on 10.11.2016 and oversee the work of depositing the cash in their bank account. Even thereafter, the cash deposited in the bank account was utilized by the assessee company for purchase of bullion through RTGS transfer. All these

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE3-(1), HYDERABAD vs. VAISHNAVI BULLION PRIVATE LIMITED, HYDERABAD

In the result, we uphold the addition of Rs

Bench: Before Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri Laliet Kumar

131 (pl. refer to para 2.6 above) averred that he got a call from Sri Nitin Gupta to rush to the bank on 10.11.2016 and oversee the work of depositing the cash in their bank account. Even thereafter, the cash deposited in the bank account was utilized by the assessee company for purchase of bullion through RTGS transfer. All these

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE3-(1), HYDERABAD vs. M/S. MUSADDILAL GEMS AND JEWELS PRIVATE LIMITED, HYDERABAD

In the result, we uphold the addition of Rs

Bench: Before Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri Laliet Kumar

131 (pl. refer to para 2.6 above) averred that he got a call from Sri Nitin Gupta to rush to the bank on 10.11.2016 and oversee the work of depositing the cash in their bank account. Even thereafter, the cash deposited in the bank account was utilized by the assessee company for purchase of bullion through RTGS transfer. All these

MUSADDILAL GEMS JEWELS PRIVATE LIMITED ,HYDERABAD vs. ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, we uphold the addition of Rs

Bench: Before Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri Laliet Kumar

131 (pl. refer to para 2.6 above) averred that he got a call from Sri Nitin Gupta to rush to the bank on 10.11.2016 and oversee the work of depositing the cash in their bank account. Even thereafter, the cash deposited in the bank account was utilized by the assessee company for purchase of bullion through RTGS transfer. All these

SUNIL KUMAR AHUJA,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(1), HYDERABAD

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Laliet Kumarassessment Year: 2007-08 Shri Sunil Kumar Ahuja, Vs. Asstt. C. I. T. Circle 1(1) Hyderabad Pan:Ablpa2822L Hyderabad (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Shri S.Rama Rao, Advocate Revenue By: Shri Rajendra Kumar, Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing: 13/03/2023 Date Of Pronouncement: 25/04/2023 Order Per R.K. Panda, A.M This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 28.02.2022 Of The Learned Cit (A)-11, Hyderabad Relating To A.Y.2007-08. 2. Facts Of The Case, In Brief, Are That The Assessee Is An Individual & Derives Income From Investment In Real Estate & Share Marketing. He Had Filed His Return Of Income On 2.11.2007 Declaring An Income Of Rs.34,60,554/- & Agricultural Income Of Rs.1,08,410/-. A Search & Seizure Operation U/S 132 Of The Act Was Conducted At The Residential & Business Premises Of The Assessee On 17.09.2008. Notice U/S 153A Of The Act Issued On 28.07.2009 Was Served On The Assessee On 17.08.2009. In Page 1 Of 22

131 on 27.11.2008 and 01.12.2008. The Assessing Officer reproduced the relevant portions of the above statements as under: Page 6 of 22 ITA 155 of 2022 Sunil Kumar Ahuja 9.5 The payment by M/s. D.K. Reddy Developers & Hospitalities Pvt. Ltd., commenced as early as July, 2006 and the substantial consideration of Rs.91,00,000/- was received by 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.

transfer pricing adjustment is concerned, he submitted that a calculation error has been pointed out identifying the escaped income at INR 29,87,704/- which relates to the corporate guarantee fee which has been computed by the TPO. He submitted that the TPO had made the adjustment on the basis of the quantum of the corporate guarantee taking into account

NUZIVEEDU SEEDS LIMITED,R.R.DIST. vs. DY.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-16(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, all the appeals under consideration are treated as allowed for statistical purposes in above terms

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

131/ 133 of the Act. 9.3 Further, before us, the ld. DR also filed written submissions in support of revenue’s case, which are as under: “2. It is humbly submitted that the assessee is engaged in the following activities: (i) Research & Development on germplasm leading to development of hybridd seeds, which consists of two stages viz., (a) fixation

NUZIVEEDU SEEDS LIMITED,R.R.DIST. vs. DY.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-16(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, all the appeals under consideration are treated as allowed for statistical purposes in above terms

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

131/ 133 of the Act. 9.3 Further, before us, the ld. DR also filed written submissions in support of revenue’s case, which are as under: “2. It is humbly submitted that the assessee is engaged in the following activities: (i) Research & Development on germplasm leading to development of hybridd seeds, which consists of two stages viz., (a) fixation

ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-16(1),, HYDERABAD vs. NUZIVEEDU SEEDS LIMITED, R.R. DIST, HYDERABAD

In the result, all the appeals under consideration are treated as allowed for statistical purposes in above terms

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

131/ 133 of the Act. 9.3 Further, before us, the ld. DR also filed written submissions in support of revenue’s case, which are as under: “2. It is humbly submitted that the assessee is engaged in the following activities: (i) Research & Development on germplasm leading to development of hybridd seeds, which consists of two stages viz., (a) fixation

ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-16(1),, HYDERABAD vs. NUZIVEEDU SEEDS LIMITED, R.R. DIST, HYDERABAD

In the result, all the appeals under consideration are treated as allowed for statistical purposes in above terms

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

131/ 133 of the Act. 9.3 Further, before us, the ld. DR also filed written submissions in support of revenue’s case, which are as under: “2. It is humbly submitted that the assessee is engaged in the following activities: (i) Research & Development on germplasm leading to development of hybridd seeds, which consists of two stages viz., (a) fixation