GAINSIGHT SOFTWARE PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT., CIRCLE-2(1), HYDERSABAD

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed in terms of our observations given hereinabove

Bench: SHRI VIJAY PAL RAO, HON’BLE (Vice President), SHRI MANJUNATHA G, HON’BLE (Accountant Member)

Transfer Pricing Officer (TPO), the time limit available stands extended by another 12 months, and in the present case, the upper time limit for completion of assessment proceedings would expire on 31.03.2023. 26 Gainsight Software Private Limited 13. In the present case, the final assessment order passed by the A.O. under Section 143(3) r.w.s. 144C(13) r.w.s. 144B

SHAKTI HORMANN PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-3(1), HYDERABAD

Bench: Shri Manjunatha G.\Nand\Nshri Ravish Sood\Nआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.917/Hyd/2024\N(निर्धारण वर्ष/Assessment Year:2020-21)\Nshakti Hormann Private\Nlimited,\Nhyderabad.\Nvs. Dcit,\Ncircle-3(1),\Nhyderabad.\Npan: Aadcs4024Q\N(Appellant)\N(Respondent)\Nनिर्धारिती द्वारा / Assessee By: Shri P. Murali Mohan Rao,\Nca\Nराजस्व द्वारा / Revenue By: Ms. U. Mini Chandran,\Ncit-Dr\Nसुनवाई की तारीख /Date Of Hearing: 15/10/2025\Nघोषणा की तारीख / Date Of 19/12/2025\Npronouncement:\Nआदेश / Order\Nper. Ravish Sood, J.M:\Nthe Present Appeal Filed By The Assessee Company Is Directed\Nagainst The Final Assessment Order Passed By The Assessing Officer (For\Nshort, “A.O.”) Under Section 143(3) R.W.S 144C(13) R.W.S 144B Of The\Nincome Tax Act, 1961 (For Short, “The Act”) Dated 25/07/2024 For The\N Assessment Year (Ay) 2020-21. The Assessee Company Has Assailed\Nthe Impugned Order Passed By The Cit(A) On The Following Grounds Of\Nappeal Before Us:\N1. On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case, The Final Assessment\Norder Passed U/S 143(3) R.W.S.144C(13) Of The Act Dated 25.07.2024 By\Nthe Ao & Also The Order Passed U/S 92Ca (3) Dt 30.07.2023 By The Tpo\Nare Bad In The Eyes Of Law & Thus, Unsustainable To The Test Of Appeal.\N2.0 The Final Assessment Order Passed U/S 143(3) R.W.S.144C(13) R.W.S.144B\Nis Beyond The Time Limit Prescribed U/S 153 Of The Act.\N2.

Transfer Pricing adjustments\naggregating to Rs.35,50,088/-, viz., (i) Royalty: Rs.28,87,492/-; (ii)\nInterest on unsecured compulsorily convertible debentures (UCCDs):\nRs.5,42,937/- and (iii) Interest on trade receivables: Rs.1,19,659/-.\n5. The AO further examined various corporate tax issues pursuant to\nthe notices issued under section 142(1) of the Act. In response, the\nassessee company

ADP PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD, TELANGANA vs. DCIT., CIRCLE 1(1), HYDERABAD, TELANGANA

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed in terms of our observations given hereinabove

Bench: SHRI VIJAY PAL RAO, HON’BLE (Vice President), SHRI MANJUNATHA G, HON’BLE (Accountant Member)

Transfer Pricing Officer (TPO), the time limit available stands extended by another 12 months, and in the present case, the upper time limit for completion of assessment proceedings would expire on 31.12.2023. 13. In the present case, the final assessment order passed by the A.O. under Section 143(3) r.w.s. 144C(13) r.w.s. 144B

BHARATHI CEMENT CORPORATION PRIVATE LIMITED,,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT CIRCLE-2(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Laliet Kumarassessment Year: 2017-18 Bharathi Cement Corporation Vs. Deputy Commissioner Of Private Limited, Income Tax, Hyderabad. Circle – 2(1), Hyderabad. Pan : Aadcr3079G. (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Shri S. Kalyanasundaram, Ca Revenue By: Shri Jeevan Lal Lavidiya, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing: 14.02.2023 Date Of Pronouncement: 17.02.2023

144B of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short, “the Act”) raising the following grounds : 2 “1. For that. in the facts and circumstances of the case, the order ("impugned order") of the Learned Assessing Officer, National Faceless Assessment Centre ("AO") and directions of the Hon'ble Dispute Resolution Panel-I, Bengaluru ("DRP") are erroneous in law and the additions

INTERWRAP CORP PRIVATE LIMITED (SUCCESSOR OF OWENS CORNING INDUSTRIES (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED),MUMBAI vs. DCIT., CIRCLE -5(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed in terms of our observations given hereinabove

Bench: SHRI VIJAY PAL RAO, HON'BLE (Vice President), SHRI MANJUNATHA G, HON’BLE (Accountant Member)

transfer pricing adjustment. Accordingly, the adjustment towards purchases was revised to Rs. 47,92,29,000/-, and the adjustment towards royalty was treated as NIL. In pursuance of the directions issued by the Hon’ble DRP under Section 144C(5) of the Act, the A.O. passed the final assessment order under Section 143(3) r.w.s. 144C(13) r.w.s. 144B

NETCRACKER TECHNOLOGY SOLUTIONS (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT., CIRCLE - 5(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed in terms of our observations given hereinabove

Bench: SHRI G. MANJUNATHA, HON’BLE (Accountant Member), SHRI RAVISH SOOD, HON’BLE (Judicial Member)

144B of the Act is barred by limitation as the same is passed beyond the time limit prescribed under Section 153 of the Act and hence, the order is barred by limitation and liable to be quashed. TRANSFER PRICING

DODLA DAIRY LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT CIRCLE -8(1), HYDERABAD

Bench: Us:

144B of the Act, having been passed beyond the time limitation prescribed under Section 153(1) read with Section 153(4) of the Act, is barred by limitation and, therefore, is void ab initio, bad in law, and liable to be quashed. Filed on 22/04/2025 : 1 Without prejudice, the lower authorities erred in proposing a TP adjustment

UBER INDIA SYSTEMS PRIVATE LIMITED (AS SUCCESSOR TO UBER INDIA RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT PRIVATE LIMITED),HYDERABAD vs. DCIT., CIRCLE-8(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Madhusudan Sawdia

Section 144B(1) of the Act. The Appellant hereby prays that the Final Assessment Order therefore be set aside as null and void and accordingly the transfer pricing

HIMASAGAR KRISHNA MUTHAPPAGARI,TIRUPATI vs. ITO., WARD-2(3), TIRUPATI

Bench: Us.

Pricing Officer" shall have the same meaning as assigned to it in the Explanation to section 92CA.] (2) No order shall be made under sub-section (1) after the expiry of two years from the end of the financial year in which the order sought to be revised was passed. (3) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section (2), an order

SAXON GLOBAL INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. ITO., WARD-3(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed in terms of our observations given hereinabove

144B of the Act, is governed by the provisions of Section 153(1) and Section 153(4) of the Act and if the final assessment order passed by the A.O. is beyond the time limit provided under Section 153(1) and Section 153(4) of the Act then it is barred by limitation and is liable to be quashed

CALLIDUSCLOUD (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT., CIRCLE- 1(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed in terms of our observations given hereinabove

Transfer Pricing Officer (TPO), the time limit available stands extended by another 12 months, and in the present case, the upper time limit for completion of assessment proceedings would expire on 31.12.2023. 13. In the present case, the final assessment order passed by the A.O. under Section 143(3) r.w.s. 144C(13) r.w.s. 144B

SIGNODE INDIA LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-3(1), HYDERABAD

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Manjunatha G

144B of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short “the Act”) in pursuance to the Directions dated 15.03.2021 of the learned Dispute Resolution Panel–1 (“DRP”), Bengaluru, passed under Section 144C(5) of the Act, relating to the assessment year 2016-17, and (ii) the order of the Ld. CIT(A) – 10, Hyderabad, dated 28.02.2023, passed under Section

SIGNODE INDIA LIMITED ,HYDERABAD vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX ,CIRCLE-3(1), HYDERABAD

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Manjunatha G

144B of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short “the Act”) in pursuance to the Directions dated 15.03.2021 of the learned Dispute Resolution Panel–1 (“DRP”), Bengaluru, passed under Section 144C(5) of the Act, relating to the assessment year 2016-17, and (ii) the order of the Ld. CIT(A) – 10, Hyderabad, dated 28.02.2023, passed under Section

HIGHRADIUS TECHNOLOGIES PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE -2(1), HYDERABAD

Bench: Us:

transfer pricing adjustment of INR 10.58,23,162/- to the income of the Appellant in relation to the international transection of provision of software development and support services ("SDS services"), vide Assessment Order under section 143(3) r.w 144C(13) read with section 144B

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

transfer pricing analysis / study prepared by the Appellant and conducting fresh benchmarking, without appreciating that none of the conditions mentioned in clauses (a) to (d) of Section 92C(3) of the Act were satisfied. 3. That the final assessment order passed by the Ld. AO under Section 143(3) read with Section 144C(13) read with Section 144B

INDEED INDIA OPERATIONS PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT., CIRCLE -(1) , HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal of the Assessee for the\n

pricing analysis/study prepared by the Appellant and\nconducting fresh benchmarking, without appreciating that none of\nthe conditions mentioned in clauses (a) to (d) of Section 92C(3) of\nthe Act were satisfied.\n3. That the final assessment order passed by the AO under Section\n143(3) read with Section 144C(13) read with Section 144B of the\nAct is barred

TMEIC INDUSTRIAL SYSTEMS INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT, CIRCLE -2(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, both the Writ Petitions are allowed by setting aside the impugned assessment orders dated

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao, Vice-A N D Shri Madhusudan Sawdiaआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.422/Hyd/2022 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2018-19) Tmeic Industrial Systems Vs. Dy. Cit India Private Limited Circle 2 ( 1 ) Hyderabad Hyderabad Pan:Aadct5493J (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: Cas, Kranthi Palivela & Mrudulatha Devdas राज" व "ारा/Revenue By:: Shri B Balakrishna, Cit(Dr) सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 17/12/2024 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 24/02/2025 आदेश/Order

144B of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (*Act") beyond the time limit prescribed under Section 144(13) of the Act and therefore the order is void, bad in law and liable to be quashed. 2. Erred in considering the transfer pricing

MICROSOFT GLOBAL SERVICES CENTRE (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-5(1), HYDERABAD

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

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

Sections 143(2) and 142(1) issued. In response, assessee has submitted the information called for through ITBA Portal from time to time. During the course of scrutiny, the case was referred to the TPO u/s 92CA of the Act for determination of Arm’s Length Price. Thereafter, the TPO proposed transfer pricing adjustment