M/S. COUNTRY CLUB INDIA LTD.,,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-1(2), HYDERABAD

In the result, the grounds of the appeal of the assessee on this issue are allowed

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi & Shri S. Rifaur Rahmanassessment Year: 2009-10 M/S Country Club Vs. Asst. Cit, Circle-1(2), Hospitality & Holidays Ltd., Hyderabad. (Formerly Known As Country Club India Ltd.,) Hyderabad.

transferred 1/3 of the difference amount to profit and loss account under the head gain/ loss account during the F.Y 2008-09. The A.O, however held that the CBDT instructions No. 3 of 2010, 14 ITA.Nos.1689 & 1735 /Hyd/2012, M/s Country Club Hospitality and Holidays Ltd., Hyderabad. dated 23.03.2010 had dealt the issue of “marked to market” i.e where

DY.CIT, CIR-1(2), HYDERABAD vs. M/S CUNTRY CLUB (I) LIMITED,, HYDERABAD

In the result, the grounds of the appeal of the assessee on this issue are allowed

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi & Shri S. Rifaur Rahmanassessment Year: 2009-10 M/S Country Club Vs. Asst. Cit, Circle-1(2), Hospitality & Holidays Ltd., Hyderabad. (Formerly Known As Country Club India Ltd.,) Hyderabad.

transferred 1/3 of the difference amount to profit and loss account under the head gain/ loss account during the F.Y 2008-09. The A.O, however held that the CBDT instructions No. 3 of 2010, 14 ITA.Nos.1689 & 1735 /Hyd/2012, M/s Country Club Hospitality and Holidays Ltd., Hyderabad. dated 23.03.2010 had dealt the issue of “marked to market” i.e where

COUNTRY CLUB HOSPITALITY & HOLIDAYS LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT., CIRCLE-1(1), HYDERABAD

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

transferred 1/3 of the difference amount to profit and loss account under the head gain/ loss account during the F.Y 2008-09. The A.O, however held that the CBDT instructions No. 3 of 2010, 14 ITA.Nos.1689 & 1735 /Hyd/2012, M/s Country Club Hospitality and Holidays Ltd., Hyderabad. dated 23.03.2010 had dealt the issue of “marked to market” i.e where

DCIT,CENT CIR-2(4), HYDERABAD, HYDERABAD vs. CLEAN CITY ESTATES PRIVATE LIMITED, HYDERABAD, HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi & Shri A. Alankamonyassessment Year: 2011-12 Dy. Commissioner Of Vs. Clean City Estates Pvt. Ltd., Income-Tax, Hyderabad. Central Circle – 2(4), Hyderabad. Pan – Aaccc4799H Appellant Respondent Revenue By: Shri Y.V.S.T. Sai Assessee By: Shri A.V. Raghuram Date Of Hearing: 11/12/2019 Date Of Pronouncement: 21/02/2020 O R D E R Per Smt. P. Madhavi Devi, J.M.:

transferred with the value of this right to sell 1,28,940.26 square feet constructed area, it would not make any difference to the profit figures because, as far as this assessee, is concerned the cost of acquiring this right is the same as the cost of giving up the right in the hand, and, as is the settled legal

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

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee for both the assessment years 2017-18 and 2018-19 are partly allowed

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Manjunatha G.आ.अपी.सं /Ita-Tp No.451/Hyd/2022 & 452/Hyd/2022 (निर्धारण वर्ा/Assessment Year: 2017-18 & 2018-19) Shakti Hormann Private Vs. Asst.Commissioner Of Limited Income Tax Hyderabad Circle-3(1) [Pan : Aadcs4024Q] Hyderabad (Appellant) (Respondent) निर्धाररती द्वधरध/Assessee By: Shri P.Murali Mohan Rao, Ar रधजस् व द्वधरध/Revenue By: Shri B.Bala Krishna, Cit-Dr सुिवधई की तधरीख/Date Of Hearing: 15/04/2025 घोर्णध की तधरीख/ 21/04/2025 Date Of Pronouncement: आदेश / Order Per Vijay Pal Rao: These Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Directed Against The Assessment Orders Dated 21.07.2022 & 28.07.2022 Passed U/S 143(3) R.W.S. 144C(13) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (“The Act”) In Pursuant To The Directions Of The Dispute Resolution Panel (“The Drp”) U/S 144C(5) Of The Act For The Assessment Year 2017-18 & 2018-19 Respectively. 2. For The Assessment Year 2017-18, The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal :

transfer pricing adjustment can be made on hypothetical and notional basis, without there being any material on record justifying the fact that there had been under charging of such interest on real income. 2.9. Erred in directing TPO to adopt the six month average LIBOR plus 250 basis points. 3. Erred in making the upward adjustment of Arm’s Length

GSS INFOTECH LIMITED ,HYDERABAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(2), HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi & Shri A. Mohan Alankamony

Transfer Pricing uls 92B, as no income is generated from the transaction of providing loans and advances to the subsidiaries of the appellant company. 2.2 Erred in re-characterization of 'advance for investment' as 'Loans' which is not permissible under section 145

GSS INFOTECH LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CIRCLE-2(2), HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi & Shri A. Mohan Alankamony

Transfer Pricing uls 92B, as no income is generated from the transaction of providing loans and advances to the subsidiaries of the appellant company. 2.2 Erred in re-characterization of 'advance for investment' as 'Loans' which is not permissible under section 145

SRESTA NATURAL BIOPRODUCTS PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT., CIRCLE-3(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Manjunatha G.आ.अपी.सं /Ita No.711/Hyd/2024 Assessment Year 2020-2021 Sresta Natural Bioproducts Private Limited, Hyderabad. The Dcit, Circle-3(1), Vs. Pin – 500 081. Hyderabad – 500 081. Telangana. Telangana. Pan Aahcs9571J (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा"रती "ारा /Assessee By: Ca P Murali Mohan Rao राज" व "ारा /Revenue By: Dr. Narendra Kumar Naik, Cit-Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 11.12.2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 19.12.2025 आदेश/Order

transfer pricing is that the margins earned from covered transaction are required to be tested by benchmarking and as transactions with AEs are only 32.69% of the total sales made, entity wide margins cannot be taken. 4 ITA.No.711/Hyd./2024 4.5. The Ld. AO erred by not properly and fairly considering the segmental data, wherein the margin of the assessee

CAMBRIDGE TECHNOLOGY ENTERPRISES LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1(2), HYDERABAD

In the result assessee’s appeal stand partly allowed

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman

Transfer Pricing Documentation as per section 92C of the Act and Rule 10D of the IT Rules by complying all the provisions of the section. 2.4. Erred in rejecting the TP Documentation maintained by the assessee without assigning any cogent reasons for rejection. 2.5. Erred in not appreciating the fact that TP Documentation is not an exact science and arriving

RAGHU RAMA RENEWABLE ENERGY LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. ITO., WARD-3(1), HYDERABAD

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

section 145 (2) of the I.T. Act, 1961 inter alia provides that for the purpose of computation of income under the head profits and gains of business - the Central Govt. shall notify from time to time income computation and disclosure standards (ICDS) to be followed by any class of assessee or in respect of any class of income. In furtherance

RAGHU RAMA RENEWABLE ENERGY LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. ITO., WARD-3(1), HYDERABAD

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

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

section 145 (2) of the I.T. Act, 1961 inter alia provides that for the purpose of computation of income under the head profits and gains of business - the Central Govt. shall notify from time to time income computation and disclosure standards (ICDS) to be followed by any class of assessee or in respect of any class of income. In furtherance

ACIT., CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(3), HYDERABAD vs. SKANDHANSHI INFRA PROJECTS INDIA PVT. LTD., BANGALORE

section 144?\"\n\n6. 5. In view of the discrepancies noticed and also in the absence of any evidence, the books of accounts maintained by the assessee cannot be relied upon. Hence the assessee was issued a showcause notice requiring to showcause as to why the same should not be rejected | 145(3) of the Act.\n\n7. In response

BRIGHTCOM GROUP LIMITED (FORMERLY KNOWN AS LYCOS INTERNET LIMITED),HYDERABAD vs. ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-16(1),, HYDERABAD

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

145 of the Act. 1.3. Ought to have appreciated the fact that the outstanding receivables are accrued from the sale of services rendered to the AE during the normal course of business and hence it cannot be equated to the term 'capital financing' as interpreted in section 92B of the Act. 1.4. Ought to have appreciated the fact that

SURESH KUMAR REDDY KRISHNAPURAM,KURNOOL vs. ACIT., CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(3), HYDERABAD

145(3) are reproduced hereunder:\n\n“Where the Assessing Officer is not satisfied about the correctness or completeness of the accounts of the assessee, or where the method of accounting adopted in section-section [1] [ has not been regularly followed by the assessee, or income has not been computed in accordance with the standards notified under section

M/S. BRIGHTCOM GROUP LIMITED (FORMERLY KNOWN AS LYCOS INTERNET LIMITED),HYDERABAD vs. DCIT CIRCLE -16(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, all the three appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed and the only appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

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

145 of the Act. 15. Ought to have appreciated that the provisions of transfer pricing are not applicable to the transaction of Rs. 24,58,52,364/- towards initial set up cost, as there is no income. 16. Without prejudice to the above grounds, erred in applying interest rate3.34% (i.e. LIBOR + 2%) for the whole year on the consolidated amount

DCIT, CIRCLE-17(2), HYD, HYDERABAD vs. LYCOS INTERNET LTD (PRESENTLY KNOWN AS BRIGHTCOM GROUP LIMITED), HYDERABAD

In the result, all the three appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed and the only appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

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

145 of the Act. 15. Ought to have appreciated that the provisions of transfer pricing are not applicable to the transaction of Rs. 24,58,52,364/- towards initial set up cost, as there is no income. 16. Without prejudice to the above grounds, erred in applying interest rate3.34% (i.e. LIBOR + 2%) for the whole year on the consolidated amount

M/S. BRIGHTCOM GROUP LIMITED (FORMERLY KNOWN AS LYCOS INTERNET LIMITED),HYDERABAD vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-17(2), HYDERABAD

In the result, all the three appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed and the only appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

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

145 of the Act. 15. Ought to have appreciated that the provisions of transfer pricing are not applicable to the transaction of Rs. 24,58,52,364/- towards initial set up cost, as there is no income. 16. Without prejudice to the above grounds, erred in applying interest rate3.34% (i.e. LIBOR + 2%) for the whole year on the consolidated amount