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

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

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

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

ACIT., CIRCLE-5(1), HYDERABAD vs. PENNA CEMENT INDUSTRIES LIMITED, HYDERABAD

Transfer Pricing Officer (TPO) in respect of specified domestic transactions reported by the assessee company. The TPO, after examining the submissions and documentation furnished by the assessee company, passed an order under section 92CA(3) of the Act, determining the arm's length price (ALP) of the specified domestic transactions and did not propose any adjustment. 4. Thereafter

ACIT., CIRCLE-5(1), HYDERABAD vs. PENNA CEMENT INDUSTRIES LIMITED, HYDERABAD

Transfer Pricing Officer\n(TPO) in respect of specified domestic transactions reported by the\nassessee company. The TPO, after examining the submissions and\ndocumentation furnished by the assessee company, passed an order\nunder section 92CA(3) of the Act, determining the arm's length price\n(ALP) of the specified domestic transactions and did not propose any\nadjustment.\n4.\nThereafter

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

INFOR (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-2(1), HYDERABAD

Accordingly treated as allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri K.Narasimha Charyआ.अपी.सं / Ita-Tp No. 193/Hyd/2023 (निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Year: 2018-19) Infor (India) Private Limited, Vs. The Deputy Commissioner Hyderabad Of Income Tax, [Pan No. Aaacb6197Q] Circle-2(1), Hyderabad अपीलार्थीर्थी / Appellant प्रत्‍यर्थी / Respondent

section 260 and 144B of the Act. Hence the assessee is in appeal before us challenging the final assessment orders pursuant to the directions made by the Learned DRP. 5. Grounds No. 1 ,2 and 16 to 18 of this appeal are general in nature. Grounds No. 3 to 8 relate to the Transfer Pricing adjustment on account of provision

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 -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

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

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

ACIT., CENTRAL CIRCLE 1(2), HYDERABAD vs. AUROBINDO PHARMA LIMITED, HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Madhusudan Sawdiaआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.710/Hyd/2025 (निर्धारण वर्ा/Assessment Year:2021-22) Asst. Commissioner Of Income Tax, M/S. Aurobindo Pharma Ltd., Vs. Central Circle 1(2), Hyderabad. Hyderabad. Pan: Aabca7366H (Appellant) (Respondent) निर्धाररती द्वधरध/Assessee By: Shri B.G. Reddy, Advocate रधजस् व द्वधरध/Revenue By:: Shri Narendra Kumar Naik, Cit-Dr सुिवधई की तधरीख/Date Of Hearing: 30/07/2025 घोर्णध की तधरीख/Pronouncement: 06/08/2025 आदेश/Order Per Madhusudan Sawdia, A.M.: This Appeal Is Filed By Revenue, Feeling Aggrieved By The Order Passed By The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), Hyderabad (“Ld. Cit(A)”), Dated 24.02.2025 For The A.Y. 2021-22. 2. The Revenue Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal :

section 92B of the Act by Finance Act, it is determinable that if there is any delay in the realization of credit arising from the sale of goods or services rendered in the course of carrying on the business, it is liable to be visited with the transfer pricing adjustment on account of interest income short charged/uncharged. It is, therefore

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)

3. The brief facts of the case are that, the assessee company is engaged in the business activities of generation of electricity from biomass energy from its power plant located at Paramkudi Taluk of Ramanathpuram District in Tamil Nadu. The assessee had established 18 MW biomass-based power generation plant in October, 2004 and till March 2009, it had been

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

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

3. The brief facts of the case are that, the assessee company is engaged in the business activities of generation of electricity from biomass energy from its power plant located at Paramkudi Taluk of Ramanathpuram District in Tamil Nadu. The assessee had established 18 MW biomass-based power generation plant in October, 2004 and till March 2009, it had been

OPTUM GLOBAL SOLUTIONS (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT CIRCLE -5(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, both the appeals of assessee are partly allowed

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri K. Narasimha Chary

transfer pricing adjustment qua the provision of IT services. 3. When the assessee filed objections before the learned DRP, learned DRP, while confirming the disallowance of deduction under section 80G of the Act, issued certain directions. Though the assessee filed this appeal on several grounds, many grounds were withdrawn, stating the assessee had relief in respect of some issues

OPTUM GLOBAL SOLUTIONS (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT, CIRCLE -5(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, both the appeals of assessee are partly allowed

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri K. Narasimha Chary

transfer pricing adjustment qua the provision of IT services. 3. When the assessee filed objections before the learned DRP, learned DRP, while confirming the disallowance of deduction under section 80G of the Act, issued certain directions. Though the assessee filed this appeal on several grounds, many grounds were withdrawn, stating the assessee had relief in respect of some issues