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

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

MBS JEWELLER PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CENTRAL CIRCLE-3, HYDERABAD

In the result, both the appeals of the assessees are allowed in above terms

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahuassessment Year: 2010-11 Mbs Impex Pvt. Ltd., Vs. Dy. Commissioner Of Hyderabad. Income-Tax, Central Circle – 3(1), Pan – Aaccm 2968E Hyderabad. (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 2010-11 Mbs Jeweller Pvt. Ltd., Vs. Dy. Commissioner Of Hyderabad. Income-Tax, Central Circle – 3(1), Pan – Aaecm 7050M Hyderabad. (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Shri P. Murali Mohan Rao Revenue By: Shri Y.V.S.T. Sai, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing: 13/12/2021 Date Of Pronouncement: 07/01/2022

145(3) of the Act. . "as Pvt. Ltd. 20. Without prejudice to other grounds, The Ld.CIT (A) erred in upholding decision of the AO in estimating profit of the appellant at 3.5% of the amount of Rs. :- 7 -: ITA Nos. 330 & 331/Hyd/2018 MBS Impes Pvt. Ltd. and another, Hyd. 34,60,47,806/- which has been treated

MBS IMPES PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CENTRAL CIRCLE-3(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, both the appeals of the assessees are allowed in above terms

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahuassessment Year: 2010-11 Mbs Impex Pvt. Ltd., Vs. Dy. Commissioner Of Hyderabad. Income-Tax, Central Circle – 3(1), Pan – Aaccm 2968E Hyderabad. (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 2010-11 Mbs Jeweller Pvt. Ltd., Vs. Dy. Commissioner Of Hyderabad. Income-Tax, Central Circle – 3(1), Pan – Aaecm 7050M Hyderabad. (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Shri P. Murali Mohan Rao Revenue By: Shri Y.V.S.T. Sai, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing: 13/12/2021 Date Of Pronouncement: 07/01/2022

145(3) of the Act. . "as Pvt. Ltd. 20. Without prejudice to other grounds, The Ld.CIT (A) erred in upholding decision of the AO in estimating profit of the appellant at 3.5% of the amount of Rs. :- 7 -: ITA Nos. 330 & 331/Hyd/2018 MBS Impes Pvt. Ltd. and another, Hyd. 34,60,47,806/- which has been treated

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

M/S COUNTRY CLUB INDIA LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-3(2), HYDERABAD, 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 Rahmancountry Club Hospitality & Vs Dy. Commissioner Of Income Holidays Ltd (Formerly Tax, Circle 3 (2) Known As Country Club Hyderabad India Ltd) Hyderabad Pan: Aaacc8276B (Appellant) (Respondent)

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, dated 23.03.2010 had dealt the issue of “marked to market” i.e where the financial instruments are valued at market price so as to report the actual

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

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.:

3. The CIT(A) ought to have recognized that the transfer of stock in trade of the assessee to developer as a commercial transaction for a commercial project for which the assessee has given right to the developer which directly gives rise to business income. 4. The CIT(A) has erred in ignoring the facts that the assessee is following

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

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

3 I.T.A. No. 2255/Hyd/17 and others M/s GSS Infotech Ltd. appreciating the fact that Comparable Uncontrolled Price (CUP) is selected as the most appropriate method. Incorrect Rejection of Transfer Pricing Documentation 1.1 Erred in rejecting the TP documentation, benchmarking analysis and economic analysis submitted by the appellant by showing inappropriate reasons and not supported by any material evidence, which

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

3 I.T.A. No. 2255/Hyd/17 and others M/s GSS Infotech Ltd. appreciating the fact that Comparable Uncontrolled Price (CUP) is selected as the most appropriate method. Incorrect Rejection of Transfer Pricing Documentation 1.1 Erred in rejecting the TP documentation, benchmarking analysis and economic analysis submitted by the appellant by showing inappropriate reasons and not supported by any material evidence, which

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