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

ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-10(1), HYDERABAD vs. VERTEX PROJECTS LLP (FORMERLY M/S VERTEX PROJECTS LTD) , HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of Revenue is partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri Laliet Kumarassessment Year: 2014-15 Acit,Circle-10(1) Vs. Vertex Projects Llp Room No.515, 5Th Floor, (Formerly M/S.Vertex A-Block, I.T.Towers, Projects Ltd.) A.C.Guards, #156-159, Paigah House Hyderabad. S.P.Road, Next To Pg College. Secunderabad-500 026. Pan : Aanfv0232C (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Sriram Seshadri, Ca Revenue By: Shri Rajendra Kumar,Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing: 15.03.2023 Date Of Pronouncement: 28.04.2023 O R D E R Per Shri Laliet Kumar, J.M. This Is An Appeal Filed By The Revenue, Feeling Aggrieved By The Order Passed By The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-5, Dated 16.03.2018 For The Ay 2014-15, On The Following Grounds :

transfer, therefore section 56(2)(viia) cannot be invoked, as this is not a case of receipt of shares in isolation but the merger of all property irrespective of shares and also 56(2)(viia) is not applicable for such amalgamation, therefore the invocation of the said section in the case of appellant is incorrect and therefore, the ground

CHINTALAPATI HOLDINGS PVT.LTD., HYD,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(2), HYD, HYDERABAD

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

price and sale consideration in respect of such shares transacted Page 3 of 22 ITA No. 385 & 386/Hyd/2015 by the assessee, to the income of the assessee which was Rs. 3,69,55,200/-. 8. Aggrieved by the additions, assessee preferred appeal before the learned CIT(A). Insofar as the income from house property is concerned, learned CIT(A) directed

CHINTALAPATI HOLDINGS PRIVATE LIMITED, HYDERABAD,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-1(2), HYDERABAD, HYDERABAD

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

price and sale consideration in respect of such shares transacted Page 3 of 22 ITA No. 385 & 386/Hyd/2015 by the assessee, to the income of the assessee which was Rs. 3,69,55,200/-. 8. Aggrieved by the additions, assessee preferred appeal before the learned CIT(A). Insofar as the income from house property is concerned, learned CIT(A) directed

CHINTALAPATI HOLDINGS PVT.LTD., HYD,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(2), HYD, HYDERABAD

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

price and sale consideration in respect of such shares transacted Page 3 of 22 ITA No. 385 & 386/Hyd/2015 by the assessee, to the income of the assessee which was Rs. 3,69,55,200/-. 8. Aggrieved by the additions, assessee preferred appeal before the learned CIT(A). Insofar as the income from house property is concerned, learned CIT(A) directed

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

Bench: Us:

Transfer Pricing Officer (for short “TPO”), vide his order passed under Section 92CA(3) of the Act, dated 31.07.2021 determined the ALP of the gain obtained on account of excess charging of overhead expenses by the Chilling Units of the assessee company by following “Other Method” at Rs. Nil. Accordingly, the TPO suggested an adjustment u/s 92CA

BRIGHTCOM GROUP LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1(2), HYDERABAD

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

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Madhusudan Sawdia

Transfer Pricing Officer (“Ld. TPO”) under section 92CA of the Act for determining the arm’s length price. The Ld. TPO, vide order dated 30.10.2018, proposed an adjustment of Rs.6,97,67,380/- on account of software development segment and Rs.8,93,558/- on account of interest on trade receivables. Accordingly, the Ld. AO passed the draft assessment order under

LYCOS INTERNET LIMITED ,HYDERABAD vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CIRCLE-16(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

transfer pricing proceedings and were\nfound to be at Arms' Length and therefore, it is apparent that the\nAssessing Officer has conducted a thorough inquiry on all these\nissues including the issue of the income of US entity reported in\nthe consolidated and standalone financial statements as per of\nthe annual report. Once all the relevant record was available\nbefore

THERMODYNE DYNAMICS PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD -17(3), HYDERABAD

Bench: Us :

prices less than FMV to a firm or company. The intent of legislation is to tackle transfer of shares and not the cases of primary allotment of the share. c) The assessee entered into an understanding with Kineta Global Limited and their promoters on 18-02-2010 for investing Rs. 50 crores for acquiring not less than 51% of Kineta

MYLAN LABORATORIES LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-5(1), HYDERABAD

In the result. appeal of the Assessee is partly\nallowed for statistical purposes and appeal of Revenue is\npartly allowed for statistical purposes

14A", "Rule 8D", "115JB", "10(34)", "32", "Section 143(3)", "Section 144C", "Section 250", "Section 92CA(3)" ], "issues": "The core issues revolve around the correctness of Transfer Pricing

UNION BANK OF INDIA,HYDERABAD vs. DY. COMMISSISONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee as well as the Revenue are partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Manjunatha, G. & Shri K. Narasimha Charyआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.1018/Hyd/2017 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2012-13) Andhra Bank Vs. Dy. C. I. T. Hyderabad Circle 1(1) Pan:Aabca7375C Hyderabad (Appellant) (Respondent) आ.अपी.सं /Ita No.1230/Hyd/2017 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2012-13 ) Dy. C. I. T. Vs. Andhra Bank Circle 1(1) Hyderabad Hyderabad Pan:Aabca7375C (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: Shri Ananthan, Ca राज" व "ारा/Revenue By:: Shri Kumar Pranav, Cit(Dr) सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 02/07/2024 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 28/08/2024 आदेश/Order Per Manjunatha, G. A.M These Cross Appeals Filed By The Assessee, As Well As The Revenue, Are Directed Against The Order Dated 16/02/2016 Of Page 1 Of 59

14A r.w.r 8D is not applicable when shares are held as stock-in-trade by a Bank. Although we are unable to agree with the said argument of the learned Counsel for the assessee, but to give another opportunity to the assessee to explain its case before the Assessing Officer in light of the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE- 1(1), HYDERABAD vs. UNION BANK OF INDIA, HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee as well as the Revenue are partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Manjunatha, G. & Shri K. Narasimha Charyआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.1018/Hyd/2017 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2012-13) Andhra Bank Vs. Dy. C. I. T. Hyderabad Circle 1(1) Pan:Aabca7375C Hyderabad (Appellant) (Respondent) आ.अपी.सं /Ita No.1230/Hyd/2017 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2012-13 ) Dy. C. I. T. Vs. Andhra Bank Circle 1(1) Hyderabad Hyderabad Pan:Aabca7375C (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: Shri Ananthan, Ca राज" व "ारा/Revenue By:: Shri Kumar Pranav, Cit(Dr) सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 02/07/2024 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 28/08/2024 आदेश/Order Per Manjunatha, G. A.M These Cross Appeals Filed By The Assessee, As Well As The Revenue, Are Directed Against The Order Dated 16/02/2016 Of Page 1 Of 59

14A r.w.r 8D is not applicable when shares are held as stock-in-trade by a Bank. Although we are unable to agree with the said argument of the learned Counsel for the assessee, but to give another opportunity to the assessee to explain its case before the Assessing Officer in light of the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme

ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(3), HYDERABAD vs. NCC LIMITED, HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of Revenue is dismissed

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

price? 5. The CIT(A) erred in deleting the disallowance of expenditure made u/s. 14A of the Income Tax Act, read with Rule 8D of the Income Tax Rules. 6. The Ld CIT(A) erred in ignoring the explanation to Section 14A w.e.f. 01.04.2022 which clearly stipulates that the provisions of this section shall apply and shall deemed to have

NEOVANTAGE INNOVATION PARK PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD 16(3), HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Madhusudan Sawdia

Transfer Pricing Officer (“Ld. TPO”) under section 92CA of the Act for determining the arm’s length price. The Ld. TPO, vide order dated 30.12.2022, proposed an adjustment of Rs.13,28,00,656/- on account of interest paid on Non-Convertible Debentures (“NCDs”) and Rs.86,88,495/- on account of interest paid on Compulsory Convertible Debentures (“CCDs”). Accordingly

NEOVANTAGE BIO-TECHNOLOGY PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT., CIRCLE 5(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Madhusudan Sawdia

Transfer Pricing Officer (“Ld. TPO”) under section 92CA of the Act for determining the arm’s length price. The Ld. TPO, vide order dated 30.12.2022, proposed an adjustment of Rs.13,28,00,656/- on account of interest paid on Non-Convertible Debentures (“NCDs”) and Rs.86,88,495/- on account of interest paid on Compulsory Convertible Debentures (“CCDs”). Accordingly

MY HOME INDUSTRIES PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT., CIRCLE-5(1), HYDERABAD

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

Bench: Shri Ravish Sooda N D Shri Madhusudan Sawdiaआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.289/Hyd/2024 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2018-19) My Home Industries Vs. Dy.Cit Private Limited, Hyderabad Circle 5(1) Pan: Aabcm9480C Hyderabad (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: Advocate A.V. Raghuram राज" व "ारा/Revenue By:: Dr. Narendra Kumar Naik, Cit (Dr) सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 28/10/2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 14/11/2025 आदेश/Order Per Madhusudan Sawdia, A.M.: This Appeal Is Filed By My Home Industries Private Limited, (“The Assessee”), Feeling Aggrieved By The Assessment Order Passed By The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-10, Hyderabad (“Ld. Cit(A)”) Dated 29.01.2024 For The A.Y 2018-19. 2. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal:

Transfer Pricing Officer (“Ld. TPO”) under section 92CA(1) of the Act for determination of the Arm’s Length Price (“ALP”). 3.1 During the proceedings before the Ld. TPO, it was observed by the Ld. TPO that the assessee had made captive consumption of power as well as supplied power to M/s. Sree Jayajyothi Cements Pvt. Ltd., which

ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-16(1),, HYDERABAD vs. LYCOS INTERNET LIMITED,, HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao, Vice-A N D Shri Madhusudan Sawdiaआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.1550/Hyd/2017 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2012-13) Asstt. Commissioner Of Vs. Lycos Internet Ltd Income Tax, Circle 16 (1) Hyderabad Hyderabad Pan:Aaacl5827B (Appellant) (Respondent) आ.अपी.सं /Ita No.1769/Hyd/2018 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2012-13) Lycos Internet Ltd Vs. Asstt. Commissioner Of Hyderabad Income Tax, Circle 16 (1) Pan:Aaacl5827B Hyderabad (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: Shri P Murali Mohan Rao, Ca राज" व "ारा/Revenue By:: Shri B Bala Krishna, Cit(Dr) सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 16/12/2024 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 22/01/2025 आदेश/Order Per Vijay Pal Raothese Are Two Appeals, One By The Department Against The Order Dated 23/06/2017 Of The Learned Cit (A) & Another By The Assessee Against The Revision Order Dated 26/02/2018 Passed

14A is called for when the assessee has not earned any dividend income during the year under consideration. Accordingly, in view of the facts as discussed above, we do not find any error or illegality in the impugned order of the learned CIT (A) qua on this issue. The same is upheld. 10. With regard to grounds of appeal No.5

ACIT., CIRCLE-5(1), HYDERABAD vs. MYLAN LABORATORIES LIMITED, HYDERABAD

In the result. appeal of the Assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes and appeal of Revenue is partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Manjunatha G

Transfer Pricing Officer [in short “TPO”] for determination of the Arms Length Price [in short “ALP”] of international transactions of the appellant company with it’s AEs. 3.1. During the course of TP proceedings, the TPO noticed that, as per Form-3CEB report, the appellant 4 ITA.Nos.663 & 708/Hyd./2022 company has reported various international transactions with

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

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Manjunatha G

transfer pricing provisions and the Hon'ble DRP has further erred in upholding the action of Ld. TPO/AO. 1.4 That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. TPO/Ld. AO has erred in disregarding the judicial precedent of the Hon'ble Income-Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT), Hyderabad in the case of Adama India