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

Bench: SHRI RAVISH SOOD, HON'BLE (Judicial Member), SHRI MADHUSUDAN SAWDIA HON'BLE (Accountant Member)

transfer pricing adjustment as suggested by the Additional Commissioner of Income Tax (TP), Hyderabad, dated 28/10/2011: Rs.21,85,04,408/-. 10. Aggrieved, the assessee company carried the matter in appeal before the CIT(A) but without success. 11. On perusal of the CIT(A) order, we find that though the assessee company had, inter alia, assailed the validity

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 :

price lower than the Fair Market Value (F.M.V) of the shares, does not attract provisions of the section 56(2)(viia) of the Act and Ld.ClT (Appeals) erred in holding that provisions of Section 56(2)(viia) are not applicable to the transactions defined u/s.47(vi), even though the proviso to section 56(2)(viia) does not specify the transactions

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

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Manjunatha G

section 92CA(1) of Income-tax Act, 1961, with the prior approval of the Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax-3, Hyderabad, for determination of arm's length price in respect of the Specified domestic/ International transactions reported by the assessee company for the financial year relevant to the assessment year 2016-2017. The TPO had issued notices u/sec.92CA

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

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Manjunatha G

section 92CA(1) of Income-tax Act, 1961, with the prior approval of the Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax-3, Hyderabad, for determination of arm's length price in respect of the Specified domestic/ International transactions reported by the assessee company for the financial year relevant to the assessment year 2016-2017. The TPO had issued notices u/sec.92CA

GORLAS INFRASTRUCTURE PRIVATE LIMITED ,HYDERABAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER ,WARD 2(4), HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar & Shri Madhusudan Sawdia

151 of the IT Act before issuing the notice. Therefore, the reasons were properly recorded by the AO following ITA No.407/Hyd/2021 Page 9 due procedure and there is no case of change of opinion by the AO.Accordingly, Ground Nos. 5 & 6 are DISMISSED.” 10.1 From the perusal of the above, it is abundantly clear that the income will be deemed

MYLAN LABORATORIES LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER INCOME TAX , CIRCLE-5 (1) , HYDERABAD

In the result, the ground no

Bench: Shri K. Narasimha Chary & Shri Madhusudan Sawdia

151,153,171,173,195,343,389,1092,1093,1095, 1099, 1100 and more of paper book submitted by the assessee before us and submitted that all these documents were also available before the Ld. AO also. The Ld. AR further submitted that by going through all the documents, including the various agreements among the parties

MAHUA BHARATPUR EXPRESSWAYS LIMITED, ,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-5(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, all the appeals of the assessees are allowed in terms of our aforesaid observations

Bench: Shri Ravish Sooda N D Shri Madhusudan Sawdiaआ.अपी.सं /Ita Tp Nos.67/Hyd/2022 & 493/Hyd/2022 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2017-18 & 2018-19) M/S Western Up Tollway Vs. Deputy Commissioner Of Limited, New Delhi Income Tax, Circle 8(1) Pan:Aaacw6002B Hyderabad (Appellant) (Respondent) आ.अपी.सं /Ita Tp No. 170/Hyd/2022 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2017-18) M/S Mahua Bharatpur Vs. Deputy Commissioner Of Expressways Ltd, Income Tax, Circle 5(1) Hyderabad Hyderabad Pan:Aaecm4426F (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: Advocates Ajay Vohra & Ananya Kapoor राज" व "ारा/Revenue By:: Smt. U. Mini Chandran, Cit (Dr) सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 09/12/2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 12/12/2025 आदेश/Order Per Bench: These Three Appeals Are Filed By M/S. Western Up Tollway Ltd (2) & Mahua Bharatpur Expressways Ltd (1) (“The Page 1 Of 38

Transfer Pricing documentation were appropriate. Page 2 of 38 ITA TP Nos 67 and 493 of 2022 Western UP Tollway Ltd and ITA TP 170 of 2022 Mahua Bharatpur Expressways Ltd 4. The Hon'ble DRP/ Learned TPO/AO has grossly erred in facts and circumstances of the case and in law by: a) Determining of the arm's length price

WESTERN UP TOLLWAY LIMITED,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT CIRCLE -8(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, all the appeals of the assessees are allowed in terms of our aforesaid observations

Bench: Shri Ravish Sooda N D Shri Madhusudan Sawdiaआ.अपी.सं /Ita Tp Nos.67/Hyd/2022 & 493/Hyd/2022 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2017-18 & 2018-19) M/S Western Up Tollway Vs. Deputy Commissioner Of Limited, New Delhi Income Tax, Circle 8(1) Pan:Aaacw6002B Hyderabad (Appellant) (Respondent) आ.अपी.सं /Ita Tp No. 170/Hyd/2022 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2017-18) M/S Mahua Bharatpur Vs. Deputy Commissioner Of Expressways Ltd, Income Tax, Circle 5(1) Hyderabad Hyderabad Pan:Aaecm4426F (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: Advocates Ajay Vohra & Ananya Kapoor राज" व "ारा/Revenue By:: Smt. U. Mini Chandran, Cit (Dr) सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 09/12/2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 12/12/2025 आदेश/Order Per Bench: These Three Appeals Are Filed By M/S. Western Up Tollway Ltd (2) & Mahua Bharatpur Expressways Ltd (1) (“The Page 1 Of 38

Transfer Pricing documentation were appropriate. Page 2 of 38 ITA TP Nos 67 and 493 of 2022 Western UP Tollway Ltd and ITA TP 170 of 2022 Mahua Bharatpur Expressways Ltd 4. The Hon'ble DRP/ Learned TPO/AO has grossly erred in facts and circumstances of the case and in law by: a) Determining of the arm's length price

WESTERN UP TOLLWAY LIMITED,NOIDA vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-8(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, all the appeals of the assessees are allowed in terms of our aforesaid observations

Bench: Shri Ravish Sooda N D Shri Madhusudan Sawdiaआ.अपी.सं /Ita Tp Nos.67/Hyd/2022 & 493/Hyd/2022 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2017-18 & 2018-19) M/S Western Up Tollway Vs. Deputy Commissioner Of Limited, New Delhi Income Tax, Circle 8(1) Pan:Aaacw6002B Hyderabad (Appellant) (Respondent) आ.अपी.सं /Ita Tp No. 170/Hyd/2022 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2017-18) M/S Mahua Bharatpur Vs. Deputy Commissioner Of Expressways Ltd, Income Tax, Circle 5(1) Hyderabad Hyderabad Pan:Aaecm4426F (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: Advocates Ajay Vohra & Ananya Kapoor राज" व "ारा/Revenue By:: Smt. U. Mini Chandran, Cit (Dr) सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 09/12/2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 12/12/2025 आदेश/Order Per Bench: These Three Appeals Are Filed By M/S. Western Up Tollway Ltd (2) & Mahua Bharatpur Expressways Ltd (1) (“The Page 1 Of 38

Transfer Pricing documentation were appropriate. Page 2 of 38 ITA TP Nos 67 and 493 of 2022 Western UP Tollway Ltd and ITA TP 170 of 2022 Mahua Bharatpur Expressways Ltd 4. The Hon'ble DRP/ Learned TPO/AO has grossly erred in facts and circumstances of the case and in law by: a) Determining of the arm's length price

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

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed in terms of our aforesaid observations

Bench: Shri Ravish Sooda N D Shri Madhusudan Sawdiaआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.898/Hyd/2024 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2020-21) M/S. Tmeic Industrial Vs. Dy.Cit Systems India Private Limited Circle 2(1) Hyderabad Hyderabad Pan: Aadct5493J (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: C.As, K. C. Devdas, Kranthi Palivela & Mrudulatha राज" व "ारा/Revenue By: Smt. U. Mini Chandran, Cit (Dr) सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 08/12/2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 12/12/2025 आदेश/Order Per Madhusudan Sawdia, A.M.:

transfer pricing adjustment does not constitute part of the book profits. Furthermore, the Appellant had sufficient carried forward business losses to offset the adjustment made, resulting in no payable demand. 3. Any other ground or grounds that may be urged at the time of hearing” 4. The Learned Authorized Representative (“Ld. AR”) submitted that the grounds raised in the additional

SAI TEJA CONSTRUCTIONS, HYD,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT, CIRCLE 8(1), HYDERABAD, HYDERABAD

In the result, all the three appeals filed by the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda, Vice- & Shri Laliet Kumar

151(2) of the I.T. Act, 1961, for the A.Y 2008-09 and accordingly issued notice u/s 148 of the I.T. Act to the assessee. The assessee, in response to the same vide letter dated 12.8.2013 submitted that the return of income for the A.Y 2008-09 filed on 5.4.2010 may be treated as the return filed in response

SAI TEJA CONSTRUCTIONS, HYDERABAD,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-8(1), HYDERABAD, HYDERABAD

In the result, all the three appeals filed by the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda, Vice- & Shri Laliet Kumar

151(2) of the I.T. Act, 1961, for the A.Y 2008-09 and accordingly issued notice u/s 148 of the I.T. Act to the assessee. The assessee, in response to the same vide letter dated 12.8.2013 submitted that the return of income for the A.Y 2008-09 filed on 5.4.2010 may be treated as the return filed in response

SAI TEJA CONSTRUCTIONS, HYDERABAD,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-8(1), HYDERABAD, HYDERABAD

In the result, all the three appeals filed by the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda, Vice- & Shri Laliet Kumar

151(2) of the I.T. Act, 1961, for the A.Y 2008-09 and accordingly issued notice u/s 148 of the I.T. Act to the assessee. The assessee, in response to the same vide letter dated 12.8.2013 submitted that the return of income for the A.Y 2008-09 filed on 5.4.2010 may be treated as the return filed in response

SUNIL KUMAR AHUJA,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(1), HYDERABAD

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Laliet Kumarassessment Year: 2007-08 Shri Sunil Kumar Ahuja, Vs. Asstt. C. I. T. Circle 1(1) Hyderabad Pan:Ablpa2822L Hyderabad (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Shri S.Rama Rao, Advocate Revenue By: Shri Rajendra Kumar, Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing: 13/03/2023 Date Of Pronouncement: 25/04/2023 Order Per R.K. Panda, A.M This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 28.02.2022 Of The Learned Cit (A)-11, Hyderabad Relating To A.Y.2007-08. 2. Facts Of The Case, In Brief, Are That The Assessee Is An Individual & Derives Income From Investment In Real Estate & Share Marketing. He Had Filed His Return Of Income On 2.11.2007 Declaring An Income Of Rs.34,60,554/- & Agricultural Income Of Rs.1,08,410/-. A Search & Seizure Operation U/S 132 Of The Act Was Conducted At The Residential & Business Premises Of The Assessee On 17.09.2008. Notice U/S 153A Of The Act Issued On 28.07.2009 Was Served On The Assessee On 17.08.2009. In Page 1 Of 22

151 to 153/Hyd/2022, order dated 8.7.2022 while deciding the identical issue has granted partial relief to the assessee wherein the benefit of agricultural income of Rs.25,000/- for the A.Y 2003-04, Rs30,000/- for the A.Y 2004-05 and Rs.35,000/- for the A.Y 2005-06 were granted by observing as under: “9. We have considered the rival arguments

RAIN CEMENTS LIMITED, HYD,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-3(1), HYDERABAD, HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri K. Narasimha Charyassessment Year: 2008-09 M/S. Rain Cements Ltd Vs. Dy. Commissioner Of (Formerly Known As Rain Income Tax, Circle 3 (1) Cii Carbon (India) Ltd Hyderabad Hyderabad Pan:Aabcr8858F (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Advocate Prathishta Singh & Advocate Deepak Chopra Revenue By: Dr.Rajendra Kumar, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing: 20/03/2023 Date Of Pronouncement: 31/05/2023 Order Per R.K. Panda, A.M This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Final Assessment Order Dated 24.03.2017 Passed U/S 143(3) R.W.S. 144C(5) R.W.S. 260 Of The I.T. Act For The A.Y 2008-09. 2. This Appeal Was Earlier Decided By The Tribunal Vide Order Dated 18.10.2019. Subsequently Vide Ma No.15/Hyd/2020, Dated 23.3.2021, The Tribunal Recalled The Entire Order For Fresh Adjudication. Therefore, This Is A Recalled Matter.

transfer pricing adjustment is concerned, he submitted that a calculation error has been pointed out identifying the escaped income at INR 29,87,704/- which relates to the corporate guarantee fee which has been computed by the TPO. He submitted that the TPO had made the adjustment on the basis of the quantum of the corporate guarantee taking into account

DCIT, CIRCLE-17(1), HYD, HYDERABAD vs. ECI ENGINEERING & CONSTRUCTION CO. LTD., HYD, HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Laliet Kumarassessment Year: 2006-07 The Asst. Commissioner Of Vs. M/S. Eci Engineering & Income Tax, Construction Co., Ltd., Circle 17(1), Hyderabad. Hyderabad. Pan : Aaace74411G (Appellant) (Respondent) Ita 968/Hyd/2016 Assessment Year 2006-07 M/S. Eci Engineering & Vs. The Asst. Commissioner Of Construction Co., Ltd., Income Tax, Hyderabad. Circle 2(2), Hyderabad. Pan : Aaace74411G (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Shri K.C. Devdas Revenue By: Shri K.P.R.R. Murthy. Date Of Hearing: 27.03.2023 Date Of Pronouncement: 15.05.2023 O R D E R Per Laliet Kumar, J.M. These Two Appeals Filed By The Assessee & The Revenue, Respectively, Are Directed Against The Order Of Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) – 5, Hyderabad Dated 30.03.2016 For The Assessment Year 2006-07. 2. The Abridged Grounds Raised By The Assessee In Ita No.968/Hyd/2016 Read As Under : “1. The Order Of Ld.Cit(A) - 5 Is Erroneous In Law In Facts & In Law. 2. The Ld.Cit(A) Erred In Upholding The Decision Of The Ld.Ao In Treating Sale Of Partly Paid Up Shares As Fully Paid & Confirming The Addition Of Rs.50,14,625/- As Long Term Capital Gain. 3. The Ld.Cit(A) Erred In Confirming The Addition Of Rs.27,69,422/- Towards Difference In Interest. 4. Further, The Ld.Cit(A) Failed To Observe That The Notes To Financial Statements Clearly Mentioned The Interest Income Which Pertained To The Previous Year & Accordingly Erred In Upholding The Action Of The Ld.Ao In Assessing The Difference In Interest Of Rs.27,69,422/-. 5. The Ld.Cit(A) Erred In Confirming The Addition Of Difference Of Prior Period Income Of Rs.1,26,71,371/-.”

prices Rs.5.25 and Rs.7.00 could be quotations on the same day i.e.. 31.07.2005. In view of the same the transaction appears to be an off-market negotiated transaction. Since SIT will not be deducted in off-market transaction, the sale would attract capital gains tax. (ii) As the details of STT are not on record, the exemption

ECI ENGINEERING & CONSTRUCTION COMPANY LTD., HYD,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-2(2), HYD, HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Laliet Kumarassessment Year: 2006-07 The Asst. Commissioner Of Vs. M/S. Eci Engineering & Income Tax, Construction Co., Ltd., Circle 17(1), Hyderabad. Hyderabad. Pan : Aaace74411G (Appellant) (Respondent) Ita 968/Hyd/2016 Assessment Year 2006-07 M/S. Eci Engineering & Vs. The Asst. Commissioner Of Construction Co., Ltd., Income Tax, Hyderabad. Circle 2(2), Hyderabad. Pan : Aaace74411G (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Shri K.C. Devdas Revenue By: Shri K.P.R.R. Murthy. Date Of Hearing: 27.03.2023 Date Of Pronouncement: 15.05.2023 O R D E R Per Laliet Kumar, J.M. These Two Appeals Filed By The Assessee & The Revenue, Respectively, Are Directed Against The Order Of Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) – 5, Hyderabad Dated 30.03.2016 For The Assessment Year 2006-07. 2. The Abridged Grounds Raised By The Assessee In Ita No.968/Hyd/2016 Read As Under : “1. The Order Of Ld.Cit(A) - 5 Is Erroneous In Law In Facts & In Law. 2. The Ld.Cit(A) Erred In Upholding The Decision Of The Ld.Ao In Treating Sale Of Partly Paid Up Shares As Fully Paid & Confirming The Addition Of Rs.50,14,625/- As Long Term Capital Gain. 3. The Ld.Cit(A) Erred In Confirming The Addition Of Rs.27,69,422/- Towards Difference In Interest. 4. Further, The Ld.Cit(A) Failed To Observe That The Notes To Financial Statements Clearly Mentioned The Interest Income Which Pertained To The Previous Year & Accordingly Erred In Upholding The Action Of The Ld.Ao In Assessing The Difference In Interest Of Rs.27,69,422/-. 5. The Ld.Cit(A) Erred In Confirming The Addition Of Difference Of Prior Period Income Of Rs.1,26,71,371/-.”

prices Rs.5.25 and Rs.7.00 could be quotations on the same day i.e.. 31.07.2005. In view of the same the transaction appears to be an off-market negotiated transaction. Since SIT will not be deducted in off-market transaction, the sale would attract capital gains tax. (ii) As the details of STT are not on record, the exemption

SANGHI TEXTILES PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERBAD vs. ITO., WARD-3(1), HYDERABAD

Bench: Us:

151 was duly obtained and the reasons for reopening were recorded, as confirmed in the assessment order. The reassessment was within the prescribed time and squarely falls within the framework of section 147, Therefore, the action of the AO in reopening the assessment is held to be valid and in accordance with law. Accordingly, grounds of appeal pertaining to this