SYNCHRONY INTERNATIONAL SERVICES PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT, CIRCLE 3(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Ravish Sooda N D Shri Madhusudan Sawdiaआ.अपी.सं /Ita Nos.2071 To 2073 /Hyd/2025 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2016-17 To 2018-19) Synchrony International Vs. Assistant Commissioner Services Private Limited Of Income Tax Hyderabad Circle 3 (2) Pan: Aadcr9682D Hyderabad (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: Shri Aliasgar Rampurwala, Ca राज" व "ारा/Revenue By:: Shri Aves Madhukar, Sr. Ar सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 16/03/2026 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 30/03/2026 आदेश/Order Per Madhusudan Sawdia, A.M.:

section 92CA(3) of the Act dated 30.10.2019, proposed a transfer pricing adjustment of Rs.26,24,06,156/-. Accordingly, the Ld. AO passed

SYNCHRONY INTERNATIONAL SERVICES PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT, CIRCLE -3(2), HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Ravish Sooda N D Shri Madhusudan Sawdiaआ.अपी.सं /Ita Nos.2071 To 2073 /Hyd/2025 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2016-17 To 2018-19) Synchrony International Vs. Assistant Commissioner Services Private Limited Of Income Tax Hyderabad Circle 3 (2) Pan: Aadcr9682D Hyderabad (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: Shri Aliasgar Rampurwala, Ca राज" व "ारा/Revenue By:: Shri Aves Madhukar, Sr. Ar सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 16/03/2026 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 30/03/2026 आदेश/Order Per Madhusudan Sawdia, A.M.:

section 92CA(3) of the Act dated 30.10.2019, proposed a transfer pricing adjustment of Rs.26,24,06,156/-. Accordingly, the Ld. AO passed

SYNCHRONY INTERNATIONAL SERVICES PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT, CIRCLE- 3(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Ravish Sooda N D Shri Madhusudan Sawdiaआ.अपी.सं /Ita Nos.2071 To 2073 /Hyd/2025 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2016-17 To 2018-19) Synchrony International Vs. Assistant Commissioner Services Private Limited Of Income Tax Hyderabad Circle 3 (2) Pan: Aadcr9682D Hyderabad (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: Shri Aliasgar Rampurwala, Ca राज" व "ारा/Revenue By:: Shri Aves Madhukar, Sr. Ar सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 16/03/2026 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 30/03/2026 आदेश/Order Per Madhusudan Sawdia, A.M.:

section 92CA(3) of the Act dated 30.10.2019, proposed a transfer pricing adjustment of Rs.26,24,06,156/-. Accordingly, the Ld. AO passed

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX ,(INTERNATIONAL TAXATION)-1, HYDERABAD vs. FAIR FIELD DEVELOPMENT LIMITED , CYPRUS

In the result, the appeal of Revenue in ITA

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Laliet Kumarassessment Year: 2014-15 M/S. Fairfield Developments Vs. Dy. Commissioner Of Income Limited, Tax, Hyderabad. International Taxation – 1 Pan : Aabcf3158N Hyderabad. (Appellant) (Respondent) Ita 488/Hyd/2019 Assessment Year 2014-15 Dy. Commissioner Of Income Vs. M/S. Fairfield Developments Tax, Limited, International Taxation – 1, Hyderabad. Hyderabad. Pan : Aabcf3158N (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Akshay Surana & Siddharth Surana, C.A Revenue By: Shri K.P.R.R. Murthy Date Of Hearing: 27.03.2023 Date Of Pronouncement: 25.04.2023 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) – 10, Hyderabad Dated 16.01.2019 For The Assessment Year 2014-15. 2 M/S. Fairfield Developments Limited

Transfer Pricing Officer (TPO) and the total TP adjustment made on international transactions was of Rs.13,98,41,656/-. The AO has correctly taxed the excess interest income of Rs.13,98,41,656/- @ 40% relying on Article 11(7) of the India-Cyprus DTAA. The view taken in other assessment years is not relevant as the principle of res judicata

FAIRFIELD DEVELOPMENT LIMITED ,HYDERABAD vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX ,(INTERNATIONAL TAXATION), HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of Revenue in ITA

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Laliet Kumarassessment Year: 2014-15 M/S. Fairfield Developments Vs. Dy. Commissioner Of Income Limited, Tax, Hyderabad. International Taxation – 1 Pan : Aabcf3158N Hyderabad. (Appellant) (Respondent) Ita 488/Hyd/2019 Assessment Year 2014-15 Dy. Commissioner Of Income Vs. M/S. Fairfield Developments Tax, Limited, International Taxation – 1, Hyderabad. Hyderabad. Pan : Aabcf3158N (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Akshay Surana & Siddharth Surana, C.A Revenue By: Shri K.P.R.R. Murthy Date Of Hearing: 27.03.2023 Date Of Pronouncement: 25.04.2023 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) – 10, Hyderabad Dated 16.01.2019 For The Assessment Year 2014-15. 2 M/S. Fairfield Developments Limited

Transfer Pricing Officer (TPO) and the total TP adjustment made on international transactions was of Rs.13,98,41,656/-. The AO has correctly taxed the excess interest income of Rs.13,98,41,656/- @ 40% relying on Article 11(7) of the India-Cyprus DTAA. The view taken in other assessment years is not relevant as the principle of res judicata

APACHE FOOTWEAR INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,MAMBATTU VILLAGE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX ,CIRCLE-1(1), TIRUPATI

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

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri Laliet Kumar

Transfer Pricing Officer)-1, Hyderabad and an order u/s. 92CA(3) of the Income- tax Act, 1961 was passed by him on 22.01.2021 determining the upward adjustment of Rs.15,45,798/- u/s. 92CA of the Act, mentioning as “assessment order”. 3.3 Subsequently, the TPO passed rectification order u/s. 92CA(3) r.w.s. 154 dated 18.02.2021 reducing the enhancement from Rs.15

MEDTRONIC ENGINEERING AND INNOVATION CENTER PRIVATE LIMITED ,HYDERABAD vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX ,CIRCLE -5(1) , HYDERABAD

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

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

Transfer Pricing Officer (learned TPO) at page No. 325 to 337 at paper book under the head ‘computation of working capital adjustment’, but it missed the attention of both the Revenue authorities. He placed reliance on the view taken by a Co-ordinate Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Parexel International Clinical Research (P.) Ltd. vs. ACIT

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

156 ITR 509 (S.C), he submitted that when partner brings in his asset into partnership as capital contribution, neither any consideration is received by the partner within the meaning of section 48 nor does any profit or gain accrues to him in commercial sense and, Page 7 of 18 ITA Nos 651 877 and 652 of 2017 Sai Teja Constructions

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

156 ITR 509 (S.C), he submitted that when partner brings in his asset into partnership as capital contribution, neither any consideration is received by the partner within the meaning of section 48 nor does any profit or gain accrues to him in commercial sense and, Page 7 of 18 ITA Nos 651 877 and 652 of 2017 Sai Teja Constructions

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

156 ITR 509 (S.C), he submitted that when partner brings in his asset into partnership as capital contribution, neither any consideration is received by the partner within the meaning of section 48 nor does any profit or gain accrues to him in commercial sense and, Page 7 of 18 ITA Nos 651 877 and 652 of 2017 Sai Teja Constructions

SITAPURAM POWER LIMITED-ERSTWHILE AMALGAMATING COMPANY (NOW AMALGAMATED COMPANY-ZUARI CEMENT LIMITED),KADAPA vs. DCIT, CIRCLE 1, HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar, Hon’Ble & Shri Madhusudan Sawdia, Hon’Bleआआआआ आआआआ आआ./ I.T.A. (Tp) No.79/Hyd/2022 (आआआआआआआआ आआआआ / Assessment Year: 2017-18) Erstwhile Amalgamating Company Vs. Deputy Commissioner Of – Sitapuram Power Limited Income Tax, Pan:Aajcs2098E Circle-1, (Now Amalgamated Company – Nellore. Zuari Cement Limited), Kadapa. Pan:Aajcs2098E (आआआआआआआआआ/ Appellant) (आआआआआआआआआआ/ Respondent) आआआआआआआआआ आआ आआ आआ/ Appellant : Adv. Shri Deepak Chopra & Nitin Narang By आआआआआआआआआआआ आआ आआ आआ / : Shri Kumar Pranav, Cit-Dr Respondent By आआआआआआ आआ आआआआआ / Date Of : 15/05/2024 Hearing आआआआआ आआ आआआआआ/Date Of : 02/07/2024 Pronouncement O R D E R

Transfer Pricing) DCIT, TPO-2, Hyderabad in the name of SPL 5. March 27, Draft Assessment order passed U/s. 143(3) read with 2021 section 144C of the Act by the additional / joint / Deputy / Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax / Income Tax Officer, National e-assessment centre, Delhi in the name of SPL 2.8.2. the assessee got amalgamated with its holding

AUROBINDO PHARMA LIMITED (AURONEXT PHARMA PRIVATE LIMITED SINCE AMALGAMATED WITH AUROBINDO PHARMA LIMITED),HYDERABAD vs. DCIT., CIRCLE-1(1), HYDERABAD

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

Bench: Shri K. Narasimha Chary & Shri Madhusudan Sawdia

Transfer Pricing Officer concluding that the figure of receivables beyond 180 days constitutes an international transaction by itself. With the assessee having already factored in the impact of the receivables on the working capital and thereby on its pricing/profitability vis-a-vis that of its comparables, any further adjustment only on the basis of the outstanding receivables would have distorted

KANTAR GDC INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT., CIRCLE - 2(1), HYDERABAD

The appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Madhusudan Sawdia

transferred him such specified security or sweat equity share, whichever is the earliest.” 7.6 On perusal of above, we found that, the heading of section 156 is ‘notice of demand’, which itself states that notice u/s.156 of the Act is to be issued in case of demand only. The primary purpose behind issue of notice u/s.156

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

The appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Madhusudan Sawdia

transferred him such specified security or sweat equity share, whichever is the earliest.” 7.6 On perusal of above, we found that, the heading of section 156 is ‘notice of demand’, which itself states that notice u/s.156 of the Act is to be issued in case of demand only. The primary purpose behind issue of notice u/s.156

DCIT., (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION)-1, HYDERABAD vs. SYAMA REDDY MALI REDDY, HYDERABAD

price by payment of kind or adjustment of old debt or other\nmonetary considerations. It was observed that if you sell a house and\nmake profit, pay Caesar (State) but if you buy a house or build another\nand thereby satisfy the conditions of Section 54, you were exempt. The\npurpose was plain; the symmetry was simple; the language

RAMESH BABU NIMMATOORI,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT,CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(4), HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee in ITA

Bench: Shri Manjunatha, G.A N D Shri K. Narasimha Charis.No Ita Nos. Appellant Respondent A.Y 591/Hyd/2022 Shri Ramesh Babu 1 Acit, Central Circle 2017-18 2 619/Hyd/2022 Nimmatoori Hyderabad 2(4) Hyderabad 2018-19 Pan:Acspn1659G 3 700/Hyd/2022 Acit, Central Circle 2(4) Shri Ramesh Babu 2018-19 Hyderabad Nimmatoori Hyderabad Pan:Acspn1659G 4 311/Hyd/2022 Raja Babu Nimmatoori 2013-14 589/Hyd/2022 Hyderabad Acit, Central Circle 5 2016-17 Pan:Acspn1662R 2(4) Hyderabad 6 590/Hyd/2022 2017-18 7 621/Hyd/2022 2018-19 8 701/Hyd/2022 Acit, Central Circle Raja Babu 2018-19 2(4) Hyderabad Nimmatoori Hyderabad Pan:Acspn1662R 9 337/Hyd/2022 Yashoda Nimmatoori Acit, Central Circle 2016-17 593/Hyd/2022 Hyderabad 2(4) Hyderabad 10 2017-18 618/Hyd/2022 Pan:Acspn1657J 11 2018-19 332/Hyd/2022 12 Anudeep Nimmattoori Acit, Central Circle 2016-17 13 475/Hyd/2022 Hyderabad 2(4) Hyderabad 2017-18 476/Hyd/2022 Pan:Ahbpn2081Q 14 2018-19 15 592/Hyd/2022 Sulochana Acit, Central Circle 2017-18 Nimmattoori 2(4) Hyderabad 16 620/Hyd/2022 2018-19 Pan:Acspn1664K 594/Hyd/2022 Manjusha Nimmatoori 17 Acit, Central Circle 2018-19 Hyderabad 2(4) Hyderabad Pan:Acspn1666M िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: Shri P. Murali Mohan Rao, Ca राज" व "ारा/Revenue By:: Shri Shakeer Ahmed, Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 13/06/2024 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 14/08/2024

section 56(2)(vii)(b) cannot be invoked. Page 62 of 133 ITA Nos 591 619 700 Ramesh Babu and Others 89. The learned DR, on the other hand, supporting the order of the learned CIT (A) submitted that there is a clear difference between the consideration and the guideline value and thus, the difference has been rightly brought

YASHODA NIMMATURI,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(4), HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee in ITA

Bench: Shri Manjunatha, G.A N D Shri K. Narasimha Charis.No Ita Nos. Appellant Respondent A.Y 591/Hyd/2022 Shri Ramesh Babu 1 Acit, Central Circle 2017-18 2 619/Hyd/2022 Nimmatoori Hyderabad 2(4) Hyderabad 2018-19 Pan:Acspn1659G 3 700/Hyd/2022 Acit, Central Circle 2(4) Shri Ramesh Babu 2018-19 Hyderabad Nimmatoori Hyderabad Pan:Acspn1659G 4 311/Hyd/2022 Raja Babu Nimmatoori 2013-14 589/Hyd/2022 Hyderabad Acit, Central Circle 5 2016-17 Pan:Acspn1662R 2(4) Hyderabad 6 590/Hyd/2022 2017-18 7 621/Hyd/2022 2018-19 8 701/Hyd/2022 Acit, Central Circle Raja Babu 2018-19 2(4) Hyderabad Nimmatoori Hyderabad Pan:Acspn1662R 9 337/Hyd/2022 Yashoda Nimmatoori Acit, Central Circle 2016-17 593/Hyd/2022 Hyderabad 2(4) Hyderabad 10 2017-18 618/Hyd/2022 Pan:Acspn1657J 11 2018-19 332/Hyd/2022 12 Anudeep Nimmattoori Acit, Central Circle 2016-17 13 475/Hyd/2022 Hyderabad 2(4) Hyderabad 2017-18 476/Hyd/2022 Pan:Ahbpn2081Q 14 2018-19 15 592/Hyd/2022 Sulochana Acit, Central Circle 2017-18 Nimmattoori 2(4) Hyderabad 16 620/Hyd/2022 2018-19 Pan:Acspn1664K 594/Hyd/2022 Manjusha Nimmatoori 17 Acit, Central Circle 2018-19 Hyderabad 2(4) Hyderabad Pan:Acspn1666M िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: Shri P. Murali Mohan Rao, Ca राज" व "ारा/Revenue By:: Shri Shakeer Ahmed, Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 13/06/2024 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 14/08/2024

section 56(2)(vii)(b) cannot be invoked. Page 62 of 133 ITA Nos 591 619 700 Ramesh Babu and Others 89. The learned DR, on the other hand, supporting the order of the learned CIT (A) submitted that there is a clear difference between the consideration and the guideline value and thus, the difference has been rightly brought

SULOCHANA NIMMATOORI,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(4), HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee in ITA

Bench: Shri Manjunatha, G.A N D Shri K. Narasimha Charis.No Ita Nos. Appellant Respondent A.Y 591/Hyd/2022 Shri Ramesh Babu 1 Acit, Central Circle 2017-18 2 619/Hyd/2022 Nimmatoori Hyderabad 2(4) Hyderabad 2018-19 Pan:Acspn1659G 3 700/Hyd/2022 Acit, Central Circle 2(4) Shri Ramesh Babu 2018-19 Hyderabad Nimmatoori Hyderabad Pan:Acspn1659G 4 311/Hyd/2022 Raja Babu Nimmatoori 2013-14 589/Hyd/2022 Hyderabad Acit, Central Circle 5 2016-17 Pan:Acspn1662R 2(4) Hyderabad 6 590/Hyd/2022 2017-18 7 621/Hyd/2022 2018-19 8 701/Hyd/2022 Acit, Central Circle Raja Babu 2018-19 2(4) Hyderabad Nimmatoori Hyderabad Pan:Acspn1662R 9 337/Hyd/2022 Yashoda Nimmatoori Acit, Central Circle 2016-17 593/Hyd/2022 Hyderabad 2(4) Hyderabad 10 2017-18 618/Hyd/2022 Pan:Acspn1657J 11 2018-19 332/Hyd/2022 12 Anudeep Nimmattoori Acit, Central Circle 2016-17 13 475/Hyd/2022 Hyderabad 2(4) Hyderabad 2017-18 476/Hyd/2022 Pan:Ahbpn2081Q 14 2018-19 15 592/Hyd/2022 Sulochana Acit, Central Circle 2017-18 Nimmattoori 2(4) Hyderabad 16 620/Hyd/2022 2018-19 Pan:Acspn1664K 594/Hyd/2022 Manjusha Nimmatoori 17 Acit, Central Circle 2018-19 Hyderabad 2(4) Hyderabad Pan:Acspn1666M िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: Shri P. Murali Mohan Rao, Ca राज" व "ारा/Revenue By:: Shri Shakeer Ahmed, Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 13/06/2024 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 14/08/2024

section 56(2)(vii)(b) cannot be invoked. Page 62 of 133 ITA Nos 591 619 700 Ramesh Babu and Others 89. The learned DR, on the other hand, supporting the order of the learned CIT (A) submitted that there is a clear difference between the consideration and the guideline value and thus, the difference has been rightly brought

YASHODA NIMMATURI,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT,CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(4), HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee in ITA

Bench: Shri Manjunatha, G.A N D Shri K. Narasimha Charis.No Ita Nos. Appellant Respondent A.Y 591/Hyd/2022 Shri Ramesh Babu 1 Acit, Central Circle 2017-18 2 619/Hyd/2022 Nimmatoori Hyderabad 2(4) Hyderabad 2018-19 Pan:Acspn1659G 3 700/Hyd/2022 Acit, Central Circle 2(4) Shri Ramesh Babu 2018-19 Hyderabad Nimmatoori Hyderabad Pan:Acspn1659G 4 311/Hyd/2022 Raja Babu Nimmatoori 2013-14 589/Hyd/2022 Hyderabad Acit, Central Circle 5 2016-17 Pan:Acspn1662R 2(4) Hyderabad 6 590/Hyd/2022 2017-18 7 621/Hyd/2022 2018-19 8 701/Hyd/2022 Acit, Central Circle Raja Babu 2018-19 2(4) Hyderabad Nimmatoori Hyderabad Pan:Acspn1662R 9 337/Hyd/2022 Yashoda Nimmatoori Acit, Central Circle 2016-17 593/Hyd/2022 Hyderabad 2(4) Hyderabad 10 2017-18 618/Hyd/2022 Pan:Acspn1657J 11 2018-19 332/Hyd/2022 12 Anudeep Nimmattoori Acit, Central Circle 2016-17 13 475/Hyd/2022 Hyderabad 2(4) Hyderabad 2017-18 476/Hyd/2022 Pan:Ahbpn2081Q 14 2018-19 15 592/Hyd/2022 Sulochana Acit, Central Circle 2017-18 Nimmattoori 2(4) Hyderabad 16 620/Hyd/2022 2018-19 Pan:Acspn1664K 594/Hyd/2022 Manjusha Nimmatoori 17 Acit, Central Circle 2018-19 Hyderabad 2(4) Hyderabad Pan:Acspn1666M िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: Shri P. Murali Mohan Rao, Ca राज" व "ारा/Revenue By:: Shri Shakeer Ahmed, Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 13/06/2024 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 14/08/2024

section 56(2)(vii)(b) cannot be invoked. Page 62 of 133 ITA Nos 591 619 700 Ramesh Babu and Others 89. The learned DR, on the other hand, supporting the order of the learned CIT (A) submitted that there is a clear difference between the consideration and the guideline value and thus, the difference has been rightly brought