BharatTax.net
SearchITATHigh CourtsSupreme CourtPhrasesAI ResearchHistory

Filters

BharatTax.net

Free search engine for ITAT (Income Tax Appellate Tribunal) judgments across all 28 benches in India.

Quick Links

  • Search Judgments
  • Browse by Bench
  • Recent Judgments

About

BharatTax provides free access to Income Tax Appellate Tribunal orders for legal research and reference.

© 2026 BharatTax.net. All rights reserved.

102 results for “transfer pricing”+ Section 156clear

Sorted by relevance

Delhi452Mumbai381Karnataka257Bangalore179Hyderabad102Chennai95Jaipur93Kolkata85Cochin78Ahmedabad77Chandigarh54Calcutta54Pune48Indore29Nagpur19SC18Raipur18Surat17Cuttack14Lucknow11Rajkot9Visakhapatnam8Agra8Telangana6Guwahati4Rajasthan3A.K. SIKRI ROHINTON FALI NARIMAN2Amritsar2Andhra Pradesh1Varanasi1S.B. SINHA MARKANDEY KATJU1

Key Topics

Section 13275Addition to Income73Section 143(3)45Section 153C41Search & Seizure41Section 139(1)40Section 6938Section 92C27Disallowance

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

ITA 1187/HYD/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad28 Apr 2023AY 2014-15

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 :

For Appellant: Shri Sriram Seshadri, CAFor Respondent: Shri Rajendra Kumar,CIT-DR
Section 115JSection 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 14ASection 14A(3)Section 47

Showing 1–20 of 102 · Page 1 of 6

27
Section 153A23
Section 14822
Transfer Pricing18
Section 56
Section 56(2)(viia)
Section 56(2)(viiia)

section 147 / 148 of the Act, the coordinate Bench had held as under : “22. Coming back to our point we have to examine whether protective assessment/addition is possible under section 147 in respect of the same person and for the same period. When a regular assessment is made and later on it comes to the notice of the Assessing Officer

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

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2073/HYD/2025[2018-19]Status: HeardITAT Hyderabad30 Mar 2026AY 2018-19

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.:

For Appellant: Shri Aliasgar Rampurwala, CAFor Respondent: : Shri AVES Madhukar, Sr. AR
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 43BSection 92C

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

ITA 2071/HYD/2025[2016-17]Status: HeardITAT Hyderabad30 Mar 2026AY 2016-17

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.:

For Appellant: Shri Aliasgar Rampurwala, CAFor Respondent: : Shri AVES Madhukar, Sr. AR
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 43BSection 92C

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

ITA 2072/HYD/2025[2017-18]Status: HeardITAT Hyderabad30 Mar 2026AY 2017-18

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.:

For Appellant: Shri Aliasgar Rampurwala, CAFor Respondent: : Shri AVES Madhukar, Sr. AR
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 43BSection 92C

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

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

In the result, the appeal of Revenue in ITA

ITA 347/HYD/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad25 Apr 2023AY 2014-15

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

For Appellant: Shri Akshay Surana & SiddharthFor Respondent: Shri K.P.R.R. Murthy
Section 142(1)Section 92(4)

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

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

In the result, the appeal of Revenue in ITA

ITA 488/HYD/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad25 Apr 2023AY 2014-15

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

For Appellant: Shri Akshay Surana & SiddharthFor Respondent: Shri K.P.R.R. Murthy
Section 142(1)Section 92(4)

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

GSS INFOTECH LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CIRCLE-2(2), HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 2255/HYD/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad23 Jan 2020AY 2013-14

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi & Shri A. Mohan Alankamony

For Appellant: Shri P. Murali Mohan RaoFor Respondent: Smt. Y.V.S.T. Sai
Section 143(3)Section 92C

transfer pricing, it cannot be considered as an international transaction and, therefore, ALP cannot be determined u/s 92C of the IT Act. He submitted that the advance given to AE, has subsequently been converted into equity and shares were allotted to the assessee company and, therefore, no interest can be charged on the same. In this connection, he placed reliance

GSS INFOTECH LIMITED ,HYDERABAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(2), HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 2367/HYD/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad23 Jan 2020AY 2014-15

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi & Shri A. Mohan Alankamony

For Appellant: Shri P. Murali Mohan RaoFor Respondent: Smt. Y.V.S.T. Sai
Section 143(3)Section 92C

transfer pricing, it cannot be considered as an international transaction and, therefore, ALP cannot be determined u/s 92C of the IT Act. He submitted that the advance given to AE, has subsequently been converted into equity and shares were allotted to the assessee company and, therefore, no interest can be charged on the same. In this connection, he placed reliance

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

ITA 385/HYD/2021[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad11 Jan 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri Laliet Kumar

For Appellant: Shri Kuriachan, CAFor Respondent: Shri Rajendra Kumar, CIT-DR
Section 13Section 144CSection 5

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

ITA 225/HYD/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad06 Mar 2024AY 2016-17

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

For Appellant: Shri Aliasgar Rampurwala and Shri Pratik, ARsFor Respondent: Ms. TH. Vijaya Lakshmi, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)

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

DCIT, CIRCLE-2(1), HYDERABAD, HYDERABAD vs. IVY COMPTECH PRIVATE LIMITED, HYD, HYDERABAD

In the result, revenue appeal is dismissed and the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 222/HYD/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad29 Nov 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: Smt P. Madhavi Devi & Shri S. Rifaur Rahmanassessment Year: 2010-11 Dy. Commissioner Of Income- Vs. Ivy Comptech Pvt. Ltd., Tax, Circle – 2(1), Hyderabad. Hyderabad. Pan – Aaaci8884K (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 2010-11 Ivy Comptech Pvt. Ltd., Vs. Dy. Commissioner Of Income- Hyderabad. Tax, Circle – 2(1), Hyderabad. Pan – Aaaci8884K

For Appellant: Shri Ravi BhardwajFor Respondent: Smt. Alka Rajvanshi Jain
Section 115JSection 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 92C

156 transactions relating to customer support & transaction services (ITES) Total Adjustment u/s 92CA 14,27,31,508 9. Aggrieved, the assessee raised objections before the DRP. 10. As regards comparables selected for ‘Software Development and Management Services (SDS) segment, the DRP directed the TPO to exclude the following companies from the list of final comparisons and recompute the ALP accordingly

IVY COMPTECH PVT.LTD., HYD,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-2(1), HYD, HYDERABAD

In the result, revenue appeal is dismissed and the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 334/HYD/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad29 Nov 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: Smt P. Madhavi Devi & Shri S. Rifaur Rahmanassessment Year: 2010-11 Dy. Commissioner Of Income- Vs. Ivy Comptech Pvt. Ltd., Tax, Circle – 2(1), Hyderabad. Hyderabad. Pan – Aaaci8884K (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 2010-11 Ivy Comptech Pvt. Ltd., Vs. Dy. Commissioner Of Income- Hyderabad. Tax, Circle – 2(1), Hyderabad. Pan – Aaaci8884K

For Appellant: Shri Ravi BhardwajFor Respondent: Smt. Alka Rajvanshi Jain
Section 115JSection 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 92C

156 transactions relating to customer support & transaction services (ITES) Total Adjustment u/s 92CA 14,27,31,508 9. Aggrieved, the assessee raised objections before the DRP. 10. As regards comparables selected for ‘Software Development and Management Services (SDS) segment, the DRP directed the TPO to exclude the following companies from the list of final comparisons and recompute the ALP accordingly

HYUNDAI MOTOR INDIA ENGINEERING PRIVATE LIMITED ,HYDERABAD vs. ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2(2), HYDERABAD

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

ITA 2303/HYD/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad02 Aug 2019AY 2014-15

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi & Shri S. Rifaur Rahmanassessment Year: 2014-15

For Appellant: Sri H. SrinivasuluFor Respondent: Sri Y.V.S.T. Sai, CIT-DR
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 92C

156/- Corporation 3. Therefore, he made a reference to the TPO for determination of the Arms’ Length Price (ALP) LP u/s 92CA of the Act. The TPO observed that the assessee is engaged in the business of rendering support services in relation to Computer Aided Designing (CAD). 4. He observed that the assessee has reported profit margin on cost

VALUE LABS LLP (FORMERLY VALUE LABS),HYDERABAD vs. ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-8(1), HYDERABAD

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

ITA 1909/HYD/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad09 Jul 2020AY 2013-14

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Vp & Mr. Anil Chaturvedi, Am [Through Video Conferencing]

For Appellant: Shri P.Murali Mohana Rao, ARFor Respondent: : Shri Y.V.S.T. Sai, CIT DR
Section 143(3)Section 144C(1)Section 145Section 156Section 271ASection 92BSection 92CSection 92C(3)

Transfer Pricing Officer ("Ld. TPO")/ Learned Assessing Officer ("Ld. AO")/ Learned Dispute Resolution Panel ("Ld. DRP") is erroneous both on facts and in law. 2. The Ld. AO erred in not issuing Draft Assessment order as per procedure laid down u/s.144C(1) of the Act by issuing the notice of demand u/s 156 of the Act & penalty notices u/s 271AA

VALUE LABS LLP (FORMERLY VALUE LABS),HYDERABAD vs. ASST.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX. CIRCLE-8(1), HYDERABAD

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

ITA 1910/HYD/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad09 Jul 2020AY 2013-14

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Vp & Mr. Anil Chaturvedi, Am [Through Video Conferencing]

For Appellant: Shri P.Murali Mohana Rao, ARFor Respondent: : Shri Y.V.S.T. Sai, CIT DR
Section 143(3)Section 144C(1)Section 145Section 156Section 271ASection 92BSection 92CSection 92C(3)

Transfer Pricing Officer ("Ld. TPO")/ Learned Assessing Officer ("Ld. AO")/ Learned Dispute Resolution Panel ("Ld. DRP") is erroneous both on facts and in law. 2. The Ld. AO erred in not issuing Draft Assessment order as per procedure laid down u/s.144C(1) of the Act by issuing the notice of demand u/s 156 of the Act & penalty notices u/s 271AA

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

ITA 877/HYD/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad11 Oct 2023AY 2010-11

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

For Appellant: Shri S. Rama Rao, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri KPRR Murthy, CIT(DR)
Section 147Section 148Section 151(2)Section 45(3)Section 48

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

ITA 651/HYD/2017[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad11 Oct 2023AY 2008-09

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

For Appellant: Shri S. Rama Rao, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri KPRR Murthy, CIT(DR)
Section 147Section 148Section 151(2)Section 45(3)Section 48

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

ITA 652/HYD/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad11 Oct 2023AY 2012-13

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

For Appellant: Shri S. Rama Rao, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri KPRR Murthy, CIT(DR)
Section 147Section 148Section 151(2)Section 45(3)Section 48

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

ITA 79/HYD/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad02 Jul 2024AY 2017-18

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

For Appellant: Adv. Shri Deepak Chopra &
Section 143(3)Section 144C(5)Section 40A(2)(b)Section 80ISection 92Section 92(3)Section 92BSection 92D

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

ITA 893/HYD/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad26 Nov 2024AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri K. Narasimha Chary & Shri Madhusudan Sawdia

For Appellant: Shri B. G. Reddy, AdvocateFor Respondent: : Shri P.V. Pradeep Kumar, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 92B

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