ZUARI CEMENT LIMITED ,KADAPA vs. ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1, KADAPA

Accordingly, this issue is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahusl.

TRANSFER PRICING ISSUES. Firstly, we will deal with ground Nos. 5(a) and 5(b): With respect to grounds 5(a) and 5(b) for A.Y. 2011-12, the ld. AR had drawn our attention to the draft assessment order dt.31.03.2015 wherein at Page 3, the Assessing Officer has mentioned as under : Zuari Cement Limited, Kadapa “The assessee debited

ZUARI CEMENT LIMITED, KADAPA,KADAPA vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-1, KADAPA, KADAPA

Accordingly, this issue is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahusl.

TRANSFER PRICING ISSUES. Firstly, we will deal with ground Nos. 5(a) and 5(b): With respect to grounds 5(a) and 5(b) for A.Y. 2011-12, the ld. AR had drawn our attention to the draft assessment order dt.31.03.2015 wherein at Page 3, the Assessing Officer has mentioned as under : Zuari Cement Limited, Kadapa “The assessee debited

ZUARI CEMENT LIMITED,KADAPA vs. ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1, KADAPA

Accordingly, this issue is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahusl.

TRANSFER PRICING ISSUES. Firstly, we will deal with ground Nos. 5(a) and 5(b): With respect to grounds 5(a) and 5(b) for A.Y. 2011-12, the ld. AR had drawn our attention to the draft assessment order dt.31.03.2015 wherein at Page 3, the Assessing Officer has mentioned as under : Zuari Cement Limited, Kadapa “The assessee debited

ZUARI CEMENT LIMITED,KADAPA vs. ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1(1), KADAPA

Accordingly, this issue is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahusl.

TRANSFER PRICING ISSUES. Firstly, we will deal with ground Nos. 5(a) and 5(b): With respect to grounds 5(a) and 5(b) for A.Y. 2011-12, the ld. AR had drawn our attention to the draft assessment order dt.31.03.2015 wherein at Page 3, the Assessing Officer has mentioned as under : Zuari Cement Limited, Kadapa “The assessee debited

ZUARI CEMENT LIMITED, KADAPA,KADAPA vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-1, KADAPA, KADAPA

Accordingly, this issue is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahusl.

TRANSFER PRICING ISSUES. Firstly, we will deal with ground Nos. 5(a) and 5(b): With respect to grounds 5(a) and 5(b) for A.Y. 2011-12, the ld. AR had drawn our attention to the draft assessment order dt.31.03.2015 wherein at Page 3, the Assessing Officer has mentioned as under : Zuari Cement Limited, Kadapa “The assessee debited

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRLCE-2(1), HYD, HYDERABAD vs. HES INFRA PVT LTD., HYD, HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of Revenue in ITA

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri Laliet Kumar

prices of materials, cost of laborers, overhead expenses etc. Therefore the Assessee is not merely a works contractor, but was engaged in development of project as a whole, and therefore, entitled for claim of deduction under section 80IA(4) of the Act, though not being the owner of the facility. It was contended that 14 M/s. HES Infra

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRLCE-2(1), HYD, HYDERABAD vs. HES INFRA PVT LTD., HYD, HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of Revenue in ITA

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri Laliet Kumar

prices of materials, cost of laborers, overhead expenses etc. Therefore the Assessee is not merely a works contractor, but was engaged in development of project as a whole, and therefore, entitled for claim of deduction under section 80IA(4) of the Act, though not being the owner of the facility. It was contended that 14 M/s. HES Infra

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRLCE-2(1), HYD, HYDERABAD vs. HES INFRA PVT LTD., HYD, HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of Revenue in ITA

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri Laliet Kumar

prices of materials, cost of laborers, overhead expenses etc. Therefore the Assessee is not merely a works contractor, but was engaged in development of project as a whole, and therefore, entitled for claim of deduction under section 80IA(4) of the Act, though not being the owner of the facility. It was contended that 14 M/s. HES Infra

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRLCE-2(1), HYD, HYDERABAD vs. HES INFRA PVT LTD., HYD, HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of Revenue in ITA

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri Laliet Kumar

prices of materials, cost of laborers, overhead expenses etc. Therefore the Assessee is not merely a works contractor, but was engaged in development of project as a whole, and therefore, entitled for claim of deduction under section 80IA(4) of the Act, though not being the owner of the facility. It was contended that 14 M/s. HES Infra

BRIJESH CHANDWANI,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT., CIRCLE -6(1), HYDERABAD

d) of section 148A of the Act has been passed in such case vide DIN ITBA/AST/F/148A/2022-23/1051563421(1) dated 29/03/2023 and annexed herewith for reference, 2. I, therefore, propose to assess or reassess such income or recompute the loss or the depreciation allowance or any other allowance or deduction for the Assessment Year 2016-17 and I, hereby, require

BRIJESH CHANDWANI,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT., CIRCLE -6(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal of the assessee for the assessment year 2020-2021 is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Madhusudan Sawdiaआ.अपी.सं /Ita Nos.1527 & 1528/Hyd/2025 Assessment Years – 2016-2017 & 2020-2021 Brijesh Chandwani The Dcit, Circle-6(1), Vs. Hyderabad – 500 034 Hyderabad. Pan Adkpc1537H (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा"रती "ारा /Assessee By: Ca Pawan Kumar Chakrapani राज" व "ारा /Revenue By: Sri Ranjan Agrawala, Sr. Ar

d) on 29.03.2023, wherein, the AO has recorded that, despite sufficient time allowed to the assessee in accordance with the provisions of section 148A(b) for compliance to the show cause notice dated 21.02.2023, there is no compliance on behalf of the assessee to the said show cause notice. The AO decided that it is a fit case for issue

COMM VAULT SYSTEMS (INDIA) PVT.LTD., HYD,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-1(2), HYD, HYDERABAD

In the result, assessee’s appeal is partly allowed

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi & Shri B. Ramakotaiahm/S. Comm Vault Systems Vs Dy. Commissioner Of Income (India) Private Limited Tax, Circle 1(2) Hyderabad Hyderabad Pan: Aaccc 3708 L (Appellant) (Respondent)

d) The Payment Amount paid by Distributor to Comm Vault US shall be exclusive of all Indian taxes”. 11. In Form No.3CEB, the assessee has reported as under: “The company has received software free of cost from its Associate Enterprise i.e. Commvalut Systems Inc,for distribution in the Indian Market. Since no purchase price was paid for the software received

ADP PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD, TELANGANA vs. DCIT., CIRCLE 1(1), HYDERABAD, TELANGANA

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed in terms of our observations given hereinabove

Bench: SHRI VIJAY PAL RAO, HON’BLE (Vice President), SHRI MANJUNATHA G, HON’BLE (Accountant Member)

section 92CA(1) of the Act and has not provided an opportunity of being heard before referring the transfer pricing issues to the Ld. TPO. 5. Ground 5: Rejection of TP documentation and undertaking fresh economic analysis for determining the arm's length price ('ALP') Rejection of the transfer pricing documentation maintained by the Assessee in accordance with the provisions

INTERWRAP CORP PRIVATE LIMITED (SUCCESSOR OF OWENS CORNING INDUSTRIES (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED),MUMBAI vs. DCIT., CIRCLE -5(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed in terms of our observations given hereinabove

Bench: SHRI VIJAY PAL RAO, HON'BLE (Vice President), SHRI MANJUNATHA G, HON’BLE (Accountant Member)

section 1448 of the Income-tax Act pursuant to the directions dated 14 June 2022 by Dispute Resolution Panel, Bangalore (DRP) u/s 144C(5) of the Act, is bad in law and void ab initio so far as it is prejudicial to the Appellant. Transfer Pricing Adjustment 2. That on the facts and circumstances of the case

SHAKTI HORMANN PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-3(1), HYDERABAD

Bench: Shri Manjunatha G.\Nand\Nshri Ravish Sood\Nआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.917/Hyd/2024\N(निर्धारण वर्ष/Assessment Year:2020-21)\Nshakti Hormann Private\Nlimited,\Nhyderabad.\Nvs. Dcit,\Ncircle-3(1),\Nhyderabad.\Npan: Aadcs4024Q\N(Appellant)\N(Respondent)\Nनिर्धारिती द्वारा / Assessee By: Shri P. Murali Mohan Rao,\Nca\Nराजस्व द्वारा / Revenue By: Ms. U. Mini Chandran,\Ncit-Dr\Nसुनवाई की तारीख /Date Of Hearing: 15/10/2025\Nघोषणा की तारीख / Date Of 19/12/2025\Npronouncement:\Nआदेश / Order\Nper. Ravish Sood, J.M:\Nthe Present Appeal Filed By The Assessee Company Is Directed\Nagainst The Final Assessment Order Passed By The Assessing Officer (For\Nshort, “A.O.”) Under Section 143(3) R.W.S 144C(13) R.W.S 144B Of The\Nincome Tax Act, 1961 (For Short, “The Act”) Dated 25/07/2024 For The\N Assessment Year (Ay) 2020-21. The Assessee Company Has Assailed\Nthe Impugned Order Passed By The Cit(A) On The Following Grounds Of\Nappeal Before Us:\N1. On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case, The Final Assessment\Norder Passed U/S 143(3) R.W.S.144C(13) Of The Act Dated 25.07.2024 By\Nthe Ao & Also The Order Passed U/S 92Ca (3) Dt 30.07.2023 By The Tpo\Nare Bad In The Eyes Of Law & Thus, Unsustainable To The Test Of Appeal.\N2.0 The Final Assessment Order Passed U/S 143(3) R.W.S.144C(13) R.W.S.144B\Nis Beyond The Time Limit Prescribed U/S 153 Of The Act.\N2.

Pricing Officer, as the case\nmay be], if satisfied, may allow an additional period of\nsix months to give effect to the order.\nProvided further that where an order under section\n250 or section 254 or section 260 or section 262 or\nsection 263 or section 264 requires verification of any\nissue by way of submission of any document

UBER INDIA SYSTEMS PRIVATE LIMITED (AS SUCCESSOR TO UBER INDIA RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT PRIVATE LIMITED),HYDERABAD vs. DCIT., CIRCLE-8(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Madhusudan Sawdia

D Mistri, Sr. Advocate रधजस् व द्वधरध/Revenue by:: Ms. M.Narmada, CIT-DR सुिवधई की तधरीख/Date of hearing: 24/12/2024 घोर्णध की तधरीख/Pronouncement: 30/12/2024 आदेश/ORDER PER MADHUSUDAN SAWDIA, A.M.: This appeal is filed by M/s. Uber India Systems Private Limited (As successor to Uber India Research and Development Pvt. Ltd.), (“the assessee”), feeling aggrieved by the final assessment

BHARATHI CEMENT CORPORATION PRIVATE LIMITED,,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT CIRCLE-2(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Laliet Kumarassessment Year: 2017-18 Bharathi Cement Corporation Vs. Deputy Commissioner Of Private Limited, Income Tax, Hyderabad. Circle – 2(1), Hyderabad. Pan : Aadcr3079G. (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Shri S. Kalyanasundaram, Ca Revenue By: Shri Jeevan Lal Lavidiya, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing: 14.02.2023 Date Of Pronouncement: 17.02.2023

D E R Per Laliet Kumar, J.M. The appeal of the assessee for A.Y. 2017-18 arises from the order of Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi’s order dated 26.03.2022 involving proceedings under section 143(3) r.w.s. 144C(13) read with section 144B of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short, “the Act”) raising

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

Bench: Us:

5. During the course of the assessment proceedings, the A.O. made a reference u/s 92CA of the Act to the DCIT, T.P.-1, Hyderabad, for determination of the “Arm’s Length Price” (for short, “ALP”) of the specified domestic transactions reported by the assessee company for the subject year. 6. The Transfer Pricing Officer (for short “TPO”), vide his order