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, 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

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

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)

Transfer Pricing Officer ('Ld. TPO'), the Ld. A.O. and the Hon'ble DRP have erred in law by re-computing the total income of the Appellant for the relevant AY at INR 4,15,10,08,610/- as against INR 3,03,09,85,230/- as returned by the Appellant. 1.2 Impugned order of the Ld. AO, to the extent

PAREXEL INTERNATIONAL (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-5(1), HYDERABAD

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

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

section 92C, the arm’s length price in relation to an international transaction [or a specified domestic transaction] shall be determined by any of the following methods, being the most appropriate method, in the following manner, namely ;— (a) to (b)** ** ** € transactional net margin method, by which,— (i) the net profit margin 15ransact by the enterprise from an international transaction

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

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, the Ld. AO had taken

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 Officer (TPO) for determining the Arm’s Length Price (ALP) despite the fact that the value of the international transactions exceeded the threshold limit of Rs.15 crores, initiated proceedings under section 147 of the Act. Thereafter, the AO issued notice under section 148 of the Act, dated 30/03/2010. In compliance, the assessee company filed a letter on 26/04/2010

ACIT., CENTRAL CIRCLE 3(4), HYDERABAD vs. HETERO LABS LIMITED, HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of Revenue in ITA No

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Laliet Kumarआ.अपी.सं / Ita Nos.312 & 313/Hyd/2023 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2017-18 & 2018-19) Hetero Labs Limited, Vs. The Assistant Commissioner Of Hyderabad. Income Tax, Central Circle – 3(4), Pan : Aaach5506R Hyderabad. अपीलाथ" / Appellant "" यथ" / Respondent आ.अपी.सं / Ita Nos.348 & 349/Hyd/2023 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2017-18 & 2-18-19) The Assistant Vs. Hetero Labs Limited, Commissioner Of Income Hyderabad. Tax, Central Circle – 3(4), Pan : Aaach5506R Hyderabad. अपीलाथ" / Appellant "" यथ" / Respondent

Section under which Sr. Amount of Name of the Unit Deduction/Exemptio No. Deduction/ n claimed 26,21,39,692 14.06% 12.33% 1 Unit V - (SEZ Sec. 10AA Jedcharla) 75,54,69,091 67.60% 40.33% Sec. 10AA 2 Unit VA - (SEZ Jedcharla) 3 Unit IX - Sec. 10AA 2,41,02,756 15.27% 13.25% (SEZ Nakkapally) 4 Unit IV - Baddi Sec 80IC

HETERO LABS LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3(4), HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of Revenue in ITA No

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Laliet Kumarआ.अपी.सं / Ita Nos.312 & 313/Hyd/2023 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2017-18 & 2018-19) Hetero Labs Limited, Vs. The Assistant Commissioner Of Hyderabad. Income Tax, Central Circle – 3(4), Pan : Aaach5506R Hyderabad. अपीलाथ" / Appellant "" यथ" / Respondent आ.अपी.सं / Ita Nos.348 & 349/Hyd/2023 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2017-18 & 2-18-19) The Assistant Vs. Hetero Labs Limited, Commissioner Of Income Hyderabad. Tax, Central Circle – 3(4), Pan : Aaach5506R Hyderabad. अपीलाथ" / Appellant "" यथ" / Respondent

Section under which Sr. Amount of Name of the Unit Deduction/Exemptio No. Deduction/ n claimed 26,21,39,692 14.06% 12.33% 1 Unit V - (SEZ Sec. 10AA Jedcharla) 75,54,69,091 67.60% 40.33% Sec. 10AA 2 Unit VA - (SEZ Jedcharla) 3 Unit IX - Sec. 10AA 2,41,02,756 15.27% 13.25% (SEZ Nakkapally) 4 Unit IV - Baddi Sec 80IC

ACIT., CENTRAL CIRCLE 3(4), HYDERABAD, HYDERABAD vs. HETERO LABS LIMITED, HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of Revenue in ITA No

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Laliet Kumarआ.अपी.सं / Ita Nos.312 & 313/Hyd/2023 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2017-18 & 2018-19) Hetero Labs Limited, Vs. The Assistant Commissioner Of Hyderabad. Income Tax, Central Circle – 3(4), Pan : Aaach5506R Hyderabad. अपीलाथ" / Appellant "" यथ" / Respondent आ.अपी.सं / Ita Nos.348 & 349/Hyd/2023 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2017-18 & 2-18-19) The Assistant Vs. Hetero Labs Limited, Commissioner Of Income Hyderabad. Tax, Central Circle – 3(4), Pan : Aaach5506R Hyderabad. अपीलाथ" / Appellant "" यथ" / Respondent

Section under which Sr. Amount of Name of the Unit Deduction/Exemptio No. Deduction/ n claimed 26,21,39,692 14.06% 12.33% 1 Unit V - (SEZ Sec. 10AA Jedcharla) 75,54,69,091 67.60% 40.33% Sec. 10AA 2 Unit VA - (SEZ Jedcharla) 3 Unit IX - Sec. 10AA 2,41,02,756 15.27% 13.25% (SEZ Nakkapally) 4 Unit IV - Baddi Sec 80IC

HETERO LABS LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3(4), HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of Revenue in ITA No

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Laliet Kumarआ.अपी.सं / Ita Nos.312 & 313/Hyd/2023 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2017-18 & 2018-19) Hetero Labs Limited, Vs. The Assistant Commissioner Of Hyderabad. Income Tax, Central Circle – 3(4), Pan : Aaach5506R Hyderabad. अपीलाथ" / Appellant "" यथ" / Respondent आ.अपी.सं / Ita Nos.348 & 349/Hyd/2023 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2017-18 & 2-18-19) The Assistant Vs. Hetero Labs Limited, Commissioner Of Income Hyderabad. Tax, Central Circle – 3(4), Pan : Aaach5506R Hyderabad. अपीलाथ" / Appellant "" यथ" / Respondent

Section under which Sr. Amount of Name of the Unit Deduction/Exemptio No. Deduction/ n claimed 26,21,39,692 14.06% 12.33% 1 Unit V - (SEZ Sec. 10AA Jedcharla) 75,54,69,091 67.60% 40.33% Sec. 10AA 2 Unit VA - (SEZ Jedcharla) 3 Unit IX - Sec. 10AA 2,41,02,756 15.27% 13.25% (SEZ Nakkapally) 4 Unit IV - Baddi Sec 80IC

CAMBRIDGE TECHNOLOGY ENTERPRISES LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1(2), HYDERABAD

In the result assessee’s appeal stand partly allowed

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman

Transfer Pricing Documentation as per section 92C of the Act and Rule 10D of the IT Rules by complying all the provisions of the section. 2.4. Erred in rejecting the TP Documentation maintained by the assessee without assigning any cogent reasons for rejection. 2.5. Erred in not appreciating the fact that TP Documentation is not an exact science and arriving

REASONING GLOBAL E-APPLICATIONS LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-3(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri K. Narasimha Charyassessment Year: 2012-13 Reasoning Global E- Vs. Dy. C.I.T. Application Ltd, Hyderabad Circle 3(1) Pan:Aadcr6701P Hyderabad (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Swapnil Deshmukh, Ca Revenue By: Shri Rohit Mujumdar, Dr Date Of Hearing: 07/06/2022 Date Of Pronouncement: 23/08/2022 Order Per R.K. Panda, A.M This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 27.09.2017 Of The Learned Cit (A)-3, Hyderabad Relating To A.Y.2012-13. 2. Facts Of The Case, In Brief, Are That The Assessee Company Is Engaged In The Business Of Providing It Enabled Electronic Commerce Services. It Filed Its Return Of Income For The A.Y 2012-13 On 30.09.2012 Declaring Loss Of Rs.9,52,71,232/-. During The Course Of Assessment Proceedings, The Assessing Officer Noted That The Assessee Has Debited An Amount Of Rs.1,02,18,116/- Towards Web Hosting Charges. From The Bills/Invoices Produced For The Expenditure So Claimed, The Page 1 Of 19

195 and made disallowance u/s 40(a)(ia). 21. We find the learned CIT (A) upheld the action of the Assessing Officer, the reason of which have already been reproduced in the preceding paragraph. It is the submission of the learned Counsel for the assessee that the charges paid to Amazon for various services provided by it are not under

TOSHIBA TRANSMISSION AND DISTRIBUTION SYSTEM (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED ,RUDRARAM vs. ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-81), HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Shri Manjunatha G. & Shri Prakash Chand Yadavआ.अपी.सं / Ita Tp No.103/Hyd/2020 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2015-16) Toshiba Transmission & Distribution Vs. Acit, Circle-8(1) Systems (India) Private Ltd. Hyderabad Hyderabad [Pan :Aaect6883F] अपीलधर्थी / Appellant प्रत्‍यर्थी / Respondent निर्धाररती द्वधरध/Assessee By: Ms.Kranthi,Ar & Shri Kc Devdas, Ar रधजस्‍व द्वधरध/Revenue By: Shri B.Bala Krishna, Cit-Dr

transfer pricing proceedings the Ld. TPO has not made any adjustment qua ground No.2-3. It is submitted by him that the Ld. DRP while hearing the objections of the assessee has observed that the assessee has paid an amount of Rs.5,26,73,215/- to the secondment employees of the parent companies. The learned DRP further observed that these payments

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

195 (Delhi - Trib.). has held that insisting on daily balances of working capital requirements to compute working capital adjustment is not proper as it will be impossible to carry out such exercise and that working capital adjustment has to be based on the opening and closing working capital deployed. The Bench has also observed that that in Transfer Pricing Analysis

GE INDIA INDUSTRIAL PRIVATE LIMITED(GE INDIA EXPORTS PRIVATE LIMITED),DELHI vs. ASST. DIT-I, (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION), HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal of assessee for the assessment year 2008-09 is allowed

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

195 of the Act and, therefore, learned Assessing Officer found that the assessee was liable to pay an amount of Rs. 16,70,810/- by way of tax under section 201(1) of the Act Page 2 of 9 ITA Nos. 272, 273 & 274/Hyd/2012 and Rs. 2,84,037/- by way of interest under section