THERMODYNE DYNAMICS PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD -17(3), HYDERABAD

Bench: Us :

2)(viia). b) The section is meant to be an anti abuse provision to prevent the practice of transferring unlisted shares of a company without consideration or at prices

SANGHI INDUSTRIES LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT, CIRCLE -3 (1), HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar & Shri Madhusudan Sawdia

section 92E of the Act. Thereafter, the case was referred to the Transfer Pricing Officer (“TPO”) on 25/10/2019 for determining the Arm’s Length Price (“ALP”) after obtaining the necessary approvals from the Ld. Pr. CIT-3, Hyderabad, dated 18/10/2019. Accordingly, notice U/s. 92CA(2

ACIT., CIRCLE-5(1), HYDERABAD vs. PENNA CEMENT INDUSTRIES LIMITED, HYDERABAD

Transfer Pricing Officer (TPO) in respect of specified domestic transactions reported by the assessee company. The TPO, after examining the submissions and documentation furnished by the assessee company, passed an order under section 92CA(3) of the Act, determining the arm's length price (ALP) of the specified domestic transactions and did not propose any adjustment. 4. Thereafter

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

Bench: Us:

section 143(2) of the Act upon the assessee, then initiation of reassessment proceedings, order rejecting the assessee’s objection against assumption of jurisdiction for reopening and also 23 Sanghi Textiles Privarte Limited vs. ITO reference to the Transfer Pricing

ACIT., CIRCLE-5(1), HYDERABAD vs. PENNA CEMENT INDUSTRIES LIMITED, HYDERABAD

Transfer Pricing Officer\n(TPO) in respect of specified domestic transactions reported by the\nassessee company. The TPO, after examining the submissions and\ndocumentation furnished by the assessee company, passed an order\nunder section 92CA(3) of the Act, determining the arm's length price\n(ALP) of the specified domestic transactions and did not propose any\nadjustment.\n4.\nThereafter

NATEMS SOLAR POWER PRIVATE LIMITED ,HYDERABAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 16(1), HYDERABAD

Bench: Us:

section 92CB of the Act and Rule 10TD, providing for Safe Harbour Rules. Safe Harbour Rules provide for certain circumstances, where the transfer price declared by an eligible assessee in respect of the specified international transactions, shall be accepted to be at arm’s length by the tax authorities. The said rules recognizes above position that loans denominated in different

VITP PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CIRCLE-17(2), HYDERABAD

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

section 56(2)( vii) includes immovable property being land or building or both, shares and securities, jewellery, archeological collection, drawings, paintings, sculpture or any work of art. These are anti-abuse provisions which are currently applicable only if an individual or an HUF is the recipient. Therefore, transfer of shares of a company to a firm or a company, instead

VITP PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CIRCLE-17(2), HYDERABAD

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

section 56(2)( vii) includes immovable property being land or building or both, shares and securities, jewellery, archeological collection, drawings, paintings, sculpture or any work of art. These are anti-abuse provisions which are currently applicable only if an individual or an HUF is the recipient. Therefore, transfer of shares of a company to a firm or a company, instead

MBS JEWELLER PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CENTRAL CIRCLE-3, HYDERABAD

In the result, both the appeals of the assessees are allowed in above terms

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahuassessment Year: 2010-11 Mbs Impex Pvt. Ltd., Vs. Dy. Commissioner Of Hyderabad. Income-Tax, Central Circle – 3(1), Pan – Aaccm 2968E Hyderabad. (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 2010-11 Mbs Jeweller Pvt. Ltd., Vs. Dy. Commissioner Of Hyderabad. Income-Tax, Central Circle – 3(1), Pan – Aaecm 7050M Hyderabad. (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Shri P. Murali Mohan Rao Revenue By: Shri Y.V.S.T. Sai, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing: 13/12/2021 Date Of Pronouncement: 07/01/2022

price. Share purchase agreements with the share holder of Mis. Gold Stone Technologies Private Limited were also seized during the search. Transfer of land to assessee group is also evident from various sale deeds. :- 15 -: ITA Nos. 330 & 331/Hyd/2018 MBS Impes Pvt. Ltd. and another, Hyd. 11. It is submitted that it is evident from the statement of Shri Sukesh

MBS IMPES PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CENTRAL CIRCLE-3(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, both the appeals of the assessees are allowed in above terms

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahuassessment Year: 2010-11 Mbs Impex Pvt. Ltd., Vs. Dy. Commissioner Of Hyderabad. Income-Tax, Central Circle – 3(1), Pan – Aaccm 2968E Hyderabad. (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 2010-11 Mbs Jeweller Pvt. Ltd., Vs. Dy. Commissioner Of Hyderabad. Income-Tax, Central Circle – 3(1), Pan – Aaecm 7050M Hyderabad. (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Shri P. Murali Mohan Rao Revenue By: Shri Y.V.S.T. Sai, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing: 13/12/2021 Date Of Pronouncement: 07/01/2022

price. Share purchase agreements with the share holder of Mis. Gold Stone Technologies Private Limited were also seized during the search. Transfer of land to assessee group is also evident from various sale deeds. :- 15 -: ITA Nos. 330 & 331/Hyd/2018 MBS Impes Pvt. Ltd. and another, Hyd. 11. It is submitted that it is evident from the statement of Shri Sukesh

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, ground no.1 is with respect to disallowance of depreciation on goodwill. This ground has already been decided in ITA 616/Hyd/2016 for A.Y. 2011-12, therefore, respectfully, following the same, we remand this ground to the file of Assessing Officer. GROUND NOS. 2 AND 3 75. Ground nos. 2 and 3 are related

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, ground no.1 is with respect to disallowance of depreciation on goodwill. This ground has already been decided in ITA 616/Hyd/2016 for A.Y. 2011-12, therefore, respectfully, following the same, we remand this ground to the file of Assessing Officer. GROUND NOS. 2 AND 3 75. Ground nos. 2 and 3 are related

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, ground no.1 is with respect to disallowance of depreciation on goodwill. This ground has already been decided in ITA 616/Hyd/2016 for A.Y. 2011-12, therefore, respectfully, following the same, we remand this ground to the file of Assessing Officer. GROUND NOS. 2 AND 3 75. Ground nos. 2 and 3 are related

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, ground no.1 is with respect to disallowance of depreciation on goodwill. This ground has already been decided in ITA 616/Hyd/2016 for A.Y. 2011-12, therefore, respectfully, following the same, we remand this ground to the file of Assessing Officer. GROUND NOS. 2 AND 3 75. Ground nos. 2 and 3 are related

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, ground no.1 is with respect to disallowance of depreciation on goodwill. This ground has already been decided in ITA 616/Hyd/2016 for A.Y. 2011-12, therefore, respectfully, following the same, we remand this ground to the file of Assessing Officer. GROUND NOS. 2 AND 3 75. Ground nos. 2 and 3 are related

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)

transfer pricing adjustments under sub-section (2) or (2A) to Section 92. It states the obvious and apparent. In case

DIABETOMICS MEDICAL PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-8(1), HYDERABAD

price of\nRs.720/- per share having face value of Rs.10/- per share at\na premium of Rs.710/- per share. In support of this issue\nprice the assessee submitted the valuation report by a\nChartered Accountant under Rule-11UA(2)(b) of the I.T.\nRules, 1962 based on DCF method. During the assessment\nproceedings, the Assessing Officer did not agree with

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

Bench: Us:

price as defined in sub-section (2) of Section 92F, where the goods or services are transferred in specified domestic

OPTUM GLOBAL SOLUTIONS (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT CIRCLE -5(1), HYDERABAD

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

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

transfer pricing adjustment qua the provision of IT services. 3. When the assessee filed objections before the learned DRP, learned DRP, while confirming the disallowance of deduction under section 80G of the Act, issued certain directions. Though the assessee filed this appeal on several grounds, many grounds were withdrawn, stating the assessee had relief in respect of some issues