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

Bench: Us:

transfer. 56 ITA TP 466/Hyd/2022 and 1301/Hyd/2024 Dodla Dairy Limited. Accordingly, it can safely be concluded that Section 80IA(8) of the Act accepts that the eligible undertakings of an assessee company can rightly undertake business transactions with the other businesses or units of the same assessee company in the form of input/purchases or output/sales. In fact, the aforesaid section

PALRED TECHNOLOGIES LIMITED ,HYDERABAD vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CIRCLE-16(2), HYDERABAD

Appeal is partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri S.S. Godara & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahuassessment Year: 2008-09

section 234B of the Act on the transfer pricing adjustments; 7. Initiating the penalty proceedings u/s 271 (1 (C) of the Act. Page

OAKTON GLOBAL TECHNOLOGY SERVICES CENTRE (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-16(2), HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Madhusudan Sawdia

Transfer Pricing Officer (“TPO”). The Ld. TPO vide his order dated 31.10.2016 suggested upward adjustment of ITA Nos.32/Hyd/2019 & 5 2130/Hyd/2017 Rs.1,19,93,961/- on account of provision of SDS and Rs.30,82,056/- on account of interest on receivables. Accordingly, the Ld. AO passed the draft assessment order on 26.12.2016. 4. Aggrieved with the draft assessment order passed

OAKTON GLOBAL TECHNOLOGY SERVICES CENTRE (I) PRIVATE LIMITED ,HYDERABAD vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CIRCLE-16(2), HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Madhusudan Sawdia

Transfer Pricing Officer (“TPO”). The Ld. TPO vide his order dated 31.10.2016 suggested upward adjustment of ITA Nos.32/Hyd/2019 & 5 2130/Hyd/2017 Rs.1,19,93,961/- on account of provision of SDS and Rs.30,82,056/- on account of interest on receivables. Accordingly, the Ld. AO passed the draft assessment order on 26.12.2016. 4. Aggrieved with the draft assessment order passed

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

transfer pricing order without application of mind inasmuch as the learned TPO have mixed the Appellant's functions and the contentions with another taxpayer. Levy of interest under Section 234D of the Act 18. On the facts and in circumstances of the case and in law, the learned NFAC / AO erred in levying interest under Section 234D

MICROSOFT GLOBAL SERVICES CENTRE (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-5(1), HYDERABAD

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

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Laliet Kumar

transfer pricing adjustment of Rs. 95,16,40,000/-. On receipt of the order u/s 92CA(3) from the TPO, draft Assessment Order was completed on 25.12.2019 and the sum proposed by the TPO was added to the income of the assessee. 3. Aggrieved with such draft assessment order, assessee company filed objections with the Dispute Resolution Panel

FACEBOOK INDIA SERVICES PRIVATE LIMITED ,HYDERABAD vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CIRCLE-17(1), HYDERABAD

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

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Laliet Kumarassessment Year: 2014-15 Facebook India Online Services Vs. The Deputy Commissioner Private Limited, Of Income Tax, 12Th Floor, Building No.20, Circle – 17(1), Unit 1203 & 1204, Hitech City, Hyderabad. Madhapaur, Hyderabad. Pan : Aabcf5150G. (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Dhanesh Bafna & Chandni Shah Revenue By: Shri Rajendra Kumar – Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing: 20.07.2022 Date Of Pronouncement: 19.09.2022

Section 271(1)(C) of the Act. It is prayed that the Ld. AO be directed to drop the penalty proceedings initiated u/s 271(1)(C) of the Act.” 2. The brief facts of the case are that assessee company is engaged in the business of Service Sector, IT Enabled Services and BPO Providers, back office support services

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

Appeal is allowed in above terms

Bench: Shri S.S. Godara & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahuassessment Year: 2009-10

Section 271(1)(c) of the Act as there was no concealment of facts and no willful misstatement.” 3. It is clear in nutshell that the assessee’s four folded substantive grounds challenge correctness of the lower authorities’ action interalia making arm’s length price “ALP” adjustments pertaining to payment(s) of sub-license fee for use of trade mark

GORLAS INFRASTRUCTURE PRIVATE LIMITED ,HYDERABAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER ,WARD 2(4), HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar & Shri Madhusudan Sawdia

271(1)(c) of the IT Act. 12. The learned Commissioner ought to have appreciated that the sale has not taken place as pcr the Sale of Goods Act, therefore, erred in confirming the transaction of advance as sale transaction and therefore, further erred in confirming the order of the Assessing Officer. 13. The learned Commissioner ought to have appreciated

GADDAM MOHAN REDDY,NIZAMABAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 1, NIZAMABAD, NIZAMABAD

Bench: the AO during re-assessment proceedings.4. The authorities below further failed to appreciate that on the same set of facts, the AO with all his expertise on the provisions of the Act has allowed the deduction claimed Under Section 54F of the Act in the assessment order passed Under Section 143(3) r.w.s Section 147 of the Act and that deduction claimed by the appellant Under Section 54F of the Act was by inadvertent.

transfer of 517.87 sq yds of land, which claim was accepted by the AO vide his order of assessment passed under section 143(3) r.w.s 147 of the Act, dated 11/12/2017. The Ld. AR submitted that as the claim for deduction under section 54 of the Act was backed by a bona fide mistake, that was immediately corrected

HYUNDAI MOTOR INDIA ENGINEERING PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT CIRCLE -2(1), HYDERABAD

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

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Laliet Kumar

Transfer Pricing Officer (TPO), who passed order u/s 92CA(3) of the Act on 30.10.2019. The TPO proposed the adjustment of Rs.19,45,87,222/- in the IT-enabled services of the tax payers international transactions and Rs.2,80,004/- under interest on receivables outstanding u/s 92CA of the Act. Accordingly, draft assessment order u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 144C

IVY COMPTECH PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. DY.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2(1), HYDERABAD

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

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahuay : 2013-14 Ivy Comptech Pvt. Ltd., Vs. Dy. Commissioner Of Hyderabad. Income-Tax, Circle – 2(1) Hyderabad. Pan – Aaaci 8884K (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Prashant Meharchandani Revenue By: Shri R. Dipak Date Of Hearing: 27/04/2021 Date Of Pronouncement: 20/07/2021

Transfer Pricing adjustment. 4. Levying of interest u/ s 234C of the Act. 5. Initiating penalty proceedings u/ s 271AA and 271 BA of the Act. The Appellant craves, to consider each of the above grounds of appeal without prejudice to each other and craves leave to add, alter, delete or modify all or any of the above grounds

M/S NAGARJUNA FERTILIZERS AND CHEMICALS LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. ASST.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-16(1), HYDERABAD

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

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

271/- and book profit u/s 115JB at Rs. 135,95,52,310/-. The return was processed u/s 143(1) and Nagarjuna Fertilizers and Chemicals Ltd., Hyd. subsequently the case was selected for scrutiny. Accordingly, statutory notices were issued and the assessee filed the information as called for. 2.1 As the assessee entered into international transactions, the AO referred the case

NAGARJUNA FERTILIZERS AND CHEMICALS LIMITED, HYDERABAD,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT, CIRLCE-16(1), HYDERABAD, HYDERABAD

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

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

271/- and book profit u/s 115JB at Rs. 135,95,52,310/-. The return was processed u/s 143(1) and Nagarjuna Fertilizers and Chemicals Ltd., Hyd. subsequently the case was selected for scrutiny. Accordingly, statutory notices were issued and the assessee filed the information as called for. 2.1 As the assessee entered into international transactions, the AO referred the case

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

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

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

Pricing uls 92B, as no income is generated from the transaction of providing loans and advances to the subsidiaries of the appellant company. 2.2 Erred in re-characterization of 'advance for investment' as 'Loans' which is not permissible under section 145 of the Act. 2.3 Erred in not appreciating the fact that the advances had been advanced by the appellant

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

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

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

Pricing uls 92B, as no income is generated from the transaction of providing loans and advances to the subsidiaries of the appellant company. 2.2 Erred in re-characterization of 'advance for investment' as 'Loans' which is not permissible under section 145 of the Act. 2.3 Erred in not appreciating the fact that the advances had been advanced by the appellant

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

Section 271 (1) ( c) of the act of the even date. Issue that arises is Whether draft assessment order accompanied with [1] Notice of Demand, [2] tax Computation sheet and [3] Show Cause Notice for penalty u/s 271 (1) (C) of the act, can it be considered as draft assessment order or a final assessment order

BRIGHTCOM GROUP LIMITED (FORMERLY KNOWN AS LYCOS INTERNET LIMITED),HYDERABAD vs. ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-16(1),, HYDERABAD

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

Price 1.7. Ought to have appreciated the fact that the assessee is following a policy of not charging interest on receivables irrespective of whether the sales are made to AE or Non-AE. Hence, considering the CUP method as well, the transactions with AE are at arm's length. 1.8. Without prejudice to the above grounds, ought to have appreciated