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

price (CUP) method adopted for transfer of power from the power unit to the cement unit, and making an adjustment of INR Rs. 114,14,28,568/-. 4a. By erroneously recalculating and re-computing the market value at a rate which is contrary to the provisions of section

ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(3), HYDERABAD vs. ASIAN DWELLINGS LLP, HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Hon'Ble Vice- & Shri Manjunatha, G. Accountant Hon'Bleआ.अपी.सं /Ita Nos.683/Hyd/2022 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2019-20) Asstt. Commissioner Of Vs. Asian Dwellings Llp Income Tax, Hyderabad Central Circle 2(3) Pan:Abmfa1423A Hyderabad (Appellant) (Respondent) आ.अपी.सं /Ita Nos.684 & 685/Hyd/2022 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2018-19 & 2019-20) Asstt. Commissioner Of Vs. Asian Infra Estates Ltd Income Tax, Hyderabad Pan:Aabca7660 & Central Circle 2(3) Hyderabad Asian Infra Estates Llp Hyderabad Pan:Abnf5143L (Appellant) (Respondent) राज" व "ारा/Revenue By:: Shri B. Balakrishna, Dr िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: Shri P Murali Mohan Rao, Ca सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 26/09/2024 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 25/10/2024 आदेश/Order Per Manjunatha, G. A.M These 3 Appeals Filed By The Revenue Are Directed Against The Separate, But Identical Orders Passed By The Learned

transfer more than 10 lakh sft of built up area to the parallel owners and land dispute mediators after receipt of the built up area from the developer, erred in not appreciating that the assessee’s activity constituted business activity. Page 2 of 21 ITA Nos 683 684 and 685 Asian Dwellings LLP and Asian Infra Estates

ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(3), HYDERABAD vs. ASIAN INFRA ESTATES LIMITED, HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Hon'Ble Vice- & Shri Manjunatha, G. Accountant Hon'Bleआ.अपी.सं /Ita Nos.683/Hyd/2022 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2019-20) Asstt. Commissioner Of Vs. Asian Dwellings Llp Income Tax, Hyderabad Central Circle 2(3) Pan:Abmfa1423A Hyderabad (Appellant) (Respondent) आ.अपी.सं /Ita Nos.684 & 685/Hyd/2022 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2018-19 & 2019-20) Asstt. Commissioner Of Vs. Asian Infra Estates Ltd Income Tax, Hyderabad Pan:Aabca7660 & Central Circle 2(3) Hyderabad Asian Infra Estates Llp Hyderabad Pan:Abnf5143L (Appellant) (Respondent) राज" व "ारा/Revenue By:: Shri B. Balakrishna, Dr िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: Shri P Murali Mohan Rao, Ca सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 26/09/2024 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 25/10/2024 आदेश/Order Per Manjunatha, G. A.M These 3 Appeals Filed By The Revenue Are Directed Against The Separate, But Identical Orders Passed By The Learned

transfer more than 10 lakh sft of built up area to the parallel owners and land dispute mediators after receipt of the built up area from the developer, erred in not appreciating that the assessee’s activity constituted business activity. Page 2 of 21 ITA Nos 683 684 and 685 Asian Dwellings LLP and Asian Infra Estates

ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(3), HYDERABAD vs. ASIAN INFRA ESTATES LLP, SECUNDERABAD

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Hon'Ble Vice- & Shri Manjunatha, G. Accountant Hon'Bleआ.अपी.सं /Ita Nos.683/Hyd/2022 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2019-20) Asstt. Commissioner Of Vs. Asian Dwellings Llp Income Tax, Hyderabad Central Circle 2(3) Pan:Abmfa1423A Hyderabad (Appellant) (Respondent) आ.अपी.सं /Ita Nos.684 & 685/Hyd/2022 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2018-19 & 2019-20) Asstt. Commissioner Of Vs. Asian Infra Estates Ltd Income Tax, Hyderabad Pan:Aabca7660 & Central Circle 2(3) Hyderabad Asian Infra Estates Llp Hyderabad Pan:Abnf5143L (Appellant) (Respondent) राज" व "ारा/Revenue By:: Shri B. Balakrishna, Dr िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: Shri P Murali Mohan Rao, Ca सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 26/09/2024 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 25/10/2024 आदेश/Order Per Manjunatha, G. A.M These 3 Appeals Filed By The Revenue Are Directed Against The Separate, But Identical Orders Passed By The Learned

transfer more than 10 lakh sft of built up area to the parallel owners and land dispute mediators after receipt of the built up area from the developer, erred in not appreciating that the assessee’s activity constituted business activity. Page 2 of 21 ITA Nos 683 684 and 685 Asian Dwellings LLP and Asian Infra Estates

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

SUSHEE INFRA & MINING LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT., CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(2), HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is partly\nallowed for statistical purposes

Transfer Pricing (TP) documentation\nmaintained in terms of section 92D of the Act read with\nRule 100 of the Income-tax Rules, 1962 ('Rules').\nf. modifying the comparability analysis in the TP\ndocumentation and in conducting a fresh comparability\nsearch based on application of additional revised filters in\ndetermining ALP.\ng. including certain companies in the final comparable set\nthat

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

transfer pricing adjustment of Rs.13,71,40,567/-.” 11. ld.AR had also relied upon the decision of the Co-ordinate Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Sree Rayalaseema Hi Strength Hypo Limited, Kurnool Vs. DCIT in ITA No.123/Hyd/2022 wherein the Co-ordinate Bench of the Tribunal had held as under : 9. We have gone through the record

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

Bench: Us:

transfer, then for the purpose of deduction under Section 80-IA, the profits and gains of such eligible business shall be computed by adopting arm's length pricing. In other words, if the assessing officer rejects the price as not corresponding to the market value of such good, then he has to compute the sale price of the good

ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(3), HYDERABAD vs. KAVYA BOPPANA, HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar, Hon’Ble & Shri Manjunatha G, Hon’Ble

section 28(via) in respect of the unsold inventory treated as capital asset.” 15. The first issue that came up for our consideration from ground no.2 is addition towards unexplained cash receipts from sale of property amounting to Rs.1,42,92,500/-. The facts with regard to main dispute are that during the course of search proceedings, certain loose sheets

KAVYA BOPPANA,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT., CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(3), HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar, Hon’Ble & Shri Manjunatha G, Hon’Ble

section 28(via) in respect of the unsold inventory treated as capital asset.” 15. The first issue that came up for our consideration from ground no.2 is addition towards unexplained cash receipts from sale of property amounting to Rs.1,42,92,500/-. The facts with regard to main dispute are that during the course of search proceedings, certain loose sheets

ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(3), HYDERABAD vs. SARAT GOPAL BOPPANA, HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar, Hon’Ble & Shri Manjunatha G, Hon’Ble

section 28(via) in respect of the unsold inventory treated as capital asset.” 15. The first issue that came up for our consideration from ground no.2 is addition towards unexplained cash receipts from sale of property amounting to Rs.1,42,92,500/-. The facts with regard to main dispute are that during the course of search proceedings, certain loose sheets

ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(3), HYDERABAD vs. JHANSI RANI BOPPANA, HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar, Hon’Ble & Shri Manjunatha G, Hon’Ble

section 28(via) in respect of the unsold inventory treated as capital asset.” 15. The first issue that came up for our consideration from ground no.2 is addition towards unexplained cash receipts from sale of property amounting to Rs.1,42,92,500/-. The facts with regard to main dispute are that during the course of search proceedings, certain loose sheets

SARAT GOPAL BOPPANA,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT., CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(3), HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar, Hon’Ble & Shri Manjunatha G, Hon’Ble

section 28(via) in respect of the unsold inventory treated as capital asset.” 15. The first issue that came up for our consideration from ground no.2 is addition towards unexplained cash receipts from sale of property amounting to Rs.1,42,92,500/-. The facts with regard to main dispute are that during the course of search proceedings, certain loose sheets

ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(3), HYDERABAD vs. TARA CHAND BOPPANA, HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar, Hon’Ble & Shri Manjunatha G, Hon’Ble

section 28(via) in respect of the unsold inventory treated as capital asset.” 15. The first issue that came up for our consideration from ground no.2 is addition towards unexplained cash receipts from sale of property amounting to Rs.1,42,92,500/-. The facts with regard to main dispute are that during the course of search proceedings, certain loose sheets

TARA CHAND BOPPANA,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT., CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(3), HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar, Hon’Ble & Shri Manjunatha G, Hon’Ble

section 28(via) in respect of the unsold inventory treated as capital asset.” 15. The first issue that came up for our consideration from ground no.2 is addition towards unexplained cash receipts from sale of property amounting to Rs.1,42,92,500/-. The facts with regard to main dispute are that during the course of search proceedings, certain loose sheets

SARAT GOPAL BOPPANA,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT., CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(3),, HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar, Hon’Ble & Shri Manjunatha G, Hon’Ble

section 28(via) in respect of the unsold inventory treated as capital asset.” 15. The first issue that came up for our consideration from ground no.2 is addition towards unexplained cash receipts from sale of property amounting to Rs.1,42,92,500/-. The facts with regard to main dispute are that during the course of search proceedings, certain loose sheets

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

section 36(1)(vii) of the Act, which specifically states that, any provision for bad and doubtful debts is not an allowable expenditure unless it qualifies under the specific conditions mentioned therein. The legislative intent behind this provision is to allow only actual write off not merely provisions for future contingency. We have also gone through the Rule 10TA

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

section 36(1)(vii) of the Act, which specifically states that, any provision for bad and doubtful debts is not an allowable expenditure unless it qualifies under the specific conditions mentioned therein. The legislative intent behind this provision is to allow only actual write off not merely provisions for future contingency. We have also gone through the Rule 10TA

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 Officer ('TPO') erred, and the Hon'ble Dispute Resolution Panel ('DRP') further erred in making an addition of INR 28,50,75,589 to the Appellant's total income based on the provisions of Chapter X of the Income- tax Act, 1961 ('the Act'). Final Assessment Order barred by limitation 2. On the facts and circumstances