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

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CIRCLE-16(1), HYDERABAD vs. NAVA BHARAT VENTURES LIMITED, HYDERABAD

Appeal is partly allowed in above terms

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

Transfer Pricing Officer ‘TPO’ to ascertain Arm’s Length Price ‘ALP’ thereof. The assessee’s international transactions with its AEs involved sale of Silico Manganese and ferro chrome. The :- 3 -: assessee’s endeavour before the TPO was to include DPEB and FPS declared by the Government of India as an adjustment under rule 10B(1)(a)(ii). It quoted rule

INFOR (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED ,HYDERABAD vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX ,CIRCLE -2(1), HYDERABAD

Appeal is partly allowed in above terms

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

section cannot be considered on standalone basis. It is important to bear in mind the fact that so far as s. 91 is concerned, it does not discriminate between taxes levied by the Federal Governments and taxes levied by the State Government. The income- tax levied by different States in USA usually ranges from 3 per cent

RAIN CEMENTS LIMITED, HYD,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-3(1), HYDERABAD, HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri K. Narasimha Charyassessment Year: 2008-09 M/S. Rain Cements Ltd Vs. Dy. Commissioner Of (Formerly Known As Rain Income Tax, Circle 3 (1) Cii Carbon (India) Ltd Hyderabad Hyderabad Pan:Aabcr8858F (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Advocate Prathishta Singh & Advocate Deepak Chopra Revenue By: Dr.Rajendra Kumar, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing: 20/03/2023 Date Of Pronouncement: 31/05/2023 Order Per R.K. Panda, A.M This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Final Assessment Order Dated 24.03.2017 Passed U/S 143(3) R.W.S. 144C(5) R.W.S. 260 Of The I.T. Act For The A.Y 2008-09. 2. This Appeal Was Earlier Decided By The Tribunal Vide Order Dated 18.10.2019. Subsequently Vide Ma No.15/Hyd/2020, Dated 23.3.2021, The Tribunal Recalled The Entire Order For Fresh Adjudication. Therefore, This Is A Recalled Matter.

transfer pricing adjustment is concerned, he submitted that a calculation error has been pointed out identifying the escaped income at INR 29,87,704/- which relates to the corporate guarantee fee which has been computed by the TPO. He submitted that the TPO had made the adjustment on the basis of the quantum of the corporate guarantee taking into account

SYNIVERSE MOBILE SOLUTIONS PVT. LTD., (EARLIER KNOWN AS MACH MOBILE SOLUTION PVT.LTD., HYD,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-3(2), HYDERABAD, HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri P. Madhavi Devi & D.S. Sunder Singh(Through Video Conference) Assessment Year: 2011-12 Syniverse Technologies Service Vs. Dy. Commissioner Of Income- (India) Pvt. Ltd., (Formerly Tax, Circle – 3(2), Hyderabad. Known As Syniverse Mobile Solutions Pvt. Ltd.), Hyderabad.

Transfer pricing Related 5. That the Ld. DRP/AO erred in disallowing 'provision for customer claims amounting to Rs. 43,04,342 considering it to be provisional in nature and an unascertained liability. 4 ITA.No. 475/Hyd/2016 6. That the Ld. DRP/AO erred in adding back 'provision for customer claim5 to book profit calculated u/s 115JB of the Act, considering them

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CIRCLE-16(1), HYDERABAD vs. NAVA BHARAT VENTURES LIMITED , HYDERABAD

In the result, the questions referred to us are answered accordingly”

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

Transfer Pricing Officer’s (TPO’s) identical action making adjustment as under: “7. We have given our thoughtful consideration to rival pleadings qua the assessee’s case that its DPEB benefits derived from sale of Silico Manganese Ferro Chrome deserve to be considered as an adjustment under rule 10B(1)(a)(ii) of the Income Tax Rules. Learned counsel

DEVGEM SEEDS AND CROP TECHNOLOGY PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-17(1), HYDERABAD

Appeals are dismissed in above terms

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahuappellant Respondent

297 of the Factual Paperbook. This shows that the currency in which the FCD were issued was INR. b. This Fact was also brought out in Note - 5 of the Appellant's Annual Accounts (see page 32 of Factual Paperbook) where the fact relating to ECB borrowing in Singapore dollar has been specifically brought out in note (ii) thereto. Attention

DEVGEN SEEDS AND CROP TECHNOLOGY PRIVATE LIMITED, SECUNDERABAD,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT,CIRCLE-17(1) HYDERABAD, HYDERABAD

Appeals are dismissed in above terms

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahuappellant Respondent

297 of the Factual Paperbook. This shows that the currency in which the FCD were issued was INR. b. This Fact was also brought out in Note - 5 of the Appellant's Annual Accounts (see page 32 of Factual Paperbook) where the fact relating to ECB borrowing in Singapore dollar has been specifically brought out in note (ii) thereto. Attention

SAI KEERTI CONSTRUCTIONS PRIVATE LIMITED ,HYDERABAD vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX ,CENTRAL CIRCLE-3(2), HYDERABAD

Bench: Shri K. Narasimha Chary & Shri Madhusudan Sawdia(Hybrid Hearing) आ.अपी. सं / Ita Nos.296, 297, 298, 299, 300 & 301 /Hyd/2021 (निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Year: 2016-17)

297, 298, 299, 300 and 301 /Hyd/2021 (निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Year: 2016-17) ITA Nos Assessee/Appellant Revenue/Respondent 296/Hyd/2021 | Venkatarama Sanjivaraya Sarma Perubhotla [PAN : ACUPP3643C] ACIT, Central Circle-3(2), Hyderabad 297/Hyd/2021 || Jayasri Agencies Private Limited [PAN :AABCJ0116E] ACIT, Central Circle-3(2), Hyderabad 298/Hyd/2021 Greater Golconda Estates Private Limited [PAN :AACCG6418K] ACIT, Central Circle-3(2), Hyderabad 299/Hyd/2021 Sai Keerti

CATERPILLAR GLOBAL MINING EUROPE GMBH-INDIA PROJECT OFFICE,KARIMNAGAR vs. DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX (INTERNATION TAXATION-1), HYDERABAD

Appeals are partly allowed

Bench: Shri S.S. Godara & Shri L. P. Sahu

Transfer Pricing Officer (TPO) decides the corresponding reference made by the Assessing Officer u/s. 92CA(3) of the Act to determine arm’s length price (ALP) in relation to the international transactions and sends a copy of his order to both the assessing authority as well as the tax payer concerned. It is at this stage that section 144C

CATERPILLAR GLOBAL MINING EUROPE GMBH,PEDDAPALLI vs. ASSISTANT OF INCOME TAX -1,INTERNATIONAL TAXATION ,HYDERABAD, HYDERABAD

Appeals are partly allowed

Bench: Shri S.S. Godara & Shri L. P. Sahu

Transfer Pricing Officer (TPO) decides the corresponding reference made by the Assessing Officer u/s. 92CA(3) of the Act to determine arm’s length price (ALP) in relation to the international transactions and sends a copy of his order to both the assessing authority as well as the tax payer concerned. It is at this stage that section 144C

CATERPILLAR GLOBAL MINING EUROPE GMBH,PEDDAPALLI vs. ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION)-1, HYDERABAD

Appeals are partly allowed

Bench: Shri S.S. Godara & Shri L. P. Sahu

Transfer Pricing Officer (TPO) decides the corresponding reference made by the Assessing Officer u/s. 92CA(3) of the Act to determine arm’s length price (ALP) in relation to the international transactions and sends a copy of his order to both the assessing authority as well as the tax payer concerned. It is at this stage that section 144C

CSATERRPILLAR GLOBAL MINING EUROPE GMBH,GODAVARIKHANI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-I (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION), HYDERABAD

Appeals are partly allowed

Bench: Shri S.S. Godara & Shri L. P. Sahu

Transfer Pricing Officer (TPO) decides the corresponding reference made by the Assessing Officer u/s. 92CA(3) of the Act to determine arm’s length price (ALP) in relation to the international transactions and sends a copy of his order to both the assessing authority as well as the tax payer concerned. It is at this stage that section 144C

CATTERPILLAR MINING EUROPE GMBH-INDIA PROJECT OFFICE, KARIMNAGAR,KARIMNAGAR vs. DCIT-1, INTERNATIONAL TAXATION, HYDERABAD, HYDERABAD

Appeals are partly allowed

Bench: Shri S.S. Godara & Shri L. P. Sahu

Transfer Pricing Officer (TPO) decides the corresponding reference made by the Assessing Officer u/s. 92CA(3) of the Act to determine arm’s length price (ALP) in relation to the international transactions and sends a copy of his order to both the assessing authority as well as the tax payer concerned. It is at this stage that section 144C

INCOME TAX OFFICER (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION)-1, HYDERABAD vs. ARUNA GULLAPALLI, HYDERABAD

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Laliet Kumarassessment Year: 2017-18 Income Tax Officer, Vs. Aruna Gullapalli, (International Taxation) – 1, Hyderabad. Hyderabad. Pan No.Bfhpg9489L. (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Shri P. Murali Mohan Rao Revenue By: Shri Kumar Adithya Date Of Hearing: 23.01.2023 Date Of Pronouncement: 31.01.2023

section, hold that the fact of utilization of sale proceeds in property, though not registered during the specified period would qualify for the benefit of reinvestment.-- 12.4 For availing exemption u/s 54F, the net consideration should be invested in specified asset before the date of filing return u/s 139. It was held in Nipun Mehrotra vs. ACIT(2008) 297

DCIT, CIRCLE-1(1), HYDERABAD, HYDERABAD vs. PRAKASH NIMMAGADDA, HYDERABAD, SECUNDERABAD

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao, Vice-A N D Shri Manjunatha, G.आ.अपी.सं /Ita No.974/Hyd/2017 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2008-09) Dy.Cit Vs. Shri Prakash Nimmagadda Circle 1(1) Hyderabad Hyderabad Pan:Acbpn4246R (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: Shri K.C. Devdas, Ca राज" व "ारा/Revenue By:: Dr. Meghnath Chowhan, Cit(Dr) सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 06/11/2024 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 16/12/2024 आदेश/Order Per Vijay Pal Raothis Appeal Filed By The Revenue Is Directed Against The Order, Dated 20/03/2017 Of The Learned Cit (A)-9, Hyderabad, Relating To A.Y.2008-09. 2. The Revenue Has Raised The Following Grounds:

transfer of a capital asset to income-tax. The asset must be one which falls within the contemplation of the section. It must bear that quality which brings section 45 into play. To determine whether the goodwill of a new business is such an asset, it is permissible, as we shall presently show, to refer to certain other section

SIVAPOTHULURU VEERAREDDY GADLURU, HYDERABAD,HYDERABAD vs. ASST.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2(2), HYDERABAD

Appeals are treated as allowed for statistical purposes in above terms

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

297. The Supreme Court, held as under : “As a result of the aforesaid discussion, we find that, in proceedings under section 147 of the Act, the Income-tax Officer may bring to charge items of income which escaped assessment other than or in addition to that item or items which have led to the issuance of the notice under section