AUROBINDO PHARMA LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(2), HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri Laliet Kumar

Transfer Pricing Grounds: 11.The Learned DRP/AO erred in law and on facts and circumstances of the case in not allowing weighted deduction U/s 35(2AB) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 in respect of expenditure incurred in connection with Clinical Trials/ Bio-Analytical and Bio-Equivalence studies without appreciating the legal implications of Explanation

MAANAVEEYA DEVELOPMENT & FINANCE PRIVATE LIMITED, HYDERABAD,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-16(2), HYDERABAD, HYDERABAD

Bench: Shri A.M. Alankamony & Shri S.S. Godara

Transfer Pricing Officer (TPO) are erroneous in law and on the facts of the case. 2. The Ld. Assessing Officer/TPO are not legally justified in adopting L1BOR plus 200 percentage points (2.90%) as arm's length interest rate in respect of loan borrowed by appellant company from its AE as against actual interest paid @ 11 % and arrived at an adjustment

MAANAVEEYA DEVELOPMENT & FINANCE PRIVATE LIMITED, HYDERABAD,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-16(2), HYDERABAD, HYDERABAD

Bench: Shri A.M. Alankamony & Shri S.S. Godara

Transfer Pricing Officer (TPO) are erroneous in law and on the facts of the case. 2. The Ld. Assessing Officer/TPO are not legally justified in adopting L1BOR plus 200 percentage points (2.90%) as arm's length interest rate in respect of loan borrowed by appellant company from its AE as against actual interest paid @ 11 % and arrived at an adjustment

MAANAVEEYA DEVELOPMENT & FINANCE PRIVATE LIMITED ,HYDERABAD vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CIRCLE-16(2), HYDERABAD

Bench: Shri A.M. Alankamony & Shri S.S. Godara

Transfer Pricing Officer (TPO) are erroneous in law and on the facts of the case. 2. The Ld. Assessing Officer/TPO are not legally justified in adopting L1BOR plus 200 percentage points (2.90%) as arm's length interest rate in respect of loan borrowed by appellant company from its AE as against actual interest paid @ 11 % and arrived at an adjustment

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CIRCLE-16(2), HYDERABAD vs. MAANAVEEYA DEVELOPMENT & FINANCE PRIVATE LIMITED , HYDERABAD

Bench: Shri A.M. Alankamony & Shri S.S. Godara

Transfer Pricing Officer (TPO) are erroneous in law and on the facts of the case. 2. The Ld. Assessing Officer/TPO are not legally justified in adopting L1BOR plus 200 percentage points (2.90%) as arm's length interest rate in respect of loan borrowed by appellant company from its AE as against actual interest paid @ 11 % and arrived at an adjustment

DCIT, CIRCLE-16(2), HYDERABAD, HYDERABAD vs. MAANAVEEYA DEVELOPMENT & FINANCE PRIVATE LIMITED, HYDERABAD, HYDERABAD

Bench: Shri A.M. Alankamony & Shri S.S. Godara

Transfer Pricing Officer (TPO) are erroneous in law and on the facts of the case. 2. The Ld. Assessing Officer/TPO are not legally justified in adopting L1BOR plus 200 percentage points (2.90%) as arm's length interest rate in respect of loan borrowed by appellant company from its AE as against actual interest paid @ 11 % and arrived at an adjustment

MAANAVEEYA DEVELOPMENT & FINANCE PRIVATE LIMITED ,HYDERABAD vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CIRCLE-16(2), HYDERABAD

Bench: Shri A.M. Alankamony & Shri S.S. Godara

Transfer Pricing Officer (TPO) are erroneous in law and on the facts of the case. 2. The Ld. Assessing Officer/TPO are not legally justified in adopting L1BOR plus 200 percentage points (2.90%) as arm's length interest rate in respect of loan borrowed by appellant company from its AE as against actual interest paid @ 11 % and arrived at an adjustment

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CIRCLE-16(2), HYDERABAD vs. MAANAVEEYA DEVELOPMENT & FINANCE (P) LIMITED , HYDERABAD

Bench: Shri A.M. Alankamony & Shri S.S. Godara

Transfer Pricing Officer (TPO) are erroneous in law and on the facts of the case. 2. The Ld. Assessing Officer/TPO are not legally justified in adopting L1BOR plus 200 percentage points (2.90%) as arm's length interest rate in respect of loan borrowed by appellant company from its AE as against actual interest paid @ 11 % and arrived at an adjustment

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

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

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi & Shri A. Mohan Alankamonyassessment Year: 2014-15 M/S. Kony India Private Vs. Deputy Commissioner Of Limited, Income Tax, Sez Unit Ii, Office Level-7, Circle-2(1), Building No. Ho6, Phoenix Room No.514, 5Th Floor, Info City Private Limited, Signature Towers, Opp. Serilingampally, Hyderabad Botanical Garden, – 500 081. Kondapur, Hyderabad-84. Pan: Aadck 2294 C (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Sri H. Srinivasulu & Sri Kranthi Palivela Ca, Ars Revenue By: Sri Y.V.S.T. Sai, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing: 26/08/2019 Date Of Pronouncement: 20/11/2019

35A by the assessee raising objections regarding the draft assessment order passed on 04/09/2018 U/s. 143(3) r.w.s 92CA(3) r.w.s 144C of the Act however, the Ld. Members of the DRP upheld the entire upward adjustment of profit by Rs. 16,96,77,951/- and added to the income of the assessee based on which final assessment order