UNION BANK OF INDIA,HYDERABAD vs. DY. COMMISSISONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee as well as the Revenue are partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Manjunatha, G. & Shri K. Narasimha Charyआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.1018/Hyd/2017 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2012-13) Andhra Bank Vs. Dy. C. I. T. Hyderabad Circle 1(1) Pan:Aabca7375C Hyderabad (Appellant) (Respondent) आ.अपी.सं /Ita No.1230/Hyd/2017 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2012-13 ) Dy. C. I. T. Vs. Andhra Bank Circle 1(1) Hyderabad Hyderabad Pan:Aabca7375C (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: Shri Ananthan, Ca राज" व "ारा/Revenue By:: Shri Kumar Pranav, Cit(Dr) सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 02/07/2024 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 28/08/2024 आदेश/Order Per Manjunatha, G. A.M These Cross Appeals Filed By The Assessee, As Well As The Revenue, Are Directed Against The Order Dated 16/02/2016 Of Page 1 Of 59

price of such govt. securities is revenue in nature and is allowable. The ld DR relied upon the order of the AO while the ld AR supported the order of the CIT (A) and also placed reliance upon the orders of the Tribunal in earlier A.Ys as well as the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Page

DR. REDDYS, LABORATORIES LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-8(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, both the appeals of the Assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Manjunatha G.आ.अपी.सं /Ita Nos.490 & 491/Hyd/2022 Assessment Years 2017-2018 & 2018-2019 Dr. Reddy’S Laboratories Limited, Hyderabad. The Acit, Vs. Pin – 500 034. Circle-8(1), Hyderabad – Telangana. 500 084. Pan Aaacd7999Q (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा"रती "ारा /Assessee By: Ca Padamchand Khincha राज" व "ारा /Revenue By: Ms. U Mini Chandran, Cit-Dr

viii. erred in concluding that the Appellant failed to comply with the subsection (1) and (2) of 92C of the Act. Corporate tax matters 6.1. That on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. AO/DRP erred in disallowing the expenditure incurred for repairs and maintenance treating the same as capital in nature without considering

DR. REDDYS, LABORATORIES LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-8(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, both the appeals of the Assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Manjunatha G.आ.अपी.सं /Ita Nos.490 & 491/Hyd/2022 Assessment Years 2017-2018 & 2018-2019 Dr. Reddy’S Laboratories Limited, Hyderabad. The Acit, Vs. Pin – 500 034. Circle-8(1), Hyderabad – Telangana. 500 084. Pan Aaacd7999Q (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा"रती "ारा /Assessee By: Ca Padamchand Khincha राज" व "ारा /Revenue By: Ms. U Mini Chandran, Cit-Dr

viii. erred in concluding that the Appellant failed to comply with the subsection (1) and (2) of 92C of the Act. Corporate tax matters 6.1. That on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. AO/DRP erred in disallowing the expenditure incurred for repairs and maintenance treating the same as capital in nature without considering

CALLIDUSCLOUD (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT., CIRCLE- 1(1), HYDERABAD

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

viii. Aptus Software Labs Private Limited ix. Ksolves India Limited x. Cybage Software Private Limited xi. Consilient Technologies Private Limited xii. Yanolja Cloud India Private Limited (formerly eZee Technosys Private Limited) (e) Exclusion of comparable companies: i. e-Zest Solutions Limited ii. Yudiz Solutions Limited iii. Rheal Software Private Limited (f) Not including companies identified from TPO search: i. Hurix

ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-10(1), HYDERABAD vs. VERTEX PROJECTS LLP (FORMERLY M/S VERTEX PROJECTS LTD) , HYDERABAD

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

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri Laliet Kumarassessment Year: 2014-15 Acit,Circle-10(1) Vs. Vertex Projects Llp Room No.515, 5Th Floor, (Formerly M/S.Vertex A-Block, I.T.Towers, Projects Ltd.) A.C.Guards, #156-159, Paigah House Hyderabad. S.P.Road, Next To Pg College. Secunderabad-500 026. Pan : Aanfv0232C (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Sriram Seshadri, Ca Revenue By: Shri Rajendra Kumar,Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing: 15.03.2023 Date Of Pronouncement: 28.04.2023 O R D E R Per Shri Laliet Kumar, J.M. This Is An Appeal Filed By The Revenue, Feeling Aggrieved By The Order Passed By The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-5, Dated 16.03.2018 For The Ay 2014-15, On The Following Grounds :

price lower than the Fair Market Value (F.M.V) of the shares, does not attract provisions of the section 56(2)(viia) of the Act and Ld.ClT (Appeals) erred in holding that provisions of Section 56(2)(viia) are not applicable to the transactions defined u/s.47(vi), even though the proviso to section 56(2)(viia) does not specify the transactions

A.P. GRAMEENA VIKAS BANK,WARANGAL vs. DCIT CIRCLE 3(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of assessee in ITA

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

transfer pricing adjustment u/s. 92C of the Act, Rs. 1,84,86,811/- on account of disallowance of excess provisions, Rs.7,14,84,000/- on account of addition u/s. 41(1) & 41(4A) of the Act, Rs.6,56,45,600/- on account of disallowance u/s. 40(a)(ia) of the Act and Rs.34,29,453/- on account of disallowance

A.P. GRAMEENA VIKAS BANK,WARANGAL vs. DCIT CIRCLE 3(1), HYDERABAD, HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of assessee in ITA

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

transfer pricing adjustment u/s. 92C of the Act, Rs. 1,84,86,811/- on account of disallowance of excess provisions, Rs.7,14,84,000/- on account of addition u/s. 41(1) & 41(4A) of the Act, Rs.6,56,45,600/- on account of disallowance u/s. 40(a)(ia) of the Act and Rs.34,29,453/- on account of disallowance

A.P. GRAMEENA VIKAS BANK,WARANGAL vs. DCIT CIRCLE 3(1), HYDERABAD, HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of assessee in ITA

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

transfer pricing adjustment u/s. 92C of the Act, Rs. 1,84,86,811/- on account of disallowance of excess provisions, Rs.7,14,84,000/- on account of addition u/s. 41(1) & 41(4A) of the Act, Rs.6,56,45,600/- on account of disallowance u/s. 40(a)(ia) of the Act and Rs.34,29,453/- on account of disallowance

A.P. GRAMEENA VIKAS BANK,WARANGAL vs. DCIT CIRCLE 3(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of assessee in ITA

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

transfer pricing adjustment u/s. 92C of the Act, Rs. 1,84,86,811/- on account of disallowance of excess provisions, Rs.7,14,84,000/- on account of addition u/s. 41(1) & 41(4A) of the Act, Rs.6,56,45,600/- on account of disallowance u/s. 40(a)(ia) of the Act and Rs.34,29,453/- on account of disallowance

DSM SHARED SERVICES INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD, TELANGANA vs. DCIT., CIRCLE 8(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Manjunatha G.आ.अपी.सं /Ita No.1358/Hyd/2024 Assessment Year 2021-2022 Dsm Shared Services India Private Limited, The Dcit, Circle-8(1), Hyderabad – 500 081. Hyderabad – 500 081. Vs. Telangana. Telangana. Pan Aadcd8407C (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा"रती "ारा /Assessee By: Ca Aliasgar Rampurawala राज" व "ारा /Revenue By: Dr. Narendra Kumar Naik, Cit-Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 09.12.2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 12.12.2025 आदेश/Order

VIII. TTEC India Customer Solutions Pvt. Ltd. IX. Canam Consultants Ltd. e. excluding the following companies which are functionally comparable to the Appellant: 4 ITA.No.1358/Hyd./2024 I. Allsec Technologies Limited II. Cosmic Global Limited III. DKM Online Pvt Ltd N. IV. Expect More BPO Solutions Pvt Ltd V. R Systems International Limited - Business Process Outsourcing Segment VI. Vertex Customer

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

transfer pricing analysis/ study prepared by the Appellant and conducting fresh benchmarking, without appreciating that none of the conditions mentioned in clauses (a) to (d) of Section 92C(3) of the Act were satisfied. SOFTWARE DEVELOPMENT SERVICES (SDS) SEGMENT 3. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld.TPO erred

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

In the result, ground of appeal No

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi & Shri D.S. Sunder Singhassessment Year:2014-15

transfer pricing analysis / study prepared by the Appellant, without appreciating that none of the conditions mentioned in clauses (a) to (d) of Section 92C(3) of the Act were satisfied. 8. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. TPO erred in and the Hon'ble DRP further erred in upholding / confirming

BRIGHTCOM GROUP LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1(2), HYDERABAD

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

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Madhusudan Sawdia

section 37 of the Act towards CSR expenditure, Rs.2,07,247/- on account of disallowance towards prior period expenses and Rs.38 lakhs on account of non-reconciliation of income as per profit and ITA No.1747/Hyd/2019 14 loss account and form no.26AS. Accordingly, the Ld. AO computed the total income of the assessee at Rs.15,74,79,993/-. 6. Aggrieved with

ZETA INTERACTIVE SYSTEMS (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-17(4), HYDERABAD

Appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Laliet Kumarassessment Year: 2011-12

36,25,151 Operating Cost 8,58,03,836 8,58,03,836 Operating Profit 1,28,86,784 1,78,21,315 OP/OR (%) 13.06% 17.20% OP/OC (%) 15.02% 20.77% 22. It was submitted by the learned DR that the assessee itself has admitted the inclusion of these three companies, then it is not open for the assessee to make

INFOR INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED (FORMERLY KNOWN AS INFOR GLOBAL SOLUTIONS (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED, HYDERABAD,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-2(1), HYDERABAD, HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Accountant Memebr Assessment Year: 2012-13 Infor (India) Pvt. Ltd., Vs. Dy. Commissioner Of (Formerly Known As Infor Income-Tax, Hyderabad. Global Solutions (India) Pvt. Ltd.), Hyderabad Pan – Aaacb6197Q Appellant Respondent Assessee By: Shri Sunil Motilala Revenue By: Shri Yvst Sai

36(1)(va) rws 2(24)(x) of the Act and also disallowed bad debts written off of Rs. 1,01,74,788/-. Against this final assessment order, the assessee is in appeal before us by raising the following grounds of appeal: "1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Learned Transfer Pricing

GAINSIGHT SOFTWARE PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 2(1), HYDERABAD

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

Transfer Pricing Officer, however, the assessee\nraised objections against selection of this company before the DRP as well as\nbefore us. The grievance of the assessee is, the company being involved in\ndevelopment of products and since no segmental details are available in the\nannual report, it cannot be treated as comparable. The Co-ordinate Bench in\nTech Mahindra

INFOR (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED (FORMERLY KNOWN INFOR GLOBAL SOLUTIONS (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED),HYDERABAD vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CIRCLE-2(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, the assessee’s appeals for the A

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

transfer pricing provisions. 5. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and i 0 Jaw. the Ld. TPO and the Ld, AO erred in bringing notional interest to tax without considering the fact that neither the AE nor the Appellant charges any interest in case of delay in payment LEVY OF INTEREST UNDER SECTION

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

In the result, the assessee’s appeals for the A

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

transfer pricing provisions. 5. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and i 0 Jaw. the Ld. TPO and the Ld, AO erred in bringing notional interest to tax without considering the fact that neither the AE nor the Appellant charges any interest in case of delay in payment LEVY OF INTEREST UNDER SECTION

HYUNDAI MOTOR INDIA ENGINEERING PRIVATE LIMITED ,HYDERABAD vs. ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2(2), HYDERABAD

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

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi & Shri S. Rifaur Rahmanassessment Year: 2014-15

transfer pricing analysis I study prepared by the Appellant, without appreciating that none of the conditions mentioned in clauses (a) to (d) of Section 92C(3) of the Act were satisfied. 11. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in contrary to law, the Ld. AO, Ld. TPO erred in and the Hon'ble DRP further