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

Accordingly, this issue is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahusl.

TRANSFER PRICING ISSUES. Firstly, we will deal with ground Nos. 5(a) and 5(b): With respect to grounds 5(a) and 5(b) for A.Y. 2011-12, the ld. AR had drawn our attention to the draft assessment order dt.31.03.2015 wherein at Page 3, the Assessing Officer has mentioned as under : Zuari Cement Limited, Kadapa “The assessee debited

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

Accordingly, this issue is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahusl.

TRANSFER PRICING ISSUES. Firstly, we will deal with ground Nos. 5(a) and 5(b): With respect to grounds 5(a) and 5(b) for A.Y. 2011-12, the ld. AR had drawn our attention to the draft assessment order dt.31.03.2015 wherein at Page 3, the Assessing Officer has mentioned as under : Zuari Cement Limited, Kadapa “The assessee debited

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

Accordingly, this issue is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahusl.

TRANSFER PRICING ISSUES. Firstly, we will deal with ground Nos. 5(a) and 5(b): With respect to grounds 5(a) and 5(b) for A.Y. 2011-12, the ld. AR had drawn our attention to the draft assessment order dt.31.03.2015 wherein at Page 3, the Assessing Officer has mentioned as under : Zuari Cement Limited, Kadapa “The assessee debited

ZUARI CEMENT LIMITED, KADAPA,KADAPA vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-1, KADAPA, KADAPA

Accordingly, this issue is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahusl.

TRANSFER PRICING ISSUES. Firstly, we will deal with ground Nos. 5(a) and 5(b): With respect to grounds 5(a) and 5(b) for A.Y. 2011-12, the ld. AR had drawn our attention to the draft assessment order dt.31.03.2015 wherein at Page 3, the Assessing Officer has mentioned as under : Zuari Cement Limited, Kadapa “The assessee debited

ZUARI CEMENT LIMITED, KADAPA,KADAPA vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-1, KADAPA, KADAPA

Accordingly, this issue is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahusl.

TRANSFER PRICING ISSUES. Firstly, we will deal with ground Nos. 5(a) and 5(b): With respect to grounds 5(a) and 5(b) for A.Y. 2011-12, the ld. AR had drawn our attention to the draft assessment order dt.31.03.2015 wherein at Page 3, the Assessing Officer has mentioned as under : Zuari Cement Limited, Kadapa “The assessee debited

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

43) and section 4 of Income Tax Act at length and finally held that education cess is a tax for the purpose of section 40(a)(ii) and hence was not allowable as a deduction from computing the profits or gains of any business or profession, against this finding of DRP no appeal had been preferred by the assessee before

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

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 it would fetch if sold in the open market on the valuation date and the assessee may obtain a report from a merchant banker or an accountant in respect of such valuation." ii. However, while computing the fair market value of such preference shares for the purpose of section 56(2)(viia) of the Act, the Ld. AO erroneously

SIGNODE INDIA LIMITED ,HYDERABAD vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX ,CIRCLE-3(1), HYDERABAD

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Manjunatha G

transfer pricing adjustment u/sec.92CA of the Act in respect of Marketing Support Services of the assessee company’s international transactions at Rs.1,76,042/-. Further, the TPO has also proposed adjustment on ‘Receivables’ amounting to Rs.3,76,746/-. Thus, the TPO had proposed TP adjustment on International Transactions at Rs.5,52,788/- for the impugned assessment year 2016-2017 vide

SIGNODE INDIA LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-3(1), HYDERABAD

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Manjunatha G

transfer pricing adjustment u/sec.92CA of the Act in respect of Marketing Support Services of the assessee company’s international transactions at Rs.1,76,042/-. Further, the TPO has also proposed adjustment on ‘Receivables’ amounting to Rs.3,76,746/-. Thus, the TPO had proposed TP adjustment on International Transactions at Rs.5,52,788/- for the impugned assessment year 2016-2017 vide

HIMASAGAR KRISHNA MUTHAPPAGARI,TIRUPATI vs. ITO., WARD-2(3), TIRUPATI

Bench: Us.

43,030/-. Thereafter, the original assessment was framed by the Assessing Officer vide his order passed under Section 143(3) of the Act, dated 24-12-2018, determining the income of the assessee at Rs.26,23,490/-. 6. As discernible from the record, the AO, based on the fact that the Long-Term Capital Gains (for short “LTCG”) was computed

COMMVAULT SYSTEMS INDIA PVT. LTD., HYDERABAD,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-1(2), HYDERABAD, HYDERABAD

Appeal is treated as allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi & Shri D.S. Sunder Singhassessment Year: 2012-13 M/S Commvault Systems Dcit, Circle 1(2) (India) Private Limited Vs. Hyderabad 5Th Floor, Plot No.39, Phase Ii Block A, Ananth Info Park Hitech City, Madhapur Hyderabad Pan: Aaccc3708L (Appellant) (Respondent) Sh. Ajeet Tolani Asessee By: Revenue By: Smt. Anjala Sahu, D.R. Date Of Hearing: 01/09/2020 Date Of Pronouncement: 04/09/2020 Order Per Smt. P. Madhavi Devi, J.M. This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee For The A.Y. 2012-13 Against The Final Assessment Order Dated 26.12.2016 Passed U/S 143(3) R.W.S. 144C(13) Of The I.T. Act, 1961. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Company, Engaged In The Business Of Software Development Services & Unified Data Storage Solutions, E-Filed Its Original Return Of Income For The A.Y. 2012-13 On 11.10.2012 Admitting Total Income Of

43,86,576/- under normal provisions after setting off of the brought forward losses of Rs.1,26,86,715/- and Rs.3,46,41,182/- under the provisions of Sec.115 JB of the I.T.Act, 1961. During the assessment proceedings u/s 143(3) of the |Act, the AO observed that the assessee has entered into international transactions with its associate enterprises during

VITP PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT., CIRCLE8(1), HYDERABAD

transfer pricing adjustment.\n4.\nThereafter, the Ld. PCIT invoked provisions of section 263 of\nthe Act and issued notice to the assessee on 08.03.2024. The Ld.\nPCIT recorded that the Ld. AO during scrutiny assessment failed to\nexamine two specific issues, which is covered under Explanation\n2(a) to section 263 of the Act, thereby rendering the order erroneous\nand

TMEIC INDUSTRIAL SYSTEMS INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT, CIRCLE -2(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, both the Writ Petitions are allowed by setting aside the impugned assessment orders dated

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao, Vice-A N D Shri Madhusudan Sawdiaआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.422/Hyd/2022 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2018-19) Tmeic Industrial Systems Vs. Dy. Cit India Private Limited Circle 2 ( 1 ) Hyderabad Hyderabad Pan:Aadct5493J (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: Cas, Kranthi Palivela & Mrudulatha Devdas राज" व "ारा/Revenue By:: Shri B Balakrishna, Cit(Dr) सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 17/12/2024 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 24/02/2025 आदेश/Order

Section 144(13) of the Act and therefore the order is void, bad in law and liable to be quashed. 2. Erred in considering the transfer pricing adjustment of Rs. 126,43

LIMAGRAIN INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT, CIRCLE -5(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Shri Manjunatha G. (Accountant Member), Shri K. Narasimha Chary (Judicial Member)

transfer pricing adjustment at Rs.34,43,31,665/- on the total operating cost of the appellant. Thus, the Ld.TPO made adjustment at entity level, instead of restricting adjustment to the cost of services rendered by the appellant to its AEs. 8. The learned Counsel for the assessee, Shri H.Srinivasulu, submitted that the Ld.TPO and Ld.DRP is erred in making adjustment

WATERMARK RESIDENCY LIMITED, ,HYDERABAD vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CIRCLE-17(2), HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeals of the assessee vide ITA Nos

Bench: Before Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri Laliet Kumar

Transfer Pricing Officer (TPO) carefully. The prime lending rate of state Bank of India prevailing + p.a adopted by the tax payer cannot be treated as Arms Length Price. The LIBOR is the rate applicable in the transactions between the banks which is accepted internationally. In the following cases LIBOR was accepted as appropriate rate for bench marking purposes: 1. Aurionpro

WATERMARKE RESIDENCY LIMITED ,HYDERABAD vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CIRCLE-17(2), HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeals of the assessee vide ITA Nos

Bench: Before Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri Laliet Kumar

Transfer Pricing Officer (TPO) carefully. The prime lending rate of state Bank of India prevailing + p.a adopted by the tax payer cannot be treated as Arms Length Price. The LIBOR is the rate applicable in the transactions between the banks which is accepted internationally. In the following cases LIBOR was accepted as appropriate rate for bench marking purposes: 1. Aurionpro

WATERMARK RESIDENCY LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CIRCLE-17(2), HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeals of the assessee vide ITA Nos

Bench: Before Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri Laliet Kumar

Transfer Pricing Officer (TPO) carefully. The prime lending rate of state Bank of India prevailing + p.a adopted by the tax payer cannot be treated as Arms Length Price. The LIBOR is the rate applicable in the transactions between the banks which is accepted internationally. In the following cases LIBOR was accepted as appropriate rate for bench marking purposes: 1. Aurionpro