CELESTIAL AVENUES PVT LTD REP. BY CSK PROPERTIES PVT LTD ON MERGER-PAN-AADCC3990R,HYDERABAD. vs. ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE -1(2), HYDERABAD.

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar, Hon’Ble & Shri G. Manjunatha G, Hon’Bleआ.अपी.सं / Ita Nos.212 To 214/Hyd/2019 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Years: 2006-07, 2007-08 & 2008-09) M/S. Sabir, Sew & The Deputy Commissioner Of Prasad, Jv, Vs. Income Tax, Hyderabad. Circle – 6(1), Hyderabad. Pan : Abcfs2425A अपीलार्थी / Appellant प्रत्‍यर्थी / Respondent

transfer). It was submitted that the findings of the Ld.CIT(A) that the assessee was merely acting as civil contractor and not a developer as the funds for raising the agricultural facilities were provided by the State Government and further, it was mentioned that the assessee was having the mobilization advances of 5% is not correct . It was submitted

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.

45,697 Riunite Cemento SpA 19. A closer look of the international transactions mentioned by the TPO in Para 4 of the respective order u/s 92CA(3) clearly shows that the transactions for A.Ys. 2012-13 and 2013-14 are similar with AYs. 2011-12. Therefore, respectfully following our decision for A.Y. 2011-12, we also allow the T.P grounds

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.

45,697 Riunite Cemento SpA 19. A closer look of the international transactions mentioned by the TPO in Para 4 of the respective order u/s 92CA(3) clearly shows that the transactions for A.Ys. 2012-13 and 2013-14 are similar with AYs. 2011-12. Therefore, respectfully following our decision for A.Y. 2011-12, we also allow the T.P grounds

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.

45,697 Riunite Cemento SpA 19. A closer look of the international transactions mentioned by the TPO in Para 4 of the respective order u/s 92CA(3) clearly shows that the transactions for A.Ys. 2012-13 and 2013-14 are similar with AYs. 2011-12. Therefore, respectfully following our decision for A.Y. 2011-12, we also allow the T.P grounds

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.

45,697 Riunite Cemento SpA 19. A closer look of the international transactions mentioned by the TPO in Para 4 of the respective order u/s 92CA(3) clearly shows that the transactions for A.Ys. 2012-13 and 2013-14 are similar with AYs. 2011-12. Therefore, respectfully following our decision for A.Y. 2011-12, we also allow the T.P grounds

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.

45,697 Riunite Cemento SpA 19. A closer look of the international transactions mentioned by the TPO in Para 4 of the respective order u/s 92CA(3) clearly shows that the transactions for A.Ys. 2012-13 and 2013-14 are similar with AYs. 2011-12. Therefore, respectfully following our decision for A.Y. 2011-12, we also allow the T.P grounds

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CIRCLE-2(2), HYDERABAD vs. GAYATRI PROJECTS LIMITED , HYDERABAD

Appeals are partly allowed in above terms

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

transfer of Plant & Machinery previously used for any purpose and accordingly, it has not fulfilled the condition laid down in Section 80-IA(3)(ii) of the Act." Page 5 of 18 ITA Nos 2051 and 2052 of 2018 and ITA No.481 of 2020 Gayatri Projects Ltd Hyderabad The other common observation by the AD on the issue

ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(4), HYDERABAD vs. GAYATRI PROJECTS LIMITED , HYDERABAD

Appeals are partly allowed in above terms

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

transfer of Plant & Machinery previously used for any purpose and accordingly, it has not fulfilled the condition laid down in Section 80-IA(3)(ii) of the Act." Page 5 of 18 ITA Nos 2051 and 2052 of 2018 and ITA No.481 of 2020 Gayatri Projects Ltd Hyderabad The other common observation by the AD on the issue

ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(4), HYDERABAD vs. GAYATRI PROJECTS LIMITED, HYDERABAD

Appeals are partly allowed in above terms

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

transfer of Plant & Machinery previously used for any purpose and accordingly, it has not fulfilled the condition laid down in Section 80-IA(3)(ii) of the Act." Page 5 of 18 ITA Nos 2051 and 2052 of 2018 and ITA No.481 of 2020 Gayatri Projects Ltd Hyderabad The other common observation by the AD on the issue

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CIRCLE-2(2), HYDERABAD vs. HSBC ELECTRONIC DATA PROCESSING INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED, , HYDERABAD

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

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar & Shri Madhusudan Sawdia

transferred to unclaimed liabilities account. The assessee, during the appellate proceedings furnished the details of these unclaimed liabilities as additional evidence and the same was sent to Assessing officer for factual report. However, till date no report is received. 7.1 On perusal of the details furnished it is seen that in case of many entries there is not even

SAI TEJA CONSTRUCTIONS, HYD,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT, CIRCLE 8(1), HYDERABAD, HYDERABAD

In the result, all the three appeals filed by the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda, Vice- & Shri Laliet Kumar

4 being general in nature are dismissed. 11. The learned Counsel for the assessee did not make any argument on ground of appeal No.2. Even in the written synopsis Page 6 of 18 ITA Nos 651 877 and 652 of 2017 Sai Teja Constructions Ltd Hyderabad also there is no mention about the validity of the re-assessement proceedings. Under

SAI TEJA CONSTRUCTIONS, HYDERABAD,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-8(1), HYDERABAD, HYDERABAD

In the result, all the three appeals filed by the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda, Vice- & Shri Laliet Kumar

4 being general in nature are dismissed. 11. The learned Counsel for the assessee did not make any argument on ground of appeal No.2. Even in the written synopsis Page 6 of 18 ITA Nos 651 877 and 652 of 2017 Sai Teja Constructions Ltd Hyderabad also there is no mention about the validity of the re-assessement proceedings. Under

SAI TEJA CONSTRUCTIONS, HYDERABAD,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-8(1), HYDERABAD, HYDERABAD

In the result, all the three appeals filed by the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda, Vice- & Shri Laliet Kumar

4 being general in nature are dismissed. 11. The learned Counsel for the assessee did not make any argument on ground of appeal No.2. Even in the written synopsis Page 6 of 18 ITA Nos 651 877 and 652 of 2017 Sai Teja Constructions Ltd Hyderabad also there is no mention about the validity of the re-assessement proceedings. Under

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

Bench: Us:

4 degrees celsius to restrict bacterial growth. The Ld. AR submitted that post chilling process the milk is stored in insulated storage tanks and then sent to the processing plants through insulated vans. The Ld. AR, submitted that considering the multiple processes carried out by the chilling units, there was no justification for the TPO to observe that no worthwhile

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 :

4 raised by the Revenue are inter- connected and are with respect to the shares received by the assessee company on account of amalgamation, for a 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

DEMI REALTORS,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-6(1), HYDERABAD

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

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

section is very clear and the appellant has incurred the expenditure and the appellant has made the payment to the various parties and persons. The appellant has, to circumvent, not accounted for the same and has also not brought out any evidence from M/s.DLF that they have accounted for such transactions in their books as cash payments. The MoU cannot

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

Bench: Us:

transfer pricing issues on comparability cannot constitute a precedent to be blindly followed ad infinitum. Whether a particular company is a comparable or not is an exercise which has to be carried out every year in the case of an Assessee considering the facts of that specific year and not blindly following the precedent which has been laid down

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