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

section 80-IA of the Income Tax Act. 1961 ("Act") in respect of profits and gains made by its captive power plant. 3. For that, without prejudice to the above, the AO and the DRP have erred in law by applying a transfer price in respect of power generated by the captive power plant of the assessee to its cement

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

Bench: Us:

price of the profits earned by the chilling units ought to be considered as nil is to be accepted, the disallowance of the assessee's claim for deduction under Section 80IB(11A) of the Act, on the said basis could only be restricted to the profits earned by the chilling units, i.e., Rs. 17.38 crores. Accordingly, the Ld. AR submitted

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

Bench: Us.

Pricing Officer" shall have the same meaning as assigned to it in the Explanation to section 92CA.] (2) No order shall be made under sub-section (1) after the expiry of two years from the end of the financial year in which the order sought to be revised was passed. (3) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section (2), an order

INTERWRAP CORP PRIVATE LIMITED (SUCCESSOR OF OWENS CORNING INDUSTRIES (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED),MUMBAI vs. DCIT., CIRCLE -5(1), HYDERABAD

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

Bench: SHRI VIJAY PAL RAO, HON'BLE (Vice President), SHRI MANJUNATHA G, HON’BLE (Accountant Member)

transfer pricing adjustment. Accordingly, the adjustment towards purchases was revised to Rs. 47,92,29,000/-, and the adjustment towards royalty was treated as NIL. In pursuance of the directions issued by the Hon’ble DRP under Section

SUMITRA BAI GUNDAVARAPU,HYDERABAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-9(2), HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda, Vice- & Shri Laliet Kumars.No Appeal In Ita Assessee Revenue A.Y No 1 538/Hyd/2018 Smt. Cheruvu Madhavi, Income Tax 2009-10 L/R Of Smt.Sumitrabai Officer Gundavarapu, Ward 9(2) Hyderabad Hyderabad Pan:Athpg1018L 2 8/Hyd/2021 Smt, Yashoda Income Tax 2009-10 Gundavarapu, Officer Ward-1 R.R Distt Vikarabad Pan:Apkpg0183M 3 14/Hyd/2019 Shri M Hanmanth Acit, Circle 2009-10 Reddy, Hyderabad 4(1) Pan:Achph0874L Hyderabad

47) as on 4.2.2008 has not crystalised either by way of transfer of property or possession or receipt of consideration have arisen on 4.2.2008. To buttress his argument, he drew the attention to page 5, 6, 10, 12, 13, 17, 21, 22, 23, 26 and 64 of the Paper Book. It was the contention of the learned DR that

M.HANMANTH REDDY ,HYDERABAD vs. ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-4(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda, Vice- & Shri Laliet Kumars.No Appeal In Ita Assessee Revenue A.Y No 1 538/Hyd/2018 Smt. Cheruvu Madhavi, Income Tax 2009-10 L/R Of Smt.Sumitrabai Officer Gundavarapu, Ward 9(2) Hyderabad Hyderabad Pan:Athpg1018L 2 8/Hyd/2021 Smt, Yashoda Income Tax 2009-10 Gundavarapu, Officer Ward-1 R.R Distt Vikarabad Pan:Apkpg0183M 3 14/Hyd/2019 Shri M Hanmanth Acit, Circle 2009-10 Reddy, Hyderabad 4(1) Pan:Achph0874L Hyderabad

47) as on 4.2.2008 has not crystalised either by way of transfer of property or possession or receipt of consideration have arisen on 4.2.2008. To buttress his argument, he drew the attention to page 5, 6, 10, 12, 13, 17, 21, 22, 23, 26 and 64 of the Paper Book. It was the contention of the learned DR that

YASHODA GUNDAVARAPU,RR DISTRICT vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER , VIKARABAD

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda, Vice- & Shri Laliet Kumars.No Appeal In Ita Assessee Revenue A.Y No 1 538/Hyd/2018 Smt. Cheruvu Madhavi, Income Tax 2009-10 L/R Of Smt.Sumitrabai Officer Gundavarapu, Ward 9(2) Hyderabad Hyderabad Pan:Athpg1018L 2 8/Hyd/2021 Smt, Yashoda Income Tax 2009-10 Gundavarapu, Officer Ward-1 R.R Distt Vikarabad Pan:Apkpg0183M 3 14/Hyd/2019 Shri M Hanmanth Acit, Circle 2009-10 Reddy, Hyderabad 4(1) Pan:Achph0874L Hyderabad

47) as on 4.2.2008 has not crystalised either by way of transfer of property or possession or receipt of consideration have arisen on 4.2.2008. To buttress his argument, he drew the attention to page 5, 6, 10, 12, 13, 17, 21, 22, 23, 26 and 64 of the Paper Book. It was the contention of the learned DR that

GORLAS INFRASTRUCTURE PRIVATE LIMITED ,HYDERABAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER ,WARD 2(4), HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar & Shri Madhusudan Sawdia

price paid or promised or part- paid and part-promised. Sale how made. Such transfer, in the case of tangible immoveable property of the value of one hundred rupees and upwards, or in the case of a reversion or other intangible thing, can be made only by a registered instrument. In the case of tangible immoveable property of a value

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

PAREXEL INTERNATIONAL (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-5(1), HYDERABAD

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

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri K.Narasimha Chary

section 143(3) r.w.s. 144C(13) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short “the ITA-TP No. 488/Hyd/2022 Act”), consequent to the directions of Hon'ble Dispute Resolution Panel, Bengaluru (“DRP”), assessee filed this appeal. 2. Brief facts of the case as per record are that the assessee is a subsidiary of Parexel International Holdings B.V., Netherlands which

YERRAGUDI VENKATA SIVA REDDY,ANANTAPUR vs. ACIT., CIRCLE-1, KURNOOL

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Manjunatha G.आ.अपी.सं /Ita No.1294/Hyd/2025 Assessment Year 2017-2018 Yerragudi Venkata Siva Reddy, Ananthapur The Acit, Vs. Pin – 515 001. Circle-1, Pan Aampy0365L Kurnool. Andhra Pradesh (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा"रती "ारा /Assessee By: -None- राज" व "ारा /Revenue By: Dr. Narendra Kumar Naik, Cit-Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 17.02.2026 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 20.02.2026 आदेश/Order

47)(ii) in The Income Tax Act, 1961 The "transfer", in relation to a capital asset, includes, the extinguishment of any rights therein" This interpretation has been affirmed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in CIT v. Vania Silk Mills (P) Ltd. (191 ITR 647) and by the ITAT Ahmedabad in Shri Kiritkumar Kantilal Shroff v. DCIT, where 4 ITA.No

AURONEXT PHARMA PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-1(1), HYDERABAD

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

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri Laliet Kumar

section 92C(3)(c), it is relevant to hold that the data used in computation of the arm's length price is not reliable or correct. Based on the above grounds, the TP document is proposed to be rejected and the TPO proceeds to determine arm's length price. Since strict comparison under external CUP method is proven

MYLAN LABORATORIES LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER INCOME TAX , CIRCLE-5 (1) , HYDERABAD

In the result, the ground no

Bench: Shri K. Narasimha Chary & Shri Madhusudan Sawdia

47,600/- had been accounted for in the books of ASPL etc. Hence there was lacking on ITA No.206/Hyd/2021 12 the part of the Ld. AO to make proper enquiry before allowing the expenditure as revenue. 6.3 It is crucial to go through the explanation 2 to section 263 which has been inserted w.e.f.01/06/2015, which is reproduced as under : “Explanation

SUNIL KUMAR AHUJA,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(1), HYDERABAD

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Laliet Kumarassessment Year: 2007-08 Shri Sunil Kumar Ahuja, Vs. Asstt. C. I. T. Circle 1(1) Hyderabad Pan:Ablpa2822L Hyderabad (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Shri S.Rama Rao, Advocate Revenue By: Shri Rajendra Kumar, Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing: 13/03/2023 Date Of Pronouncement: 25/04/2023 Order Per R.K. Panda, A.M This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 28.02.2022 Of The Learned Cit (A)-11, Hyderabad Relating To A.Y.2007-08. 2. Facts Of The Case, In Brief, Are That The Assessee Is An Individual & Derives Income From Investment In Real Estate & Share Marketing. He Had Filed His Return Of Income On 2.11.2007 Declaring An Income Of Rs.34,60,554/- & Agricultural Income Of Rs.1,08,410/-. A Search & Seizure Operation U/S 132 Of The Act Was Conducted At The Residential & Business Premises Of The Assessee On 17.09.2008. Notice U/S 153A Of The Act Issued On 28.07.2009 Was Served On The Assessee On 17.08.2009. In Page 1 Of 22

47)(vi) is liable for capital gains and the Assessing Officer’s perspective that it is a colorable device would be on account of not invoking the said definition. In view of the undisputed facts of possession, the confirmation by both the parties that the advance was for the transfer of shares, the same would constitute transfer within

ITO (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION)-1, HYDERABAD vs. MIKKILINENI NARENDRA KUMAR, SERILINGAMPALLY

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar & Shri Madhusudan Sawdiaassessment Year: 2016-17 The Income Tax Officer, Vs. Mikkilineni Narendra Kumar, Serilingampally, International Taxation – 1 Hyderabad. Hyderabad. Pan : Nenpk4757J. (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Shri H. Srinivasulu, Advocate Revenue By: Ms. M. Narmada, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing: 12.12.2024 19.12.2024 Date Of Pronouncement:

47) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. In the present case, neither the sale has taken place nor the exchange nor the relinquishment by any of them including the assessee in favour of TJP. As mentioned hereinabove, the possession of the property was handed over by TBPD to TJP pursuant to new Joint Development Agreement dt.10.02.2016 and the assessee

FAIRFIELD DEVELOPMENT LIMITED ,HYDERABAD vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX ,(INTERNATIONAL TAXATION), HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of Revenue in ITA

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Laliet Kumarassessment Year: 2014-15 M/S. Fairfield Developments Vs. Dy. Commissioner Of Income Limited, Tax, Hyderabad. International Taxation – 1 Pan : Aabcf3158N Hyderabad. (Appellant) (Respondent) Ita 488/Hyd/2019 Assessment Year 2014-15 Dy. Commissioner Of Income Vs. M/S. Fairfield Developments Tax, Limited, International Taxation – 1, Hyderabad. Hyderabad. Pan : Aabcf3158N (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Akshay Surana & Siddharth Surana, C.A Revenue By: Shri K.P.R.R. Murthy Date Of Hearing: 27.03.2023 Date Of Pronouncement: 25.04.2023 O R D E R Per Laliet Kumar, J.M. These Two Appeals Filed By The Assessee & The Revenue, Respectively, Are Directed Against The Order Of Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) – 10, Hyderabad Dated 16.01.2019 For The Assessment Year 2014-15. 2 M/S. Fairfield Developments Limited

Transfer Pricing Officer was not entitled to delve in to anything else other than determination of arm's length price of the given transactions, it should have been understood that the needs requirements and purpose under the Income Tax Act and those of the FDI and RBI Policies do not stand opposite to each other or 16 M/s. Fairfield Developments

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX ,(INTERNATIONAL TAXATION)-1, HYDERABAD vs. FAIR FIELD DEVELOPMENT LIMITED , CYPRUS

In the result, the appeal of Revenue in ITA

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Laliet Kumarassessment Year: 2014-15 M/S. Fairfield Developments Vs. Dy. Commissioner Of Income Limited, Tax, Hyderabad. International Taxation – 1 Pan : Aabcf3158N Hyderabad. (Appellant) (Respondent) Ita 488/Hyd/2019 Assessment Year 2014-15 Dy. Commissioner Of Income Vs. M/S. Fairfield Developments Tax, Limited, International Taxation – 1, Hyderabad. Hyderabad. Pan : Aabcf3158N (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Akshay Surana & Siddharth Surana, C.A Revenue By: Shri K.P.R.R. Murthy Date Of Hearing: 27.03.2023 Date Of Pronouncement: 25.04.2023 O R D E R Per Laliet Kumar, J.M. These Two Appeals Filed By The Assessee & The Revenue, Respectively, Are Directed Against The Order Of Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) – 10, Hyderabad Dated 16.01.2019 For The Assessment Year 2014-15. 2 M/S. Fairfield Developments Limited

Transfer Pricing Officer was not entitled to delve in to anything else other than determination of arm's length price of the given transactions, it should have been understood that the needs requirements and purpose under the Income Tax Act and those of the FDI and RBI Policies do not stand opposite to each other or 16 M/s. Fairfield Developments

HYUNDAI MOTOR INDIA ENGINEERING PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT CIRCLE -2(1), HYDERABAD

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

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

Section 92CA of the IT Act, directions given by DRP u/s 144C(5) of the Act and “Give Effect to Directions u/s 144C order of the TPO dt.19.03.2021, the final assessment order u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 144C(13) of the Act was passed and the total income of the assessee was assessed at Rs.49,99,97,796/-. Thereafter

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

47) by even executing\nthe agreement to sell and by payment of the sale consideration and\nsubsequent acts. He further submitted that the sale is complete in the\nfinancial year 2005-06 relevant for the assessment year 2006-07 only\nwhereas the amended provisions of section 50C of the Act through Finance\nAct 2/2009 came into effect from 1/10/2009