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 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,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

COMM VAULT SYSTEMS (INDIA) PVT.LTD., HYD,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-1(2), HYD, HYDERABAD

In the result, assessee’s appeal is partly allowed

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi & Shri B. Ramakotaiahm/S. Comm Vault Systems Vs Dy. Commissioner Of Income (India) Private Limited Tax, Circle 1(2) Hyderabad Hyderabad Pan: Aaccc 3708 L (Appellant) (Respondent)

47,842. 2) Not allowing the directions provided by DRP to reject the company "Dynacons Technologies Ltd" for computing the Arm's Length Margin. 3) Disregarding the inter-company Transfer Pricing methodology for recovery of losses incurred by Comm Vault India in the initial years of distribution. 4) Selection of most appropriate method Rejection of RPM and selection of TNMM

DCIT,CENT CIR-2(4), HYDERABAD, HYDERABAD vs. CLEAN CITY ESTATES PRIVATE LIMITED, HYDERABAD, HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi & Shri A. Alankamonyassessment Year: 2011-12 Dy. Commissioner Of Vs. Clean City Estates Pvt. Ltd., Income-Tax, Hyderabad. Central Circle – 2(4), Hyderabad. Pan – Aaccc4799H Appellant Respondent Revenue By: Shri Y.V.S.T. Sai Assessee By: Shri A.V. Raghuram Date Of Hearing: 11/12/2019 Date Of Pronouncement: 21/02/2020 O R D E R Per Smt. P. Madhavi Devi, J.M.:

47) which, in turn, is relevant, as it states in so many words by using the expression “transfer", in relation to a capital asset, includes”, only for the purposes of capital assets under the Income Tax Act. An asset included in the stock in trade, as we have seen a short while ago and in view of the specific provisions

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

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

Transfer Pricing Officer (TPO) for determination of the ALP. The TPO passed an order under section 92CA(3) on 30.01.2016 proposing an adjustment of Rs.1,73,05,026/-. The assessee filed its objections before the DRP who directed the AO to retain the comparables selected by the TPO and to compute the adjustment accordingly. DRP also directed

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

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

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

FACEBOOK INDIA SERVICES PRIVATE LIMITED ,HYDERABAD vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CIRCLE-17(1), HYDERABAD

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

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Laliet Kumarassessment Year: 2014-15 Facebook India Online Services Vs. The Deputy Commissioner Private Limited, Of Income Tax, 12Th Floor, Building No.20, Circle – 17(1), Unit 1203 & 1204, Hitech City, Hyderabad. Madhapaur, Hyderabad. Pan : Aabcf5150G. (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Dhanesh Bafna & Chandni Shah Revenue By: Shri Rajendra Kumar – Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing: 20.07.2022 Date Of Pronouncement: 19.09.2022

Section 271(1)(C) of the Act. It is prayed that the Ld. AO be directed to drop the penalty proceedings initiated u/s 271(1)(C) of the Act.” 2. The brief facts of the case are that assessee company is engaged in the business of Service Sector, IT Enabled Services and BPO Providers, back office support services

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