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 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

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRLCE-2(1), HYD, HYDERABAD vs. HES INFRA PVT LTD., HYD, HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of Revenue in ITA

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri Laliet Kumar

transfer does not come.” 7 M/s. HES Infra Pvt. Ltd. 4. Aggrieved by the order of Assessing Officer, the assessee filed an appeal before the ld.CIT(A). The ld.CIT(A) after considering the submissions of the assessee, allowed the appeal of the assessee. Aggrieved by the order of ld.CIT(A), the Revenue is now in appeal before us. 5

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRLCE-2(1), HYD, HYDERABAD vs. HES INFRA PVT LTD., HYD, HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of Revenue in ITA

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri Laliet Kumar

transfer does not come.” 7 M/s. HES Infra Pvt. Ltd. 4. Aggrieved by the order of Assessing Officer, the assessee filed an appeal before the ld.CIT(A). The ld.CIT(A) after considering the submissions of the assessee, allowed the appeal of the assessee. Aggrieved by the order of ld.CIT(A), the Revenue is now in appeal before us. 5

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRLCE-2(1), HYD, HYDERABAD vs. HES INFRA PVT LTD., HYD, HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of Revenue in ITA

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri Laliet Kumar

transfer does not come.” 7 M/s. HES Infra Pvt. Ltd. 4. Aggrieved by the order of Assessing Officer, the assessee filed an appeal before the ld.CIT(A). The ld.CIT(A) after considering the submissions of the assessee, allowed the appeal of the assessee. Aggrieved by the order of ld.CIT(A), the Revenue is now in appeal before us. 5

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRLCE-2(1), HYD, HYDERABAD vs. HES INFRA PVT LTD., HYD, HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of Revenue in ITA

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri Laliet Kumar

transfer does not come.” 7 M/s. HES Infra Pvt. Ltd. 4. Aggrieved by the order of Assessing Officer, the assessee filed an appeal before the ld.CIT(A). The ld.CIT(A) after considering the submissions of the assessee, allowed the appeal of the assessee. Aggrieved by the order of ld.CIT(A), the Revenue is now in appeal before us. 5

SUSHEE INFRA & MINING LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT., CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(2), HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is partly\nallowed for statistical purposes

Transfer Pricing provisions. The rejection of the assessee's benchmarking and adoption of 'Another Method' was deemed arbitrary. The grounds related to the validity of the assessment order and the 80IA deduction were either remanded or directed for verification.", "result": "Partly Allowed", "sections": [ "143(3)", "144C(13)", "144C(5

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)

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 as the most appropriate method for determination of ALP for distribution activity. - 5) Rejection of use of multiple year data Rejecting the use of multiple year data and using

UBER INDIA SYSTEMS PRIVATE LIMITED (AS SUCCESSOR TO UBER INDIA RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT PRIVATE LIMITED),HYDERABAD vs. DCIT., CIRCLE-8(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Madhusudan Sawdia

5. On the facts and in circumstances of the case and in law, the learned TPO erred, and Hon'ble DRP further erred in upholding / confirming the action of the learned TPO in rejecting the transfer pricing study maintained as per Section

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

Bench: Us:

Section 143(2) of the Act. 5. During the course of the assessment proceedings, the A.O. made a reference u/s 92CA of the Act to the DCIT, T.P.-1, Hyderabad, for determination of the “Arm’s Length Price” (for short, “ALP”) of the specified domestic transactions reported by the assessee company for the subject year. 6. The Transfer

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)

section 1448 of the Income-tax Act pursuant to the directions dated 14 June 2022 by Dispute Resolution Panel, Bangalore (DRP) u/s 144C(5) of the Act, is bad in law and void ab initio so far as it is prejudicial to the Appellant. Transfer Pricing

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

SHAKTI HORMANN PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-3(1), HYDERABAD

Bench: Shri Manjunatha G.\Nand\Nshri Ravish Sood\Nआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.917/Hyd/2024\N(निर्धारण वर्ष/Assessment Year:2020-21)\Nshakti Hormann Private\Nlimited,\Nhyderabad.\Nvs. Dcit,\Ncircle-3(1),\Nhyderabad.\Npan: Aadcs4024Q\N(Appellant)\N(Respondent)\Nनिर्धारिती द्वारा / Assessee By: Shri P. Murali Mohan Rao,\Nca\Nराजस्व द्वारा / Revenue By: Ms. U. Mini Chandran,\Ncit-Dr\Nसुनवाई की तारीख /Date Of Hearing: 15/10/2025\Nघोषणा की तारीख / Date Of 19/12/2025\Npronouncement:\Nआदेश / Order\Nper. Ravish Sood, J.M:\Nthe Present Appeal Filed By The Assessee Company Is Directed\Nagainst The Final Assessment Order Passed By The Assessing Officer (For\Nshort, “A.O.”) Under Section 143(3) R.W.S 144C(13) R.W.S 144B Of The\Nincome Tax Act, 1961 (For Short, “The Act”) Dated 25/07/2024 For The\N Assessment Year (Ay) 2020-21. The Assessee Company Has Assailed\Nthe Impugned Order Passed By The Cit(A) On The Following Grounds Of\Nappeal Before Us:\N1. On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case, The Final Assessment\Norder Passed U/S 143(3) R.W.S.144C(13) Of The Act Dated 25.07.2024 By\Nthe Ao & Also The Order Passed U/S 92Ca (3) Dt 30.07.2023 By The Tpo\Nare Bad In The Eyes Of Law & Thus, Unsustainable To The Test Of Appeal.\N2.0 The Final Assessment Order Passed U/S 143(3) R.W.S.144C(13) R.W.S.144B\Nis Beyond The Time Limit Prescribed U/S 153 Of The Act.\N2.

5) Where effect to an order under section 250 or\nsection 254 or section 260 or section 262 or section\n263 or section 264 is to be given by the Assessing\nOfficer [or the Transfer Pricing

ADP PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD, TELANGANA vs. DCIT., CIRCLE 1(1), HYDERABAD, TELANGANA

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)

Section 144C(5) of the Act, pertaining to the assessment year 2021-22. 2. The grounds raised by the assessee read as under : “1. Ground 1: General Grounds 1.1 On the facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld. Transfer Pricing

COMMVAULT SYSTEMS (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CIRCLE-1(2), HYDERABAD

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

Bench: Shri C.N.Prasad, Jm & Shri M.Balaganesh, Am M/S.Commvault Systems Vs. Deputy Commissioner Of (India) Pvt. Ltd., Income Tax, 5Th Floor, Plot No.39, Circle-1(2), B-Block, 7Th Floor, I.T. Towers Phase-Ii, Block-A Ananth Info Park A.C.Guards, Masab Tank Hitech City, Madhapur, Hyderabad – 500 004 Hyderabad Pan/Gir No.Aaccc3708L (Appellant) .. (Respondent)

5,37,13,991/- Adjustment - Rs.1,66,53,598/- 18 M/s.Commvault Systems (India) Pvt. Ltd., The aforesaid working and the action of the ld. TPO was upheld by the ld. DRP. 6.5. The ld. AR vehemently argued that adoption of re-sale price method (RPM) would be ideal to benchmark the transactions carried out by the assessee with regard