INDUMATI CHINTAKUNTALA ,HYDERABAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-4(3), HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal in ITA No

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

54 of the Act in following words:- “8.The word 'purchase' can be given both restrictive and wider meaning. A restrictive meaning would mean transactions by which legal title is finally transferred, like execution of the sale deed or any other document of title. 'Purchase' can also refer to payment of consideration or part consideration alongwith transfer of possession under Section

DCIT., (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION)-1, HYDERABAD vs. SYAMA REDDY MALI REDDY, HYDERABAD

price by payment in kind\nor adjustment towards an old debt or for other monetary consideration\nfrom its legal meaning in section 54(1) of the Income Tax Act\nIf you sell your house and make a profit, pay Caesar what is due to him.\nBut if you buy or build another subject to the conditions of section 54

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

Section 54 of the TP Act defines `sales' thus: "Sale" is a transfer of ownership in exchange for a price

MAHARSHI GOGINENI ,HYDERABAD vs. ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-14(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal of assessee is allowed in part

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

54 of the Act in following words:- “8.The word 'purchase' can be given both restrictive and wider meaning. A restrictive meaning would mean transactions by which legal title is finally transferred, like execution of the sale deed or any other document of title. 'Purchase' can also refer to payment of consideration or part consideration alongwith transfer of possession under Section

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

Bench: Us:

54. We shall now deal with the pricing mechanism adopted by the chilling units of the assessee company for the inter-unit transfer of chilled milk to its processing units. As observed by us at length hereinabove, the assessee company had computed the profits earned by its chilling units, i.e., the eligible units, by comparing the actual overhead costs incurred

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

Bench: Us.

54 of the Act, thus, vide his “Show-Cause Notice” (SCN), dated 20.02.2024 called upon him to put forth an explanation that as to why the order of reassessment passed by the AO u/s 147 r.w.s. 144B of the Act, dated 22.03.2022 may not be set-aside under Section 263 of the Act. 8. Although the assessee objected

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 :

section 147 / 148 of the Act, the coordinate Bench had held as under : “22. Coming back to our point we have to examine whether protective assessment/addition is possible under section 147 in respect of the same person and for the same period. When a regular assessment is made and later on it comes to the notice of the Assessing Officer

VERMEIREN INDIA REHAB PRIVATE LIMITED,TIRUPATI vs. DCIT., CIRCLE-1(1), TIRUPATI

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

Bench: Shri Manjunatha G & Shri Ravish Sood

Transfer Pricing Officer [in short “TPO”] for determination of Arm’s Length Price [in short “ALP”] in respect of international transactions u/sec. 92CA(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The TPO had issued u/sec.92CA of the Act dated 07.11.2022 calling the 7 ITA.No.1315 /Hyd./2024 assessee for documentation maintained as prescribed u/sec.92D(3) of the Act. In response

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

Section 54 in The Transfer of Property Act, 1882: 54. “Sale” defined.—“Sale” is a transfer of ownership in exchange for a price

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

Section 54 in The Transfer of Property Act, 1882: 54. “Sale” defined.—“Sale” is a transfer of ownership in exchange for a price

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

Section 54 in The Transfer of Property Act, 1882: 54. “Sale” defined.—“Sale” is a transfer of ownership in exchange for a price

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)

Transfer Pricing Officer to determine the arm’s length price of international transactions undertaken by the assessee. During the TP proceedings, the TPO noticed that the assessee had reported various international transactions including provision of software development services, receipt of software development services, reimbursement of expenses, and other support services as reported in Form 3CEB filed along with the return

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

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

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Madhusudan Sawdia

Transfer Pricing Officer (“TPO”). The Ld. TPO vide his order dated 31.10.2023 suggested upward adjustment of Rs.1,18,60,159/- on account of interest on trade receivables. Accordingly, the Ld. AO passed the draft assessment order on 12.12.2023. 4. Aggrieved with the draft assessment order passed by the Ld. AO, the assessee preferred objection before the Ld. DRP. In pursuance

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

CONCENTRIX CATALYST TECHNOLOGIES PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT., CIRCLE - 1(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed in\nterms of our aforesaid observations

section 153\nof the Act which is the outer time limit for passing the final assessment order and hence, the\nassessment proceedings are time barred and liable to be quashed.\nTRANSFER PRICING GROUNDS\n3. erred in making a transfer pricing (\"TP\") adjustment of INR 3,41,54

NEMI CHAND,GUDUR vs. ITO., WARD-1, GUDUR

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed in terms of our aforesaid observations

Bench: Shri Manjunatha G. & Shri Ravish Soodआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.1288/Hyd/2025 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2018-19) Nemi Chand, Vs. Income Tax Officer, 1-2-8/11A, 302, 3Rd Floor, Ward-1, Srinivas Street No.1, Guduru. Himayat Nagar, Hyderabad, Telangana. Pan: Achpr2242L (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: Sri Sridhar Jhawar, Ca राज" व "ारा/Revenue By: Dr. Sachin Kumar, Sr. Ar सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 12/11/2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of 26/11/2025 Pronouncement: आदेश / Order Per. Ravish Sood, J.M: The Present Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi, Dated 13/06/2025 Which In Turn Arises From The Order Passed By The Assessing Officer Under Section 143(3) R.W.S 144B Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (For Short, “Act”), Dated 23/04/2021 For The Assessment Year 2018-19. The Assessee Has 2 Nemi Chand Vs. Ito Assailed The Impugned Order On The Following Grounds Of Appeal Before Us: 1. “Whether On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law Whether The Order Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax Was Pervasive In Considering The Income From Capital Gains As Business Income In Terms Of Provisions Of Section 2(14) Read With Section 2(47) 2. Whether On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law. Whare Capital Gain Was Invested In Purchase/Construction Of Residential House Within Time Limit Prescribed Under Section 2 54(1), Assessment Order Allowing Assesses Claim Under Section 54 Could Not Be Treated As Erroneous & Prejudicial To Interest Of Revenue Only Because Capital Gain Was Not Deposited In Capital Gain Account Scheme. 3. Any Other Ground (If Any) That May Be Urged At The Time Of Hearing.”

section 54 of the Act was raised, the Ld. AR submitted that the assessee had never transferred his share of land to the partnership firm, viz., M/s. Mishri Developers, and the latter was only engaged to negotiate far better price

BA CONTINUUM INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT., CIRCLE-1(1), HYDERABAD

Bench: SHRI RAVISH SOOD, HON'BLE (Judicial Member), SHRI MADHUSUDAN SAWDIA HON'BLE (Accountant Member)

section 40(a)(i): Rs.6,54,33,770/-; and (ii) transfer pricing adjustment as suggested by the Additional Commissioner of Income

APACHE FOOTWEAR INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,NELLORE vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-1(1), TIRUPATI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri Laliet Kumar

section 92B, it is abundantly clear that the outstanding receivable by the assessee from its AE, is required to be benchmarked, so as to ensure that they should not be any shifting of profit from assessee to its AE. 14 Apache Footwear India Pvt.Ltd. 39. In the present case, the total turnover of the assessee in respect of Software Development