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 (ground nos. 9 to 13), first ground is with respect to disallowance of provision for site restoration fund. With regard to ground no.9, ld.AR has drawn our attention to Para 2.8 at Page 30 of the DRP order whereby the DRP has provided as under : Zuari Cement Limited, Kadapa “2.8.1 Having considered the submissions, we note that

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 (ground nos. 9 to 13), first ground is with respect to disallowance of provision for site restoration fund. With regard to ground no.9, ld.AR has drawn our attention to Para 2.8 at Page 30 of the DRP order whereby the DRP has provided as under : Zuari Cement Limited, Kadapa “2.8.1 Having considered the submissions, we note that

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 (ground nos. 9 to 13), first ground is with respect to disallowance of provision for site restoration fund. With regard to ground no.9, ld.AR has drawn our attention to Para 2.8 at Page 30 of the DRP order whereby the DRP has provided as under : Zuari Cement Limited, Kadapa “2.8.1 Having considered the submissions, we note that

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 (ground nos. 9 to 13), first ground is with respect to disallowance of provision for site restoration fund. With regard to ground no.9, ld.AR has drawn our attention to Para 2.8 at Page 30 of the DRP order whereby the DRP has provided as under : Zuari Cement Limited, Kadapa “2.8.1 Having considered the submissions, we note that

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 (ground nos. 9 to 13), first ground is with respect to disallowance of provision for site restoration fund. With regard to ground no.9, ld.AR has drawn our attention to Para 2.8 at Page 30 of the DRP order whereby the DRP has provided as under : Zuari Cement Limited, Kadapa “2.8.1 Having considered the submissions, we note that

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 :

transfer, therefore section 56(2)(viia) cannot be invoked, as this is not a case of receipt of shares in isolation but the merger of all property irrespective of shares and also 56(2)(viia) is not applicable for such amalgamation, therefore the invocation of the said section in the case of appellant is incorrect and therefore, the ground

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

Bench: Us:

transfer. 56 ITA TP 466/Hyd/2022 and 1301/Hyd/2024 Dodla Dairy Limited. Accordingly, it can safely be concluded that Section 80IA(8) of the Act accepts that the eligible undertakings of an assessee company can rightly undertake business transactions with the other businesses or units of the same assessee company in the form of input/purchases or output/sales. In fact, the aforesaid section

OAKTON GLOBAL TECHNOLOGY SERVICES CENTRE (I) PRIVATE LIMITED ,HYDERABAD vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CIRCLE-16(2), HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Madhusudan Sawdia

57 of the impugned order that the TPO accepted this transaction and made no transfer pricing adjustment on this score, thereby, he also impliedly accepting this transaction at ALP. The viewpoint of the ld. CIT(A) on this point is not fully correct. We have noted above that the TPO worked out the transfer pricing adjustment by considering the loans

OAKTON GLOBAL TECHNOLOGY SERVICES CENTRE (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-16(2), HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Madhusudan Sawdia

57 of the impugned order that the TPO accepted this transaction and made no transfer pricing adjustment on this score, thereby, he also impliedly accepting this transaction at ALP. The viewpoint of the ld. CIT(A) on this point is not fully correct. We have noted above that the TPO worked out the transfer pricing adjustment by considering the loans

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

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Manjunatha G

transfer pricing adjustment of INR 1,95,55,466 to the international transactions relating to manufacture and sale of Wheelchairs to Associated Enterprises ("AE"). 1.3. In the facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld. DRP and Ld. AO have erred in disallowance of depreciation of INR 3,57,97,208. Ground No. 2: Corporate Tax: Denial of Depreciation

SIGNODE INDIA LIMITED ,HYDERABAD vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX ,CIRCLE-3(1), HYDERABAD

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Manjunatha G

transfer pricing adjustment of INR 1,95,55,466 to the international transactions relating to manufacture and sale of Wheelchairs to Associated Enterprises ("AE"). 1.3. In the facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld. DRP and Ld. AO have erred in disallowance of depreciation of INR 3,57,97,208. Ground No. 2: Corporate Tax: Denial of Depreciation

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 143(3) r.w.s. 144C(13) r.w.s. 144B of the Income-tax Act, 1961, determining the total income at Rs. 57,67,40,880/-. The final assessment included the transfer pricing

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 adjustment of INR 1,95,55,466 to the international transactions relating to manufacture and sale of Wheelchairs to Associated Enterprises ("AE"). 1.3. In the facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld. DRP and Ld. AO have erred in disallowance of depreciation of INR 3,57,97,208. Ground No. 2: Corporate Tax: Denial of Depreciation

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 ('Ld. TPO'), the Ld. A.O. and the Hon'ble DRP have erred in law by re-computing the total income of the Appellant for the relevant AY at INR 4,15,10,08,610/- as against INR 3,03,09,85,230/- as returned by the Appellant. 1.2 Impugned order of the Ld. AO, to the extent

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

57 of the impugned order that the TPO accepted this transaction and made no transfer pricing adjustment on this score, thereby, he also impliedly accepting this transaction at ALP. The viewpoint of the ld. CIT(A) on this point is not fully correct. We have noted above that the TPO worked out the transfer pricing adjustment by considering the loans

WATERMARKE RESIDENCY LIMITED ,HYDERABAD vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CIRCLE-17(2), HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeals of the assessee vide ITA Nos

Bench: Before Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri Laliet Kumar

transfer price the character of the transaction in circumstances mentioned above may derive from the relationship between the parties rather than be determined by normal commercial conditions as may have been structured by the taxpayer to avoid or minimize tax. In such cases, the totality of its terms would be the result of a condition that would not have been

WATERMARK RESIDENCY LIMITED, ,HYDERABAD vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CIRCLE-17(2), HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeals of the assessee vide ITA Nos

Bench: Before Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri Laliet Kumar

transfer price the character of the transaction in circumstances mentioned above may derive from the relationship between the parties rather than be determined by normal commercial conditions as may have been structured by the taxpayer to avoid or minimize tax. In such cases, the totality of its terms would be the result of a condition that would not have been

WATERMARK RESIDENCY LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CIRCLE-17(2), HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeals of the assessee vide ITA Nos

Bench: Before Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri Laliet Kumar

transfer price the character of the transaction in circumstances mentioned above may derive from the relationship between the parties rather than be determined by normal commercial conditions as may have been structured by the taxpayer to avoid or minimize tax. In such cases, the totality of its terms would be the result of a condition that would not have been