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(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

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:

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

PALRED TECHNOLOGIES LIMITED ,HYDERABAD vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CIRCLE-16(2), HYDERABAD

Appeal is partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri S.S. Godara & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahuassessment Year: 2008-09

58,34,419; • Other miscellaneous - Rs 3,08,218. Levy of interest under section 234B 6. Imposing interest under section 234B of the Act on the transfer pricing

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 :

price lower than the Fair Market Value (F.M.V) of the shares, does not attract provisions of the section 56(2)(viia) of the Act and Ld.ClT (Appeals) erred in holding that provisions of Section 56(2)(viia) are not applicable to the transactions defined u/s.47(vi), even though the proviso to section 56(2)(viia) does not specify the transactions

HIGHRADIUS TECHNOLOGIES PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE -2(1), HYDERABAD

Bench: Us:

58,23,162 in respect of international transaction of provision of software development and support services 1.1. The learned AO erred, on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, in proposing a transfer pricing adjustment of INR 10.58,23,162/- to the income of the Appellant in relation to the international transection of provision of software development

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)

pricing adjustment of Rs. 47,92,29,000/- towards purchases. The 8 Interwrap Corp Private Ltd Hon’ble DRP also directed deletion of the addition of Rs. 5,99,097/- relating to delayed deposit of PF/ESIC, as the same had already been deleted by the CIT(A) in earlier proceedings and could not be added again. Penalty proceedings under Section

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)

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 of income. The A.O. further noted that the assessee

DCIT, CIRCLE -2(1), HYDERABAD vs. TPSC(INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED, HYDERABAD

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

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

section 92CA of the Act was made to the learned Transfer Pricing Officer (learned TPO) . Learned TPO proposed the adjustments for the transactions of provision of engineering services and receipt of services, reimbursement of expatriates salary, bonuses and PF cost and interest on trade receivables. Learned Assessing Officer after taking into consideration the adjustments proposed by the learned TPO, proposed

GAINSIGHT SOFTWARE PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT., CIRCLE-2(1), HYDERSABAD

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)

pricing adjustment of Rs. 6,06,64,733/- in respect of international transactions pertaining to software development services. 4. Thereafter, the A.O. has passed the draft assessment order under Section 144C(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 on 20.09.2023, determining the total income after considering the TP adjustment proposed by the Ld. TPO. In the draft order

MEDPLEXUS INDIA PVT. LTD., HYD,BANGALORE vs. ACIT, CIRLCE-16(2), HYD, HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi & Shri S. Rifaur Rahmanassessment Year: 2011-12 Medpluxes India Pvt. Ltd., Vs. Asst. Commissioner Of Income- Hyderabad. Tax, Circle – 16(2), Hyderabad. Pan – Aaecm7007N (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Aliasger Rampurwala & Sri Abhiroop Bhargav Revenue By : Shri Y.V.S.T. Sai Date Of Hearing : 22-07-2019 Date Of Pronouncement : 05-09-2019 O R D E R

Transfer Pricing Officer" or "learned TPO") under section 92CA of the Act, is erroneous on facts and bad in law and is liable to be quashed. 2. That the learned AO/ DRP erred both in facts and in law in making an adjustment of INR 29,58

EPAM SYSTEMS INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-8(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, both the appeals of the Assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Manjunatha G.आ.अपी.सं /Ita Nos.83 & 498/Hyd/2022 Assessment Years 2017-2018 & 2018-2019 Epam Systems India The Dcit & The Acit, Private Limited, Vs. Circle-8(1), Hyderabad – 500 081 Hyderabad. Pan Aaacw2012R (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा"रती "ारा /Assessee By: Ca Shreyas Sardesai राज" व "ारा /Revenue By: Ms U Mini Chandran, Cit-Dr

Pricing Officer, as the case may be], if satisfied, may allow an additional period of six months to give effect to the order. Provided further that where an order under section 250 or section 254 or section 260 or section 262 or section 263 or section 264 requires verification of any issue by way of submission of any document

EPAM SYSTEMS INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT, CIRCLE -8 (1), HYDERABAD

In the result, both the appeals of the Assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Manjunatha G.आ.अपी.सं /Ita Nos.83 & 498/Hyd/2022 Assessment Years 2017-2018 & 2018-2019 Epam Systems India The Dcit & The Acit, Private Limited, Vs. Circle-8(1), Hyderabad – 500 081 Hyderabad. Pan Aaacw2012R (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा"रती "ारा /Assessee By: Ca Shreyas Sardesai राज" व "ारा /Revenue By: Ms U Mini Chandran, Cit-Dr

Pricing Officer, as the case may be], if satisfied, may allow an additional period of six months to give effect to the order. Provided further that where an order under section 250 or section 254 or section 260 or section 262 or section 263 or section 264 requires verification of any issue by way of submission of any document

ADP PRIVATE LIMITED ,HYDERABAD vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CIRCLE-1(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, ground of appeal No

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi & Shri D.S. Sunder Singhassessment Year:2014-15

transfer pricing analysis / study prepared by the Appellant, without appreciating that none of the conditions mentioned in clauses (a) to (d) of Section 92C(3) of the Act were satisfied. 8. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. TPO erred in and the Hon'ble DRP further erred in upholding / confirming

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

INDEED INDIA OPERATIONS PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT., CIRCLE2(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal of the Assessee for the assessment year 2021-2022 is allowed

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Manjunatha G.आ.अपी.सं /Ita Nos.943 & 1359/Hyd/2024 Assessment Years 2020-2021 & 2021-2022 Indeed India Operations The Acit, Private Limited, Vs. Circle-2(1), Hyderabad – 500 081. Hyderabad. Telangana Pan Aadci5931J (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा"रती "ारा /Assessee By: Mahima Goud, Advocate राज" व "ारा /Revenue By: Ms U Mini Chandran, Cit-Dr

Pricing Officer, as the case may be], if satisfied, may allow an additional period of six months to give effect to the order. Provided further that where an order under section 250 or section 254 or section 260 or section 262 or section 263 or section 264 requires verification of any issue by way of submission of any document