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 NO.12. Firstly, ground No.12 – Disallowance of depreciation on goodwill. This issue was already decided by us while deciding lead appeal ITA 616/Hyd/22016 at Para 38(supra) wherein we held that Zuari Cement Limited, Kadapa the matter may be remanded to the file of jurisdicitonal Assessing Officer with a direction to the Assessing Officer to consider

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 NO.12. Firstly, ground No.12 – Disallowance of depreciation on goodwill. This issue was already decided by us while deciding lead appeal ITA 616/Hyd/22016 at Para 38(supra) wherein we held that Zuari Cement Limited, Kadapa the matter may be remanded to the file of jurisdicitonal Assessing Officer with a direction to the Assessing Officer to consider

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 NO.12. Firstly, ground No.12 – Disallowance of depreciation on goodwill. This issue was already decided by us while deciding lead appeal ITA 616/Hyd/22016 at Para 38(supra) wherein we held that Zuari Cement Limited, Kadapa the matter may be remanded to the file of jurisdicitonal Assessing Officer with a direction to the Assessing Officer to consider

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

Bench: Us:

pricing mechanism that was adopted by the assessee company based on which its chilling units, i.e., the eligible units, had carried out inter-unit transfer of milk to the processing units. Ostensibly, the processing units of the assessee company had also procured milk from the third-party vendors and paid for, viz. (i). raw milk cost; and (ii). overhead costs

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)

transfer pricing adjustment thereon also would be only zero. The arm‟s length price adjustment should be restricted only to the value of international transactions and cannot be done at entity level is no longer res integra in view of the decision of the Hon‟ble Bombay High Court in 19 M/s.Commvault Systems (India) Pvt. Ltd., the case

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

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

63,75,549/- to the international transactions, being expenditure incurred by the assessee in the nature of Interest on Fully Compulsory Convertible Debentures paid/payable by the assessee company to its associated enterprise. 3. The Learned CIT(A) has erred in sustaining the action of Ld. TPO/Assessing officer in going beyond the scope to re-characterize the Compulsory Convertible Debentures

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

63,75,549/- to the international transactions, being expenditure incurred by the assessee in the nature of Interest on Fully Compulsory Convertible Debentures paid/payable by the assessee company to its associated enterprise. 3. The Learned CIT(A) has erred in sustaining the action of Ld. TPO/Assessing officer in going beyond the scope to re-characterize the Compulsory Convertible Debentures

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

63,75,549/- to the international transactions, being expenditure incurred by the assessee in the nature of Interest on Fully Compulsory Convertible Debentures paid/payable by the assessee company to its associated enterprise. 3. The Learned CIT(A) has erred in sustaining the action of Ld. TPO/Assessing officer in going beyond the scope to re-characterize the Compulsory Convertible Debentures

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

LIMAGRAIN INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT, CIRCLE -5(1), HYDERABAD

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

Bench: Shri Manjunatha G. (Accountant Member), Shri K. Narasimha Chary (Judicial Member)

transfer pricing adjustment of INR 63,22,848 by treating the ALP as Nil in relation to the international transaction involving payment of seed testing and trial charges to its AEs. 9. The Ld.ao/Hon’ble DRP erred in law and on facts in going beyond the scope under section

ZETA INTERACTIVE SYSTEMS (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-17(4), HYDERABAD

Appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Laliet Kumarassessment Year: 2011-12

Transfer Pricing Officer and direct to re-do the exercise of determination of arm's length price in the light of the above decisions of the Tribunal. The grounds raised in this cross objection are allowed for statistical purposes. Further this view has been upheld by the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in ITA 765 of2016 order dated April

SAXON GLOBAL INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. ITO., WARD-3(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed in terms of our observations given hereinabove

63,415/- being adjustment under section 92CA of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act) made by the assessing officer is bad in law and thus the addition made needs to be deleted on the facts and circumstances of the case. 4. Principles of natural justice a. The learned DRP failed to adjudicate Ground no. 1(b) and Ground

INFOR (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED (FORMERLY KNOWN INFOR GLOBAL SOLUTIONS (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED),HYDERABAD vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CIRCLE-2(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, the assessee’s appeals for the A

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi & Shri S.Rifaur Rahman

transfer pricing provisions. 5. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and i 0 Jaw. the Ld. TPO and the Ld, AO erred in bringing notional interest to tax without considering the fact that neither the AE nor the Appellant charges any interest in case of delay in payment LEVY OF INTEREST UNDER SECTION

INFOR (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED ,HYDERABAD vs. DY.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRLCLE-2(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, the assessee’s appeals for the A

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi & Shri S.Rifaur Rahman

transfer pricing provisions. 5. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and i 0 Jaw. the Ld. TPO and the Ld, AO erred in bringing notional interest to tax without considering the fact that neither the AE nor the Appellant charges any interest in case of delay in payment LEVY OF INTEREST UNDER SECTION

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

ADP PRIVATE LIMITED,RANGA REDDY vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-1( 1), HYDERABAD

In the result, both the appeals are partly allowed for statistical purposes in above terms

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

63 -: ITA Nos..227 & 228/Hyd/2021 ADP Pvt. Ltd., Hyd. 1611/Hyd/2019, vide Para No. 3, placed at page No. 2123 of paper book, we direct the AO/TPO to allow the working adjustment done by the assessee. Thus, this ground is allowed. 24. Ground No. 13 has not been pressed by the ld. AR of the assessee at the time of hearing

ADP PRIVATE LIMITED (31/10/2015),RANGA REDDY vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-1( 1), HYDERABAD

In the result, both the appeals are partly allowed for statistical purposes in above terms

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

63 -: ITA Nos..227 & 228/Hyd/2021 ADP Pvt. Ltd., Hyd. 1611/Hyd/2019, vide Para No. 3, placed at page No. 2123 of paper book, we direct the AO/TPO to allow the working adjustment done by the assessee. Thus, this ground is allowed. 24. Ground No. 13 has not been pressed by the ld. AR of the assessee at the time of hearing