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 analysis. Ld.TPO noticed that assessee paid an amount of Rs.12,53,26,000/- to Ciments Francais S.A., as technical know- how and research and other service fee. This payment was paid on an agreement dt.02-08-2000 for getting technical know-how for a period of three calendar years from that effect date. As per renewal of clause

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 analysis. Ld.TPO noticed that assessee paid an amount of Rs.12,53,26,000/- to Ciments Francais S.A., as technical know- how and research and other service fee. This payment was paid on an agreement dt.02-08-2000 for getting technical know-how for a period of three calendar years from that effect date. As per renewal of clause

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 analysis. Ld.TPO noticed that assessee paid an amount of Rs.12,53,26,000/- to Ciments Francais S.A., as technical know- how and research and other service fee. This payment was paid on an agreement dt.02-08-2000 for getting technical know-how for a period of three calendar years from that effect date. As per renewal of clause

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

Bench: Us:

64 ITA TP 466/Hyd/2022 and 1301/Hyd/2024 Dodla Dairy Limited. business shall be computed as if the transfer, in either case, has been made at the market value of such goods as on the date. Also, we find that as per the “Explanation 2” to Section 80IA(8) of the Act, the term market value means, viz. (i). the price

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

transfer pricing provisions, in our view the assessee has correctly identified the manufacturing unit as the tested party and CUP as the MAM and the purchase price of electricity in the open market from the State Electricity Board to the manufacturing units in uncontrolled conditions as the ALP. 23. Gainful reference in this regard may also be made

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

64,51,732 towards the international transactions with AEs. 2. Rejection of use of multiple year data: Rejecting the use of multiple year data and using data for the FY 2013-14 only in determining the arm's length price. 3. Use of additional filters: Inter-alia use of the following additional/modified filters in undertaking the comparative analysis and rejecting

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

64,51,732 towards the international transactions with AEs. 2. Rejection of use of multiple year data: Rejecting the use of multiple year data and using data for the FY 2013-14 only in determining the arm's length price. 3. Use of additional filters: Inter-alia use of the following additional/modified filters in undertaking the comparative analysis and rejecting

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

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)

Section 92CA(3), proposed a transfer pricing adjustment of Rs. 6,06,64,733/- in respect of international transactions pertaining

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 FMV of the shares, does not attract provisions of section 56(2)(viia) and accordingly deleting the addition of Rs.5, 14,80,879/-. 5. Any other ground that may be urged at the time of hearing.” 2. The brief facts of the case are that assessee is a public company registered under the Companies

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

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

ZUARI CEMENT LIMITED,KADAPA vs. ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1(1), KADAPA

Appeal is allowed in above terms

Bench: Shri S.S. Godara & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahuassessment Year: 2009-10

Section 271(1)(c) of the Act as there was no concealment of facts and no willful misstatement.” 3. It is clear in nutshell that the assessee’s four folded substantive grounds challenge correctness of the lower authorities’ action interalia making arm’s length price “ALP” adjustments pertaining to payment(s) of sub-license fee for use of trade mark

MYLAN LABORATORIES LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER INCOME TAX , CIRCLE-5 (1) , HYDERABAD

In the result, the ground no

Bench: Shri K. Narasimha Chary & Shri Madhusudan Sawdia

64,00,000. The Appellant furnished all the requisite facts and documents including all the relevant agreements, valuation reports, Form 3CEB, bank statements, etc. in support of its contention that the expenditure is revenue in nature. 3.3. Details of documents filed before the assessing authorities is as follows: Document Description Filed with Asset Purchase Agreement between M/s. Agila & M/s. Pfizer

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

64,328/- under MAT. 6. The assessee company applied TNNM method as most appropriate method for benchmarking the services provided to its AEs and the operating profit/operating cost was used by the assessee company as the profit level indicator to test the assessee company’s OP/OC with respect to international transactions with AEs with reference to uncontrolled comparables identified

NETCRACKER TECHNOLOGY SOLUTIONS (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD 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 G. MANJUNATHA, HON’BLE (Accountant Member), SHRI RAVISH SOOD, HON’BLE (Judicial Member)

64,780/-. The case was selected for scrutiny and during the course of assessment proceedings, a reference under Section 92CA of the Income-tax Act, 1961 was made to the Transfer Pricing

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

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