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

Bench: Us:

73 ITA TP 466/Hyd/2022 and 1301/Hyd/2024 Dodla Dairy Limited. during the assessment or in the course of the proceedings before us, therefore, there can be no justification in approving the view taken by the A.O/TPO, who had held arm’s length price of the inter- unit transfer at Rs. Nil and declined the claim of the chilling units for deduction

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

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

73,99,248 and the said addition being wholly unjustified is liable to be deleted. 2. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and contrary to law, the Ld. AO / TPO erred and the Hon’ble DRP further erred in upholding / confirming the action of the Ld. AO / TPO, in rejecting the transfer pricing analysis / study prepared

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

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

SHAKTI HORMANN PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT CIRCLE -3(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee for both the assessment years 2017-18 and 2018-19 are partly allowed

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Manjunatha G.आ.अपी.सं /Ita-Tp No.451/Hyd/2022 & 452/Hyd/2022 (निर्धारण वर्ा/Assessment Year: 2017-18 & 2018-19) Shakti Hormann Private Vs. Asst.Commissioner Of Limited Income Tax Hyderabad Circle-3(1) [Pan : Aadcs4024Q] Hyderabad (Appellant) (Respondent) निर्धाररती द्वधरध/Assessee By: Shri P.Murali Mohan Rao, Ar रधजस् व द्वधरध/Revenue By: Shri B.Bala Krishna, Cit-Dr सुिवधई की तधरीख/Date Of Hearing: 15/04/2025 घोर्णध की तधरीख/ 21/04/2025 Date Of Pronouncement: आदेश / Order Per Vijay Pal Rao: These Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Directed Against The Assessment Orders Dated 21.07.2022 & 28.07.2022 Passed U/S 143(3) R.W.S. 144C(13) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (“The Act”) In Pursuant To The Directions Of The Dispute Resolution Panel (“The Drp”) U/S 144C(5) Of The Act For The Assessment Year 2017-18 & 2018-19 Respectively. 2. For The Assessment Year 2017-18, The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal :

Section 92C of the Act relating to the ‘Computation of Arm’s Length Price. 2.2. The Ld. TPO/AO ought to appreciate the fact that the assessee has received the funds in India from outside India for the expansion and increasing the capacity of manufacturing and acquiring the machinery in the normal course of business. 2.3. The Ld. TPO/AO ought

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRLCE-2(1), HYD, HYDERABAD vs. HES INFRA PVT LTD., HYD, HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of Revenue in ITA

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri Laliet Kumar

prices of materials, cost of laborers, overhead expenses etc. Therefore the Assessee is not merely a works contractor, but was engaged in development of project as a whole, and therefore, entitled for claim of deduction under section 80IA(4) of the Act, though not being the owner of the facility. It was contended that 14 M/s. HES Infra

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRLCE-2(1), HYD, HYDERABAD vs. HES INFRA PVT LTD., HYD, HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of Revenue in ITA

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri Laliet Kumar

prices of materials, cost of laborers, overhead expenses etc. Therefore the Assessee is not merely a works contractor, but was engaged in development of project as a whole, and therefore, entitled for claim of deduction under section 80IA(4) of the Act, though not being the owner of the facility. It was contended that 14 M/s. HES Infra

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRLCE-2(1), HYD, HYDERABAD vs. HES INFRA PVT LTD., HYD, HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of Revenue in ITA

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri Laliet Kumar

prices of materials, cost of laborers, overhead expenses etc. Therefore the Assessee is not merely a works contractor, but was engaged in development of project as a whole, and therefore, entitled for claim of deduction under section 80IA(4) of the Act, though not being the owner of the facility. It was contended that 14 M/s. HES Infra

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRLCE-2(1), HYD, HYDERABAD vs. HES INFRA PVT LTD., HYD, HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of Revenue in ITA

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri Laliet Kumar

prices of materials, cost of laborers, overhead expenses etc. Therefore the Assessee is not merely a works contractor, but was engaged in development of project as a whole, and therefore, entitled for claim of deduction under section 80IA(4) of the Act, though not being the owner of the facility. It was contended that 14 M/s. HES Infra

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

73,030 for the year under consideration.\nVALIDITY OF FINAL ORDER PASSED BEYOND TIMELINES PRESCRIBED UNDER SECTION 153\nOF THE ACT\n2. erred in not passing the final assessment order within the time limit prescribed under section 153\nof the Act which is the outer time limit for passing the final assessment order and hence, the\nassessment proceedings are time

FAIRFIELD DEVELOPMENT LIMITED ,HYDERABAD vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX ,(INTERNATIONAL TAXATION), HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of Revenue in ITA

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Laliet Kumarassessment Year: 2014-15 M/S. Fairfield Developments Vs. Dy. Commissioner Of Income Limited, Tax, Hyderabad. International Taxation – 1 Pan : Aabcf3158N Hyderabad. (Appellant) (Respondent) Ita 488/Hyd/2019 Assessment Year 2014-15 Dy. Commissioner Of Income Vs. M/S. Fairfield Developments Tax, Limited, International Taxation – 1, Hyderabad. Hyderabad. Pan : Aabcf3158N (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Akshay Surana & Siddharth Surana, C.A Revenue By: Shri K.P.R.R. Murthy Date Of Hearing: 27.03.2023 Date Of Pronouncement: 25.04.2023 O R D E R Per Laliet Kumar, J.M. These Two Appeals Filed By The Assessee & The Revenue, Respectively, Are Directed Against The Order Of Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) – 10, Hyderabad Dated 16.01.2019 For The Assessment Year 2014-15. 2 M/S. Fairfield Developments Limited

Transfer Pricing analysis but did not propose for any adjustment of income as the same has been proposed in case of WRPL on the same transaction to benchmark the interest paid/ payable on FCCD's denominated in INR at LIBOR plus 200 basis points. A copy of TPO order of WRL was forwarded to the appellant and notice dt.12.12.2017

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX ,(INTERNATIONAL TAXATION)-1, HYDERABAD vs. FAIR FIELD DEVELOPMENT LIMITED , CYPRUS

In the result, the appeal of Revenue in ITA

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Laliet Kumarassessment Year: 2014-15 M/S. Fairfield Developments Vs. Dy. Commissioner Of Income Limited, Tax, Hyderabad. International Taxation – 1 Pan : Aabcf3158N Hyderabad. (Appellant) (Respondent) Ita 488/Hyd/2019 Assessment Year 2014-15 Dy. Commissioner Of Income Vs. M/S. Fairfield Developments Tax, Limited, International Taxation – 1, Hyderabad. Hyderabad. Pan : Aabcf3158N (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Akshay Surana & Siddharth Surana, C.A Revenue By: Shri K.P.R.R. Murthy Date Of Hearing: 27.03.2023 Date Of Pronouncement: 25.04.2023 O R D E R Per Laliet Kumar, J.M. These Two Appeals Filed By The Assessee & The Revenue, Respectively, Are Directed Against The Order Of Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) – 10, Hyderabad Dated 16.01.2019 For The Assessment Year 2014-15. 2 M/S. Fairfield Developments Limited

Transfer Pricing analysis but did not propose for any adjustment of income as the same has been proposed in case of WRPL on the same transaction to benchmark the interest paid/ payable on FCCD's denominated in INR at LIBOR plus 200 basis points. A copy of TPO order of WRL was forwarded to the appellant and notice dt.12.12.2017

HETERO LABS LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3(4), HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of Revenue in ITA No

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Laliet Kumarआ.अपी.सं / Ita Nos.312 & 313/Hyd/2023 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2017-18 & 2018-19) Hetero Labs Limited, Vs. The Assistant Commissioner Of Hyderabad. Income Tax, Central Circle – 3(4), Pan : Aaach5506R Hyderabad. अपीलाथ" / Appellant "" यथ" / Respondent आ.अपी.सं / Ita Nos.348 & 349/Hyd/2023 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2017-18 & 2-18-19) The Assistant Vs. Hetero Labs Limited, Commissioner Of Income Hyderabad. Tax, Central Circle – 3(4), Pan : Aaach5506R Hyderabad. अपीलाथ" / Appellant "" यथ" / Respondent

73,742 invoices raised during the F.Y. 2021-22. f - Add : Interest on delayed trade receivable in respect of invoices which were raised in previous 24,03,09,219 FYs but remained unpaid on the opening day of the current F.Y 2021-22. Total interest on delayed receivables 32,72,82,961 6.5.9 Accordingly, an amount of Rs.32

ACIT., CENTRAL CIRCLE 3(4), HYDERABAD, HYDERABAD vs. HETERO LABS LIMITED, HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of Revenue in ITA No

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Laliet Kumarआ.अपी.सं / Ita Nos.312 & 313/Hyd/2023 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2017-18 & 2018-19) Hetero Labs Limited, Vs. The Assistant Commissioner Of Hyderabad. Income Tax, Central Circle – 3(4), Pan : Aaach5506R Hyderabad. अपीलाथ" / Appellant "" यथ" / Respondent आ.अपी.सं / Ita Nos.348 & 349/Hyd/2023 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2017-18 & 2-18-19) The Assistant Vs. Hetero Labs Limited, Commissioner Of Income Hyderabad. Tax, Central Circle – 3(4), Pan : Aaach5506R Hyderabad. अपीलाथ" / Appellant "" यथ" / Respondent

73,742 invoices raised during the F.Y. 2021-22. f - Add : Interest on delayed trade receivable in respect of invoices which were raised in previous 24,03,09,219 FYs but remained unpaid on the opening day of the current F.Y 2021-22. Total interest on delayed receivables 32,72,82,961 6.5.9 Accordingly, an amount of Rs.32

ACIT., CENTRAL CIRCLE 3(4), HYDERABAD vs. HETERO LABS LIMITED, HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of Revenue in ITA No

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Laliet Kumarआ.अपी.सं / Ita Nos.312 & 313/Hyd/2023 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2017-18 & 2018-19) Hetero Labs Limited, Vs. The Assistant Commissioner Of Hyderabad. Income Tax, Central Circle – 3(4), Pan : Aaach5506R Hyderabad. अपीलाथ" / Appellant "" यथ" / Respondent आ.अपी.सं / Ita Nos.348 & 349/Hyd/2023 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2017-18 & 2-18-19) The Assistant Vs. Hetero Labs Limited, Commissioner Of Income Hyderabad. Tax, Central Circle – 3(4), Pan : Aaach5506R Hyderabad. अपीलाथ" / Appellant "" यथ" / Respondent

73,742 invoices raised during the F.Y. 2021-22. f - Add : Interest on delayed trade receivable in respect of invoices which were raised in previous 24,03,09,219 FYs but remained unpaid on the opening day of the current F.Y 2021-22. Total interest on delayed receivables 32,72,82,961 6.5.9 Accordingly, an amount of Rs.32

HETERO LABS LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3(4), HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of Revenue in ITA No

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Laliet Kumarआ.अपी.सं / Ita Nos.312 & 313/Hyd/2023 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2017-18 & 2018-19) Hetero Labs Limited, Vs. The Assistant Commissioner Of Hyderabad. Income Tax, Central Circle – 3(4), Pan : Aaach5506R Hyderabad. अपीलाथ" / Appellant "" यथ" / Respondent आ.अपी.सं / Ita Nos.348 & 349/Hyd/2023 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2017-18 & 2-18-19) The Assistant Vs. Hetero Labs Limited, Commissioner Of Income Hyderabad. Tax, Central Circle – 3(4), Pan : Aaach5506R Hyderabad. अपीलाथ" / Appellant "" यथ" / Respondent

73,742 invoices raised during the F.Y. 2021-22. f - Add : Interest on delayed trade receivable in respect of invoices which were raised in previous 24,03,09,219 FYs but remained unpaid on the opening day of the current F.Y 2021-22. Total interest on delayed receivables 32,72,82,961 6.5.9 Accordingly, an amount of Rs.32

CLINASIA LABS PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. ITO WARD1(4), HYDERABAD

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

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar & Shri Manjunatha G.

section 92CA(3) of Rs.2,17,38,030/- to the price received by the assessee from its Associated Enterprise. 3. The Ld. AO/ Ld. TPO and the Ld. DRP ought to have accepted the Profit margin of the assessee company (OP IOC) of 11.57 % as having complied with the arm's length principle. 4. The Ld. TPO / Ld. DRP erred

BRIGHTCOM GROUP LIMITED (FORMERLY KNOWN AS LYCOS INTERNET LIMITED),HYDERABAD vs. ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-16(1),, HYDERABAD

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

73,48,776/- need not be added to make the adjustments in accordance with the provisions of section 115JB of the act. 4.2. Ought to have appreciated the decision given by Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Apollo Tyres Ltd Vs. CIT2002) 12 Taxmann.com 562 (SC) has clearly stated that the Assessing Officer does not have