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.

73. Now, we will deal with ITA No.182/Hyd/2018 for the A.Y. 2013-14. TRANSFER PRICING ISSUES : GROUND NOS. 1 TO 11 73.1. In this appeal, assessee has raised as many as eleven transfer pricing issues and seven non-transfer pricing issues. We have already allowed transfer pricing grounds in our lead appeal for A.Y. 2011-12. Following the same reasoning

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.

73. Now, we will deal with ITA No.182/Hyd/2018 for the A.Y. 2013-14. TRANSFER PRICING ISSUES : GROUND NOS. 1 TO 11 73.1. In this appeal, assessee has raised as many as eleven transfer pricing issues and seven non-transfer pricing issues. We have already allowed transfer pricing grounds in our lead appeal for A.Y. 2011-12. Following the same reasoning

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.

73. Now, we will deal with ITA No.182/Hyd/2018 for the A.Y. 2013-14. TRANSFER PRICING ISSUES : GROUND NOS. 1 TO 11 73.1. In this appeal, assessee has raised as many as eleven transfer pricing issues and seven non-transfer pricing issues. We have already allowed transfer pricing grounds in our lead appeal for A.Y. 2011-12. Following the same reasoning

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.

73. Now, we will deal with ITA No.182/Hyd/2018 for the A.Y. 2013-14. TRANSFER PRICING ISSUES : GROUND NOS. 1 TO 11 73.1. In this appeal, assessee has raised as many as eleven transfer pricing issues and seven non-transfer pricing issues. We have already allowed transfer pricing grounds in our lead appeal for A.Y. 2011-12. Following the same reasoning

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.

73. Now, we will deal with ITA No.182/Hyd/2018 for the A.Y. 2013-14. TRANSFER PRICING ISSUES : GROUND NOS. 1 TO 11 73.1. In this appeal, assessee has raised as many as eleven transfer pricing issues and seven non-transfer pricing issues. We have already allowed transfer pricing grounds in our lead appeal for A.Y. 2011-12. Following the same reasoning

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

SABIR , SEW & PRASAD JV,HYDERABAD vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CIRCLE-6(1), HYDERABAD

73,858/-, vide cancellation agreement dated 01.11.2006, the original agreement was cancelled with the NSC, Consortium and one more agreement dated 01.11.2006 was entered into with NSC Consortium, Sri Avanthika contractors & two of its constituents SEW and PRASAD for executing the balance project work in the ratio of 50%, 25%, 12.5% & 12.5% respectively. 7.26 Similarly, in the case of Gorakallu

SABIR, SEW & PRASAD JV,HYDERABAD vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CIRCLE-6(1), HYDERABAD

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar, Hon’Ble & Shri G. Manjunatha G, Hon’Bleआ.अपी.सं / Ita Nos.212 To 214/Hyd/2019 (निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Years: 2006-07, 2007-08 & 2008-09)

73,858/-, vide cancellation agreement dated 01.11.2006, the original agreement was cancelled with the NSC, Consortium and one more agreement dated 01.11.2006 was entered into with NSC Consortium, Sri Avanthika contractors & two of its constituents SEW and PRASAD for executing the balance project work in the ratio of 50%, 25%, 12.5% & 12.5% respectively. 7.26 Similarly, in the case of Gorakallu

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

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

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

COMMVAULT SYSTEMS INDIA PVT. LTD., HYDERABAD,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-1(2), HYDERABAD, HYDERABAD

Appeal is treated as allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi & Shri D.S. Sunder Singhassessment Year: 2012-13 M/S Commvault Systems Dcit, Circle 1(2) (India) Private Limited Vs. Hyderabad 5Th Floor, Plot No.39, Phase Ii Block A, Ananth Info Park Hitech City, Madhapur Hyderabad Pan: Aaccc3708L (Appellant) (Respondent) Sh. Ajeet Tolani Asessee By: Revenue By: Smt. Anjala Sahu, D.R. Date Of Hearing: 01/09/2020 Date Of Pronouncement: 04/09/2020 Order Per Smt. P. Madhavi Devi, J.M. This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee For The A.Y. 2012-13 Against The Final Assessment Order Dated 26.12.2016 Passed U/S 143(3) R.W.S. 144C(13) Of The I.T. Act, 1961. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Company, Engaged In The Business Of Software Development Services & Unified Data Storage Solutions, E-Filed Its Original Return Of Income For The A.Y. 2012-13 On 11.10.2012 Admitting Total Income Of

Transfer Pricing Officer (TPO) for determination of the ALP. The TPO passed an order under section 92CA(3) on 30.01.2016 proposing an adjustment of Rs.1,73,05,026/-. The assessee filed its objections before the DRP who directed the AO to retain the comparables selected by the TPO and to compute the adjustment accordingly. DRP also directed

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

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