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

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

Bench: Us:

transfer, then for the purpose of deduction under Section 80-IA, the profits and gains of such eligible business shall be computed by adopting arm's length pricing

SANGHI INDUSTRIES LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT, CIRCLE -3 (1), HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar & Shri Madhusudan Sawdia

section 80-IA and satisfied the conditions therein. Further, the assessee has not claimed exemption only because it has huge accumulated losses during the previous years. · Once it is finalized that that the assessee is an eligible unit and transferred certain goods/services to non-eligible unit or related party, domestic transfer pricing

VITP PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT., CIRCLE8(1), HYDERABAD

transfer pricing adjustment.\n4.\nThereafter, the Ld. PCIT invoked provisions of section 263 of\nthe Act and issued notice to the assessee on 08.03.2024. The Ld.\nPCIT recorded that the Ld. AO during scrutiny assessment failed to\nexamine two specific issues, which is covered under Explanation\n2(a) to section 263 of the Act, thereby rendering the order erroneous\nand

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

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,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(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, 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

SUSHEE INFRA & MINING LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT., CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(2), HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is partly\nallowed for statistical purposes

Transfer Pricing (TP) documentation\nmaintained in terms of section 92D of the Act read with\nRule 10D of the Income-tax Rules, 1962 (‘Rules').\nf. modifying the comparability analysis in the TP\ndocumentation and in conducting a fresh comparability\nsearch based on application of additional filters in\ndetermining ALP.\ng. including certain companies in the final comparable set\nthat

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)

80,646 distribution services Transfer Pricing adjustments on 72,20,996 receivables Total TP adjustment to Income 4,27,67,898 3.7. The ld. AR before us prayed for exclusion of the three parties in software development (IT Sector) namely (a). L & T Infotech Ltd., (b)Persistent Systems Ltd., (c) CG-VAK Software and Exports Ltd., The ld. AR made

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

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)

section 92CA(1) of the Act and has not provided an opportunity of being heard before referring the transfer pricing issues to the Ld. TPO. 5. Ground 5: Rejection of TP documentation and undertaking fresh economic analysis for determining the arm's length price ('ALP') Rejection of the transfer pricing documentation maintained by the Assessee in accordance with the provisions

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

VIVIMED LABS LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , HYDERABAD

Bench: Shri S.S. Godara & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

80-IA deduction claim, not involving Section 153A proceedings, as are the facts before us. It rather emerges that their lordships yet another recent decision in PCIT Vs. JSW Steel Ltd. (2020) [115 taxmann.com 165 (Bombay) has taken note of the foregoing non-obstante clauses in line in Section 153A(supra) in holding that an assessee in Section 153A return

VIVIMED LABS LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. 500082 ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE2-(3), HYDERABAD

Bench: Shri S.S. Godara & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

80-IA deduction claim, not involving Section 153A proceedings, as are the facts before us. It rather emerges that their lordships yet another recent decision in PCIT Vs. JSW Steel Ltd. (2020) [115 taxmann.com 165 (Bombay) has taken note of the foregoing non-obstante clauses in line in Section 153A(supra) in holding that an assessee in Section 153A return