ACIT., CIRCLE-5(1), HYDERABAD vs. PENNA CEMENT INDUSTRIES LIMITED, HYDERABAD

Transfer Pricing Officer\n(TPO) in respect of specified domestic transactions reported by the\nassessee company. The TPO, after examining the submissions and\ndocumentation furnished by the assessee company, passed an order\nunder section 92CA(3) of the Act, determining the arm's length price\n(ALP) of the specified domestic transactions and did not propose any\nadjustment.\n4.\nThereafter

OPTUM GLOBAL SOLUTIONS (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT, CIRCLE -5(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, both the appeals of assessee are partly allowed

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri K. Narasimha Chary

80G of the Act, besides TDS short credit and interest under section 234B and 234C of the Act. Apart from these, there were certain other issues including the transfer pricing

OPTUM GLOBAL SOLUTIONS (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT CIRCLE -5(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, both the appeals of assessee are partly allowed

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri K. Narasimha Chary

80G of the Act, besides TDS short credit and interest under section 234B and 234C of the Act. Apart from these, there were certain other issues including the transfer pricing

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)

transfer pricing analysis/ study prepared by the Appellant and conducting fresh benchmarking, without appreciating that none of the conditions mentioned in clauses (a) to (d) of Section 92C(3) of the Act were satisfied. 3 NetCracker Technology Solutions (India) Private Limited, 4. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and contrary to law, the Ld. AO/Ld

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)

Transfer Pricing Officer to determine the arm’s length price of international transactions undertaken by the assessee. During the TP proceedings, the TPO noticed that the assessee had reported various international transactions including provision of software development services, receipt of software development services, reimbursement of expenses, and other support services as reported in Form 3CEB filed along with the return

BRIGHTCOM GROUP LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1(2), HYDERABAD

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

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Madhusudan Sawdia

transfer pricing adjustment by considering the loans advanced by the assessee to both of its AEs, including Symphoni Interactive LLC, USA. Be that as it may, it is seen that the ld. CIT(A) also impliedly accepted the interest earned by the assessee from Symphoni Interactive LLC, USA, at 6% as at ALP, against which the Department has no grudge

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

80G or section 80GGA\n45[or section 80GGC] or section 80HH or section 80HHA or section 80HHB or\nsection 80HHC or section 80HHD or section 80-1 or section 80-IA 46[or section\n80-IB] 47[or section 80-IC] 49[or section 80-ID or section 80-IE] or section 80J or\nsection 80JJ50, no deduction under

RAIN CEMENTS LIMITED, HYD,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-3(1), HYDERABAD, HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri K. Narasimha Charyassessment Year: 2008-09 M/S. Rain Cements Ltd Vs. Dy. Commissioner Of (Formerly Known As Rain Income Tax, Circle 3 (1) Cii Carbon (India) Ltd Hyderabad Hyderabad Pan:Aabcr8858F (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Advocate Prathishta Singh & Advocate Deepak Chopra Revenue By: Dr.Rajendra Kumar, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing: 20/03/2023 Date Of Pronouncement: 31/05/2023 Order Per R.K. Panda, A.M This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Final Assessment Order Dated 24.03.2017 Passed U/S 143(3) R.W.S. 144C(5) R.W.S. 260 Of The I.T. Act For The A.Y 2008-09. 2. This Appeal Was Earlier Decided By The Tribunal Vide Order Dated 18.10.2019. Subsequently Vide Ma No.15/Hyd/2020, Dated 23.3.2021, The Tribunal Recalled The Entire Order For Fresh Adjudication. Therefore, This Is A Recalled Matter.

transferred to DRP Bengaluru. The DRP Bengaluru passed its order on 22.6.2015 rejecting such objection given that the period of 9 months had expired on 31.12.2014 and they do not have any jurisdiction to issue directions. Immediately after the said DRP direction, the Assessing Officer passed the final assessment order on 28.8.2015. The assessee approached the Hon'ble High Court

INVESCO(INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT, CIRCLE -2 (1), HYDERABAD

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

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Manjunatha G

transfer pricing provisions and the Hon'ble DRP has further erred in upholding the action of Ld. TPO/AO. 1.4 That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. TPO/Ld. AO has erred in disregarding the judicial precedent of the Hon'ble Income-Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT), Hyderabad in the case of Adama India

NATCO PHARMA LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT., CIRCLE-5(1), HYDERABAD

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

Bench: Shri K. Narasimha Chary & Shri G. Manjunatha

price is determined on the basis of range concept i.e., 35th percentile and 65th percentile. The TPO 13 ITA.No.853/Hyd./2024 also noted that the instant issue is squarely covered by the decision of Coordinate Bench of Hyderabad Tribunal in the case of M/s.Tecumseh Products India Pvt Ltd, Hyderabad in ITA No.2228/Hyd/2011 wherein Hon'ble ITAT categorically held that