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.

section 143(3) r.w.s. 144C and 92C(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred as “the Act”) in pursuance to the directions of the Dispute Resolution Panel – “DRP”, Bangalore-1’s for the assessment years 2011-12, 2012-13, 2013-14, 2012-13 and 2014-15 on the following grounds : Zuari Cement Limited, Kadapa Zuari Cement Limited, Kadapa

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.

section 143(3) r.w.s. 144C and 92C(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred as “the Act”) in pursuance to the directions of the Dispute Resolution Panel – “DRP”, Bangalore-1’s for the assessment years 2011-12, 2012-13, 2013-14, 2012-13 and 2014-15 on the following grounds : Zuari Cement Limited, Kadapa Zuari Cement Limited, Kadapa

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.

section 143(3) r.w.s. 144C and 92C(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred as “the Act”) in pursuance to the directions of the Dispute Resolution Panel – “DRP”, Bangalore-1’s for the assessment years 2011-12, 2012-13, 2013-14, 2012-13 and 2014-15 on the following grounds : Zuari Cement Limited, Kadapa Zuari Cement Limited, Kadapa

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.

section 143(3) r.w.s. 144C and 92C(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred as “the Act”) in pursuance to the directions of the Dispute Resolution Panel – “DRP”, Bangalore-1’s for the assessment years 2011-12, 2012-13, 2013-14, 2012-13 and 2014-15 on the following grounds : Zuari Cement Limited, Kadapa Zuari Cement Limited, Kadapa

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

Bench: Us:

Section 80IB(11A) of the Act, were duly filed online by Mr. PSRVV Surya Rao, Chartered Accountant 79 ITA TP 466/Hyd/2022 and 1301/Hyd/2024 Dodla Dairy Limited. [Membership No. 202367], Partner at A. Ramachandra Rao & Co. [FRN no. 002857S]; (iii). that the signed copies of all the “Form 10CCBs” (alongwith the screenshots of the acknowledgments downloaded from the Income

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)

83,546. 3.3. In relation to Distribution Activity, the Ld. TPO has determined Arm‟s Length Price for the transaction stating that the arrangement is nothing but in the nature of services rendered. Thereafter, arrived at arm‟s length margin as 1.37 % vis-à-vis the assessee‟s margin at -22.62% and accordingly, determined the differential adjustment to the price

EPAM SYSTEMS INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-8(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, both the appeals of the Assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Manjunatha G.आ.अपी.सं /Ita Nos.83 & 498/Hyd/2022 Assessment Years 2017-2018 & 2018-2019 Epam Systems India The Dcit & The Acit, Private Limited, Vs. Circle-8(1), Hyderabad – 500 081 Hyderabad. Pan Aaacw2012R (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा"रती "ारा /Assessee By: Ca Shreyas Sardesai राज" व "ारा /Revenue By: Ms U Mini Chandran, Cit-Dr

Transfer Pricing Officer, as the case may be], wholly or partly, otherwise than by making a fresh assessment or reassessment [or fresh order under section 92CA, as the case may be], such effect shall be given within a 21 ITA.Nos.83

EPAM SYSTEMS INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT, CIRCLE -8 (1), HYDERABAD

In the result, both the appeals of the Assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Manjunatha G.आ.अपी.सं /Ita Nos.83 & 498/Hyd/2022 Assessment Years 2017-2018 & 2018-2019 Epam Systems India The Dcit & The Acit, Private Limited, Vs. Circle-8(1), Hyderabad – 500 081 Hyderabad. Pan Aaacw2012R (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा"रती "ारा /Assessee By: Ca Shreyas Sardesai राज" व "ारा /Revenue By: Ms U Mini Chandran, Cit-Dr

Transfer Pricing Officer, as the case may be], wholly or partly, otherwise than by making a fresh assessment or reassessment [or fresh order under section 92CA, as the case may be], such effect shall be given within a 21 ITA.Nos.83

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 :

prices much below their fair market value, it is proposed to amend section 56 to also include within its ambit transactions undertaken in shares of a company (not being a company in which public are substantially interested) either for inadequate consideration or without consideration where the recipient is a firm or a company (not being a company in which public

SIGNODE INDIA LIMITED ,HYDERABAD vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX ,CIRCLE-3(1), HYDERABAD

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Manjunatha G

section 92CA(1) of Income-tax Act, 1961, with the prior approval of the Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax-3, Hyderabad, for determination of arm's length price in respect of the Specified domestic/ International transactions reported by the assessee company for the financial year relevant to the assessment year 2016-2017. The TPO had issued notices u/sec.92CA

SIGNODE INDIA LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-3(1), HYDERABAD

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Manjunatha G

section 92CA(1) of Income-tax Act, 1961, with the prior approval of the Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax-3, Hyderabad, for determination of arm's length price in respect of the Specified domestic/ International transactions reported by the assessee company for the financial year relevant to the assessment year 2016-2017. The TPO had issued notices u/sec.92CA

HIGHRADIUS TECHNOLOGIES PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE -2(1), HYDERABAD

Bench: Us:

Section 143(3) r.w.s 144C(13) r.w.s 144B of the Act, dated 25.02.2024, has carried the matter in appeal before us. 9. We have heard the Ld. Authorized Representatives of both parties, perused the orders of the lower authorities and the material available on record, as well as considered the judicial pronouncements that have been pressed into service by them

VENKATA KRISHNA TATINENI,SECUNDERBAD vs. ASST COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3(4), HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar & Shri Madhusudan Sawdia

83[Explanation 3.—For the purposes of this section, "Transfer Pricing Officer" shall have the same meaning as assigned to it in the Explanation

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

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

83(SC), he also submitted that, if two views are possible, and the AO has adopted one of those views, the order of assessment cannot be prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue. The Ld. AR also submitted that even if there are some lac of enquiry on the part of the Ld. in pursuance to the provisions covered under

XILINX INDIA TECHNOLOGY SERVICES PRIVATE LIMITED ,HYDERABAD vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CIRCLE-17(2), HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee is partly allowed

section 37(1) of the Act and re-compute the total income for the subject AY 2015-16. TATA Exlsi Limited ('TATA Exlsi') should be excluded from list of comparables 2.1 That on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the TPO/AO/DRP erred in confirming the acceptance of Tata Exlsi Ltd as comparable company. 2.2 That

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 Officer, however, the assessee raised objections against selection of this company before the DRP as well as before us. The grievance of the assessee is, the company being involved in development of products and since no segmental details are available in the annual report, it cannot be treated as comparable. The Co-ordinate Bench in Tech Mahindra

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 Officer, however, the assessee raised objections against selection of this company before the DRP as well as before us. The grievance of the assessee is, the company being involved in development of products and since no segmental details are available in the annual report, it cannot be treated as comparable. The Co-ordinate Bench in Tech Mahindra