UBER INDIA SYSTEMS PRIVATE LIMITED (AS SUCCESSOR TO UBER INDIA RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT PRIVATE LIMITED),HYDERABAD vs. DCIT., CIRCLE-8(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Madhusudan Sawdia

transfer pricing study maintained as per Section 92D of the Act read with read with Rule 10D of the Income

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

transfer pricing adjustments to the international transactions with the AEs only, pertaining to provision of engineering services and receipt of technical advisory services, covered by ground No. 5, addition in respect of reimbursement of expatriate salary, bonus and the provident fund costs covered by ground No. 6, disallowance of miscellaneous expenditure covered by grounds No. 8 and 9, and lastly

GAINSIGHT SOFTWARE PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT., CIRCLE-2(1), HYDERSABAD

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 92D of the Act read with rule 10D of the Income Tax Rules, 1962. 5. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. TPO / Ld. AO / Ld. DRP erred in: a. rejecting certain filters adopted in the transfer pricing

DSM SHARED SERVICES INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD, TELANGANA vs. DCIT., CIRCLE 8(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Manjunatha G.आ.अपी.सं /Ita No.1358/Hyd/2024 Assessment Year 2021-2022 Dsm Shared Services India Private Limited, The Dcit, Circle-8(1), Hyderabad – 500 081. Hyderabad – 500 081. Vs. Telangana. Telangana. Pan Aadcd8407C (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा"रती "ारा /Assessee By: Ca Aliasgar Rampurawala राज" व "ारा /Revenue By: Dr. Narendra Kumar Naik, Cit-Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 09.12.2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 12.12.2025 आदेश/Order

transfer pricing adjustment of INR 8,60,80,441 towards provision of ITes. 3 ITA.No.1358/Hyd./2024 4. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Hon'ble DRP/Ld. AO/TPO have further erred in : a. rejecting the economic analysis carried out in TP documentation which was maintained in good faith and with due diligence despite satisfying

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

Transfer Pricing Study Report, the taxpayer did not furnish any details with regard to corporate guarantee given and aggregated the guaranteed transaction along with the sale and purchase transactions under TNMM. The taxpayer has not extended any new corporate guarantee to AEs, however, guarantees extended in the earlier years and the outstanding loans as on 31.03.2018 are as under : Name

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

Transfer Pricing Study Report, the taxpayer did not furnish any details with regard to corporate guarantee given and aggregated the guaranteed transaction along with the sale and purchase transactions under TNMM. The taxpayer has not extended any new corporate guarantee to AEs, however, guarantees extended in the earlier years and the outstanding loans as on 31.03.2018 are as under : Name

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

Transfer Pricing Study Report, the taxpayer did not furnish any details with regard to corporate guarantee given and aggregated the guaranteed transaction along with the sale and purchase transactions under TNMM. The taxpayer has not extended any new corporate guarantee to AEs, however, guarantees extended in the earlier years and the outstanding loans as on 31.03.2018 are as under : Name

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

Transfer Pricing Study Report, the taxpayer did not furnish any details with regard to corporate guarantee given and aggregated the guaranteed transaction along with the sale and purchase transactions under TNMM. The taxpayer has not extended any new corporate guarantee to AEs, however, guarantees extended in the earlier years and the outstanding loans as on 31.03.2018 are as under : Name

LIMAGRAIN INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,SECUNDERABAD vs. DCIT., CIRCLE-5(1), HYDERABAD

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

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Madhusudan Sawdia

transfer pricing adjustment for the year under consideration had already been remanded to the file of the Ld. AO/TPO by the coordinate Bench of the Tribunal in assessee’s own case vide ITA No.65/Ind/2022 dated 19.01.2024. Accordingly, it was contended that the penalty proceedings under section 271G should ITA No.546/Hyd/2025 5 also be remanded, as the penalty is intrinsically linked

ZUARI CEMENT LIMITED,KADAPA vs. DCIT CIRCLE -1, NELLORE

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

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Madhusudan Sawdia

Transfer Pricing Officer ("TPO") and DRP erred on the facts and in law, in rejecting the economic analysis in the TP documentation filed by the Appellant in terms of the Section 92D

SITAPURAM POWER LIMITED-ERSTWHILE AMALGAMATING COMPANY (NOW AMALGAMATED COMPANY-ZUARI CEMENT LIMITED),KADAPA vs. DCIT, CIRCLE 1, HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar, Hon’Ble & Shri Madhusudan Sawdia, Hon’Bleआआआआ आआआआ आआ./ I.T.A. (Tp) No.79/Hyd/2022 (आआआआआआआआ आआआआ / Assessment Year: 2017-18) Erstwhile Amalgamating Company Vs. Deputy Commissioner Of – Sitapuram Power Limited Income Tax, Pan:Aajcs2098E Circle-1, (Now Amalgamated Company – Nellore. Zuari Cement Limited), Kadapa. Pan:Aajcs2098E (आआआआआआआआआ/ Appellant) (आआआआआआआआआआ/ Respondent) आआआआआआआआआ आआ आआ आआ/ Appellant : Adv. Shri Deepak Chopra & Nitin Narang By आआआआआआआआआआआ आआ आआ आआ / : Shri Kumar Pranav, Cit-Dr Respondent By आआआआआआ आआ आआआआआ / Date Of : 15/05/2024 Hearing आआआआआ आआ आआआआआ/Date Of : 02/07/2024 Pronouncement O R D E R

92D of the Act read with Rule 10D of the IT Rules, 1962 and proceeded to make the TP addition based on re-determination of the arm’s length price of the impugned transaction pertaining to sale of electricity without giving any cogent basis and without demonstrating the inadequacy or infirmity in the analysis so conducted by the appellant

PURPLETALK INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX ,CIRCLE-9(1), HYDERABAD

sections": [ "143(3)", "144C(13)", "143(3A)", "143(3B)", "92CA", "92C(3)", "92D(1)", "10B", "36(1)(va)", "2(24)(x)", "37(1)", "234A", "234B", "234C", "115JB" ], "issues": "Whether the assessee's transfer pricing

DCIT., CENTRAL CIRCLE-3(2), HYDERABAD vs. JODAS EXPOIM PRIVATE LIMITED, HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao, Vice-A N D Shri Madhusudan Sawdiaआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.702/Hyd/2024 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2016-17) Dy. C.I.T Vs. M/S. Jodas Expoim (P) Ltd Central Circle 3(2) Siddipet, Telangana Hyderabad Pan:Aabcj8653L (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: Shri Ravi Bharadwaj, Ca राज" व "ारा/Revenue By:: Shri Srinath Sadanala, Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 05/03/2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 16/05/2025 आदेश/Order Per Vijay Pal Raothis Appeal Filed By The Revenue Is Directed Against The Order Dated 7/5/2024 Arising From The Penalty Order Passed U/S 271Aa Of The I.T. Act, 1961 For The A.Y 2016-17. 2. The Revenue Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal: “1) Whether On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Ld. Cit(A) Erred In Deleting The Penalty Levied U/S 271Aa Of The Act Even Though The Assessee Failed To File Form 3Ceb As Mandated U/S 92E Of The Act Within The Time Prescribed U/S 139(1) Of The Act? 2) Whether On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Ld. Cit(A) Erred In Deleting The Penalty Levied U/S 271Aa Of The Act Even Though The Assessee Failed To Report

transfer pricing study as well as the report in Form No.3CEB. Thus, the learned DR has submitted that despite this fact detected during the survey that the assessee has entered into various international transactions which were not reported in the books of account of the assessee, then there is a clear failure on the part of the assessee to maintain

EXCELRA KNOWLEDGE SOLUTIONS PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT., CIRCLE-8(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao, Vice-A N D Shri Madhusudan Sawdiaआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.545/Hyd/2025 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2018-19) Excelra Knowledge Vs. Dy.Cit Solutions Private Limited Circle 8(1) Hyderabad Hyderabad Pan:Aafcg5715Q (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: Advocate H Srinivasulu राज" व "ारा/Revenue By:: Shri Ranjan Agrawala, Sr. Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 17/11/2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 26/11/2025 आदेश/Order Per Madhusudan Sawdia, A.M.: This Appeal Is Filed By Excelra Knowledge Solutions Private Limited (“The Assessee”), Feeling Aggrieved By The Order Passed By The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi (“Ld. Cit(A)”) Dated 22.01.2025 For The A.Y 2018-19. Page 1 Of 8

Transfer Pricing Officer, where the assessee had maintained information and documents as prescribed under section 92D, declared the international transaction

BABA AKHILA SAI JYOTHI INDUSTRIES PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT., CIRCLE-1(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao, Vice-A N D Shri Manjunatha, G.आ.अपी.सं /Ita No.987/Hyd/2024 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2018-19) Baba Akhila Sai Jyothi Vs. Dy. Cit Industries Private Ltd Circle 1 ( 1 ) Hyderabad Hyderabad Pan:Aadcb3413C (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: Advocate A.V. Raghuram राज" व "ारा/Revenue By:: Shri Srinath Sadanala, Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 02/12/2024 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 05/12/2024 आदेश/Order Per Vijay Pal Raothis Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated, 6/8/2024 Of The Learned Cit (A)-Nfac Delhi, Relating To A.Y.2018-19. 2. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds: “1. On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case, The Order Of The Learned Cit (A) Is Erroneous Both On Facts & In Law. 2. The Learned Cit (A) Erred In Sustaining The Penalty Of Rs.5,80,424/- Levied By The Assessing Officer U/S 270A Of The I.T. Act, 1961. Page 1 Of 8

Transfer Pricing Officer, where the assessee had maintained information and documents as prescribed under section 92D, declared the international transaction

CAMBRIDGE TECHNOLOGY ENTERPRISES LIMITED ,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT, CIRCLE -1, HYDERABAD

Bench: the Dispute Resolution Panel - 1, Bangalore (for short “DRP”). The DRP, vide its order u/s 144C(5) of the Act, dt.25.10.2016 after considering the objections rejected the adjustment of Rs.7.25 crores (supra) suggested by the TPO and directed the A.O. to make an addition of Rs.10,21,789/- towards shortfall of ALP adjustment by charging 5% mark up on the reimbursement of expenses transactions. Accordingly, the A.O. vide his assessment order passed u/s 143(3) r.w.s.144C(13), dated 29.11.2016 f

Transfer Pricing Order. On application of rate of 2% as Corporate Guarantee fee, as applied in other cases, the short adjustment on this account worked out to Rs 1,29,48,000/-, Further, non-disclosure of the transaction as required u/s 92D attracts penalty proceedings u/s 271AA.” 5 Cambridge Technology Enterprises Limited, Hyderabad. 5. Accordingly, the Pr. CIT vide

CAMBRIDGE TECHNOLOGY ENTERPRISES LIMITED ,HYDERABAD vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CIRCLE-1(2), HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Manjunatha G. & Shri K.Narasimha Charyआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.536/Hyd/2019 (निर्धारण वर्ा/Assessment Year: 2012-13) M/S Cambridge Technology Vs. Dcit Enterprises Limited Circle-1(2) Hyderabad Hyderabad [Pan :Aaacu3358G] (Appellant) (Respondent) निर्धाररती द्वधरध/Assessee By: Shri P.Murali Mohan Rao, Ar रधजस् व द्वधरध/Revenue By: Shri Shiva Sewak, Cit-Dr सुिवधई की तधरीख/Date Of Hearing: 28/10/2024 घोर्णध की तधरीख/Date Of 24/01/2025 Pronouncement: आदेश / Order Per. Manjunatha G., A.M: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 20.03.2019 Of The Learned Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax [Ld.Pcit], Hyderabad Pertaining To A.Y.2012-13. 2. The Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Company, Engaged In The Business Of Rendering Software Services, Filed Its Return Of Income For The A.Y.2012-13 On 26.09.2012, Admitting Total Income Of Rs.4,05,55,380/- Under Normal Provisions Of Income Tax Act, 1961 (“The Act”) & Rs.1,47,09173/-

Transfer Pricing Officer (“TPO”) had also not observed the issue while passing the TP order. On application of 2% commission on corporate guarantee fee as applied in other cases, the short adjustment on this account works out to Rs.1,29,48,000/-. Further, non disclosure of the transaction as required u/s 92D attracts penalty proceedings u/s 271AA. This point