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

1. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the final assessment order dated October 23, 2024 ("Impugned Order) passed by the Assessment Unit, Income Tax Department ("Ld. AO), pursuant to the Directions dated September 18, 2024 ('DRP Directions) issued by the Hon'ble Dispute Resolution Panel, Bengaluru ("Hon’ble DRP), and under section 143(3) read

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 report maintained as per Section 92D of the Act read with Rule 10D of the Rules and various submissions made by the Appellant:O - Silgate Solutions Limited ('Silgate') - Digicall Global Private Limited ('Digicall") - R Systems International Limited (Seg) ('R Systems') - iSN Global Solutions Private Limited ('ISN') - Airan Limited ('Airan'); - Allsec Technologies Limited ('Allsec'). - Athena BPO Private Limited

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

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

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

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 92D of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The reason for adopting each of the method is given in detail therein. The TPO rejected the ALP determined by the assessee and the MAM adopted by the assessee for each of the transaction and instead adopt TNMM as the MAM for all the transactions entered into with AEs by the assessee

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

1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (“the Act”) on 30.11.2017, declaring a loss of Rs.37,90,21,971/-. During the year under consideration, the assessee entered into international transactions aggregating to Rs.98,28,10,757/- under 22 different service categories. Based on the transfer pricing proceedings, the learned Transfer Pricing Officer (“Ld. TPO”) proposed an adjustment of Rs.7

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

1), Section 80IA(10) and section 92(2A) of the Act. 4.2. The Ld. AO / Ld. TPO / Hon’ble DRP has erred in law and on facts by adopting a materially defective approach to propose an adjustment of Rs. 23,09,89,366/- by re-determining the arm’s length price of the transaction pertaining to sale of electricity

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

1, Nellore (hereinafter referred to as "AO") pursuant to the IT(TP)A No.630/Hyd/2024 2 directions passed by the Dispute Resolution Panel (hereinafter referred to as "DRP") under Section 144C(5) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ("the Act"), is a vitiated order having been passed in violation of principles of natural justice and is otherwise arbitrary and is thus

SYNIVERSE MOBILE SOLUTIONS PVT. LTD., (EARLIER KNOWN AS MACH MOBILE SOLUTION PVT.LTD., HYD,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-3(2), HYDERABAD, HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri P. Madhavi Devi & D.S. Sunder Singh(Through Video Conference) Assessment Year: 2011-12 Syniverse Technologies Service Vs. Dy. Commissioner Of Income- (India) Pvt. Ltd., (Formerly Tax, Circle – 3(2), Hyderabad. Known As Syniverse Mobile Solutions Pvt. Ltd.), Hyderabad.

1. On the facts and circumstances of me case and in law, me learned Dispute Resolution Panel ('DRP') erred in confirming the action of the Ld. Assessing Officer ('AO')/ Transfer Pricing Officer ('TPO') in making an adjustment of Rs· 43,28,861 to me provision of software development services by me Appellant to its associated enterprise. 2. On the fact

ADAMA INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED ,HYDERABAD vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CIRCLE-1(1), HYDERABAD

Appeal is allowed in above terms

Bench: Shri S.S. Godara & Shri L.P. Sahu

transfer pricing ('TP') documentation and the economic analysis undertaken by the Appellant without any robust reasons to determine the arm's length price (' ALP') for receipt of management services. 3.2. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in contrary to law, the ldAO/ldTPO erred in not satisfying any of the conditions prescribed u/s 92CA

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

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

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

section 92D of the Act and the same was also produced before the TPO. This finding of the learned CIT (A) is contrary to the facts recorded by the TPO as well as the facts emerging from the record that the international transactions were detected only during the survey carried out on 28/02/2016. Page

DY.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-16(1), HYDERABAD vs. LABZONE ELECTRONICS CITY PRIVATE LIMITED (FORMERLY KNOWN AS M/S ALEXANDRIA LABSPACE ELECTRONICS CITY PRIVATE LIMITED), HYDERABAD

Appeal is partly allowed for statistical purposes in above terms

Bench: Shri S.S. Godara & Shri Inturi Rama Raoassessment Year: 2013-14 The Deputy Commissioner Vs. M/S. Labzone Electronics Of Income Tax, City Private Limited Circle 16(1), (Formerly Known As M/S. Hyderabad. Alexandria Labspace Electronics City Private Limited), Hyderabad. Pan :Aajca1470G. (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Shri P.V.S.S. Prasad. Revenue By: Shri Yvst Sai. Date Of Hearing: 14.02.2022 Date Of Pronouncement: 23.02.2022 O R D E R Per S. S. Godara, J.M. This Revenue’S Appeal For A.Y. 2013-14 Arises From The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) – 4, Hyderabad’S Order Dated 17.07.2019 In Case No.10331/17-18/Dcit, Cir.1(1)/Cit(A)-4/Hyd/19-20, Involving Proceedings U/S 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [In Short, ‘The Act’]. Heard Both The Parties. Case File Perused. 2. The Revenue’S Sole Substantive Grievance Raised In The Instant Appeal Challenges Correctness Of The Cit(A)’S Action Deleting Section 94A(4) Addition Of Rs.18,86,00,000/- Made In The Course Of Assessment Framed On 29.12.2016. The Cit(A)’S Lower Appellate Detailed Discussion To This Effect Reads As Follows :-

pricing regulations would be applicable. (2) The CSDT on 14.12.2016 issued a notification No. 114/2016 vide SO No.4033 (E) (read with Corrigendum Notification No.119/2016 dated 16.12.2016 vide SO No.4082 (E) retrospectively rescinding the earlier notification issued in 2013 and thereby declaring Cyprus as normal tax jurisdiction and not an NJA. In other words CSDT had withdrawn the original notification

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 under Chapter X, and, disclosed all the material facts relating to the transaction; and (e)the amount of undisclosed income referred to in section 271AAB.” 8. Therefore, no penalty shall be levied u/s 270A

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 under Chapter X, and, disclosed all the material facts relating to the transaction; and (e)the amount of undisclosed income referred to in section 271AAB.” 8. Perusal of Section 270A(6)(a) clearly provides that an addition shall