AURONEXT PHARMA PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-1(1), HYDERABAD

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

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri Laliet Kumar

Transfer Pricing proceedings is determination of the Arm's Length Price (which may be determined by any of the methods prescribed under Section 92 of the Income Tax Act including Comparable Uncontrolled Price method and more than one ALPs may result from the bench-markinq process in which case either mean or range concept is applied). In this respect

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

92F. The above view was supported by Hon'ble ITAT, Delhi in the case of Bechtel India Pvt. Ltd. (in ITA No.6530/De1/2016 dated 16.05.2017), the relevant extract of the said decision is reproduced as under: “In the case of Techbooks India International Pvt. Ltd. vs. DCIT (supra), taking note of the Explanation inserted by the Finance Act, 2012 to Section

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

92F. The above view was supported by Hon'ble ITAT, Delhi in the case of Bechtel India Pvt. Ltd. (in ITA No.6530/De1/2016 dated 16.05.2017), the relevant extract of the said decision is reproduced as under: “In the case of Techbooks India International Pvt. Ltd. vs. DCIT (supra), taking note of the Explanation inserted by the Finance Act, 2012 to Section

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

92F. The above view was supported by Hon'ble ITAT, Delhi in the case of Bechtel India Pvt. Ltd. (in ITA No.6530/De1/2016 dated 16.05.2017), the relevant extract of the said decision is reproduced as under: “In the case of Techbooks India International Pvt. Ltd. vs. DCIT (supra), taking note of the Explanation inserted by the Finance Act, 2012 to Section

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

92F. The above view was supported by Hon'ble ITAT, Delhi in the case of Bechtel India Pvt. Ltd. (in ITA No.6530/De1/2016 dated 16.05.2017), the relevant extract of the said decision is reproduced as under: “In the case of Techbooks India International Pvt. Ltd. vs. DCIT (supra), taking note of the Explanation inserted by the Finance Act, 2012 to Section

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CIRCLE-16(1), HYDERABAD vs. NAVA BHARAT VENTURES LIMITED, HYDERABAD

Appeal is partly allowed in above terms

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

Transfer Pricing Officer ‘TPO’ to ascertain Arm’s Length Price ‘ALP’ thereof. The assessee’s international transactions with its AEs involved sale of Silico Manganese and ferro chrome. The :- 3 -: assessee’s endeavour before the TPO was to include DPEB and FPS declared by the Government of India as an adjustment under rule 10B(1)(a)(ii). It quoted rule

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

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri Laliet Kumar

transfer pricing regulations also require that it is not only the 'form but the overall arrangement/ substance of the transactions that must be kept in mind. Towards this end, the following provisions from the regulations are produced: HM Clause India Private Limited Section 92F

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CIRCLE-16(1), HYDERABAD vs. NAVA BHARAT VENTURES LIMITED , HYDERABAD

In the result, the questions referred to us are answered accordingly”

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

Transfer Pricing Officer’s (TPO’s) identical action making adjustment as under: “7. We have given our thoughtful consideration to rival pleadings qua the assessee’s case that its DPEB benefits derived from sale of Silico Manganese Ferro Chrome deserve to be considered as an adjustment under rule 10B(1)(a)(ii) of the Income Tax Rules. Learned counsel

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

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

transfer, in either case, had been made at the\nmarket value of such goods or services as on that date.\nExplanation. For the purposes of this sub-section, the expression \"market\nvalue\",-\n(i) in relation to any goods or services sold or supplied, means the price\nthat such goods or services would fetch if these were sold