OAKTON GLOBAL TECHNOLOGY SERVICES CENTRE (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-16(2), HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Madhusudan Sawdia

Transfer Pricing Officer (“TPO”). The Ld. TPO vide his order dated 31.10.2016 suggested upward adjustment of ITA Nos.32/Hyd/2019 & 5 2130/Hyd/2017 Rs.1,19,93,961/- on account of provision of SDS and Rs.30,82,056/- on account of interest on receivables. Accordingly, the Ld. AO passed the draft assessment order on 26.12.2016. 4. Aggrieved with the draft assessment order passed

OAKTON GLOBAL TECHNOLOGY SERVICES CENTRE (I) PRIVATE LIMITED ,HYDERABAD vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CIRCLE-16(2), HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Madhusudan Sawdia

Transfer Pricing Officer (“TPO”). The Ld. TPO vide his order dated 31.10.2016 suggested upward adjustment of ITA Nos.32/Hyd/2019 & 5 2130/Hyd/2017 Rs.1,19,93,961/- on account of provision of SDS and Rs.30,82,056/- on account of interest on receivables. Accordingly, the Ld. AO passed the draft assessment order on 26.12.2016. 4. Aggrieved with the draft assessment order passed

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 :

section 147 / 148 of the Act, the coordinate Bench had held as under : “22. Coming back to our point we have to examine whether protective assessment/addition is possible under section 147 in respect of the same person and for the same period. When a regular assessment is made and later on it comes to the notice of the Assessing Officer

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)

transfer pricing adjustment of Rs. 6,06,64,733/- in respect of international transactions pertaining to software development services. 4. Thereafter, the A.O. has passed the draft assessment order under Section 144C(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 on 20.09.2023, determining the total income after considering the TP adjustment proposed by the Ld. TPO. In the draft order

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

Bench: Us:

transfer pricing issues on comparability cannot constitute a precedent to be blindly followed ad infinitum. Whether a particular company is a comparable or not is an exercise which has to be carried out every year in the case of an Assessee considering the facts of that specific year and not blindly following the precedent which has been laid down

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

96 taxmann.com 400 37. The learned Departmental Representative submitted, before the Transfer Pricing Officer the assessee has not objected to the selection of this company as a comparable. He submitted, only in subsequent stages, the assessee has objected to selection of the aforesaid company by raising new grounds. He submitted, since the issue of development of product by this company

CDK GLOBAL (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED,,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT, CIRCLE -1 (1), HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Laliet Kumarassessment Year: 2017-18 Cdk Global (India) P Ltd Vs. Dy. Cit Hyderabad Circle 1(1) Pan:Aagcr9879K Hyderabad (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Adv Tanmayee Rajkumar Revenue By: Shri Rajendra Kumar, Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing: 12/12/2022 Date Of Pronouncement: 13/12/2022 Order Per Laliet Kumar, J.M This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 13.3.2019 Of The Learned Cit (A)-Nfac, Delhi Relating To A.Y.2017-18. 2. In This Case, The Assessee Has Entered Into Advance Pricing Agreement (Apa) On 18.8.2021 & The Copy Of The Said Apa Was Furnished Before The Drp Which Is Duly Recorded By The Drp In Para 2.37.1 To 2.37.4 At Page 102 To 104. 3. The Assessee Had Sought To Withdraw The Effective Grounds Of Appeal No 1 To 37 Covered Under Apa . The Drp After Recording It Has Held As Under:

section 92CD(3) is passed for the AY 2017-18. Hence, the addition of 5,96,10,290/- is made to the total income of the assessee on account of Transfer Price

ZETA INTERACTIVE SYSTEMS (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-17(4), HYDERABAD

Appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Laliet Kumarassessment Year: 2011-12

Transfer Pricing Officer concluding that the figure of receivables beyond 180 days constitutes an international Page 41 of 50 ITA No 1812 of 2017 Zeta Interactive Systems India P Ltd Hyderabad transaction by itself. With the assessee having already factored in the impact of the receivables on the working capital and thereby on its pricing/profitability vis-a-vis that

ADP PRIVATE LIMITED,RANGA REDDY vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-1( 1), HYDERABAD

In the result, both the appeals are partly allowed for statistical purposes in above terms

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

96 taxmann.com 37. The learned Departmental Representative submitted, before the Transfer Pricing Officer the assessee has not objected to the selection of this company as a comparable. He submitted, only in subsequent stages, the assessee has objected to selection of the aforesaid company by raising new grounds. He submitted, since the issue of development of product by this company

ADP PRIVATE LIMITED (31/10/2015),RANGA REDDY vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-1( 1), HYDERABAD

In the result, both the appeals are partly allowed for statistical purposes in above terms

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

96 taxmann.com 37. The learned Departmental Representative submitted, before the Transfer Pricing Officer the assessee has not objected to the selection of this company as a comparable. He submitted, only in subsequent stages, the assessee has objected to selection of the aforesaid company by raising new grounds. He submitted, since the issue of development of product by this company

APACHE FOOTWEAR INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,NELLORE vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-1(1), TIRUPATI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri Laliet Kumar

Transfer Pricing Officer concluding that the figure of receivables beyond 180 days constitutes an international transaction by itself. With the assessee having already factored in the impact of the receivables on the working capital and thereby on its pricing/profitability vis-a-vis that of its comparables, any further adjustment only on the basis of the outstanding receivables would have distorted

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

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Shri Manjunatha G. (Accountant Member), Shri K. Narasimha Chary (Judicial Member)

section 92CA in questioning the commercial rationale of the legitimate business expenses incurred by the Appellant and further erred in determining the ALP of the seed testing and trial charges to be ‘Nil’. The Ld.AO/Hon'ble DRP further erred in not appreciating the nature of business of the Appellant and the need for seed testing and trial services from

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

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

Section 144C(13) read with\nsection 144B of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ('the Act') by the Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax,\nCircle 2(1), Hyderabad ('Ld. AO') in pursuance of the directions issued by the Hon'ble Dispute\nResolution Panel - I, Bengaluru ('Hon'ble DRP') on the following grounds:\nOn the facts and circumstances of the case and contrary

SHAKTI HORMANN PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT CIRCLE -3(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee for both the assessment years 2017-18 and 2018-19 are partly allowed

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Manjunatha G.आ.अपी.सं /Ita-Tp No.451/Hyd/2022 & 452/Hyd/2022 (निर्धारण वर्ा/Assessment Year: 2017-18 & 2018-19) Shakti Hormann Private Vs. Asst.Commissioner Of Limited Income Tax Hyderabad Circle-3(1) [Pan : Aadcs4024Q] Hyderabad (Appellant) (Respondent) निर्धाररती द्वधरध/Assessee By: Shri P.Murali Mohan Rao, Ar रधजस् व द्वधरध/Revenue By: Shri B.Bala Krishna, Cit-Dr सुिवधई की तधरीख/Date Of Hearing: 15/04/2025 घोर्णध की तधरीख/ 21/04/2025 Date Of Pronouncement: आदेश / Order Per Vijay Pal Rao: These Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Directed Against The Assessment Orders Dated 21.07.2022 & 28.07.2022 Passed U/S 143(3) R.W.S. 144C(13) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (“The Act”) In Pursuant To The Directions Of The Dispute Resolution Panel (“The Drp”) U/S 144C(5) Of The Act For The Assessment Year 2017-18 & 2018-19 Respectively. 2. For The Assessment Year 2017-18, The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal :

Section 92C of the Act 4.5. The AO/TPO erred in re-characterizing the nature of transaction from ‘Receivable’ to ‘loan’ which is not permissible u/s. 145 of the Act. 4.6. The AO/TPO Ought to have appreciated the fact that the outstanding receivables are consequential/ closely linked to the sale of services to the AE during the normal course of business

GAINSIGHT SOFTWARE PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 2(1), HYDERABAD

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

Transfer Pricing Officer, however, the assessee\nraised objections against selection of this company before the DRP as well as\nbefore us. The grievance of the assessee is, the company being involved in\ndevelopment of products and since no segmental details are available in the\nannual report, it cannot be treated as comparable. The Co-ordinate Bench in\nTech Mahindra

IVY COMPTECH PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. DY.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2(1), HYDERABAD

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

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahuay : 2013-14 Ivy Comptech Pvt. Ltd., Vs. Dy. Commissioner Of Hyderabad. Income-Tax, Circle – 2(1) Hyderabad. Pan – Aaaci 8884K (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Prashant Meharchandani Revenue By: Shri R. Dipak Date Of Hearing: 27/04/2021 Date Of Pronouncement: 20/07/2021

Transfer Pricing adjustment. 4. Levying of interest u/ s 234C of the Act. 5. Initiating penalty proceedings u/ s 271AA and 271 BA of the Act. The Appellant craves, to consider each of the above grounds of appeal without prejudice to each other and craves leave to add, alter, delete or modify all or any of the above grounds

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

In the result assessee’s appeal stand partly allowed

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman

Transfer Pricing Documentation as per section 92C of the Act and Rule 10D of the IT Rules by complying all the provisions of the section. 2.4. Erred in rejecting the TP Documentation maintained by the assessee without assigning any cogent reasons for rejection. 2.5. Erred in not appreciating the fact that TP Documentation is not an exact science and arriving

HBL POWER SYSTEMS LIMITED, HYDERABAD,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-2(2), HYDERABAD, HYDERABAD

Appeal is partly allowed in above terms

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

96,072/-. Hence, reference was made to the Transfer Pricing Officer with prior approval of Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-Z, Hyderabad for determining Arm's Length Price U/s.92CA of I.T. Act. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax (Transfer Pricing) vide his order dated 30.01.2016 has proposed an adjustment of Rs.2,08,01,135/- u/s.92CA of the IT. Act with