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 adjustment by considering the loans advanced by the assessee to both of its AEs, including Symphoni Interactive LLC, USA. Be that as it may, it is seen that the ld. CIT(A) also impliedly accepted the interest earned by the assessee from Symphoni Interactive LLC, USA, at 6% as at ALP, against which the Department has no grudge

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 adjustment by considering the loans advanced by the assessee to both of its AEs, including Symphoni Interactive LLC, USA. Be that as it may, it is seen that the ld. CIT(A) also impliedly accepted the interest earned by the assessee from Symphoni Interactive LLC, USA, at 6% as at ALP, against which the Department has no grudge

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)

transfer pricing adjustment of INR 63,22,848 by treating the ALP as Nil in relation to the international transaction involving payment of seed testing and trial charges to its AEs. 9. The Ld.ao/Hon’ble DRP erred in law and on facts in going beyond the scope under section 92CA in questioning the commercial rationale of the legitimate business

BHARATHI CEMENT CORPORATION PRIVATE LIMITED,,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT CIRCLE-2(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Laliet Kumarassessment Year: 2017-18 Bharathi Cement Corporation Vs. Deputy Commissioner Of Private Limited, Income Tax, Hyderabad. Circle – 2(1), Hyderabad. Pan : Aadcr3079G. (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Shri S. Kalyanasundaram, Ca Revenue By: Shri Jeevan Lal Lavidiya, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing: 14.02.2023 Date Of Pronouncement: 17.02.2023

transfer price for power was I.T.A. No.127/Kol/2021 Assessment Year: 2016-17 Star Paper Mills Limited considered by the assessee equal to the price at which the electricity was procured by the manufacturing undertakings from the respective SEBs. Referring to explanation to section 80IA, the A.O. held that for the purposes of section 80IA,the term 'market value' means the price

VERMEIREN INDIA REHAB PRIVATE LIMITED,TIRUPATI vs. DCIT., CIRCLE-1(1), TIRUPATI

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

Bench: Shri Manjunatha G & Shri Ravish Sood

Transfer Pricing: Erroneous Quantitative filters 4.1. In law and facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld. DRP and Ld. TPO/AO have erred in conducting the fresh search process on the following grounds. 4.1.1. Have erred in applying the filter Income from manufacturing activity greater than 75 percent to sales. 4.1.2. Have erred in computation of RPT filter by taking

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

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Manjunatha G

loss as operating in nature. 5.1.2 Have erred in considering discount provided as negative income and did not add the same to the cost base while computing the PLI of the Appellant. Ground No.6: Transfer Pricing: Erroneous Qualitative Analysis 6.1. In law and facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld. DRP and Ld. TPO/AO have erred in selecting

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

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Manjunatha G

loss as operating in nature. 5.1.2 Have erred in considering discount provided as negative income and did not add the same to the cost base while computing the PLI of the Appellant. Ground No.6: Transfer Pricing: Erroneous Qualitative Analysis 6.1. In law and facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld. DRP and Ld. TPO/AO have erred in selecting

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

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 (TP) Grounds: Purchase and Sale Transactions: 1) The Honourable DRP erred in law and on facts and circumstances of the case in endorsing the rejection of the CUP method by the Learned TPO and adopting the TNMM method resulting in an adjustment of Rs. 19,84,20,000/- 2) i) The Honourable DRP erred in law in upholding

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

loss making filter 4. RPT filter 1:3 The learned AO/TPO/DRP has erred in considering the following companies as comparable to the Appellate, despite the same not being comparable to that of the Appellate due to various factors such as functional comparability, research & development activities, presence of intangibles, advertisement and brand expenses, inadequate financial information, use of unreliable segment financials

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

loss making filter 4. RPT filter 1:3 The learned AO/TPO/DRP has erred in considering the following companies as comparable to the Appellate, despite the same not being comparable to that of the Appellate due to various factors such as functional comparability, research & development activities, presence of intangibles, advertisement and brand expenses, inadequate financial information, use of unreliable segment financials

INTERWRAP CORP PRIVATE LIMITED (SUCCESSOR OF OWENS CORNING INDUSTRIES (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED),MUMBAI vs. DCIT., CIRCLE -5(1), HYDERABAD

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)

loss amounting to Rs.56 lakhs while computing PLI of the Appellant. 10. That on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. TPO/Ld. AO erred in not considering provision for bad and doubtful debts as operating in nature. 11. That on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. TPO/Ld. AO erred

ADP PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD, TELANGANA vs. DCIT., CIRCLE 1(1), HYDERABAD, TELANGANA

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 documentation maintained by the Assessee in accordance with the provisions of the Act read with the Income Tax Rules, 1962 ('Rules'), and undertaking a fresh economic analysis during the course of assessment proceedings, thereby making an adjustment to the international transaction relating to provision of services and interest on outstanding receivables. 6. Ground 6: Use of additional/modified filters

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

Bench: Us:

set the buying tariff in terms of the extant statutory guidelines. Therefore, the price determined in such a scenario cannot be equated with a situation where the price is determined in the normal course of trade and competition. Consequently, the price determined as per the power purchase agreement cannot be equated with the market value of power as understood

REEMA AGARWAL,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(3), HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is allowed

transferred thereafter\nat an exorbitant price to convert the same into tax exemption\nlong term capital gains u/sec.10(38) of the Act. The shares of\nShree Shaleen Textiles Ltd., and SRK Industries Limited were\nselected by the assessee for the purpose of creating bogus\nbusiness loss and set

OPEN TEXT TECHNOLOGIES INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED ,HYDERABAD vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CIRCLE-16(2), HYDERABAD

losses. Consequent to the transfer of PES business, certain\nIPs (Intellectual Properties) owned by GDA Inc. were transferred to LTTSL, the\nCompany was wound up during the year.\"\n6.7 In view of the above reporting, it is clear that under the telecom segment, the\nassessee was engaged in providing engineering services, which is distinct from the\nservices of the software

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 :

transfer pricing adjustment can be made on hypothetical and notional basis without there being any material on record justifying the fact that there had been under charging of such interest on real income. 2.9. Erred in directing TPO to adopt the six month average LIBOR plus 250 basis points. 3. Erred in upholding the upward adjustment of Arm’s Length

CAP GEMINI TECHNOLOGY SERVICES INDIA LIMITED(FORMERLY KNOWN AS IGATE GLOBAL SOLUTION LIMITED)-M/S PATNI TELECOM SOLUTIONS PVT LTD, CHANGED NAME TO M/S.IGATE INFORMATION SERVICES PRIVATE LIMITED MERGED WITH IGATE GLOBAL SOLUTIONS LIMITED ,HYDERABAD vs. ITO, WARD - 2(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal raised by the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar & Shri Manjunatha, G.आ.अपी.सं /Ita No.446/Hyd/2015 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2010-11) Cap Gemini Vs. Income Tax Officer Technology Services Ward 2(1) India Ltd(Formerly Igate Hyderabad Global Solutions Ltd) Hyderabad Pan:Aacca4255G (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: Advocate A.V. Raghuram राज" व "ारा/Revenue By:: Shri Kumar Pranav, Cit(Dr) सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 04/07/2024 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 23/07/2024 आदेश/Order

Transfer Pricing Officer resulted in selection of 19 companies as comparables and an Arm's Length Margin of 23.87% was arrived at. However, a relief was granted by the DRP to exclude Infosys Technologies Ltd. and L & T Infotech Ltd from the list of final comparables of the TPO. 3. In rejecting the objections of the assessee against the selection