OCEAN INDIA PVT. LTD.,,VISAKHAPATNAM vs. THE ACIT,, VISAKHAPATNAM

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao, Hon’Ble & Shri D.S. Sunder Singh, Hon’Blei.T. (T.P.) A. No. 150/Viz/2016 (Asst. Year : 2011-12) M/S. Teejay India Pvt. Ltd. Vs. The Acit, Circle-5(1), (Formerly Known As Ocean Visakhapatnam. India Pvt. Ltd.), Plot No. 15, Brandix India Apparel City Pvt. Ltd. Sez, Pudimadaka Road, Atchutapuram, Visakhapatnam. Pan No. Aaaco 9452 H (Appellant) (Respondent)

section 92C(3) of the Act for determining the arm's length price for international transaction in relation to sale of finished goods and purchases of raw materials to/from its AEs. 3.4. Upholding the learned TPO's approach of using data which was not contemporaneous and which was not available in the public domain at the time of conducting

THE DY. CIT,, VISAKHAPATNAM vs. M/S. SNF (INDIA) LIMITED,, VISAKHAPATNAM

In the result, appeals filed by the Revenue and the Cross objections filed by the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao, Hon’Ble & Shri D.S. Sunder Singh, Hon’Ble

10 comparables, whose arithmetic mean PLI (OP/Sales) was C.O.Nos.63&64/VIZ/2017 (M/s. SNF (India) Pvt. Ltd.) computed at 11.8% as against the margin of taxpayer of 14.76% and accordingly, the taxpayer held that the transactions are at Arm’s Length Price and no adjustment was made. The taxpayer adopted TNMM (Transaction Net Margin Method) as most appropriate Method

THE DY. CIT,, VISAKHAPATNAM vs. M/S. SNF (INDIA) LIMITED,, VISAKHAPATNAM

In the result, appeals filed by the Revenue and the Cross objections filed by the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao, Hon’Ble & Shri D.S. Sunder Singh, Hon’Ble

10 comparables, whose arithmetic mean PLI (OP/Sales) was C.O.Nos.63&64/VIZ/2017 (M/s. SNF (India) Pvt. Ltd.) computed at 11.8% as against the margin of taxpayer of 14.76% and accordingly, the taxpayer held that the transactions are at Arm’s Length Price and no adjustment was made. The taxpayer adopted TNMM (Transaction Net Margin Method) as most appropriate Method

TEEJAY INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,VISAKHAPATNAM vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, DC/AC 4(1), VISAKHAPATNAM

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Ble

transfer pricing adjustments not on proportionate basis which was consistently followed in earlier assessment years. 4.12. Not providing appropriate economic adjustments towards material differences between the operational profile of comparable companies and the appellant with respect to working capital adjustments. Grounds for disallowance of technical support services fees paid. 5. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case

TEEJAY INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,VISAKHAPATNAM vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-5(1), VISAKHAPATNAM

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood, Hon’Ble & Shri Omkareshwar Chidara, Hon’Ble

Transfer Pricing adjustment as per the order passed by the TPO under section 92CA(3) of the Act dated 31.10.2023: Rs.21,90,56,110/-. 8. The assessee-company aggrieved with the order passed by the A.O under Section 143(3) r.w.s 144C(13) r.w.s 144B of the Act, dated 30.10.2024, has carried the matter in appeal before

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (IT), VISAKHAPATNAM vs. SHRI APPARAO MUKKAMALA, USA

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed, while for the cross-objection filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: SHRI RAVISH SOOD, HON’BLE (Judicial Member), SHRI BALAKRISHNAN. S, HON’BLE (Accountant Member)

transfer of 1,06,900 shares by the assessee at Rs. 657 per share for a total consideration of Rs. 7,02,33,300. 4. On the other hand, the seized scribbling contained entries which the department construed as cash payments to certain persons, including the assessee. The noting in the seized scribblings mentioned, viz. “18/08/2015 – 100 cash Appa

GVR POWER & INFRASTRUCTURE LIMITED,KADIYAM vs. ACIT, CIRCLE - 2(1), RAJAHMUNDRY

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri D.S. Sunder Singh

transfer pricing officer found GVK Power & Infrastructure Ltd., Jegurupadu that the assessee has receivables of Rs.7,32,97,465/- as at the end of the year. The TPO requested the assessee to submit the details of raising the invoice and subsequent receipt of the amount and also called for an explanation as to why notional interest should not be charged

APPANA HARI NAGA VENKATA RAO,,VISAKHAPATNAM vs. THE ITO,, VISAKHAPATNAM

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao, Hon’Ble & Shri D.S. Sunder Singh, Hon’Bleappana Hari Naga Venkat Rao, Vs. Ito, Ward-1(4), D.No. 15-32-7, Gokul Road, Visakhapatnam. Maharanipeta, Visakhapatnam. Pan No. Adopa 5287 G (Appellant) (Respondent)

transferring the property through sale deed. As per section 50C, it is mandatory to adopt the SRO value as per Stamp Valuation Authority as deemed consideration for arriving at the taxable capital gains. Accordingly, the Assessing Officer adopted the sale price as per section 50C of Rs. 2,95,02,500/- for computing taxable capital gains. 4. On being aggrieved

MANEPALLI RANADHEER,VIJAYAWADA vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-3(1),, VIJAYAWADA

In the result, appeals filed by the assessees for the A

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.256/Viz/2020 To 261/Viz/2020 (ननधधारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2010-11 To 2015-16) Manepalli Ranadheer Vs. Income Tax Officer D.No.28-15-4, Arundalpet Ward-3(1) Vijayawada Vijayawada [Pan : Ahwpr5952K] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.19/Viz/2021 To 21/Viz/2021 (ननधधारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2011-12, 2012-13 & 2015-16) Late M.Pushpalatha Vs. Income Tax Officer Rep. By L/R Manepalli Ranadheer Ward-3(1) D.No.28-15-4, Arundalpet Vijayawada Vijayawada [Pan : Auepm8062C] अपीलधथी की ओर से/ Appellant By : Shri G.V.N.Hari, Ar प्रत्यधथी की ओर से / Respondent By : Shri Mn Murthy Naik, Cit(Dr) सुनवधई की तधरीख / Date Of Hearing : 20.04.2023 घोर्णध की तधरीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 23.05.2023 आदेश /O R D E R Per Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy: These Appeals Are Filed By The Assessees Against The Orders Of The Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) [Pcit], Vijayawada Dated 19.02.2020 For The Assessment Year (A.Y.) 2010-11 To 2015-16 & The Order Dated 03.03.2020 For The A.Y. 2011-12, 2012-13 & 2015-16. 2

3.—For the purposes of this section, "Transfer Pricing Officer" shall have the same meaning as assigned to it in the Explanation to section 92CA.] On plain reading of the above section, it is clear that the Commissioner may call for and examine the record of any proceeding under this Act, and if he considers that any order passed therein

MANEPALLI RANADHEER,VIJAYAWADA vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-3(1),, VIJAYAWADA

In the result, appeals filed by the assessees for the A

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.256/Viz/2020 To 261/Viz/2020 (ननधधारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2010-11 To 2015-16) Manepalli Ranadheer Vs. Income Tax Officer D.No.28-15-4, Arundalpet Ward-3(1) Vijayawada Vijayawada [Pan : Ahwpr5952K] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.19/Viz/2021 To 21/Viz/2021 (ननधधारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2011-12, 2012-13 & 2015-16) Late M.Pushpalatha Vs. Income Tax Officer Rep. By L/R Manepalli Ranadheer Ward-3(1) D.No.28-15-4, Arundalpet Vijayawada Vijayawada [Pan : Auepm8062C] अपीलधथी की ओर से/ Appellant By : Shri G.V.N.Hari, Ar प्रत्यधथी की ओर से / Respondent By : Shri Mn Murthy Naik, Cit(Dr) सुनवधई की तधरीख / Date Of Hearing : 20.04.2023 घोर्णध की तधरीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 23.05.2023 आदेश /O R D E R Per Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy: These Appeals Are Filed By The Assessees Against The Orders Of The Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) [Pcit], Vijayawada Dated 19.02.2020 For The Assessment Year (A.Y.) 2010-11 To 2015-16 & The Order Dated 03.03.2020 For The A.Y. 2011-12, 2012-13 & 2015-16. 2

3.—For the purposes of this section, "Transfer Pricing Officer" shall have the same meaning as assigned to it in the Explanation to section 92CA.] On plain reading of the above section, it is clear that the Commissioner may call for and examine the record of any proceeding under this Act, and if he considers that any order passed therein

MANEPALLI RANADHEER,VIJAYAWADA vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-3(1),, VIJAYAWADA

In the result, appeals filed by the assessees for the A

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.256/Viz/2020 To 261/Viz/2020 (ननधधारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2010-11 To 2015-16) Manepalli Ranadheer Vs. Income Tax Officer D.No.28-15-4, Arundalpet Ward-3(1) Vijayawada Vijayawada [Pan : Ahwpr5952K] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.19/Viz/2021 To 21/Viz/2021 (ननधधारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2011-12, 2012-13 & 2015-16) Late M.Pushpalatha Vs. Income Tax Officer Rep. By L/R Manepalli Ranadheer Ward-3(1) D.No.28-15-4, Arundalpet Vijayawada Vijayawada [Pan : Auepm8062C] अपीलधथी की ओर से/ Appellant By : Shri G.V.N.Hari, Ar प्रत्यधथी की ओर से / Respondent By : Shri Mn Murthy Naik, Cit(Dr) सुनवधई की तधरीख / Date Of Hearing : 20.04.2023 घोर्णध की तधरीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 23.05.2023 आदेश /O R D E R Per Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy: These Appeals Are Filed By The Assessees Against The Orders Of The Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) [Pcit], Vijayawada Dated 19.02.2020 For The Assessment Year (A.Y.) 2010-11 To 2015-16 & The Order Dated 03.03.2020 For The A.Y. 2011-12, 2012-13 & 2015-16. 2

3.—For the purposes of this section, "Transfer Pricing Officer" shall have the same meaning as assigned to it in the Explanation to section 92CA.] On plain reading of the above section, it is clear that the Commissioner may call for and examine the record of any proceeding under this Act, and if he considers that any order passed therein

MANEPALLI RANADHEER,VIJAYAWADA vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-3(1),, VIJAYAWADA

In the result, appeals filed by the assessees for the A

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.256/Viz/2020 To 261/Viz/2020 (ननधधारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2010-11 To 2015-16) Manepalli Ranadheer Vs. Income Tax Officer D.No.28-15-4, Arundalpet Ward-3(1) Vijayawada Vijayawada [Pan : Ahwpr5952K] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.19/Viz/2021 To 21/Viz/2021 (ननधधारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2011-12, 2012-13 & 2015-16) Late M.Pushpalatha Vs. Income Tax Officer Rep. By L/R Manepalli Ranadheer Ward-3(1) D.No.28-15-4, Arundalpet Vijayawada Vijayawada [Pan : Auepm8062C] अपीलधथी की ओर से/ Appellant By : Shri G.V.N.Hari, Ar प्रत्यधथी की ओर से / Respondent By : Shri Mn Murthy Naik, Cit(Dr) सुनवधई की तधरीख / Date Of Hearing : 20.04.2023 घोर्णध की तधरीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 23.05.2023 आदेश /O R D E R Per Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy: These Appeals Are Filed By The Assessees Against The Orders Of The Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) [Pcit], Vijayawada Dated 19.02.2020 For The Assessment Year (A.Y.) 2010-11 To 2015-16 & The Order Dated 03.03.2020 For The A.Y. 2011-12, 2012-13 & 2015-16. 2

3.—For the purposes of this section, "Transfer Pricing Officer" shall have the same meaning as assigned to it in the Explanation to section 92CA.] On plain reading of the above section, it is clear that the Commissioner may call for and examine the record of any proceeding under this Act, and if he considers that any order passed therein

MANEPALLI RANADHEER,VIJAYAWADA vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-3(1),, VIJAYAWADA

In the result, appeals filed by the assessees for the A

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.256/Viz/2020 To 261/Viz/2020 (ननधधारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2010-11 To 2015-16) Manepalli Ranadheer Vs. Income Tax Officer D.No.28-15-4, Arundalpet Ward-3(1) Vijayawada Vijayawada [Pan : Ahwpr5952K] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.19/Viz/2021 To 21/Viz/2021 (ननधधारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2011-12, 2012-13 & 2015-16) Late M.Pushpalatha Vs. Income Tax Officer Rep. By L/R Manepalli Ranadheer Ward-3(1) D.No.28-15-4, Arundalpet Vijayawada Vijayawada [Pan : Auepm8062C] अपीलधथी की ओर से/ Appellant By : Shri G.V.N.Hari, Ar प्रत्यधथी की ओर से / Respondent By : Shri Mn Murthy Naik, Cit(Dr) सुनवधई की तधरीख / Date Of Hearing : 20.04.2023 घोर्णध की तधरीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 23.05.2023 आदेश /O R D E R Per Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy: These Appeals Are Filed By The Assessees Against The Orders Of The Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) [Pcit], Vijayawada Dated 19.02.2020 For The Assessment Year (A.Y.) 2010-11 To 2015-16 & The Order Dated 03.03.2020 For The A.Y. 2011-12, 2012-13 & 2015-16. 2

3.—For the purposes of this section, "Transfer Pricing Officer" shall have the same meaning as assigned to it in the Explanation to section 92CA.] On plain reading of the above section, it is clear that the Commissioner may call for and examine the record of any proceeding under this Act, and if he considers that any order passed therein

MANEPALLI RANADHEER,VIJAYAWADA vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-3(1),, VIJAYAWADA

In the result, appeals filed by the assessees for the A

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.256/Viz/2020 To 261/Viz/2020 (ननधधारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2010-11 To 2015-16) Manepalli Ranadheer Vs. Income Tax Officer D.No.28-15-4, Arundalpet Ward-3(1) Vijayawada Vijayawada [Pan : Ahwpr5952K] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.19/Viz/2021 To 21/Viz/2021 (ननधधारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2011-12, 2012-13 & 2015-16) Late M.Pushpalatha Vs. Income Tax Officer Rep. By L/R Manepalli Ranadheer Ward-3(1) D.No.28-15-4, Arundalpet Vijayawada Vijayawada [Pan : Auepm8062C] अपीलधथी की ओर से/ Appellant By : Shri G.V.N.Hari, Ar प्रत्यधथी की ओर से / Respondent By : Shri Mn Murthy Naik, Cit(Dr) सुनवधई की तधरीख / Date Of Hearing : 20.04.2023 घोर्णध की तधरीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 23.05.2023 आदेश /O R D E R Per Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy: These Appeals Are Filed By The Assessees Against The Orders Of The Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) [Pcit], Vijayawada Dated 19.02.2020 For The Assessment Year (A.Y.) 2010-11 To 2015-16 & The Order Dated 03.03.2020 For The A.Y. 2011-12, 2012-13 & 2015-16. 2

3.—For the purposes of this section, "Transfer Pricing Officer" shall have the same meaning as assigned to it in the Explanation to section 92CA.] On plain reading of the above section, it is clear that the Commissioner may call for and examine the record of any proceeding under this Act, and if he considers that any order passed therein

SNF (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED,VISAKHAPATNAM vs. DCIT/ACIT, CIRCLE - 3(1), VISAKHAPATNAM

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकरअपीलसं./I.T.A.No.204/Viz/2025 (निर्धारणवर्ा/ Assessment Year:2016-17) Vs. M/S. Snf (India) Private Limited Dcit - Circle – 3(1) 19 Jnpc, Ramky Pharmacity Income Tax Office Paravada, Visakhapatnam – 531021 Infinity Towers, Sankarmat Road Andhra Pradesh Visakhapatnam – 530016 Andhra Pradesh [Pan:Aaacp4070A]

Transfer Pricing officer)-1, Hyderabad passed an order under section 92CA(3) of the Act on 29.10.2019 vide Order No. ITBA/TPO/F/92CA3/2019-20/1019531492(1) for the A.Y. 2016-17. The assessee has entered into the international transactions as follows: Associated Nature of Amount Paid Amount Enterprises International/Domestic Payable Received/Receivable Transactions (Amount in (Amount in INR) INR) Purchase of various

ARIMILLI RAMA KRISHNA,WEST GODAVARI DIST vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-1, RAJAHMUNDRY

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood, Hon’Ble & Shri Omkareshwar Chidara, Hon’Ble

3) r.w.s. 147 of the Act, dated 30.12.2019, emerges from the record. Elaborating further on his contention, the Ld. DR submitted that in a case where the re-assessment proceedings are initiated by the AO based on a notice issued under section 148 of the Act, there is no further obligation cast upon him to thereafter issue a separate notice

ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, VIJAYAWADA vs. FYSOLATE TECHNOLOGIES, VIJAYAWADA

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./ I.T.A. No.182/Viz/2023 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2017-18) Assistant Commissioner Of Vs. Fysolate Technologies, Income Tax, Vijayawada. Vijawayada. Pan: Aacff5633L (अपीलाथ"/ Appellant) (""यथ"/ Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/ Assessee By : Sri Mithilesh Sannareddy ""याथ" क" ओर से / Revenue By : Dr. Satyasai Rath, Cit-Dr सुनवाई क" तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 16/04/2024 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of : 15/07/2024 Pronouncement O R D E R

10 “1. The Ld. CIT(A) erred in deleting the Transfer Pricing Adjustment of Rs. 62,25,78,803/- made by the AO as per the TPO order U/s. 92CA(3), dated 29/1/2021. 2. Whether on the given facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) is justified in admitting the additional evidences filed

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1,, KAKINADA vs. SRI LALITHA ENTERPRISES INDUSTRIES PRIVATE LIMITED, PEDDAPURAM

In the result, all the appeals filed by the Revenue and the Cross Objections filed by the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao, Hon’Ble & Shri D.S. Sunder Singh, Hon’Ble

3) r.w.s. 153A of the Act on 30/12/2010 and the assessment under section 153C r.w.s.263 was completed on 17/05/2013 assessing the income under normal provisions at Rs. 1,72,83,870/- and total income was computed. In the assessment order, the Assessing Officer observed that while calculating the eligible deduction under section 80IA from the profits derived from the power

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1,, KAKINADA vs. SRI LALITHA ENTERPRISES INDUSTRIES PRIVATE LIMITED, PEDDAPURAM

In the result, all the appeals filed by the Revenue and the Cross Objections filed by the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao, Hon’Ble & Shri D.S. Sunder Singh, Hon’Ble

3) r.w.s. 153A of the Act on 30/12/2010 and the assessment under section 153C r.w.s.263 was completed on 17/05/2013 assessing the income under normal provisions at Rs. 1,72,83,870/- and total income was computed. In the assessment order, the Assessing Officer observed that while calculating the eligible deduction under section 80IA from the profits derived from the power