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

14. In the instant case, for the A.Y. 2007-08, the assessee has made the payment of royalty to its AE i.e. SPCM SA, France for Rs. 1.10 crores and for the A.Y. 2008-09 the amount of royalty payment was Rs. 1.75 crores. The taxpayer has conducted the transfer pricing study and held that TNMM is 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

14. In the instant case, for the A.Y. 2007-08, the assessee has made the payment of royalty to its AE i.e. SPCM SA, France for Rs. 1.10 crores and for the A.Y. 2008-09 the amount of royalty payment was Rs. 1.75 crores. The taxpayer has conducted the transfer pricing study and held that TNMM is most appropriate method

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

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

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)

price. The coordinate bench of the Ahmadabad tribunal, ‘B' Bench in the case of Rahul G. Patel (supra) has considered the (Appana Hari Naga Venkat Rao) issue in respect of unregistered sale agreement vis-a-vis application of proviso to section 50C held as under:- ―8. We have duly considered rival contentions and gone through the record carefully. Section

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME, CIRCLE-1(1),, GUNTUR vs. M/S CCL PRODUCTS(INDIA) LIMITED, GUNTUR

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao& Shri D.S. Sunder Singhआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.348/Viz/2018 (ननधधारण वर्ा/ Assessment Year:2014-15) Dcit, Circle-1(1) Vs. M/S Ccl Products (India) Guntur Pvt. Ltd. Duggirala Post & Mandal Guntur [Pan : Aaacc9552G] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) अपीलधथी की ओर से/ Appellant By : Shri D.K.Sonowal, Dr प्रत्यधथी की ओर से/ Respondent By : Shri Ramesh Babu, Ar सुनवधई की तधरीख / Date Of Hearing : 20.03.2019 घोर्णध की तधरीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 03 .04.2019

Section 92C of the Income-tax Act, 1961 - Transfer pricing - Computation of arm's length price (Comparables and Adjustments/Adjustments - Interest) - Assessment year 2011-12 - TPO noted that there was delay in receipt of payment from AE and observed that estimate period of 30 days would be considered as normal period for inter-company sales and services and any delay beyond

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

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Ble(Through Hybrid Hearing) आयकर अपील सं./(I.T.)I.T.A.No.626/Viz/2018 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2014-15) Teejay India Private Limited Vs. Asst.Commissioner Of Apsez, Pudimadaka Road Income Tax Atchutapuram Mandal Circle-5(1) Visakhapatnam Visakhapatnam [Pan : Aaaco9452H] (अपीलाथ"/ Appellant) (""थ"/ Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से/ Appellant By : Shri Darpan Kirpalani ""ाथ" की ओर से / Respondent By : Dr.Satyasai Rath, Cit(Dr) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 22.01.2024 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 13.02.2024 आदेश /O R D E R Per Shri Balakrishnan S

transfer pricing is not applied. 4.11. Not providing appropriate adjustments towards material differences between the operational profile of comparable companies and the Appellant. Grounds for imputation of notional interest on outstanding receivables 5. On facts and in the circumstances of the case, the learned DRP/AO/TPO erred in : 5.1. Considering overdue receivables from AEs as an international transaction under the provisions

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

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 by the assessee during appellate proceedings which were never produced before

M/S. MAHATI SOFTWARE PVT. LTD.,VISAKHAPATNAM vs. THE ACIT,, VISAKHAPATNAM

In the result, appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao& Shri D.S. Sunder Singhआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.67/Viz/2016 & 68/Viz/2017 (निर्धारण वर्ा/Assessment Year:2011-12 & 2012-13) M/S Mahati Software Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Asst. Commissioner Of D.No.10-27-14A Income Tax Sivam, Kailashmetta Circle-3(1) Waltair Visakhapatnam Visakhapatnam [Pan : Aadcm9620J] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent)

transfer pricing document also does not show any such requirement of payment of advance to the AE. During the appeal hearing also the assessee did not establish with any evidence to show that the assessee is required to make payment to the AE for executing the project or for trade advance etc. Since the advance given

MAHATI SOFTWARE PVT LTD.,,VISAKHAPATNAM vs. THE ACIT,, VISAKHAPATNAM

In the result, appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao& Shri D.S. Sunder Singhआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.67/Viz/2016 & 68/Viz/2017 (निर्धारण वर्ा/Assessment Year:2011-12 & 2012-13) M/S Mahati Software Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Asst. Commissioner Of D.No.10-27-14A Income Tax Sivam, Kailashmetta Circle-3(1) Waltair Visakhapatnam Visakhapatnam [Pan : Aadcm9620J] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent)

transfer pricing document also does not show any such requirement of payment of advance to the AE. During the appeal hearing also the assessee did not establish with any evidence to show that the assessee is required to make payment to the AE for executing the project or for trade advance etc. Since the advance given

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

GVK POWER & INFRASTRUCTURE LIMITED,KADIYAM vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2(1),, RAJAHMUNDRY

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao& Shri D.S. Sunder Singhआयकरअपीलसं./I.T.A.No.553/Viz/2018 (ननधधारण वर्ा/Assessment Year:2014-15) M/S Gvk Power & Infrastructure Ltd. Vs. Asst.Commissioner Of D.No.5-48, Gvk Power Plant Income Tax Jegurupadu, Kadiyammandal Circle-2(1) East Godavari Rajamahendravaram [Pan :Aaacj5599A] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) अपीलधथी की ओ रसे/ Appellant By Shri G.V.N.Hari, Ar प्रत्यधथी की ओर से/ Respondent By Shri D.K.Sonowal, Cit Dr सुनवधई की तधरीख / Date Of Hearing : 21.03.2019 घोर्णध की तधरीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 03.04.2019

14. The next issue is relatable to the disallowance of expenditure in respect of the investments in mutual funds. The AO observed that investment in mutual funds have increased from Rs.3.88 crores to Rs.5.77 crores with a net increase of 1.89 crores. The AO disallowed the expenditure u/s 37(1) of the act, treating the expenditure as capital expenditure. Though

TEEJAY INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED.,VISAKHAPATNAM vs. THE ACIT,, VISAKHAPATNAM

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Ble(Through Hybrid Hearing) आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.(Tp).A. No.44/Viz/2017 ("नधा"रणवष"/ Assessment Year : 2012-13) Teejay India Private Limited, Vs. Assistant Commissioner Of Plot No. 15, Brandix India Apparel Income Tax, City Private Limited Sez, Circle-5(1), 2Nd Floor, Direct Pudimadaka Road, Atchutapuram, Taxes Building, Mvp Double Visakhapatnam – 530 011. Road, Visakhapatnam, Pan: Aaaco 9452 H Andhra Pradesh. (अपीलाथ"/ Appellant) (""यथ"/ Respondent) अपीलाथ"क"ओरसे/ Assessee By : Sri Darpan Kirpalani ""याथ"क"ओरसे/ Revenue By : Dr. Satyasai Rath, Cit-Dr

transfer pricing documentation was prepared by the assessee; 3.3 Disregarding the peculiar economic conditions faced by the assessee during AY 2012-13 for carrying out its manufacturing operations; 3.4. Not providing appropriate adjustment under Rule 10B(3)(ii) of the Income Tax Rules, 1962 on account of 3.4.1.Abnormal business loss suffered by the assessee; 3.4.2.Underutilization of capacity by the assessee

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

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

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकर अपीलसं./I.T.A.No.340/Viz/2024 (निर्धारण वर्ा/ Assessment Year: 2020-21) & S.A. No. 15/Viz/2025 (निर्धारण वर्ा/ Assessment Year: 2020-21) Teejay India Private Limited, Vs. Deputy Commissioner Of Plot No. 15, Brandix, Apsez, Income Tax, Pudimadaka Road, Atchutapuram Circle-5(1), Mandal, Visakhapatnam-530011. Visakhapatnam. Pan: Aaaco9452H (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent)

transfer price of the appellant’s international transactions of Rs. 24,84,58,065/- in respect of payment of royalty, Rs. 40,49,995/- in respect of payment of interest on ECB and Rs. 5,57,443/- on account of imputation of notional interest on outstanding receivables. Further, the Ld. AO and the Ld. DRP erred in disallowing an amount

DEVI SEA FOODS LIMITED,VISAKHAPATNAM vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CIRCLE -3(1), VISAKHAPATNAM

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.156/Viz/2022 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2018-19) M/S Devi Sea Foods Limited Vs. Deputy Commissioner Of 50-1-51/1, A.S.R.Nagar Income Tax Seethammadhara Circle-3(I) Visakhapatnam Visakhapatnam [Pan : Aabcd0248B] अपीलधथी की ओर से/ Appellant By : Shri D.Anand, Ar प्रत्यधथी की ओर से / Respondent By : Shri M.N.Murthy Naik, Cit(Dr) सुिवधई की तधरीख / Date Of Hearing : 01.12.2022 घोर्णध की तधरीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 16.12.2022 O R D E R Per Shri S.Balakrishnan:

transfer pricing adjustment cannot be made on hypothetical and notional basis until and unless there is some material on record that there has been under charging of real income. 2.5. Without prejudice to the above, the DRP/TPO/AO erred in imputing notional interest on delayed receivables despite the fact that the primary transaction has already been tested and considered

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

THE ITO,, GUNTUR vs. ALAPATI RAJENDRA PRASAD,, GUNTUR

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao, Hon’Ble & Shri D.S. Sunder Singh, Hon’Bleito, Ward-2(2), Vs. Alapati Rajendra Prasad, D.No. 4-5-29/85, 4Th Line, Guntur. Vidya Nagar, Guntur. Pan No. Aetpa 0460 M (Appellant) (Respondent)

price was agreed upon by both the parties for Rs. 5,22,50,000/-, out of which an amount of Rs. 4,62,50,000/- has paid in cash by the assessee (paper book at page No. 21 & 22). The remaining balance amount of Rs. 60,00,000/- was paid during the F.Y. 2009-10. The case of the assessee

DEVI SEA FOODS LIMITED,VISAKHAPATNAM vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-3(1), VISAKHAPATNAM

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No.75/Viz/2022 ("नधा"रणवष"/ Assessment Year: 2017-18) M/S. Devi Sea Foods Limited, Vs. Deputy Commissioner Of Visakhapatnam. Income Tax, Pan: Aabcd 0248 B Circle-3(1), Visakhapatnam. (अपीलाथ"/ Appellant) (""यथ"/ Respondent) अपीलाथ"क"ओरसे/ Appellant By : Sri D. Anand, Advocate ""याथ"क"ओरसे/ Respondent By : Sri Mn Murthy Naik, Cit-Dr

section 92B of the Act. 3.3. The DRP/TPO/AO erred in not appreciating the fact that the Act provisions for taxing only real income whether received or accrued under the normal provisions. 3.4. The DRP/TPO/AO erred in not appreciating the fact that transfer pricing adjustment cannot be made on hypothetical and notional basis until and unless there is some material