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

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)

25,30,65,503/- while computing the income of the assessee for the AY 2020-21. 3. The Ld. AO made further addition of Rs. 23,33,312/- claimed by the assessee as Amortization of lease hold rights for the relevant AY. The Ld. AO accordingly passed the draft assessment order on 28/09/2023. Aggrieved by the draft assessment order

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

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

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

pricing), Hyderabad on 15.11.2018 after obtaining\napproval from the Appropriate Authorities. Accordingly, the Dy.CIT (Transfer\nPricing officer)-1, Hyderabad passed an order under section 92CA(3) of the Act\non 29.10.2019 vide Order No. ITBA/TPO/F/92CA3/2019-20/1019531492(1)\nfor the A.Y. 2016-17. The assessee has entered into the international\ntransactions as follows:\nAssociated\nEnterprises\nNature of\nInternational/Domestic\nTransactions\nAmount\nReceived/Receivable

BRANDIX APPARAL INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,,VISAKHAPATNAM vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE - 5(1), 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.A. No.627/Viz/2018 ("नधा"रणवष"/ Assessment Year : 2014-15) Brandix Apparel India Private Vs. Assistant Commissioner Of Limited, Income Tax, Apsez, Pudimadaka Road, Circle-5(1), Atchutapuram Mandal, Visakhapatnam. Visakhapatnam – 530011. Pan: Aaccb 6569 L (अपीलाथ"/ Appellant) (""यथ"/ Respondent) अपीलाथ"क"ओरसे/ Assessee By : Sri Darpan Kriplani ""याथ"क"ओरसे/ Revenue By : Dr. Satyasai Rath, Cit-Dr

transfer price of processing services the Ld. DRP / AO / TPO erred in 4.1. Rejecting the TP documents maintained by the appellant U/s. 92D of the Act in good faith and with due diligence. 4.2. Rejecting the comparability analysis carried out by the assessee in TP documentation and in conducting a fresh comparability analysis for processing services. 4.3. Not providing

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, GUNTUR vs. CCL PRODUCTS (INDIA) LIMITED, GUNTUR

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकरअपीलसं./I.T.A. No.97/Viz/2025 (निर्धारण वर्ा/ Assessment Year: 2011-12) Deputy Commissioner Of Income V. Ccl Products (India) Limited, Tax, Guntur-522330, Guntur-522004. Andhra Pradesh. Pan: Aaacc9552G (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent)

transfer pricing adjustment on account of interest income short charged / uncharged as held by Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of MCkinsey Knowledge Centre India (P.) Ltd vs. Pr. CIT (2018) (96 taxmann.com 237) (Del) on which SLP filed by the assessee was also dismissed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in 102 taxmann.com 439 (SC) (2019). Page

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, GUNTUR vs. CCL PRODUCTS (INDIA) LIMITED, DUGGIRALA

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकरअपीलसं./I.T.A. No.97/Viz/2025 (निर्धारण वर्ा/ Assessment Year: 2011-12) Deputy Commissioner Of Income V. Ccl Products (India) Limited, Tax, Guntur-522330, Guntur-522004. Andhra Pradesh. Pan: Aaacc9552G (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent)

transfer pricing adjustment on account of interest income short charged / uncharged as held by Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of MCkinsey Knowledge Centre India (P.) Ltd vs. Pr. CIT (2018) (96 taxmann.com 237) (Del) on which SLP filed by the assessee was also dismissed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in 102 taxmann.com 439 (SC) (2019). Page

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, GUNTUR vs. CCL PRODUCTS (INDIA) LIMITED, GUNTUR

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकरअपीलसं./I.T.A. No.97/Viz/2025 (निर्धारण वर्ा/ Assessment Year: 2011-12) Deputy Commissioner Of Income V. Ccl Products (India) Limited, Tax, Guntur-522330, Guntur-522004. Andhra Pradesh. Pan: Aaacc9552G (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent)

transfer pricing adjustment on account of interest income short charged / uncharged as held by Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of MCkinsey Knowledge Centre India (P.) Ltd vs. Pr. CIT (2018) (96 taxmann.com 237) (Del) on which SLP filed by the assessee was also dismissed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in 102 taxmann.com 439 (SC) (2019). Page

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

pricing), Hyderabad on 15.11.2018 after obtaining\napproval from the Appropriate Authorities. Accordingly, the Dy.CIT (Transfer\nPricing officer)-1, Hyderabad passed an order under section 92CA(3) of the Act\non 29.10.2019 vide Order No. ITBA/TPO/F/92CA3/2019-20/1019531492(1)\nfor the A.Y. 2016-17. The assessee has entered into the international\ntransactions as follows:\nAssociated\nEnterprises\nNature of\nInternational/Domestic\nTransactions\nAmount\nReceived/Receivable

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

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

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

Transfer Pricing Officer [TPO], Hyderabad after taking necessary approval from the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-2, Visakhapatnam for determining the Arm’s Length Price [ALP] u/s. 92CA(1) of the Act. After providing an opportunity to the assessee, the Ld. TPO passed the order U/s. 92CA(3) of the Act on 31/10/2017 determining the adjustment U/s. 92CA

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

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

Transfer Pricing Officer (TPO) were to be quashed. We further find that the Hon’ble High Court of Punjab & Haryana in the case of CIT vs. Nagendra Prasad (2013) 156 Taxmann.com 19 (Punjab & Haryana) had observed that where the notice was issued by AO under section 148 of the Act requiring the assessee to file a return within 30 days

TBR INFRA PVT LTD,ALAMPURAM vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1, RAJAHMUNDRY

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

25 lakhs in eight metro charges at Ahmedabad,\nBengaluru, Chennai, Delhi, Hyderabad, Kolkata, Mumbai and\nPune, while at other charges, quantum of such addition should\nexceed Rs. 10 lakhs;\n• for transfer pricing cases, quantum of such addition should\nexceed 10 crore.\n11. Accordingly, in the instant case where the addition amounting to\nRs.3,43,759/- is well below

ARKHA SOLAR POWER PRIVATE LIMITED,RAJAHMUNDARY vs. DCIT-1 , KAKINADA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Ble(Through Hybrid Hearing) आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No.92/Viz/2022 ("नधा"रणवष"/ Assessment Year : 2017-18) Arkha Solar Power Private Vs. Deputy Commissioner Of Limited, Income Tax-1, Elakolanu Village, 4Th Floor, Sri Deepthi Towers, Rangampeta, Rajahmundry, Main Road, Kakinada, Andhra Pradesh – 533294. Andhra Pradesh-533001. Pan: Aalca 4293K (अपीलाथ"/ Appellant) (""यथ"/ Respondent) अपीलाथ"क"ओरसे/ Assessee By : Ms. Karishma R. Phatarphekar ""याथ"क"ओरसे/ Revenue By : Dr. Satyasai Rath, Cit-Dr

Transfer Pricing Officer [TPO] by ACIT, Circle-1, Kakinada vide letter dated 16/09/2019 after obtaining approval of the Ld. Pr. CIT-2, Visakhapatnam. The Ld. TPO observed that the assessee entered into the following transactions with the Associated Enterprises [AEs] as per the 3CEB filed by the assessee: International Amount Received / Amount paid / transactions Receivable payable (Amount in INR) (Amount

THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, , VISAKHAPATNAM vs. POOSARLA SATYAVATHI, VIZIANAGARAM

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed in limine and Cross objection filed is assessee is dismissed as infructuous

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

transferring it to the assessee company as investment in share capital. He therefore stated that the sources remained unexplained and hence the addition made by the Ld. CIT(A) be sustained. 11. We have heard the rival contentions and perused the material available on record. From the submissions made by the Ld.AR, we find from the summary of sworn statements

LINTON PROJECTS PRIVATE LIMITED,VIZIANAGARAM vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, , VIZIANAGARAM

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed in limine and Cross objection filed is assessee is dismissed as infructuous

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

transferring it to the assessee company as investment in share capital. He therefore stated that the sources remained unexplained and hence the addition made by the Ld. CIT(A) be sustained. 11. We have heard the rival contentions and perused the material available on record. From the submissions made by the Ld.AR, we find from the summary of sworn statements

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, GUNTUR vs. VENKATRAMA POULTRIES PVT. LTD., GUNTUR

25% of these\nbogus claim goes against the principles of Section 68 and 69C of the Income\nTax Act. The entire purchases shown on the basis of fictitious invoices have\nbeen debited in the trading account Since the transaction of Rs.2,92,93,288/\nrepresented alleged purchases -from bogus suppliers it was not incumbent\non it to restrict the disallowance

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, GUNTUR vs. VENKATRAMA POULTRIES PVT. LTD, GUNTUR

25% of these\nbogus claim goes against the principles of Section 68 and 69C of the Income\nTax Act. The entire purchases shown on the basis of fictitious invoices have\nbeen debited in the trading account Since the transaction of Rs.2,92,93,288/\nrepresented alleged purchases -from bogus suppliers it was not incumbent\non it to restrict the disallowance