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

transfer pricing study. The assessee has brought on record the number of case laws relied up on, but the revenue did not make out a case for rejection of the commission @ 0.25% to 0.53%, which is held to be reasonable. Neither the A.O. nor DRP brought on record any decision, which is held to be more favourable to the revenue

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

DR KONDABOLU BASAVAPUNAIAH & DR LAKSHMI PRASAD TRUST,GUNTUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER (EXEMPTION WARD), GUNTUR

transferring the benefit, inter alia, of any property of the\nTrust to its Trustees by selling the property for a consideration which is less than\nadequate. As noted in the foregoing paragraphs, until the date of registration of\nthe sale deed on 12.05.2016, which was further rectified on 13.01.2018, the\nTrustee made a total payment of Rs. 1,50,50

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 is altogether is a different subject and has to be analysed within the ambit of law prescribed under section 92CA of the Act. TPO was also of the opinion that there is no direct benefit derived by the assessee commensurate to the payments of royalty and hence ALP of such payment for royalty be treated at either

MANNE SUBBA RAO,RAJAMAHENDRAVARAM vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE - 2(1), , RAJAMAHENDRAVARAM

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

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao& Shri D.S. Sunder Singhआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.158/Viz/2018 (धििाारण िर्ा/ Assessment Year: 2014-2015) Manne Subba Rao Acit, Circle-2(1) D.No.78-15-21/5,T-1, Rajamahendravaram Block-1, Rama Residency Syamala Nagar Rajamahendravaram [Pan : Ayyps 3433R] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) अपीलार्थी की ओर से/ Appellant By : Shri G.V.N.Hari, Ar प्रत्यार्थी की ओर से/ Respondent By : Smt. Suman Malik, Dr

transfer. Thus, this provision has come into the statute in order to curb this practice. In the instant case, the appellant had converted the capital asset into stock-in-trade on 01.04.2013 and sold it on 23.04.2013. Therefore, the capital gains will have to be calculated as per Section 45(2) adopting the fair market value as on the date

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

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. 3.5. The DRP/TPO/AO erred in not appreciating the fact that the appellant has not incurred any cost in providing corporate guarantee and as such the appellant cannot be expected to charge

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

transfer pricing is altogether is a different subject and has to be analysed\nwithin the ambit of law prescribed under section 92CA of the Act. TPO was\nalso of the opinion that there is no direct benefit derived by the assessee\ncommensurate to the payments of royalty and hence ALP of such payment for\nroyalty be treated at either

MDR CRANES & INFRASTRUCTURE PVT LTD,VISAKHAPATNAM vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-3(1), VISAKHAPATNAM

transfer of plant\nand machinery during the year. It was submitted that due to defaults of loans\ntaken by the Company the financiers seized the certain machinery kept as\nsecurity which was having a Written Down Value (WDV) in the books of\naccounts as on 01.04.2013 at Rs.7,24,84,687/-. Ld.AO further observed that\nassessee has reduced the value

3F INDUSTRIES LIMITED,TADEPALLIGUDEM vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1, , ELURU

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

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

TRANSFER PRICING MATTER: 1. Notional Guarantee fee on shareholders guarantee a. Making adjustment on the shareholders corporate guarantee is not covered under the loans availed by the AE, without appreciating the fact that the guarantee was provided for the benefit of the 3F Group. b. Not appreciating that the shareholder corporate guarantee is not covered under definition of international transaction

THE ACIT, CIRCLE - 1,, RAJAHMUNDRY vs. THE ANDHRA PRADESH PAPER MILLS LTD.,, HYDERABAD

In the result, appeals filed by the Revenue are partly allowed and the cross objections filed by the assessee are partly allowed

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

transfer of thermal heat energy from steam to the juices. The dispute between the revenue and the assessee arose whether the receipts from generation and supply of steam was eligible for relief under section 801A and according to the revenue, the steam was not the power, which was eligible for tax holiday under section 801A. 7.11The word power

THE ACIT, CIRCLE - 1,, RAJAHMUNDRY vs. THE ANDHRA PRADESH PAPER MILLS LTD.,, HYDERABAD

In the result, appeals filed by the Revenue are partly allowed and the cross objections filed by the assessee are partly allowed

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

transfer of thermal heat energy from steam to the juices. The dispute between the revenue and the assessee arose whether the receipts from generation and supply of steam was eligible for relief under section 801A and according to the revenue, the steam was not the power, which was eligible for tax holiday under section 801A. 7.11The word power

THE ACIT, CIRCLE - 1,, RAJAHMUNDRY vs. THE ANDHRA PRADESH PAPER MILLS LTD.,, HYDERABAD

In the result, appeals filed by the Revenue are partly allowed and the cross objections filed by the assessee are partly allowed

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

transfer of thermal heat energy from steam to the juices. The dispute between the revenue and the assessee arose whether the receipts from generation and supply of steam was eligible for relief under section 801A and according to the revenue, the steam was not the power, which was eligible for tax holiday under section 801A. 7.11The word power

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

50,882 Ltd Brandix Essentials Ltd Reimbursement of expenses 32,64,831 Brandix Apparel Ltd Reimbursement of expenses 37,82,725 Brandix Intimate Apparel Ltd Reimbursement of expenses 74,83,898 Brandix Apparel Ltd Recovery of Pre-commencement 3,68,47,180 Brandix Apparel Ltd Liability no longer required 9,91,13,198 3. Thereafter, the case was referred

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 Officer (in short “TPO”) in respect of the revisionary order U/s. 263 of the Act. As per the directions of the Ld. Pr. CIT, Guntur, the Ld. TPO determined the ALP and made an adjustment of Rs. 2,05,39,000/- towards commission @ 2% on corporate guarantee given by the assessee to its 100% subsidiaries and passed

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 Officer (in short “TPO”) in respect of the revisionary order U/s. 263 of the Act. As per the directions of the Ld. Pr. CIT, Guntur, the Ld. TPO determined the ALP and made an adjustment of Rs. 2,05,39,000/- towards commission @ 2% on corporate guarantee given by the assessee to its 100% subsidiaries and passed

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 Officer (in short “TPO”) in respect of the revisionary order U/s. 263 of the Act. As per the directions of the Ld. Pr. CIT, Guntur, the Ld. TPO determined the ALP and made an adjustment of Rs. 2,05,39,000/- towards commission @ 2% on corporate guarantee given by the assessee to its 100% subsidiaries and passed

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

transfer pricing is altogether is a different subject and has to be analysed\nwithin the ambit of law prescribed under section 92CA of the Act. TPO was\nalso of the opinion that there is no direct benefit derived by the assessee\ncommensurate to the payments of royalty and hence ALP of such payment for\nroyalty be treated at either

3F INDUSTRIES LIMITED,TADEPALLIGUDEM vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1, RAJAMAHENDRAVARAM

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

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

Transfer Pricing), Hyderabad for computation of Arm’s Length Price [ALP] of the transactions entered into by the assessee with its Associated Enterprises [AEs] outside India. The Ld. TPO in his report made U/s. 92CA(3) of the Act observed that during the year, the assessee has provided Corporate Guarantee on behalf of 3F Singapore and 3F Ghana

KUMAR PAPPU SINGH,TANUKU vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1, , ELURU

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao& Shri D.S. Sunder Singhआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.270/Viz/2018 (धििाारण िर्ा/Assessment Year:2013-2014) Sri Kumar Pappu Singh Vs. Dy.Commissioner Of D.No.23-3-26, Sundaram Nagar Income Tax, Sajjapuram Circle-1, Kks Towers, Tanuku Rr Pet, Eluru [Pan : Aeepp2496P] Andhra Pradesh (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent)

transfer. In the circumstances, section 4(1)(a) was not applicable as held by the Tribunal. The assessee also relied on the decision of Miss Dhun Dadabhoy Kapadia Vs. CIT [36 ITR 0651].” 9. With regard to the additional ground, the Ld.AR argued that in the instant case, the assessment was completed u/s 143(3). Subsequently, the AO had issued