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)

79,932/- made to the transfer price of the Appellant's international transactions with Associated Enterprises ('AEs'). 3. That the learned AO and the learned Panel erred both in facts and in law in confirming the action of the learned TPO of making an adjustment to the transfer price of the Appellant holding that the international transactions do not satisfy

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

79,09,388/-. Out of the gross total income, the assessee claimed deduction u/s. 10AA of the Act and hence the total income declared by the assessee was offered at NIL. Subsequently, the case was selected for scrutiny under CASS and notices U/s. 143(2) of the Act was issued on 23/08/2018 and served on the assessee on 1/9/2018. Subsequently

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

79 Taxmann.com 216 by ITAT ‘K’ Bench, Mumbai held that where the loan for which assessee had given corporate guarantee, primarily covered by pledge of securities hypothecation of debtors balances and other assets of AE, corporate guarantee commission around 0.5% would be acceptable as ALP. Further, the ITAT Mumbai ‘K’ Bench in the case of Nimbus Communications Ltd. Vs. ACIT

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

section 80IA(8) and 80IA(10). The Ld. TPO failed to prove that there exists an arrangement for what may be considered as more than ordinary profits. The Ld. TPO also erred in considering the fact that the assessee has FDA license, and also GMP-111 Guidelines compliant and assumes risks performs more complex functions and dealing with 100% exports

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

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

GVK POWER AND INFRASTRUCTURE LIMITED,JEGURUPADU vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-1, RAJAHMUNDRY

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

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

Transfer pricing upward adjustments made by the Ld. TPO, the Ld.AO passed a draft assessment order dated 15/4/2021. Aggrieved by the draft assessment order, the assessee filed its objections before the Ld. Dispute Resolution Panel, Bengaluru [DRP]. Considering the objections of the Ld. Assessee’s Representative, the DRP in F.No. 25/DRP-1/BNG/2021-22, dated 27/01/2022 rejected the objections raised

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

section 45(2) of the Act adopting the fair market value as on the relevant date of transfer. Since the year of conversion and the sale of plots have fallen during the same previous year, the Ld.CIT(A) held that the AO has correctly adopted the difference between the purchase price and fair market value of the asset and computed

ACIT CIRCLE-3(1),, VISAKHAPATNAM vs. DREDGING CORPORATION OF INDIA LIMITED,., VISAKHAPATNAM

In the result, the appeals of the assessee as well as the revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao& Shri D.S. Sunder Singhआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.437/Viz/2017 (धििाारण िर्ा/ Assessment Year: 2012-2013) M/S Dredging Corporation Vs. Dcit Of India Ltd. Circle-3(1) Dredge House, Port Area Visakhapatnam Visakhapatnam [Pan : Aaacd6021B] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.464/Viz/2017 (धििाारण िर्ा/ Assessment Year: 2012-2013) Acit Vs. M/S Dredging Corporation Circle-3(1) Of India Ltd. Visakhapatnam Dredge House, Port Area Visakhapatnam [Pan : Aaacd6021B] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) निर्धाऩिती की ओि से/ Assessee By : Shri G.V.N.Hari, Ar िधजस्व की ओि से/ Revenue By : Shri Deba Kumar Sonowal, Dr सुिवधई की तधिीख / Date Of Hearing : 26.09.2018 05.10.2018 घोषणध की तधिीख/Date Of Pronouncement :

79,282.00 Waste Oil, Condemned Assets 3. Provision for bad debts previously created 6,88,01,067.00 now written back 4. Provision no longer required, written back 8,78,893.00 – Finance & Accounts Section 5. Provision for expenses written back 39,28,989.00 6. Liquidated damages 9,03,93,437.00 7. Damages – IHC Holland for deficiency

DREDGING CORPORATION OF INDIA LTD,,VISAKHAPATNAM vs. DCIT, CIRCLE -3(1),, VISAKHAPATNAM

In the result, the appeals of the assessee as well as the revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao& Shri D.S. Sunder Singhआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.437/Viz/2017 (धििाारण िर्ा/ Assessment Year: 2012-2013) M/S Dredging Corporation Vs. Dcit Of India Ltd. Circle-3(1) Dredge House, Port Area Visakhapatnam Visakhapatnam [Pan : Aaacd6021B] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.464/Viz/2017 (धििाारण िर्ा/ Assessment Year: 2012-2013) Acit Vs. M/S Dredging Corporation Circle-3(1) Of India Ltd. Visakhapatnam Dredge House, Port Area Visakhapatnam [Pan : Aaacd6021B] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) निर्धाऩिती की ओि से/ Assessee By : Shri G.V.N.Hari, Ar िधजस्व की ओि से/ Revenue By : Shri Deba Kumar Sonowal, Dr सुिवधई की तधिीख / Date Of Hearing : 26.09.2018 05.10.2018 घोषणध की तधिीख/Date Of Pronouncement :

79,282.00 Waste Oil, Condemned Assets 3. Provision for bad debts previously created 6,88,01,067.00 now written back 4. Provision no longer required, written back 8,78,893.00 – Finance & Accounts Section 5. Provision for expenses written back 39,28,989.00 6. Liquidated damages 9,03,93,437.00 7. Damages – IHC Holland for deficiency

DREDGING CORPORATION OF INDIA,,VISAKHAPATNAM vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-3(1), , VISAKHAPATNAM

In the result, appeal and cross objections of the assessee as well as the appeal of the revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.211/Viz/2020 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2015-16) M/S Dredging Corporation Of India Ltd. Vs. Asst.Commissioner Of Dredge House, Hb Colony, Main Road Income Tax Seethammadhara, Visakhapatnam Circle-3(1) [Pan : Aaacd6021B] Visakhapatnam आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.54/Viz/2021 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2015-16) Dy.Commissioner Of Vs. M/S Dredging Corporation Of Income Tax India Ltd. Circle-3(1) Dredge House, Hb Colony, Visakhapatnam Main Road, Seethammadhara Visakhapatnam [Pan : Aaacd6021B] Cross Objection No.48/Viz/2021 (Arising Out Of I.T.A No.54/Viz/2021) M/S Dredging Corporation Of India Ltd. Vs. Dy.Commissioner Of Dredge House, Hb Colony, Main Road Income Tax Seethammadhara Circle-3(1) Visakhapatnam Visakhapatnam [Pan : Aaacd6021B] निर्धारितऩ की ओर से/ Assessee By : Shri G.V.N.Hari, Ar िधजस्व की ओर से / Revenue By : Shri M.N.Murthy Naik, Cit(Dr) सुिवधई की तधरीख / Date Of Hearing 18.07.2022 : घोर्णध की तधरीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 09.09.2022

79,080/-. Subsequently, the assessee company filed it’s revised return of income on 07.05.2016, admitting total income of Rs.8,59,91,810/- and claiming a refund of Rs.14,61,78,510/-. The case was selected for limited scrutiny under CASS and a notice u/s 143(2) was issued to the assessee on 07.04.2016. Assessment order

THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-3(1),, VISAKHAPTNAM vs. DREDGING CORPORATION OF INDIA LIMITED , VISAKHAPTNAM

In the result, appeal and cross objections of the assessee as well as the appeal of the revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.211/Viz/2020 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2015-16) M/S Dredging Corporation Of India Ltd. Vs. Asst.Commissioner Of Dredge House, Hb Colony, Main Road Income Tax Seethammadhara, Visakhapatnam Circle-3(1) [Pan : Aaacd6021B] Visakhapatnam आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.54/Viz/2021 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2015-16) Dy.Commissioner Of Vs. M/S Dredging Corporation Of Income Tax India Ltd. Circle-3(1) Dredge House, Hb Colony, Visakhapatnam Main Road, Seethammadhara Visakhapatnam [Pan : Aaacd6021B] Cross Objection No.48/Viz/2021 (Arising Out Of I.T.A No.54/Viz/2021) M/S Dredging Corporation Of India Ltd. Vs. Dy.Commissioner Of Dredge House, Hb Colony, Main Road Income Tax Seethammadhara Circle-3(1) Visakhapatnam Visakhapatnam [Pan : Aaacd6021B] निर्धारितऩ की ओर से/ Assessee By : Shri G.V.N.Hari, Ar िधजस्व की ओर से / Revenue By : Shri M.N.Murthy Naik, Cit(Dr) सुिवधई की तधरीख / Date Of Hearing 18.07.2022 : घोर्णध की तधरीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 09.09.2022

79,080/-. Subsequently, the assessee company filed it’s revised return of income on 07.05.2016, admitting total income of Rs.8,59,91,810/- and claiming a refund of Rs.14,61,78,510/-. The case was selected for limited scrutiny under CASS and a notice u/s 143(2) was issued to the assessee on 07.04.2016. Assessment order

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1(1), GUNTUR vs. CCL PRODUCT (INDIA) PRIVATE 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.191/Viz/2018 (धनधाारण िर्ा/Assessment Year:2013-14) Dy.Commissioner Of Vs. M/S Ccl Products (India) Income-Tax, Circle-1(1) Pvt. Ltd. Guntur Duggirala Post & Mandal Guntur [Pan :Aaacc9552G] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) अपीलाथी की ओर से/ Appellant By : Shri K.C.Das, Dr प्रत्यथी की ओर से / Respondent By : Shri K.Ramesh Babu, Ar सुनिाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 19.09.2018 28 .09.2018 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement :

79,726/-. On appeal, the Ld.CIT(A) held that providing corporate guarantee on behalf of its 100% subsidiary AE would not constitute an international transaction within the meaning of section 92B of the Act and accordingly held that no adjustment is warranted. The Ld.CIT(A) relied on the decision of Hon’bleITAT,Hyderabad in the case of Batronics India Limited

3F INDUSTRIES LIMITED,TADEPALLIGUDEM vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1, RAJAHMUNDRY

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No.275/Viz/2024 (िनधा"रणवष"/ Assessment Year :2020-21) 3F Industries Limited, Vs. Assistant Commissioner Of P.B. No. 15, Tanuku Road, Income Tax, Tadepalligudem, West Godavari Circle-1, District, Andhra Pradesh-534101. Rajahmundry. Pan: Aaacf2643K (अपीलाथ"/ Appellant) (""यथ"/ Respondent) अपीलाथ"क"ओरसे/ Appellant By : Ms. Suvibha Nolkha, Ar ""याथ"क"ओरसे/ Respondent By : Dr. Satyasai Rath, Cit-Dr सुनवाईक"तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 07/10/2024 घोषणाक"तारीख/Date Of : 30/10/2024 Pronouncement O R D E R

79,23,496/-. The return was initially processed U/s. 143(1) of the Act. Subsequently, the case was selected for scrutiny under CASS and a notice U/s. 143(2) was issued to the assessee and in response the assessee’s Authorized Representative appeared from time to time and furnished the details as called for by the Ld. AO. During

ARYAPURAM CO=OP. URBANK LTD.,,RAJAHMUNDRY vs. THE ACIT,, RAJAHMUNDRY

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes; and the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

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

transfer or sell the shares to any other person in order to realize his investment. Only recently, the Limited companies are permitted to purchase their own shares and such purchase cannot be equated to refund of share capital. In our view, the Co- operative Societies are permitted to refund the share capital in tune with its objective of providing services

THE ARYAPURAM CO-OPERATIVE URBAN BANK LTD.,,RAJAHMUNDRY vs. THE ACIT, CIRCLE - 1, RAJAHMUNDRY

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes; and the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

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

transfer or sell the shares to any other person in order to realize his investment. Only recently, the Limited companies are permitted to purchase their own shares and such purchase cannot be equated to refund of share capital. In our view, the Co- operative Societies are permitted to refund the share capital in tune with its objective of providing services

THE ARYAPURAM CO-OPERATIVE URBAN BANK LTD.,RAJAHMUNDRY vs. THE ACIT,, RAJAHMUNDRY

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes; and the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

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

transfer or sell the shares to any other person in order to realize his investment. Only recently, the Limited companies are permitted to purchase their own shares and such purchase cannot be equated to refund of share capital. In our view, the Co- operative Societies are permitted to refund the share capital in tune with its objective of providing services

THE ACIT,CIRCLE - 1,, RAJAHMUNDRY vs. M/STHE ARYAPURAM CO-OPRATIVE URBAN BANK LTD.,, RAJAHMUNDRY

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes; and the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

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

transfer or sell the shares to any other person in order to realize his investment. Only recently, the Limited companies are permitted to purchase their own shares and such purchase cannot be equated to refund of share capital. In our view, the Co- operative Societies are permitted to refund the share capital in tune with its objective of providing services