LEWEK ALTAIR SHIPPING PRIVATE LIMITED,KAKINADA vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-1, KAKINADA

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

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

section 92C(4) does not cover the provisions of Chapter XII-G of the Act.” 9. Similar view was also held by Coordinate Bench at Mumbai in the case of Essar Ports Ltd vs. DCIT [2020] 118 taxmann.com 433 (Mumbai – Trib.) and the relevant para is extracted herein below: “22. We have given a thoughtful consideration to the issue before

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

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

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

pricing is altogether is a different subject and has to be analysed within the ambit of law prescribed u/sec. 92CA of the Act. The TPO examined the aspect of royalty payments made between the group entities and also the approach followed by other countries like USA, Australia, Canada, Germany etc. while examining the royalty payments and also the OECD guidelines

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

pricing is altogether is a different subject and has to be analysed within the ambit of law prescribed u/sec. 92CA of the Act. The TPO examined the aspect of royalty payments made between the group entities and also the approach followed by other countries like USA, Australia, Canada, Germany etc. while examining the royalty payments and also the OECD guidelines

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)

2. That on the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned Dispute Resolution Panel ('the learned Panel') and the learned AO erred in upholding the approach of the learned TPO and the consequent adjustment of INR 31,07,79,932/- made to the transfer price of the Appellant's international transactions with Associated Enterprises ('AEs'). 3. That the learned

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

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

2. That the Ld. Dispute Resolution Panel erred in not appreciating that the order of the Ld. JCIT (Transfer Pricing), Hyderabad passed under section 92CA of the Act is contrary to law and thus liable to be quashed. 3. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. AO/Ld. TPO and the Ld. DRP erred

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

KOTARI SRINIVASA RAO, ,UNDRAJAVARAM MANDALAM vs. THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, , RAJAHMUNDRY

In the result, additional ground raised is allowed

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.335/Viz/2019 (ननधधारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2014-15) Kotari Srinivasa Rao Vs. Principal Commissioner Of D.No.1-91, Canal Road Income Tax Velivennu Rajahmundry Undrajavaram Mandal West Godavari Dist. [Pan : Apjpk9870N] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent)

2.—For the purposes of this section, it is hereby declared that an order passed by the Assessing Officer 94[or the Transfer Pricing Officer, as the case may be,] shall be deemed to be erroneous in so far as it is prejudicial to the interests of the revenue, if, in the opinion of the Principal 95[Chief Commissioner

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

2.—For the purposes of this section, it is hereby declared that an order passed by the Assessing Officer 94[or the Transfer Pricing Officer, as the case may be,] shall be deemed to be erroneous in so far as it is prejudicial to the interests of the revenue, if, in the opinion of the Principal 95[Chief Commissioner

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

2.—For the purposes of this section, it is hereby declared that an order passed by the Assessing Officer 94[or the Transfer Pricing Officer, as the case may be,] shall be deemed to be erroneous in so far as it is prejudicial to the interests of the revenue, if, in the opinion of the Principal 95[Chief Commissioner

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

2.—For the purposes of this section, it is hereby declared that an order passed by the Assessing Officer 94[or the Transfer Pricing Officer, as the case may be,] shall be deemed to be erroneous in so far as it is prejudicial to the interests of the revenue, if, in the opinion of the Principal 95[Chief Commissioner

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

2.—For the purposes of this section, it is hereby declared that an order passed by the Assessing Officer 94[or the Transfer Pricing Officer, as the case may be,] shall be deemed to be erroneous in so far as it is prejudicial to the interests of the revenue, if, in the opinion of the Principal 95[Chief Commissioner

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

2.—For the purposes of this section, it is hereby declared that an order passed by the Assessing Officer 94[or the Transfer Pricing Officer, as the case may be,] shall be deemed to be erroneous in so far as it is prejudicial to the interests of the revenue, if, in the opinion of the Principal 95[Chief Commissioner

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

2.—For the purposes of this section, it is hereby declared that an order passed by the Assessing Officer 94[or the Transfer Pricing Officer, as the case may be,] shall be deemed to be erroneous in so far as it is prejudicial to the interests of the revenue, if, in the opinion of the Principal 95[Chief Commissioner

YADLA SRINIVASA RAO,VIJAYAWADA vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-3(2), , VIJAYAWADA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.78/Viz/2021 (ननधधारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2011-12) Yadla Srinivasa Rao Vs. Income Tax Officer D.No.20-04-190/7A Ward-3(2) Basavataraka Nagar Vijayawada Ayodhya Nagar Vijayawada [Pan : Abfpy5447F] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent)

2(47)(v) of the IT Act, 1961 and in the context of WELL SETTLED LAW, the impugned assessment order dated 22.11.2018 may be NONEST IN LAW AND HENCE THE SAME MAY BE LIABLE TO BE ANNULLED. 3. That in the facts and circumstances of the case vis-a-vis the enacted law and judge made law, the Ld.CIT

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-4(1),, VISAKHAPATNAM vs. SRI Y VENKANA CHOUDARY,, VISAKHAPATNAM

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue as well as the cross objection filed by the assessee are partly allowed

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao, Hon’Ble & Shri D.S. Sunder Singh, Hon’Bleacit, Circle-4(1), Vs. Y. Venkanna Choudary, Visakhapatnam. D.No. 1-1-2, C/O Anuradha Auto Centre, Sheela Nagar, Nh-5, Visakhapatnam. Pan No. Aanpy 3003 G (Appellant) (Respondent) C.O.No. 108/Viz/2019 (Arising Out Of Ita No. 272/Viz/2018) (Asst. Year : 2014-15) Y. Venkanna Choudary, Vs. Acit, Circle-4(1), D.No. 1-1-2, C/O Anuradha Visakhapatnam. Auto Centre, Sheela Nagar, Nh-5, Visakhapatnam. Pan No. Aanpy 3003 G (Appellant) (Respondent)

price in the hands of the assessee u/sec. 56(2)(vii)(c)(ii) of the Act. Ld.AR relied on the following judicial precedents:- 1) ACIT Vs. Dr. Rajan Pai [(2016) 48 ITR (Trib.) 170 (Bang.)] 2) Bharat Hari Singhania & Ors. Vs. CWT & Ors. [(1994) 207 ITR 01] 3) Sri Kumar Pappu Singh Vs. DCIT in ITA No.270/VIZ/2018, dated 07/12/2018 (ITAT

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