ADP PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD, TELANGANA vs. DCIT., CIRCLE 1(1), HYDERABAD, TELANGANA

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed in terms of our observations given hereinabove

Bench: SHRI VIJAY PAL RAO, HON’BLE (Vice President), SHRI MANJUNATHA G, HON’BLE (Accountant Member)

disallowance under Section 40(a)(ia), and addition towards Form 26AS mismatch. 6. Aggrieved by the final assessment order, the assessee is now in appeal before us. 7. The learned counsel for the assessee, Shri Sriram Seshadri, C.A., referring to the final assessment order passed by the A.O. under Section 143(3) r.w.s. 144C(13

NETCRACKER TECHNOLOGY SOLUTIONS (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT., CIRCLE - 5(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed in terms of our observations given hereinabove

Bench: SHRI G. MANJUNATHA, HON’BLE (Accountant Member), SHRI RAVISH SOOD, HON’BLE (Judicial Member)

disallowance of donation under Section 80G of the Act. In pursuant to the directions of DRP issued under Section 144C(5) of the Act, dated 29.05.2024, the A.O. has passed final assessment order under Section 143(3) r.w.s. 144C(13

BRIGHTCOM GROUP LIMITED (FORMERLY KNOWN AS LYCOS INTERNET LIMITED),HYDERABAD vs. ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-16(1),, HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed in terms of our observations given hereinabove

13. The Ld. AO erred in not considering the fact that the time2. The Ld. AO erred in not considering the fact that the time limit prescribed u/s 153 would prevail over and above the time limit prescribed u/s 144C. Therefore, the assessment order u/s 144C(1) is void and bad in law. 14. The Ld. AO ought to have

NTT DATA BUSINESS SOLUTIOS PRIVATE LIMITED ,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-5(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Madhusudan Sawdiaआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.489/Hyd/2022 Assessment Year 2018-2019 Ntt Data Business The Dcit, Solutions Private Limited, Hyderabad. Circle-5(1), Vs. Pin -500081. Hyderabad. Pan Aadci1557Q (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा"रती "ारा /Assessee By: Ca Aliasgar Rampurawala राज" व "ारा /Revenue By: Ms U Mini Chandran, Cit-Dr

disallowing the relief claimed by the Appellant of INR 31,48,038 towards foreign tax credits under section 90/91 of the Act, without considering assessee's submission and documentary evidence. 19. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. AO has erred in disregarding Assessee's claim for additional relief

DR. REDDYS, LABORATORIES LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-8(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, both the appeals of the Assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Manjunatha G.आ.अपी.सं /Ita Nos.490 & 491/Hyd/2022 Assessment Years 2017-2018 & 2018-2019 Dr. Reddy’S Laboratories Limited, Hyderabad. The Acit, Vs. Pin – 500 034. Circle-8(1), Hyderabad – Telangana. 500 084. Pan Aaacd7999Q (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा"रती "ारा /Assessee By: Ca Padamchand Khincha राज" व "ारा /Revenue By: Ms. U Mini Chandran, Cit-Dr

144C(13) read with section 144B, beyond the limitation period under section 153. The assessment order so passed is bad in law, void ab initio and liable to be quashed. 3. The learned AO and DRP have erred in not appreciating that the Appellant considered the payments for marketing support services and the R&D services as operating expenses while

DR. REDDYS, LABORATORIES LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-8(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, both the appeals of the Assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Manjunatha G.आ.अपी.सं /Ita Nos.490 & 491/Hyd/2022 Assessment Years 2017-2018 & 2018-2019 Dr. Reddy’S Laboratories Limited, Hyderabad. The Acit, Vs. Pin – 500 034. Circle-8(1), Hyderabad – Telangana. 500 084. Pan Aaacd7999Q (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा"रती "ारा /Assessee By: Ca Padamchand Khincha राज" व "ारा /Revenue By: Ms. U Mini Chandran, Cit-Dr

144C(13) read with section 144B, beyond the limitation period under section 153. The assessment order so passed is bad in law, void ab initio and liable to be quashed. 3. The learned AO and DRP have erred in not appreciating that the Appellant considered the payments for marketing support services and the R&D services as operating expenses while