THE DCIT, 1(1), BHOPAL vs. M/S. ANDRITZ HYDRO PVT. LTD., RAISEN

In the result, grounds taken by the assessee in all the years with respect to provision of warranty are allowed

Bench: Shri D.T. Garasia & Shri O.P. Meena

section 92C (2), it was claimed that the transaction is within tolerance band of +/-5% Margin. 2.6.1. We find that there is no dispute between TPO and the assessee as regards the method, which is CPM and benchmarking based on internal comparable. The only dispute whether the assessee has justified for considering the aggregation of all the projects with

M/S. ANDRITZ HYDRO PRIVATE LIMITED (EARLIER KNOWN AS VA TECH HYDRO INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED),BHOPAL vs. THE DCIT 1(1), BHOPAL

In the result, grounds taken by the assessee in all the years with respect to provision of warranty are allowed

Bench: Shri D.T. Garasia & Shri O.P. Meena

section 92C (2), it was claimed that the transaction is within tolerance band of +/-5% Margin. 2.6.1. We find that there is no dispute between TPO and the assessee as regards the method, which is CPM and benchmarking based on internal comparable. The only dispute whether the assessee has justified for considering the aggregation of all the projects with

THE ACIT, CENTRAL-1, INDORE vs. M/S SURYA INFRA VENTURE PVT. LTD., INDORE

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

section 139 etc., or by reason of failure on the part of the assessee to disclose fully and truly all material facts necessary for his assessment, for that assessment year. In the present case, the question of making of a return is not in issue and the only question is with regard to the second portion of the proviso, which

THE ACIT, CIRCLE 2(1), INDORE vs. M/S SURYA INFRA VENTURE PVT. LTD., INDORE

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

section 139 etc., or by reason of failure on the part of the assessee to disclose fully and truly all material facts necessary for his assessment, for that assessment year. In the present case, the question of making of a return is not in issue and the only question is with regard to the second portion of the proviso, which

THE AIT,ENTRAL-1, INDORE vs. SURYA INFRAVENTURE P LTD, INDORE

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

section 139 etc., or by reason of failure on the part of the assessee to disclose fully and truly all material facts necessary for his assessment, for that assessment year. In the present case, the question of making of a return is not in issue and the only question is with regard to the second portion of the proviso, which

ACIT CENTRAL-2, INDORE vs. SARTHAK INNOVATION (P) LTD., INDORE

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

TDS and the same interest has been offered by the parties as their income in the return of income filed for the year under consideration. 2.7 It was also submitted before the Ld AO that the appellant is engaged in real estate business and the financing in this type of business it very critical due to the stringent government policies

DCIT CENTRAL-1, INDORE vs. SARTHAK INNOVATION (P) LTD., INDORE

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

TDS and the same interest has been offered by the parties as their income in the return of income filed for the year under consideration. 2.7 It was also submitted before the Ld AO that the appellant is engaged in real estate business and the financing in this type of business it very critical due to the stringent government policies

ACIT CENTRAL-2, INDORE vs. SARTHAK INNOVATION (P) LTD., INDORE

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

TDS and the same interest has been offered by the parties as their income in the return of income filed for the year under consideration. 2.7 It was also submitted before the Ld AO that the appellant is engaged in real estate business and the financing in this type of business it very critical due to the stringent government policies

RNG CONSTRUCTION CO,INDRA NAGAR vs. DCIT-CPC, CPC-BENGALURU

Appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri B.M. Biyani & Shri Paresh M. Joshirng Construction Co. Dcit-Cpc बनाम/ 14, Sector-A, Vs. Indira Nagar, Mandideep (Assessee/Appellant) (Revenue/Respondent) Pan: Aaqfr9084B Assessee By Shri Yashwant Sharma, Ca & Ar Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 28.08.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 29.08.2025

269/- after making two additions, namely (a) addition of Rs. 6,35,000/- on account of unexplained loans u/s 68, and (b) disallowance of Rs. 5,26,439/- on account of Late GST fee (Rs. 1,000/-), Interest on VAT Tax (Rs. 53,779/-), Interest on TDS (Rs. 488/-), Penal damages

DILIP BUILDCON LTD.,BHOPAL vs. DCIT (CENTRAL)-1, BHOPAL

In the result, revenue’s appeal for A

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav Hon'Ble & Shri Manish Borad&

269 19. Further, CIT (A) has distinguished the decision relied upon by the AO in para 10.1 and 10.2 of the appellate order and has held that the same are not applicable to the facts of the appellant’s case. Here, it is important to note that decision rendered in the case of Katira Construction Ltd. reported in 31 taxmann.com

SHRI DILIP BUILDCON LTD,BHOPAL vs. DCIT CENTRAL -1, BHOPAL

In the result, revenue’s appeal for A

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav Hon'Ble & Shri Manish Borad&

269 19. Further, CIT (A) has distinguished the decision relied upon by the AO in para 10.1 and 10.2 of the appellate order and has held that the same are not applicable to the facts of the appellant’s case. Here, it is important to note that decision rendered in the case of Katira Construction Ltd. reported in 31 taxmann.com

DILIP BUILDCON LTD.,BHOPAL vs. DCIT (CENTRAL)-1, BHOPAL

In the result, revenue’s appeal for A

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav Hon'Ble & Shri Manish Borad&

269 19. Further, CIT (A) has distinguished the decision relied upon by the AO in para 10.1 and 10.2 of the appellate order and has held that the same are not applicable to the facts of the appellant’s case. Here, it is important to note that decision rendered in the case of Katira Construction Ltd. reported in 31 taxmann.com

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (CENTRAL)-1, BHOPAL vs. DILIP BUILDCON LIMITED, BHOPAL

In the result, revenue’s appeal for A

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav Hon'Ble & Shri Manish Borad&

269 19. Further, CIT (A) has distinguished the decision relied upon by the AO in para 10.1 and 10.2 of the appellate order and has held that the same are not applicable to the facts of the appellant’s case. Here, it is important to note that decision rendered in the case of Katira Construction Ltd. reported in 31 taxmann.com

DILIP BUILDCON LIMITED,BHOPAL vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (CENTRAL)-1, BHOPAL

In the result, revenue’s appeal for A

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav Hon'Ble & Shri Manish Borad&

269 19. Further, CIT (A) has distinguished the decision relied upon by the AO in para 10.1 and 10.2 of the appellate order and has held that the same are not applicable to the facts of the appellant’s case. Here, it is important to note that decision rendered in the case of Katira Construction Ltd. reported in 31 taxmann.com

DCIT (CENTRAL)-1, BHOPAL vs. DILIP BUILDCON LTD., BHOPAL

In the result, revenue’s appeal for A

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav Hon'Ble & Shri Manish Borad&

269 19. Further, CIT (A) has distinguished the decision relied upon by the AO in para 10.1 and 10.2 of the appellate order and has held that the same are not applicable to the facts of the appellant’s case. Here, it is important to note that decision rendered in the case of Katira Construction Ltd. reported in 31 taxmann.com

DCIT (CENTRAL)-1, BHOPAL vs. DILIP BUILDCON LTD., BHOPAL

In the result, revenue’s appeal for A

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav Hon'Ble & Shri Manish Borad&

269 19. Further, CIT (A) has distinguished the decision relied upon by the AO in para 10.1 and 10.2 of the appellate order and has held that the same are not applicable to the facts of the appellant’s case. Here, it is important to note that decision rendered in the case of Katira Construction Ltd. reported in 31 taxmann.com

THED CIT ,CENTRAL-1, BHOPAL vs. M/S DILIP BUILDCON LTD, BHOPAL

In the result, revenue’s appeal for A

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav Hon'Ble & Shri Manish Borad&

269 19. Further, CIT (A) has distinguished the decision relied upon by the AO in para 10.1 and 10.2 of the appellate order and has held that the same are not applicable to the facts of the appellant’s case. Here, it is important to note that decision rendered in the case of Katira Construction Ltd. reported in 31 taxmann.com

PRAMOD PALIWAL,KHANWA vs. ACIT KHANWA, KHANWA

In the result Ground No. 1 (a) &

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Boradassessment Year 2009-10 Shri Pramod Paliwal, Acit, Prop. M/S. Pragati Vs. Khandwa Construction, Ramkishanganj, Khandwa (M.P) (Appellant) (Respondent ) Pan Adapp8012A Revenue By Shri K.G. Goyal Sr.Dr Assessee By S/Shri Anil Kamal Garg & Arpit Gaur, Cas Date Of Hearing 10.10.2019 Date Of Pronouncement 17.10.2019 O R D E R

269 ITR 192 (PHHC) ii) Swarovski India Limited v. Deputy CIT' [2014} 368 ITR 601 (Delhi) iii) CITvs. ITW India Ltd. (2015) 377 ITR 195 (P&H) Pramod Paliwal State Bank of Patiala vs. CIT & Anr. (2015) 375 ITR 109 iv) (P&H) HCL Technologies Ltd. vs. DCIT (2015) 93 CCH 146 (DeI HC) v) vi) Global Signal Cables (India