M/S. COMPUTER SCIENCES CORPORATION INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,INDORE vs. THE ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-2(1), INDORE

In the result, all the three appeals are partly allowed for statistical purpose and the Stay Application is also disposed of

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

144C(5) of the Act. In the directions, the AO observed that the DRP had upheld the disallowance of Rs.6,07,00,658/- made under Section 14A as per rule 8D. Also for upward adjustment of Rs.212,56,79,027/- on account of software services. The DRP confirmed the same. The Assessing Officer vide Assessment Order dated 05.02.2016 made addition

M/S. COMPUTER SCIENCE CORPORATION INDIA PVT. LTD.,CHENNAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-CIRCLE 2(1) , INDORE

In the result, all the three appeals are partly allowed for statistical purpose and the Stay Application is also disposed of

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

144C(5) of the Act. In the directions, the AO observed that the DRP had upheld the disallowance of Rs.6,07,00,658/- made under Section 14A as per rule 8D. Also for upward adjustment of Rs.212,56,79,027/- on account of software services. The DRP confirmed the same. The Assessing Officer vide Assessment Order dated 05.02.2016 made addition

MR.VINEET SHRIVASTAVA,BHOPAL vs. THE ITO ( IT&TP), BHOPAL

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

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyanimr. Vineet Shrivastava Ito (It & Tp) E-7/795, Arera Colony Bhopal Vs. Bhopal (Appellant / Assessee) (Respondent/ Revenue) Pan: Bcxps 2544 H Assessee By Shri Rohit Tiwari, Ar Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 21.06.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 22.06.2023

capital gain account scheme was made on 3 September 2019 falling beyond the due date of filing return under section 139 of the Act. 6.1 That the Ld. AO failed appreciate that the account opening application along with cheque number 151360 to the bank branch on 31 August 2019 were submitted at the bank on August 31, 2019 and confirmed

M/S. BRIDGESTONE INDIA PVT. LTD.,PUNE vs. THE ACIT NFAC, DELHI

In the result, appeal of assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyanibridgestone India Pvt. Ltd. Acit (Nfac) Plot No.A-43, Phase-Ii, Delhi Midc Chakan, Village Vs. Sawardari, Taluka Khed, Pune (Appellant / Assessee) (Respondent/ Revenue) Pan: Aabcb 2304 E Assessee By Shri Sukhsagar Syal, Ar Revenue By Shri P.K. Mishra, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing 23.05.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 17.07.2023

144C of the Act. The DRP issued direction vide order dated 27.09.2019. After taking cognizance of the TPO and DRP's direction the Assessing Officer made addition of Rs. 29,49,00,133/- as addition of subsidies received from Government of Maharashtra under PSI, 2007. 6. Being aggrieved by the assessment order the assesse filed appeal before

M/S BANSAL EXTRACTION & EXPORT P LTD,BHOPAL vs. DCIT,CENTRAL-1, BHOPAL

In the result, the appeal of assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyanim/S. Bansal Extraction & Dcit Export Pvt. Ltd. Central-1 3Rd Floor Tawa Complex, Bittan Bhopal Vs. Market E-4, Arera Colony, Bhopal (Appellant / Assessee) (Revenue) Pan: Aadcb 7521 M Assessee By Shri Anil Khabya, Ar Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 05.09.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 20.09.2023

4,02 949/- Value of machinery installed but not put to use 3,00,96,505 Difference in valuation. 38,48,342/- Assessment year 2012-13 Assessed Value 2.56,10,200 Less: Declared value 10,76,77.9611- Less: Revaluation Reserve 5,00,00,000/- Less: Machinary purchased In 2011-12 bur installed 3,00,96 505/- 27581456 during the year

CUMMINS TECHNOLOGIES INDIA (P) LTD.,DEWAS vs. ACIT CIRCLE 1(1), UJJAIN

In the result, the appeal of the assesse is allowed

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyanicommins Technologies India Acit, Circle -1(1) Private Limited Ujjain Vs. Industrial Area No.2, A.B. Road, M.P. (Appellant / Assessee) (Revenue) Pan: Aabct2018B Assessee By Shri Ketan Ved & Pinkesh Vakharia Ars Revenue By Ms. Simran Bhullar, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing 29.11.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 30.11.2023

capital work-fin-progress) and no depreciation was claimed against this cost in the return of income filed by the Assessee for the year under consideration. 5.4 On the facts and in circumstances of the case and in law, the learned AO / T * PO pursuant to the directions of Hon'ble DRP, has erred by not taking cognizance

THE ACIT, 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

144C and 92CA of Income Tax Act,1961(hereinafter referred as of ”the Act”) of the Deputy Commissioner of Income tax- 1(1),Bhopal (hereinafter referred as “the AO”), for the assessment year 2010-11 order dated 13.02.2015 and for the A.Y. 2011-12 order dated 22.02.2016 passed in pursuance of the directions issued by Dispute Resolution Panel-IV, Mumbai

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

144C and 92CA of Income Tax Act,1961(hereinafter referred as of ”the Act”) of the Deputy Commissioner of Income tax- 1(1),Bhopal (hereinafter referred as “the AO”), for the assessment year 2010-11 order dated 13.02.2015 and for the A.Y. 2011-12 order dated 22.02.2016 passed in pursuance of the directions issued by Dispute Resolution Panel-IV, Mumbai

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

144C and 92CA of Income Tax Act,1961(hereinafter referred as of ”the Act”) of the Deputy Commissioner of Income tax- 1(1),Bhopal (hereinafter referred as “the AO”), for the assessment year 2010-11 order dated 13.02.2015 and for the A.Y. 2011-12 order dated 22.02.2016 passed in pursuance of the directions issued by Dispute Resolution Panel-IV, Mumbai

M/S ANDRITZ HYDRO PRIVATE LIMITED (EARLIER KNOWN AS V A TECH HYDRO INDAI PVT. LTD.),MANDIDEEP vs. THE ACIT 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

144C and 92CA of Income Tax Act,1961(hereinafter referred as of ”the Act”) of the Deputy Commissioner of Income tax- 1(1),Bhopal (hereinafter referred as “the AO”), for the assessment year 2010-11 order dated 13.02.2015 and for the A.Y. 2011-12 order dated 22.02.2016 passed in pursuance of the directions issued by Dispute Resolution Panel-IV, Mumbai

COMPUTER SCIENCES CORPORATION INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,CHENNAI vs. ACIT, CHENNAI

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyaniassessment Year: 2007-08 Computer Sciences Acit, Corporation India Private Company Circle 1(3), Limited, Chennai [Formerly Covansys (India) Private Limited], बनाम/ Unit 13, Block 2, Sdf Buildings, Vs. Madras Export Processing Zone, Tambaram, Chennai (Assessee / Appellant) (Revenue / Respondent) Pan: Aaacc1351M Assessee By Shri Neeraj Jain, Adv. Shri Abhishek Agrawal, Ca Revenue By Shri P.K. Mishra, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing 12.07.2023 Date Of Pronouncement

144C(5). Aggrieved by order of AO, the assessee has come in this appeal. 4. The grounds raised by assessee are as under: “1. The order of the AO passed pursuant to the order of the TPO and the directions issued by the DRP is erroneous, bad in law, prejudicial to the appellant and contrary to the facts and circumstances

ANDRITZ HYDRO P LTD,BHOPAL vs. PR CIT-1, BHOPAL

Bench: Shri Manish Borad & Ms. Madhumita Royvirtual Hearing

144C r.w.s 92CA of the IT Act, 1961 dated 25.01.2018 passed by the DCIT-1(1), Bhopal for A.Y. 2014-15, The assessee company was engaged in the manufacturing of generators and its equipments besides providing installation and erection services. On perusal of the assessment order and case recordd, it is notices that the assessee company debited Rs.30