SHRI ANIRUDHA NYATI,INDORE vs. THE ITO-5(1), INDORE

In the result appeals of the assessee(s) namely Kumari Ayushi Nyati (ITA

Bench: Shri Manish Borad& Ms. Madhumita Roy

Section 10(38) of the Act in respect of long-term capital gain arising from sale of equity shares of M/s. Sun Rise Asian Ltd. (listed on Bombay Stock Exchange) treating it income from undisclosed sources. ITA Nos.483&484/Ind/2019 Aniruddha Nyati vs. ITO Asst.Years –2014-15 & 2015-16 - 2 – 3. ITA No. 483/Ind/2019 A.Y. 2014-15 is taken

SUNITA GUPTA,INDORE vs. ACIT CIRCLE 2(1), INDORE

In the result, the appeal filed by the Assessee is allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: The Tribunal. The Assessee Has Filed A Notarized Affidavit Stating That Her Husband Shri Mahendra Gupta Was Looking After The Income Tax Proceedings. However, He Was Imprisonment Between February, 2019 To 22Nd October, 2021. Hence, He Could Not Appear Before Ld. Cit(A)-Nfac & Cooperate For The Hearing Of The Appeal.

section 144 r.w.s. 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter 2 I.TA No. 357/IND/2022 A.Y. 2010-11 Page No Sunita Gupta vs. ACIT referred to as ‘the Act’) relating to the Assessment Year (A.Y) 2010- 11. 2. The registry has noted that there is delay of 269 days in filing the appeal before the Tribunal. The assessee has filed

INCME TAX OFFICER 2(1), BHOPAL, BHOPAL vs. SWARNA SUKH, BHOPAL

In the result appeal of the revenue is dismissed and \"impugned order” is upheld

Capital Gain. It was further stated that the above gold jewellery at Rs.40,25,479/- was also declared in income declaration scheme Rules 2016 and tax paid was Rs.12,07,644/-. Copy of ROI and form under IDS Rules 2016 was too enclosed which are at pages 55 to 58 of paper book Vol.I. On page 56 of paper book

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

capital adjustment as against 11.91% (which was revised to 14.85%, after depreciation adjustment) margin of the assessee. Since OP/TC margin of the assessee was greater than mean margin of the comparable companies, it was concluded that international transactions of the assessee were at arm’s length. The ITA Nos.179/Ind/2016, 292/Ind/2017, 319/Ind/2018 & SA No.46/Ind/2021 A.Ys

M/S. COMPUTER SCIENCE CORPORATION INDIA PVT. LTD.,CHENNAI vs. THE ACIT-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

capital adjustment as against 11.91% (which was revised to 14.85%, after depreciation adjustment) margin of the assessee. Since OP/TC margin of the assessee was greater than mean margin of the comparable companies, it was concluded that international transactions of the assessee were at arm’s length. The ITA Nos.179/Ind/2016, 292/Ind/2017, 319/Ind/2018 & SA No.46/Ind/2021 A.Ys

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

capital adjustment as against 11.91% (which was revised to 14.85%, after depreciation adjustment) margin of the assessee. Since OP/TC margin of the assessee was greater than mean margin of the comparable companies, it was concluded that international transactions of the assessee were at arm’s length. The ITA Nos.179/Ind/2016, 292/Ind/2017, 319/Ind/2018 & SA No.46/Ind/2021 A.Ys

JYOTI GOYAL,BHOPAL vs. DCIT-1(1), BHOPAL

Appeal is partly allowed as mentioned above

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyaniassessment Year : 2012-13 Jyoti Goyal, Dcit, 18, Shyamla Hills, 1(1), बनाम/ Bhopal Bhopal Vs. (Assessee/Appellant) (Revenue/Respondent) Pan: Abbpg3493P Assessee By Shri S.S. Deshpande, Ca & Ar Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 25.04.2024 Date Of Pronouncement 20.05.2024

capital asset’ u/s 2(14). Therefore, it was not a ‘property’ as defined in Explanation Page 3 of 24 Jyoti Goyal, Bhopal ITA No. 380/Ind/2023 – AY 2012-13 4(d) to section 56(2)(vii)(b) and hence section 56(2)(vii)(b) is not applicable. However, the AO rejected assessee’s twin-submissions and made addition by holding that