RVR TECHNOLOGIES LTD.,MANDIDEEP vs. ADDL. CIT-RANGE-3, BHOPAL

In the result, appeal for A

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyani

246 or section 246A or an appeal to the Appellate Tribunal under section 253 or an appeal to the High Court under section 260A or an appeal to the Supreme Court under section 261 or revision under section 263 or section 264 and an order imposing or enhancing or reducing or cancelling penalty or dropping the proceedings for the imposition

RVR TECHNOLOGIES LTD.,MANDIDEEP vs. ITO-2(1), BHOPAL

In the result, appeal for A

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyani

246 or section 246A or an appeal to the Appellate Tribunal under section 253 or an appeal to the High Court under section 260A or an appeal to the Supreme Court under section 261 or revision under section 263 or section 264 and an order imposing or enhancing or reducing or cancelling penalty or dropping the proceedings for the imposition

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

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

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, 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. DIASPARK INFOTECH PVT. LTD.,INDORE vs. THE NFAC ,NEW DELHI, DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Manish Borad & T.R. Senthil Kumar

disallowance. Therefore, the assessee filed a rectification application under section 154 of the Act, however, after lapse of considerable time, rectification petition was not disposed of by the Department, and ultimately, the assessee-company filed statutory appeal under section 246(1

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&

disallowed by the Ld. AO in the assessment order wherein he held that the assessee is merely executing government contract in the capacity of a work contractor and not developer. AO further observed that no risk is undertaken by the assessee and therefore, it cannot be termed as developer as envisaged u/s 80IA(4) of the Act. In the appellate

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&

disallowed by the Ld. AO in the assessment order wherein he held that the assessee is merely executing government contract in the capacity of a work contractor and not developer. AO further observed that no risk is undertaken by the assessee and therefore, it cannot be termed as developer as envisaged u/s 80IA(4) of the Act. In the appellate

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&

disallowed by the Ld. AO in the assessment order wherein he held that the assessee is merely executing government contract in the capacity of a work contractor and not developer. AO further observed that no risk is undertaken by the assessee and therefore, it cannot be termed as developer as envisaged u/s 80IA(4) of the Act. In the appellate

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&

disallowed by the Ld. AO in the assessment order wherein he held that the assessee is merely executing government contract in the capacity of a work contractor and not developer. AO further observed that no risk is undertaken by the assessee and therefore, it cannot be termed as developer as envisaged u/s 80IA(4) of the Act. In the appellate

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&

disallowed by the Ld. AO in the assessment order wherein he held that the assessee is merely executing government contract in the capacity of a work contractor and not developer. AO further observed that no risk is undertaken by the assessee and therefore, it cannot be termed as developer as envisaged u/s 80IA(4) of the Act. In the appellate

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&

disallowed by the Ld. AO in the assessment order wherein he held that the assessee is merely executing government contract in the capacity of a work contractor and not developer. AO further observed that no risk is undertaken by the assessee and therefore, it cannot be termed as developer as envisaged u/s 80IA(4) of the Act. In the appellate

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&

disallowed by the Ld. AO in the assessment order wherein he held that the assessee is merely executing government contract in the capacity of a work contractor and not developer. AO further observed that no risk is undertaken by the assessee and therefore, it cannot be termed as developer as envisaged u/s 80IA(4) of the Act. In the appellate

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&

disallowed by the Ld. AO in the assessment order wherein he held that the assessee is merely executing government contract in the capacity of a work contractor and not developer. AO further observed that no risk is undertaken by the assessee and therefore, it cannot be termed as developer as envisaged u/s 80IA(4) of the Act. In the appellate

SMT. SHWETA AGRAWAL,INDORE vs. THE PR. CIT-2, INDORE

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Boradassessment Year:2014-15

section 263(1}. 5.Crom ton Greaves Ltd. (2017) 82 taxmann.com 246 Mumbai _ ITAT Bench C) Held that on perusal of the said assessment order it was clear that the Assessing Officer had not made any enquiry with respect to the claim of deduction of the assessee-company with respect to provisions for warranty charges, . excise duty, sales tax and liquidity

SHREENATHJI INFRASTRUCTURE P.LTD.,PIPARIYA vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , ITARSI

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Garg & Shri B.M. Biyani

disallowance u/s 80IA. During the year, the appellant has constructed roads at various places in M.P. under contracts received from Executive Engineer, PWD, Mandaleshwar, Shajapur, Raisen, and Chhindwara, M.P.R.R.D.A., Maheshwar, and MPRRDA, Sehore. A perusal of relevant bidding documents, letter of acceptance, notice inviting tender, notice to proceed the work etc. shows as follows:- (i) Detailed notice inviting tender

SHREENATHJI INFRASTRUCTURE P.LTD.,PIPARIYA vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , ITARSI

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Garg & Shri B.M. Biyani

disallowance u/s 80IA. During the year, the appellant has constructed roads at various places in M.P. under contracts received from Executive Engineer, PWD, Mandaleshwar, Shajapur, Raisen, and Chhindwara, M.P.R.R.D.A., Maheshwar, and MPRRDA, Sehore. A perusal of relevant bidding documents, letter of acceptance, notice inviting tender, notice to proceed the work etc. shows as follows:- (i) Detailed notice inviting tender