BEYONDKEY SYSTEMS P LTD,INDORE vs. THE DY CIT 1(1), INDORE

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri B.M. Biyani(Conducted Through Virtual Court) Assessment Year: 2011-12 Beyondkey Systems Pvt. Dcit 1(1) Ltd. Indore 901A & B, बनाम/ Nrk Business Park, Block B1, Pu4, Vs. Scheme No.54, Vijay Nagar Square, Indore (Appellant / Assessee) (Respondent / Revenue) Pan: Aaccb 7622 G Assessee By Shri Manish Dafaria, Ca & Ar Revenue By Shri P.K. Mishra, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing 08.12.2022 / 16.03.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 18.04.2023

section 10A of the Act, despite assessee being eligible for the same.” 2. Heard the learned Representatives of both sides at length and case- records perused. 3. Briefly stated the facts are such that the assessee-company is an Export Oriented Undertaking (EOU) registered with Software Technology Park of India (STPI), engaged in the business of providing software

SATYANARAYAN SHARMA,INDORE vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-I, INDORE

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Boradassessment Year:2013-14

10A of the Act at Rs. 12,51,79,200/- against the profits earned from SEZ units.” [emphasis supplied] i. Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of Reliance Communication Limited – [2016] 69 taxmann.com 103 – order pronounced on 12 Satyanarayan Sharma /ITANo.426/Ind/2018 28.03.2016 – HEAD NOTE – “Section 68

FAITH BUILDERS & REALTIES P LTD,BHOPAL vs. PR CIT-1,, BHOPAL

Bench: Hon’Ble Rajpal Yadav & Shri Manish Boradvirtual Hearing Assessment Year:2015-16 Faith Builders & Realties, P. Pr. Cit-1, Ltd., Bhopal Bhopal बनाम/ (Appellant) (Respondent ) Vs. P.A. No. Aabcf7558A Appellant By Shri S.S. Deshpande, Ar Revenue By Shri S.B. Prasad, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing: 08.07.2021 Date Of Pronouncement: 16.08.2021 आदेश / O R D E R Per Manish Borad, A.M: By Way Of This Appeal, The Appellant Has Challenged The Assumption Of Jurisdiction U/S 263 Of The Income Tax Act 1961( Hereinafter Referred To As ‘The Act’ For Short) By Ld. Pr. Cit-1 Bhopal Vide Order Dated 31.01.2020.The Assessee Has Raised Following Grounds Of Appeal:-

68,47,432/- (-) Rs. 10,31,99,121/-) was thus sale price less direct expenses till Faith Builders & Realities Ltd. 31.03.2015. Accordingly, the amount of Rs. 1,36,48,310/- did not represent the income for the year. In the written submission filed before the Ld. Commissioner the details were submitted. 7c. The Ld. PCIT further observed that no reference

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

10A (d), and even the OECD guidelines, the only transaction, which are similar in nature or closely interlinked can be aggregated as one transaction and benchmarked, and only where considering it as separate transaction is impractical. Such is not the case here. Since all the AE projects of the assessee are independent and different projects, the benchmarking needs

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

10A (d), and even the OECD guidelines, the only transaction, which are similar in nature or closely interlinked can be aggregated as one transaction and benchmarked, and only where considering it as separate transaction is impractical. Such is not the case here. Since all the AE projects of the assessee are independent and different projects, the benchmarking needs

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

10A (d), and even the OECD guidelines, the only transaction, which are similar in nature or closely interlinked can be aggregated as one transaction and benchmarked, and only where considering it as separate transaction is impractical. Such is not the case here. Since all the AE projects of the assessee are independent and different projects, the benchmarking needs

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

10A (d), and even the OECD guidelines, the only transaction, which are similar in nature or closely interlinked can be aggregated as one transaction and benchmarked, and only where considering it as separate transaction is impractical. Such is not the case here. Since all the AE projects of the assessee are independent and different projects, the benchmarking needs

THE ACIT, 3(1), INDORE vs. M/S. KALANI INDUSTRIES PVT. LTD., INDORE

In the result appeals of the revenue & assessee are

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Borad

68,500/- on account of unexplained receipt on protective basis without appreciating the facts and evidences brought into light by the AO during the assessment proceedings.” ITANo.1044 & 1045/Ind/2016 for Assessment Year 2012-13(Pankaj Kalani & Dipak Kalani): 1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in giving relief to the assessee

THE DCIT 1(1), INDORE vs. M/S FLEXITUFF INTERNATIONAL LTD., INDORE

In the result appeals of the revenue & assessee are

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Borad

68,500/- on account of unexplained receipt on protective basis without appreciating the facts and evidences brought into light by the AO during the assessment proceedings.” ITANo.1044 & 1045/Ind/2016 for Assessment Year 2012-13(Pankaj Kalani & Dipak Kalani): 1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in giving relief to the assessee

DCIT, 3(1), INDORE vs. M/S. KALANI INDUSTRIES PVT. LTD., INDORE

In the result appeals of the revenue & assessee are

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Borad

68,500/- on account of unexplained receipt on protective basis without appreciating the facts and evidences brought into light by the AO during the assessment proceedings.” ITANo.1044 & 1045/Ind/2016 for Assessment Year 2012-13(Pankaj Kalani & Dipak Kalani): 1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in giving relief to the assessee

DCIT, 3(1), INDORE vs. M/S. KALANI INDUSTRIES PVT. LTD., INDORE

In the result appeals of the revenue & assessee are

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Borad

68,500/- on account of unexplained receipt on protective basis without appreciating the facts and evidences brought into light by the AO during the assessment proceedings.” ITANo.1044 & 1045/Ind/2016 for Assessment Year 2012-13(Pankaj Kalani & Dipak Kalani): 1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in giving relief to the assessee