THE ACIT,CENTRAL-1, INDORE vs. M/S PRAKASH OILS LTD., DHAR

In the result, the above captioned appeals filed by the Revenue as well as the

Bench: Shri C.M. Garg & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

68 of the Act and bringing on record any positive and adverse material on record to make sustainable addition in the hands of assessee. We are unable to see any valid reason or basis to interfere with the conclusion drawn by the ld.CIT(A) and, thus, we uphold the same CO Nos.2 to 4/Ind/2022 as the addition was rightly deleted

THE ADDL. CIT RANGE -1, INDORE vs. M/S PRAKASH OILS LTD., DHAR

In the result, the above captioned appeals filed by the Revenue as well as the

Bench: Shri C.M. Garg & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

68 of the Act and bringing on record any positive and adverse material on record to make sustainable addition in the hands of assessee. We are unable to see any valid reason or basis to interfere with the conclusion drawn by the ld.CIT(A) and, thus, we uphold the same CO Nos.2 to 4/Ind/2022 as the addition was rightly deleted

THE ACIT ,CENTRAL-1, INDORE vs. M/S PRAKASH OILS LTD., DHAR

In the result, the above captioned appeals filed by the Revenue as well as the

Bench: Shri C.M. Garg & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

68 of the Act and bringing on record any positive and adverse material on record to make sustainable addition in the hands of assessee. We are unable to see any valid reason or basis to interfere with the conclusion drawn by the ld.CIT(A) and, thus, we uphold the same CO Nos.2 to 4/Ind/2022 as the addition was rightly deleted

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

section 92C(2), the assessee claimed that the mean PLI of 14.53% of external comparables yielded the acceptable lower range of 8.80% and higher rate of 20.25% of PLI. Therefore, the assessee claimed that its own PLI of 14.16% was within safe harbour range of mean PLI of comparables at Page 7 of 47 Computer Sciences Corporation India Private

M/S. FLEXITUFF INTERNATIONAL LTD.,DHAR vs. THE PR.CIT-1, INDORE

In the result appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Hon'Ble Kul Bharat & Hon'Ble Manish Boradassessment Year 2012-13 M/S. Flexituff International Pr. Commissioner Of Ltd, Vs. Income Tax-1, C-41-50, Sez, Sector-3, Indore Pithampur, Dist. Dhar (Appellant) (Respondent ) Pan Aaacn5986H Revenue By Smt. Ashima Gupta, Cit Assessee By Shri Manjit Sachdeva & Avinash Gaur, Advocates Date Of Hearing 26.03.2019 Date Of Pronouncement 14.05.2019 O R D E R

68,106/- 206,811/- 3 26-03-2012 Satguru Polyfab Pvt. Ltd DTA Unit 150,51,853/- 15,05,185/- Total 389,83,611/- 38,98,361/- Since, assessee has purchased old and used plant & machinery and claimed additional depreciation for the same was not allowable in view of provision of section 32. Hence, the excess depreciation of Rs.38

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, EXEMPTION, BHOPAL, BHOPAL vs. INDUS EDUCATION AND RESEARCH INSTITUTE, RAIPUR

Appeal is dismissed

10B filed by assessee with the only modification that a\ndisallowance/addition of Rs. 2,68,20,000/- has been made on account of\nviolation of section

M/S AGARWAL CONSTRUCTION COMPANY ,BHOPAL vs. DYPTI COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, (CENTRAL), BHOPAL, BHOPAL

Bench: Shri Manish Borad & Mis Madhumita Royvirtual Hearing It(Ss)A Nos.233 To 238/Ind/2017 Assessment Year:2006-07 To 2011-12 M/S. Agrawal Construction Co. Acit, 1(1) बनाम/ Bhopal Bhopal (Appellant) (Respondent ) Vs. P.A. No.Aaefa8225H It(Ss)A No.224 To 226/Ind/2017 Assessment Year:2009-10 To 2011-12 Acit, 1(1) M/S. Agrawal Construction बनाम/ Bhopal Co. Bhopal Vs. (Appellant) (Respondent ) P.A. No.Aaefa8225H Assessment Year: 2012-13

10B) is prospective in nature and can have no application to a housing project that is approved before 31st March, 2005. As the deduction sought to be claimed under section 80-IB(10) is inseparably linked with the date of approval of the housing project, it would make no difference if the construction of the said project was completed

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (CENTRAL)-II, BHOPAL, BHOPAL vs. M/S AGRAWAL CONSTRUCTION CO., BHOPAL

Bench: Shri Manish Borad & Mis Madhumita Royvirtual Hearing It(Ss)A Nos.233 To 238/Ind/2017 Assessment Year:2006-07 To 2011-12 M/S. Agrawal Construction Co. Acit, 1(1) बनाम/ Bhopal Bhopal (Appellant) (Respondent ) Vs. P.A. No.Aaefa8225H It(Ss)A No.224 To 226/Ind/2017 Assessment Year:2009-10 To 2011-12 Acit, 1(1) M/S. Agrawal Construction बनाम/ Bhopal Co. Bhopal Vs. (Appellant) (Respondent ) P.A. No.Aaefa8225H Assessment Year: 2012-13

10B) is prospective in nature and can have no application to a housing project that is approved before 31st March, 2005. As the deduction sought to be claimed under section 80-IB(10) is inseparably linked with the date of approval of the housing project, it would make no difference if the construction of the said project was completed

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

10B(1)(a) d) Questioning the commercial rationale of the legitimate business expense incurred by the taxpayer and not restricting the scope of assessment under section 92CA to determining the arm`s length price of international transactions by adopting one of the prescribed method only. e) Not appreciating that even if payment for technical services is held

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

10B(1)(a) d) Questioning the commercial rationale of the legitimate business expense incurred by the taxpayer and not restricting the scope of assessment under section 92CA to determining the arm`s length price of international transactions by adopting one of the prescribed method only. e) Not appreciating that even if payment for technical services is held

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

10B(1)(a) d) Questioning the commercial rationale of the legitimate business expense incurred by the taxpayer and not restricting the scope of assessment under section 92CA to determining the arm`s length price of international transactions by adopting one of the prescribed method only. e) Not appreciating that even if payment for technical services is held

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

10B(1)(a) d) Questioning the commercial rationale of the legitimate business expense incurred by the taxpayer and not restricting the scope of assessment under section 92CA to determining the arm`s length price of international transactions by adopting one of the prescribed method only. e) Not appreciating that even if payment for technical services is held

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

10B(4) of the Income Tax Rules, 1962 (‘the Rules’) which authoress abusage of multiple year data of comparable companies for the purpose of determination of the ALP under section 92F of the Act. 4.4 Rejecting the comparable companies identified by the appellant in its transfer pricing study. 4.5 conducting fresh search by rejecting the objections raised

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

10B(4) of the Income Tax Rules, 1962 (‘the Rules’) which authoress abusage of multiple year data of comparable companies for the purpose of determination of the ALP under section 92F of the Act. 4.4 Rejecting the comparable companies identified by the appellant in its transfer pricing study. 4.5 conducting fresh search by rejecting the objections raised

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

10B(4) of the Income Tax Rules, 1962 (‘the Rules’) which authoress abusage of multiple year data of comparable companies for the purpose of determination of the ALP under section 92F of the Act. 4.4 Rejecting the comparable companies identified by the appellant in its transfer pricing study. 4.5 conducting fresh search by rejecting the objections raised

DCIT-4(1), INDORE, INDORE vs. MARAL OVERSEAS LTD, KHARGONE

In the result appeal of Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri B.M. Biyani & Shri Paresh M Joshidcit-4(1), Indore Maral Overseas Ltd., बनाम/ Maral Sarovar, V& Po Vs. Khalbujurg, Kasrawad, Khargone, Bhopal

section 36, or, as required by or under any other law for the time being is force", The contribution of Rs. 1,45,87,125/- was not made by the assessee in approved gratuity found, it is being disallowed and an amount of Rs. 1,45,87,125/-is added back to the taxable income of the assessee.” Page

THE NIMAR EDUCATIONAL SOCIETY,KHANDWA vs. THE CIT (EXEMPTION), BHOPAL, BHOPAL

Appeal is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyaniassessment Year: 2017-18 The Nimar Educational Cit(Exemption) , Society, Bhopal बनाम/ Harsud Road, Civil Lines, East Nimar, Vs. Khandwa (Assessee/Appellant) (Revenue/Respondent) Pan: Aabtt1409K Assessee By Shri S.N. Agrawal & Shri Pankaj Mogra, Ars Revenue By Shri Ram Kumar Yadav, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing 20.08.2024 Date Of Pronouncement 20.09.2024

section 147 r.w.s. 144/144B of the Act and both relating to Assessment-Year [“AY”] 2017-18, Page 1 of 11 The Nimar Educational Society, Khandwa ITA No. 343/Ind/2024 – AY 2017-18 the assessee has filed this appeal on the grounds raised in Appeal-Memo (Form No. 36). 2. The precise facts relating to case are noted as under