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

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

section 144C(13) in pursuant to the directions of DRP dated 25th August 2021 passed u/s 144C(5) of the Act for Assessment Year 2017-18. The assessee has raised following grounds of appeal: “1.On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law: The Ld. AO and Hon'ble DRP erred in making an addition

RITIKA JAIN,THANE vs. ITO(IT TP), BHOPAL, AAYKAR BHAVAN

Appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta & Shri Paresh M Joshiritika Jain, Cit (Appeals), बना A-504, Laxmi Residency Chs Nfac, म/ Ltd, Delhi Vs. Opposite Datta Mandir Check Naka, Wagle Estate, Thane

144C after compliance of notice under section 142(1), thus the order by the Ld.AO is without applying his mind and against the principle of law. 5) The appellant humbly submits that the order passed is bad in law and the additions made should be deleted. (a) Ld.AO erred in making addition amounting

THE DCIT-1(1), INDORE vs. M/S. BRIDGESTONE INDIA PVT. LTD., DHAR

Bench: Ms.Suchitra Kamble & Shri B.M. Biyani(Conducted Through Virtual Court) Assessment Year: 2012-13 Dcit-1(1) M/S. Bridgestone India बनाम/ Indore Pvt. Ltd., Pithampur, District-Dhar Vs. (Appellant / Revenue) (Respondent / Assessee) Pan: Aabcb 2304 E Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Assessee By Shri Manoj Fadnis, Ca & Ar Date Of Hearing 15.12.2022 Date Of Pronouncement 30.01.2023

section 144C after making certain additions, one of those additions was on account of inclusion of excise duty of Rs. 2,68

THE ACIT (CENTRAL), UJJAIN vs. M/S. VYANKTESH PLASTICS & PACKAGING (P) LTD., UJJAIN

Bench: Justice P.P. Bhatt, Hon'Ble & Hon'Ble Manish Boradvirtual Hearing Assessment Year: 2016-17 M/S. Ariba Foods Pvt. Acit (Central), Vs. Ltd, 101, Gold Star Building, Ujjain Opp. Treasure Island, 5767 M.G. Road, Indore (Revenue ) (Appellant) Pan No.Aalca7223M Assessment Year: 2015-16 M/S. Vyanktesh Plastics Acit (Central), Vs. & Packaging Pvt. Ltd, 75/7-B, Industrial Area, Ujjain Maxi Road, Ujjain (Revenue ) (Appellant) Pan No.Aaacv6547J Assessment Year: 2011-12

144C and u/s 143(3) of the Income Tax Act 1961(In short the ‘Act’) dated 28.12.2018, 27.12.2018 and 26.12.2018 respectively framed by ACIT(Central), Ujjain. 2. Revenue has raised following grounds of appeal :- (i) M/s Ariba Foods Pvt. Ltd ITA No.736/Ind/2019 Assessment Year 2016-17 1.On the facts and in the circumstances of the case

ACIT (CENTRAL) , UJJAIN vs. M/S. ARIBA FOODS (P) LTD., INDORE

Bench: Justice P.P. Bhatt, Hon'Ble & Hon'Ble Manish Boradvirtual Hearing Assessment Year: 2016-17 M/S. Ariba Foods Pvt. Acit (Central), Vs. Ltd, 101, Gold Star Building, Ujjain Opp. Treasure Island, 5767 M.G. Road, Indore (Revenue ) (Appellant) Pan No.Aalca7223M Assessment Year: 2015-16 M/S. Vyanktesh Plastics Acit (Central), Vs. & Packaging Pvt. Ltd, 75/7-B, Industrial Area, Ujjain Maxi Road, Ujjain (Revenue ) (Appellant) Pan No.Aaacv6547J Assessment Year: 2011-12

144C and u/s 143(3) of the Income Tax Act 1961(In short the ‘Act’) dated 28.12.2018, 27.12.2018 and 26.12.2018 respectively framed by ACIT(Central), Ujjain. 2. Revenue has raised following grounds of appeal :- (i) M/s Ariba Foods Pvt. Ltd ITA No.736/Ind/2019 Assessment Year 2016-17 1.On the facts and in the circumstances of the case

THE ACIT (CENTRAL), UJJAIN vs. M/S. FAMOUS VANIJYA (P) LTD. , UJJAIN

Bench: Justice P.P. Bhatt, Hon'Ble & Hon'Ble Manish Boradvirtual Hearing Assessment Year: 2016-17 M/S. Ariba Foods Pvt. Acit (Central), Vs. Ltd, 101, Gold Star Building, Ujjain Opp. Treasure Island, 5767 M.G. Road, Indore (Revenue ) (Appellant) Pan No.Aalca7223M Assessment Year: 2015-16 M/S. Vyanktesh Plastics Acit (Central), Vs. & Packaging Pvt. Ltd, 75/7-B, Industrial Area, Ujjain Maxi Road, Ujjain (Revenue ) (Appellant) Pan No.Aaacv6547J Assessment Year: 2011-12

144C and u/s 143(3) of the Income Tax Act 1961(In short the ‘Act’) dated 28.12.2018, 27.12.2018 and 26.12.2018 respectively framed by ACIT(Central), Ujjain. 2. Revenue has raised following grounds of appeal :- (i) M/s Ariba Foods Pvt. Ltd ITA No.736/Ind/2019 Assessment Year 2016-17 1.On the facts and in the circumstances of the case

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

68 days. Ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that the delay in filing the appeal is due to country-wide lockdowns imposed by the government in wake of Covid-19 outbreak and taking cognizance of the same the government had introduced the taxation and other laws (Relaxation and Amendment of Certain Provisions) Act 2020 in order to relax/extend the statutory