M/S NISHANT FINANCE PVT.LTD,INDORE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-CENTRAL (I), INDORE, INDORE

Bench: Hon’Ble Kul Bharat & Hon’Ble Manish Borad

B of the Act.” 6.10 From a perusal of the facts of the aforesaid decision it transpires that the issue in question before the co-ordinate bench was the legality or otherwise of the order passed under section 263 and while examining that issue an additional issue that arose for consideration of the Delhi Tribunal was that

SUMATI KUMAR KASLIWAL,INDORE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, (CENTRAL)-1, INDORE, INDORE

Bench: Hon’Ble Kul Bharat & Hon’Ble Manish Borad

B of the Act.” 6.10 From a perusal of the facts of the aforesaid decision it transpires that the issue in question before the co-ordinate bench was the legality or otherwise of the order passed under section 263 and while examining that issue an additional issue that arose for consideration of the Delhi Tribunal was that

PARTH KASLIWAL,INDORE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX- CENTRAL (I), INDORE , INDORE

Bench: Hon’Ble Kul Bharat & Hon’Ble Manish Borad

B of the Act.” 6.10 From a perusal of the facts of the aforesaid decision it transpires that the issue in question before the co-ordinate bench was the legality or otherwise of the order passed under section 263 and while examining that issue an additional issue that arose for consideration of the Delhi Tribunal was that

MANOJ KASLIWAL,INDORE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX- CENTRAL (1), INDORE, INDORE

Bench: Hon’Ble Kul Bharat & Hon’Ble Manish Borad

B of the Act.” 6.10 From a perusal of the facts of the aforesaid decision it transpires that the issue in question before the co-ordinate bench was the legality or otherwise of the order passed under section 263 and while examining that issue an additional issue that arose for consideration of the Delhi Tribunal was that

M/S PUMARTH INFRASTRUCTURE PVT.LTD.,INDORE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (CENTRAL)-1, INDORE, INDORE

Bench: Hon’Ble Kul Bharat & Hon’Ble Manish Borad

B of the Act.” 6.10 From a perusal of the facts of the aforesaid decision it transpires that the issue in question before the co-ordinate bench was the legality or otherwise of the order passed under section 263 and while examining that issue an additional issue that arose for consideration of the Delhi Tribunal was that

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

244A of the act. It is prayed and the appellant claims relief that it be held that the aforesaid adjustments are bad in law and the ld. AO be directed to delete the adjustments. Each of the above grounds is independent and without prejudice to the other grounds preferred by the appellant.” ITA No.292/Ind/2017 for A.Y. 2012-13 “1. That

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

244A of the act. It is prayed and the appellant claims relief that it be held that the aforesaid adjustments are bad in law and the ld. AO be directed to delete the adjustments. Each of the above grounds is independent and without prejudice to the other grounds preferred by the appellant.” ITA No.292/Ind/2017 for A.Y. 2012-13 “1. That

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

244A of the act. It is prayed and the appellant claims relief that it be held that the aforesaid adjustments are bad in law and the ld. AO be directed to delete the adjustments. Each of the above grounds is independent and without prejudice to the other grounds preferred by the appellant.” ITA No.292/Ind/2017 for A.Y. 2012-13 “1. That