M/S. AGRAWAL COAL CORPORATION P. LTD.,INDORE vs. THE DCIT RANGE 1(1), INDORE

Bench: Shri D.T. Garasia & Shri O.P. Meena

transfer pricing provision cannot apply to the said transaction. Without prejudice to the above 1.7 Without prejudice to above, the learned CIT (A) erred in summarily rejecting the comparability analysis undertaken by the Appellant to benchmark the transaction of provision of corporate guarantee to the AE and adopting the arm’s length price at 0.53% in an arbitrary

THE DCIT1(1), INDORE vs. M/S. AGRAWAL COAL CORPORATION P LTD., INDORE

Bench: Shri D.T. Garasia & Shri O.P. Meena

transfer pricing provision cannot apply to the said transaction. Without prejudice to the above 1.7 Without prejudice to above, the learned CIT (A) erred in summarily rejecting the comparability analysis undertaken by the Appellant to benchmark the transaction of provision of corporate guarantee to the AE and adopting the arm’s length price at 0.53% in an arbitrary

M/S NIKHIL ESTATE P LTD,INDORE vs. THE ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE (3) INDORE, INDORE

In the result, appeal of assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyanim/S. Nikhil Estate Pvt. Ltd. Acit (Central)-3 M-102, Mezzanine, Floor, Indore Dhan Trident, P. No.B-3 Pu- Vs. 4, Sch. No.54, Vijay Nagar Square, Indore (Appellant / Assessee) (Respondent/ Revenue) Pan: Aabcn 8056 D Assessee By Shri S.S. Solanki, Ar Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 01.05.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 09.06.2023

68 or 69A, excess stock is covered u/s 69 or 69B, construction of Shed/Godown is covered u/s 69B or 69C and advances made to Sundry Parties is covered u/s 69, 69B or 69D is like an open ended hypothesis which is not supported by any specific finding that the matter shall fall under which of the specific sections

M/S SUPREMO INDIA LTD ,INDORE vs. THE AIT CENTRAL 3, INDORE

In the result, appeal of assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyanim/S. Supremo India Pvt. Ltd. Acit Central-3 400/2, Halka Patwari No.52 Indore Vs. Badiakeema Dudhiya, B.O. Indore (Appellant / Assessee) (Respondent/ Revenue) Pan: Aafcs 9822 C Assessee By Shri S.S. Solanki, Ar Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 01.05.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 07.06.2023

68 or 69A, excess stock is covered u/s 69 or 69B, construction of Shed/Godown is covered u/s 69B or 69C and advances made to Sundry Parties is covered u/s 69, 69B or 69D is like an open ended hypothesis which is not supported by any specific finding that the matter shall fall under which of the specific sections

ACIT 5 (1), BHOPAL vs. M/S VINDHYA SOLVENT PVT. LTD., BHOPAL

In the result, Revenue’s appeal is dismissed

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy& Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

price and consequently the share premium, it cannot be construed that share premium solely depends on the future realizable value of profits. No requirement under section 56(2)(viib) of the IT Act to value investment in subsidiaries at net realizable value prior to valuing the shares of the Appellant Company 1.15. It is submitted that the learned

RUPESH VYAS,INDORE vs. THE ACIT3(1), INDORE, INDORE

In the result, this appeal of assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar & Shri B.M. Biyani

transferred to the beneficiary at a very nominal price mostly off-line through preferential allotment or off-line sale to save SIT. The beneficiary (an Individual) holds the share for one year, the statutory period after which LTCG is exempt under section 10(38) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. In the meantime the operators rig the price

THE ACIT, - 4(1), INDORE vs. M/S. YASH TECHNOLOGIES PVT. LTD., INDORE

In the result appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Hon'Ble Kul Bharat & Hon'Ble Manish Boradassessment Year 2014-15 Pan : Aaacy1868M

transfer pricing figure is Rs.3,46,13,572/- which is less than 5 Crores hence the provisions of Specified Domestic Transaction as per Section 92BA does not apply. (b )(i) That even otherwise the AO was factually incorrect in mentioning that 8 employees mentioned are in Non SEZ whereas out of 8 employees, 5 employees' salary is debited

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

Transfer Pricing Officer (TPO). During proceeding, the TPO accepted (i) TNMM as ‘most appropriate method’, and (ii) OP/OC% as “PLI” for working of TNMM, as adopted by assessee. But he made certain modifications in the approach of assessee. He observed that the assessee-company was having 5 different units at different locations, namely (i) Bangalore Unit, (ii) Bangalore Strategic Business

DECENT INDUSTRIES P. LTD.,BHOPAL vs. ITO-1(2), BHOPAL

Appeal is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyani(Virtual Hearing) Assessment Year: 2012-13 M/S Decent Industries Ito-1(2), Private Ltd, Bhopal 5Th Floor, Corporate Park, बनाम/ Db City Area Hills, Vs. Opp. M.P. Nagar Zone I, Bhopal (Assessee/Appellant) (Revenue/Respondent) Pan: Aaeca6271G Assessee By Ms. Shilpa Gupta & Shri N.K. Gupta Revenue By Shri V.K. Singh, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing 04.06.2024 Date Of Pronouncement 20.08.2024

price of Rs. 1,000/- (inclusive of premium of Rs. 990/- per share) to two ‘Kolkata-based shell companies’ named M/s Ajay Software Pvt. Ltd. [“A”] and M/s Jay Hind Financial Advisors Ltd. [“J”] on 31.03.2012 and received proceeds of Rs. 66,91,70,000/- in financial year 2011-12 relevant to AY 2012-13 under consideration. The details

RUPESH VYAS,INDORE vs. THE ACIT3(1), INDORE, INDORE

In the result, this appeal of assessee is dismissed

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri B.M. Biyani

transferred to the beneficiary at a very nominal price mostly off-line through preferential allotment or off-line sale to save STT. The beneficiary (an Individual) holds the share for one year, the statutory period after which LTCG is exempt under section 10(38) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. In the meantime the operators rig the price

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

transfer for limited right to use and they are composite payment of royalty which is also covered by section 9(1)(vi) and section 9(1)(vii)of the Act as well as under India- Austria Tax Treaty on which TDS was not made hence, the AO has rightly disallowed the same under section

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

transfer for limited right to use and they are composite payment of royalty which is also covered by section 9(1)(vi) and section 9(1)(vii)of the Act as well as under India- Austria Tax Treaty on which TDS was not made hence, the AO has rightly disallowed the same under section

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

transfer for limited right to use and they are composite payment of royalty which is also covered by section 9(1)(vi) and section 9(1)(vii)of the Act as well as under India- Austria Tax Treaty on which TDS was not made hence, the AO has rightly disallowed the same under section

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

transfer for limited right to use and they are composite payment of royalty which is also covered by section 9(1)(vi) and section 9(1)(vii)of the Act as well as under India- Austria Tax Treaty on which TDS was not made hence, the AO has rightly disallowed the same under section

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

section 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

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

section 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

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

section 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

DCIT-4(1), INDORE vs. M/S. YAKSHA INFRASTRUCTURE COM. PVT. LTD., TALOJA, RAIGARH

Appeal is dismissed

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

68 in the year under appeal................." 17. Considering the entire aspect of the matter, the Ld. CIT(A) while deleting the addition made by the Ld. AO observed as follows: “5.14 The appellant has submitted various documents in support of its claim. The said documents were verified by this office. After verification of the same, following facts emerge out which