KALPANA JAIN,INDORE vs. THE PR CIT-1, INDORE

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

transfer and acquisition of house property alongwith land pertinent thereto. Further that, the property was exchanged at Rs.7,64,60,000/-, the value adopted by the Stamp Duty Authority taking full value of consideration for both the cases. As the property was not exchanged below the value adopted by the Stamp Valuation Authority, the question of taxation in respect

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 Regulations talk of individual transactions to be benchmarked. He submitted that the assessee made claim of ‘entity-level’ comparison before DRP also, but the DRP has over-ruled assessee’s claim with reasoning. Referring to Page 10 and 11 of DRP order, Ld. DR emphasized the reasoning given by DRP, Page 19 of 47 Computer Sciences Corporation India

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

Property Quip corporation Ltd. 255 ITR 354, Associated Cement Corporation (2001) 124 STC 59, Citizen Watch Company Ltd. 148 ITR 774 etc. as per submission made before the TPO in support of his contention. 6.4. The Ld. D.R. relaying on the orders of the TPO/ DRP submitted that ITAT order

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

Property Quip corporation Ltd. 255 ITR 354, Associated Cement Corporation (2001) 124 STC 59, Citizen Watch Company Ltd. 148 ITR 774 etc. as per submission made before the TPO in support of his contention. 6.4. The Ld. D.R. relaying on the orders of the TPO/ DRP submitted that ITAT order

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

Property Quip corporation Ltd. 255 ITR 354, Associated Cement Corporation (2001) 124 STC 59, Citizen Watch Company Ltd. 148 ITR 774 etc. as per submission made before the TPO in support of his contention. 6.4. The Ld. D.R. relaying on the orders of the TPO/ DRP submitted that ITAT order

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

Property Quip corporation Ltd. 255 ITR 354, Associated Cement Corporation (2001) 124 STC 59, Citizen Watch Company Ltd. 148 ITR 774 etc. as per submission made before the TPO in support of his contention. 6.4. The Ld. D.R. relaying on the orders of the TPO/ DRP submitted that ITAT order

THE ACIT, 3(1), BHOPAL vs. SHRI SEEMA NAGPAL, BHOPAL

In the result, both appeal of the Assessee in ITANo

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Boradassessment Year 2009-10 Shri Pawan Nagpal Acit-3(1) A-4, Housing Board Colony Vs. Bhopal Kohefiza, Bhopal (Appellant) (Respondent ) Pan No.Aawpn3120A Assessment Year 2009-10 Acit-3(1) Smt. Seema Nagpal Bhopal Vs. P/O M/S. Active Motors A-4, Housing Board Colony Kohefiza, Bhopal (Appellant) (Respondent ) Pan No.Aawpn3119R For Assessees Shri C.P. Rawka, Ca For Department Shri Rajeeb Jain, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 14.02.2019 Date Of Pronouncement 15.03.2019

price of the above property mentioned was Rs. 1,43,00,000/-. Assessee vide reply dated 21.11.2011 regarding long term capital gain of sale of property is as under:- "MIs Active Motors was a partnership firm of Shri Pawan Nagpal and Smt. Seema Nagpal. It was working since 1999. In the F. Y. 2001-02 plot of land was purchased

SHRI PAWAN NAGPAL,BHOPAL vs. THE ACIT 3(1), BHOPAL

In the result, both appeal of the Assessee in ITANo

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Boradassessment Year 2009-10 Shri Pawan Nagpal Acit-3(1) A-4, Housing Board Colony Vs. Bhopal Kohefiza, Bhopal (Appellant) (Respondent ) Pan No.Aawpn3120A Assessment Year 2009-10 Acit-3(1) Smt. Seema Nagpal Bhopal Vs. P/O M/S. Active Motors A-4, Housing Board Colony Kohefiza, Bhopal (Appellant) (Respondent ) Pan No.Aawpn3119R For Assessees Shri C.P. Rawka, Ca For Department Shri Rajeeb Jain, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 14.02.2019 Date Of Pronouncement 15.03.2019

price of the above property mentioned was Rs. 1,43,00,000/-. Assessee vide reply dated 21.11.2011 regarding long term capital gain of sale of property is as under:- "MIs Active Motors was a partnership firm of Shri Pawan Nagpal and Smt. Seema Nagpal. It was working since 1999. In the F. Y. 2001-02 plot of land was purchased

M/S ASHOKA HI-TECH BUILDERS P. LTD.,INDORE vs. THE DCIT (CENTRAL)-1, INDORE

In the result Ground No.1 and 2 of the assessee’s appeal for A

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Borad

housing development in the master plan. The appellant company entered into a development agreement on 01.04.2009 with Mj s JSM Devcon Pvt. Ltd. and as per the terms of the agreement the Developer, Mj s JSM Devcon P.vt. Ltd. had to construct High Rise Buildings on the said land and in consideration the appellant company was entitled to receive

SHRI SUSHIL KUMAR BAFNA,UJJAIN vs. THE ITO 1(1), UJJAIN

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri C.M.Garg & Shri O.P.Meenaआ.अ.सं./ I.T.A. No. 637/Ind/2014 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year: 2010-11

price was not utilized for construction of a house, but was deposited in private banks. The Court held that the assessee has to construct or purchase a house property. Wordings of section 54 itself make it clear that the law does not insist that sale consideration should be utilized for the purchase of property. The statutory provision is clear

THE ACIT, CENTRAL-2, INDORE vs. M/S. CHUGH REALTY, INDORE

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue for the A

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav Hon'Ble & Shri Manish Borad(Virtual Hearing)

property is to be purchased out of the consideration received on account of transfer of the capital asset. The ld. CIT(A) noted that undoubtedly, the receipt of on-money is on account of sale of land which is a capital asset and as the appellant has invested in a residential house within a period of one year before

THE ACIT, CENTRAL-2, INDORE vs. SHRI MOHANLAL CHUGH, INDORE

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue for the A

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav Hon'Ble & Shri Manish Borad(Virtual Hearing)

property is to be purchased out of the consideration received on account of transfer of the capital asset. The ld. CIT(A) noted that undoubtedly, the receipt of on-money is on account of sale of land which is a capital asset and as the appellant has invested in a residential house within a period of one year before

THE ACIT, CENTRAL-2, INDORE vs. SHRI NITESH CHUGH, INDORE

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue for the A

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav Hon'Ble & Shri Manish Borad(Virtual Hearing)

property is to be purchased out of the consideration received on account of transfer of the capital asset. The ld. CIT(A) noted that undoubtedly, the receipt of on-money is on account of sale of land which is a capital asset and as the appellant has invested in a residential house within a period of one year before

VAISHALI DEVELOPERS AND BUILDERS ,BHOPAL vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER -1(2), BHOPAL

Appeals are allowed

Bench: Shri B.M. Biyani & Shri Udayan Das Gupta

transferred the immovable property i.e. plot and had also given vacant possession of the same to the customer as mentioned in sale-deed registered. Thereafter, the appellant had acted only as a contractor for the work of construction of the residential units. Thus, the appellant was not eligible for deduction u/s 80-IB(10). In this regard, reference

VAISHALI DEVELOPERS ANDBUILDERS,BHOPAL vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER 1 (2), BHOPAL

Appeals are allowed

Property Act for the simple reason that the said\ndocument, having being executed after 24.09.2001 was not registered under the\nRegistration Act, 1908. The appellant had already transferred the immovable\nproperty i.e. plot and had also given vacant possession of the same to the\ncustomer as mentioned in sale-deed registered. Thereafter, the appellant had\nacted only as a contractor

SMT. CHANDRAVATI KAITHWAS,BHOPAL vs. THE ITO-1(1), BHOPAL

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Boradassessment Year: 2008-09

transfer of their residential property being House No. 267, Sector 9-C, situated in Chandigarh and used for purchase of a new asset/residential house.” 10. In the present case also, the assessee could not have executed the sale deed without clearing encroachment. For clearing encroachment, assessee had approached the [ITA 506 & 508/Ind/2016] [Smt. Chandravati Kaithwas & Shri Ashok Kumar Kaithwas, Bhopal

SHRI ASHOK KUMAR KAITHWAS,BHOPAL vs. THE ITO-1(1), BHOPAL

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Boradassessment Year: 2008-09

transfer of their residential property being House No. 267, Sector 9-C, situated in Chandigarh and used for purchase of a new asset/residential house.” 10. In the present case also, the assessee could not have executed the sale deed without clearing encroachment. For clearing encroachment, assessee had approached the [ITA 506 & 508/Ind/2016] [Smt. Chandravati Kaithwas & Shri Ashok Kumar Kaithwas, Bhopal

HARPREET KAUR,BHOPAL vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, 5(2), BHOPAL, BHOPAL

Appeal is allowed in terms mentioned above

house\nproperty to one Shri V.D. Maru for a price of Rs.5,00,000. Out of this, the sale\ndeed was signed for a consideration of Rs.1,00,000 on December 17, 1984,\nbetween the assessee and Shri Maru in the presence of one Shri L. P. Patil.\nOut of the sale price of Rs.1,00,000, an amount