SHRI GOVIND DAS MUNDRA,INDORE vs. PCIT UJJAIN, UJJAIN

In the result all the appeals of the assessee(s) (i) Shri Aditya

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

revised u/s 263. However, before 1 proceed to invoke the powers u/s 263 and pass an appropriate order, I deem it proper to give you an opportunity of being heard in the matter. 22. The assessee duly replied to the above show cause notice submitting as follows:- The assessee is earning income from Job work of engineering/vehicle parts

SHRI MANOJ MUNDRA,INDORE vs. PCIT UJJAIN, UJJAIN

In the result all the appeals of the assessee(s) (i) Shri Aditya

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

revised u/s 263. However, before 1 proceed to invoke the powers u/s 263 and pass an appropriate order, I deem it proper to give you an opportunity of being heard in the matter. 22. The assessee duly replied to the above show cause notice submitting as follows:- The assessee is earning income from Job work of engineering/vehicle parts

SHRI ADITYA MUNDRA,DEWAS vs. PCIT UJJAIN, UJJAIN

In the result all the appeals of the assessee(s) (i) Shri Aditya

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

revised u/s 263. However, before 1 proceed to invoke the powers u/s 263 and pass an appropriate order, I deem it proper to give you an opportunity of being heard in the matter. 22. The assessee duly replied to the above show cause notice submitting as follows:- The assessee is earning income from Job work of engineering/vehicle parts

DHIRENDRA INTERNATIONAL (P) LTD.,NEEMUCH vs. PR. CIT UJJAIN, UJJAIN

In the result all the appeals of the assessee(s) (i) Shri Aditya

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

revised u/s 263. However, before 1 proceed to invoke the powers u/s 263 and pass an appropriate order, I deem it proper to give you an opportunity of being heard in the matter. 22. The assessee duly replied to the above show cause notice submitting as follows:- The assessee is earning income from Job work of engineering/vehicle parts

M/S. BHANDARI HOSPITAL AND RESEARCH CENTRE,INDORE vs. THE PR. CIT-1, INDORE

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Boradassessment Year: 2012-13 M/S Bhandari Hospital & Pr. Cit-(I) Research Centre, Gf-21 & Indore बनाम/ 22, Opp. Meghdoot Garden, Vs. Vijay Nagar, Indore (Appellant) (Revenue ) P.A. No.Aadfb8151A

transferred to another AO u/s 127 who then issued notice u/s 142(1) on 29/7/2014. (copy of this notice is on pages 108-109 of the paper book). This was a comprehensive notice requiring compliance of various issues. viii. Reply was filed by the assessee on 12.8.2014 (placed on page 110- 116 of the apper book) with all relevant information

M/S RUCHI J OIL PVT LTD ,MUMBAI vs. PCIT(A)UJJAIN, UJJAIN

In the result appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

Transfer Pricing Officer (In short ‘ Ld.TPO”) u/s 92CA(1) of the Act for the computation of arms length price. Ld. TPO called for the necessary information after issuing notice u/s 92CA(2) of the Act and was of the view that no adjustment is required to be made to the arms length price of the transaction. After receiving the order

M/S RANA & JOSHI BUILDTECH P LTD,INDORE vs. THE PCIT-1, BHOPAL

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyanim/S. Rana & Joshi Buildtech Pr. Cit-1 Pvt. Ltd. Bhopal (Formerly Known As M/S Rana Buildtech Pvt. Ltd. ) Vs. 218 Civil Lines, Below Dainik Bhaskar Office Vidisha (Appellant / Assessee) (Respondent/ Revenue) Pan: Aafcr9858P Assessee By Shri S.N. Agrawal Ar Revenue By Shri Ram Kumar Yadav, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing 11.09.2024 Date Of Pronouncement 26 .09.2024

revision order has also been challenged in appeal before the CIT(A). Further the assesse also challenged penalty order passed u/s 271E by filing the appeal before the CIT(A) within the period of limitation. All these facts and circumstances show that the assesse was very prompt in taking necessary steps for filing the appeal whenever it is advised

M/S. S.R. FERRO ALLOYS,JHABUA vs. THE PCIT, BHOPAL

In the result, the appeal of assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyanis.R. Ferro Alloys Pr. Cit, Central 9, Siddheswar Colony Bhopal Vs. Jhabua (Appellant / Assessee) (Revenue) Pan: Abhfs7377Q Appellant By Shri Sumit Nema, Sr. Adv. & Gagan Tiwari, Ar Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 12.10.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 09.11.2023

revision would be unsustainable insofar as the issue raised by Pr. CIT is in no way connected to the issues that have been raised in the limited scrutiny assessment. Thus, the decision in the case of Sri Sushanta Kumar Choudhury (supra) is clearly distinguishable. Therefore, the prayer of the ld. CIT DR that the matter be referred to Larger Bench

S GANDHI JEWELLERY PRIVATE LIMITED,INDORE vs. PCIT-1, INDORE, INDORE

Appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri B.M. Biyani & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinhaassessment Year: 2017-18 S. Gandhi Jewellery Pcit-1, Private Limited, Indore C/O Adv. Hitesh Chimnani, बनाम/ Ug-37 Trade Centre, Vs. 18, South Tukoganj, Indore (Assessee/Appellant) (Revenue/Respondent) Pan: Aamcs1613G Assessee By Shri Hitesh Chimnani, Ar Revenue By Shri Ram Kumar Yadav, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 10.02.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 21.02.2025

revision u/s 263 due to three-fold reasons. These reasons are very succinctly narrated by Ld. AR in Para 13 of his Written-Synopsis, we re-produce the same: “13. In this respect, the brief submissions of the assessee are as follows: 1. The assumption of jurisdiction by the Ld. PCIT on 23.02.2024 when an appeal had been filed

M/S. SWASTIK COAL CORPORATION PVT. LTD.,INDORE vs. THE ACIT, 5(1), INDORE

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

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Boradassessment Year: 2014-15

Transfer Pricing Officer to verify whether the transactions were at Arm’s Length Price or not. Hence, the Ld. Pr. CIT after examining the records was of the view that the assessment order was erroneous in so far as it was prejudicial to the interest of the revenue. The Ld. Pr. CIT therefore, issued a show cause notice u/s 263

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

revised Adjusted Gross Margin comes to 18.8% as compared to 14.70% average gross margin earned from non-AEs projects and thus we find that there is no reason to make adjustment on this account also. 2.6.9. We also find force in the submissions of the Ld. A.R. for the assessee that the assessee has also in the alternate performed

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

revised Adjusted Gross Margin comes to 18.8% as compared to 14.70% average gross margin earned from non-AEs projects and thus we find that there is no reason to make adjustment on this account also. 2.6.9. We also find force in the submissions of the Ld. A.R. for the assessee that the assessee has also in the alternate performed

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

revised Adjusted Gross Margin comes to 18.8% as compared to 14.70% average gross margin earned from non-AEs projects and thus we find that there is no reason to make adjustment on this account also. 2.6.9. We also find force in the submissions of the Ld. A.R. for the assessee that the assessee has also in the alternate performed

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

revised Adjusted Gross Margin comes to 18.8% as compared to 14.70% average gross margin earned from non-AEs projects and thus we find that there is no reason to make adjustment on this account also. 2.6.9. We also find force in the submissions of the Ld. A.R. for the assessee that the assessee has also in the alternate performed

SEWA SAHKARI SAMMITTEE MARYADIT,BEED, MUNDI KHANDWA vs. PCIT-1, INDORE

In the result, appeal by the assesse is allowed

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyanisewa Sahkari Sammittee Pr. Cit-2 Maryadit Beed Indore Vs. Beed Mundi Khandwa (Appellant / Assessee) (Revenue) Pan: Aaufs0703N Assessee By Shri Gagan Tiwari, Ar Revenue By Ms. Simran Bhullar, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing 05.10.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 30.10.2023

price (MSP Samarthan Mulya) & other source is sale of fertilizers to farmers. (2) Please furnish the copy of following documents/detail for the AY 2016-17 (i.e. FY 2015-16). • Income Tax Return Attached for your reference • Computation of Income Attached for your reference Audit report with all annexure Attached for your reference ⚫ Profit & Loss A/c (With Schedule) Attached for your

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

u/s 40A(2)(b) and in Form 3CEB i.e. as transactions covered u/s 92BA(i). 5.2. The Finance Act, 2017 omitted section 92BA(i). The effect of such omission was that the transactions with persons referred to in section 40A(2)(b) do not fall within the ambit of domestic transfer pricing regulations w.e.f. 01.04.2017. After omission of Section 92BA

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

u/s 40A(2)(b) and in Form 3CEB i.e. as transactions covered u/s 92BA(i). 5.2. The Finance Act, 2017 omitted section 92BA(i). The effect of such omission was that the transactions with persons referred to in section 40A(2)(b) do not fall within the ambit of domestic transfer pricing regulations w.e.f. 01.04.2017. After omission of Section 92BA

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

u/s 40A(2)(b) and in Form 3CEB i.e. as transactions covered u/s 92BA(i). 5.2. The Finance Act, 2017 omitted section 92BA(i). The effect of such omission was that the transactions with persons referred to in section 40A(2)(b) do not fall within the ambit of domestic transfer pricing regulations w.e.f. 01.04.2017. After omission of Section 92BA