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

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

Section 92C (4) of the Act. The submission was not found acceptable due to the reasons given in detail in the orders of TPO giving detailed working of Arm’s length adjustment in respect of Coal Purchase from its AE and the AO made the additions to the total income on account of the adjustments in the arm’s length

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

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

Section 92C (4) of the Act. The submission was not found acceptable due to the reasons given in detail in the orders of TPO giving detailed working of Arm’s length adjustment in respect of Coal Purchase from its AE and the AO made the additions to the total income on account of the adjustments in the arm’s length

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

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

Section 92C (4) of the Act. The submission was not found acceptable due to the reasons given in detail in the orders of TPO giving detailed working of Arm’s length adjustment in respect of Coal Purchase from its AE and the AO made the additions to the total income on account of the adjustments in the arm’s length

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

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

Section 92C (4) of the Act. The submission was not found acceptable due to the reasons given in detail in the orders of TPO giving detailed working of Arm’s length adjustment in respect of Coal Purchase from its AE and the AO made the additions to the total income on account of the adjustments in the arm’s length

THE ACIT (CENTRAL)-I, BHOPAL vs. M/S. D.K. CONSTRUCTION, BHOPAL

Appeal is allowed

Bench: Ms. Suchitra R. Kamble & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

price of Rs. 42,00,000/- shown in registered-deed and thus made an addition of Rs. 27,52,340/- on account of undisclosed income. The Ld. AO further observed that the assessee had actually received a sum of Rs. 62,00,000/- from Shri Amar Singh [which is disclosed as “Advance for booking” in books of account

THE ACIT (CENTRAL)-I, BHOPAL vs. M/S. D.K. CONSTRUCTION, BHOPAL

Appeal is allowed

Bench: Ms. Suchitra R. Kamble & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

price of Rs. 42,00,000/- shown in registered-deed and thus made an addition of Rs. 27,52,340/- on account of undisclosed income. The Ld. AO further observed that the assessee had actually received a sum of Rs. 62,00,000/- from Shri Amar Singh [which is disclosed as “Advance for booking” in books of account

THE ACIT (CENTRAL)-I, BHOPAL vs. M/S. D.K. CONSTRUCTION, BHOPAL

Appeal is allowed

Bench: Ms. Suchitra R. Kamble & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

price of Rs. 42,00,000/- shown in registered-deed and thus made an addition of Rs. 27,52,340/- on account of undisclosed income. The Ld. AO further observed that the assessee had actually received a sum of Rs. 62,00,000/- from Shri Amar Singh [which is disclosed as “Advance for booking” in books of account

M/S. D.K. CONSTRUCTION,BHOPAL vs. THE ACIT, 2(1), BHOPAL

Appeal is allowed

Bench: Ms. Suchitra R. Kamble & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

price of Rs. 42,00,000/- shown in registered-deed and thus made an addition of Rs. 27,52,340/- on account of undisclosed income. The Ld. AO further observed that the assessee had actually received a sum of Rs. 62,00,000/- from Shri Amar Singh [which is disclosed as “Advance for booking” in books of account

THE ACIT (CENTRAL)-I, BHOPAL vs. M/S. D.K. CONSTRUCTION, BHOPAL

Appeal is allowed

Bench: Ms. Suchitra R. Kamble & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

price of Rs. 42,00,000/- shown in registered-deed and thus made an addition of Rs. 27,52,340/- on account of undisclosed income. The Ld. AO further observed that the assessee had actually received a sum of Rs. 62,00,000/- from Shri Amar Singh [which is disclosed as “Advance for booking” in books of account

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

THE ACIT, -2(1), BHOPAL vs. M/S. D.K. CONSTRUCTION, BHOPAL

price. There is\nno merit in Assessing Officer's contention in so far as the buyers having\nincurred any expenditure on construction of said flats during the year under\nconsideration and the assessee is a developer and builder since inception,\nwhich has not only been accepted by the Department but also by the Tribunal\nin its order dated 19/12/2006

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

section 92C (2), it was claimed that the transaction is within tolerance band of +/-5% Margin. 2.6.1. We find that there is no dispute between TPO and the assessee as regards the method, which is CPM and benchmarking based on internal comparable. The only dispute whether the assessee has justified for considering the aggregation of all the projects with

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

section 92C (2), it was claimed that the transaction is within tolerance band of +/-5% Margin. 2.6.1. We find that there is no dispute between TPO and the assessee as regards the method, which is CPM and benchmarking based on internal comparable. The only dispute whether the assessee has justified for considering the aggregation of all the projects with

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

section 92C (2), it was claimed that the transaction is within tolerance band of +/-5% Margin. 2.6.1. We find that there is no dispute between TPO and the assessee as regards the method, which is CPM and benchmarking based on internal comparable. The only dispute whether the assessee has justified for considering the aggregation of all the projects with

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

section 92C (2), it was claimed that the transaction is within tolerance band of +/-5% Margin. 2.6.1. We find that there is no dispute between TPO and the assessee as regards the method, which is CPM and benchmarking based on internal comparable. The only dispute whether the assessee has justified for considering the aggregation of all the projects with

M/S SHREE JAIRAM EDUCATION SOCIETY,BHOPAL vs. ACIT CENTRAL-II, BHOPAL

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITANo

Bench: Hon’Ble Rajpal Yadav & Shri Manish Boradvirtual Hearing

29 Shri Jairam Education Society ITA No.90 & 548/Ind/2019 assessee has referred to various judicial pronouncements in its reports but the same will not be of any support to the assessee since the jurisdiction has been transferred after following the procedure provided under the Act and Rules of the Income Tax Act, along with passing an official order

M/S SHREE JAIRAM EDUCATION SOCIETY,BHOPAL vs. PR. CIT (CENTRAL), BHOPAL

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITANo

Bench: Hon’Ble Rajpal Yadav & Shri Manish Boradvirtual Hearing

29 Shri Jairam Education Society ITA No.90 & 548/Ind/2019 assessee has referred to various judicial pronouncements in its reports but the same will not be of any support to the assessee since the jurisdiction has been transferred after following the procedure provided under the Act and Rules of the Income Tax Act, along with passing an official order

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

Appeals are allowed

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

section 80-IB(10), the entirety of project including development of infrastructure must be undertaken by assessee. According to Ld. DR, ‘entire project’ would mean development as a cohesive unit which includes the construction of houses with development of essential amenities. In the case of assessee, the buyers have first acquired ownership of plots from assessee through registered Sale-Deeds