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

10. Ld. Departmental Representative(DR) apart from relying on Shri Jairam Education Society ITA No.90 & 548/Ind/2019 the detailed finding of Ld. CIT(A) as also referred to the following written submissions placed on record: 4.2) In support of grounds of appeal, the appellant has taken plea that CBDT notification no. 52 and 53 dt. 22110/2014 makes it clear that

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

10. Ld. Departmental Representative(DR) apart from relying on Shri Jairam Education Society ITA No.90 & 548/Ind/2019 the detailed finding of Ld. CIT(A) as also referred to the following written submissions placed on record: 4.2) In support of grounds of appeal, the appellant has taken plea that CBDT notification no. 52 and 53 dt. 22110/2014 makes it clear that

THE DCIT, 2(1), INDORE vs. SHRI KESHAV KUMAR NACHANI, INDORE

In the result, all the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Smt. Madhumita Roy & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

10 Kgs. to 30 Kgs. The conversion of Kgs into Bars would come to approx. 132 bars and the profit would come @ Rs.800/- per Bar to approx. Rs.1,05,600/-. The assessee has shown the gross profit ofRs.11,50,370/-. Thus, the assessee has shown more profit than estimated by the learned Assessing Officer. Complete details of purchases and sales

THE DCIT, 2(1), INDORE vs. SHRI KESHAV KUMAR NACHANI, INDORE

In the result, all the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Smt. Madhumita Roy & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

10 Kgs. to 30 Kgs. The conversion of Kgs into Bars would come to approx. 132 bars and the profit would come @ Rs.800/- per Bar to approx. Rs.1,05,600/-. The assessee has shown the gross profit ofRs.11,50,370/-. Thus, the assessee has shown more profit than estimated by the learned Assessing Officer. Complete details of purchases and sales

JCIT(OSD),-2(1),INDORE, INDORE vs. SHRI KESHAV KUMAR NACHANI, INDORE

In the result, all the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Smt. Madhumita Roy & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

10 Kgs. to 30 Kgs. The conversion of Kgs into Bars would come to approx. 132 bars and the profit would come @ Rs.800/- per Bar to approx. Rs.1,05,600/-. The assessee has shown the gross profit ofRs.11,50,370/-. Thus, the assessee has shown more profit than estimated by the learned Assessing Officer. Complete details of purchases and sales

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

3 of 2016 on 10thMarch 2016 Yash Technologies Pvt. Ltd for implementation of transfer pricing (TP) provisions, A.O. has to refer such transaction to the Transfer Pricing Officer. (iii) Section 10AA(9) (Corresponding Section 80IA(10

M/S BALAJEE STERLING BUILDER,BHOPAL vs. THE DCIT-1(1), BHOPAL

In the result, both of the appeals of assessee are allowed

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri B.M. Biyani

Transfer of Property Act, the appellant firm was clearly the owner of the land. Hence the assessing officer erred in her belief that the appellant firm was not the owner of the land. (Copy of the agreement dated 30.11.2006 is enclosed as Annexure 1). Be that as it may, it is submitted that the provisions of section 80IB(10

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

Appeal is allowed

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

3 of 38 D.K. Construction ITA No.34 to 37 & 24/Ind/2022 - AY. 2012-13 to 2014-15 & 2017-18 7. Although the revenue has raised several grounds, the sole controversy involved in these grounds is the entitlement of deduction u/s 80-IB(10) claimed by assessee. 8. Facts apropos to the issue are such that the assessee developed a housing project

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

Appeal is allowed

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

3 of 38 D.K. Construction ITA No.34 to 37 & 24/Ind/2022 - AY. 2012-13 to 2014-15 & 2017-18 7. Although the revenue has raised several grounds, the sole controversy involved in these grounds is the entitlement of deduction u/s 80-IB(10) claimed by assessee. 8. Facts apropos to the issue are such that the assessee developed a housing project

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

Appeal is allowed

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

3 of 38 D.K. Construction ITA No.34 to 37 & 24/Ind/2022 - AY. 2012-13 to 2014-15 & 2017-18 7. Although the revenue has raised several grounds, the sole controversy involved in these grounds is the entitlement of deduction u/s 80-IB(10) claimed by assessee. 8. Facts apropos to the issue are such that the assessee developed a housing project

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

Appeal is allowed

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

3 of 38 D.K. Construction ITA No.34 to 37 & 24/Ind/2022 - AY. 2012-13 to 2014-15 & 2017-18 7. Although the revenue has raised several grounds, the sole controversy involved in these grounds is the entitlement of deduction u/s 80-IB(10) claimed by assessee. 8. Facts apropos to the issue are such that the assessee developed a housing project

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

Appeal is allowed

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

3 of 38 D.K. Construction ITA No.34 to 37 & 24/Ind/2022 - AY. 2012-13 to 2014-15 & 2017-18 7. Although the revenue has raised several grounds, the sole controversy involved in these grounds is the entitlement of deduction u/s 80-IB(10) claimed by assessee. 8. Facts apropos to the issue are such that the assessee developed a housing project

ACIT-2(1), UJJAIN, UJJAIN vs. M/S RUCHI J OIL PVT. LTD,, MUMBAI

In the result, Revenue’s appeal ITANo

Bench: Shri Mahavir Prasad & Shri Manish Boradvirtual Hearing Assessment Year: 2014-15

Pricing Officer (TPO) on page 2 of his order dated 11.09.2017 u/s. 92CA (3) of the Act with a clear finding that the Specified Domestic Transaction has been reported in Form 3CEB, as reproduced below. [Page 12 to 14] :- “The details of International Transaction in term of Section 92B and Specified Domestic transactions in terms of Section 92BA

THE ACIT, CENTRAL-1, INDORE vs. M/S SURYA INFRA VENTURE PVT. LTD., INDORE

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

transfer to appellants bank account. Further, copy of ledger account of the appellant in the books of the investor company and copy of confirmation has also been filed. The appellant had duly issued shares against funds received from the investor company. The appellant company has received total sum sum of Rs. 1,35,00,000/- against which

THE ACIT, CIRCLE 2(1), INDORE vs. M/S SURYA INFRA VENTURE PVT. LTD., INDORE

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

transfer to appellants bank account. Further, copy of ledger account of the appellant in the books of the investor company and copy of confirmation has also been filed. The appellant had duly issued shares against funds received from the investor company. The appellant company has received total sum sum of Rs. 1,35,00,000/- against which

THE AIT,ENTRAL-1, INDORE vs. SURYA INFRAVENTURE P LTD, INDORE

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

transfer to appellants bank account. Further, copy of ledger account of the appellant in the books of the investor company and copy of confirmation has also been filed. The appellant had duly issued shares against funds received from the investor company. The appellant company has received total sum sum of Rs. 1,35,00,000/- against which

THE DCIT-1(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 M/s. Agrawal Coal Corporation vs. DCIT and DCIT Vs. Agrawal Coal Corporation T.P.A. Nos.601 & 602/Ind/2015 and 607 & 622/Ind/2015/A.Y.2009-10 & 10-11Page 10 of 127 1.7. Without prejudice to above, the learned CIT (A) erred in summarily rejecting the comparability analysis undertaken by the Appellant to benchmark

M/S. AGRAWAL COAL CORPORATION P. LTD.,INDORE vs. THE DCIT -CIRCLE 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 M/s. Agrawal Coal Corporation vs. DCIT and DCIT Vs. Agrawal Coal Corporation T.P.A. Nos.601 & 602/Ind/2015 and 607 & 622/Ind/2015/A.Y.2009-10 & 10-11Page 10 of 127 1.7. Without prejudice to above, the learned CIT (A) erred in summarily rejecting the comparability analysis undertaken by the Appellant to benchmark

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 M/s. Agrawal Coal Corporation vs. DCIT and DCIT Vs. Agrawal Coal Corporation T.P.A. Nos.601 & 602/Ind/2015 and 607 & 622/Ind/2015/A.Y.2009-10 & 10-11Page 10 of 127 1.7. Without prejudice to above, the learned CIT (A) erred in summarily rejecting the comparability analysis undertaken by the Appellant to benchmark