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

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

Appeals are allowed

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

price, it had to be concluded that assessee merely acted as building contractor and not as a developer and, therefore, assessee's claim for deduction under section 80-IB(10) could not be allowed - Held, yes – Whether even otherwise, in view of fact that no completion certificate had been issued to assessee by local authority, in view of sub-clause

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

section\n80IB(10) of the Income Tax Act, 1961.\n9. The Hon'ble ITAT in the case of Sky Builders & Developers reported in 14\ntaxmann.78 held that where the assessee sold plots to respective customers by\nregistering sale deed and thereafter constructed the building at an agreed price, it has\nto be concluded that the assessee merely worked

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

Appeals are allowed

price.\nThere is no merit in Assessing Officer's contention in so far as the buyers\nhaving incurred any expenditure on construction of said flats during the\nyear under consideration and the assessee is a developer and builder\nsince inception, which has not only been accepted by the Department but\nalso by the Tribunal in its order dated 19/12/2006

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

M/S. BRIDGESTONE INDIA PVT. LTD.,PUNE vs. THE ACIT NFAC, DELHI

In the result, appeal of assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyanibridgestone India Pvt. Ltd. Acit (Nfac) Plot No.A-43, Phase-Ii, Delhi Midc Chakan, Village Vs. Sawardari, Taluka Khed, Pune (Appellant / Assessee) (Respondent/ Revenue) Pan: Aabcb 2304 E Assessee By Shri Sukhsagar Syal, Ar Revenue By Shri P.K. Mishra, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing 23.05.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 17.07.2023

transfer pricing documentation and economic analysis has passed an order dated 30.10.2018 under Section 92CA(3) of the Act determining the "Arm's Length Price" difference of Rs. 41,57,14,9471- in respect of royalty payment of its AE and Rs. 39,63,921/- in respect of international transactions relating to trading activities of the assessee. Thus, total upward

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

34. Before us the Id. AR submitted that the order of the AO is silent about the date from which the broker was expelled. There is no law that the off market transactions should be informed to stock exchange. All the transactions are duly recorded in the accounts of both the 'parties and supported with the account payee cheques

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

34. Before us the Id. AR submitted that the order of the AO is silent about the date from which the broker was expelled. There is no law that the off market transactions should be informed to stock exchange. All the transactions are duly recorded in the accounts of both the 'parties and supported with the account payee cheques

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

34. Before us the Id. AR submitted that the order of the AO is silent about the date from which the broker was expelled. There is no law that the off market transactions should be informed to stock exchange. All the transactions are duly recorded in the accounts of both the 'parties and supported with the account payee cheques

THE ACIT, CENTRAL-1, INDORE vs. M/S. MANISH AGRO TECH PVT. LTD., INDORE

In the result grounds of revenue for A

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Garg & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

section 65A and 65B of the Indian Evidence Act 1872 providing for admissibility of electronic records as evidence have not been followed. The appellant has also placed reliance on certain decisions wherein, on identical facts, similar addition made have been deleted. 4.2.2 After considering the observation made in the assessment order and also taking into consideration the written submissions

THE ACIT, CENTRAL-1, INDORE vs. M/S. MANISH AGRO TECH PVT. LTD., INDORE

In the result grounds of revenue for A

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Garg & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

section 65A and 65B of the Indian Evidence Act 1872 providing for admissibility of electronic records as evidence have not been followed. The appellant has also placed reliance on certain decisions wherein, on identical facts, similar addition made have been deleted. 4.2.2 After considering the observation made in the assessment order and also taking into consideration the written submissions

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

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shrib.M. Biyani

transfer was made for houses/bungalows. Therefore, the assessee was a mere ‘contractor’ and not a ‘builder/developer’. He submitted that as per provisions of 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

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

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shrib.M. Biyani

transfer was made for houses/bungalows. Therefore, the assessee was a mere ‘contractor’ and not a ‘builder/developer’. He submitted that as per provisions of 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

ACIT(CENTRAL)-1, INDORE vs. SHRI PUNIT AGRAWAL, MHOW

Appeals are dismissed

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shrib.M. Biyani

transferred from one side to another, addition under section 69C were not sustainable. Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Pr. CIT Vs. Vinita Chaurasia [2018] 98 Taxman.com 468 (SC) arising out of Order of HC in CIT Vs.VinitaChaurasia [2017] 82 Taxmann.com 153 dismissed the departmental SLP and affirm the very principle again that when a addition was made