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

Appeal is allowed

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

section 80-IB(10); they were released after 31.03.2012. In such a case, the non-construction Page 17 of 38 D.K. Construction ITA No.34 to 37 & 24/Ind/2022 - AY. 2012-13 to 2014-15 & 2017-18 of those 2 units was not within the control of assessee. As a matter of fact, we even do not find any mala fide

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

Appeal is allowed

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

section 80-IB(10); they were released after 31.03.2012. In such a case, the non-construction Page 17 of 38 D.K. Construction ITA No.34 to 37 & 24/Ind/2022 - AY. 2012-13 to 2014-15 & 2017-18 of those 2 units was not within the control of assessee. As a matter of fact, we even do not find any mala fide

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

Appeal is allowed

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

section 80-IB(10); they were released after 31.03.2012. In such a case, the non-construction Page 17 of 38 D.K. Construction ITA No.34 to 37 & 24/Ind/2022 - AY. 2012-13 to 2014-15 & 2017-18 of those 2 units was not within the control of assessee. As a matter of fact, we even do not find any mala fide

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 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 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

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

Appeals are allowed

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

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

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

M/S ANDRITZ HYDRO PRIVATE LIMITED,BHOPAL vs. THE DCIT CIRCLE 1(1), BHOPAL

In the result, appeal of assessee is allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyanim/S. Andritz Hydro Private Dcit Circe 1(1) Ltd. Bhopal Vs. D-17, Mpakvn Industrial Area, Mandideep Raisen (Appellant / Assessee) (Respondent/ Revenue) Pan: Aabcv 2466 R Assessee By Shri Rahul, Kaul Ar Revenue By Shri P.K. Mishra, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing 13.06.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 28.08.2023

37,14,421/- Page 2 of 27 Andritz Hydro Private Ltd. Page 3 of 27 Total Amount 344,96,10,385/- 3. In the Transfer Pricing Study Report the assesse has benchmarked its International transactions by applying TNMM as the most appropriate method with PLI as OP/OC and compared with the internal unrelated/uncontrolled transactions of domestic sales having profit margin

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

37 ITR 271, howsoever grave the suspicion the AO may entertain, the suspicion cannot take place of the evidence or finding of fact. The CO Nos.2 to 4/Ind/2022 suspicion on the AO’s part can certainly prompt him to conduct enquiry & investigation but ultimate finding of the authority must be based on the material or evidences gathered

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

37 ITR 271, howsoever grave the suspicion the AO may entertain, the suspicion cannot take place of the evidence or finding of fact. The CO Nos.2 to 4/Ind/2022 suspicion on the AO’s part can certainly prompt him to conduct enquiry & investigation but ultimate finding of the authority must be based on the material or evidences gathered

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

37 ITR 271, howsoever grave the suspicion the AO may entertain, the suspicion cannot take place of the evidence or finding of fact. The CO Nos.2 to 4/Ind/2022 suspicion on the AO’s part can certainly prompt him to conduct enquiry & investigation but ultimate finding of the authority must be based on the material or evidences gathered

SHRI RAM BABU SINGH,INDORE vs. DCIT 1(1), BHOPAL

In the result appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyanishri Ram Babu Singh, Dcit-1(1) C/O Sv Agrawal & Associates, Bhopal Dadi Dham, 24, Joy Builders Colony, Vs. Near Rafael Tower, Old Palasia, Indore (Appellant / Assessee) (Respondent/ Revenue) Pan: Aelps9945K Assessee By S/Shri Ashish Goyal & N.D. Patwa, Ars Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 15.05.2024 & 03.07.2024 Date Of Pronouncement 23 .07.2024

Transfer of Property act. It is also admitted fact that the appellant had not got any document registered for the sale of a residential unit. Thus, the appellant had not earned income on account of sale of residential unit as envisaged in section 801B(10) because the Page 8 of 14 ITANo.328/Ind/2023 Ram Babu Singh appellant after selling the plots

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

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