ACIT 5 (1), BHOPAL vs. M/S VINDHYA SOLVENT PVT. LTD., BHOPAL

In the result, Revenue’s appeal is dismissed

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy& Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

13 - 1.34. Your Honour will appreciate that if the intention of the legislature was to consider the FMV of investments for the purposes of section 56(2)(viib) also, the same could have been expressly clarified by way of an amendment in the rules ( as done in the case of method of valuation for the purpose of section 56(2

M/S ISOFT HEALTH MANAGEMENT (INDIA) PVT. LTD.,,CHENNAI vs. DCIT, BANGALORE

In the result, appeal of assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyanicomputer Sciences Dcit, Circle 11(4) Corporation India Private No. 14/3, 5Th Floor, R.P. Limited Bhawan Nrupathunga (Formerly Isoft Health Road Vs. Management (India) Pvt. Bangalore Ltd.) Unit-13, Block-2, Sdf Building Mpez Bhopal (Appellant / Assessee) (Respondent/ Revenue) Pan: Aaaco 2465N Assessee By Shri Vishal Kalra, Ar Revenue By Shri P.K. Mishra, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing 03.08.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 21.08.2023

c) of 2016 Instruction either at the time of seeking approval from the Pr. CIT or making a reference to the TPO. The entire case is founded on para 3.3(b) of 2016 Instruction. We, therefore, reject this contention. 25. Another argument put forth by the ld. DR was to the effect that section 92C(3) of the Act authorizes

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

13). Thus, the finding of the Assessing Officer is not that the assessee has failed to report the Specified Domestic Transaction, but the finding is that in his opinion the Specified Domestic Transaction has not been correctly reported. We submit that there being detailed explainatory note in the Form 3CEB, there was proper compliance of section

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. IDEA CELLULAR LIMITED,INDORE vs. THE DCIT (TDS), INDORE

Appeals are allowed

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

Section 194J of the Act is not attracted in the case of "revenue sharing contract". According to Respondent No.1, in such contracts there is only sharing of revenue and, therefore, payments by revenue sharing cannot constitute "fees" under Section 194J of the Act. This submission is not accepted by the Department. We leave it there because this submission

M/S. IDEA CELLULAR LIMITED,INDORE vs. THE DCIT (TDS), INDORE

Appeals are allowed

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

Section 194J of the Act is not attracted in the case of "revenue sharing contract". According to Respondent No.1, in such contracts there is only sharing of revenue and, therefore, payments by revenue sharing cannot constitute "fees" under Section 194J of the Act. This submission is not accepted by the Department. We leave it there because this submission

M/S. IDEA CELLULAR LIMITED,INDORE vs. THE DCIT (TDS), INDORE

Appeals are allowed

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

Section 194J of the Act is not attracted in the case of "revenue sharing contract". According to Respondent No.1, in such contracts there is only sharing of revenue and, therefore, payments by revenue sharing cannot constitute "fees" under Section 194J of the Act. This submission is not accepted by the Department. We leave it there because this submission

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

2. The ld. AO and Hon'ble DRP Members have erred in law and facts by upholding the action of the Ld. TPO wherein the Ld. TPO has erred in law and in facts, for not providing any reasons for disregarding the assessee’s approach of determining the arm’s length price at an entity level in the Transfer Pricing

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

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

13 of 127 assessee company that the assessee should be allowed benefit of the ((+/ (-)) 5% range around the Arm’s Length Price in accordance with the provisions of 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

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

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

13 of 127 assessee company that the assessee should be allowed benefit of the ((+/ (-)) 5% range around the Arm’s Length Price in accordance with the provisions of 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

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

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

13 of 127 assessee company that the assessee should be allowed benefit of the ((+/ (-)) 5% range around the Arm’s Length Price in accordance with the provisions of 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

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

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

13 of 127 assessee company that the assessee should be allowed benefit of the ((+/ (-)) 5% range around the Arm’s Length Price in accordance with the provisions of 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

THE DCIT-3(1), INDORE vs. KUMARI SHEETAL GARG, INDORE

In the result Ground No. 1& 2 of the

Bench: Hon'Ble Kul Bharat & Hon'Ble Manish Boradassessment Year 2008-09 Dcit-3(1), Kumari Sheetal Garg, Indore Vs. 8/2, New Palasia, Indore (Appellant) (Respondent ) Pan No.Afhpg9179G Revenue By Shri K.C. Selvamani, Sr.Dr Assessee By Shri S.S. Solanki, Ca Date Of Hearing 07.01.2019 Date Of Pronouncement 10.01.2019 O R D E R

price than that is mentioned in Agreement with the assessee. 3. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case Ld. CIT(A) has erred in holding that reopening is not valid while the copy of agreement dated 14.12.2006 was not submitted by assessee during the course of assessment proceedings hence, the facts of the agreement

CUMMINS TECHNOLOGIES INDIA (P) LTD.,DEWAS vs. ACIT CIRCLE 1(1), UJJAIN

In the result, the appeal of the assesse is allowed

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyanicommins Technologies India Acit, Circle -1(1) Private Limited Ujjain Vs. Industrial Area No.2, A.B. Road, M.P. (Appellant / Assessee) (Revenue) Pan: Aabct2018B Assessee By Shri Ketan Ved & Pinkesh Vakharia Ars Revenue By Ms. Simran Bhullar, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing 29.11.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 30.11.2023

section 271(1)(c) without considering the fact that transfer pricing adjustment has been made on account of difference of opinion, interpretation of provisions of law, etc. and not due to any concealment of or furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income by the Appellant.” 2. The assessee has also filed additional grounds of appeal vide application dated 14th August

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

Transfer Pricing Officer (Ld. TPO)/ Dispute Resolution Panel (DRP) erred on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, by not accepting the economic analysis undertaken by the Appellant which was in accordance with provisions of the Act read with Rules for establishing arm`s length price of the international transactions. 2. Based on the facts and circumstances

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

Transfer Pricing Officer (Ld. TPO)/ Dispute Resolution Panel (DRP) erred on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, by not accepting the economic analysis undertaken by the Appellant which was in accordance with provisions of the Act read with Rules for establishing arm`s length price of the international transactions. 2. Based on the facts and circumstances

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

Transfer Pricing Officer (Ld. TPO)/ Dispute Resolution Panel (DRP) erred on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, by not accepting the economic analysis undertaken by the Appellant which was in accordance with provisions of the Act read with Rules for establishing arm`s length price of the international transactions. 2. Based on the facts and circumstances

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

Transfer Pricing Officer (Ld. TPO)/ Dispute Resolution Panel (DRP) erred on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, by not accepting the economic analysis undertaken by the Appellant which was in accordance with provisions of the Act read with Rules for establishing arm`s length price of the international transactions. 2. Based on the facts and circumstances