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

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

transfer pricing documentation and economic analysis contained therein, passed an order dt.30.01.2013 for assessment year 2009-10 and dt. 28.01.2014 for assessment year 2010-11 u/s 92CA(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, therein determining the Arm’s length price margin in respect of Coal purchased from its AE at Rs. 9,73,14,004/- for assessment year

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 documentation and economic analysis contained therein, passed an order dt.30.01.2013 for assessment year 2009-10 and dt. 28.01.2014 for assessment year 2010-11 u/s 92CA(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, therein determining the Arm’s length price margin in respect of Coal purchased from its AE at Rs. 9,73,14,004/- for assessment year

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 documentation and economic analysis contained therein, passed an order dt.30.01.2013 for assessment year 2009-10 and dt. 28.01.2014 for assessment year 2010-11 u/s 92CA(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, therein determining the Arm’s length price margin in respect of Coal purchased from its AE at Rs. 9,73,14,004/- for assessment year

MAHENDRA SINGH CHAWLA,INDORE vs. DCIT CIRCLE-1(1), INDORE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyanimahendra Singh Chawla Dcit Circle -1(1) 4/35 Gram Pigdamber A.B. Indore Road Near Rao Vs. Indore (Appellant / Assessee) (Respondent/ Revenue) Pan: Aazpc0120C Assessee By None Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Revenue By Date Of Hearing 02.09.2024 Date Of Pronouncement 04 .09.2024

Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, that a particular person may at any time murder any other person as such on that probability that a particular person has violated provisions of Indian Penal Code and make him liable for punishment. Thus it is most humbly submitted that in absence of any actual action taken by the appellant for disposing

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

16. Ld. Departmental Representative vehemently argued supporting the orders of Ld. A.O. 17. Ld. Counsel for the assessee referred to the following written submissions; (a) (i) That the AO has acted beyond his power under the Income Tax Act, 1961 and added Non SEZ unit expenses to SEZ unit expenses which was clearly a specified domestic transaction and subject matter

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 documentation requirements. 12. The ld. AO and Hon'ble DRP have erred, in law and in facts, by applying the turnover ≤ Rs. 1 crore as a comparability criterion. 13. The ld. AO and Hon'ble DRP have erred, in law and in facts, by rejecting certain comparable companies identified by the assessee as having economic performance contrary

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 for limited right to use and they are composite payment of royalty which is also covered by section 9(1)(vi) and section 9(1)(vii)of the Act as well as under India- Austria Tax Treaty on which TDS was not made hence, the AO has rightly disallowed the same under section

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 for limited right to use and they are composite payment of royalty which is also covered by section 9(1)(vi) and section 9(1)(vii)of the Act as well as under India- Austria Tax Treaty on which TDS was not made hence, the AO has rightly disallowed the same under section

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 for limited right to use and they are composite payment of royalty which is also covered by section 9(1)(vi) and section 9(1)(vii)of the Act as well as under India- Austria Tax Treaty on which TDS was not made hence, the AO has rightly disallowed the same under section

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 for limited right to use and they are composite payment of royalty which is also covered by section 9(1)(vi) and section 9(1)(vii)of the Act as well as under India- Austria Tax Treaty on which TDS was not made hence, the AO has rightly disallowed the same under section

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

16. In view of the above, it is undisputed fact that the assessee complied with the provisions of section 194C(6) of the Act by submitting PAN and declaration of transporters, but, did not comply with the provisions of section 194C(7) of the Act by furnishing the same to the prescribed income-tax authority within the prescribed time limit

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

16. In view of the above, it is undisputed fact that the assessee complied with the provisions of section 194C(6) of the Act by submitting PAN and declaration of transporters, but, did not comply with the provisions of section 194C(7) of the Act by furnishing the same to the prescribed income-tax authority within the prescribed time limit

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

16. In view of the above, it is undisputed fact that the assessee complied with the provisions of section 194C(6) of the Act by submitting PAN and declaration of transporters, but, did not comply with the provisions of section 194C(7) of the Act by furnishing the same to the prescribed income-tax authority within the prescribed time limit

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

16. Any transaction , referred to in any other section under Chapter VI- A or section 10AA, to which provisions of sub-section (8) or sub-section (10) of section 80-IA are applicable; or 17. Any other transaction as may be prescribed. 13 M/s. Ruchi J. Oil Pvt. Ltd. And where the aggregate of such transactions entered into

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

section 92D(1) and rules made thereunder or the information or data used in computation of arm’s length price is not reliable or correct. A similar explanation has been provided by the CBDT in circular no.12 dated 23rd August 2001. Thus, the Ld. AR has submitted as per the circular issued by the CBDT the TPO was bound

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

16 – “The questions raised in these writ petitions are broadly summarised as under:—............................ (iii) What will be the effective date on which the petitioner will lose his registration and the entitlement to exemption on account of the cancellation order dated 30.12.2010?” Para 21 – “On the third question of the effective date of operation of the cancellation order, it was held

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

16 – “The questions raised in these writ petitions are broadly summarised as under:—............................ (iii) What will be the effective date on which the petitioner will lose his registration and the entitlement to exemption on account of the cancellation order dated 30.12.2010?” Para 21 – “On the third question of the effective date of operation of the cancellation order, it was held

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

transfer pricing proceedings. Whenever a notice was received from the TPO, it was forwarded to the counsel at Ahmedabad. Cross Objection Nos.5 & 6/Ind/2020 Assessment Years: 2012-13 & 2015-16 4.8. The appellant had filed substantial documents for vindicating its transactions held with sister concern. This is also evident from the written submission filed before the TPO, copies enclosed at page