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

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

Section 92(1) of the Act states that – “Any income arising from an international transaction shall be computed having regard to the arm’s length price…” Further, Sec 92C (1) of the Act states that – “The arm’s length price in relation to an international transaction or specified domestic transaction shall be determined by any of the following methods, being

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

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

Section 92(1) of the Act states that – “Any income arising from an international transaction shall be computed having regard to the arm’s length price…” Further, Sec 92C (1) of the Act states that – “The arm’s length price in relation to an international transaction or specified domestic transaction shall be determined by any of the following methods, being

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

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

Section 92(1) of the Act states that – “Any income arising from an international transaction shall be computed having regard to the arm’s length price…” Further, Sec 92C (1) of the Act states that – “The arm’s length price in relation to an international transaction or specified domestic transaction shall be determined by any of the following methods, being

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

D E R Per B.M. Biyani, A.M.: Feeling aggrieved by assessment-order dated 15.09.2011 passed by ACIT, Company Circle-I(3), Chennai u/s. 143(3) read with section 92CA(3) & 144C(5) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 for Assessment-Year [“AY”] 2007-08, the assessee has filed this appeal. Page 1 of 47 Computer Sciences Corporation India Private Limited

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

d) of section 269UA. Explanation 2- For the removal of doubts, it is hereby clarified that. "transfer" includes and shall be deemed to have always Page 7 of 21 ITANo.245/Ind/2024 Mahendra Singh Chawla included disposing of or parting with an asset or any interest therein, or treating any interest in any asset in any manner whatsoever, directly or indirectly, absolutely

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

D E R PER MANISH BORAD. The above captioned appeal filed at the instance of revenue pertaining to Assessment Year 2014-15 is directed against the orders of Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-II (in short ‘Ld.CIT(A)’], Indore dated 06.04.2018 which is arising out of the order u/s 143(3) of the Act dated 30.12.2017 framed by ACIT

M/S. BIRLA CORPORATION LTD., UNIT SATNA CEMENT WORKS,SATNA vs. ITO (IT & TP), BHOPAL

In the result, Assessee’s appeals

Bench: Shri Mahavir Prasad & Shri Manish Boradvirtual Hearing

D E R PER MANISH BORAD, A.M.: The above captioned appeals filed at the instance of the assessee are directed against the order of Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax(Appeal) (in short ‘Ld. CIT(A)]-13, Ahmedabad dated 31.10.2019 which is arising out of the order u/s 143(3) of the Birla Corporation Ltd. ITA No.33 & 34/Ind/2020 Income

M/S. BIRLA CORPORATION LTD., UNIT SATNA CEMENT WORKS,SATNA vs. ITO (IT & TP), BHOPAL

In the result, Assessee’s appeals

Bench: Shri Mahavir Prasad & Shri Manish Boradvirtual Hearing

D E R PER MANISH BORAD, A.M.: The above captioned appeals filed at the instance of the assessee are directed against the order of Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax(Appeal) (in short ‘Ld. CIT(A)]-13, Ahmedabad dated 31.10.2019 which is arising out of the order u/s 143(3) of the Birla Corporation Ltd. ITA No.33 & 34/Ind/2020 Income

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

d) applying CUP method for determining the arm`s length price in respect of appellant`s international transactions without identifying any comparable uncontrolled transaction(s) for the computation of arm`s length price which is not in accordance with Rule 10B(1)(a) e) questioning the commercial rationale of the legitimate business expense incurred by the taxpayer and not restricting

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

d) applying CUP method for determining the arm`s length price in respect of appellant`s international transactions without identifying any comparable uncontrolled transaction(s) for the computation of arm`s length price which is not in accordance with Rule 10B(1)(a) e) questioning the commercial rationale of the legitimate business expense incurred by the taxpayer and not restricting

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

d) applying CUP method for determining the arm`s length price in respect of appellant`s international transactions without identifying any comparable uncontrolled transaction(s) for the computation of arm`s length price which is not in accordance with Rule 10B(1)(a) e) questioning the commercial rationale of the legitimate business expense incurred by the taxpayer and not restricting

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

d) applying CUP method for determining the arm`s length price in respect of appellant`s international transactions without identifying any comparable uncontrolled transaction(s) for the computation of arm`s length price which is not in accordance with Rule 10B(1)(a) e) questioning the commercial rationale of the legitimate business expense incurred by the taxpayer and not restricting

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

5. Reliance is placed on the following judicial precedents of the Hon’ble Supreme Court wherein it is held that in the absence of such independent and corroborative evidences, the rough notings and jottings have no evidentiary value, no addition is permissible on the basis of loose paper – a. Common Cause (A registered society) v. Union of India

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

5. Reliance is placed on the following judicial precedents of the Hon’ble Supreme Court wherein it is held that in the absence of such independent and corroborative evidences, the rough notings and jottings have no evidentiary value, no addition is permissible on the basis of loose paper – a. Common Cause (A registered society) v. Union of India

M/S SANGHVI FOODS P LTD, ,INDORE vs. ITO (IT & TP) , BHOPAL

In the result common issue raised in

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Borad

D E R PER MANISH BORAD, AM. The above captioned appeals filed at the instance of assessee pertaining to Assessment Year 2015-16 and 2016-17 are directed against the orders of Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)13 (in short ‘Ld.CIT’], Ahmedabad dated 27.06.2018 which is arising ITANo.743 & 744/Ind/2018 Sanghvi Foods Private Limited out of the order

M/S SANGHVI FOODS P LTD, ,INDORE vs. ITO (IT & TP) , BHOPAL

In the result common issue raised in

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Borad

D E R PER MANISH BORAD, AM. The above captioned appeals filed at the instance of assessee pertaining to Assessment Year 2015-16 and 2016-17 are directed against the orders of Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)13 (in short ‘Ld.CIT’], Ahmedabad dated 27.06.2018 which is arising ITANo.743 & 744/Ind/2018 Sanghvi Foods Private Limited out of the order

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

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

17 of the assessment order itself, where the final source of the share application money is found to be the appellant itself. It is also seen that the share applicants have borrowed amounts from another sister concerns to make the investment in the appellant company. On these undisputed facts of the case, the creditworthiness of the share applicants could