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

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

x) erred in giving the aforesaid relief while ignoring that the TPO did not take bank guarantee rates as CUP, but used US Bond data rate for benchmarking. (xi) erred in deleting the addition of Rs. 73,15,000/- made on account of unexplained cash credit received from those parties who were already hit by section 68 in the immediately

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

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

x) erred in giving the aforesaid relief while ignoring that the TPO did not take bank guarantee rates as CUP, but used US Bond data rate for benchmarking. (xi) erred in deleting the addition of Rs. 73,15,000/- made on account of unexplained cash credit received from those parties who were already hit by section 68 in the immediately

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

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

x) erred in giving the aforesaid relief while ignoring that the TPO did not take bank guarantee rates as CUP, but used US Bond data rate for benchmarking. (xi) erred in deleting the addition of Rs. 73,15,000/- made on account of unexplained cash credit received from those parties who were already hit by section 68 in the immediately

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

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

x) erred in giving the aforesaid relief while ignoring that the TPO did not take bank guarantee rates as CUP, but used US Bond data rate for benchmarking. (xi) erred in deleting the addition of Rs. 73,15,000/- made on account of unexplained cash credit received from those parties who were already hit by section 68 in the immediately

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

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 2023. The additional grounds of appeal are as under: “Ground

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

X INTELLPOWER 5 MMD Asia Pacific Ltd. Purchase of complete coal crusher 6 Shanyang Heavy Machinery Vertical Roller Mill for Coal Grinding Co. Ltd. Work 7 RHI AG Purchase of Basic Brick (Ankral R2CD and S2CB) 10 Birla Corporation Ltd. ITA No.33 & 34/Ind/2020 8 RHI AG Purchase of Basic Brick (Ankral R2CB and S2CB) 10. Ld. Assessing Officer

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

X INTELLPOWER 5 MMD Asia Pacific Ltd. Purchase of complete coal crusher 6 Shanyang Heavy Machinery Vertical Roller Mill for Coal Grinding Co. Ltd. Work 7 RHI AG Purchase of Basic Brick (Ankral R2CD and S2CB) 10 Birla Corporation Ltd. ITA No.33 & 34/Ind/2020 8 RHI AG Purchase of Basic Brick (Ankral R2CB and S2CB) 10. Ld. Assessing Officer

M/S. COMPUTER SCIENCE CORPORATION INDIA PVT. LTD.,CHENNAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-CIRCLE 2(1) , INDORE

In the result, all the three appeals are partly allowed for statistical purpose and the Stay Application is also disposed of

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

Transfer Pricing Officer has followed the well searched formula and the data that simple year should have been taken into account. The Ld. DR submitted that the TPO has taken cognisance of the depreciation adjustment and relied upon the order of the TPO and the Assessing Officer. 11. We have heard both the parties and perused all the relevant material

M/S. COMPUTER SCIENCE CORPORATION INDIA PVT. LTD.,CHENNAI vs. THE ACIT-CIRCLE 2(1), INDORE

In the result, all the three appeals are partly allowed for statistical purpose and the Stay Application is also disposed of

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

Transfer Pricing Officer has followed the well searched formula and the data that simple year should have been taken into account. The Ld. DR submitted that the TPO has taken cognisance of the depreciation adjustment and relied upon the order of the TPO and the Assessing Officer. 11. We have heard both the parties and perused all the relevant material

M/S. COMPUTER SCIENCES CORPORATION INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,INDORE vs. THE ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-2(1), INDORE

In the result, all the three appeals are partly allowed for statistical purpose and the Stay Application is also disposed of

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

Transfer Pricing Officer has followed the well searched formula and the data that simple year should have been taken into account. The Ld. DR submitted that the TPO has taken cognisance of the depreciation adjustment and relied upon the order of the TPO and the Assessing Officer. 11. We have heard both the parties and perused all the relevant material

ALI ASGAR,RATLAM vs. CIT APPEAL, NFAC

In the result the “Impugned order” is set aside as and by

Bench: Shri B.M. Biyani & Shri Paresh M Joshiali Asgar, Cit(A) बनाम/ 221/1, Badri Colony Near Vs. Narsingh Vatika, Silawato Ka Waas, Ratlam (Pan:Bhspa5967N) (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri Mohd. Kaid Kangsiwala, Ar Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing 13.04.2026 Date Of Pronouncement 17.04.2026 आदेश/ O R D E R

24,06,685/-. The Income as per the return of income filed was at Rs.3,19,200/-. Addition as computed u/s 56(2)(x) was as at Rs.20,87,485/-. The aforesaid assessment order bears number:- ITBA/AST/S/147/2023-24/1061255750(1) and that the same is dated 21.02.2024 which is hereinafter referred to as the “Impugned Assessment Order.” 2.2 That the Assessee being

M/S. BHANDARI HOSPITAL AND RESEARCH CENTRE,INDORE vs. THE PR. CIT-1, INDORE

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Boradassessment Year: 2012-13 M/S Bhandari Hospital & Pr. Cit-(I) Research Centre, Gf-21 & Indore बनाम/ 22, Opp. Meghdoot Garden, Vs. Vijay Nagar, Indore (Appellant) (Revenue ) P.A. No.Aadfb8151A

transferred to another AO u/s 127 who then issued notice u/s 142(1) on 29/7/2014. (copy of this notice is on pages 108-109 of the paper book). This was a comprehensive notice requiring compliance of various issues. viii. Reply was filed by the assessee on 12.8.2014 (placed on page 110- 116 of the apper book) with all relevant information

M/S. S.R. FERRO ALLOYS,JHABUA vs. THE PCIT, BHOPAL

In the result, the appeal of assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyanis.R. Ferro Alloys Pr. Cit, Central 9, Siddheswar Colony Bhopal Vs. Jhabua (Appellant / Assessee) (Revenue) Pan: Abhfs7377Q Appellant By Shri Sumit Nema, Sr. Adv. & Gagan Tiwari, Ar Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 12.10.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 09.11.2023

price. A method of accounting adopted by the trader consistently and regularly cannot be discarded by departmental authorities on the view that he should have adopted a different method of keeping accounts or of valuation. The method of accounting regularly employed may be discarded only, if, in the opinion of taxing authorities, income of the trade cannot be property Page

NILIMA KOTHARI,INDORE vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, NATIONAL FACELESS ASSTT. CENTRE, INDORE

In the result appeal of the assessee is allowed as per terms indicated above

Bench: Shri Manish Boradsmt. Neelima Kothari, Income Tax Officer, 601, N.R.K. Villas, Delhi Vs. 22/2 Manoramaganj, Indore (Appellant / Assessee) (Respondent/ Revenue) Pan: Adnpk7832J Assessee By Shri S.S. Deshpande, Ar Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing 08.08.2024 Date Of Pronouncement 20.09.2024

transfer, either at the time of purchase or at the time of sale of share by the appellant, treatment of LTCG as unexplained credit under section 68 of the Act and confirmation thereof by Ld. CIT(A) is wholly unjustified, improper and bad in law. 06) Section 68: Issue: Burden to prove :- That the Commissioner of Income tax (A) erred

THE DCIT-2(1), INDORE vs. M/S. CENTURY 21 MALL (P) LTD., INDORE

In the result, all appeals of the Revenue are dismissed, while all appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Smt. Madhumita Roy & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

X + IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “INDORE BENCH”, INDORE ] ] BEFORE SMT. MADHUMITA ROY, JUDICIAL MEMBER, AND SHRI BHAGIRATH MAL BIYANI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER IT(SS)A No.166, 167 and 168 /Ind/2016 Asstt.Year : 2008-2009, 2009-2010 and 2010-11 AND Asstt.Year 2011-12 Century 21 Malls P.Ltd. Vs. ACIT, Ward-2(1) 731-732, Usha Nagar Indore. Extension Above Axis

THE DCIT, 2(1), INDORE vs. M/S. CENTURE 21 MALL PVT. LTD., INDORE

In the result, all appeals of the Revenue are dismissed, while all appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Smt. Madhumita Roy & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

X + IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “INDORE BENCH”, INDORE ] ] BEFORE SMT. MADHUMITA ROY, JUDICIAL MEMBER, AND SHRI BHAGIRATH MAL BIYANI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER IT(SS)A No.166, 167 and 168 /Ind/2016 Asstt.Year : 2008-2009, 2009-2010 and 2010-11 AND Asstt.Year 2011-12 Century 21 Malls P.Ltd. Vs. ACIT, Ward-2(1) 731-732, Usha Nagar Indore. Extension Above Axis

M/S CENTURY 21 MALLS P. LTD.,INDORE vs. THE ACIT 2(1), INDORE

In the result, all appeals of the Revenue are dismissed, while all appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Smt. Madhumita Roy & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

X + IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “INDORE BENCH”, INDORE ] ] BEFORE SMT. MADHUMITA ROY, JUDICIAL MEMBER, AND SHRI BHAGIRATH MAL BIYANI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER IT(SS)A No.166, 167 and 168 /Ind/2016 Asstt.Year : 2008-2009, 2009-2010 and 2010-11 AND Asstt.Year 2011-12 Century 21 Malls P.Ltd. Vs. ACIT, Ward-2(1) 731-732, Usha Nagar Indore. Extension Above Axis

CHIRAYU CHARITABLE FOUNDATION,BHOPAL vs. PCIT (CENTRAL), BHOPAL

In the result appeal of the assessee stands allowed

Bench: Hon'Ble Kul Bharat & Hon'Ble Manish Boradchirayu Charitable Pcit (Central), Foundation,Bhopal Indore Bhopal Highway, Bhaisakhedi, Vs. Bhopal (Appellant) (Revenue ) Pan No.Aaaac3656P Revenue By Shri S.S. Mantri, Cit Appellant By S/Shri Sumit Nema, Sr. Advocate, Gagan Tiwari & Piyush Parashar, Advs Date Of Hearing 05.01.2021 Date Of Pronouncement .02.2021 O R D E R Per Manish Borad, Am.

X. To achieve the objects, the society shall construct buildings, hospitals, clinics diagnostic centres, research centres, colleges etc. and shall raise all other necessary infrastructure, equipment, machines, tools and raise fitting and to do all necessary and incidental there for the beneficiaries. The object of the society shall not include objects involving the carrying on of activity for profit within