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

Section 92C(3) of the Act, read with the Rules. It would, among other aspects, refer to the method adopted and whether reliability and authenticity of the arm's length determination is affected or corrupted. 83. We now proceed to examine the TNM Method, whether there is prohibition in applying this method on entity to entity basis

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

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

71 of 127 was functionally capable to handle all purchases & sales, holding it incapable selectively for handling contract based purchases was not justified on the part of TPO. Moreover onus was on TPO to show how FAR analysis given by. appellant was incorrect but TPO failed to show any specific data from financial accounts to prove that appellant provided

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

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

71 of 127 was functionally capable to handle all purchases & sales, holding it incapable selectively for handling contract based purchases was not justified on the part of TPO. Moreover onus was on TPO to show how FAR analysis given by. appellant was incorrect but TPO failed to show any specific data from financial accounts to prove that appellant provided

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

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

71 of 127 was functionally capable to handle all purchases & sales, holding it incapable selectively for handling contract based purchases was not justified on the part of TPO. Moreover onus was on TPO to show how FAR analysis given by. appellant was incorrect but TPO failed to show any specific data from financial accounts to prove that appellant provided

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

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

71 of 127 was functionally capable to handle all purchases & sales, holding it incapable selectively for handling contract based purchases was not justified on the part of TPO. Moreover onus was on TPO to show how FAR analysis given by. appellant was incorrect but TPO failed to show any specific data from financial accounts to prove that appellant provided

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

2 for both assessment year relates to adjustment of Rs. 43,11,705/- (A.Y.:10-11) & Rs. 17,71,095/- (A.Y.:11-12) made by the TPO in respect of transactions relating to “Contract revenue from Projects” 2.1. Succinctly, the facts as culled out from the order of the lower authorities are that as per Transfer Pricing Study Report

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

2 for both assessment year relates to adjustment of Rs. 43,11,705/- (A.Y.:10-11) & Rs. 17,71,095/- (A.Y.:11-12) made by the TPO in respect of transactions relating to “Contract revenue from Projects” 2.1. Succinctly, the facts as culled out from the order of the lower authorities are that as per Transfer Pricing Study Report

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

2 for both assessment year relates to adjustment of Rs. 43,11,705/- (A.Y.:10-11) & Rs. 17,71,095/- (A.Y.:11-12) made by the TPO in respect of transactions relating to “Contract revenue from Projects” 2.1. Succinctly, the facts as culled out from the order of the lower authorities are that as per Transfer Pricing Study Report

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

2 for both assessment year relates to adjustment of Rs. 43,11,705/- (A.Y.:10-11) & Rs. 17,71,095/- (A.Y.:11-12) made by the TPO in respect of transactions relating to “Contract revenue from Projects” 2.1. Succinctly, the facts as culled out from the order of the lower authorities are that as per Transfer Pricing Study Report

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

2,07,68,143/- alleged to have been wrongly claimed by the assessee as part of Non SEZ units. Brief facts relating to this ground are that the Ld. A.O observed that a sum of Rs.. 71,74,65,462/- is debited as salary and wages in the Profit & Loss Account of non SEZ units while the corresponding figures

M/S OMPRAKASH MITTAL,INDORE vs. ITO 2(2), INDORE

In the result, this appeal of assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri B.M. Biyani

transfer, the Assessing Officer may refer the valuation of the capital asset to the V.O. and on such a reference, provisions of section 16A of Wealth Act, 1957, will apply. Sub-section (2) further provides that if such a reference is made then certain provisions of section 16A, 23A, 24, 34AA, 35 and 37 of the Wealth

SMT. SHWETA AGRAWAL,INDORE vs. THE PR. CIT-2, INDORE

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Boradassessment Year:2014-15

transferred in the name of the assessee 4 Copy of Amalgamation Order passed by Bombay High Court for the amalgamation of M/s Santoshima Tradelinks Ltd and M/s Conart Traders Ltd., forming a new company M/s Sunrise Asian Limited 5 Copy of D-mat statement of the assessee with the Union Bank of India forthe period 01/04/2013 to 31/03/2014 6 Copy

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

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 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

HASSANAND KHEMLANI,INDORE vs. THE PCIT-1 ,INDORE, INDORE

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

transfer. 56(2)(vii)(b)(ii): Where an individual or a Hindu undivided family receives, in any previous year, from any person or persons on or after the 1st day of October, 2009 [but before the 1st day of April, 2017)- b. Any immovable property, - ii. Fora consideration which is less than the stamp duty value of the property

KALPANA JAIN,INDORE vs. THE PR CIT-1, INDORE

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

transfer. 56(2)(vii)(b)(ii): Where an individual or a Hindu undivided family receives, in any previous year, from any person or persons on or after the 1st day of October, 2009 [but before the 1st day of April, 2017)- b. Any immovable property, - ii. Fora consideration which is less than the stamp duty value of the property

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