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

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

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

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

71 and submitted that the Hon’ble High Court has held that it was not open to the Pr. CIT while exercising suo motu revisional power under section 263 of the Act to find fault with the assessment order of the AO on the ground of its being erroneous on an issue which was not subject matter of limited scrutiny

SADHU RAM BALANI,INDORE vs. ITO-5(1), INDORE, INDORE

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyanisadhu Ram Balani Ito-5(1) Flat No.B-503, Moti Mahal Indore Apartment 28-A, Sector-C Vs. Scheme No.71, Indore (Appellant / Assessee) (Respondent/ Revenue) Pan: Abspb5367L Assessee By Shri S.N. Agrawal, Ar Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Revenue By Date Of Hearing 04.09.2024 Date Of Pronouncement 24.09.2024

transferred in the name of the assessee dated 10.10.2011 placed at page no.87 & 88 of the paper book as under: Page 11 of 51 ITANo.470/Ind/2023 Sadhuram Balani Page 12 of 51 ITANo.470/Ind/2023 Sadhuram Balani 5.2 These shares were then dematerialized in the de-mat account of the assessee with M/s Arihant Capital Market Ltd. placed at page no.89

JCIT(OSD),-2(1),INDORE, INDORE vs. SHRI KESHAV KUMAR NACHANI, INDORE

In the result, all the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Smt. Madhumita Roy & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

section 145(3) of the Act. He accordingly reversed the action of the AO in rejecting the books of accounts of the assessee by holding that the AO was not correct in rejecting the books of accounts. Thereafter, the ld.CIT(A) deleted additions made on account of estimation of gross profit in the transactions of sale of gold and silver

THE DCIT, 2(1), INDORE vs. SHRI KESHAV KUMAR NACHANI, INDORE

In the result, all the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Smt. Madhumita Roy & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

section 145(3) of the Act. He accordingly reversed the action of the AO in rejecting the books of accounts of the assessee by holding that the AO was not correct in rejecting the books of accounts. Thereafter, the ld.CIT(A) deleted additions made on account of estimation of gross profit in the transactions of sale of gold and silver

THE DCIT, 2(1), INDORE vs. SHRI KESHAV KUMAR NACHANI, INDORE

In the result, all the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Smt. Madhumita Roy & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

section 145(3) of the Act. He accordingly reversed the action of the AO in rejecting the books of accounts of the assessee by holding that the AO was not correct in rejecting the books of accounts. Thereafter, the ld.CIT(A) deleted additions made on account of estimation of gross profit in the transactions of sale of gold and silver

YAKSHA INFRASTRUCTURE COMPANY (P) LTD. (FORMERLY KNOWN FROLIC REALTY (P) LTD.),MUMBAI vs. DCIT-3(1) , INDORE

Appeal is dismissed

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

71 ITR 427 (SC). admittedly, in this case the credit to the account of creditors was made in the earlier years and therefore the amount even cannot be brought to tax under Section 68 in the year under appeal................." 17. Considering the entire aspect of the matter, the Ld. CIT(A) while deleting the addition made

DCIT-4(1), INDORE vs. M/S. YAKSHA INFRASTRUCTURE COM. PVT. LTD., TALOJA, RAIGARH

Appeal is dismissed

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

71 ITR 427 (SC). admittedly, in this case the credit to the account of creditors was made in the earlier years and therefore the amount even cannot be brought to tax under Section 68 in the year under appeal................." 17. Considering the entire aspect of the matter, the Ld. CIT(A) while deleting the addition made

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

transferred from one entity to another, or amongst the above three companies; that therefore it was a case where section 292C would come to play, because despite number of instances of unaccounted money being not recognized in the accounts. He held that integration of all the three accounts and taking all the unaccounted and accounts of all three companies together

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

transferred from one entity to another, or amongst the above three companies; that therefore it was a case where section 292C would come to play, because despite number of instances of unaccounted money being not recognized in the accounts. He held that integration of all the three accounts and taking all the unaccounted and accounts of all three companies together

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

transferred from one entity to another, or amongst the above three companies; that therefore it was a case where section 292C would come to play, because despite number of instances of unaccounted money being not recognized in the accounts. He held that integration of all the three accounts and taking all the unaccounted and accounts of all three companies together

M/S. BHATIA GLOBAL TRADING LTD.,INDORE vs. THE DCIT 1(1), INDORE

In the result, appeal of assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyanibhatia Global Trading Ltd. Dcit 1(1) Through Official Liquidator Indore Old Cia Building, 1St Floor Vs. Opp. G.P.O. Residency Area, Indore (Appellant / Assessee) (Respondent/ Revenue) Pan: Aaacb6751 C Assessee By None Revenue By Shri P.K. Mishra, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing 10.05.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 26 .07.2023

transfer pricing regulations 5. The TPO rejected the TP Study analysis of the assesse and carried out his own search for selecting comparable for determination of arm’s length price. The TPO selected three comparable companies for determination of arm’s length price against which the assessee has raised objection before the DRP which are reproduced

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX(EXEMPTION), BHOPAL, BHOPAL vs. INDORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, INDORE

Appeals are allowed and revenue’s appeals

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

71 to 117]. vii) It shall be pertinent to note that there has been no change in the facts and circumstances of the case prevailing in the assessment year under consideration and those prevailing in the aforesaid assessment years. In such a situation, taking an adverse view in the assessment year under consideration by the learned AO is completely unjustified

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX(EXEMPTION), BHOPAL, BHOPAL, MADHYA PRADESH vs. INDORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, INDORE

Appeals are allowed and revenue’s appeals

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

71 to 117]. vii) It shall be pertinent to note that there has been no change in the facts and circumstances of the case prevailing in the assessment year under consideration and those prevailing in the aforesaid assessment years. In such a situation, taking an adverse view in the assessment year under consideration by the learned AO is completely unjustified

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX(EXEMPTION), BHOPAL, BHOPAL vs. INDORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, INDORE

Appeals are allowed and revenue’s appeals

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

71 to 117]. vii) It shall be pertinent to note that there has been no change in the facts and circumstances of the case prevailing in the assessment year under consideration and those prevailing in the aforesaid assessment years. In such a situation, taking an adverse view in the assessment year under consideration by the learned AO is completely unjustified