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

263 of the Act and also erred in holding that the assessment order is erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the revenue on an issue which was not subject matter of limited scrutiny. Similar view has been taken of this Tribunal in case of M/s. Parth Developers Manawar Dist. Dhar vs. Pr. CIT (supra) in para

M/S RANA & JOSHI BUILDTECH P LTD,INDORE vs. THE PCIT-1, BHOPAL

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyanim/S. Rana & Joshi Buildtech Pr. Cit-1 Pvt. Ltd. Bhopal (Formerly Known As M/S Rana Buildtech Pvt. Ltd. ) Vs. 218 Civil Lines, Below Dainik Bhaskar Office Vidisha (Appellant / Assessee) (Respondent/ Revenue) Pan: Aafcr9858P Assessee By Shri S.N. Agrawal Ar Revenue By Shri Ram Kumar Yadav, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing 11.09.2024 Date Of Pronouncement 26 .09.2024

263(1) of the act which read as under: Page 18 of 27 ITANo.229/Ind/2023 M/s Rana & Joshi Buildtech Pvt. Ltd. “(c) where any order referred to in this sub-section and passed by the Assessing Officer for the Transfer Pricing

S GANDHI JEWELLERY PRIVATE LIMITED,INDORE vs. PCIT-1, INDORE, INDORE

Appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri B.M. Biyani & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinhaassessment Year: 2017-18 S. Gandhi Jewellery Pcit-1, Private Limited, Indore C/O Adv. Hitesh Chimnani, बनाम/ Ug-37 Trade Centre, Vs. 18, South Tukoganj, Indore (Assessee/Appellant) (Revenue/Respondent) Pan: Aamcs1613G Assessee By Shri Hitesh Chimnani, Ar Revenue By Shri Ram Kumar Yadav, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 10.02.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 21.02.2025

263(1) reading as under: “Explanation 1. – For the removal of doubts, it is hereby declared that, for the purposes of this sub-section, - (a) To (b) [XXXX] (b) where any order referred to in this sub-section and passed by the Assessing Officer or the Transfer Pricing

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

section 92BA(i). 5.1. The appellant company has entered into transactions with its sister concerns during the year under consideration but the auditors of the company, without dwelling upon the shareholding pattern of the companies, treated the ‘sister concern‘ as related party’ and reported the said transactions as transactions covered u/s 40A(2)(b) and in Form 3CEB

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

section 92BA(i). 5.1. The appellant company has entered into transactions with its sister concerns during the year under consideration but the auditors of the company, without dwelling upon the shareholding pattern of the companies, treated the ‘sister concern‘ as related party’ and reported the said transactions as transactions covered u/s 40A(2)(b) and in Form 3CEB

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

section 92BA(i). 5.1. The appellant company has entered into transactions with its sister concerns during the year under consideration but the auditors of the company, without dwelling upon the shareholding pattern of the companies, treated the ‘sister concern‘ as related party’ and reported the said transactions as transactions covered u/s 40A(2)(b) and in Form 3CEB

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

transfer 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

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, INDORE vs. COMMANDER INDUSTRIES PRIVATE LIMITED, INDORE

In the result, the appeal of the revenue and CO of assessee are dismissed

price (payable either in cash or in shares or otherwise) which is in excess of the value of the net assets of the business taken over, the excess id termed as 'goodwill'. Goodwill arises from business connections, trade name or reputation of an enterprise or from other intangible benefits enjoyed by an enterprise.\"\n18.It is also relevant to note that

M/S PARTH DEVELOPERS,DHAR vs. THE PCIT -1, INDORER

In the result, appeal of assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyanim/S. Parth Developers Pr. Cit-1 Manawar Dist. Indore Vs. Dhar (Appellant / Assessee) (Respondent/ Revenue) Pan: Aalfp 4509 N Assessee By Shri Milind Wadhwani, Ar Revenue By Shri P.K. Mishra, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing 22.06.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 28.07.2023

transfer of plot of land by the assesse less than the value adopted by the stamp duty authority & addition on account of sundry creditors. Therefore, the AO has conducted a due inquiry in respect of the issues which were taken up for limited scrutiny. The Pr. CIT has invoked the provisions of section 263 on the ground that

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

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

263 should not be invoked in your case for the reasons mentioned above. 5. You are, accordingly, given an opportunity of being heard on 26.03.2021 at 04:30 PM. You may also file your reply through mail along with all relevant records and documents. It is not necessary to attend the office for this purpose and the reply details

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

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

263 should not be invoked in your case for the reasons mentioned above. 5. You are, accordingly, given an opportunity of being heard on 26.03.2021 at 04:30 PM. You may also file your reply through mail along with all relevant records and documents. It is not necessary to attend the office for this purpose and the reply details

D.K. CONSTRUCTIONS,BHOPAL vs. CENTRAL CIRCLE - 1, BHOPAL, BHOPAL

Appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyaniassessment Year: 2018-19 D.K.Constructions, Pcit (Central), Dk Cottage, Bhopal 24, Carat E8, बनाम/ Near Gujrati Colony,, Vs. Bawadiya Kalan, Bhopal (Assessee/Appellant) (Revenue/Respondent) Pan: Aaafd7121P Assessee By Shri S.S. Deshpande, Ca Revenue By Shri Ram Kumar Yadav, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing 28.08.2024 Date Of Pronouncement 30.08.2024

263 is concerned, we re-produce below the said Explanation 1(c) for an immediate reference, which reads as under: “(c) Where any order referred to in this sub-section and passed by the Assessing Officer or the Transfer Pricing

DILIP CHANDRASENRO MAHADIK,INDORE vs. THE PR CIT -2 INDORE, INDORE

Appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyaniassessment Year: 2015-16 Shri Dilip Chandrasenrao Pr.Cit-2, Mahadik, Indore. बनाम/ 479, Kalani Nagar, Vs. Indore (Assessee / Appellant) (Revenue / Respondent) Pan: Abwpm3141M Assessee By S/Shri Rajnish Vohra, Chetan Khandelwal & Nitesh Dawira, Ld. Ars Revenue By Shri P.K. Mishra, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing 24.05.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 17.08.2023

transfer expenses for sale of Rs. 8,78,515/- in his return of income. Perusal of the case record reveals that during the period relevant to the assessment year 2015-16, the assessee has sold two properties. In the return of income the assessee disclosed sale consideration amount of Rs. 65,30,000/- and Long Term Capital Gain worked

SHRI SANJAY DUBEY,BHOPAL vs. THE ITO 1 (2), BHOPAL

In the result, the appeal of assesse in ITANo

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao

transfer of immovable property by the bank against the liability of third party which is upheld by the ld. CIT(A) is arbitrary erroneous and unjustified. Page 1 of 6 ITA No.141& 142/Ind/2023 Sanjay Dubey Page 2 of 6 2. That the Ld. Lower authority as erred in making addition of Rs.15,58,000/- by invoking the provisions

SHRI SANJAY DUBEY,BHOPAL vs. THE ITO 1 (2), BHOPAL

In the result, the appeal of assesse in ITANo

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao

transfer of immovable property by the bank against the liability of third party which is upheld by the ld. CIT(A) is arbitrary erroneous and unjustified. Page 1 of 6 ITA No.141& 142/Ind/2023 Sanjay Dubey Page 2 of 6 2. That the Ld. Lower authority as erred in making addition of Rs.15,58,000/- by invoking the provisions

M/S. IDEA CELLULAR LIMITED,INDORE vs. THE DCIT (TDS), INDORE

Appeals are allowed

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

Section 194J of the Act is not attracted in the case of "revenue sharing contract". According to Respondent No.1, in such contracts there is only sharing of revenue and, therefore, payments by revenue sharing cannot constitute "fees" under Section 194J of the Act. This submission is not accepted by the Department. We leave it there because this submission

M/S. IDEA CELLULAR LIMITED,INDORE vs. THE DCIT (TDS), INDORE

Appeals are allowed

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

Section 194J of the Act is not attracted in the case of "revenue sharing contract". According to Respondent No.1, in such contracts there is only sharing of revenue and, therefore, payments by revenue sharing cannot constitute "fees" under Section 194J of the Act. This submission is not accepted by the Department. We leave it there because this submission

M/S. IDEA CELLULAR LIMITED,INDORE vs. THE DCIT (TDS), INDORE

Appeals are allowed

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

Section 194J of the Act is not attracted in the case of "revenue sharing contract". According to Respondent No.1, in such contracts there is only sharing of revenue and, therefore, payments by revenue sharing cannot constitute "fees" under Section 194J of the Act. This submission is not accepted by the Department. We leave it there because this submission