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

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

transfer pricing adjustment of Rs. 9, 73, 14,004/- made by TPO is hereby deleted.” M/s. Agrawal Coal Corporation vs. DCIT and DCIT Vs. Agrawal Coal Corporation T.P.A. Nos.601 & 602/Ind/2015 and 607 & 622/Ind/2015/A.Y.2009-10 & 10-11Page 74 of 127 2.5.9. We have given our careful thoughts to above findings and fully subscribe the same. In the light of the above

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

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

transfer pricing adjustment of Rs. 9, 73, 14,004/- made by TPO is hereby deleted.” M/s. Agrawal Coal Corporation vs. DCIT and DCIT Vs. Agrawal Coal Corporation T.P.A. Nos.601 & 602/Ind/2015 and 607 & 622/Ind/2015/A.Y.2009-10 & 10-11Page 74 of 127 2.5.9. We have given our careful thoughts to above findings and fully subscribe the same. In the light of the above

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

Transfer Pricing Regulations talk of individual transactions to be benchmarked. He submitted that the assessee made claim of ‘entity-level’ comparison before DRP also, but the DRP has over-ruled assessee’s claim with reasoning. Referring to Page 10 and 11 of DRP order, Ld. DR emphasized the reasoning given by DRP, Page 19 of 47 Computer Sciences Corporation India

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

transfer for limited right to use and they are composite payment of royalty which is also covered by section 9(1)(vi) and section 9(1)(vii)of the Act as well as under India- Austria Tax Treaty on which TDS was not made hence, the AO has rightly disallowed the same under section

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

transfer for limited right to use and they are composite payment of royalty which is also covered by section 9(1)(vi) and section 9(1)(vii)of the Act as well as under India- Austria Tax Treaty on which TDS was not made hence, the AO has rightly disallowed the same under section

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

transfer for limited right to use and they are composite payment of royalty which is also covered by section 9(1)(vi) and section 9(1)(vii)of the Act as well as under India- Austria Tax Treaty on which TDS was not made hence, the AO has rightly disallowed the same under section

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

transfer for limited right to use and they are composite payment of royalty which is also covered by section 9(1)(vi) and section 9(1)(vii)of the Act as well as under India- Austria Tax Treaty on which TDS was not made hence, the AO has rightly disallowed the same under section

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

ACIT-2(1), UJJAIN, UJJAIN vs. M/S RUCHI J OIL PVT. LTD,, MUMBAI

In the result, Revenue’s appeal ITANo

Bench: Shri Mahavir Prasad & Shri Manish Boradvirtual Hearing Assessment Year: 2014-15

Pricing Officer (TPO) on page 2 of his order dated 11.09.2017 u/s. 92CA (3) of the Act with a clear finding that the Specified Domestic Transaction has been reported in Form 3CEB, as reproduced below. [Page 12 to 14] :- “The details of International Transaction in term of Section 92B and Specified Domestic transactions in terms of Section 92BA

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

transferring PAN of the assesse society from DCIT(E), Bhopal to ACIT(central) -2 Bhopal. Once the PAN is migrated then CIT(E) seize to have any jurisdiction over the assessee with regard to any of proceedings under the Act. We accordingly dismiss the additional grounds raised by the assessee. Shri Jairam Education Society ITA No.90 & 548/Ind/2019 15. Apropos

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

transferring PAN of the assesse society from DCIT(E), Bhopal to ACIT(central) -2 Bhopal. Once the PAN is migrated then CIT(E) seize to have any jurisdiction over the assessee with regard to any of proceedings under the Act. We accordingly dismiss the additional grounds raised by the assessee. Shri Jairam Education Society ITA No.90 & 548/Ind/2019 15. Apropos

THE ACIT, CENTRAL-1, INDORE vs. M/S. MANISH AGRO TECH PVT. LTD., INDORE

In the result grounds of revenue for A

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Garg & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

35 to 78 of the case law PB. It is pertinent to mention that in this case also assessments were reopened subsequent to the search and survey conducted by the Investigation Wing Ahmedabad on 18.12.2014 and the assessee Ms GRD Commodities Ltd. was covered under section 1334. On Cross Objection Nos.5 & 6/Ind/2020 Assessment Years: 2012-13 & 2015-16 the identical

THE ACIT, CENTRAL-1, INDORE vs. M/S. MANISH AGRO TECH PVT. LTD., INDORE

In the result grounds of revenue for A

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Garg & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

35 to 78 of the case law PB. It is pertinent to mention that in this case also assessments were reopened subsequent to the search and survey conducted by the Investigation Wing Ahmedabad on 18.12.2014 and the assessee Ms GRD Commodities Ltd. was covered under section 1334. On Cross Objection Nos.5 & 6/Ind/2020 Assessment Years: 2012-13 & 2015-16 the identical

M/S. BRIDGESTONE INDIA PVT. LTD.,PUNE vs. THE ACIT NFAC, DELHI

In the result, appeal of assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyanibridgestone India Pvt. Ltd. Acit (Nfac) Plot No.A-43, Phase-Ii, Delhi Midc Chakan, Village Vs. Sawardari, Taluka Khed, Pune (Appellant / Assessee) (Respondent/ Revenue) Pan: Aabcb 2304 E Assessee By Shri Sukhsagar Syal, Ar Revenue By Shri P.K. Mishra, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing 23.05.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 17.07.2023

35,99,09,783 as a capital receipt and being covered by Explanation 10 to section 43(1) of the Act.. 2. The Ld. AO and Hon'ble DRP erred in making an addition of INR 4,49,15,331 (gross subsidy of INR 5,07,64,000, reduced by depreciation of INR 58,48,669) in respect

M/S. SWASTIK COAL CORPORATION PVT. LTD.,INDORE vs. THE ACIT, 5(1), INDORE

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA

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

Transfer Pricing Officer (TPO) to verify whether the specified domestic transactions were at arm’s length price or not. 3. In the facts and in the circumstances of the case, Ld. Pr. CIT-2, Indore erred in observing for the purpose of passing order under section 263 of the Act the assessment order has been passed without making necessary enquiries

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

35,848/- filed by the appellant. The grounds of the appellant against the action of the ld. AO are as follows : 1. on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law the assessment order passed by the ld AO under Section 143(3) read with Section 144C(13) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (’he Act’) dated February