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

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

SHRI DILIP BUILDCON LTD,BHOPAL vs. DCIT CENTRAL -1, BHOPAL

In the result, revenue’s appeal for A

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav Hon'Ble & Shri Manish Borad&

41,20,495 18,70,66,54,794 6,95,33,60,427 9. We will first take up revenue’s appeal for A.Y. 2014-15 to 2017- 18,, commonly raising a ground that ld. CIT(A) erred in granting deduction u/s 80(IA)(4) of the Act ignoring the fact that the assessee company is a “works contractor

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (CENTRAL)-1, BHOPAL vs. DILIP BUILDCON LIMITED, BHOPAL

In the result, revenue’s appeal for A

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav Hon'Ble & Shri Manish Borad&

41,20,495 18,70,66,54,794 6,95,33,60,427 9. We will first take up revenue’s appeal for A.Y. 2014-15 to 2017- 18,, commonly raising a ground that ld. CIT(A) erred in granting deduction u/s 80(IA)(4) of the Act ignoring the fact that the assessee company is a “works contractor

DILIP BUILDCON LTD.,BHOPAL vs. DCIT (CENTRAL)-1, BHOPAL

In the result, revenue’s appeal for A

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav Hon'Ble & Shri Manish Borad&

41,20,495 18,70,66,54,794 6,95,33,60,427 9. We will first take up revenue’s appeal for A.Y. 2014-15 to 2017- 18,, commonly raising a ground that ld. CIT(A) erred in granting deduction u/s 80(IA)(4) of the Act ignoring the fact that the assessee company is a “works contractor

DILIP BUILDCON LTD.,BHOPAL vs. DCIT (CENTRAL)-1, BHOPAL

In the result, revenue’s appeal for A

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav Hon'Ble & Shri Manish Borad&

41,20,495 18,70,66,54,794 6,95,33,60,427 9. We will first take up revenue’s appeal for A.Y. 2014-15 to 2017- 18,, commonly raising a ground that ld. CIT(A) erred in granting deduction u/s 80(IA)(4) of the Act ignoring the fact that the assessee company is a “works contractor

DILIP BUILDCON LIMITED,BHOPAL vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (CENTRAL)-1, BHOPAL

In the result, revenue’s appeal for A

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav Hon'Ble & Shri Manish Borad&

41,20,495 18,70,66,54,794 6,95,33,60,427 9. We will first take up revenue’s appeal for A.Y. 2014-15 to 2017- 18,, commonly raising a ground that ld. CIT(A) erred in granting deduction u/s 80(IA)(4) of the Act ignoring the fact that the assessee company is a “works contractor

DCIT (CENTRAL)-1, BHOPAL vs. DILIP BUILDCON LTD., BHOPAL

In the result, revenue’s appeal for A

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav Hon'Ble & Shri Manish Borad&

41,20,495 18,70,66,54,794 6,95,33,60,427 9. We will first take up revenue’s appeal for A.Y. 2014-15 to 2017- 18,, commonly raising a ground that ld. CIT(A) erred in granting deduction u/s 80(IA)(4) of the Act ignoring the fact that the assessee company is a “works contractor

DCIT (CENTRAL)-1, BHOPAL vs. DILIP BUILDCON LTD., BHOPAL

In the result, revenue’s appeal for A

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav Hon'Ble & Shri Manish Borad&

41,20,495 18,70,66,54,794 6,95,33,60,427 9. We will first take up revenue’s appeal for A.Y. 2014-15 to 2017- 18,, commonly raising a ground that ld. CIT(A) erred in granting deduction u/s 80(IA)(4) of the Act ignoring the fact that the assessee company is a “works contractor

THED CIT ,CENTRAL-1, BHOPAL vs. M/S DILIP BUILDCON LTD, BHOPAL

In the result, revenue’s appeal for A

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav Hon'Ble & Shri Manish Borad&

41,20,495 18,70,66,54,794 6,95,33,60,427 9. We will first take up revenue’s appeal for A.Y. 2014-15 to 2017- 18,, commonly raising a ground that ld. CIT(A) erred in granting deduction u/s 80(IA)(4) of the Act ignoring the fact that the assessee company is a “works contractor

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

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

41 of 127 assume that the AE had placed purchase order well before the order received from the customer. Accordingly, the alleged contention of the learned DR/ TPO is factually incorrect and cannot be accepted. 2.4.16. The ld. AR also placed reliance on the Transfer Pricing Guidelines for Multinational Enterprises and Tax Administrations issued by Organization for Economic Co- Operation

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

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

41 of 127 assume that the AE had placed purchase order well before the order received from the customer. Accordingly, the alleged contention of the learned DR/ TPO is factually incorrect and cannot be accepted. 2.4.16. The ld. AR also placed reliance on the Transfer Pricing Guidelines for Multinational Enterprises and Tax Administrations issued by Organization for Economic Co- Operation

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

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

41 of 127 assume that the AE had placed purchase order well before the order received from the customer. Accordingly, the alleged contention of the learned DR/ TPO is factually incorrect and cannot be accepted. 2.4.16. The ld. AR also placed reliance on the Transfer Pricing Guidelines for Multinational Enterprises and Tax Administrations issued by Organization for Economic Co- Operation

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

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

41 of 127 assume that the AE had placed purchase order well before the order received from the customer. Accordingly, the alleged contention of the learned DR/ TPO is factually incorrect and cannot be accepted. 2.4.16. The ld. AR also placed reliance on the Transfer Pricing Guidelines for Multinational Enterprises and Tax Administrations issued by Organization for Economic Co- Operation

ACIT 5 (1), BHOPAL vs. M/S VINDHYA SOLVENT PVT. LTD., BHOPAL

In the result, Revenue’s appeal is dismissed

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy& Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

4. He further made addition of Rs.1,29,00,31,341/- to the total income being the outstanding amount of sundry creditors appearing in the appellant's balance sheet as on 01.04.2013 under Section 68 of the Act on the ground that that huge outstanding balance of sundry creditors remained unpaid for the period of more than three years

SHREENATHJI INFRASTRUCTURE P.LTD.,PIPARIYA vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , ITARSI

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Garg & Shri B.M. Biyani

41,283/- made by the AO.” ITA No. 314/Ind/2018 – AY 2014-15: Page 2 of 27 Shreenathji Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. ITA No.310 to 314/Ind/2018 A.Y.2009-10,2010-11, 2012-13 to 2014-15 “(1) That on the facts and in the circumstances of the appellant’s case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) upholding the disallowance of deduction u/s 80IA

SHREENATHJI INFRASTRUCTURE P.LTD.,PIPARIYA vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , ITARSI

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Garg & Shri B.M. Biyani

41,283/- made by the AO.” ITA No. 314/Ind/2018 – AY 2014-15: Page 2 of 27 Shreenathji Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. ITA No.310 to 314/Ind/2018 A.Y.2009-10,2010-11, 2012-13 to 2014-15 “(1) That on the facts and in the circumstances of the appellant’s case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) upholding the disallowance of deduction u/s 80IA

SHREENATHJI INFRASTRUCTURE P.LTD.,PIPARIYA vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , ITARSI

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Garg & Shri B.M. Biyani

41,283/- made by the AO.” ITA No. 314/Ind/2018 – AY 2014-15: Page 2 of 27 Shreenathji Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. ITA No.310 to 314/Ind/2018 A.Y.2009-10,2010-11, 2012-13 to 2014-15 “(1) That on the facts and in the circumstances of the appellant’s case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) upholding the disallowance of deduction u/s 80IA