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

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

45 SOT 7), wherein Hon’ble Delhi ITAT held as under – “14.2 In this regard, learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) further mentioned that it is an acknowledged fact that transfer pricing has more to do with economic principles and business conditions that prevail in an uncontrolled situation. He further referred to certain OECD guidelines issued in this regard

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

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

45 SOT 7), wherein Hon’ble Delhi ITAT held as under – “14.2 In this regard, learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) further mentioned that it is an acknowledged fact that transfer pricing has more to do with economic principles and business conditions that prevail in an uncontrolled situation. He further referred to certain OECD guidelines issued in this regard

MAHENDRA SINGH CHAWLA,INDORE vs. DCIT CIRCLE-1(1), INDORE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyanimahendra Singh Chawla Dcit Circle -1(1) 4/35 Gram Pigdamber A.B. Indore Road Near Rao Vs. Indore (Appellant / Assessee) (Respondent/ Revenue) Pan: Aazpc0120C Assessee By None Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Revenue By Date Of Hearing 02.09.2024 Date Of Pronouncement 04 .09.2024

price and has taken possession of the property even though the transfer deed or conveyance has not been registered. In such cases the transferor is debarred from agitating his title to the property against the purchaser Let us analyze provisions of section 53A of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882. Page 8 of 21 ITANo.245/Ind/2024 Mahendra Singh Chawla 53A. Part

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

section 92C (2), it was claimed that the transaction is within tolerance band of +/-5% Margin. 2.6.1. We find that there is no dispute between TPO and the assessee as regards the method, which is CPM and benchmarking based on internal comparable. The only dispute whether the assessee has justified for considering the aggregation of all the projects with

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

section 92C (2), it was claimed that the transaction is within tolerance band of +/-5% Margin. 2.6.1. We find that there is no dispute between TPO and the assessee as regards the method, which is CPM and benchmarking based on internal comparable. The only dispute whether the assessee has justified for considering the aggregation of all the projects with

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

section 92C (2), it was claimed that the transaction is within tolerance band of +/-5% Margin. 2.6.1. We find that there is no dispute between TPO and the assessee as regards the method, which is CPM and benchmarking based on internal comparable. The only dispute whether the assessee has justified for considering the aggregation of all the projects with

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

section 92C (2), it was claimed that the transaction is within tolerance band of +/-5% Margin. 2.6.1. We find that there is no dispute between TPO and the assessee as regards the method, which is CPM and benchmarking based on internal comparable. The only dispute whether the assessee has justified for considering the aggregation of all the projects with

THE DCIT-3(1), INDORE vs. KUMARI SHEETAL GARG, INDORE

In the result Ground No. 1& 2 of the

Bench: Hon'Ble Kul Bharat & Hon'Ble Manish Boradassessment Year 2008-09 Dcit-3(1), Kumari Sheetal Garg, Indore Vs. 8/2, New Palasia, Indore (Appellant) (Respondent ) Pan No.Afhpg9179G Revenue By Shri K.C. Selvamani, Sr.Dr Assessee By Shri S.S. Solanki, Ca Date Of Hearing 07.01.2019 Date Of Pronouncement 10.01.2019 O R D E R

price than that is mentioned in Agreement with the assessee. 3. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case Ld. CIT(A) has erred in holding that reopening is not valid while the copy of agreement dated 14.12.2006 was not submitted by assessee during the course of assessment proceedings hence, the facts of the agreement

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

45 specified in the notification of Government of India bearing number S.O. _ dated the th October, 2014.” [CLPB 163-164] 1. This notification came into effect from 15th November 2014. 6. From the above it is clear that, w.e.f. 15th November 2014, CIT (Exemption) has been constituted separately for all the persons who are claiming exemption

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

45 specified in the notification of Government of India bearing number S.O. _ dated the th October, 2014.” [CLPB 163-164] 1. This notification came into effect from 15th November 2014. 6. From the above it is clear that, w.e.f. 15th November 2014, CIT (Exemption) has been constituted separately for all the persons who are claiming exemption

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

M/S ASHOKA HI-TECH BUILDERS P. LTD.,INDORE vs. THE DCIT (CENTRAL)-1, INDORE

In the result Ground No.1 and 2 of the assessee’s appeal for A

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Borad

price. A method of accounting adopted by the trader consistently and regularly cannot be discarded by departmental authorities on the view that he should have adopted a different method of keeping accounts or of valuation. The method of accounting regularly employed may be discarded only , if , in the opinion of taxing authorities , income of the trade cannot be properly deduced

JAI PRAKASH NARAYAN SHARMA,INDORE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-2(1), INDORE

Appeal is allowed for statistical purpose

price of new property Rs.99,48,000 + subsequent\nexpenses of additional work Rs.26,54,377) but the AO allowed exemption\nonly of purchase cost of Rs.99,48,000/- and disallowed exemption qua the\ncost of additional work.\n4.\nAggrieved, the assessee carried matter in first-appeal whereupon the\nCIT(A) granted part relief by passing following order:\n“In considered

VAISHALI DEVELOPERS AND BUILDERS ,BHOPAL vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER -1(2), BHOPAL

Appeals are allowed

Bench: Shri B.M. Biyani & Shri Udayan Das Gupta

price, it had to be concluded that assessee merely acted as building contractor and not as a developer and, therefore, assessee's claim for deduction under section 80-IB(10) could not be allowed - Held, yes – Whether even otherwise, in view of fact that no completion certificate had been issued to assessee by local authority, in view of sub-clause

ACIT CENTRAL-2 INDORE, INDORE vs. SHRI .GAURAV TEKRIWAL, INDORE

In the result, this appeal of Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri B.M. Biyani(Conducted Through Virtual Court) Assessment Year: 2015-16 Acit, Central -2 Shri Gaurav Tekriwal Indore बनाम/ 204, Princess Valley, South Tukoganj, Indore Vs. (Appellant / Revenue) (Respondent / Revenue) Pan: Acppt 1628 Q Assessee By Shri Anil Kamal Garg, Arpit Gaur, Ars Revenue By Shri P.K. Mitra, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing 21.09.2022 Date Of Pronouncement 21.11.2022

45(1), 48, 55(2) and 2(29B) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. Therefore, the Ld. AO was wrong in rejecting the claim of long-term capital gain and assessing the same as income from other sources. We do not find any infirmity in the order of Ld. CIT(A) who has, after mindful consideration, reversed the action

SHRI SUSHIL KUMAR BAFNA,UJJAIN vs. THE ITO 1(1), UJJAIN

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri C.M.Garg & Shri O.P.Meenaआ.अ.सं./ I.T.A. No. 637/Ind/2014 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year: 2010-11

45 as income of the previous year 2012-13 relevant to A.Y. 2013-14 in the return filed under section 139(1) as the prescribed time limit of three years expired in F.Y. 2012-13. The action of the Ld. CIT (A) of confirming the said addition in the year under appeal has in fact resulted in double taxation

VAISHALI DEVELOPERS ANDBUILDERS,BHOPAL vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER 1 (2), BHOPAL

Appeals are allowed

section 80-IB(10), the entirety of project including development\nof infrastructure must be undertaken by assessee. According to Ld. DR,\n'entire project' would mean development as a cohesive unit which includes\nthe construction of houses with development of essential amenities. In the\ncase of assessee, the buyers have first acquired ownership of plots from\nassessee through registered Sale