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

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

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

Section 92C(3) of the Act, read with the Rules. It would, among other aspects, refer to the method adopted and whether reliability and authenticity of the arm's length determination is affected or corrupted. 83. We now proceed to examine the TNM Method, whether there is prohibition in applying this method on entity to entity basis

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

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 DCIT1(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

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

THE ACIT, CENTRAL-1, INDORE vs. M/S SURYA INFRA VENTURE PVT. LTD., INDORE

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

transfer to appellants bank account. Further, copy of ledger account of the appellant in the books of the investor company and copy of confirmation has also been filed. The appellant had duly issued shares against funds received from the investor company. The appellant company has received total sum sum of Rs. 1,35,00,000/- against which

THE ACIT, CIRCLE 2(1), INDORE vs. M/S SURYA INFRA VENTURE PVT. LTD., INDORE

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

transfer to appellants bank account. Further, copy of ledger account of the appellant in the books of the investor company and copy of confirmation has also been filed. The appellant had duly issued shares against funds received from the investor company. The appellant company has received total sum sum of Rs. 1,35,00,000/- against which

THE AIT,ENTRAL-1, INDORE vs. SURYA INFRAVENTURE P LTD, INDORE

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

transfer to appellants bank account. Further, copy of ledger account of the appellant in the books of the investor company and copy of confirmation has also been filed. The appellant had duly issued shares against funds received from the investor company. The appellant company has received total sum sum of Rs. 1,35,00,000/- against which

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

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

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

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, 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-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