THE DCIT-1(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 -CIRCLE 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

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

49 of 84 M/s. Andritz Hydro Pvt. Ltd v DCIT/ T.P.A. No.157/Ind/2015 &316/Ind/2016/ A.Y.:10-11&11-12 DCIT vs. Andritz Hydro Pvt. Ltd T.P. A. No. 265/Ind/2015 & 349/Ind/2016/A.Y.:10-11&11-12 Austria. As no TDS was deducted thereon by invoking provisions of Section 40(a)(ia), the AO disallowed the payment so made. Since TDS was not made

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

49 of 84 M/s. Andritz Hydro Pvt. Ltd v DCIT/ T.P.A. No.157/Ind/2015 &316/Ind/2016/ A.Y.:10-11&11-12 DCIT vs. Andritz Hydro Pvt. Ltd T.P. A. No. 265/Ind/2015 & 349/Ind/2016/A.Y.:10-11&11-12 Austria. As no TDS was deducted thereon by invoking provisions of Section 40(a)(ia), the AO disallowed the payment so made. Since TDS was not made

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

49 of 84 M/s. Andritz Hydro Pvt. Ltd v DCIT/ T.P.A. No.157/Ind/2015 &316/Ind/2016/ A.Y.:10-11&11-12 DCIT vs. Andritz Hydro Pvt. Ltd T.P. A. No. 265/Ind/2015 & 349/Ind/2016/A.Y.:10-11&11-12 Austria. As no TDS was deducted thereon by invoking provisions of Section 40(a)(ia), the AO disallowed the payment so made. Since TDS was not made

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

49 of 84 M/s. Andritz Hydro Pvt. Ltd v DCIT/ T.P.A. No.157/Ind/2015 &316/Ind/2016/ A.Y.:10-11&11-12 DCIT vs. Andritz Hydro Pvt. Ltd T.P. A. No. 265/Ind/2015 & 349/Ind/2016/A.Y.:10-11&11-12 Austria. As no TDS was deducted thereon by invoking provisions of Section 40(a)(ia), the AO disallowed the payment so made. Since TDS was not made

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

49. We note that the Ld. CIT(A) had examined the relevant data referred to by the AO in the impugned order to infer the act of synchronized trading and found that this information referred to by the AO was a smoke screen and that it did not in any manner suggest that the CO Nos.2 to 4/Ind/2022 assessee

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

49. We note that the Ld. CIT(A) had examined the relevant data referred to by the AO in the impugned order to infer the act of synchronized trading and found that this information referred to by the AO was a smoke screen and that it did not in any manner suggest that the CO Nos.2 to 4/Ind/2022 assessee

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

49. We note that the Ld. CIT(A) had examined the relevant data referred to by the AO in the impugned order to infer the act of synchronized trading and found that this information referred to by the AO was a smoke screen and that it did not in any manner suggest that the CO Nos.2 to 4/Ind/2022 assessee

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

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

section 65A and 65B of the Indian Evidence Act 1872 providing for admissibility of electronic records as evidence have not been followed. The appellant has also placed reliance on certain decisions wherein, on identical facts, similar addition made have been deleted. 4.2.2 After considering the observation made in the assessment order and also taking into consideration the written submissions

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

section 65A and 65B of the Indian Evidence Act 1872 providing for admissibility of electronic records as evidence have not been followed. The appellant has also placed reliance on certain decisions wherein, on identical facts, similar addition made have been deleted. 4.2.2 After considering the observation made in the assessment order and also taking into consideration the written submissions

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

transfer pricing documentation and economic analysis has passed an order dated 30.10.2018 under Section 92CA(3) of the Act determining the "Arm's Length Price" difference of Rs. 41,57,14,9471- in respect of royalty payment of its AE and Rs. 39,63,921/- in respect of international transactions relating to trading activities of the assessee. Thus, total upward

M/S. BRIDGESTONE INDIA PVT. LTD.,PUNA vs. THE ACIT-1(1), INDORE

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

transfer pricing documentation and economic analysis has passed an order dated 30.10.2018 Bridgestone India Pvt. Ltd. vs. ACIT Asst.Year –2015-16 - 3 – under Section 92CA(3) of the Act determining the “Arm’s Length Price” difference of Rs. 41,57,14,947/- in respect of royalty payment of its AE and Rs. 39,63,921/- in respect of international transactions

M/S. COMPUTER SCIENCES CORPORATION INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,INDORE vs. THE ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-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

49,26,920/- as against the returned income of Rs.156,44,35,848/- 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

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

49,26,920/- as against the returned income of Rs.156,44,35,848/- 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

M/S. COMPUTER SCIENCE CORPORATION INDIA PVT. LTD.,CHENNAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-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

49,26,920/- as against the returned income of Rs.156,44,35,848/- 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