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

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

section 92B inserted by Finance Act, 2012 cannot extend scope of transaction retrospectively and accordingly, transfer pricing provision cannot apply to the said transaction. Without prejudice to the above 1.7 Without prejudice to above, the learned CIT (A) erred in summarily rejecting the comparability analysis undertaken by the Appellant to benchmark the transaction of provision of corporate guarantee

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

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

section 92B inserted by Finance Act, 2012 cannot extend scope of transaction retrospectively and accordingly, transfer pricing provision cannot apply to the said transaction. Without prejudice to the above 1.7 Without prejudice to above, the learned CIT (A) erred in summarily rejecting the comparability analysis undertaken by the Appellant to benchmark the transaction of provision of corporate guarantee

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

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

50 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 which no TDS was done; therefore, these were disallowed under section 40(a) (ia) of the Act. 6.2. The DRP observed that careful study of technical services

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

50 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 which no TDS was done; therefore, these were disallowed under section 40(a) (ia) of the Act. 6.2. The DRP observed that careful study of technical services

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

50 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 which no TDS was done; therefore, these were disallowed under section 40(a) (ia) of the Act. 6.2. The DRP observed that careful study of technical services

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

50 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 which no TDS was done; therefore, these were disallowed under section 40(a) (ia) of the Act. 6.2. The DRP observed that careful study of technical services

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

transfer from hands of assessee was date of registration i.e. 10.04.2007 while, the assessee relinquished here rights vide sale agreement dated 14.12.2006 in favour of Shri Vinay Chajlani and Smt. Sunita Chajlani and enjoying the said rights Shri Vinay Chajlani & Smt. Sun ita Chajlani sold the property to M/s. Honeywell Property P. Ltd. at higher price than that is mentioned

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

price, contract specifications, brokerage charges, etc., along with ledger accounts of the brokers and all the transactions were effected through normal banking channels. CO Nos.2 to 4/Ind/2022 6.1 From the assessment order, we also note that the AO has also not controverted the fact that the assessee had traded on NMCE through registered brokers as their client and their trading

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

price, contract specifications, brokerage charges, etc., along with ledger accounts of the brokers and all the transactions were effected through normal banking channels. CO Nos.2 to 4/Ind/2022 6.1 From the assessment order, we also note that the AO has also not controverted the fact that the assessee had traded on NMCE through registered brokers as their client and their trading

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

price, contract specifications, brokerage charges, etc., along with ledger accounts of the brokers and all the transactions were effected through normal banking channels. CO Nos.2 to 4/Ind/2022 6.1 From the assessment order, we also note that the AO has also not controverted the fact that the assessee had traded on NMCE through registered brokers as their client and their trading

SHRI DR. LIYAKAT ALI KAPADIYA,UJJAIN vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 2 (1), UJJAIN

The appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Borada.Y. 2013-14

50 and in computing the capital gain arising from the said transfer by adopting the stamp duty valuation. [Para 20]" In the case of Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax, Co. Circle IV(3), Chennai vs. MIL Industries Ltd. 142 ITD 428 it has been held as under:- "Whether whatever may be problems suffered by an assessee, in reality those reasons

M/S MALVIKA AGROTECH PVT. LTD.,DHAR vs. THE ITO-2(2), INDORE

In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes”

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Boradassessment Year: 2009-10 M/S Malvika Agrotech Ito, 2(2), Pvt. Ltd, Indore Plot No.185, Sector-1, Pithampur, Dhar (Appellant) (Respondent ) Pan No.Aaccm6451G Revenue By Shri P.K. Mitra, Sr. Dr Assessee By Shri C.P. Rawka,Ca Date Of Hearing 10.09.2018 Date Of 19.9.2018 Pronouncement

50 and in computing the capital gain arising from the said transfer by adopting the stamp duty valuation. [Para 20]" In the case of Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax, Co. Circle IV(3), Chennai vs. MIL Industries Ltd. 142 ITD 428 it has been held as under:- 8 Malvika Agrotech Pvt. Ltd "Whether whatever may be problems suffered

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

50 para 29 – e. Allegation that the Allegation on the funds are being used for genuineness of donors the benefit of the members and creditworthiness in of the trust cannot form doubt, we observe that basis for cancellation of this issue has no strength registration u/s 12AA(3). to form a basis for This issue to be dealt in cancellation

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

50 para 29 – e. Allegation that the Allegation on the funds are being used for genuineness of donors the benefit of the members and creditworthiness in of the trust cannot form doubt, we observe that basis for cancellation of this issue has no strength registration u/s 12AA(3). to form a basis for This issue to be dealt in cancellation

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