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. IDEA CELLULAR LIMITED,INDORE vs. THE DCIT (TDS), INDORE

Appeals are allowed

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyani

Section 194J of the Act is not attracted in the case of "revenue sharing contract". According to Respondent No.1, in such contracts there is only sharing of revenue and, therefore, payments by revenue sharing cannot constitute "fees" under Section 194J of the Act. This submission is not accepted by the Department. We leave it there because this submission

M/S. IDEA CELLULAR LIMITED,INDORE vs. THE DCIT (TDS), INDORE

Appeals are allowed

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyani

Section 194J of the Act is not attracted in the case of "revenue sharing contract". According to Respondent No.1, in such contracts there is only sharing of revenue and, therefore, payments by revenue sharing cannot constitute "fees" under Section 194J of the Act. This submission is not accepted by the Department. We leave it there because this submission

M/S. IDEA CELLULAR LIMITED,INDORE vs. THE DCIT (TDS), INDORE

Appeals are allowed

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyani

Section 194J of the Act is not attracted in the case of "revenue sharing contract". According to Respondent No.1, in such contracts there is only sharing of revenue and, therefore, payments by revenue sharing cannot constitute "fees" under Section 194J of the Act. This submission is not accepted by the Department. We leave it there because this submission

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

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

50% of interest rate saving only and thereby arm’s length guarantee commission should be Rs.14,22,000/- as against Rs.20,09,760/- as computed by the learned CIT(A). 2. Ground No. 2-Addtion made under section 14A of the Income Tax Act 1961 read with rule 8D for Rs.4,99,340/-. M/s. Agrawal Coal Corporation vs. DCIT

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

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

50% of interest rate saving only and thereby arm’s length guarantee commission should be Rs.14,22,000/- as against Rs.20,09,760/- as computed by the learned CIT(A). 2. Ground No. 2-Addtion made under section 14A of the Income Tax Act 1961 read with rule 8D for Rs.4,99,340/-. M/s. Agrawal Coal Corporation vs. DCIT

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

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

50% of interest rate saving only and thereby arm’s length guarantee commission should be Rs.14,22,000/- as against Rs.20,09,760/- as computed by the learned CIT(A). 2. Ground No. 2-Addtion made under section 14A of the Income Tax Act 1961 read with rule 8D for Rs.4,99,340/-. M/s. Agrawal Coal Corporation vs. DCIT

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

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

50% of interest rate saving only and thereby arm’s length guarantee commission should be Rs.14,22,000/- as against Rs.20,09,760/- as computed by the learned CIT(A). 2. Ground No. 2-Addtion made under section 14A of the Income Tax Act 1961 read with rule 8D for Rs.4,99,340/-. M/s. Agrawal Coal Corporation vs. DCIT

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE -5(1), BHOPAL , BHOPAL, MADHYA PRADESH vs. MAPAEX REMEDIES PVT. LTD., BHOPAL MADHYA PRADESH

Appeals are dismissed

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyani

price. P&G has constructed factory building on land and also installed plant and machinery. The plant and machinery does not belong to assessee but to P&G. Reimbursement of expenses is also made by P&G. The assessee is working for P&G, not for anybody else. These factors clearly show that the assessee is just an operator

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE - 5(1), BHOPAL , BHOPAL MADHYA PRADESH vs. MAPAEX REMEDIES PVT LTD, BHOPAL MADHYA PRADESH

Appeals are dismissed

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyani

price. P&G has constructed factory building on land and also installed plant and machinery. The plant and machinery does not belong to assessee but to P&G. Reimbursement of expenses is also made by P&G. The assessee is working for P&G, not for anybody else. These factors clearly show that the assessee is just an operator

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE 5 1, BHOPAL , BHOPAL MADHYA PRADESH vs. MAPAEX REMEDIES PVT LTD, BHOPAL MADHYA PRADESH

Appeals are dismissed

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyani

price. P&G has constructed factory building on land and also installed plant and machinery. The plant and machinery does not belong to assessee but to P&G. Reimbursement of expenses is also made by P&G. The assessee is working for P&G, not for anybody else. These factors clearly show that the assessee is just an operator

MS MAPAEX REMEDIES PVT LTD,BHOPAL vs. ACIT 2 (1) BHOPAL, BHOPAL MADHYA PRADESH

Appeals are dismissed

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyani

price. P&G has constructed factory building on land and also installed plant and machinery. The plant and machinery does not belong to assessee but to P&G. Reimbursement of expenses is also made by P&G. The assessee is working for P&G, not for anybody else. These factors clearly show that the assessee is just an operator

MS MAPAEX REMEDIES PVT LTD,BHOPAL vs. ACIT 2 (1) BHOPAL, BHOPAL

Appeals are dismissed

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyani

price. P&G has constructed factory building on land and also installed plant and machinery. The plant and machinery does not belong to assessee but to P&G. Reimbursement of expenses is also made by P&G. The assessee is working for P&G, not for anybody else. These factors clearly show that the assessee is just an operator

MAPAEX REMEDIES PVT LTD ,BHOPAL vs. THE DCIT -2- (1), BHOPAL , BHOPAL

Appeals are dismissed

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyani

price. P&G has constructed factory building on land and also installed plant and machinery. The plant and machinery does not belong to assessee but to P&G. Reimbursement of expenses is also made by P&G. The assessee is working for P&G, not for anybody else. These factors clearly show that the assessee is just an operator

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, 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