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 92(1) of the Act states that – “Any income arising from an international transaction shall be computed having regard to the arm’s length price…” Further, Sec 92C (1) of the Act states that – “The arm’s length price in relation to an international transaction or specified domestic transaction shall be determined by any of the following methods, being

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

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

Section 92(1) of the Act states that – “Any income arising from an international transaction shall be computed having regard to the arm’s length price…” Further, Sec 92C (1) of the Act states that – “The arm’s length price in relation to an international transaction or specified domestic transaction shall be determined by any of the following methods, being

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

THE ACIT, - 4(1), INDORE vs. M/S. YASH TECHNOLOGIES PVT. LTD., INDORE

In the result appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Hon'Ble Kul Bharat & Hon'Ble Manish Boradassessment Year 2014-15 Pan : Aaacy1868M

transfer provisions could apply if the aggregate of such transactions entered into by the assessee in the previous year exceeds a sum of Rs.5 crores. But in the instant case the specified domestic pricing figure is Rs.3,46,13,572/- which is less than Rs.5 crores hence the provision of Section 92BA of the Act does not apply

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

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 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

SMT. CHANDRAVATI KAITHWAS,BHOPAL vs. THE ITO-1(1), BHOPAL

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Boradassessment Year: 2008-09

54 of the Act in respect of the long term capital gain which they had earned in pursuance of transfer of their residential property being House No. 267, Sector 9-C, situated in Chandigarh and used for purchase of a new asset/residential house.” 10. In the present case also, the assessee could not have executed the sale deed without clearing

SHRI ASHOK KUMAR KAITHWAS,BHOPAL vs. THE ITO-1(1), BHOPAL

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Boradassessment Year: 2008-09

54 of the Act in respect of the long term capital gain which they had earned in pursuance of transfer of their residential property being House No. 267, Sector 9-C, situated in Chandigarh and used for purchase of a new asset/residential house.” 10. In the present case also, the assessee could not have executed the sale deed without clearing

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

price was not utilized for construction of a house, but was deposited in private banks. The Court held that the assessee has to construct or purchase a house property. Wordings of section 54 itself make it clear that the law does not insist that sale consideration should Shri Sushil Kumar Bafna, Ujjain v. ITO-1(1) /I.T.A. No. 637/Ind/2014/A.Y

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

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

transfer pricing study. 4.5 conducting fresh search by rejecting the objections raised by the appellant in relation to selection/rejection/modification of filters or inconsistency in application of filter/s. 4.6 using information obtained under section 133(6) of the Act. 4.7 Considering companies as comparable to the appellant despite such companies failing test of comparability or failure of TPO’s own filer

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

transfer pricing study. 4.5 conducting fresh search by rejecting the objections raised by the appellant in relation to selection/rejection/modification of filters or inconsistency in application of filter/s. 4.6 using information obtained under section 133(6) of the Act. 4.7 Considering companies as comparable to the appellant despite such companies failing test of comparability or failure of TPO’s own filer

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

transfer pricing study. 4.5 conducting fresh search by rejecting the objections raised by the appellant in relation to selection/rejection/modification of filters or inconsistency in application of filter/s. 4.6 using information obtained under section 133(6) of the Act. 4.7 Considering companies as comparable to the appellant despite such companies failing test of comparability or failure of TPO’s own filer

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 risk which is the most significant risk in the real estate business. As per this clause, the w to strictly adhere to the payment schedule, failing which the entire amount onus is on the buyer to . already paid, was liable to be forefeited. Thus, there was no significant uncertainty regarding the amount of consideration to be received

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

Appeals are allowed

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

54 of this Act or as per section 53A known as part performance. However Section 17(1A) of the Registration Act, 1908, makes it clear that w.e.f. 24.09.2001, if an agreement for transfer of an immovable property for consideration is not registered under the Registration Act, it shall have no effect for the purpose of section 53A of the Transfer

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

Appeals are allowed

54 of this Act or as per section 53A known as part performance.\nHowever Section 17(1A) of the Registration Act, 1908, makes it clear that w.e.f.\n24.09.2001, if an agreement for transfer of an immovable property for\nconsideration is not registered under the Registration Act, it shall have no effect\nfor the purpose of section 53A of the Transfer