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 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. 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

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

HARPREET KAUR,BHOPAL vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, 5(2), BHOPAL, BHOPAL

Appeal is allowed in terms mentioned above

Transfer 05/02/09) Rs.1321000/-\nSale Value U/s 50C\nRs.1321000/-\nFull Value of consideration\nRs.1321000/-\nSale Expenses\nRs.25000/-\nNet Sale Consideration\nRs.1296000/-\nAcquisition Cost (2004-05) after indexation - Rs.166583 * 582/480 =\nRs.201982/-\nBalance\nRs.1094018/-\nExemption u/s 54 =\nRs.10,50,000/-\nNet LTCG =\nRs.44018/-\nTotal LTCG other than Securities(General)\nIncome from Capital Gain Rs.44018/-\n2.4 However, having gone through the sale deed

KALPANA JAIN,INDORE vs. THE PR CIT-1, INDORE

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

54 of Rs. 7,64,00,000/-. It is noted that you have exchanged an immovable property owned by you admeasuring 675 Sq. meter with construction of 1500 Sq Feet. The value of the property is Rs. 7,64,00,000/-. You have exchanged the same with the immovable property of Shri Hassanand Khemlani. The value of the property exchanged

HASSANAND KHEMLANI,INDORE vs. THE PCIT-1 ,INDORE, INDORE

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

54 of Rs. 7,64,00,000/-. It is noted that you have exchanged an immovable property owned by you admeasuring 675 Sq. meter with construction of 1500 Sq Feet. The value of the property is Rs. 7,64,00,000/-. You have exchanged the same with the immovable property of Shri Hassanand Khemlani. The value of the property exchanged

DCIT-4(1), INDORE vs. M/S. YAKSHA INFRASTRUCTURE COM. PVT. LTD., TALOJA, RAIGARH

Appeal is dismissed

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

54,71,970/- under Section 68 of the Act relates to the transaction with the above-mentioned 3 companies. 14. We have heard the rival submissions made by the respective parties and we have also perused the relevant materials available on record. ITA Nos. 290 & 460/Ind/2019 [M/s. Yaksha Infrastructure Co. P. Ltd.] Asst.Year.– 2011-12 - 11 - 15. Before the First

YAKSHA INFRASTRUCTURE COMPANY (P) LTD. (FORMERLY KNOWN FROLIC REALTY (P) LTD.),MUMBAI vs. DCIT-3(1) , INDORE

Appeal is dismissed

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

54,71,970/- under Section 68 of the Act relates to the transaction with the above-mentioned 3 companies. 14. We have heard the rival submissions made by the respective parties and we have also perused the relevant materials available on record. ITA Nos. 290 & 460/Ind/2019 [M/s. Yaksha Infrastructure Co. P. Ltd.] Asst.Year.– 2011-12 - 11 - 15. Before the First

S GANDHI JEWELLERY PRIVATE LIMITED,INDORE vs. PCIT-1, INDORE, INDORE

Appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri B.M. Biyani & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinhaassessment Year: 2017-18 S. Gandhi Jewellery Pcit-1, Private Limited, Indore C/O Adv. Hitesh Chimnani, बनाम/ Ug-37 Trade Centre, Vs. 18, South Tukoganj, Indore (Assessee/Appellant) (Revenue/Respondent) Pan: Aamcs1613G Assessee By Shri Hitesh Chimnani, Ar Revenue By Shri Ram Kumar Yadav, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 10.02.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 21.02.2025

54,55-79,80,81,82-83,84,85, 86-91 of the paper book). 3. The Ld. PCIT failed to conduct any independent enquiry on his part to demonstrate the error in the judgement of the Id. AO. He simply tried to brush aside the view taken by the Id. AO and set aside the case for de-novo

M/S RANA & JOSHI BUILDTECH P LTD,INDORE vs. THE PCIT-1, BHOPAL

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyanim/S. Rana & Joshi Buildtech Pr. Cit-1 Pvt. Ltd. Bhopal (Formerly Known As M/S Rana Buildtech Pvt. Ltd. ) Vs. 218 Civil Lines, Below Dainik Bhaskar Office Vidisha (Appellant / Assessee) (Respondent/ Revenue) Pan: Aafcr9858P Assessee By Shri S.N. Agrawal Ar Revenue By Shri Ram Kumar Yadav, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing 11.09.2024 Date Of Pronouncement 26 .09.2024

Transfer Pricing Officer, as the case may be,] had been the subject matter of any appeal "[filed on or before or after the 1st day of June, 198810], the powers of the [Principal Commissioner or] Commissioner under this sub- section shall extend "[and shall be deemed always to have extended] to such matters as had not been considered and decided

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

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, INDORE vs. COMMANDER INDUSTRIES PRIVATE LIMITED, INDORE

In the result, the appeal of the revenue and CO of assessee are dismissed

price (payable either in cash or in shares or otherwise) which is in excess of the value of the net assets of the business taken over, the excess id termed as 'goodwill'. Goodwill arises from business connections, trade name or reputation of an enterprise or from other intangible benefits enjoyed by an enterprise.\"\n18.It is also relevant to note that

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

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyanim/S Vodafone Idea Ltd. Cit (Tds), बनाम/ (Formerly M/S Idea Bhopal Vs. Cellular Ltd.), 139-140, Electronics Complex, Pardeshipura, Indore (Assessee/Appellant) (Revenue/Respondent) M/S Vodafone Idea Ltd. Dcit/Jcit (Tds), बनाम/ (Formerly M/S Idea Indore Vs. Cellular Ltd.), 139-140, Electronics Complex, Pardeshipura, Indore (Assessee/Appellant) (Revenue/Respondent)

Section 194J read with clause (b) of the Explanation to Section 194J of the Income Tax Act, 1961, [`Act', for short] which, inter alia, states that "fees for technical services" shall have the same meaning as contained in Explanation 2 to clause (vii) of Section 9(1) of the Act. Right from 1979 various judgments of the High Courts

IDEA CELLULAR LIMITED,INDORE vs. DCIT TDS, INDORE

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyanim/S Vodafone Idea Ltd. Cit (Tds), बनाम/ (Formerly M/S Idea Bhopal Vs. Cellular Ltd.), 139-140, Electronics Complex, Pardeshipura, Indore (Assessee/Appellant) (Revenue/Respondent) M/S Vodafone Idea Ltd. Dcit/Jcit (Tds), बनाम/ (Formerly M/S Idea Indore Vs. Cellular Ltd.), 139-140, Electronics Complex, Pardeshipura, Indore (Assessee/Appellant) (Revenue/Respondent)

Section 194J read with clause (b) of the Explanation to Section 194J of the Income Tax Act, 1961, [`Act', for short] which, inter alia, states that "fees for technical services" shall have the same meaning as contained in Explanation 2 to clause (vii) of Section 9(1) of the Act. Right from 1979 various judgments of the High Courts