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

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

69 of 127 the assessee was incorrect. In the light of aforesaid discussion, we find that the ld. CIT(A) has deleted the adjustment made by the ld. TPO mainly on the following grounds :- as mentioned in para 5.5 of CIT(A)’s order as under :- “5.5 In view of aforesaid discussion, I hold that artificial division of long term

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

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

69 of 127 the assessee was incorrect. In the light of aforesaid discussion, we find that the ld. CIT(A) has deleted the adjustment made by the ld. TPO mainly on the following grounds :- as mentioned in para 5.5 of CIT(A)’s order as under :- “5.5 In view of aforesaid discussion, I hold that artificial division of long term

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

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

69 of 127 the assessee was incorrect. In the light of aforesaid discussion, we find that the ld. CIT(A) has deleted the adjustment made by the ld. TPO mainly on the following grounds :- as mentioned in para 5.5 of CIT(A)’s order as under :- “5.5 In view of aforesaid discussion, I hold that artificial division of long term

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

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

69 of 127 the assessee was incorrect. In the light of aforesaid discussion, we find that the ld. CIT(A) has deleted the adjustment made by the ld. TPO mainly on the following grounds :- as mentioned in para 5.5 of CIT(A)’s order as under :- “5.5 In view of aforesaid discussion, I hold that artificial division of long term

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

section 14A, whereas, no expenditure was in fact incurred by the assessee towards earning such income. 25. The ld. AO has erred in computing interest u/s 234B of the Act on the assessed income since the addition to the returned income on account of Transfer Pricing adjustment is only a notional income and not actual earned income. 26. The appellant

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

transfer for limited right to use and they are composite payment of royalty which is also covered by section 9(1)(vi) and section 9(1)(vii)of the Act as well as under India- Austria Tax Treaty on which TDS was not made hence, the AO has rightly disallowed the same under section

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

transfer for limited right to use and they are composite payment of royalty which is also covered by section 9(1)(vi) and section 9(1)(vii)of the Act as well as under India- Austria Tax Treaty on which TDS was not made hence, the AO has rightly disallowed the same under section

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

transfer for limited right to use and they are composite payment of royalty which is also covered by section 9(1)(vi) and section 9(1)(vii)of the Act as well as under India- Austria Tax Treaty on which TDS was not made hence, the AO has rightly disallowed the same under section

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

transfer for limited right to use and they are composite payment of royalty which is also covered by section 9(1)(vi) and section 9(1)(vii)of the Act as well as under India- Austria Tax Treaty on which TDS was not made hence, the AO has rightly disallowed the same under section

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

69 of the paper book. The purchase and sales registers were also submitted in the form of the paper book which is placed at pages 76 to 87. The Board resolution passed by the company for the transactions in CO Nos.2 to 4/Ind/2022 commodity was placed at page 88 of the paper book. On the other hand

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

69 of the paper book. The purchase and sales registers were also submitted in the form of the paper book which is placed at pages 76 to 87. The Board resolution passed by the company for the transactions in CO Nos.2 to 4/Ind/2022 commodity was placed at page 88 of the paper book. On the other hand

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

69 of the paper book. The purchase and sales registers were also submitted in the form of the paper book which is placed at pages 76 to 87. The Board resolution passed by the company for the transactions in CO Nos.2 to 4/Ind/2022 commodity was placed at page 88 of the paper book. On the other hand

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

69,70,505, Ld. CIT(A) restricted this addition to Rs. 8,47,694 and relief of Rs. 61,22,811 was granted. Department is not in appeal against this relief granted by the Ld. CIT(A). [PB 117] 12. Ld. Pr. CIT(Central), Bhopal erred in not considering the submissions made by the assessee and proceeded to allege that

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

69,70,505, Ld. CIT(A) restricted this addition to Rs. 8,47,694 and relief of Rs. 61,22,811 was granted. Department is not in appeal against this relief granted by the Ld. CIT(A). [PB 117] 12. Ld. Pr. CIT(Central), Bhopal erred in not considering the submissions made by the assessee and proceeded to allege that

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 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

69,26,963/- 56,92,209/- 16,12,34,754/- F.Y. 2012-13 12,68,81,842/- 43,26,671/- 12,25,55,171/- Total 29,38,08,805/- 1,00,18,880/- 28,37,89,925/- 8. Income assessed accordingly after making addition of Rs.16,12,34,754/-. 9. Aggrieved assessee filed appeal before Ld. CIT(A) against

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

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 encroachment. For clearing encroachment, assessee had approached the [ITA 506 & 508/Ind/2016] [Smt. Chandravati Kaithwas & Shri Ashok Kumar Kaithwas, Bhopal