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

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

transfer pricing documentation and economic analysis contained therein, passed an order dt.30.01.2013 for assessment year 2009-10 and dt. 28.01.2014 for assessment year 2010-11 u/s 92CA(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, therein determining the Arm’s length price margin in respect of Coal purchased from its AE at Rs. 9,73,14,004/- for assessment year

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

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

transfer pricing documentation and economic analysis contained therein, passed an order dt.30.01.2013 for assessment year 2009-10 and dt. 28.01.2014 for assessment year 2010-11 u/s 92CA(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, therein determining the Arm’s length price margin in respect of Coal purchased from its AE at Rs. 9,73,14,004/- for assessment year

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 of the House. Thus, it is most humbly submitted that necessary directions be issued to the Ld. A.O. to compute the capital gain after allowing all the legitimate deductions as claimed by the appellant in the return of income. Now, the appellant is submitting the following documents in support of his explanation for deductions claimed while computing the chargeable

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 Officer (TPO). During proceeding, the TPO accepted (i) TNMM as ‘most appropriate method’, and (ii) OP/OC% as “PLI” for working of TNMM, as adopted by assessee. But he made certain modifications in the approach of assessee. He observed that the assessee-company was having 5 different units at different locations, namely (i) Bangalore Unit, (ii) Bangalore Strategic Business

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 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

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

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

73 point (iv) – registration u/s 12AA(3) Issues raised in show and 12AA(4). These issues cause notice not relevant to be examined in regular for cancellation of assessment proceedings. registration u/s 12AA(3). Registration granted u/s These issues to be 12AA can be cancelled only examined in regular if it is found that the assessment proceedings. activities

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

73 point (iv) – registration u/s 12AA(3) Issues raised in show and 12AA(4). These issues cause notice not relevant to be examined in regular for cancellation of assessment proceedings. registration u/s 12AA(3). Registration granted u/s These issues to be 12AA can be cancelled only examined in regular if it is found that the assessment proceedings. activities

ACIT-2(1), UJJAIN, UJJAIN vs. M/S RUCHI J OIL PVT. LTD,, MUMBAI

In the result, Revenue’s appeal ITANo

Bench: Shri Mahavir Prasad & Shri Manish Boradvirtual Hearing Assessment Year: 2014-15

Transfer Pricing Officer (TPO) and stated that the TPO has considered purchase of undertaking by way of slump sale from Ruchi Soya Industries Ltd. as a Specified Domestic Transaction. ii) Thereafter, in para 5.5.2 of the order the AO stated “Therefore, the order of Ld. TPO u/s 92CA as regards valuation of the above transaction and the categorization

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

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

73,24,897/-. The case was selected for scrutiny and notice under Section 143(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 was issued to the assessee on 01.08.2012 which was duly served to the assessee. The case was referred to the Transfer Pricing

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

73,24,897/-. The case was selected for scrutiny and notice under Section 143(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 was issued to the assessee on 01.08.2012 which was duly served to the assessee. The case was referred to the Transfer Pricing

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

73,24,897/-. The case was selected for scrutiny and notice under Section 143(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 was issued to the assessee on 01.08.2012 which was duly served to the assessee. The case was referred to the Transfer Pricing

M/S ANDRITZ HYDRO PRIVATE LIMITED,BHOPAL vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-1 (1), BHOPAL

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Borad

73,99,730/-. Subsequently, this assessment was revised by the Ld. PCIT Bhopal vide his order dated 29.12.2015, thereby the Ld. PCIT referred matter relating to the transfer pricing to the Transfer Pricing Officer (TPO). Thereafter, the A.O. passed a draft order on the basis of the recommendation of the TPO for transfer pricing adjustments. The A.O. on the basis

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

Appeals are allowed

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

section 80-IB(10), the entirety of project including development of infrastructure must be undertaken by assessee. According to Ld. DR, ‘entire project’ would mean development as a cohesive unit which includes the construction of houses with development of essential amenities. In the case of assessee, the buyers have first acquired ownership of plots from assessee through registered Sale-Deeds

M/S LIMAGRAIN INDIA PVT. LTD. ,SECUNDERABAD, HYDRABAD vs. N.F.A.C, DELHI

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyaniassessment Year: 2017-18 M/S.Limagrain India National Faceless Private Limited, Assessment Centre, H.No. 1-8-201 To 203, Delhi Ashoka My Home बनाम/ Chambers, Flat No. 208, 209, 2Nd Vs. Floor, S.P.Road, Secunderabad, Hyderabad (Assessee / Appellant) (Revenue / Respondent) Pan: Aaccb6862A Assessee By Shri Pankaj Sancheti, Ca Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 21.12.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 19.01.2024

Transfer Pricing Study Report [“TPSR”] of AEs and Copy of agreement. (ii) The “TPSR” dated 30.06.2015 submitted by assessee did not pertain to financial year 2016-17 relevant to AY 2017-18 under consideration. Further, in the “TPSR”, the benchmarking had been done by taking assessee’s foreign AE as tested party and using foreign database, this is faulty