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

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

transfer pricing adjustment of Rs. 9, 73, 14,004/- made by TPO is hereby deleted.” M/s. Agrawal Coal Corporation vs. DCIT and DCIT Vs. Agrawal Coal Corporation T.P.A. Nos.601 & 602/Ind/2015 and 607 & 622/Ind/2015/A.Y.2009-10 & 10-11Page 74 of 127 2.5.9. We have given our careful thoughts to above findings and fully subscribe the same. In the light of the above

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 adjustment of Rs. 9, 73, 14,004/- made by TPO is hereby deleted.” M/s. Agrawal Coal Corporation vs. DCIT and DCIT Vs. Agrawal Coal Corporation T.P.A. Nos.601 & 602/Ind/2015 and 607 & 622/Ind/2015/A.Y.2009-10 & 10-11Page 74 of 127 2.5.9. We have given our careful thoughts to above findings and fully subscribe the same. In the light of the above

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

91, Property Quip corporation Ltd. 255 ITR 354, Associated Cement Corporation (2001) 124 STC 59, Citizen Watch Company Ltd. 148 ITR 774 etc. as per submission made before the TPO in support of his contention. 6.4. The Ld. D.R. relaying on the orders of the TPO/ DRP submitted that ITAT order

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

91, Property Quip corporation Ltd. 255 ITR 354, Associated Cement Corporation (2001) 124 STC 59, Citizen Watch Company Ltd. 148 ITR 774 etc. as per submission made before the TPO in support of his contention. 6.4. The Ld. D.R. relaying on the orders of the TPO/ DRP submitted that ITAT order

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

91, Property Quip corporation Ltd. 255 ITR 354, Associated Cement Corporation (2001) 124 STC 59, Citizen Watch Company Ltd. 148 ITR 774 etc. as per submission made before the TPO in support of his contention. 6.4. The Ld. D.R. relaying on the orders of the TPO/ DRP submitted that ITAT order

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

91, Property Quip corporation Ltd. 255 ITR 354, Associated Cement Corporation (2001) 124 STC 59, Citizen Watch Company Ltd. 148 ITR 774 etc. as per submission made before the TPO in support of his contention. 6.4. The Ld. D.R. relaying on the orders of the TPO/ DRP submitted that ITAT order

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

Transfer pricing proceedings of subsequent year i.e. AY 2016-17 has also been since completed by the TP0-2, Ahemdabad, where-in the CUP method adopted by the appellant company has been accepted as the most appropriate method. Copy of the order passed by the TPO for AY’s 2013- 14, 2014-15 and 2016-17 is enclosed at page

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

Transfer pricing proceedings of subsequent year i.e. AY 2016-17 has also been since completed by the TP0-2, Ahemdabad, where-in the CUP method adopted by the appellant company has been accepted as the most appropriate method. Copy of the order passed by the TPO for AY’s 2013- 14, 2014-15 and 2016-17 is enclosed at page

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

Transfer pricing proceedings of subsequent year i.e. AY 2016-17 has also been since completed by the TP0-2, Ahemdabad, where-in the CUP method adopted by the appellant company has been accepted as the most appropriate method. Copy of the order passed by the TPO for AY’s 2013- 14, 2014-15 and 2016-17 is enclosed at page

THE DCIT-3(1), INDORE vs. KUMARI SHEETAL GARG, INDORE

In the result Ground No. 1& 2 of the

Bench: Hon'Ble Kul Bharat & Hon'Ble Manish Boradassessment Year 2008-09 Dcit-3(1), Kumari Sheetal Garg, Indore Vs. 8/2, New Palasia, Indore (Appellant) (Respondent ) Pan No.Afhpg9179G Revenue By Shri K.C. Selvamani, Sr.Dr Assessee By Shri S.S. Solanki, Ca Date Of Hearing 07.01.2019 Date Of Pronouncement 10.01.2019 O R D E R

price than that is mentioned in Agreement with the assessee. 3. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case Ld. CIT(A) has erred in holding that reopening is not valid while the copy of agreement dated 14.12.2006 was not submitted by assessee during the course of assessment proceedings hence, the facts of the agreement

M/S ANDRITZ HYDRO PRIVATE LIMITED,BHOPAL vs. THE DCIT CIRCLE 1(1), BHOPAL

In the result, appeal of assessee is allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyanim/S. Andritz Hydro Private Dcit Circe 1(1) Ltd. Bhopal Vs. D-17, Mpakvn Industrial Area, Mandideep Raisen (Appellant / Assessee) (Respondent/ Revenue) Pan: Aabcv 2466 R Assessee By Shri Rahul, Kaul Ar Revenue By Shri P.K. Mishra, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing 13.06.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 28.08.2023

section 92D(1) and rules made thereunder or the information or data used in computation of arm’s length price is not reliable or correct. A similar explanation has been provided by the CBDT in circular no.12 dated 23rd August 2001. Thus, the Ld. AR has submitted as per the circular issued by the CBDT the TPO was bound

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) on page no.2 of its order u/s 92CA(3) of the Act had mentioned that the details of International Transaction in term of section 92B and Specified Domestic Transaction in terms of section 92BA of the Act between the assessee and its Associate Enterprise are given in form 3CEB. Further, the AO has also mentioned

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 Officer has followed the well searched formula and the data that simple year should have been taken into account. The Ld. DR submitted that the TPO has taken cognisance of the depreciation adjustment and relied upon the order of the TPO and the Assessing Officer. 11. We have heard both the parties and perused all the relevant material

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 Officer has followed the well searched formula and the data that simple year should have been taken into account. The Ld. DR submitted that the TPO has taken cognisance of the depreciation adjustment and relied upon the order of the TPO and the Assessing Officer. 11. We have heard both the parties and perused all the relevant material

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 Officer has followed the well searched formula and the data that simple year should have been taken into account. The Ld. DR submitted that the TPO has taken cognisance of the depreciation adjustment and relied upon the order of the TPO and the Assessing Officer. 11. We have heard both the parties and perused all the relevant material

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