THE DCIT1(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

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

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

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 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

92 TTJ 74(Mum). The DRP observed that Australian Company provided complete design, drawing and the assessee has not purchased designs & drawings but only agreed to right to use it under license. Therefore, the assessee was liable to deduct TDS u/s. 195 of the Act. Since, the assessee has not deducted TDS, provisions of section 40(a) (ia) are attracted

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

92 TTJ 74(Mum). The DRP observed that Australian Company provided complete design, drawing and the assessee has not purchased designs & drawings but only agreed to right to use it under license. Therefore, the assessee was liable to deduct TDS u/s. 195 of the Act. Since, the assessee has not deducted TDS, provisions of section 40(a) (ia) are attracted

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

92 TTJ 74(Mum). The DRP observed that Australian Company provided complete design, drawing and the assessee has not purchased designs & drawings but only agreed to right to use it under license. Therefore, the assessee was liable to deduct TDS u/s. 195 of the Act. Since, the assessee has not deducted TDS, provisions of section 40(a) (ia) are attracted

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

92 TTJ 74(Mum). The DRP observed that Australian Company provided complete design, drawing and the assessee has not purchased designs & drawings but only agreed to right to use it under license. Therefore, the assessee was liable to deduct TDS u/s. 195 of the Act. Since, the assessee has not deducted TDS, provisions of section 40(a) (ia) are attracted

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 2 of his order dated 11.09.2017 u/s. 92CA (3) of the Act with a clear finding that the Specified Domestic Transaction has been reported in Form 3CEB, as reproduced below. [Page 12 to 14] :- “The details of International Transaction in term of Section 92B and Specified Domestic transactions in terms of Section 92BA

M/S. SWASTIK COAL CORPORATION PVT. LTD.,INDORE vs. THE ACIT, 5(1), INDORE

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

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Boradassessment Year: 2014-15

transfer pricing officer at Ahmedabad. Form 3CEB was submitted. Ld. TPO was satisfied with the transactions undertaken by ARKA Carbon Fules Private Limited. A “no adjustment required in arm’s length price” order was passed. [PB 44-46] b. Shree Ganpatlal Onkarlal Agrawal and Company: It is a partnership firm. On reference to the return filed for the impugned

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

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 the method and Ld.CIT

M/S RUCHI J OIL PVT LTD ,MUMBAI vs. PCIT(A)UJJAIN, UJJAIN

In the result appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

Transfer Pricing Officer (In short ‘ Ld.TPO”) u/s 92CA(1) of the Act for the computation of arms length price. Ld. TPO called for the necessary information after issuing notice u/s 92CA(2) of the Act and was of the view that no adjustment is required to be made to the arms length price of the transaction. After receiving the order

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

92,330/-. The assessee along with his wife and son have sold a piece of land admeasuring 3.607 hectares situated at R.G. Survey No. 1634, Ujjain on 22.03.2010 for a sale consideration of Rs.2,25,00,000 in which assessee`s share of consideration was at Rs.1,12,50,000. The assessee has claimed cost of indexation at Shri Sushil

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

SHRI RAJYAVARDHAN SINGH,INDORE vs. THE ACIT CIRCLE 5(1), INDORE

In the result, both the appeal of assessee in ITANo

Bench: Hon'Ble Kul Bharat & And Hon'Ble Manish Borad

price of Rs. 27.00 crs. In respect of the immovable property. 4. During the re-assessment proceedings, the Appellant's counsel was permitted to cross-examine Shri Navin Malde. Copy of his statement is at pp. 25-29 of the PB. He denied and contradicted the averments made by him at the statement recorded on 28-02-2014. 5.The