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

section 271(1)(c) of the Act against The Appellant. 7. Erred in giving short credit of tax deducted at source of INR 26,920. The above grounds are independent and without prejudice, to each other unless mentioned specifically. T.P.A. No. 316/Ind/2016:A.Y. 2011-12 Transfer Pricing

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

section 271(1)(c) of the Act against The Appellant. 7. Erred in giving short credit of tax deducted at source of INR 26,920. The above grounds are independent and without prejudice, to each other unless mentioned specifically. T.P.A. No. 316/Ind/2016:A.Y. 2011-12 Transfer Pricing

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

section 271(1)(c) of the Act against The Appellant. 7. Erred in giving short credit of tax deducted at source of INR 26,920. The above grounds are independent and without prejudice, to each other unless mentioned specifically. T.P.A. No. 316/Ind/2016:A.Y. 2011-12 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

920/- as against the returned income of Rs.156,44,35,848/- filed by the appellant. The grounds of the appellant against the action of the ld. AO are as follows : 1. on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law the assessment order passed by the ld AO under Section 143(3) read with Section 144C

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

920/- as against the returned income of Rs.156,44,35,848/- filed by the appellant. The grounds of the appellant against the action of the ld. AO are as follows : 1. on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law the assessment order passed by the ld AO under Section 143(3) read with Section 144C

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

920/- as against the returned income of Rs.156,44,35,848/- filed by the appellant. The grounds of the appellant against the action of the ld. AO are as follows : 1. on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law the assessment order passed by the ld AO under Section 143(3) read with Section 144C

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX -5(1), INDORE vs. M/S SUNDERDEEP CONSTRUCTIONS PVT. LTD. , INDORE

In the result both the appeals of the revenue vide ITA No

Bench: Hon’Ble Kul Bharat & Hon’Ble Manish Borad

price. “The provision for warranty was recognized as the assessee had present obligation as a result of past events” whereas in the present case, the assessee had been comfortably debiting the expenses on actual basis from A.Y. 2008-09 to A.Y. 2012-13. The average cost on account of development charges @ Rs.78. 38/- per Sq.ft. was being reflected . But suddenly

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX -5(1), INDORE vs. M/S SUNDERDEEP CONSTRUCTIONS PVT. LTD. , INDORE

In the result both the appeals of the revenue vide ITA No

Bench: Hon’Ble Kul Bharat & Hon’Ble Manish Borad

price. “The provision for warranty was recognized as the assessee had present obligation as a result of past events” whereas in the present case, the assessee had been comfortably debiting the expenses on actual basis from A.Y. 2008-09 to A.Y. 2012-13. The average cost on account of development charges @ Rs.78. 38/- per Sq.ft. was being reflected . But suddenly

THE ACIT, CIRCLE 2(1), INDORE vs. DR. SHRI RAJEEV CHAUDHARY, INDORE

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is allowed and cross objection of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Hon'Ble I Kul Bharat & Hon'Ble Manish Boradassessment Year 2008-09 Pan : Abkpc5729K Assistant Commissioner Of V/S Dr.Rajeev Choudhary Income Tax, 1, Shiv Vilas Palace Circle-2(1), Indore Indore

price, without anything more, is consistent with the realization of capital investment and surplus received by the assessee will not be trading or business profit. 02. That the learned CIT(A) has confirmed the disallowance made by the learned AO of Rs. 2,15,542/- by invoking the provision of section 14A to be read with Rule

M/S. BHANDARI HOSPITAL AND RESEARCH CENTRE,INDORE vs. THE PR. CIT-1, INDORE

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Boradassessment Year: 2012-13 M/S Bhandari Hospital & Pr. Cit-(I) Research Centre, Gf-21 & Indore बनाम/ 22, Opp. Meghdoot Garden, Vs. Vijay Nagar, Indore (Appellant) (Revenue ) P.A. No.Aadfb8151A

920/- (c) Loans against Hundi 16,65,00,000/- " Total 23,61,18,930/- Then by filing an affidavit on 19.01.2012, the assessee has revised cash receipts to Rs. 6,21,25,1151- and claimed telescoping of this amount against Hundi Loans. So the amount offered was (a) Cash receipts Rs. 6,21,25,115/- (b) Survey credits

SMT. SARLA JAIN,KHANDWA vs. ITO WARD 1 KHANDWA, KHANDWA

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyaniassessment Year: 2015-16 Smt. Sarla Jain, Ito, C/O Nakoda Marketing, Ward-1, बनाम/ Bhavani Mata Road, Khandwa Khandwa Vs. (Assessee / Appellant) (Revenue / Respondent) Pan: Abvpj1316J Assessee By Shri Pawan Ved, Advocate Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 31.05.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 24.08.2023

920/-. The assessee has shown income from LIC commission & income from house property and also long term capital gain & same has been claimed as exempt u/s 10(38) of the I.T. Act. The case was selected for scrutiny under CASS and notice u/s 143(2) of the I. T. Act was issued on 25.07.2016 and the same was served upon