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

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

2. The ld. AO and Hon'ble DRP Members have erred in law and facts by upholding the action of the Ld. TPO wherein the Ld. TPO has erred in law and in facts, for not providing any reasons for disregarding the assessee’s approach of determining the arm’s length price at an entity level in the Transfer Pricing

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

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

Section 92C (4) of the Act. The submission was not found acceptable due to the reasons given in detail in the orders of TPO giving detailed working of Arm’s length adjustment in respect of Coal Purchase from its AE and the AO made the additions to the total income on account of the adjustments in the arm’s length

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 92C (4) of the Act. The submission was not found acceptable due to the reasons given in detail in the orders of TPO giving detailed working of Arm’s length adjustment in respect of Coal Purchase from its AE and the AO made the additions to the total income on account of the adjustments in the arm’s length

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

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

Section 92C (4) of the Act. The submission was not found acceptable due to the reasons given in detail in the orders of TPO giving detailed working of Arm’s length adjustment in respect of Coal Purchase from its AE and the AO made the additions to the total income on account of the adjustments in the arm’s length

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

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

Section 92C (4) of the Act. The submission was not found acceptable due to the reasons given in detail in the orders of TPO giving detailed working of Arm’s length adjustment in respect of Coal Purchase from its AE and the AO made the additions to the total income on account of the adjustments in the arm’s length

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

2) of section 92C, the arm's length price in relation to an international transaction [or a specified domestic transaction] shall be determined by any of the following methods, being the most appropriate method, in the following manner, namely :— (a) comparable uncontrolled price method, by which,— (i) the price charged or paid for property transferred

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

2 for both assessment year relates to adjustment of Rs. 43,11,705/- (A.Y.:10-11) & Rs. 17,71,095/- (A.Y.:11-12) made by the TPO in respect of transactions relating to “Contract revenue from Projects” 2.1. Succinctly, the facts as culled out from the order of the lower authorities are that as per Transfer Pricing Study Report

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

2 for both assessment year relates to adjustment of Rs. 43,11,705/- (A.Y.:10-11) & Rs. 17,71,095/- (A.Y.:11-12) made by the TPO in respect of transactions relating to “Contract revenue from Projects” 2.1. Succinctly, the facts as culled out from the order of the lower authorities are that as per Transfer Pricing Study Report

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

2 for both assessment year relates to adjustment of Rs. 43,11,705/- (A.Y.:10-11) & Rs. 17,71,095/- (A.Y.:11-12) made by the TPO in respect of transactions relating to “Contract revenue from Projects” 2.1. Succinctly, the facts as culled out from the order of the lower authorities are that as per Transfer Pricing Study Report

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

2 for both assessment year relates to adjustment of Rs. 43,11,705/- (A.Y.:10-11) & Rs. 17,71,095/- (A.Y.:11-12) made by the TPO in respect of transactions relating to “Contract revenue from Projects” 2.1. Succinctly, the facts as culled out from the order of the lower authorities are that as per Transfer Pricing Study Report

CUMMINS TECHNOLOGIES INDIA (P) LTD.,DEWAS vs. ACIT CIRCLE 1(1), UJJAIN

In the result, the appeal of the assesse is allowed

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyanicommins Technologies India Acit, Circle -1(1) Private Limited Ujjain Vs. Industrial Area No.2, A.B. Road, M.P. (Appellant / Assessee) (Revenue) Pan: Aabct2018B Assessee By Shri Ketan Ved & Pinkesh Vakharia Ars Revenue By Ms. Simran Bhullar, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing 29.11.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 30.11.2023

92C(3) of the Act and still made adjustments to the arm's length price determined by the Assessee. 7. Inappropriate disallowance of claim of INR 72,992/- under section 10AA Page 4 of 22 Cummins Technologies India P. ltd. Page 5 of 22 7.1 On the facts and in circumstances of the case and in law, the learned

THE ACIT, - 4(1), INDORE vs. M/S. YASH TECHNOLOGIES PVT. LTD., INDORE

In the result appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Hon'Ble Kul Bharat & Hon'Ble Manish Boradassessment Year 2014-15 Pan : Aaacy1868M

2,07,68,143/- alleged to have been wrongly claimed by the assessee as part of Non SEZ units. Brief facts relating to this ground are that the Ld. A.O observed that a sum of Rs.. 71,74,65,462/- is debited as salary and wages in the Profit & Loss Account of non SEZ units while the corresponding figures

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 study. 4.5 conducting fresh search by rejecting the objections raised by the appellant in relation to selection/rejection/modification of filters or inconsistency in application of filter/s. 4.6 using information obtained under section 133(6) of the Act. 4.7 Considering companies as comparable to the appellant despite such companies failing test of comparability or failure of TPO’s own filer

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 study. 4.5 conducting fresh search by rejecting the objections raised by the appellant in relation to selection/rejection/modification of filters or inconsistency in application of filter/s. 4.6 using information obtained under section 133(6) of the Act. 4.7 Considering companies as comparable to the appellant despite such companies failing test of comparability or failure of TPO’s own filer

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 study. 4.5 conducting fresh search by rejecting the objections raised by the appellant in relation to selection/rejection/modification of filters or inconsistency in application of filter/s. 4.6 using information obtained under section 133(6) of the Act. 4.7 Considering companies as comparable to the appellant despite such companies failing test of comparability or failure of TPO’s own filer

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

2)(b) are – a. ARKA Carbon Fuels Private Limited: Major transaction has been carried out with this associate enterprise. This company has been subject to assessment by jurisdictional 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

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