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

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

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

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

3) and submitted that where taxpayers determines arm’s length price in accordance with rules and substantiated the same with prescribed documentation and data used for determining of arm’s length price is reliable and correct then there can be no intervention by the AO. The assessing officer may intervene only if he is, on the basis of material

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

3 of 2016 "For administrating the transfer pricing regime in an efficient manner, it is clarified that though A.O power under section 92C

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 Pricing Study Report (in short TPSR), the assessee adopted Cost Plus Method (CPM) as the most appropriate method with GP margin as the appropriate Profit Level Indicator (PLI). It carried out analysis for identification of comparable transactions for the export of finished goods under similar conditions with unrelated entities and such segments were separately identifiable; the assessee considered

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 Pricing Study Report (in short TPSR), the assessee adopted Cost Plus Method (CPM) as the most appropriate method with GP margin as the appropriate Profit Level Indicator (PLI). It carried out analysis for identification of comparable transactions for the export of finished goods under similar conditions with unrelated entities and such segments were separately identifiable; the assessee considered

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 Pricing Study Report (in short TPSR), the assessee adopted Cost Plus Method (CPM) as the most appropriate method with GP margin as the appropriate Profit Level Indicator (PLI). It carried out analysis for identification of comparable transactions for the export of finished goods under similar conditions with unrelated entities and such segments were separately identifiable; the assessee considered

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 Pricing Study Report (in short TPSR), the assessee adopted Cost Plus Method (CPM) as the most appropriate method with GP margin as the appropriate Profit Level Indicator (PLI). It carried out analysis for identification of comparable transactions for the export of finished goods under similar conditions with unrelated entities and such segments were separately identifiable; the assessee considered

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

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. 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. 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 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. 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

3. The Specified Domestic Transactions carried out by assessee company with parties covered u/s 40A(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

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