DY. CIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(2), NAGPUR vs. GOPANI IRON AND POWER(INDIA) PVT. LTD., MUMBAI

In the result, all the grounds of appeal raised by revenue are rejected

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Shrikhettra Mohan Roy

4. The ld AR of the assessee submits that insertion of section 80A(6) was clarificatory in nature, it did not alter the substantive meaning of ‘market value’ as used in section 80IA(8), which continues to govern the basis of valuation of such transfers. The Hon’ble Supreme Court nowhere in the judgment suggests that the ratio laid down

DY. CIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(2), NAGPUR vs. GOPANI IRON AND POWER(INDIA) PVT. LTD., MUMBAI

In the result, all the grounds of appeal raised by revenue are rejected

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Shrikhettra Mohan Roy

4. The ld AR of the assessee submits that insertion of section 80A(6) was clarificatory in nature, it did not alter the substantive meaning of ‘market value’ as used in section 80IA(8), which continues to govern the basis of valuation of such transfers. The Hon’ble Supreme Court nowhere in the judgment suggests that the ratio laid down

DY. C.I.T. CIR-.5, NAGPUR vs. M/S AVANTHA HOLDINGS LTD.,, CHANDRAPUR

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed

transfer pricing proceedings has not been disputed either by the TPO or by the AO. From this credit rating it is apparent that the AE will not be in a position to derive any economic benefit out of it when it comes to getting the loan at a lower interest rate on the strength of higher credit rating

AVANTHA HOLDINGS LIMITED,NEW DELHI vs. A.C.I.T. CIR-5,, NAGPUR

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed

transfer pricing proceedings has not been disputed either by the TPO or by the AO. From this credit rating it is apparent that the AE will not be in a position to derive any economic benefit out of it when it comes to getting the loan at a lower interest rate on the strength of higher credit rating

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, NAGPUR vs. AVANTHA HOLDINGS LIMITED, CHANDRAPUR

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed

transfer pricing proceedings has not been disputed either\nby the TPO or by the AO. From this credit rating it is apparent that the AE will\nnot be in a position to derive any economic benefit out of it when it comes to\ngetting the loan at a lower interest rate on the strength of higher credit rating

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-4, NAGPUR vs. SHRI VIVEK VINAYAK VAIDYA, NAGPUR

In the result appeal of the Revenue is Dismissed

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr. Dipak P. Ripoteआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.33/Nag/2020 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2015-16 The Deputy Vivek Vinayak Vaidya, Commissioner Of Income V 46-B, Krushna Krupa Reat Tax, Circle-4, Nagpur. S Nag Road, Imamwada, Nagpur – 440003. Pan: Aakpv3808M Appellant/ Assessee Respondent/Revenue Assessee By Shri Mahavir Atal – Ca Revenue By Shri Rajat Singhal – Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing 22/09/2023 Date Of Pronouncement 22/11/2023

4 Vivek Vinayak Vaidya [R] 01.07.2017 from the Statute the resultant effect is that it had never been passed and to be considered as a law never been existed. Hence, decision taken by the Assessing Officer under the effect of section 92BI and reference made to the order of Transfer Pricing

SUNIL NARAYANDAS KHATOD ,AKOLA vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX -1, NAGPUR

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is Partly Allowed

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr. Dipak P. Ripoteआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.134/Nag/2019 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2014-15 Sunil Narayndas Khatod, The Commissioner Of Nagpuri Gin Compound, Vs Income Tax-1, Behind Old Cotton Market, Nagpur. Nagpur – 444001. Pan: Adepk3087C Appellant/ Assessee Respondent/Revenue Assessee By Shri Rajesh V.Loya – Ca Revenue By Shri Kailash G. Kanojiya – Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing 21/09/2023 Date Of Pronouncement 21/11/2023

Price of “Specified 6 Sunil Narayandas Khatod [A] Domestic Transactions”. The Section 92BA was amended by Finance Act, 2017, the pre-amended section 92BA as on 2014 is reproduced here under : 92BA. For the purposes of this section and sections 92, 92C, 92D and 92E, “specified domestic transaction” in case of an assessee means any of the following transactions

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(1), NAGPUR vs. M/S. RADHA RADHAV DEVELOPER, NAGPUR

In the result, all the six appeals preferred by the department are dismissed

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri K.M. Roy, Accountant, Member

transfer price audit report and other relevant evidence also. Further, after delivery, there is an unexplained expenditure in the hands of the appellant. This must be to suppress the turnover in the hands of Sufalam Infra Projects Pvt. Ltd. Sufalam Infra Projects Pvt. Ltd., was also subject to search proceeding u/s 132 of the IT Act, 1961 and assessment orders

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(1),NAGPUR, NAGPUR vs. M/S. RADHA MADHAV DEVELOPER, NAGPUR

In the result, all the six appeals preferred by the department are dismissed

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri K.M. Roy, Accountant, Member

transfer price audit report and other relevant evidence also. Further, after delivery, there is an unexplained expenditure in the hands of the appellant. This must be to suppress the turnover in the hands of Sufalam Infra Projects Pvt. Ltd. Sufalam Infra Projects Pvt. Ltd., was also subject to search proceeding u/s 132 of the IT Act, 1961 and assessment orders

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(1), NAGPUR vs. M/S. RADHA MADHAV DEVELOPER, NAGPUR

In the result, all the six appeals preferred by the department are dismissed

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri K.M. Roy, Accountant, Member

transfer price audit report and other relevant evidence also. Further, after delivery, there is an unexplained expenditure in the hands of the appellant. This must be to suppress the turnover in the hands of Sufalam Infra Projects Pvt. Ltd. Sufalam Infra Projects Pvt. Ltd., was also subject to search proceeding u/s 132 of the IT Act, 1961 and assessment orders

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(1), NAGPUR vs. M/S. RADHA MADHAV DEVELOPER , NAGPUR

In the result, all the six appeals preferred by the department are dismissed

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri K.M. Roy, Accountant, Member

transfer price audit report and other relevant evidence also. Further, after delivery, there is an unexplained expenditure in the hands of the appellant. This must be to suppress the turnover in the hands of Sufalam Infra Projects Pvt. Ltd. Sufalam Infra Projects Pvt. Ltd., was also subject to search proceeding u/s 132 of the IT Act, 1961 and assessment orders

ASSTT.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(1), NAGPUR vs. M/S RADHA MADHAV DEVELOPER, NAGPUR

In the result, all the six appeals preferred by the department are dismissed

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri K.M. Roy, Accountant, Member

transfer price audit report and other relevant evidence also. Further, after delivery, there is an unexplained expenditure in the hands of the appellant. This must be to suppress the turnover in the hands of Sufalam Infra Projects Pvt. Ltd. Sufalam Infra Projects Pvt. Ltd., was also subject to search proceeding u/s 132 of the IT Act, 1961 and assessment orders

ASSTT.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(1), NAGPUR vs. M/S RADHA MADHAV DEVELOPER, NAGPUR

In the result, all the six appeals preferred by the department are dismissed

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri K.M. Roy, Accountant, Member

transfer price audit report and other relevant evidence also. Further, after delivery, there is an unexplained expenditure in the hands of the appellant. This must be to suppress the turnover in the hands of Sufalam Infra Projects Pvt. Ltd. Sufalam Infra Projects Pvt. Ltd., was also subject to search proceeding u/s 132 of the IT Act, 1961 and assessment orders

PRITAM SINGH CHARAN SINGH GUJJAR,NAGPUR vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-4,, NAGPUR

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao

4), (5) and (6) of section 16A, clause (i) of sub- section (1) and sub-sections (6) and (7) of section 23A, sub-section (5) of section 24, section 34AA, section 35 and section 37 of the Wealth-tax Act, 1957 (27 of 1957), shall, with necessary modifications, apply in relation to such reference as they apply in relation

SUSHILA BHAURAO DESHMUKH,AMRAVATI vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-1, NAGPUR

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri V. Durgarao & Shrik.M. Roy, Accountant, Member

Transfer Pricing Officer, as the case may be,] shall be deemed to be erroneous in so far as it is prejudicial to the interests of the revenue, if, in the opinion of the Principal Chief Commissioner or Chief Commissioner or Principal Commissioner or Commissioner,— (a) the order is passed without making inquiries or verification which should have been made

SHUBHLAXMI LAND DEVELOPERS,NAGPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 4(5), NAGPUR

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao

4) of Section 43CA are satisfied in assessee’s case, and if so, whether the income has to be recomputed accordingly. In such circumstance, the Assessing Officer may furnish the revised computation of income under section 43CA of the Act. The assessee being aggrieved filed appeal before the learned first appellate authority. 9. The learned CIT(A) dismissed the appeal

JAGDISH KANHAIYALAL KHUSHALANI,NAGPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD - 2(3) NAGPUR, NAGPUR

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad

4), (5) and (6) of section 16A, clause (i) of sub-section (1) and sub-sections (6) and (7) of section 23A, sub-section (5) of section 24, section 34AA, section 35 and section 37 of the Wealth-tax Act, 1957 (27 of 1957), shall, with necessary modifications, apply in relation to such reference as they apply in relation

GAJANAND FINANCIAL CONSULTANCY PRIVATE LIMITED,NAGPUR vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (CENTRAL) NAGPUR, NAGPUR

In the result, assessee’s appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry & Shri K.M. Roy, Accountant, Member

Transfer Pricing Officer, as the case may be had been subject matter of any appeal filed on or before after the 1st day of June, 1988, the powers of the Principal Commissioner or Commissioner under this sub-section shall extended and shall be deemed always to have extended to such matter as had not been considered and decided in such