L.RS. AND ORS. (2016)10 SCC 315 and PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, BANGALORE & ORS. v. SOFTBRANDS INDIA P. LTD.

406 ITR 513High Court2018#2424 most cited

What is L.RS. AND ORS. (2016)10 SCC 315 and PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, BANGALORE & ORS. v. SOFTBRANDS INDIA P. LTD. authority for?

For comparability analysis in transfer pricing, giant companies with significantly higher turnover and brand value cannot be compared with small-sized companies, and such companies should be excluded from the comparable set.

48

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 292,668 Indian tax judgments — from 2013 to 2026.

Also referred to as

PCIT v. Softbrands India · 406 ITR 513 · transfer pricing comparability · turnover filter · brand value exclusion · giant company comparison · small company comparables · Section 260A scope · perverse finding of fact · high court appellate powers

Issues it is cited on

Judgments citing L.RS. AND ORS. (2016)10 SCC 315 and PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, BANGALORE & ORS. v. SOFTBRANDS INDIA P. LTD.

SRI LAKSHMI ROAD TRANSPORT COMPANY,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT., CIRCLE-6(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed

ITA 1209/HYD/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad26 Nov 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Ravish Sooda N D Shri Madhusudan Sawdiaआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.1209/Hyd/2025 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2018-19) M/S Sri Lakshmi Road Vs. Dy. Cit Transport Company Circle 6(1) Hyderabad Hyderabad Pan:Aatfs6596A (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: Shri C. Maheshwar Reddy, Ca राज" व "ारा/Revenue By:: Dr. Sachin Kumar, Sr. Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 24/11/2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 26/11/2025 आदेश/Order Per Madhusudan Sawdia, A.M.:

For Appellant: Shri C. Maheshwar Reddy, CAFor Respondent: : Dr. Sachin Kumar, Sr. DR
Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 154Section 36(1)(va)Section 37(1)

…under Section 260A of the Act, cannot interfere with the finding of fact until and unless the same is demonstrated to be perverse. (see Syeda Rahimunnisa v. Malan Bi by LRs (2016) 10 SCC 315 and Pr. CIT v. Softbrands India (P.) Ltd. [2018] 94 taxmann.com 426/406 ITR 513 (Karnataka)). 14. In view of the preceding analysis, no substantial question of law arises for consideration in this appeal. The same fails and is, hereby, dismissed. No costs.” 9. On a perusal of the above, we observe that the Hon’ble High Court, has dealt with a situation where the intimation under section 143(1) of the Act was passed on 18.05…

M/S. BRIGADE ENTERPRISES LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE- 2(3), BANGALORE

In the result appeal filed by assessee stands partly allowed

ITA 2364/BANG/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore11 Oct 2021AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year : 2013-14 M/S. Brigade Enterprises Ltd., 26/1, 30Th Floor Wtc, The Dy. Commissioner Of Dr. Rajkumar Road, Income-Tax, Malleshwaram, Circle-2(3), Rajajinagar, Bengaluru. Vs. Bengaluru-560 100. Pan – Aaacb 7459 F Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri P.C Kincha, C.A Revenue By : Ms. Neera Malhotra, Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing : 20-07-2021 Date Of Pronouncement : 11-10-2021 Order Per Beena Pillaipresent Appeal Has Been Filed By Assessee Against Order Dated 30/08/2019 Passed By The Ld.Cit(A)-11, Bangalore For Assessment Year 2013-14 On Following Grounds Of Appeal: “1. General Ground 1.1. The Order Passed By The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) ["Cit(A) For Short Hereinafter"] To The Extent Prejudicial To The Appellant Is Bad In Law & Liable To Be Quashed. 2. Disallowance Under Section 14A R.W. Rule 8D 2.1. The Learned Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax Central Circle - 2(3), Bangalore ["Ao" For Short Hereinafter] Has Erred In Making A Disallowance Of Rs. 2,02,22,837/- Under Se Tion 14A Comprising Of Disallowa,,Ø-1S. 1,73,98,969/- Under Rule 8D(2)(Ii) & Rs. 28,23,868/- Under Rule 8D(2)(Iii) & The Learned Cit(A) Has Erred In Confirming The Said Disallowance.

For Appellant: Shri P.C Kincha, C.AFor Respondent: Ms. Neera Malhotra, CIT(DR)
Section 14ASection 35DSection 36Section 36(1)(iii)Section 80

…h the aforesaid concurrent findings of fact in this appeal under Section 260A of the Act. [SEE: SYEDA RA HIMUNNISA VS. MA LA N BI BY L.RS.AND ORS. (2016)10 SCC 315 and PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, BANGAL ORE & ORS VS. SOFTBRANDS INDIA P. LTD., (2018) 406 ITR 513].” 3.5 We are in agitation with the contention of the ld. AR. However, assessee should prove the availability of interest free funds to make such investments by filing necessary cash flow statements on the date of investment in view of para 7 of the Page 8 of 25 decision by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Reliance Industries Ltd., report…

Showing 120 of 48 · Page 1 of 3