THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S KARNATAKA CO-OPERATIVE MILK PRODUCERS

Appeal is dismissed with costs

Bench: The Hon’Ble Mr. Justice N.K.Sudhindrarao R.S.A.No.70/2007

price for sale of property sold by her husband which is western portion of Tataguni estate in favour of plaintiff-Company and she has not agreed to sell the plaint schedule property to the plaintiff at the rate of Rs.40,000/- per acre. 17. It is further claimed that Managing Director of plaintiff-Company K.T. Bhagath was with

THE PR COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. SMT SAROJINI M KUSHE

Appeal stands dismissed

Bench: S.SUJATHA,HANCHATE SANJEEVKUMAR

68,19,443/- as capital gains by adopting cost of construction as sale consideration based on JDA between the assessee and M/s R&S Turnkey Contractors Private Ltd. 5. Being aggrieved, the assessee preferred an appeal before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) which came to be allowed directing the assessing officer to adopt fair market value basing

M/S FIDELITY BUSINESS SERVICES INDIA PVT LTD vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

Bench: S.SUJATHA,VINEET KOTHARI

transfer of the reserves and surplus to the holding company by avoiding the payment of tax and therefore it will be treated as a colourable device. There are two aspects in this transaction- (i) It is a simple and plain transaction of buy back of shares without having any dispute of price then the same is beyond the scope

M/S WIPRO LIMITED vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

The appeals stand disposed of, accordingly

Bench: N.KUMAR,B.SREENIVASE GOWDA

Transfer Pricing Officer for determination of arms’ length price. As per the return filed the tax payable was Rs.48,38,27,302/-. The assessee also claimed TDS of Rs.6,02,14,066/- and advance tax payment of Rs.59,50,80,000/-. The assessee claimed refund of Rs.17,12,21,725/-. The return of income was processed

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S WIPRO LTD

The appeals stand disposed of, accordingly

Bench: N.KUMAR,B.SREENIVASE GOWDA

Transfer Pricing Officer for determination of arms’ length price. As per the return filed the tax payable was Rs.48,38,27,302/-. The assessee also claimed TDS of Rs.6,02,14,066/- and advance tax payment of Rs.59,50,80,000/-. The assessee claimed refund of Rs.17,12,21,725/-. The return of income was processed

SATISH KUMAR PANDEY vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

Appeals are allowed

Bench: P.S.DINESH KUMAR,T.G. SHIVASHANKARE GOWDA

68) of the Companies Act, 2013, the right of transfer of shares in a Private 5Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals). 6Income Tax Appellate Tribunal. I.T.A No.695/2019 C/W I.T.A No.696/2019 6 Limited Company is restricted and in this case, in the manner and to the extent appearing in the para 8 of the Articles of Association; • the expenses incurred have inextricable

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S DELMIA SOLUTIONS PVT LTD.,

Bench: S.SUJATHA,VINEET KOTHARI

Pricing Officer regarding functions and profitability of the comparables and the Date of Judgment 12-07-2018, ITA No.342/2013 The Commissioner of Income Tax & another Vs. M/s Delmia Solutions Pvt. Ltd., 4/15 assessee company are similar and recorded a perverse finding? 3. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law the Tribunal was justified

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S WIPRO LTD

In the result, the appeals are partly allowed

Bench: B.MANOHAR,DILIP B.BHOSALE

price of transfer for the purpose of computation of deduction u/s.80HH and 80I of the Act? A-10. Whether the Tribunal was correct in holding that excise duty and sales tax should not be included in the total turnover for the purpose of computation of deduction u/s.80HHC of the Act? 6. In all the three appeals, the following question

THE PR COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S BUSINESS PROCESS

Bench: S.SUJATHA,VINEET KOTHARI

Transfer Pricing Officer has considered the comparables on the basis of qualitative and quantitative filters? 2. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, Tribunal is right in law in setting aside the recomputation of 10A deduction made by assessing authority by following the judgment of this Hon’ble High Court in the case

THE PR COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S BUSINESS PROCESS

Bench: S.SUJATHA,VINEET KOTHARI

Transfer Pricing Officer has considered the comparables on the basis of qualitative and quantitative filters? 2. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, Tribunal is right in law in setting aside the recomputation of 10A deduction made by assessing authority by following the judgment of this Hon’ble High Court in the case

M/S T T K PRESTIGE LTD vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

Bench: The Hon’Ble Mrs.Justice S.Sujatha

TRANSFER PRICING OFFICER AND ANOTHER’ [(2010) 320 ITR 565 [DELHI]. [e] ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX AND OTHERS vs. ICICI SECURITIES PRIMARY DEALERSHIP LTD. [2012] 348 ITR 299 (SC) [f] ‘COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. I.A.E.C. (PUMPS) LTD.,’ [(1998) 150 CTR SC 126 - 14 - 6. Submissions of the learned Counsel for the Revenue: Learned Counsel Sri. K.V. Aravind appearing

HERBALIFE INTERNATIONAL INDIA PVT LTD vs. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

In the result, the assessee's appeal for

Bench: V KAMESWAR RAO,S RACHAIAH

68,567 Herbalife Logo & Letters Re-fabrication on Wall surface Kolkata 11,17,125 Interior and other related works (including partitions, false ceilings, sign board, display units, etc.) Kolkata 29,12,000 Leasehold Equipment Mumbai 24,78,074 Interior & other related works Guwahati 12,75,451 Total 2,28,51,221 4. It is the case of the appellant that

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S.WINTAC LTD.,

The appeal is allowed in part

Bench: B.MANOHAR,DILIP B.BHOSALE

68,30,330/-. But determined the tax payable under Section 115JB at Rs.38,26,607/-. 4. The case was selected for scrutiny and notice under Section 143(2) was issued on 25-10-2002. The authorized representative of the assessee appeared on behalf of the assessee. On examination of income tax returns and other details furnished by the assessee- Company

M/S. BMM ISPAT LTD vs. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA

In the result, these petitions must succeed

Bench: ABHAY SHREENIWAS OKA (CJ),P.S.DINESH KUMAR

68 SRI.TANVEER AHMED HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE AT: 811/2, NH63, HOSPET ROAD ALIPUR, BELLARY-583 105 ...PETITIONER (BY SHRI.H.SRINIVAS RAO, ADVOCATE ALONG WITH SHRI.BADRI VISHAL, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY DEPARTMENT OF PARLIAMENTARY AFFAIRS VIDHANA SOUDHA, Dr.AMBEDKAR VEEDHI BANGALORE–560 001 2. STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY DEPARTMENT OF FOREST, ECOLOGY

IRON ORE END USERS ASSOCIATION vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

In the result, these petitions must succeed

Bench: ABHAY SHREENIWAS OKA (CJ),P.S.DINESH KUMAR

68 SRI.TANVEER AHMED HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE AT: 811/2, NH63, HOSPET ROAD ALIPUR, BELLARY-583 105 ...PETITIONER (BY SHRI.H.SRINIVAS RAO, ADVOCATE ALONG WITH SHRI.BADRI VISHAL, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY DEPARTMENT OF PARLIAMENTARY AFFAIRS VIDHANA SOUDHA, Dr.AMBEDKAR VEEDHI BANGALORE–560 001 2. STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY DEPARTMENT OF FOREST, ECOLOGY

M/S ELECTROTHERM (INDIA)LTD vs. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA

In the result, these petitions must succeed

Bench: ABHAY SHREENIWAS OKA (CJ),P.S.DINESH KUMAR

68 SRI.TANVEER AHMED HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE AT: 811/2, NH63, HOSPET ROAD ALIPUR, BELLARY-583 105 ...PETITIONER (BY SHRI.H.SRINIVAS RAO, ADVOCATE ALONG WITH SHRI.BADRI VISHAL, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY DEPARTMENT OF PARLIAMENTARY AFFAIRS VIDHANA SOUDHA, Dr.AMBEDKAR VEEDHI BANGALORE–560 001 2. STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY DEPARTMENT OF FOREST, ECOLOGY

HINDUSTAN CALCINED METALS PRIVATE LIMITED vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

In the result, these petitions must succeed

Bench: ABHAY SHREENIWAS OKA (CJ),P.S.DINESH KUMAR

68 SRI.TANVEER AHMED HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE AT: 811/2, NH63, HOSPET ROAD ALIPUR, BELLARY-583 105 ...PETITIONER (BY SHRI.H.SRINIVAS RAO, ADVOCATE ALONG WITH SHRI.BADRI VISHAL, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY DEPARTMENT OF PARLIAMENTARY AFFAIRS VIDHANA SOUDHA, Dr.AMBEDKAR VEEDHI BANGALORE–560 001 2. STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY DEPARTMENT OF FOREST, ECOLOGY

SATHVAHANA ISPAT LIMITED vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

In the result, these petitions must succeed

Bench: ABHAY SHREENIWAS OKA (CJ),P.S.DINESH KUMAR

68 SRI.TANVEER AHMED HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE AT: 811/2, NH63, HOSPET ROAD ALIPUR, BELLARY-583 105 ...PETITIONER (BY SHRI.H.SRINIVAS RAO, ADVOCATE ALONG WITH SHRI.BADRI VISHAL, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY DEPARTMENT OF PARLIAMENTARY AFFAIRS VIDHANA SOUDHA, Dr.AMBEDKAR VEEDHI BANGALORE–560 001 2. STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY DEPARTMENT OF FOREST, ECOLOGY