PR COMMISSIONER OF vs. M/S SOFTBRANDS INDIA

Bench: S.SUJATHA,VINEET KOTHARI

Transfer Pricing Officer (TPO) or Dispute Resolution Panel (DRP) which comprises of three Commissioners and the Revenue or the assessee may feel dissatisfied, because of the reversal or modification of such findings by the Tribunal resulting in leaving out of certain comparables or adding on of certain comparables for determining the ‘Arm’s Length Price’ in the hands

DEVAS MULTIMEDIA PRIVATE LIMITED vs. THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX

Bench: The Hon’Ble Mr.Justice P.B. Bajanthri Writ Petition No.11618 Of 2016 (T-It) Between:

additional information had been provided by the assessee. The sharp rise in share valuation had the possibility of gains accruing to beneficiaries which led to tax demands and with a questionable going concern status of the assessee, the issue had tax implications. Thus, respondent intended to revise order of AO and issued notice under Section

THE PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S EDS ELECTRONICS DATA SYSTEMS INDIA PVT.LTD.

In the result, we do not find any merit in this

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,R. NATARAJ

addition on account of Arms 6 Length Price (ALP). 5. The assessee thereupon filed an appeal before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) who by an order dated 21.01.2009 inter alia held that respondent has earned a profit in technical service segment in contracts other than contracts with SKF India, the Transfer

THE PR COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S SWISS RE GLOBAL BUSINESS SOLUTIONS INDIA PVT LTD

The appeal is disposed of with liberty as prayed for by the learned

Bench: S.G.PANDIT,C.M. POONACHA

Income Tax (Transfer Pricing) on 29/1/2014 and Transfer Pricing Officer has also reported that date mentioned in transfer pricing order is due to typographical mistake which was inadvertently typed as 31/1/2014 which is evidenced by dispatch stamp of the O/ Additional

THE PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIT(A) vs. M/S IDS SOFTWARE SOLUTIONS INDIA PVT LTD

Bench: ABHAY SHREENIWAS OKA (CJ),S.G.PANDIT

Income Tax, the assessing officer by his letter dated 13.08.2012 referred the case of the assessee under Section 92CA of the Act to the TPO. The TPO issued show- cause notice dated 17.09.2013 proposing to make necessary transfer pricing adjustment rejecting the transfer pricing documents produced by the assessee. The assessee submitted his reply dated 07.11.2013 to the above show

WIPRO LIMITED vs. THE JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

Bench: The Hon’Ble Mr. Justice Krishna S.Dixit Writ Petition No.20040/2019 (T-It) Between:

Transfer Pricing Officer and the same has been referred. The TPO re-computed the adjustments, based on the directions of Hon’ble ITAT, and TP order was passed on 31.10.2017. As this is the case of fresh assessment/re-assessment, an additional interest u/s 244A(1A) will not be applicable in this case.” 4. After service of notice, the respondents having entered

PR COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-5 vs. M/S NOVELL SOFTWARE DEVELOPMENT (INDIA) PVT.LTD.

In the result, we do not find any merit in this appeal

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,R. NATARAJ

transfer pricing adjustment amounting to Rs.8,50,32,504/- was necessary in the software development services sector. The Assessing Officer, in the draft assessment order dated 10.03.2014, made an addition of a sum of Rs.8,50,32,504/- to the income

PR COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-5 vs. M/S PAGE INDUSTRIES LTD

In the result, the appeal fails and is hereby dismissed

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,R. NATARAJ

transfer pricing Rs.20,20,07,861/-, disallowance under Section 14A read with Rule 8D(2)(iii) to the extent of Rs.20,51,175/- and disallowance of Rs.74,08,964/- under the provisions of Section 80JJAA of the Act were proposed. The 5 assessee thereupon filed objections before the Dispute Resolution Panel contesting all the additions. The Dispute Resolution Panel, however

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S GENISYS INTERGRATING SYSTEMS

Bench: S.SUJATHA,VINEET KOTHARI

transfer pricing adjustments by restricting the adjustments to the transactions of the AE only by adopting the operating revenue and operating costs of these transactions only. 9. Having heard both the parties and having considered the rival contentions and also the judicial precedents on the issue, we find that the TPO himself has rejected the companies which are making losses

M/S HIMALAYA DRUG COMPANY vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

In the result, both the writ petitions are

Bench: This Court Under Section 260A Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (For Short “It Act”), Questioning The Order Dated 21.06.2017 In It(Tp)A No.807/Bang/2016 Passed By Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “B” Bench, Bengaluru (For Short “Tribunal”), Dismissing The Appeal Refusing To Declare The Proceedings Under Section 144C Of The It Act As Null & Void.

transfer pricing officer having resumed proceedings post the passing of the direction by the Dispute Resolution Panel on 20-6-2022. 20. Undisputedly, the directive of the Dispute Resolution Panel came to be uploaded on the Income Tax Business Application portal on 24-6- 2022. It is additionally

THE PR COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S ACUSIS SOFTWARE INDIA

Bench: S.SUJATHA,VINEET KOTHARI

Transfer Pricing Date of Judgment 28-06-2018 I.T.A.No.304/2017 The Pr. Commissioner of Income-tax, CIT (A) & Anr. Vs. M/s. Acusis Software India Pvt. Ltd., 5/18 Officer has rightly chosen the same by applying all the required tests?” 3. Regarding substantial question of law No.1:- Learned counsel for the Appellants-Revenue Mr.K.V.Aravind submits that he does not press

PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-2 vs. TOYOTA TSUSHO INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED

Bench: CHIEF JUSTICE,C M JOSHI

income for the assessment year 2013-2014 on 29.11.2013, declaring a loss of `10,86,90,508/-. After the verification, it was found that the Assessee had entered into international transactions with Associated Enterprises [AEs], the value of which was more than `15 Crores. The learned Assessing

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX III vs. M/S NDS SERVICES PAY

Bench: S.G.PANDIT,K. V. ARAVIND

transfer pricing adjustment. 4. Memo also indicates that the Additional Commissioner of Income Tax has passed consequential order determining the transfer

THE PR COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. SHRI H NAGARAJA

Bench: S SUNIL DUTT YADAV,B.S PATIL

income was not justified in view of the evidence furnished by the assessee. Hence, the Appellate Commissioner ordered for deletion of the additions made by the Assessing Officer, as a result the conclusions regarding purchase price paid for acquiring the lands and the sale proceeds received by selling the lands stood concluded as per the order of the Appellate Commissioner

M/S ALTAIR ENGINEERING INDIA PVT LTD vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

Bench: S.SUJATHA,VINEET KOTHARI

addition, the Transfer Pricing Officer has worked out the operating profit at 20.68% of the operating cost. We feel that a nominal modification is called for in this rate of operating profit, accepting certain valid contentions of the learned representative regarding the competence level of its employees ; the remuneration payable to them and the effect of the safe environment

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX vs. M/S. CURAM SOFTWARE INTERNATIONAL

Bench: S.SUJATHA,VINEET KOTHARI

transfer pricing regulations in India does not provide for assumptions in respect of adjustments and recorded perverse finding? 8. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law the Tribunal was correct in directing exclusion of telecommunication expenses and expenditure incurred in foreign currency from export turnover Date of Judgment 12-07-2018, ITA No.20/2014

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

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S. TOYOTA KIRLOSKAR

Bench: S.SUJATHA,VINEET KOTHARI

Price of royalty by adopting TNMM even when the assessing Date of Judgment 2-8-2018, ITA No.119/2015 The Commissioner of Income Tax & another Vs. M/s Toyota Kirloskar Auto Parts Pvt. Ltd. 3/20 authority has rightly adopted CUP method considering the facts of the case and provisions of the I.T.Act? 2. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances