PR COMMISSIONER OF vs. M/S SOFTBRANDS INDIA

Bench: S.SUJATHA,VINEET KOTHARI

Transfer Pricing/ determination of the ‘Arm’s Length Price’; [II] The Scheme of procedure of assessment and appeals to the Tribunal and High Court/Supreme Court. [III] The scope of interference by High Court under Section 260-A of the Act in these type of cases. Findings of the Tribunal: 12. We find it appropriate to quote some portions

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

Bench: S.SUJATHA,VINEET KOTHARI

price is not based on the real valuation and it is artificially inflated by the parties then it is certainly a device for Date of Judgment :23-07-2018 I.T.A.No.512/2017 M/s. Fidelity Business Services India Pvt. Ltd., Vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income-Tax, & Anr. 11/86 transfer

M/S BAGMANE DEVELOPERS PVT LTD vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

Bench: ARAVIND KUMAR,JAYANT PATEL

price could be obtained, that by itself is not enough to infer that an assessee is carrying on business. However, though profit motive in entering into a transaction is not decisive, if the facts and circumstances indicate that the purchase of the asset factor for inferring that the transaction was in the nature of business. 11. In the case

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (CENTRAL) vs. M/S. BAGMANE DEVELOPERS PVT LTD

Bench: ARAVIND KUMAR,JAYANT PATEL

price could be obtained, that by itself is not enough to infer that an assessee is carrying on business. However, though profit motive in entering into a transaction is not decisive, if the facts and circumstances indicate that the purchase of the asset factor for inferring that the transaction was in the nature of business. 11. In the case

THE PR COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S EXIDE LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY LTD

In the result, both the appeals stand dismissed

Bench: S.SUJATHA,RAVI V HOSMANI

Transfer Pricing Officer (TPO) to determine the Arm’s Length Price and the said officer did not suggest TP adjustment. Assessing Authority made non TP addition pertaining to surplus from shareholders account, treating the same as income from other business

THE PR COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S EXIDE LIFE INSURANCE CO LTD

In the result, both the appeals stand dismissed

Bench: S.SUJATHA,RAVI V HOSMANI

Transfer Pricing Officer (TPO) to determine the Arm’s Length Price and the said officer did not suggest TP adjustment. Assessing Authority made non TP addition pertaining to surplus from shareholders account, treating the same as income from other business

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:

Transfer Pricing in International Transactions. Further vide the 2016 amendment, the right to appeal was specifically taken away in order to minimize these disputes. 16. Once the DRP has exercised its power under Section 144C of the Act, the Commissioner loses his jurisdiction to 14 exercise power under Section 263 of the Act. Consequently, the Commissioner cannot issue a show

PR COMMISSIONER OF vs. M/S LUWA INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR

Income Tax (Appeals) and the Assessing Officer and the Transfer Pricing Officer does not have jurisdiction to examine the allowability of the claim by applying the benefit test or the conditions as provided under Section 37 of the Act. Accordingly, the appeal preferred by the revenue was dismissed and the cross-objection filed by the assessee was disposed

PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S CHAMUNDI WINERY AND DISTILLERY

Bench: S.SUJATHA,VINEET KOTHARI

business is done in the name of the Assessee CHAMUNDI by itself, but only the income is sought to be assigned and transferred to Date of Judgment 25-09-2018 I.T.A.No.155/2016 and connected matters The Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax & Ors. Vs. M/s. Chamundi Winery and Distillery 74/137 DIAGEO which will distract the Income-Tax liability in the hands

THE PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (4) vs. M/S CHAMUNDI WINERY AND DISTILLERY

Bench: S.SUJATHA,VINEET KOTHARI

business is done in the name of the Assessee CHAMUNDI by itself, but only the income is sought to be assigned and transferred to Date of Judgment 25-09-2018 I.T.A.No.155/2016 and connected matters The Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax & Ors. Vs. M/s. Chamundi Winery and Distillery 74/137 DIAGEO which will distract the Income-Tax liability in the hands

THE PR COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S E4E BUSINESS SOLUTIONS INDIA PVT LTD.,

Bench: S.SUJATHA,VINEET KOTHARI

Income-tax, CIT(A) & Anr. Vs.M/s.e4e Business Solutions India Pvt. Ltd., 9/13 Respondent-assessee, has given the following findings against Revenue with regard to various issues raised before it with regard to ‘Transfer Pricing

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

Income Tax (Appeals)'s order ignoring the basic mistake therein that having accepted Transaction Net Margin Method and the Profit Level Indicator as OP/TC when the application of the Profit Level Indicator on the total cost is proper and not on the payments made 3 to the Associated enterprises?". 2. Facts leading to filing of this appeal briefly stated

THE PR.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S E4E BUSINESS SOLUTIONS INDIA PVT LTD

Bench: S.SUJATHA,VINEET KOTHARI

price determination between the parties and particularly when the transactions are cross-border transactions. Therefore, the extraneous factors which are taken as the reason for not considering foreign exchange gain as part of the operating revenue are also influencing the business activity of the assessee in respect of international transaction. Therefore, we do not agree with the contentions

PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX - 6 vs. M/S. SAMSUNG R & D INSTITUTE BANGALORE PVT LTD

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

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,H.T. NARENDRA PRASAD

BUSINESS PARK, OUTER RING ROAD DODDANEKUNDI CIRCLE BANGALORE-560037 PAN: ;AAICS6290F. ... RESPONDENT (BY SRI. T. SURYANARAYANA, ADV.) - - - THIS ITA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 260-A OF I.T. ACT, 1961 ARISING OUT OF ORDER DATED 03.03.2017 PASSED IN 2 IT(TP)A NO.60/BANG/2015 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2009-10, VIDE ANNEXURE-A, PRAYING TO: (I) DECIDE THE FOREGOING QUESTION

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

BUSINESS PARK, CHALLAGHATTA VILLAGE, VARTHUR HOBLI, BENGALURU-560 071 PAN-AAECS8786L …RESPONDENT (BY SRI. NAGESWAR RAO, ADVOCATE) THIS ITA / INCOME TAX APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SEC.260-A OF INCOME TAX ACT 1961, ARISING OUT OF ORDER DATED 30/12/2021 PASSED IN IT(TP)A NO.290/BANG/ 2015, FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2010-2011. PRAYING TO I. FORMULATE THE SUBSTANTIAL QUESTIONS OF LAW STATED

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

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S ASSOCIATED ELECTRONIC AND ELCTRICAL

The appeal stands dismissed

Bench: S.SUJATHA,VINEET SARAN

income chargeable under the head “Capital gains” shall be computed, by deducting from the full value of the consideration received or accruing as a result of the transfer of the capital asset the following amounts, namely:- (i) expenditure incurred wholly and exclusively in connection with such transfer; (ii) the cost of acquisition of the asset and the cost

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:

business of manufacture of computer software & providing IT enabled services, is knocking at the doors of Writ Court for assailing the order dated 29.03.2019, a copy whereof is at Annexure-A whereby the second respondent-DCIT having negatived its application dated 22.03.2019 filed u/s 244A(1A) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereafter ‘1961 Act’) has denied additional 3% interest