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 and losses from pension fund not allowed to be carried forward

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

transfer pricing documents and proceeded to determine the arms length price of the international transactions of the assessee on the basis of the material available on record. The assessee raised objection before the Dispute Resolution Panel (for short ‘the DRP’) on the finding of the TPO. On consideration of the objections of the assessee, the DRP directed the Assessing Officer

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S QUEST GLOBAL ENGINEERING SERVICES PVT. LTD.,

In the result, we don to find any

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,R. NATARAJ

transfer of the commodity or scripts: Provided that for the purposes of this clause — (a) a contract in respect of raw materials or merchandise entered into by a person in the course of his manufacturing or merchanting business to guard against loss through future price fluctuations in respect of his contracts for actual delivery of goods manufactured

M/S SUBEX LTD vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER

Appeal is allowed

Bench: P.S.DINESH KUMAR,UMESH M ADIGA

carried forward losses. The AO2 referred the case to the TPO3 under Section 92(c) of the Act. Assessee filed its objections to the draft order passed by the Assessing Officer before the DRP4. Pursuant to the directions issued by the DRP, the AO passed order on January 30, 2014 under Section 143(3) of the Act. The Revenue challenged

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

Bench: S.SUJATHA,VINEET KOTHARI

forward exercise and may require a flexible approach that need not be strictly based on specified transfer pricing methods. Therefore, in such a situation, the perfect approach for indirectly bench marking royalty payments is to bench mark the profit margin left in the tested party, after payment of lump sum fee or royalty with the profit margins of comparable uncontrolled

PR COMMISSIONER OF vs. M/S WIPRO LIMITED

In the result, the appeal is disposed of in terms

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,H.T. NARENDRA PRASAD

Transfer Pricing Officer (TPO) to follow the directions given by the tribunal in earlier Assessment Year. The tribunal with regard to claim of assessee under Section 14A of the Act directed the Assessing Officer to follow the directions given the claim of the assessee under Section 14A of the Act set aside the finding recorded by the Assessing Officer

THE PR COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIT(A) vs. M/S DELHI INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT PVT LTD

In the result, we don to find any

Bench: SATISH CHANDRA SHARMA,R. NATARAJ

transfer of the commodity or scripts: Provided that for the purposes of this clause — (a) a contract in respect of raw materials or merchandise entered into by a person in the course of his manufacturing or merchanting business to guard against loss through future price fluctuations in respect of his contracts for actual delivery of goods manufactured

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

The appeals stand disposed of, accordingly

Bench: N.KUMAR,B.SREENIVASE GOWDA

price of the raw-material. If the MODVAT credit is availed by the assessee at the time of sale of finished products to that extent, he would be entitled to deduction. If MODVAT credit still remain unavailed, it is to be added to the closing balance and that has to be taken into consideration in deciding the profit earned

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

The appeals stand disposed of, accordingly

Bench: N.KUMAR,B.SREENIVASE GOWDA

price of the raw-material. If the MODVAT credit is availed by the assessee at the time of sale of finished products to that extent, he would be entitled to deduction. If MODVAT credit still remain unavailed, it is to be added to the closing balance and that has to be taken into consideration in deciding the profit earned

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. THE NAGARBAIL SALT-OWNERS

Appeal is dismissed without any order as to costs

Bench: Offering The Profit For Tax?”

forward and computed income as NIL after claiming deduction of Rs.3,45,021/- under Section 80P(1)(d) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘the Act’ for short) as per the Profit and Loss account; vii) A notice under Section 148 was issued. In reply, respondent – assessee asserted that the total taxable income for the said assessment year

KARNATAKA STATE BEVERAGES CORPORTION LIMITED vs. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

Bench: The Hon’Ble Mr. Justice Anand Byrareddy Writ Petition No.12872 Of 2013 (T-It) Connected With Writ Petition No.14687 Of 2014 (T-It), Writ Petition No.15910 Of 2015 (T-It) & Writ Petition No.17514 Of 2015 (T-It) In W.P.No.12872 Of 2013 Between: Karnataka State Beverages Corporation Limited, Represented By It’S Executive Director (Finance), Sri. Shrikant B Vanahalli, Aged About 57 Years, No.78, Seethalakshmi Towers, Mission Road, Bangalore 560 027. …Petitioner

forward the same. The Assessing Officer was also not justified in forming an opinion that appropriation has been made from the income quoted under the other income in the profit and loss account. The said income is also business income. In regard to the proposition that the business income can be broken up under 22 different heads only

M/S CANARA BANK BSCA SECTION vs. THE ASST COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-11(2)

Bench: N.KUMAR,RATHNAKALA

transfer deed and the letter of acceptance, duly filled in. The offer letter and letter of acceptance is being separately mailed to the investors. This offer is open only till 11.10.1997. The unit holders may approach the same branch of Canara Bank where they had deposited their units, for collecting the proceeds of their units on or after

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

loss to plaintiff-Company. 2nd defendant gave a paper publication in Indian Express dated 17.03.1992 stating that 1st defendant and her husband have authorized her to deal with their properties. But 1st defendant gave separate publication on 18.3.1992 stating that she has not authorized 2nd defendant to represent her and to deal with her property. 12. It is also stated

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-III vs. M/S SUBHASH KABINI POWER CORPORATION LIMITED

Bench: B.V.NAGARATHNA,JAYANT PATEL

loss of revenue cannot be treated as prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue and if the AO has adopted one of the courses permissible under law or where two views are possible and the AO has taken one view with which the CIT does not agree. If cannot be treated as an erroneous order, unless the view taken

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S MINDTECK (INDIA) LIMITED,

Bench: S.SUJATHA,VINEET KOTHARI

losses of non- 10A units against the profit of STP units when as per the amended provisions of section 10A w.e.f. 1/4/2001, the deduction under section 10A has to be finally allowed from the total income of the assessee and total income is computed after aggregation of the profits/losses of various units and after setting off of brought forward losses/unabsorbed

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. SHRI. VIKRAM REDDY

In the result, the fifth substantial question of

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,R. NATARAJ

forwarded on the same date i.e., 24.03.2006 to the company secretary of NCCPL with signature of the partners showing different status in which they were partners including their dual capacity. All the 13 partners delivered share transfer forms transferring the shares so brought in as capital in favour of Sri.Madhusudhan Reddy on 24.03.2006 and name of Sri.Madhusudhan Reddy was entered

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

The appeal is allowed in part

Bench: B.MANOHAR,DILIP B.BHOSALE

forward to tax, 1/3rd amount for each year. Further, the loss of long term and short term capital loss of Rs.3,10,22,946/- and Rs.99,00,000/- shown by the assessee was disallowed by the Assessing Officer on the ground that the shares of the company has been sold for lesser value. 6. Further, Rs.25.00 crores received

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

Bench: ARAVIND KUMAR,JAYANT PATEL

loss of Rs.1,05,77,033/- and business income and capital gain at Rs.56,97,511/-. The Assessing Officer in the assessment proceedings found that the difference shown out of the sale of property could not be termed as ‘capital gain’ and could be termed as only ‘business income’ and ultimately based on the same, concluded the assessment proceedings