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:

Pricing Officer during the proceeding for assessment, reassessment made. The period as specified in sub- section (1)(2) & (3) shall be further extended by 12 months. 153(5) To give effect to the order of the higher authorities i.e. CIT (A), ITAT, HC and SC orders To give effect to an order passed by higher authorities other than those orders

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

deduction at Rs.1,11,32,662/- for the Assessment Year 2010-11?" 3. Facts leading to filing of this appeal briefly stated are that the assessee is a company incorporated under the provisions of the Companies Act, 1956 and is engaged in the business of manufacture and sale of ready made garments. The assessee - company is a licensee

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

Bench: S.SUJATHA,VINEET KOTHARI

Transfer Pricing Officer for determination of Arms’ Length Price in the case of the assessee? 4. Whether the Tribunal was correct in holding that 5% standard deduction

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S FIRST ADVANTAGE OFFSHORE SERVICES PVT LTD

Bench: S.SUJATHA,VINEET KOTHARI

transfer pricing adjustments are remitted back to the file of the AO/TPO for reconsideration in the light of our observations in the above paragraphs. 8. As regards the standard deduction

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

deduction under Section 80HHE in respect of profits derived from export of computer software available to any entity. However, the Transfer Pricing

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

Bench: S.SUJATHA,VINEET KOTHARI

deduction shall be allowed from the total turnover in same proportion as well”. 4. Regarding substantial question of Law No.2:- The learned Tribunal, after discussing the rival contentions of both the Appellants-Revenue and the Respondent-assessee, has given the following findings against Revenue with regard to various issues raised before it with regard to ‘Transfer Pricing

BOSCH AUTOMOTIVE ELECTRONICS INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER INCOME TAX

The appeal is allowed and the Tribunal's

Bench: B M SHYAM PRASAD,T.M.NADAF

Transfer Pricing Officer [TPO] could not have doubted that it had received services and benefits from its Associated Enterprises [AE], and the appellant, without prejudice to its different contentions, has asserted that it has deducted

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. TNT INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED

Bench: S.SUJATHA,VINEET KOTHARI

deduction of 5% as provided under proviso to section 92C(2) before making adjustments of the transfer price. For this

PR.COMMISSIONER OF vs. M/S TRIANZ HOLDINGS PVT LTD

Bench: S.SUJATHA,VINEET KOTHARI

deduction under Section 10A of the Act only qua the eligible under taking and without reference to other eligible or non eligible units or undertakings of same assessee. Regarding Substantial Question No.2: 4. The learned Tribunal, after discussing the rival contentions of both the Appellants-Revenue and Respondent-Assessee, has returned a finding as under: “(iii) Transfer pricing

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

THE PR COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIT(A) vs. M/S GENISYS INFORMATION

Bench: S.SUJATHA,VINEET KOTHARI

deduction shall be allowed from the total turnover in same proportion as well”. 4. Regarding substantial question of law No.2:- The learned Tribunal, after discussing the rival contentions of both the Appellants-Revenue and the Respondent-assessee, has given the following findings against Revenue with regard to various issues raised before it with regard to ‘Transfer Pricing

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-III vs. M/S YODLEE INFOTECH PVT LTD

The appeal is disposed of

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,M.I.ARUN

Transfer 7 Pricing Officer for examining the issue in the light of the decisions referred to in the order. The Tribunal by placing reliance of this court in M/S TATA ELXSI LTD. granted the benefit of deduction

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

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

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

Transfer Pricing Officer to exclude comparables namely, exclude, Larsen & Tourbo, Mind Tree Ltd, Persistent Systems Ltd, R.S.Software India Ltd, Tech Mahindra Ltd as comparables on account of turnover filter even when the said comparable satisfies qualitative and quantitative filters and as per Rule 10B of I.T.Rules and ignoring its earlier decision in case of M/s.Societe Generale Global Solution Centre

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

Bench: S.SUJATHA,VINEET KOTHARI

deduction shall be allowed from the total turnover in same proportion as well”. 5. Regarding substantial question of law Nos.2 to 5:- The learned Tribunal, after discussing the rival contentions of both the Appellants-Revenue and the 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,CIT (A) vs. M/S CERNER HEALTHCARE SOLUTIONS PVT.LTD

Bench: S.SUJATHA,VINEET KOTHARI

Transfer Pricing Officer has rightly treated foreign exchange fluctuations as non-operating in nature?”. 3. Learned counsel for the Appellants-Revenue Mr.K.V.Aravind submits that he does not press the substantial question of law No.1, as the issue regarding deduction

THE PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S APIGEE TECHNOLOGIES

Bench: S.SUJATHA,VINEET KOTHARI

transfer pricing adjustment in accordance with parameters of I.T. Acta and Rules framed there under? 3.Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the Tribunal is right in allowing the appeal filed by the assessee relating issue of TDS by erroneously holding that payments referred to in the assessment order are outside the purview of section 194C

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

Bench: S.SUJATHA,VINEET KOTHARI

transfer pricing officer has rightly chosen the said comparable in accordance with provisions of the Act? (2) Whether on facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal erred in allowing holding that the telecommunication charges excluded from export turnover should also be excluded from total turnover by relying on the decision in the case of Tata Elxsi

THE PR.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S G T NEXUS SOFTWARE PVT LTD

Bench: S.SUJATHA,VINEET KOTHARI

deduction shall be allowed from the total turnover in same proportion as well”. 4. Regarding substantial question of law Nos.1 and 3:- The learned Tribunal, after discussing the rival contentions of both the Appellants-Revenue and the Respondent-assessee, has given the following findings against Revenue with regard to various issues raised before it with regard to ‘Transfer Pricing