M/S. HINDUSTAN COCA COLA vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

Of the Department's clouded interpretation of the Centum

Bench: ANAND BYRAREDDY

price of goods sold to the end consumer. The 24 object of the Act is achieved by allowing dealers to deduct the input tax paid by him on purchases from their output tax liability on sales effected by them, thereby ensuring that tax is levied only on the incremental monetary value addition on each sale of goods. Section 10(3

DEPA INDIA PRIVATE LTD. vs. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA

Of the Department's clouded interpretation of the Centum

Bench: ANAND BYRAREDDY

price of goods sold to the end consumer. The 24 object of the Act is achieved by allowing dealers to deduct the input tax paid by him on purchases from their output tax liability on sales effected by them, thereby ensuring that tax is levied only on the incremental monetary value addition on each sale of goods. Section 10(3

M/S. HINDUSTAN COCA COLA vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

Of the Department's clouded interpretation of the Centum

Bench: ANAND BYRAREDDY

price of goods sold to the end consumer. The 24 object of the Act is achieved by allowing dealers to deduct the input tax paid by him on purchases from their output tax liability on sales effected by them, thereby ensuring that tax is levied only on the incremental monetary value addition on each sale of goods. Section 10(3

INGRAM MICRO INDIA PVT.LTD. vs. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA

Of the Department's clouded interpretation of the Centum

Bench: ANAND BYRAREDDY

price of goods sold to the end consumer. The 24 object of the Act is achieved by allowing dealers to deduct the input tax paid by him on purchases from their output tax liability on sales effected by them, thereby ensuring that tax is levied only on the incremental monetary value addition on each sale of goods. Section 10(3

ACE DESIGNERS LIMITED vs. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA

Of the Department's clouded interpretation of the Centum

Bench: ANAND BYRAREDDY

price of goods sold to the end consumer. The 24 object of the Act is achieved by allowing dealers to deduct the input tax paid by him on purchases from their output tax liability on sales effected by them, thereby ensuring that tax is levied only on the incremental monetary value addition on each sale of goods. Section 10(3

SONAL APPAREL PRIVATE LTD., vs. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA

Of the Department's clouded interpretation of the Centum

Bench: ANAND BYRAREDDY

price of goods sold to the end consumer. The 24 object of the Act is achieved by allowing dealers to deduct the input tax paid by him on purchases from their output tax liability on sales effected by them, thereby ensuring that tax is levied only on the incremental monetary value addition on each sale of goods. Section 10(3

M/S INDIA MOTOR PARTS & ACCESSORIES LTD vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF

Of the Department's clouded interpretation of the Centum

Bench: ANAND BYRAREDDY

price of goods sold to the end consumer. The 24 object of the Act is achieved by allowing dealers to deduct the input tax paid by him on purchases from their output tax liability on sales effected by them, thereby ensuring that tax is levied only on the incremental monetary value addition on each sale of goods. Section 10(3

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 Officer” means a Joint Commissioner or Deputy 23 Commissioner or Assistant Commissioner authorized by the Board to perform all or any of the functions of an Assessing Officer specified in sections 92C and 92D in respect of any person or class of persons. 144C. (1) xxxxx (2) xxxxx (b) file his objections, if any, to such variation with

THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER vs. M/S OBULAPURAM MINING

Bench: K.SOMASHEKAR,UMESH M ADIGA

Transfer Pricing Officer and subsequently an order under Section 92CA came to be passed on 23.01.2013 making the following adjustment to the admitted value of international transactions. 5 (a) In respect of sale of iron ore 111,48,68,440/- (b) In respect of Helicopter Hiring Charges 72,23,641/- Total adjustments Rs.112,20,92,081/- 7. It is further

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:

3) of section 153, & (ii) giving effect to appellate orders other than those covered by fresh assessment orders in terms of sub-section (5) of section 153; the 2016 Act amended section 244A by introducing sub-section (1A) 7 providing for the grant of additional interest in cases falling u/s 153(5). (b) The orders of the kind made

PR COMMISSIONER OF vs. M/S SOFTBRANDS INDIA

Bench: S.SUJATHA,VINEET KOTHARI

3. The Indian Income Tax Act, 1961 contains Special Provisions relating to Avoidance of Tax in Chapter X of the Act comprising of Sections 92 to 94-B with regard to assessment to be done for computation of income from international transactions on the principles of ‘Arm’s Length Price’ (ALP) and the relevant Rules for computation of such income

PR COMMISSIONER OF vs. M/S SOFTBRANDS INDIA

Bench: S.SUJATHA,VINEET KOTHARI

3. The Indian Income Tax Act, 1961 contains Special Provisions relating to Avoidance of Tax in Chapter X of the Act comprising of Sections 92 to 94-B with regard to assessment to be done for computation of income from international transactions on the principles of ‘Arm’s Length Price’ (ALP) and the relevant Rules for computation of such income

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

THE PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S CISCO SYSTEMS

The appeals are allowed; the impugned

Bench: SATISH CHANDRA SHARMA,R. NATARAJ

3.—For the purposes of this sub- section, the expression "assets" shall mean— (a) tangible assets, being buildings, machinery, plant or furniture; (b) intangible assets, being know-how, patents, copyrights, trade marks, licences, franchises or any other business or commercial rights of similar nature. Explanation 4.—For the purposes of this sub- section, the expression "know-how" means any industrial

PR COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S TATA POWER SOLAR SYSTEMS LIMITED

Appeals are dismissed at the stage of admission itself as being

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

transfer pricing adjustment was made, as also certain other additions on corporate tax issues were made. 4. Aggrieved by the draft assessment order, the assessee filed objections before the Dispute Resolution Panel6. In response to the objections, the DRP issued directions under Section 144C(5) of the Act on 30.12.2015, confirming the additions proposed in the draft assessment order

PR.COMMISSIONER OF INCOMETAX-2 vs. M/S.EYGBS (INDIA) PVT LTD

Bench: CHIEF JUSTICE,C M JOSHI

3) of Section 92C are attracted. It follows that sub-section (4) of Section 92C is not attracted. 25. More importantly, the proviso to sub-section (4) of Section 92C also clearly states that no deduction under Section 10A or 10AA or 10B or under Chapter VI-A of the Act would be allowed in respect of the amount

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.

3) of the Act. Against which, the appellant filed an appeal before the Tribunal. The Tribunal, under impugned order dated 21.06.2017 dismissed the appeal of the appellant. 5. Learned senior counsel Sri.Chythanya for appellant would contend that the final assessment order dated 18.02.2016 is contrary to Section 144C(13) of the IT Act. He invites attention of this Court

THE PR.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S. YOKOGAWA INDIA LTD

The appeal is dismissed

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

Transfer Pricing Officer passed under sub-section (3) of section 92CA; and (ii) any non-resident not being a company, or any foreign company:]] [Provided that such eligible assessee shall not include person referred to in sub-section (1) of section 158BA or other person referred to in section 158BD.]" - 12 - ITA No. 431 of 2022 10