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

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

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

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

KAVERI PLASTO CONTAINERS 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

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

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

THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER vs. M/S OBULAPURAM MINING

Bench: K.SOMASHEKAR,UMESH M ADIGA

37. In the meantime, based on the order of the Commissioner, proceedings were initiated by the Assessing Officer by referring the matter to the Transfer Pricing Officer. The Transfer pricing officer passed an order. Consequently the Assessing Officer gave effect to this Transfer Pricing Officer's order by passing a separate assessment order u/s 143(3) read with Section

PR COMMISSIONER OF vs. M/S SOFTBRANDS INDIA

Bench: S.SUJATHA,VINEET KOTHARI

Transfer Pricing Adjustments. Rules 10-A, 10-AB, 10-B, 10-C & 10-CA of the Income Tax Rules, 1962 prescribe the manner for working out ‘Arms Length Price’ under aforesaid prescribed Methods. 37. Section

PR COMMISSIONER OF vs. M/S SOFTBRANDS INDIA

Bench: S.SUJATHA,VINEET KOTHARI

Transfer Pricing Adjustments. Rules 10-A, 10-AB, 10-B, 10-C & 10-CA of the Income Tax Rules, 1962 prescribe the manner for working out ‘Arms Length Price’ under aforesaid prescribed Methods. 37. Section

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

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

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR

Transfer Pricing Officer cannot derive any benefit from the transaction. The relevant extract of the decision of High Court of Bombay in LEVER INDIA EXPORTS LTD. is reproduced below for the facility of reference. "7. We note that the Tribunal has recorded the fact that the respondent assessee has launched new products which involved huge advertisement expenditure. The sharing

M/S SRI BALAJI CORPORATE SERVICES vs. UNION OF INDIA MINISTRY OF FINANCE

Bench: The Hon'Ble Mr.Justice S.R.Krishna Kumar

10. Petitioners have contended that they are entitled to compensation under the said Act of 2013 and the impugned awards and the decisions taken by the respondents awarding compensation under the said Act of 1894 are illegal, arbitrary and deserve to be quashed and 17 that the respondents are to be directed to pass awards in favour of the petitioners

L. VENKATARAMANA RAJU vs. UNION OF INDIA

Bench: The Hon'Ble Mr.Justice S.R.Krishna Kumar

10. Petitioners have contended that they are entitled to compensation under the said Act of 2013 and the impugned awards and the decisions taken by the respondents awarding compensation under the said Act of 1894 are illegal, arbitrary and deserve to be quashed and 17 that the respondents are to be directed to pass awards in favour of the petitioners

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

The appeals stand disposed of, accordingly

Bench: N.KUMAR,B.SREENIVASE GOWDA

Transfer Pricing Officer for determination of arms’ length price. As per the return filed the tax payable was Rs.48,38,27,302/-. The assessee also claimed TDS of Rs.6,02,14,066/- and advance tax payment of Rs.59,50,80,000/-. The assessee claimed refund of Rs.17,12,21,725/-. The return of income was processed

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

The appeals stand disposed of, accordingly

Bench: N.KUMAR,B.SREENIVASE GOWDA

Transfer Pricing Officer for determination of arms’ length price. As per the return filed the tax payable was Rs.48,38,27,302/-. The assessee also claimed TDS of Rs.6,02,14,066/- and advance tax payment of Rs.59,50,80,000/-. The assessee claimed refund of Rs.17,12,21,725/-. The return of income was processed

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME - TAX vs. M/S BIOCON LTD.,

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

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,H.T. NARENDRA PRASAD

transferred to the trust at the face value and the employees of the assessee were allowed to exercise the option to buy the shares within the time prescribed under the scheme subject to terms and conditions mentioned therein. The assessee claimed the difference of market price and allotment price as a discount and claimed the same as an expenditure under

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

Bench: N.KUMAR,RATHNAKALA

price as the Mutual Fund was unable to fulfill its commitment. As a commercial expediency the bank has purchased these units from the unit holders in order to gain the goodwill and confidence of the public. As at 31.3.1998 due to valuation of these units it resulted in depreciation amounting to Rs.2,32,42,42,100/- . As the depreciation