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

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

Bench: CHIEF JUSTICE,C M JOSHI

Transfer Pricing Officer and to avoid rigors of Section 92C(4) of the Act and consequently enhanced benefits under section 10AA of the Act"? (ii) "Whether on facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal's order can be said as perverse in nature in not appreciating that the assesee failed to substantiate an furnish details

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

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

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

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. Aggrieved by the said order, the assessee preferred appeals

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 and losses from pension fund not allowed to be carried forward. Aggrieved by the said order, the assessee preferred appeals

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

Bench: S.SUJATHA,VINEET KOTHARI

10A of the IT Act are allowed only Date of Judgment 28-06-2018 I.T.A.No.304/2017 The Pr. Commissioner of Income-tax, CIT (A) & Anr. Vs. M/s. Acusis Software India Pvt. Ltd., 10/18 in Export Turnover but not from the Total Turnover then, it would give rise to inadvertent, unlawful, meaningless and illogical result which would cause grave injustice

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

10A of the Act in respect of profits derived from export of software STP Units and claimed deduction under Section 80HHE in respect of profits derived from export of computer software available to any entity. However, the Transfer Pricing Officer by order dated - 06.05.2006 considered the loss of 14.76% in the entire technical consultancy services agreement

THE PR COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S BROCADE COMMUNICATION

Bench: S.SUJATHA,VINEET KOTHARI

10A of the IT Act are allowed only Date of Judgment 28-06-2018 I.T.A.No.330/2017 The Pr. Commissioner of Income-tax, CIT(A) & Anr. Vs. M/s. Brocade Communication Systems Pvt. Ltd., 9/14 in Export Turnover but not from the Total Turnover then, it would give rise to inadvertent, unlawful, meaningless and illogical result which would cause grave injustice

M/S METRIX PRECISION COMPONENTS PVT. LIMITED vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

In the result, the appeal is allowed

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,H.T. NARENDRA PRASAD

7. Section 10A and 10B of the Act are pari materia provisions. However, difference is with regard to nature of the unit. Section 10A deals with Free Trade Zone (FTZ) unit whereas, Section 10B deals with 100% export oriented unit. Section 10A of the Act covers newly established undertaking in Free Trade Zones whereas, Section 10B deals with newly established

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

Bench: S.SUJATHA,VINEET KOTHARI

10A of the IT Act are allowed only in Export Turnover but not from the Total Turnover then, it would give rise to inadvertent, unlawful, meaningless and illogical result which would cause grave injustice to the Respondent which could have never been the intention of the legislature. 20. Even in common parlance, when the object of the formula

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

Bench: S.SUJATHA,VINEET KOTHARI

transfer pricing Date of Judgment 17-07-2018, ITA No.332/2015 The Commissioner of Income Tax & Another Vs. M/s Mindteck (India) Limited 5/13 on assessee specific FAR analysis and without considering the comparability of these companies on the basis of specific facts brought on record by the TPO in the case of the assessee?” Regarding Substantial Question of law No.1

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX vs. M/S. CURAM SOFTWARE INTERNATIONAL

Bench: S.SUJATHA,VINEET KOTHARI

7. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was correct in remanding the issue of market risk adjustment to the file of the transfer pricing officer to identify the risks to bring it at par with the comparables and make required adjustments to the profit margin without pointing out the risk in comparables

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

Bench: S.SUJATHA,VINEET KOTHARI

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 adjustment: Rs.2

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

The appeal is dismissed

Bench: S SUNIL DUTT YADAV,B.S PATIL

7,37,16,897/- . Thereafter, Assessment Officer passed the draft assessment order on 06.03.2013 after incorporating transfer price adjustment apart from adjusting export turnover by reducing communication expenses and foreign currency expenditure for the purpose of computing deduction under Section 10A

THE PR COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S HEWLETT PACKARD GLOBAL

Bench: S.SUJATHA,VINEET KOTHARI

10A of the IT Act are allowed only in Export Turnover but not from the Total Turnover then, it would give rise to inadvertent, unlawful, meaningless and illogical result which would cause grave injustice to the Respondent which could have never been the intention of the legislature. 20. Even in common parlance, when the object of the formula

PR COMMISSIONER OF vs. M/S TELELOGIC INDIA PVT LTD

Bench: S.SUJATHA,VINEET KOTHARI

Transfer Pricing Officer has rightly chosen the same by applying qualitative and quantitative filters?” 3. Regarding 1st substantial question of law:- Learned counsel for the appellants-Revenue has submitted that the Hon'ble Supreme Court has settled the controversy in the case of Commissioner of Income-tax V/s. Yokogawa India Ltd., [(2017) 77 taxmann.com 41 (SC)] and therefore the said