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

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

1 and Explanation 2 to sub-section (2) of section 80-I shall apply for the purposes of clause (iii) of this sub-section as they apply for the purposes of clause (ii) of that sub- section. (3) This section applies to the undertaking, if the sale proceeds of articles or things or computer software exported out of India

PR COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-5 vs. M/S NOVELL SOFTWARE DEVELOPMENT (INDIA) PVT.LTD.

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

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,R. NATARAJ

Transfer Pricing Officer. It is further submitted that the Tribunal failed to note that depreciation cannot be excluded from the cost of tax payer as well as comparables and Rule 10B(1)(e)(iii) of the Income Tax Rules nowhere provides to exclude the depreciation as it will materially affect the adjustments and therefore, the same cannot be excluded. With

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

10B of the Act and therefore, re-computation of Arms Length Price made by Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) and the tribunal is not correct. It is further submitted that the tribunal has failed to assign any reasons for disturbing the findings of Transfer Pricing Officer that arithmetic mean of 17.02% of the comparables determined for Arms Length Price computation

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

The appeal is disposed of

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,M.I.ARUN

10B of the Act and Rs.3,05,84,109/- as book profits under Section 115JB of the Act was claimed. The return was processed under Section 143(1) of the Act and was subsequently taken up for scrutiny. As the International transactions of the assessee were in excess of Rs.10 Crores, a reference under Section 92CA(1

PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-2 vs. M/S TT STEEL SERVICE INDIA PVT LTD

Bench: V KAMESWAR RAO,S RACHAIAH

Transfer Pricing Adjustment to International Transaction with Associated Enterprises only even when same is contrary to Section 92CA of the Act and when assesse is providing service to both AE and Non-AE's where assesse has not made any bifurcation of profit in book of account as overall profit margin is recorded in books without any data

PR.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-7 vs. M/S TEXPORT OVERSEAS PVT LTD

Bench: ARAVIND KUMAR,SURAJ GOVINDARAJ

transfer pricing order under Section 92CA of the Act to determine arms length price as the assessee had entered into specified domestic transaction and on the 4 ground it was covered under Section 92BA of the Act. Despite objections being filed by the assessee before Dispute Resolution Panel (for short ‘DRP’) directions came to be issued

THE PR COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S ARISTA NETWORKS INDIA PVT LTD

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

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

1. 'Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is right in law in directing the Transfer Pricing Officer to exclude comparables namely, M/s.Sasken Communication Technologies Ltd, M/s.Tata Elxsi Ltd, M/s.Mindtree Ltd, M/s.Larsen & Tourbo Ltd, M/s.R.S.Software (India) Ltd, M/s. Persistent Systems Ltd, M/s.Nihlent Technologies Ltd, M/s.Cybage Software Pvt Ltd, from list of comparables on basis

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-III vs. WITTNESS SYSTEM

Bench: S.SUJATHA,VINEET KOTHARI

10B. (1) For the purposes of sub-section (2) of section 92C, the arm's length price in relation to an international transaction shall be determined by any of the following methods, being the most appropriate method, in the following manner, namely :-- (a)....... to (d)........ (e) transactional net margin method, by which,-- (i) the net profit margin realised

PR COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S GE MEDICAL SYSTEMS INDIA PVT.LTD

Bench: S.SUJATHA,VINEET KOTHARI

10B are concerned, besides the nature of unit being different Free Trade Zone Unit (S.10A) and 100% EOU Unit (S.10B), the substance of these provisions is the same, the difference is only in the categories of assessee covered by these two sections separately. While S.10A covers newly Date of Judgment 23-07-2018 I.T.A.No.76 /2016 Pr.Commissioner of Income

PR COMMISSIONER OF vs. M/S GE MEDICAL SYSTEMS INDIA PVT.LTD

Bench: S.SUJATHA,VINEET KOTHARI

10B are concerned, besides the nature of unit being different Free Trade Zone Unit (S.10A) and 100% EOU Unit (S.10B), the substance of these Date of Judgment 23-07-2018 I.T.A.No.77 /2016 Pr.Commissioner of Income Tax & Anr., Vs. M/s. GE Medical Systems India Pvt. Ltd., 9/19 provisions is the same, the difference is only in the categories of assessee

M/S. TOYOTA KIRLOSKAR MOTOR (P) LTD., vs. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

Bench: S.SUJATHA,VINEET KOTHARI

Section 92-C of the Act prescribes the methods of determining ALP, having regard to the most appropriate method which will be decided in accordance with the rules prescribed. Rule 10A(d) of the Income-tax Rules 1962 [‘the Rules’] provides that ‘transaction’ would include a number of closely linked transactions. Rule 10B(1)(d) of the Rules advocate profit

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S FOSROC CHEMICALS INDIA PVT LTD

The appeals are dismissed

Bench: B.V.NAGARATHNA,JAYANT PATEL

10B (1)(a) of the Act”? 5 Substantial questions of law in ITA No.470/2013 “1. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances and in law the Tribunal was correct is setting aside the determination of ALP on the International Transaction Payment of Technical Services Fees, directing the Transfer Pricing Officer to reconsider the issue on the most appropriate method

PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-2 vs. M/S CONTIENENTAL AUTOMOTIVE COMPONENTS (INDIA) PVT LTD.,

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

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

Section 260-A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short, ‘the Act’) questioning the correctness and legality of order dated 17.08.2023 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, ‘B’ Bench, Bengaluru (for short, ‘Appellate Authority’) in IT(TP).No.390/Bang/2021 for the assessment year 2009-10. - 3 - NC: 2024:KHC:39764-DB ITA No. 61 of 2024 3. This Court

SUNDAR PUJARI vs. THE GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA

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

Bench: ARAVIND KUMAR,B.A.PATIL

Section 260-A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short, ‘the Act’) questioning the correctness and legality of order dated - 3 - NC: 2024:KHC:39700-DB ITA No. 220 of 2020 29.11.2019 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, ‘A’ Bench, Bengaluru (for short, ‘Appellate Authority’) in IT(TP)A.No.1692/Bang/2016 for the assessment year 2012-13. 3. This

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 vs. MARLABS INNOVATIONS 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 in TPO order whereby the said authority has categorically held that functions of said comparable companies are similar to that of assessee in respect of nature of filed they are involved"? 3. "Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is right in law in taking different stands on adjustments to comparables

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

1. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal's order can be said as perverse in law in directing the Transfer Pricing Officer to exclude comparables namely, exclude, Persistent Systems Ltd, Sasken Communication Technologies Ltd, C.G.Vak Software & Exports Ltd on account of functional dissimilarity even when the said comparable satisfies qualitative and quantitative filters