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

Bench: S.SUJATHA,VINEET KOTHARI

Transfer Pricing Officer and they are functionally similar to that of assessee”? 3. “Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is right in law in directing the assessing authority/transfer pricing officer to treat foreign gain as part of operating profit by relying on its earlier decisions which has not reached finality”? 4. “Whether

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,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 of expenditure incurred for ‘Export Date of Judgment 05-07-2018 I.T.A.No.489/2017 The Pr. Commissioner of Income

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

Bench: S.SUJATHA,VINEET KOTHARI

Pricing Officer to exclude certain comparable based on functional dissimilarity even when the TPO has chosen the said comparable by applying qualitative and quantitative filters when culling out comparable companies”? 3. Regarding substantial question of law No.2 :- Date of Judgment 06-07-2018 I.T.A.No.831/2017 The Pr. Commissioner of Income-tax, CIT(A) & Anr. Vs. M/s. GT Nexus Software

PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S. GXS INDIA TECHNOLOGY CENTRE PVT. LTD.

Bench: S.SUJATHA,VINEET KOTHARI

Section 10A of the Act?” 3. Regarding substantial question of law Nos.1 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’ and ‘Transfer Pricing Adjustments’ made by the concerned authorities

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

Bench: S.SUJATHA,VINEET KOTHARI

127 DTR 0327 (Kar), which has been affirmed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Commissioner of Income-tax, Central – III vs. HCL Technologies Ltd., [2018] 93 Taxmann.com 33(SC). The relevant portion of the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of HCL Technologies Ltd. (supra), is quoted below for ready reference

THE PR COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S GLOBAL E BUSINESS OPERATIONS PVT LTD

Bench: S.SUJATHA,VINEET KOTHARI

127 DTR 0327 (Kar), which has been affirmed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Commissioner of Income-tax, Central – III vs. HCL Technologies Ltd., [2018] 93 Taxmann.com 33(SC). The relevant portion of the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of HCL Technologies Ltd. (supra), is quoted below for ready reference

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

Bench: S.SUJATHA,VINEET KOTHARI

127 DTR 0327 (Kar), which has been affirmed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Commissioner of Income-tax, Central – III vs. HCL Technologies Ltd., [2018] 93 Taxmann.com 33(SC). The relevant portion of the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of HCL Technologies Ltd. (supra), is quoted below for ready reference:- Date

THE PR COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S ELECTRONICS FOR IMAGING INDIA PVT LTD

Bench: S.SUJATHA,VINEET KOTHARI

127 DTR 0327 (Kar), which has been affirmed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Commissioner of Income-tax, Central – III vs. HCL Technologies Ltd., [2018] 93 Taxmann.com 33(SC). 4. The relevant portion of the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Date of Judgment 03-07-2018 I.T.A.No.536/2016

THE PR COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIT(A) vs. M/S ELECTRONICS FOR IMAGING

Bench: S.SUJATHA,VINEET KOTHARI

127 DTR 0327 (Kar), which has been affirmed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Commissioner of Income-tax, Central – III vs. HCL Technologies Ltd., [2018] 93 Taxmann.com 33(SC). Date of Judgment 03-07-2018 I.T.A.No.537/2016 The Pr. Commissioner of Income-tax, CIT(A) & Anr. Vs. M/s. Electronics for Imaging India Pvt. Ltd., 5/11

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

Bench: S.SUJATHA,VINEET KOTHARI

127 DTR 0327 (Kar), which has been affirmed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Commissioner of Income-tax, 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., 5/14 Central – III vs. HCL Technologies Ltd., [2018] 93 Taxmann.com 33(SC). The relevant

PR. COMMISSIONER vs. M/S SUNQUEST

Bench: S.SUJATHA,VINEET KOTHARI

Transfer Pricing Adjustments’ made by the concerned authorities below. We consider it appropriate to quote Date of Judgment 02-07-2018 I.T.A.No.5/2016 Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax & Anr. Vs. M/s. Sunquest Information Systems (India) Private Limited. 6/16 from the order of Tribunal rejecting the Application seeking a review before Tribunal as hereunder:- Regarding substantial question of law Nos.1

PR COMMISSIONER OF INCOME vs. M/S SUNQUEST

Bench: S.SUJATHA,VINEET KOTHARI

Transfer Pricing Adjustments’ made by the concerned authorities below. We consider it appropriate to quote Date of Judgment 02-07-2018 I.T.A.No.4/2016 Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax & Anr. Vs. M/s. Sunquest Information Systems (India) Private Limited. 6/16 from the order of Tribunal rejecting the Application seeking a review before Tribunal as hereunder:- Regarding substantial question of law Nos.1

SMT. KAMAKSHI DEVI AVARU vs. THE WEALTH TAX OFFICER

Bench: JOHN MICHAEL CUNHA,H.G.RAMESH

Transfer Pricing Adjustments’ made by the concerned authorities below. We consider it appropriate to quote Date of Judgment 02-07-2018 I.T.A.No.4/2016 Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax & Anr. Vs. M/s. Sunquest Information Systems (India) Private Limited. 6/16 from the order of Tribunal rejecting the Application seeking a review before Tribunal as hereunder:- Regarding substantial question of law Nos.1

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX III vs. M/S TIMKEN ENGINEERING

Bench: S.SUJATHA,VINEET KOTHARI

Transfer Pricing Officer and whether the rejection of same is Date of Judgment 10-07-2018 I.T.A.Nos.253-254/2012 Commissioner of Income-tax-III & Anr. Vs. M/s. Timken Engineering & Research India Pvt. Ltd., 4/11 sustainable in law even when no valid reasons are assigned by tribunal? 5. Whether the tribunal is correct in law in interpreting the proviso

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

The appeals stand disposed of, accordingly

Bench: N.KUMAR,B.SREENIVASE GOWDA

Section 145A of the Income- tax Act which was inserted with effect from assessment year 1999-2000. The said provision states that the valuation of stock should include the amount of any tax duty, cess or fee - 94 - actually paid or incurred to bring the goods to its present location and condition. The Department has followed a consistent stand

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

The appeals stand disposed of, accordingly

Bench: N.KUMAR,B.SREENIVASE GOWDA

Section 145A of the Income- tax Act which was inserted with effect from assessment year 1999-2000. The said provision states that the valuation of stock should include the amount of any tax duty, cess or fee - 94 - actually paid or incurred to bring the goods to its present location and condition. The Department has followed a consistent stand

PR COMMISSIONER OF vs. M/S SHARP SOFTWA

Bench: S.SUJATHA,VINEET KOTHARI

Transfer Pricing Officer on the basis of facts of a different case for different assessee Date of Judgment 02-07-2018, ITA No.457/2017 Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax-4 & another Vs. M/s Sharp Software Development India (P) Ltd. 3/15 without making any specific FAR analysis vis-à-vis he assessee-company in contrast to the facts of the comparable-companies