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

R JANARDHANA BABU vs. THE MANAGING DIRECTOR

Accordingly, the writ petitions are allowed

Bench: The Hon’Ble Mr. Justice B. Veerappa

127(c) all are r/a No. 189, Igrez Vaddo, Siolin, Marna, Bardez, Goa - 503517 128. Margret Anthony, d/o James D Cruz, aged about 62 years, Working as pharma Assistant, Glaxosmithkline Pharmaceuticals Limited, Devanahalli Road, 37 Off Old Madras Road, Bangalore-560049 129. Esthar N Raju, s/o Robert Rajamanikyam, aged about 61 years, Working as pharma Assistant, Glaxosmithkline Pharmaceuticals Limited, Devanahalli

MR. BINEESH KODIYERI vs. DIRECTORATE OF ENFORCEMENT

Bench: The Hon’Ble Mr. Justice Suraj Govindaraj Writ Petition No. 13261 Of 2020 (Gm-Res) Between: Mr. Bineesh Kodiyeri S/O Mr. Kodiyeri Balakrishnan Aged About 37 Years Kootamvilla Lane, Maruthankuzhi Thiruvananthapuram District Kerala State – 695013

price of which exceeds on e crore rupees; or (d) Fraudulently availing of or attempt to avail of drawback or any exemption from duty provided under this Act, if the amount of drawback or exemption from duty exceeds fifty lakh rupees. WP No. 13261 of 2020 65 (7) Save as otherwise provided in sub-section (6), all other offences under

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

Bench: S.SUJATHA,VINEET KOTHARI

Section 10A provides that such expenses are to be reduced only from the export turnover? 2. Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is right in law in excluding comparables such as M/s. Bodhtree Consulting Ltd, M/s. Excelrx Services ltd and M/s. Moldtex Technologies Ltd on the ground of functional dissimilarity by following its earlier order

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-III vs. WITTNESS SYSTEM

Bench: S.SUJATHA,VINEET KOTHARI

127 DTR 0327 (Kar), which has been affirmed by 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 HCL Technologies Ltd. (supra), is quoted below for ready reference

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

SMT. S. JALAJA vs. UNION OF INDIA

In the result, writ appeals are allowed

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR

2) the jurisdiction to convict, the State law empowering the Court to convict summarily, the Commonwealth Law making the contravention an indictable offence, and therefore bringing into operation sec. 80 of the Constitution, requiring a jury; (3) the penalty, the State providing a maximum of $ 50 the Commonwealth Act prescribing a maximum of $ 100, or imprisonment, or both

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-III, vs. M/S MERCEDES BENZ

Bench: S.SUJATHA,VINEET KOTHARI

Transfer Pricing analysis and with regard to risk adjustment, back to the file of assessing authority/Transfer Pricing Officer when there are no fresh facts brought before the tribunal apart from those which are already discussed in the order of assessing authority/Transfer Pricing Officer? 2) Whether the tribunal is right in law by directing the TPO to consider only those uncontrolled

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. SHRI ANIL KABRA

Bench: RAVI MALIMATH,N.KUMAR

Transfer Pricing analysis and with regard to risk adjustment, back to the file of assessing authority/Transfer Pricing Officer when there are no fresh facts brought before the tribunal apart from those which are already discussed in the order of assessing authority/Transfer Pricing Officer? 2) Whether the tribunal is right in law by directing the TPO to consider only those uncontrolled

SMT. M R PRABHAVATHY vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

Bench: The Hon’Ble Mr. Justice K.Natarajan Election Petition No.1 Of 2019 Connected With Election Petition No.2 Of 2019

Section 33A of RP Act and 106 he has committed corrupt practice of bribery as contemplated under Sections 123(1)(A), 123(1)(B), 123(7), 123(7)(b), 123(vii)(d), 123(7)(h) and Section 123(8), 123(3), 3A and 123(6) of R.P. Act ? The petitioner in E.P. No.2/2019 has contended that respondent No.1 committed corrupt

THE PR COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIT(A) vs. M/S GENISYS INFORMATION

Bench: S.SUJATHA,VINEET KOTHARI

2) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is right in confirming the direction of DRP with regard to Transfer Pricing adjustment whereby the DRP had directed the assessing authority to carryout the working capital adjustment both in software segment and ITES segment as per the actual figures worked out by the assessee without

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX vs. M/S ING VYSYA BANK LTD

The appeal is dismissed

Bench: P.S.DINESH KUMAR,C.M. POONACHA

Section 48(i) of the IT Act, there must be nexus between the transfer and deduction. Shri. Shankar argued that the sale of shares has taken place on February 2, 2003 and the compromise was entered into on July 29, 2004. The Compromise Deed was produced and the same has been recorded by the I.T.A No.221/2015 17 ITAT. It contains

LANGDON & SEAH CONSULTING INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED

The appeal is dismissed

Bench: VINEET KOTHARI

Section 48(i) of the IT Act, there must be nexus between the transfer and deduction. Shri. Shankar argued that the sale of shares has taken place on February 2, 2003 and the compromise was entered into on July 29, 2004. The Compromise Deed was produced and the same has been recorded by the I.T.A No.221/2015 17 ITAT. It contains

THE MANGALORE ELECTRICITY SUPPLY COMPANY LTD., vs. SRI A CHANDRASEKHAR

Bench: G.NARENDAR,P.N.DESAI

price fixed under any law, etc. 29. Deficiency of service is defined under Section 2(1)(g) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 in the following manner: “2. (1)(g) ‘deficiency’ means any fault, imperfection, shortcoming or inadequacy in the quality, nature and manner of performance which is required to be maintained by or under any law for the time

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 ACUSIS SOFTWARE INDIA PVT. LTD.

Bench: S.SUJATHA,VINEET KOTHARI

section 10A and the decision relied upon by the Tribunal has not reached finality”? 2. “Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is right in law in erred in excluding certain comparable from list of comparable on the ground of Date of Judgment 02-07-2018 I.T.A.No.443 /2017 The Pr. Commissioner of Income

THE PR.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,CIT (A) vs. M/S CERNER HEALTHCARE SOLUTIONS PVT.LTD

Bench: S.SUJATHA,VINEET KOTHARI

section 10A and the decision relied upon by the Tribunal has not reached finality?. 2. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal erred in directing the TPO to exclude certain comparable by relying on its earlier decisions which has not reached finality and even when the TPO has rightly chosen the said comparable considering

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

Bench: S.SUJATHA,VINEET KOTHARI

2. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances, the Tribunal in case of TH Consulting (India) Pvt. Ltd is right in law in holding that Aptico Ltd, Chowksi Laboratories Ltd and Wapcos Ltd are to be excluded from the list of comparables chosen by TPO on the ground of functional dissimilarity without doing any FAR analysis of the assessee