PR COMMISSIONER OF vs. M/S SOFTBRANDS INDIA

Bench: S.SUJATHA,VINEET KOTHARI

Transfer Pricing/ determination of the ‘Arm’s Length Price’; [II] The Scheme of procedure of assessment and appeals to the Tribunal and High Court/Supreme Court. [III] The scope of interference by High Court under Section 260-A of the Act in these type of cases. Findings of the Tribunal: 12. We find it appropriate to quote some portions

PR COMMISSIONER OF vs. M/S SOFTBRANDS INDIA

Bench: S.SUJATHA,VINEET KOTHARI

Transfer Pricing/ determination of the ‘Arm’s Length Price’; [II] The Scheme of procedure of assessment and appeals to the Tribunal and High Court/Supreme Court. [III] The scope of interference by High Court under Section 260-A of the Act in these type of cases. Findings of the Tribunal: 12. We find it appropriate to quote some portions

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

Bench: S.SUJATHA,VINEET KOTHARI

transfer pricing officer to provide the information obtained under section 133[6] of the Act in respect of the comparability

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S FIRST ADVANTAGE OFFSHORE SERVICES PVT LTD

Bench: S.SUJATHA,VINEET KOTHARI

price under the proviso to Section 92C(2) of the Act, without considering the corrigendum dated 30-04-2010 to the circular 5/2010 issued by the Board in this regard? 6. Whether the Tribunal was correct in directing cross examination in the case of comparables where information was gathered in terms of provisions of section 133

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

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

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

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

133 or section 135 or section 135A or section 136, he may arrest such person and shall, as soon as may be, inform him of the grounds for such arrest.] (2) Every person arrested under sub-section (1) shall, without unnecessary delay, be taken to magistrate. (3) Where an officer of customs has arrested any person under sub-section

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S HCL EAI SERVICES LTD.

Bench: S.SUJATHA,VINEET KOTHARI

Transfer Pricing Officer attracted the enterprise level financials as against the segmental financials with which he started, on the basis of the information gathered under Section 133

PR. COMMISSIONER INCOME TAX -IV vs. M/S BROADCOM COMMUNICATIONS TECHNOLOGIES

Bench: S.SUJATHA,VINEET KOTHARI

133(6)? 3. Whether, on the facts and circumstances of the case, the ITAT was correct in not appreciating the facts that if any filter or criteria applied by the assessee for search of comparables is accepted or any filter or criteria applied by the TPO is relaxed, the entire accept/reject matrix changes resulting in a new comparable set including

PR COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX - 7 vs. M/S TRIANZ HOLDINGS P LTD

Bench: S.SUJATHA,VINEET KOTHARI

Transfer Pricing Adjustments’ made by the concerned authorities below. We consider it appropriate to quote the relevant portions hereunder:- “7.1 The assessee submitted that the comparables, Avani Cincom Technologies, Date of Judgment 04-07-2018 I.T.A.No.616/2017 Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax-7 & Anr. Vs. M/s. Trianz Holdings P. Ltd., 4/9 Celestial Biolabs, Infosys Techologies Ltd, Kals information Systems

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-III vs. M/S. SYMBOL TECHNOLOGIES

Bench: S.SUJATHA,VINEET KOTHARI

133(6) of the Act, which was not in the public domain and could not have been used by the TPO, when the same is contrary to the Annual Report of the company as has been highlighted by the assessee in its submissions. We also find that the co- ordinate bench of this Tribunal in the case of Trilogy

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

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

Bench: S.SUJATHA,VINEET KOTHARI

section 133(6)? 6. Whether, on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was correct in not appreciating the facts that if any filter or criteria applied by the assessee for search of comparables is accepted or any filter or criteria applied by the TPO is relaxed, the entire accept / reject matrix changes resulting in a new comparable

PR.COMMISSIONER OF vs. M/S TEXTRON INDIA

Bench: S.SUJATHA,VINEET KOTHARI

Transfer Pricing study after taking a new view on functional matrix which is narrower than the functionality matrix originally used by the TPO? 3. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in setting aside the 10A re-computation made by the assessing authority by following the decision of this Hon’ble High

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

Bench: S.SUJATHA,VINEET KOTHARI

133(6)? 7. Whether, on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was correct in not appreciating the facts that if any filter or criteria applied by the assessee for search of comparables is accepted or any filter or criteria applied by the TPO is relaxed, the entire accept/reject matrix changes resulting in a new comparable set including

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