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

The appeals stand disposed of, accordingly

Bench: N.KUMAR,B.SREENIVASE GOWDA

Transfer Pricing Officer for determination of arms’ length price. As per the return filed the tax payable was Rs.48,38,27,302/-. The assessee also claimed TDS of Rs.6,02,14,066/- and advance tax payment of Rs.59,50,80,000/-. The assessee claimed refund of Rs.17,12,21,725/-. The return of income was processed

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

The appeals stand disposed of, accordingly

Bench: N.KUMAR,B.SREENIVASE GOWDA

Transfer Pricing Officer for determination of arms’ length price. As per the return filed the tax payable was Rs.48,38,27,302/-. The assessee also claimed TDS of Rs.6,02,14,066/- and advance tax payment of Rs.59,50,80,000/-. The assessee claimed refund of Rs.17,12,21,725/-. The return of income was processed

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S SHASTHA PHARMA LABORATORIES

The appeal is dismissed

Bench: N.KUMAR,RATHNAKALA

price of Rs.50.12/- lakhs did not amount to a transfer and consequently, no capital gains tax was liable to be paid.?” 7. However, before commencement of the arguments, learned Counsel for the revenue sought the permission of the Court to raise additional substantial question of law : “Whether the Tribunal was correct in holding the reopening of assessment under Sections

PROF. P.N. SHETTY vs. OFFICE OF THE INCOME TAX OFFICER

Bench: The

price of Rs.21,32,470/- on 20th August, 2013 which was before the 3 expiry of three years from the date of transfer of the capital assets. The notice which was the subject matter of challenge in the writ petition filed by the appellant was issued with a view to bring the unutilized capital gains

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:

139 or u/s. 142 in response to a notice issued u/s. 142(1); (ii) inquiry by the Assessing Officer in accordance with the provisions of sections 142 and 143; (iii) making of the order of assessment by the Assessing Officer u/s. 143(3) or section 144; and (iv) issuing of the notice of demand u/s. 156 on the basis

PR COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S IND SING DEVELOPERS P LTD

The appeal is dismissed

Bench: B.V.NAGARATHNA,JAYANT PATEL

Section 110 of the Act, if an AOP is chargeable to tax at maximum marginal rate then the share of profits in the hands of the members is not chargeable to tax at all. 19. Now against the above contours of taxability of an AOP, we have to see the facts of the case before us. The first

R JANARDHANA BABU vs. THE MANAGING DIRECTOR

Accordingly, the writ petitions are allowed

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

139. Shanthi Chengappa, d/o K K Uthappa, aged about 58 years, Glaxosmithkline Pharmaceuticals Limited, Devanahalli Road, Off Old Madras Road, Bangalore-560049 140. Indira Ramakrishna, d/o V K Perumal, aged about 58 years, Glaxosmithkline 40 Pharmaceuticals Limited, Devanahalli Road, Off Old Madras Road, Bangalore-560049 141. Shankuntala K Murthy, d/o S V Narasinga Rao, aged about 58 years, Glaxosmithkline Pharmaceuticals

NOVO NORDISK INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE 12 (2

Bench: S.SUJATHA

Transfer Pricing Officer under Section 92CA(1) of the Act for determination of arm’s length price in respect of international transactions - 4 - reported by the petitioner during the subject Assessment year. TPO passed a detailed order under Section 92CA(3) of the Act accepting the arm’s length price reported by the petitioner in respect of its international transactions

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 CISCO SYSTEMS

The appeals are allowed; the impugned

Bench: SATISH CHANDRA SHARMA,R. NATARAJ

4.—For the purposes of this sub- section, the expression "know-how" means any industrial information or technique likely to assist in the manufacture or processing of goods or in the working of a mine, oil-well or other sources of mineral deposits (including searching for discovery or testing of deposits for the winning of access thereto). Explanation

M/S INDUS TOWERS LTD vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF COMMERCIAL TAXES

In the result, we pass the following order:

Bench: RAVI MALIMATH,N.KUMAR

Section 66 thereof created charge of service tax in regard to taxable services. Service Lax’ is defined in clause (34) of Set lion 65 to mean tax chargeable under the provLsioi is of that napler. 7’axable ceri’icc is dejrnea Iunder sub ‘‘larcsc’ Ib) 1 ½usc 4 1 [ 5j 0 n ° mc a an, srvkc provided tu. znrcr cilia

M/S T T K PRESTIGE LTD vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

Bench: The Hon’Ble Mrs.Justice S.Sujatha

4. It is the contention of the petitioner that the very same issue came up for adjudication for the Assessment Year 2007-08. Submissions were made by the petitioner pertaining to this issue in terms of the letter dated 11.08.2009. The respondent, after considering the same, completed the assessment under section 143[3] of the Act for the Assessment Year

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

In the result, the appeals are partly allowed

Bench: B.MANOHAR,DILIP B.BHOSALE

4. In ITA 68/07, the following four substantial questions of law are raised for our consideration: A-5. Whether the Tribunal was correct in holding that a sum of Rs.8,156/- spent on modification of building, a sum of Rs.3,60,694/- spent on corporate office repairs and Rs.21,485/-spent on purchase of paintings is a revenue expenditure

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 BIESSE MANUFACTURING COMPANY PVT LTD

Bench: S.SUJATHA,VINEET KOTHARI

Transfer Pricing Officer has considered the comparable on the basis of qualitative and quantitative filters? 2. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, Tribunal is right in law in setting aside the disallowance made by assessing authority under section 2(24)(x) read with section 36(1)(va) for the Act on account of belated remittance

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S.WINTAC LTD.,

The appeal is allowed in part

Bench: B.MANOHAR,DILIP B.BHOSALE

4. Whether the Tribunal was correct in holding that for the computation of capital gains arising on sale of equity shares of M/s.Recon Agro Tech Pvt Ltd., the loss under capital gains is to be computed by adopting cost of acquisition of Rs.0.10 per share when interse parties were interested persons and family members and the entire transaction

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (CENTRAL) vs. M/S. BAGMANE DEVELOPERS PVT LTD

Bench: ARAVIND KUMAR,JAYANT PATEL

139 (1) of the Income Tax Act?” 3. Independent of the first question, the second question as has been formulated by the Revenue is as under: “Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in law in 9 allowing the assessee’s appeal as regards loans advanced to the sister concerns by holding that

M/S BAGMANE DEVELOPERS PVT LTD vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

Bench: ARAVIND KUMAR,JAYANT PATEL

139 (1) of the Income Tax Act?” 3. Independent of the first question, the second question as has been formulated by the Revenue is as under: “Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in law in 9 allowing the assessee’s appeal as regards loans advanced to the sister concerns by holding that