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 PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER vs. M/S OBULAPURAM MINING

Bench: K.SOMASHEKAR,UMESH M ADIGA

139 on 30.09.2008 under ack. No.44479161300908 with digital signature declaring income of Rs.764,53,84,970/-. The financial year 2007-08 is the year of search in the case of the assessee. Consequent to the material gathered in the case of the assessee searched, action under Section 153A of the Act was initiated in the assessee’s case for earlier

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

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

The appeal is dismissed

Bench: N.KUMAR,RATHNAKALA

5. Aggrieved by the said order of the assessing authority, the assessee preferred an appeal to the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals). The appellate authority confirmed the assessment made but for - 7 - statistical purpose the appeal was treated as dismissed, since despite the acceptance of one of the pleadings raised, the end result is the confirmation of the assessment order

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

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

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

THE PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S CISCO SYSTEMS

The appeals are allowed; the impugned

Bench: SATISH CHANDRA SHARMA,R. NATARAJ

price for which it is sold, so, however, that where the actual cost of a motor car is, in accordance with the proviso to clause (1) of section 43, taken to be twenty-five thousand rupees, the moneys payable in respect of such motor car shall be taken to be a sum which bears to the amount for which

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

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

5. Submissions of the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner: Learned Counsel Dr. R.B. Krishna submitted that the impugned notice dated 11.02.2014 and the impugned order dated 1.7.2015, issued by the respondent are wholly without jurisdiction. It was submitted that the respondent has denied the fact of - 7 - reopening the assessment concluded under section 143[3] of the Act based

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

The appeal is allowed in part

Bench: B.MANOHAR,DILIP B.BHOSALE

price should not have arisen. The findings of CIT(A) in respect of long term capital gains have not been challenged by the department. Accordingly the loss under capital gain is to be computed by adopting consideration at Rs.0.10 per share.” We find that there is no infirmity in the finding recorded by the Appellate Tribunal. Under Section

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

The appeal is dismissed

Bench: B.V.NAGARATHNA,JAYANT PATEL

139 MNJ 94 DATED 5-1-1995. II. The First Party has offered to the Second Party or his nominees the Joint development rights of the above Survey Numbers which offer the Second Party has accepted in good faith and on the above representations of the First Party. 9 III. This MOU is being signed by the parties broadly setting

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

In the result, the appeals are partly allowed

Bench: B.MANOHAR,DILIP B.BHOSALE

5. In ITA 133/07, the following two substantial questions of law arise for our consideration: A-9. Whether the Tribunal was correct in holding that the stock transfers made to the new industrial undertaking at Amalnar for manufacture of fatty acid and glycerin plant should be taken at market price and not at the cost price of transfer

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 (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

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

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