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

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 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 WIPRO LTD

In the result, the appeals are partly allowed

Bench: B.MANOHAR,DILIP B.BHOSALE

9) of the Act? 7 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

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

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

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

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

TRANSFER PRICING OFFICER AND ANOTHER’ [(2010) 320 ITR 565 [DELHI]. [e] ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX AND OTHERS vs. ICICI SECURITIES PRIMARY DEALERSHIP LTD. [2012] 348 ITR 299 (SC) [f] ‘COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. I.A.E.C. (PUMPS) LTD.,’ [(1998) 150 CTR SC 126 - 14 - 6. Submissions of the learned Counsel for the Revenue: Learned Counsel Sri. K.V. Aravind appearing

THE PR COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIT(A) vs. M/S BIESSE MANUFACTURING COMPANY PVT LTD

Bench: S.SUJATHA,VINEET KOTHARI

139 of the IT Act is made, the employer is entitled for deduction.” Regarding Substantial Question No.1: 7. The learned Tribunal, after discussing the rival contentions of both the Appellants-Revenue and Respondent-Assessee, has returned a finding as under: “13. Regarding the request of the assessee for exclusion of 4 other comparable companies on account of being functionally different

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

9 held in the matter. The assessing officer has applied his mind on the issue of allowability of the depreciation on the leased assets on finance lease arrangement and has adopted a particular view which is evident from the order passed by the assessing officer and therefore, a mere change of view, on the part of the Principal Commissioner

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

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

The appeal is allowed in part

Bench: B.MANOHAR,DILIP B.BHOSALE

9 setting aside the order passed by the First Appellate Authority. With regard to the receipt of Rs.25.00 crores, towards transfer of technical knowhow is concerned, it is a capital receipt and not revenue receipt and not liable to be taxed and ordered for deletion. The Revenue being aggrieved by the order passed by the Appellate Tribunal dated

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

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

M/S I G PETROCHEMICALS LTD., vs. THE ASST COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

In the result, the appeal fails and is hereby dismissed

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR

9. The assessee's submissions had been carefully considered with reference to the facts of the case and the relevant provisions of the I.T. Act 1961. It is seen from the records that the Assessing Officer has not properly applied his mind to the taxability of the waived principal amount of loans of Rs.28.66 crores which was credited