PR COMMISSIONER OF vs. M/S SOFTBRANDS INDIA

Bench: S.SUJATHA,VINEET KOTHARI

transfer pricing proceedings, the TPO had selected M/s. HMT Limited as one of the comparables on functional similarity, but while determining the ALP, he had not included M/s. HMT limited as a comparable. The learned Tribunal held: “7.3 We heard the rival submissions and perused the material placed on record. M/s. HMT Ltd., is in the segment of manufacturing

PR COMMISSIONER OF vs. M/S SOFTBRANDS INDIA

Bench: S.SUJATHA,VINEET KOTHARI

transfer pricing proceedings, the TPO had selected M/s. HMT Limited as one of the comparables on functional similarity, but while determining the ALP, he had not included M/s. HMT limited as a comparable. The learned Tribunal held: “7.3 We heard the rival submissions and perused the material placed on record. M/s. HMT Ltd., is in the segment of manufacturing

M/S HIMALAYA DRUG COMPANY vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

In the result, both the writ petitions are

Bench: This Court Under Section 260A Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (For Short “It Act”), Questioning The Order Dated 21.06.2017 In It(Tp)A No.807/Bang/2016 Passed By Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “B” Bench, Bengaluru (For Short “Tribunal”), Dismissing The Appeal Refusing To Declare The Proceedings Under Section 144C Of The It Act As Null & Void.

Transfer Pricing Officer passed order under Section 92CA of IT Act on 30.01.2015 for the assessment year 2011-12. Subsequently, the respondent-Revenue passed draft assessment order under Section 144C read with Section 143(2) of the IT Act on 27.03.2015. Against the said draft assessment order, appellant filed objections/appeal before the DRP and the DRP after hearing, passed order

PR COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-5 vs. M/S NOVELL SOFTWARE DEVELOPMENT (INDIA) PVT.LTD.

In the result, we do not find any merit in this appeal

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,R. NATARAJ

Transfer Pricing Officer be confirmed and disallowance under Section 14(a)(i)(a) of the Act be made. The Tribunal

PR.COMMISSIONER OF INCOMETAX-2 vs. M/S.EYGBS (INDIA) PVT LTD

Bench: CHIEF JUSTICE,C M JOSHI

14,829/- for AY 2016-17, under Section 10AA of the Act. In addition, the Assessee had also claimed deduction under Chapter VI-A of the Act. Immediately after filing its original return for AY 2015-16, the Assessee had filed a revised return voluntarily declaring transfer pricing

PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX - 6 vs. M/S. SAMSUNG R & D INSTITUTE BANGALORE PVT LTD

In the result, we do not find any merit in this

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,H.T. NARENDRA PRASAD

Section 92-CA of the Act by making an adjustment in respect of software development services. The Assessing Officer thereafter passed an order of assessment incorporating the transfer pricing adjustment. The assessee thereupon filed an appeal before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) in which selection of Infosys Ltd. as comparable was challenged. The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals

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

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:

transfer pricing adjustment actually was not determinative of the refund inasmuch as the tax 8 amount was paid based on book profit, as provided u/s 115JB; the entitlement of the assessee for interest u/s 244A(1A) is intended to bring parity in the converse situation where the Revenue levies interest on delayed payment of taxes as provided u/s 234B

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

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

PR COMMISSIONER OF WEALTH TAX-6 vs. M R KODANDRAM

Appeals stand dismissed

Bench: RAVI MALIMATH,ASHOK S.KINAGI

14 - transfer shall be deemed to be the full value of the consideration received or accruing as a result of such transfer.” 13. Now the main controversy revolves around the determination of full value of consideration. The expression ‘full value of consideration’ has been dealt by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Commissioner Of Income-Tax, West

THE PR COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. SMT SAROJINI M KUSHE

Appeal stands dismissed

Bench: S.SUJATHA,HANCHATE SANJEEVKUMAR

price received by the respondent was at the rate of Rs.136 per share the full value of the consideration must be taken at the rate of Rs.136 per share. The view that we have expressed as to the interpretation of the main part of section 12B(2) is borne out by the fact that in the first proviso to section

THE DIRECTOR OF INCOME-TAX vs. M/S. INTEL CAPITAL (CAYMAN) CORPORATION

In the result, the appeal fails and is hereby

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,H.T. NARENDRA PRASAD

14 2008. Clause (2A) of section 49 reads as under: "(2A) Where the capital asset, being a share or debenture of a company, became the property of the assessee in consideration of a transfer referred to in clause (x) or clause (xa) of section 47, the cost of acquisition of the asset to the assessee shall be deemed

THE PR COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-1 vs. ROBERT BOSCH ENGINEERING AND BUSINESS SOLUTIONS PVT LTD

Appeal of the revenue is hereby dismissed

Bench: CHIEF JUSTICE,C M JOSHI

Section 92CA making an transfer pricing adjustment. The learned TPO inter alia adopted the following filter for selection of comparables for the purpose of transfer pricing analysis.
“Companies whose SWD / IT enabled Service is less than 75% of the total operating revenues were excluded The companies whose revenues from software development and related services are more than 75% of their

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

Bench: S.SUJATHA,VINEET KOTHARI

Section 10A of the IT Act are allowed only Date of Judgment 28-06-2018 I.T.A.No.304/2017 The Pr. Commissioner of Income-tax, CIT (A) & Anr. Vs. M/s. Acusis Software India Pvt. Ltd., 10/18 in Export Turnover but not from the Total Turnover then, it would give rise to inadvertent, unlawful, meaningless and illogical result which would cause grave injustice

THE PR.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S. YOKOGAWA INDIA LTD

The appeal is dismissed

Bench: S.G.PANDIT,K. V. ARAVIND

Transfer Pricing Officer passed under sub-section (3) of section 92CA; and (ii) any non-resident not being a company, or any foreign company:]] [Provided that such eligible assessee shall not include person referred to in sub-section (1) of section 158BA or other person referred to in section 158BD.]" - 12 - ITA No. 431 of 2022 10. An analysis

PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-2 vs. TOYOTA TSUSHO INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED

Bench: CHIEF JUSTICE,C M JOSHI

Section 92-C(2) of the Act instead of 3% in respect to the trading segment. However, the learned DRP rejected the said objection. The learned AO passed the final Assessment Order on the basis of the aforesaid directions on 21.07.2022. 9. The Assessee appealed the said order before the learned ITAT. The learned ITAT considered the appellants' objection regarding

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. SRI.M.R.JANAKIRAM (HUF)

The appeal is allowed

Bench: ARAVIND KUMAR,E.S.INDIRESH

14. In Clause 19 it is further provided that on the expiry of the term of the lease agreement, the demised premises shall be conveyed by the lessor to the lessee without any further financial or other compensation whatsoever, and the parties shall execute such documents or conveyance as would be required to transfer the absolute title over the demised