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.

1) of the IT Act and notice under Section 143(2) of the IT Act was issued calling upon certain details/information from the appellant. Thereafter, the case of the appellant was referred to Transfer Pricing Officer under Section 92CA of IT Act and the Transfer Pricing Officer passed order under Section 92CA on 30.01.2015. Thereafter, the respondent passed draft assessment

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

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:

Section 244A(1A) of the Act has styled the operative portion of the impugned order as under: “In this case, the Hon’ble ITAT, Bengaluru has remitted back the issue of Transfer Pricing to the AO for fresh assessment/re-assessment as per Para No. 5 & 6 of the ITAT order. Further, fresh approval has been taken from

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

144C of the Act, the Assessing Authority, vide order dated 18.02.2011 inter alia held that assessee had acquired foreign currency convertible bonds and after conversion of the same into shares, sold the same during the relevant previous year and disclosed short term capital gains from the transaction and paid tax thereon at the prescribed rate. It was further held that

PR.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-7 vs. M/S TALLY INDIA PVT LTD

In the result, we do not find

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,M.G.S. KAMAL

Transfer Pricing Officer by an order dated 13.06.2012 after affording an opportunity to the assessee passed an draft order of assessment on 05.07.2012 and forwarded the same to the assessee on 11.07.2012. The assessee filed an objection before the Dispute Resolution Panel on 09.08.2012. Thereafter, the Dispute Resolution Panel passed an order on 22.04.2013. The Assessing Officer passed a final

XIAOMI TECHNOLOGY INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

In the result, I pass the following:

Bench: The Hon'Ble Mr.Justice S.R.Krishna Kumar

transfer pricing adjustment. Pursuant to the said order, the Assessing Officer issued a Notice under Section 142(1) of the I.T.Act for the Assessment Year 2018-19 inter alia calling upon the petitioner to show cause, as to why payment of royalty to the foreign entity i.e., Qualcomm and Beijing Xiaomi Mobile should not be disallowed. On 10.08.2022, petitioner submitted

THE PR COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S ALPHA ELSEC DEFENCE AND AEROSPACE SYSTEMS PVT LTD,

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

Transfer Pricing Officer/Assessing Officer for verification and re-determination of ALP. The TPO giving effect to the order of the Tribunal has determined the re-adjusted ALP. It is not in dispute that the ALP determined by the TPO while giving effect to the order of Tribunal is in variance. Section 144C(1

PR COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S TATA POWER SOLAR SYSTEMS LIMITED

Appeals are dismissed at the stage of admission itself as being

Bench: S.G.PANDIT,C.M. POONACHA

transfer pricing adjustment was made, as also certain other additions on corporate tax issues were made. 4. Aggrieved by the draft assessment order, the assessee filed objections before the Dispute Resolution Panel6. In response to the objections, the DRP issued directions under Section 144C(5) of the Act on 30.12.2015, confirming the additions proposed in the draft assessment order

M/S AMD FAR EAST LTD., vs. THE JOINT DIRECTOR OF INCOME-TAX

Bench: S.SUJATHA,RAVI V HOSMANI

Transfer Pricing Officer [TPO] for determining arm’s length price under Section 92CA of the Act. On receipt of the order passed under Section 92CA Act, the respondent passed the draft assessment order under Section 143[3] read with Section 144C of the Act, making certain disallowances of expenditure. Objection was filed by the assessee against the draft assessment order

PR.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-7 vs. M/S TEXPORT OVERSEAS PVT LTD

Bench: ARAVIND KUMAR,SURAJ GOVINDARAJ

144C(13) of Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short ‘Act’) came to be passed on 30.06.2017 whereby the assessing officer had made transfer pricing adjustment and other additions. Assessing authority (for short ‘AO’) has made a reference to transfer pricing order under Section 92CA of the Act to determine arms length price as the assessee had entered into specified domestic

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-III vs. M/S YODLEE INFOTECH PVT LTD

The appeal is disposed of

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,M.I.ARUN

1) of the Act was made to Transfer Pricing Officer on 14.05.2011 in respect of international transactions viz., Provision of Software Development Services and Marketing and Sales Support Services. The Transfer Pricing Officer by an order dated 31.10.2011 made an upward adjustment of Rs.3,44,14,532/- to the international transactions of the assessee wherein Arm’s Length Price

THE PR. COMMISSIONER OF vs. M/S FLEXTRONICS TECHNOLOGIES

Appeal is dismissed

Bench: P.S.DINESH KUMAR,G BASAVARAJA

Transfer Pricing Officer ('TPO' for short) for re-working the Arms Length Price (ALP). The Order Giving Effect (OGE) in respect of DRP's direction corrected with the TP adjustments were not received in time and the Assessing Officer has confirmed the draft assessment order and the same is in violation of Section 144C. The ITAT has rightly set aside

SIMPLILEARN SOLUTIONS PRIVATE LIMITED vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

Bench: The Hon’Ble Mr. Justice B. M. Shyam Prasad

1), BMTC BUILDING, KORAMANGALA BANGALORE – 560 095, KARANATAKA. ... RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. K.V. ARAVIND, ADVOCATE) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO i) QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 28.01.2021 PASSED BY R-4 TRANSFER PRICING OFFICER UNDER SECTION 92CA(3) OF THE ACT, VIDE ANNX-A AS BEING ILLEGAL AND UNSUSTAINABLE

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

Bench: B M SHYAM PRASAD,T.M.NADAF

transfer pricing - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:48752-DB ITA No. 455 of 2022 audit, which would require a year, and it is impossible to implement the directions within one month contemplated under the Act. It is after this Communication dated 22.01.2016 that the assessment, based on the Draft Assessment Order, is completed on 23.08.2016. The conclusion of these

PR.COMMISSIONER OF vs. M/S TRIANZ HOLDINGS PVT LTD

Bench: S.SUJATHA,VINEET KOTHARI

1. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is right in holding that the assessee is entitled for set off of brought forward losses of earlier Date of Judgment 03-07-2018, ITA No.551/2016 Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax-7 & another Vs. M/s Trianz Holdings Pvt. Ltd. 3/10 years for computation of deduction under

PR COMMISSIONER OF vs. M/S QUANTECH GLOBAL SERVICES LTD

Bench: SATISH CHANDRA SHARMA,V SRISHANANDA

Pricing Officer (TPO) vide letter dated 30.11.2009 and during the course of proceeding before the TPO, assessee vide its letter dated 09.06.2010 categorically stated that its registered office was at Hyderabad and it stood merged with Wipro Ltd., pursuant to the scheme of amalgamation approved by the High Court of Andhra Pradesh vide order dated 21.02.2008 and scheme of amalgamation

ETISALAT SOFTWARE SOLUTIONS PRIVATE LIMITED vs. THE ADDITIONAL/JOINT/DEPUTY/ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX/INCOME TAX OFFICER

Bench: The Hon’Ble Mr. Justice B. M. Shyam Prasad

TRANSFER PRICING-1(2)(1) BENGALURU BMTC BUILDING 80 FEET ROAD, 6TH BLOCK, NEAR KHB GAMES VILLAGE, KORAMANGALA, BENGALURU – 560 095. ... RESPONDENTS (BY SRI.K.V. ARAVIND, ADVOCATE) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED ASSESSMENT ORDER DATED 16.11.2021 BEARING DIN ITBA/AST/S/143(3)/2021-22/1036982323(1) PASSED BY THE R-1 (ANNEXURE

HERBALIFE INTERNATIONAL INDIA PVT LTD vs. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

In the result, the assessee's appeal for

Bench: V KAMESWAR RAO,S RACHAIAH

Transfer Pricing Adjustment of ALP, Doubtful Debts Written Off, Administrative Fees. According to him, no enquiry in the matter of Assessee’s claim for 100% depreciation on leasehold improvements was conducted by the Assessing Officer is established by the admission of the AR of the Assessee before the learned CIT on 13.12.2014 in the course of revisionary proceedings. 14. According