THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER vs. M/S OBULAPURAM MINING

Bench: K.SOMASHEKAR,UMESH M ADIGA

Section 144C(13) of the Income Tax Act on 31.12.2013, determining total income at Rs.10,86,34,35,052/- by making various additions, which reads as under: Additional / Issues Rs. Transfer pricing

DEVAS MULTIMEDIA PRIVATE LIMITED vs. THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX

Bench: The Hon’Ble Mr.Justice P.B. Bajanthri Writ Petition No.11618 Of 2016 (T-It) Between:

13 to 16) which reads as under: 10 6. Section 144C was inserted in the Act by the Finance Act, 2009 and came into effect from 1st October, 2009. In the Notes on Clauses to the Finance Bill, 2009, the reason for insertion of Section 144C was as under: “The subjects of transfer pricing

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

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

Appeal is dismissed

Bench: P.S.DINESH KUMAR,G BASAVARAJA

Section 144C(13) the Assessing Officer is duty bound to pass the assessment order in conformity with the directions within one month from the end of the month in which such directions are received by the DRP. He argued that the Assessing Officer has recorded in the assessment order that on receipt of directions by the DRP, reference

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

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

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

13) r/w Section 143(3) of the Act on 27.3.2015, wherein the 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

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

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

13) of the IT Act. This Court must advert to the indisputable facts before the rival submissions are considered. 3. The Dispute Resolution Panel [DRP], in exercise of its jurisdiction under Section 144C[6] of the IT Act, has issued certain directions on 24.11.2015. The Transfer Pricing

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

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

Appeals stand disposed of

Bench: S.G.PANDIT,T.M.NADAF

transfer pricing adjustment of - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:23552-DB ITA No. 764 of 2018 C/W ITA No. 835 of 2018 Rs.31,69,02,034/- in respect of AMP Expenditure without appreciating that assessee has incurred huge expenditure for advertisement and selling i.e. for marketing its products though it does not won the title to the brands

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

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

Bench: SATISH CHANDRA SHARMA,V SRISHANANDA

144C of the IT Act. The undisputed facts also reveal that the respondent company pursuant to the scheme of amalgamation stood merged with the Wipro Limited, the Scheme of amalgamation was approved by the High Court of Andhra Pradesh vide order dated 21.02.2008 and by the High Court of Karnataka vide order dated 10.01.2008 with effect from

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

144C of the IT Act. The Assessing Officer in the assessment order determined the total income of the appellant as Rs.4,42,53,130/- after making adjustments to the returned loss by the appellant in the revised return dated 31.03.2010. The Assessing Officer thereafter issued a notice dated 19.08.2013 under Section 154 of the IT Act proposing to rectify

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