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

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 on 30.01.2015. Thereafter, the respondent passed draft assessment order under Section 144C read with Section - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:19558-DB ITA No. 571 of 2017 143(2) of IT Act on 27.03.2015 for the relevant assessment year. Aggrieved by the said draft assessment order, the appellant is said

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 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

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

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

Bench: ARAVIND KUMAR,SURAJ GOVINDARAJ

3) r/w Section 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

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

Appeal is dismissed

Bench: P.S.DINESH KUMAR,G BASAVARAJA

3. Shri.T.Suryanarayana, learned Senior Advocate for the assessee submitted that under Section 144C(10) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ('IT Act' for short) every direction issued by the Dispute Resolution Panel ('DRP' for short) shall be binding on the Assessing Officer and under Section 144C(13) the Assessing Officer is duty bound to pass the assessment order in conformity

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 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

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

The appeal is disposed of

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,M.I.ARUN

Price (ALP) of the international transactions was determined at Rs.40,34,77,023/- as against revenue of 6 Rs.36,90,62,491/- charged by the assessee. 3. The Assessing Officer thereafter issued a draft assessment order under Section 143(3) read with Section 144C of the Act on 23.10.2011, by which income of the assessee was determined at Rs.3

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) of the Act mandates that

SIMPLILEARN SOLUTIONS PRIVATE LIMITED vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

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

TRANSFER PRICING OFFICER UNDER SECTION 92CA(3) OF THE ACT, VIDE ANNX-A AS BEING ILLEGAL AND UNSUSTAINABLE IN LAW; ii) QUASH THE DRAFT ASSESSMENT ORDER DATED 23.04.2021 PASSED BY R-3 VIDE ANNX-B AS BEING ILLEGAL AND UNSUSTAINABLE IN LAW. iii) QUASH AND SETTING ASIDE DIRECTIONS ISSUED ON 24.01.2022 BY DISPUTE RESOLUTION PANEL UNDER SECTION 144C

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

3) r/w. Section 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

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

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

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

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

Bench: S.SUJATHA,VINEET KOTHARI

3. It is not in dispute that the issue involved in the substantial question No.1 is covered by the decision Date of Judgment 03-07-2018, ITA No.551/2016 Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax-7 & another Vs. M/s Trianz Holdings Pvt. Ltd. 4/10 of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of ‘Commissioner of Income Tax And Another v. Yokogawa India

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

Bench: SATISH CHANDRA SHARMA,V SRISHANANDA

3) read with 92CA and 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

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

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