THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER vs. M/S OBULAPURAM MINING

Bench: K.SOMASHEKAR,UMESH M ADIGA

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 adjustments 112,20,92,081/- Claim of bogus transportation expenses of iron ore 40% attributable towards illegal mining. 86,43,47,335/- Disallowance of expenses claimed under section

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:

5), he shall send a copy of his order to the Assessing Officer who shall thereafter proceed to amend the order of assessment in conformity with such order of the Transfer Pricing Officer. 7. The Transfer Pricing Officer may, for the purposes of determining the arm’s length price under this section, exercise all or any of the powers specified

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 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

5 - ITA No.332/2019 was made to 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 PR COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S YOKOGAWA INDIA LTD

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

Section 144C[6] of the IT Act, has issued certain directions on 24.11.2015. The Transfer Pricing Officer [TPO] has communicated to the Assessing Officer that the DRP has directed the conduct of a fresh transfer pricing - 5

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

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

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

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 (for short, ‘TPO’). The TPO by order dated 29.09.2016, passed an order under Section 92CA, adjusting the ALP. The Assessing Officer incorporating the ALP issued the Draft Assessment Order. The assessee preferred objections before the Dispute Resolution Panel (for short, ‘DRP’). The DRP by order dated 25.11.2014 issued directions considering the objections of the respondent-assessee

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(5

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

The appeal is disposed of

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,M.I.ARUN

5 account of aggregation industry. The assessee filed the return of income on 29.09.2008 for Assessment Year 2008-09, by which total income of Rs.4,24,888/- was declared and deduction of Rs.5,05,83,628/- under Section 10B of the Act and Rs.3,05,84,109/- as book profits under Section 115JB of the Act was claimed. The return

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

Bench: S.SUJATHA,VINEET KOTHARI

Section 10A of the Act only qua the eligible under taking and without reference to other eligible or non eligible units or undertakings of same assessee. Regarding Substantial Question No.2: 4. The learned Tribunal, after discussing the rival contentions of both the Appellants-Revenue and Respondent-Assessee, has returned a finding as under: “(iii) Transfer pricing adjustment: Rs.2

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

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

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

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

5. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 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