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 (TPO) for determination of the arm’s length price. The TPO, by order dated 29.01.2016 passed under Section 92CA of the Act, determined the adjustment. Thereafter, the Assessing Officer passed a draft assessment order on 10.03.2016. The assessee preferred objections before the Dispute Resolution Panel (DRP) on 13.04.2016. The DRP, by order dated 24.08.2016, rejected the objections

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:

8 FEET ROAD, KORAMANGALA, BANGALORE-560 095. ... RESPONDENTS (BY SHRI K.V. ARAVIND, ADVOCATE) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE DIRECTION IN THE ORDER MARKED AS ANNEXURE-A PASSED BY RESPONDENT NO.2, DATED 29.03.2019 AND GRANTING ADDITIONAL INTEREST U/S.244A(1A) FROM THE EXPIRY OF TIME PRESCRIBED R/S.153

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

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) 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

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/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

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

The appeal is disposed of

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,M.I.ARUN

144C of the Act on 23.10.2011, by which income of the assessee was determined at Rs.3,52,21,859/- as against the return income of Rs.4,24,888/- and Rs.3,05,84,109/- under Minimum Alternate Tax (MAT) provisions as computed by the assessee. The assessee filed objections to the Dispute Resolution Panel (DRP) being aggrieved, by the draft assessment

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 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

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

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