SRI N GOVINDARAJU vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER

Appeal stands disposed of

Bench: S.SUJATHA,VINEET SARAN

transfer more so when the payments are through banking channels, and consequently passed a perverse order on the facts and circumstance of the case. We have heard Sri A.Shanker, learned counsel for the appellant and Sri E.I.Sanmathi learned counsel for the respondent-department, as 7 well as Sri K.V.Aravind, learned counsel for the department appearing in the connected appeals

PR COMMISSIONER OF vs. M/S LUWA INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR

Section 148 of the Act. As the assessee had entered certain international transactions, the Assessing Officer made a reference to the Transfer Pricing

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S SHASTHA PHARMA LABORATORIES

The appeal is dismissed

Bench: N.KUMAR,RATHNAKALA

price of Rs.50.12/- lakhs did not amount to a transfer and consequently, no capital gains tax was liable to be paid.?” 7. However, before commencement of the arguments, learned Counsel for the revenue sought the permission of the Court to raise additional substantial question of law : “Whether the Tribunal was correct in holding the reopening of assessment under Sections

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:

148 (post substitution vide Finance Act, 2021 with effect from 01.04.2021)
Section 150
Section 153(3)(ii) [prior to substitution vide Finance Act, 2016 with effect from 01.06.2016]
Section 153(6)(i) [post substitution vide Finance Act, 2016 with effect from 01.06.2016] From the above, it can be safely assumed that the word ‘reassessment’ has been used in cases where

M/S SYSARRIS SOFTWARE PVT LTD vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

Bench: A Learned Single Judge Of This Court By Filing A Writ Petition On The Premise That There Was No Tangible Or Credible Information With The Assessing Officer Before Issuing The Notice Under Section 148 Of The Act.

pricing was not transparent, but because of mutual relationship and therefore formed the opinion that there is an escapement of the income for the assessment year 2006-07 also and proceeded to issue notice under Section 148 of the Act. 7. While Sri Chaithanya, learned counsel for the appellant submits that the transaction and the report of the transfer

M/S PADMINI PRODUCTS (P) LTD., vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

In the result, the aforesaid

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,H.T. NARENDRA PRASAD

148 of the Act. Thereafter, a notice under Sections 143(2) and 142(1) of the Act was issued to the assessee. The Assessing Officer by an order dated 31.12.2010 inter alia held that intangible assets valued in the hands of the company at the time of succession, were valued as per assessee’s 6 own valuation

LAHAR SINGH SIROYA vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

The appeal stands allowed

Bench: S.SUJATHA,VINEET SARAN

price of land came to approximately Rs.4.80 crores) for which an advance of Rs.40.00 lakhs was paid by the assessee to the seller in terms of the agreement. However, because of certain disputes between the seller and one Vikas Housing, with whom also the seller and his brother had agreed to sell a large chunk of their land, including

M/S SREE JAYALAKSHMI TEXTILES vs. M/S INTERNATIONAL ASSET RECONSTRUCTION

Bench: The Date Fixed For Sale Of Transfer & In Such Event The Secured Asset Shall Not Be Sold & That Once The Auction Sale Process Is Commenced & The Property Is Auctioned & Sold On The Date Fixed For Sale & The Sale In Favour Of The Highest Bidder Is Confirmed & 25%

transfer or disposed of in a casual manner or by not adhering to the prescriptions contained under the SARFAESI Act and the abovesaid Rules mentioned by us.” The apex court had then addressed the facts of the case, vis- a-vis the legal position and dismissed the appeal in these words: “54. Having pronounced the legal position as above, when

M/S SREE JAYALAKSHMI TEXTILES vs. M/S INTERNATIONAL ASSET RECONSTRUCTION

Bench: The Date Fixed For Sale Of Transfer & In Such Event The Secured Asset Shall Not Be Sold & That Once The Auction Sale Process Is Commenced & The Property Is Auctioned & Sold On The Date Fixed For Sale & The Sale In Favour Of The Highest Bidder Is Confirmed & 25%

transfer or disposed of in a casual manner or by not adhering to the prescriptions contained under the SARFAESI Act and the abovesaid Rules mentioned by us.” The apex court had then addressed the facts of the case, vis- a-vis the legal position and dismissed the appeal in these words: “54. Having pronounced the legal position as above, when

SRI B V S MURTHY vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER

The appeal is disposed of

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,RAVI V HOSMANI

148 for the Assessment Year 1999-2000 was passed on 16.01.2006. Being aggrieved, the appellant filed appeals before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), who vide order dated 06.11.2007 while upholding the validity of reopening for the Assessment Years 1998-99 and 1999-2000 held that stock option cannot be assessed as perquisite. It was further held that the gains

M/S WIPRO LIMITED vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

The appeals stand disposed of, accordingly

Bench: N.KUMAR,B.SREENIVASE GOWDA

Section 145A of the Income- tax Act which was inserted with effect from assessment year 1999-2000. The said provision states that the valuation of stock should include the amount of any tax duty, cess or fee - 94 - actually paid or incurred to bring the goods to its present location and condition. The Department has followed a consistent stand

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S WIPRO LTD

The appeals stand disposed of, accordingly

Bench: N.KUMAR,B.SREENIVASE GOWDA

Section 145A of the Income- tax Act which was inserted with effect from assessment year 1999-2000. The said provision states that the valuation of stock should include the amount of any tax duty, cess or fee - 94 - actually paid or incurred to bring the goods to its present location and condition. The Department has followed a consistent stand

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

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. SHRI. VIKRAM REDDY

In the result, the fifth substantial question of

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,R. NATARAJ

148) which resulted in massive tax evasion in the guise of tax planning laced with multi layered transactions?". 3 "(ii) Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is correct in law in not considering the fact that the shares belonging to the assessee were ultimately transferred to Godrej Group as part of sale of business

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. THE NAGARBAIL SALT-OWNERS

Appeal is dismissed without any order as to costs

Bench: Offering The Profit For Tax?”

148 was issued. In reply, respondent – assessee asserted that the total taxable income for the said assessment year was NIL. Revenue took up assessee’s case for scrutiny by issuing notice under Section 143(2) of the Act. Assessee was represented by one Shri : 5 : Anil Shantharam Nadkarni, Manager of the Society and Shri R.V.Hublikar, an Income Tax Practitioner. Copies

M/S INDUS TOWERS LTD vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF COMMERCIAL TAXES

In the result, we pass the following order:

Bench: RAVI MALIMATH,N.KUMAR

Section 66 thereof created charge of service tax in regard to taxable services. Service Lax’ is defined in clause (34) of Set lion 65 to mean tax chargeable under the provLsioi is of that napler. 7’axable ceri’icc is dejrnea Iunder sub ‘‘larcsc’ Ib) 1 ½usc 4 1 [ 5j 0 n ° mc a an, srvkc provided tu. znrcr cilia

THE COMMR OF INCOME TAX vs. NIKE INC

Appeals are dismissed

Bench: B.MANOHAR,N.KUMAR

price, quality, quantity, to whom to be shipped and billed. The local manufacturer in India is conveyed of the decision by the office in USA and once it is accepted, the local manufacturer carries on his activity. The liaison office keeps a close watch on the progress, quality, etc., at the manufacturing workshop. The liaison office also keeps a watch

M/S PATEL MARIGOWDA AND BROS., vs. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

The appeal is dismissed

Bench: B.MANOHAR,K.SREEDHAR RAO

148 of the Act met the requirements of law and the assessment made in the status of a partnership firm on the basis of such notice is sustainable in law? Whether the finding of the Appellate Tribunal that the appellate firm was dissolved and distribution took place on 31.3.1996 is perverse and has been arrived at without taking into account