NOVO NORDISK INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE 12 (2

Bench: S.SUJATHA

Transfer Pricing Officer under Section 92CA(1) of the Act for determination of arm’s length price in respect of international transactions - 4 - reported by the petitioner during the subject Assessment year. TPO passed a detailed order under Section 92CA(3) of the Act accepting the arm’s length price reported by the petitioner in respect of its international transactions

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:

Transfer Pricing Officer during the proceeding for assessment, reassessment made. The period as specified in sub- section (1)(2) & (3) shall be further extended by 12 months. 153(5) To give effect to the order of the higher authorities i.e. CIT (A), ITAT, HC and SC orders To give effect to an order passed by higher authorities other than those

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

M/S T T K PRESTIGE LTD vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

Bench: The Hon’Ble Mrs.Justice S.Sujatha

148, the same has not been considered and addressed by the AO. - 12 - It was further argued by the learned Counsel that the reasons recorded by the AO to invoke section 147 of the Act does not disclose escapement of income for assessment and how it has come to his notice. The audit report was also placed before

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

MR. BINEESH KODIYERI vs. DIRECTORATE OF ENFORCEMENT

Bench: The Hon’Ble Mr. Justice Suraj Govindaraj Writ Petition No. 13261 Of 2020 (Gm-Res) Between: Mr. Bineesh Kodiyeri S/O Mr. Kodiyeri Balakrishnan Aged About 37 Years Kootamvilla Lane, Maruthankuzhi Thiruvananthapuram District Kerala State – 695013

price of which exceeds on e crore rupees; or (d) Fraudulently availing of or attempt to avail of drawback or any exemption from duty provided under this Act, if the amount of drawback or exemption from duty exceeds fifty lakh rupees. WP No. 13261 of 2020 65 (7) Save as otherwise provided in sub-section (6), all other offences under

SRI N GOVINDARAJU vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER

Appeal stands disposed of

Bench: S.SUJATHA,VINEET SARAN

1) of section 148. The question which first arises is with regard to the validity of the reopening proceedings, which is by issuance of notice under section 148, reasons for which are to be recorded under sub-section (2). The assessee has an opportunity to challenge the reasons given for issuance 13 of notice and if the same are found

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

SMT. M R PRABHAVATHY vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

Bench: The Hon’Ble Mr. Justice K.Natarajan Election Petition No.1 Of 2019 Connected With Election Petition No.2 Of 2019

Section 33A of RP Act and 106 he has committed corrupt practice of bribery as contemplated under Sections 123(1)(A), 123(1)(B), 123(7), 123(7)(b), 123(vii)(d), 123(7)(h) and Section 123(8), 123(3), 3A and 123(6) of R.P. Act ? The petitioner in E.P. No.2/2019 has contended that respondent No.1 committed corrupt

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

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR

1. PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-4 BMTC COMPLEX, KORAMANGALA BANGALORE. 2. THE ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-11(5), BANGALORE. ... APPELLANTS (BY SRI. T.N.C. SRIDHAR, ADV.) AND: M/S. LUWA INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED NO.95, INDUSTRIAL SUB-URB 2ND STAGE, TUMKUR ROAD YESHWANTHPURA BANGALORE-560022 PAN: No. AAA CL3106 B. ... RESPONDENT (BY SRI. SURYANARAYANA T, ADV.,) - - - THIS I.T.A. IS FILED

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%

1 and 2 to tender the dues of the secured creditor, namely, the 4th Respondent- Bank with all charges, expenses etc., as has been provided under Section 13(8) of the SARFAESI Act. Therefore, the whole procedure followed by the 4th Respondent- Bank in effecting the sale on 28.12.2007 and the ultimate confirmation of the sale on 11.01.2008, stood vitiated

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%

1 and 2 to tender the dues of the secured creditor, namely, the 4th Respondent- Bank with all charges, expenses etc., as has been provided under Section 13(8) of the SARFAESI Act. Therefore, the whole procedure followed by the 4th Respondent- Bank in effecting the sale on 28.12.2007 and the ultimate confirmation of the sale on 11.01.2008, stood vitiated

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

SMT. S. JALAJA vs. UNION OF INDIA

In the result, writ appeals are allowed

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR

1) and Clyde Engineering Co. v. Cowburn establish that the provisions of the law of the State for the breach of which the appellant was convicted are inconsistent with the law of the Commonwealth within the meaning of sec. 109 of the Constitution and are therefore invalid". 116 Issacs, J. observed as follows:- "There can be no question that

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.

1. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE – 12(3) BENGALURU 2. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, TRANSFER PRICING - V BENGALURU 3. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 2 TRANSFER PRINCING - VI BENGALURU … RESPONDENTS [By Sri K V Aravind, Adv. for Sri M V Seshachala, Adv.] THIS APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 4 OF THE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT

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

LAHAR SINGH SIROYA vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

The appeal stands allowed

Bench: S.SUJATHA,VINEET SARAN

1) of the Act but the Assessing Officer subsequently issued notice under Section 148 of the Act, and the assessment was finalized by an assessment order dated 31.12.2008 wherein the sale amount was treated as short term capital gains, instead of long term capital gains as had been claimed by the assessee. The appeal filed by the assessee was dismissed

THE PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (4) vs. M/S CHAMUNDI WINERY AND DISTILLERY

Bench: S.SUJATHA,VINEET KOTHARI

1 CIT Vs. Shoorji Vallabhdas & Co. 46 ITR 144 (SC) 01-03 2 Godhra Electricity Co. Ltd Vs. CIT 225 ITR 746 (SC) 04-11 13 CIT Vs. Chemosyn Ltd 371 ITR 427 (Bom) 75-79 14 Poorna Electric Supply Co. Ltd Vs. CIT [1965] 56 ITR 521 (SC) 80-85 17 CIT Vs. Chamanlal Mangaldas