PR COMMISSIONER OF vs. M/S SOFTBRANDS INDIA

Bench: S.SUJATHA,VINEET KOTHARI

Transfer Pricing/ determination of the ‘Arm’s Length Price’; [II] The Scheme of procedure of assessment and appeals to the Tribunal and High Court/Supreme Court. [III] The scope of interference by High Court under Section 260-A of the Act in these type of cases. Findings of the Tribunal: 12. We find it appropriate to quote some portions

PR COMMISSIONER OF vs. M/S SOFTBRANDS INDIA

Bench: S.SUJATHA,VINEET KOTHARI

Transfer Pricing/ determination of the ‘Arm’s Length Price’; [II] The Scheme of procedure of assessment and appeals to the Tribunal and High Court/Supreme Court. [III] The scope of interference by High Court under Section 260-A of the Act in these type of cases. Findings of the Tribunal: 12. We find it appropriate to quote some portions

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 appears to have passed the order dated 25 July 2022.” 12. In RAPISCAN SYSTEMS PVT. LIMITED (supra), the Division Bench of Telangana High Court while considering Section 144C of the IT Act at paragraph 32 and 33 has observed as follows: “32. In view of the forgoing discussion, there is no cavil of doubt that the Assessing

THE PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIT(A) vs. M/S IDS SOFTWARE SOLUTIONS INDIA PVT LTD

Bench: ABHAY SHREENIWAS OKA (CJ),S.G.PANDIT

transfer pricing documents and proceeded to determine the arms length price of the international transactions of the assessee on the basis of the material available on record. The assessee raised objection before the Dispute Resolution Panel (for short ‘the DRP’) on the finding of the TPO. On consideration of the objections of the assessee, the DRP directed the Assessing Officer

PR.COMMISSIONER OF INCOMETAX-2 vs. M/S.EYGBS (INDIA) PVT LTD

Bench: CHIEF JUSTICE,C M JOSHI

Transfer Pricing Officer and to avoid rigors of Section 92C(4) of the Act and consequently enhanced benefits under section 10AA of the Act"? (ii) "Whether on facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal's order can be said as perverse in nature in not appreciating that the assesee failed to substantiate an furnish details

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:

15. Issue of allocation of corporate overhead to section 80IC unit beyond what was already allocated by the assessee was held in favour of the assessee. 16. Issue of eligibility of other income for deduction u/s. 80IC was held against the assessee. 17. Issue of allocation of corporate overhead to section 80IAB beyond what was already allocated by the assessee

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

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

15 49(2A) Sub-section (2A) of the said section provides that where the capital asset, being a share or debenture in a company, became the property of the assessee in consideration of a transfer referred to in clause (x) of section 47, the cost of acquisition of the asset to the assessee shall be deemed to be that part

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. SRI.M.R.JANAKIRAM (HUF)

The appeal is allowed

Bench: ARAVIND KUMAR,E.S.INDIRESH

15. The Questions for consideration:- a. Whether the lease deed executed by the Ex-Management of the Company in liquidation is a fraud played by the Ex-Management on shareholders, creditors (secured and unsecured) and against the public interests? b. Whether the lease deed was void abinitio, entered by the Ex-Management of the Company in liquidation to a related

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

15 (xiii) any transfer of a capital asset or intangible asset by a firm to a company as a result of succession of the firm by a company in the business carried on by the firm, or any transfer of a capital asset to a company in the course of demutualisation or corporatisation of a recognised stock exchange in India

PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-4 vs. M/S. KSHEMA TECHNOLOGIES LIMITED

Bench: S.SUJATHA,VINEET KOTHARI

transfer pricing under the I.T. Act. Hence in view of the facts and circumstances of the case, we set aside the impugned order of the authorities below and remit the issue to the record of the Assessing Officer / TPO for deciding the matter afresh by considering the segment-wise data of the assessee and then compare the same with

PR COMMISSIONER OF WEALTH TAX-6 vs. M R KODANDRAM

Appeals stand dismissed

Bench: RAVI MALIMATH,ASHOK S.KINAGI

15 - the full value of the thing received by the transferor in exchange for the capital asset transferred by him. The consideration for the transfer is the thing received by the transferor in exchange for the asset transferred and it is not right to say that the asset transferred an parted with is itself the consideration for the transfer

PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-2 vs. TOYOTA TSUSHO INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED

Bench: CHIEF JUSTICE,C M JOSHI

15 Crores. The learned Assessing - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:34395-DB ITA No. 149 of 2025 Officer [AO] made a reference to the TPO for determination of the arms length price [ALP] of the international transactions. 5. The Assessee furnished its transfer pricing studies in respect to two segments, namely, the trading segment and the manufacturing segment

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

The appeal is dismissed

Bench: S.G.PANDIT,K. V. ARAVIND

15) For the purposes of this section,- (a) "Dispute Resolution Panel" means a collegium comprising of three [Principal Commissioners or] Commissioners of Income-tax constituted by the Board for this purpose; (b) "eligible assessee" means,- (i) any person in whose case the variation referred to in sub-section (1) arises as a consequence of the order of the Transfer Pricing

THE PR COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. SMT SAROJINI M KUSHE

Appeal stands dismissed

Bench: S.SUJATHA,HANCHATE SANJEEVKUMAR

price received by the respondent was at the rate of Rs.136 per share the full value of the consideration must be taken at the rate of Rs.136 per share. The view that we have expressed as to the interpretation of the main part of section 12B(2) is borne out by the fact that in the first proviso to section

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S 24/7 CUSTOMER .COM PVT. LTD.

Bench: S.SUJATHA,VINEET KOTHARI

transfer pricing regulations do not stipulate any minimum limit of related party transactions which form the threshold for exclusion as a comparable. In this regard, the learned counsel for the assessee objected to the TPO’s setting a limit of 25% on related party transactions. He objected to the inclusion of comparables being related party transactions in excess of 15

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S KARNATAKA CO-OPERATIVE MILK PRODUCERS

Appeal is dismissed with costs

Bench: The Hon’Ble Mr. Justice N.K.Sudhindrarao R.S.A.No.70/2007

Section 100 CPC is directed against the common judgment and decree dated 7-10-2006 passed in R.A.Nos.33 and 35 of 2002 by the District and Sessions Judge and Presiding Officer, Fast Track Court –II, Bangalore Rural District, Bangalore, wherein appeal filed by the plaintiff -K.T. Plantations Private Limited in RA 3 No.33/2002 came to be allowed

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. TNT INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED

Bench: S.SUJATHA,VINEET KOTHARI

15. As regards ground no.11, learned counsel for the assessee submitted that both the TPO and also the CIT(A) should have given a standard deduction of 5% as provided under proviso to section 92C(2) before making adjustments of the transfer price