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

150/- using standard valuation methods. All assets and liabilities of Padmini Products i.e., the erstwhile partnership firm, including the aforesaid intangible assets were transferred to the assessee. In consideration, the assessee allotted shares at the face value of Rs.1,000/- and premium of Rs.13,500/- per share each to the partners of the erstwhile partnership firm and no other consideration

PR COMMISSIONER OF INCOME vs. M/S SUNQUEST

Bench: S.SUJATHA,VINEET KOTHARI

Transfer Pricing Adjustments’ made by the concerned authorities below. We consider it appropriate to quote Date of Judgment 02-07-2018 I.T.A.No.4/2016 Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax & Anr. Vs. M/s. Sunquest Information Systems (India) Private Limited. 6/16 from the order of Tribunal rejecting the Application seeking a review before Tribunal as hereunder:- Regarding substantial question of law Nos.1

PR. COMMISSIONER vs. M/S SUNQUEST

Bench: S.SUJATHA,VINEET KOTHARI

Transfer Pricing Adjustments’ made by the concerned authorities below. We consider it appropriate to quote Date of Judgment 02-07-2018 I.T.A.No.5/2016 Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax & Anr. Vs. M/s. Sunquest Information Systems (India) Private Limited. 6/16 from the order of Tribunal rejecting the Application seeking a review before Tribunal as hereunder:- Regarding substantial question of law Nos.1

SMT. KAMAKSHI DEVI AVARU vs. THE WEALTH TAX OFFICER

Bench: JOHN MICHAEL CUNHA,H.G.RAMESH

Transfer Pricing Adjustments’ made by the concerned authorities below. We consider it appropriate to quote Date of Judgment 02-07-2018 I.T.A.No.4/2016 Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax & Anr. Vs. M/s. Sunquest Information Systems (India) Private Limited. 6/16 from the order of Tribunal rejecting the Application seeking a review before Tribunal as hereunder:- Regarding substantial question of law Nos.1

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

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

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

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

TRANSFER PRICING OFFICER AND ANOTHER’ [(2010) 320 ITR 565 [DELHI]. [e] ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX AND OTHERS vs. ICICI SECURITIES PRIMARY DEALERSHIP LTD. [2012] 348 ITR 299 (SC) [f] ‘COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. I.A.E.C. (PUMPS) LTD.,’ [(1998) 150 CTR SC 126 - 14 - 6. Submissions of the learned Counsel for the Revenue: Learned Counsel Sri. K.V. Aravind appearing

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

Bench: S.SUJATHA,VINEET KOTHARI

150-158 26 CIT Vs. Madras Race Club [1996] 219 ITR 39 (Mad) 159-168 27 CIT Vs. Pandavapura Sahakara Sakkare Kharkane Ltd 174 ITR 475 (Kar) 169-171 33 CIT Vs. Crawford Bayley & Co. 106 ITR 884 (Bom) 212-215 34 CIT Vs. Nariman B Bharucha & Sons 130 ITR 863 (Bom) 216-219 35 Jit and Pal X-Rays

PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S CHAMUNDI WINERY AND DISTILLERY

Bench: S.SUJATHA,VINEET KOTHARI

150-158 26 CIT Vs. Madras Race Club [1996] 219 ITR 39 (Mad) 159-168 27 CIT Vs. Pandavapura Sahakara Sakkare Kharkane Ltd 174 ITR 475 (Kar) 169-171 33 CIT Vs. Crawford Bayley & Co. 106 ITR 884 (Bom) 212-215 34 CIT Vs. Nariman B Bharucha & Sons 130 ITR 863 (Bom) 216-219 35 Jit and Pal X-Rays

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

SRI U M RAMESH RAO vs. UNION BANK OF INDIA

In the result, the writ appeals are disposed in

Bench: B.V.NAGARATHNA,R. NATARAJ

price -: 37 :- for removal of minerals and hence, did not attract liability to pay purchase tax. (c) In Embassy Property Developments Private Limited vs. State of Karnataka, [2019 SCC Online SC 1542], (Embassy Property), one of the preliminary questions that arose was whether the High Court ought to interfere under Article 226/227 of the Constitution, with an Order passed

M/S SSJV PROJECTS PRIVATE LIMITED vs. M/S ALLAHABAD BANK

In the result, the writ appeals are disposed in

Bench: B.V.NAGARATHNA,R. NATARAJ

price -: 37 :- for removal of minerals and hence, did not attract liability to pay purchase tax. (c) In Embassy Property Developments Private Limited vs. State of Karnataka, [2019 SCC Online SC 1542], (Embassy Property), one of the preliminary questions that arose was whether the High Court ought to interfere under Article 226/227 of the Constitution, with an Order passed

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

PR.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S. TEXTRON

Bench: S.SUJATHA,VINEET KOTHARI

150 (Del.) and various other cases has taken a view that comparables having RPT of upto 15% of total revenues can be considered. In view thereof, the Revenue’s grievance on this issue as projected in ground No.2 has to be allowed. It is held that the CIT(A) ought to have adopted a threshold limit

PRINICIPAL COMMISSIONER vs. M/S NOVELL SOFTWARE

Bench: S.SUJATHA,VINEET KOTHARI

150 (Del.) and various other cases has taken a view that comparables having RPT of upto 15% of total revenues can be considered. In view thereof, the Revenue’s on this ground has to be allowed. It is held that the CIT(A) ought to have adopted a threshold limit of 15% of the total revenue attributable to related party

PR.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S. TEXTRON

Bench: S.SUJATHA,VINEET KOTHARI

150 (Del.) and various other cases has taken a view that comparables having RPT of upto 15% of total revenues can be considered. In view thereof, the Revenue’s grievance on this issue as projected in ground No.2 has to be allowed. It is held that the CIT(A) ought to have adopted a threshold limit

R JANARDHANA BABU vs. THE MANAGING DIRECTOR

Accordingly, the writ petitions are allowed

Bench: The Hon’Ble Mr. Justice B. Veerappa

150. Mary Fathima Charles, d/o M R Albert, aged about 57 years, Glaxosmithkline Pharmaceuticals Limited, Devanahalli Road, Off Old Madras Road, Bangalore-560049 151. I M Anand, d/o Savari Muthu, aged about 56 years, Working as pharma Assistant, Glaxosmithkline Pharmaceuticals Limited, Devanahalli Road, Off Old Madras Road, Bangalore-560049 152. Chandravadana, s/o T Rajagopalaraju, aged about 56 years, 43 Working