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 of IT Act on 30.01.2015 for the assessment year 2011-12. Subsequently, the respondent-Revenue passed draft assessment order under Section 144C read with Section 143(2) of the IT Act on 27.03.2015. Against the said draft assessment order, appellant filed objections/appeal before the DRP and the DRP after hearing, passed order

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

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 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 vs. M/S. YOKOGAWA INDIA LTD

The appeal is dismissed

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

153 [or section 153B], pass the assessment order under sub- section (3) within one month from the end of the month in which,- (a) the acceptance is received; or (b) the period of filing of objections under sub-section (2) expires. (5) The Dispute Resolution Panel shall, in a case where any objection is received under sub- section (2), issue

THE PR.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S SIGMA ALDRICH CHEMICALS PVT LTD

The appeal is disposed of with liberty as prayed for by the learned counsel for

Bench: S.G.PANDIT,C.M. POONACHA

Transfer Pricing Officer in accordance within parameters set out in Section 92CA and within limitation period set out in Section 153

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

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

Bench: B M SHYAM PRASAD,T.M.NADAF

153 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ['IT Act'] to complete the assessment in terms of Section 144 C(13) of the IT Act. This Court must advert to the indisputable facts before the rival submissions are considered. 3. The Dispute Resolution Panel [DRP], in exercise of its jurisdiction under Section 144C[6] of the IT Act, has issued certain

SRI N GOVINDARAJU vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER

Appeal stands disposed of

Bench: S.SUJATHA,VINEET SARAN

153, assess or reassess such income and also any other income chargeable to tax, which has escaped assessment. Further Assessing Officer 21 may also assess or reassess such other income which has escaped assessment and which comes to his notice subsequently in the course of proceedings under this section. Assessing Officer is required to record the reasons for reopening

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

The appeals stand disposed of, accordingly

Bench: N.KUMAR,B.SREENIVASE GOWDA

Transfer Pricing Officer for determination of arms’ length price. As per the return filed the tax payable was Rs.48,38,27,302/-. The assessee also claimed TDS of Rs.6,02,14,066/- and advance tax payment of Rs.59,50,80,000/-. The assessee claimed refund of Rs.17,12,21,725/-. The return of income was processed

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

The appeals stand disposed of, accordingly

Bench: N.KUMAR,B.SREENIVASE GOWDA

Transfer Pricing Officer for determination of arms’ length price. As per the return filed the tax payable was Rs.48,38,27,302/-. The assessee also claimed TDS of Rs.6,02,14,066/- and advance tax payment of Rs.59,50,80,000/-. The assessee claimed refund of Rs.17,12,21,725/-. The return of income was processed

THE PR. COMMISSIONER OF vs. M/S FLEXTRONICS TECHNOLOGIES

Appeal is dismissed

Bench: P.S.DINESH KUMAR,G BASAVARAJA

153(3) of the Act? 4. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is right in law in holding that assessment order passed under Section - 4 - ITA No.332/2019 143(3) read with Section 144C(13) is bad in law even though the said order is passed according to parameters set out in said provision

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 PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIT (A) vs. 24/7 CUSTOMER PVT LTD

The appeal is disposed of with liberty as prayed for by the learned

Bench: S.G.PANDIT,C.M. POONACHA

153 of 2020 ORAL JUDGMENT (PER: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S.G.PANDIT) Heard the learned counsel Sri. Sushal Tiwari for the appellants/Revenue and Smt. Tanmayee Rajkumar, learned counsel for the respondent/assessee. 2. The Revenue is in appeal under Section 260-A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short, ‘the Act’) questioning the correctness and legality of order dated 20.09.2019 passed

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME - TAX vs. M/S BIOCON LTD.,

In the result, we do not find any merit in this

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,H.T. NARENDRA PRASAD

transferred to the trust at the face value and the employees of the assessee were allowed to exercise the option to buy the shares within the time prescribed under the scheme subject to terms and conditions mentioned therein. The assessee claimed the difference of market price and allotment price as a discount and claimed the same as an expenditure under

M/S BHORUKA ENGINEERING INDS. LTD vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

Appeal is allowed

Bench: B.MANOHAR,N.KUMAR

Section 10(38) of the Act and therefore he submits the order passed by the authorities are valid and legal and does not call for any interference. 12. From the material on record, it is clear the 30 acres of land in White Field belong to Bhoruka Steel Limited (BSL). It became a sick industrial company. Before BIFR, a scheme

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

Bench: S.SUJATHA,VINEET KOTHARI

153 ITR 105 (Bom) 20-27 6 Raja Bejoy Singh Dudhuria Vs. CIT 1 ITR 135 (Privy Council) 28-31 9 CIT Vs. Nagarbail Salt-Owners Co-Op Society Ltd 291 CTR 287 (Kar) 48-53 22 DCIT, Vs. T. Jayachandran Civil Appeal No.4341 of 2018 dated 24.04.2018 (SC) (2018) 406 ITR 1 SC) 123-137 23 CIT Vs. Sunil

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

Bench: S.SUJATHA,VINEET KOTHARI

153 ITR 105 (Bom) 20-27 6 Raja Bejoy Singh Dudhuria Vs. CIT 1 ITR 135 (Privy Council) 28-31 9 CIT Vs. Nagarbail Salt-Owners Co-Op Society Ltd 291 CTR 287 (Kar) 48-53 22 DCIT, Vs. T. Jayachandran Civil Appeal No.4341 of 2018 dated 24.04.2018 (SC) (2018) 406 ITR 1 SC) 123-137 23 CIT Vs. Sunil