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:

Section 244A(1A) of the Act has styled the operative portion of the impugned order as under: “In this case, the Hon’ble ITAT, Bengaluru has remitted back the issue of Transfer Pricing to the AO for fresh assessment/re-assessment as per Para No. 5 & 6 of the ITAT order. Further, fresh approval has been taken from

PR COMMISSIONER OF vs. M/S ZYME SOLUTIONS P LTD

Bench: S.SUJATHA,VINEET KOTHARI

154,806,930 Arm’s Length Price (ALP) 121.67% of Operating Cost 188,353,591 Price Received 166,532,973 Shortfall being adjustment u/s 92CA 21,820,618 43. It is clear that AO had omitted to give the working capital adjustment. We therefore direct the AO to give working capital adjustment of 0.23% as recommended by the TPO. Accordingly

PR.COMMISSIONER OF vs. M/S TRIANZ HOLDINGS PVT LTD

Bench: S.SUJATHA,VINEET KOTHARI

Section 10A of the Act only qua the eligible under taking and without reference to other eligible or non eligible units or undertakings of same assessee. Regarding Substantial Question No.2: 4. The learned Tribunal, after discussing the rival contentions of both the Appellants-Revenue and Respondent-Assessee, has returned a finding as under: “(iii) Transfer pricing adjustment: Rs.2

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

The appeals stand disposed of, accordingly

Bench: N.KUMAR,B.SREENIVASE GOWDA

Section 154. Notice u/s 142(1) was issued on 21.12.2001 with a questionnaire. Further notices u/s 142 (1) were issued on various dates beginning from 7.10.2003 to 8.3.2004. The assessee- company filed written replies along with enclosures from time to time. The return furnished on 30.10.2001 was processed u/s 143(3) of the I.T.Act on 24.03.2004 and order was passed

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

The appeals stand disposed of, accordingly

Bench: N.KUMAR,B.SREENIVASE GOWDA

Section 154. Notice u/s 142(1) was issued on 21.12.2001 with a questionnaire. Further notices u/s 142 (1) were issued on various dates beginning from 7.10.2003 to 8.3.2004. The assessee- company filed written replies along with enclosures from time to time. The return furnished on 30.10.2001 was processed u/s 143(3) of the I.T.Act on 24.03.2004 and order was passed

HERBALIFE INTERNATIONAL INDIA PVT LTD vs. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

In the result, the assessee's appeal for

Bench: V KAMESWAR RAO,S RACHAIAH

154 of the IT Act, has erred in stating that - 10 - ITA No. 433 of 2018 Assessment Order 29.10.2012 is completely silent on the issue, which is in contrast to the decision of the Bengaluru Bench of the Tribunal in ICICI Venture Funds Management Co. Ltd. Vs. CIT (ITA No.66/Bang/2010), wherein it has been held that merely because there

SRI S N RAVIKUMAR vs. THE TAX RECOVERY OFFICER

Bench: The Hon’Ble Mr.Justice Aravind Kumar

section 154 of the Act for the relevant assessment years, the balance of arrears of tax for the relevant assessment years shall 4 be paid within 10 days from the date of receipt of the appellate orders. (iii) I shall also compensate the Revenue to the extent of deficit arising on account of receipt of lesser sale price on auctioning

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

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 COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S PRESTIGE ESTATE PROJECTS PVT LTD

Appeal is hereby dismissed

Bench: ARAVIND KUMAR,SURAJ GOVINDARAJ

154 of the Act on 13.09.2006. During the course of assessment proceedings, Assessing Officer noticed that assessee has adopted ‘Completed Contract Method’ of accounting for all its real estate projects. On the ground that as per the provisions of accounting standard AS – 7, assessee was required to mandatorily follow ‘Percentage Completion Method’ and as such, a sum of Rs.7

THE PR COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S EXIDE LIFE INSURANCE CO LTD

In the result, both the appeals stand dismissed

Bench: S.SUJATHA,RAVI V HOSMANI

Transfer Pricing Officer (TPO) to determine the Arm’s Length Price and the said officer did not suggest TP adjustment. Assessing Authority made non TP addition pertaining to surplus from shareholders account, treating the same as income from other business and losses from pension fund not allowed to be carried forward. Aggrieved by the said order, the assessee preferred appeals

THE PR COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S EXIDE LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY LTD

In the result, both the appeals stand dismissed

Bench: S.SUJATHA,RAVI V HOSMANI

Transfer Pricing Officer (TPO) to determine the Arm’s Length Price and the said officer did not suggest TP adjustment. Assessing Authority made non TP addition pertaining to surplus from shareholders account, treating the same as income from other business and losses from pension fund not allowed to be carried forward. Aggrieved by the said order, the assessee preferred appeals

IBM INDIA PVT LTD vs. THE CHIEF COMMISSIONER

Appeal is dismissed

Bench: D.V.SHYLENDRA KUMAR,B.S.INDRAKALA

section 120 of the Act insofar as the proceedings under the Income Tax Act, 1961 is concerned. Likewise, there are enabling provisions under the provisions of the Central Excise Act, 1944 and Service Tax Regulations. The appellant had opted for being assessed as LTU which automatically ensures that the assessee will be governed by the scheme in respect of assessments

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

Appeal is allowed

Bench: B.MANOHAR,N.KUMAR

price of Rs.25 Lakhs per acre on the condition that the dues of the secured creditors and others as per the rehabilitation scheme are cleared by 31.12.2002 to enable them to release the title deeds and issuing “No Due Certificate” to the company. The committee also authorized Mr. R.C. Purohit, Managing Director to take up the matter with the promoters

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

Bench: S.SUJATHA,VINEET KOTHARI

154 ITR 449 (Raj) 143-149 25 T.Jayachandran Vs. DCIT 263 CTR 629 (Mad) 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

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

Bench: S.SUJATHA,VINEET KOTHARI

154 ITR 449 (Raj) 143-149 25 T.Jayachandran Vs. DCIT 263 CTR 629 (Mad) 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

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

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

154 acres 17 guntas along with hypothecation of plant and machinery valued at Rs.700.00 lakhs. There was a collateral security by way of equitable mortgage of Watekhan Coffee Estate admeasuring 215.16 acres valued at Rs.662.95 lakhs. The personal guarantees of continuing partners in their individual capacity were also given. So also, coffee crop loans of the year