PR COMMISSIONER OF vs. M/S SOFTBRANDS INDIA

Bench: S.SUJATHA,VINEET KOTHARI

Transfer Pricing Adjustments’ should be allowed to become final with a quietus at the hands of the final fact finding body, i.e. the Tribunal. Comparative Analysis of Section 260-A of Income Tax Act, 1961 and Sections 100 & 103 of the Code of Civil Procedure: 16

PR COMMISSIONER OF vs. M/S SOFTBRANDS INDIA

Bench: S.SUJATHA,VINEET KOTHARI

Transfer Pricing Adjustments’ should be allowed to become final with a quietus at the hands of the final fact finding body, i.e. the Tribunal. Comparative Analysis of Section 260-A of Income Tax Act, 1961 and Sections 100 & 103 of the Code of Civil Procedure: 16

THE PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S GOLDMAN SACHS SERVICES PVT LTD

Bench: The Hon'Ble Mr. Justice V. Srishananda Civil Revision Petition No.29/2019 Between

16 of Petitioner. Hence, the Petitioner was compelled to open an account in HDFC Bank. Infantry Road to make payments to the vendors and for smooth functioning of firm operations.  In para 18 of the statement of objections Annexure-B the 1st respondent with regard to transfer of the amount from IDBI Bank to the account of HDFC Bank

THE PR COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S ARISTA NETWORKS INDIA PVT LTD

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

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

16, raising the following substantial questions of law: - 3 - NC: 2024:KHC:39425-DB ITA No. 273 of 2022 “1. 'Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is right in law in directing the Transfer Pricing Officer to exclude comparables namely, M/s.Sasken Communication Technologies Ltd, M/s.Tata Elxsi Ltd, M/s.Mindtree Ltd, M/s.Larsen & Tourbo Ltd, M/s.R.S.Software

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:

transfer pricing adjustment actually was not determinative of the refund inasmuch as the tax 8 amount was paid based on book profit, as provided u/s 115JB; the entitlement of the assessee for interest u/s 244A(1A) is intended to bring parity in the converse situation where the Revenue levies interest on delayed payment of taxes as provided u/s 234B

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

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

Bench: S.SUJATHA,VINEET KOTHARI

16 of the said agreement. Thus, viewed from any angle, the distributable surplus, to which Diageo is entitled to as per the said agreement, cannot be considered as application of income. Rather, it is a case of expenditure incurred by the assessee in the course of its business which is allowable under section 37 of the Act. In this view

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

Bench: S.SUJATHA,VINEET KOTHARI

16 of the said agreement. Thus, viewed from any angle, the distributable surplus, to which Diageo is entitled to as per the said agreement, cannot be considered as application of income. Rather, it is a case of expenditure incurred by the assessee in the course of its business which is allowable under section 37 of the Act. In this view

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

price of the shares at the Bombay Stock Exchange, or the National Stock Exchange, on the date of conversion of the Foreign Currency Convertible Bonds into shares. 7. Thus, the cost of acquisition has to be determined as per provisions of Clause 7(4) of the Scheme for computation of capital gains. It is also pertinent to mention here that

THE PR COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-1 vs. ROBERT BOSCH ENGINEERING AND BUSINESS SOLUTIONS PVT LTD

Appeal of the revenue is hereby dismissed

Bench: CHIEF JUSTICE,C M JOSHI

Section 92CA making an transfer pricing adjustment. The learned TPO inter alia adopted the following filter for selection of comparables for the purpose of transfer pricing analysis.
“Companies whose SWD / IT enabled Service is less than 75% of the total operating revenues were excluded The companies whose revenues from software development and related services are more than 75% of their

PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-2 vs. M/S TT STEEL SERVICE INDIA PVT LTD

Bench: V KAMESWAR RAO,S RACHAIAH

Section 92CA could be invalid and bad in law. 7. It is for this precise reason, tribunal has rightly held that order passed by the TPO and DRP is unsustainable in the eyes of law. The said finding is based on the authoritative principles enunciated by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Kolhapur Canesugar Works Ltd referred to herein supra

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

The appeal is allowed

Bench: ARAVIND KUMAR,E.S.INDIRESH

16. Company Application No.413 /2005 in Company Petition No. 166/2001: The KIAMS filed the aforesaid application on 05.05.2005 under Section 446 and 531(A) of the Companies Act r/w Rule 9 of the Companies (Court) Rules, 1959, seeking for stay of the sale proceedings of the property in question. It was further prayed that applicants be permitted

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

Appeals stand dismissed

Bench: RAVI MALIMATH,ASHOK S.KINAGI

section 12B(2) provides that the amount of a capital gain shall be computed after making certain deductions from the "full value of the consideration for which the sale, exchange or transfer of the capital asset is made". In case of a sale, the full value of the consideration is the full sale price actually paid. The legislature

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

16-02-1992 which is marked as Ex.P1 before the trial court. 73. The term ‘Sale’ is defined under Section 54 of the Transfer of Property Act, as under: “Sale” defined.—‘‘Sale” is a transfer of ownership in exchange for a price

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

The appeal is dismissed

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

Transfer Pricing Officer passed under sub-section (3) of section 92CA; and (ii) any non-resident not being a company, or any foreign company:]] [Provided that such eligible assessee shall not include person referred to in sub-section (1) of section 158BA or other person referred to in section 158BD.]" - 12 - ITA No. 431 of 2022 10. An analysis

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.

Section 148 of the Act. 7. While Sri Chaithanya, learned counsel for the appellant submits that the transaction and the report of the transfer pricing officer for the other assessment year cannot be a basis for reopening of any concluded assessments of other years, this contention was subsequently rejected by the learned Single Judge on the premise that while