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 u/s 143(1

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

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

IV unless such act has been prohibited under clause (c) of section 30. Suspicion standard: 4.17. Reasonable suspicion that the accused has committed the offence is the standard under WP No. 13261 of 2020 61 Section 41 of the Cr.P.C. which is reproduced hereunder: 41. When police may arrest without warrant. (1) Any police officer may without an order from

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:

iv) In CIT v. Purshottamdas T. Patel [1994] 209 ITR 52 (Guj), the Hon'ble High Court of Gujarat has observed that 17 section 153 requires that the assessment should be completed within the prescribed time limit and unless the total income is ascertained & tax payable is determined, the process of assessment cannot be said to be complete; it also

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

iv) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Honourable ITAT was right in law in upholding the action of the Learned Commissioner Appeals in invoking Explanation 3 to section 43(1)? 2. Facts leading to filing of this appeal in nut shell are that the assessee is a Private Limited Company 4 engaged

THE COMMR OF INCOME TAX vs. NIKE INC

Appeals are dismissed

Bench: B.MANOHAR,N.KUMAR

price, quality, quantity, to whom to be shipped and billed. The local manufacturer in India is conveyed of the decision by the office in USA and once it is accepted, the local manufacturer carries on his activity. The liaison office keeps a close watch on the progress, quality, etc., at the manufacturing workshop. The liaison office also keeps a watch

M/S SREE JAYALAKSHMI TEXTILES vs. M/S INTERNATIONAL ASSET RECONSTRUCTION

Bench: The Date Fixed For Sale Of Transfer & In Such Event The Secured Asset Shall Not Be Sold & That Once The Auction Sale Process Is Commenced & The Property Is Auctioned & Sold On The Date Fixed For Sale & The Sale In Favour Of The Highest Bidder Is Confirmed & 25%

transfer by way of sale, lease or otherwise (other than in the ordinary course of his business) any of his secured assets referred to in the notice, without prior written consent of the secured creditor.” xxx 17. Right to appeal .-(1) Any person (including borrower), aggrieved by any of the measures referred to in sub-section (4) of section

M/S SREE JAYALAKSHMI TEXTILES vs. M/S INTERNATIONAL ASSET RECONSTRUCTION

Bench: The Date Fixed For Sale Of Transfer & In Such Event The Secured Asset Shall Not Be Sold & That Once The Auction Sale Process Is Commenced & The Property Is Auctioned & Sold On The Date Fixed For Sale & The Sale In Favour Of The Highest Bidder Is Confirmed & 25%

transfer by way of sale, lease or otherwise (other than in the ordinary course of his business) any of his secured assets referred to in the notice, without prior written consent of the secured creditor.” xxx 17. Right to appeal .-(1) Any person (including borrower), aggrieved by any of the measures referred to in sub-section (4) of section

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

In the result, the appeals are partly allowed

Bench: B.MANOHAR,DILIP B.BHOSALE

price of transfer for the purpose of computation of deduction u/s.80HH and 80I of the Act? A-10. Whether the Tribunal was correct in holding that excise duty and sales tax should not be included in the total turnover for the purpose of computation of deduction u/s.80HHC of the Act? 6. In all the three appeals, the following question

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

THE MANGALORE ELECTRICITY SUPPLY COMPANY LTD., vs. SRI A CHANDRASEKHAR

Bench: G.NARENDAR,P.N.DESAI

iv) Hazardous goods. (v) Hazardous services. (vi) A price in excess of the price fixed under any law, etc. 29. Deficiency of service is defined under Section 2(1)(g) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 in the following manner: “2. (1)(g) ‘deficiency’ means any fault, imperfection, shortcoming or inadequacy in the quality, nature and manner of performance which

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

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 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.

17. As is manifest from a reading of sub- section (13) of Section 144-C of the Act, the assessing officer is not accorded any discretion in the framing of an order of assessment once directions have come to be framed by the Dispute Resolution Panel. In fact, the provision requires the assessing officer to frame an order of assessment

SRI M MADHAVA GOWDA vs. UNDER SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT

Bench: The Hon’Ble Mr.Justice Aravind Kumar

iv) failure to conform to statute under which it is made or exceeding the limits of authority conferred by the enabling Act; (v) repugnancy to the laws of the land i.e, any enactment (vi) arbitrariness or unreasonableness. 41 For the above proposition, judgment of Apex Court in the case of STATE OF T.N. AND ANOTHER vs P.KRISHNAMURTHY AND OTHERS reported

M. NARAYANAPPA vs. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA

Bench: The Hon’Ble Mr.Justice Aravind Kumar

iv) failure to conform to statute under which it is made or exceeding the limits of authority conferred by the enabling Act; (v) repugnancy to the laws of the land i.e, any enactment (vi) arbitrariness or unreasonableness. 41 For the above proposition, judgment of Apex Court in the case of STATE OF T.N. AND ANOTHER vs P.KRISHNAMURTHY AND OTHERS reported

FEDERATION OF WINES MERCHANTS ASSOCIATION vs. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA

Bench: The Hon’Ble Mr.Justice Aravind Kumar

iv) failure to conform to statute under which it is made or exceeding the limits of authority conferred by the enabling Act; (v) repugnancy to the laws of the land i.e, any enactment (vi) arbitrariness or unreasonableness. 41 For the above proposition, judgment of Apex Court in the case of STATE OF T.N. AND ANOTHER vs P.KRISHNAMURTHY AND OTHERS reported

G RAMACHAR vs. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA

Bench: ABHAY SHREENIWAS OKA (CJ),B.V.NAGARATHNA

1) and (4) of Registration Act {explanation as necessary to identify the property; and to issue its map or plan (sketch)} 2) Section-28, 34 and 45-A of Karnataka Stamps Act 1957; read with Rule-3 of Karnataka Stamps (prevention of devaluation of documents) Rules, 1977 (to enter the correct market price of the said property); -: 13 :- 3) Section