PR COMMISSIONER OF vs. M/S SOFTBRANDS INDIA

Bench: S.SUJATHA,VINEET KOTHARI

Transfer Pricing Officer (TPO) or Dispute Resolution Panel (DRP) which comprises of three Commissioners and the Revenue or the assessee may feel dissatisfied, because of the reversal or modification of such findings by the Tribunal resulting in leaving out of certain comparables or adding on of certain comparables for determining the ‘Arm’s Length Price’ in the hands

PR COMMISSIONER OF vs. M/S SOFTBRANDS INDIA

Bench: S.SUJATHA,VINEET KOTHARI

Transfer Pricing Officer (TPO) or Dispute Resolution Panel (DRP) which comprises of three Commissioners and the Revenue or the assessee may feel dissatisfied, because of the reversal or modification of such findings by the Tribunal resulting in leaving out of certain comparables or adding on of certain comparables for determining the ‘Arm’s Length Price’ in the hands

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 on 30.01.2015. Thereafter, the respondent passed draft assessment order under Section 144C read with Section - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:19558-DB ITA No. 571 of 2017 143(2) of IT Act on 27.03.2015 for the relevant assessment year. Aggrieved by the said draft assessment order, the appellant is said

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:

18 months From AY 2019-20, time limit has been further reduced to 12 months 153(2) Income escapement assessment To assess/re- assess/ recompute under section 147 NA 12 months from the end of FY in which notice under section 148 was served. From 1st April 2019, the above time limit has been reduced to 9 months

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 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

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S FIRST ADVANTAGE OFFSHORE SERVICES PVT LTD

Bench: S.SUJATHA,VINEET KOTHARI

price under the proviso to Section 92C(2) of the Act, without considering the corrigendum dated 30-04-2010 to the circular 5/2010 issued by the Board in this regard? 6. Whether the Tribunal was correct in directing cross examination in the case of comparables where information was gathered in terms of provisions of section

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

18-6-1992 64. At this stage, it is necessary to mention, Section 34 and 35 of the Indian Registration Act, which read as under: “34. Enquiry before registration by registering officer.—(l) Subject to the provisions contained in this Part and in sections 41, 43, 45, 69, 75, 77, 88 and 89, no document shall be registered under this

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

transfer' within the meaning of Income-tax Act. Further it is also proposed to substitute sub- section (2A) of section 49 to provide that the cost of acquisition of the shares received upon conversion of the bond shall be the price at which the corresponding bond was acquired." 23. The bonds issued to the Petitioner are under the FCCB Scheme

THE PR COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S ACUSIS SOFTWARE INDIA

Bench: S.SUJATHA,VINEET KOTHARI

Transfer Pricing Date of Judgment 28-06-2018 I.T.A.No.304/2017 The Pr. Commissioner of Income-tax, CIT (A) & Anr. Vs. M/s. Acusis Software India Pvt. Ltd., 5/18 Officer has rightly chosen the same by applying all the required tests?” 3. Regarding substantial question of law No.1:- Learned counsel for the Appellants-Revenue Mr.K.V.Aravind submits that he does not press

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

The appeal is allowed

Bench: ARAVIND KUMAR,E.S.INDIRESH

18. The Company Application No.188/2005 in Company Petition No.166/2001: The aforesaid application was filed by KIAMS on 04.03.2008 under Section 457 of the Companies Act r/w Rule 9 of the Companies (Court) Rules. In Paragraph 11 of the said application, KIAMS submitted that the it would be constrained to get the property transferred into their name immediately, failing which

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

Appeals stand dismissed

Bench: RAVI MALIMATH,ASHOK S.KINAGI

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 - 16 - expressed as to the interpretation of the main part of section 12B(2) is borne out by the fact that in the first proviso

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX vs. M/S. CURAM SOFTWARE INTERNATIONAL

Bench: S.SUJATHA,VINEET KOTHARI

transfer pricing regulations in India does not provide for assumptions in respect of adjustments and recorded perverse finding? 8. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law the Tribunal was correct in directing exclusion of telecommunication expenses and expenditure incurred in foreign currency from export turnover Date of Judgment 12-07-2018, ITA No.20/2014

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 PADMINI PRODUCTS (P) LTD., vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

In the result, the aforesaid

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,H.T. NARENDRA PRASAD

18 with reference to intangible assets. Accordingly, the second substantial question of law is answered in favour of the assessee and against revenue. 8. It is noteworthy to mention here that 5th proviso to Section 32(1) of the Act restricts the total depreciation which can be claimed in case of succession etc. to the depreciation which would have been

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX vs. M.R.SAMPANGIRAMAIAH

Bench: P.S.DINESH KUMAR,C.M. POONACHA

18 - RFA No.178 OF 2015 C/W RFA CROB NO.19 OF 2015 bearing No.786344 dated 5.4.2004 for a sum of Rs.5,00,000/- (toward additional amount); all the cheques are drawn in favour of 1st defendant. However, she did not enter the witness box and no explanation is offered for herself not deposing as a witness; DW.1 has specifically stated that

THE PR COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIT(A) vs. M/S GENISYS INFORMATION

Bench: S.SUJATHA,VINEET KOTHARI

Transfer Pricing adjustment whereby the DRP had directed the assessing authority to carryout the working capital adjustment both in software segment and ITES segment as per the actual figures worked out by the assessee without putting any upper cap?” Date of Judgment 05-07-2018 I.T.A.No.698 /2017 The Pr. Commissioner of Income-tax & Anr. Vs. M/s.Genisys Information Systems (India