PR COMMISSIONER OF vs. M/S SOFTBRANDS INDIA

Bench: S.SUJATHA,VINEET KOTHARI

2) An appeal may lie under this section from an appellate decree passed ex- parte. Date of Judgment 25-06-2018 I.T.A.No.536/2015 C/w I.T.A.No.537/2015 Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax & Anr. Vs. M/s. Softbrands India P. Ltd., 35/80 (3) In an appeal under this section, the memorandum of appeal shall precisely state the substantial question of law involved

PR COMMISSIONER OF vs. M/S SOFTBRANDS INDIA

Bench: S.SUJATHA,VINEET KOTHARI

2) An appeal may lie under this section from an appellate decree passed ex- parte. Date of Judgment 25-06-2018 I.T.A.No.536/2015 C/w I.T.A.No.537/2015 Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax & Anr. Vs. M/s. Softbrands India P. Ltd., 35/80 (3) In an appeal under this section, the memorandum of appeal shall precisely state the substantial question of law involved

M/S FIDELITY BUSINESS SERVICES INDIA PVT LTD vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

Bench: S.SUJATHA,VINEET KOTHARI

transfer of the reserves and surplus to the holding company by avoiding the payment of tax and therefore it will be treated as a colourable device. There are two aspects in this transaction- (i) It is a simple and plain transaction of buy back of shares without having any dispute of price then the same is beyond the scope

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

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:

Pricing Officer during the proceeding for assessment, reassessment made. The period as specified in sub- section (1)(2) & (3) shall be further extended by 12 months. 153(5) To give effect to the order of the higher authorities i.e. CIT (A), ITAT, HC and SC orders To give effect to an order passed by higher authorities other than those orders

M/S J K CEMENT WORKS vs. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA

Bench: H.B.PRABHAKARA SASTRY,VINEET KOTHARI

transfer of property in goods in connection with the execution of works contract, that is claimed as deduction. (d) Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, where any dealer has sold goods at a price lesser than the price of such goods purchased by him, the amount of input tax credit shall be restricted to the amount of output

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. PRAVEEN V DODDANAVAR

Bench: SREENIVAS HARISH KUMAR,VINEET KOTHARI

transfer of property in goods in connection with the execution of works contract, that is claimed as deduction. (d) Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, where any dealer has sold goods at a price lesser than the price of such goods purchased by him, the amount of input tax credit shall be restricted to the amount of output

THE BAILHONGAL URBAN COOPERATIVE BANK LTD vs. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

Bench: S.ABDUL NAZEER,P.S.DINESH KUMAR

transfer of property in goods in connection with the execution of works contract, that is claimed as deduction. (d) Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, where any dealer has sold goods at a price lesser than the price of such goods purchased by him, the amount of input tax credit shall be restricted to the amount of output

HEWLETT PACKARD FINANCIAL SERVICES INDIA PRIVATE vs. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA

Bench: S.SUJATHA,JAYANT PATEL

14. In order to decide in the present appeals whether the sale by the appellant has occasioned the movement of goods from the foreign vendor in the course of import, it is necessary to analyze the Master Lease Agreement (MLA), Purchase order placed by the end customer on the foreign vendor, ‘Lease Schedule’ and the Acceptance Certificate and so also

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

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.

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 on - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:19558-DB ITA No. 571 of 2017 17.12.2015 under Section 144C(5) of the IT Act. The said order passed by the DRP was communicated

CHITTHARANJAN A DASANNACHARYA vs. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-V

In the result, the appeal is allowed

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,H.T. NARENDRA PRASAD

14) of the Act? iii. The Hon'ble Tribunal was right in concluding that cashless exercise of stock options does not constitute transfer of a long term capital asset under Section 2(47) of the Act? iv. The Hon'ble Tribunal was right in holding that the difference between the option/exercise price

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

Appeals stand dismissed

Bench: RAVI MALIMATH,ASHOK S.KINAGI

iii) in case of value of any money or capital asset received by a specified person from a specified entity referred to in subsection (4) of section 45, the amount chargeable to income-tax as income of such specified entity under that sub-section which is attributable to the capital asset being transferred by the specified entity, calculated

THE PR.COMMISSIONER OF vs. M/S MAHAVEER CALYX

In the result, the orders passed by the Assessing

Bench: SATISH CHANDRA SHARMA,V SRISHANANDA

price as well as the terms and conditions. The aforesaid quotation states that Dell product would be exported from Malaysia. Thus, the petitioner seeks customer's upfront contractual approval of manufacture and supply of required product from Malaysia. On receipt of the quotation, customer accepts either by signing the same or by raising a purchase order or by making

THE PR COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. SMT SAROJINI M KUSHE

Appeal stands dismissed

Bench: S.SUJATHA,HANCHATE SANJEEVKUMAR

iii) in case of value of any money or capital asset received by a specified person from a specified entity referred to in subsection (4) of section 45, the amount - 9 - chargeable to income-tax as income of such specified entity under that sub-section which is attributable to the capital asset being transferred by the specified entity, calculated

L. VENKATARAMANA RAJU vs. UNION OF INDIA

Bench: The Hon'Ble Mr.Justice S.R.Krishna Kumar

14 of the Constitution of India. 10.3 Thirdly, it is contended that Section 30 of the KIAD Act (prior to amendment vide Karnataka Act No. 20 of 2022 w.e.f 05.04.2022) which provided for payment of compensation for KIADB acquisitions under the said Act of 1894 was legislation by reference and not legislation by incorporation and consequently, upon repeal

M/S SRI BALAJI CORPORATE SERVICES vs. UNION OF INDIA MINISTRY OF FINANCE

Bench: The Hon'Ble Mr.Justice S.R.Krishna Kumar

14 of the Constitution of India. 10.3 Thirdly, it is contended that Section 30 of the KIAD Act (prior to amendment vide Karnataka Act No. 20 of 2022 w.e.f 05.04.2022) which provided for payment of compensation for KIADB acquisitions under the said Act of 1894 was legislation by reference and not legislation by incorporation and consequently, upon repeal