PR COMMISSIONER OF vs. M/S SOFTBRANDS INDIA

Bench: S.SUJATHA,VINEET KOTHARI

2) “Whether the Tribunal was justified in fixing the RPT at 15% of total revenue and deleting Geomatric Software Ltd (Seg) and Megasoft Ltd as comparables without going into specific facts in the case of taxpayer and without adducing the basis for arriving 15% cut off RPT Filter, the case of taxpayer”? Date of Judgment 25-06-2018 I.T.A.No.536/2015

PR COMMISSIONER OF vs. M/S SOFTBRANDS INDIA

Bench: S.SUJATHA,VINEET KOTHARI

2) “Whether the Tribunal was justified in fixing the RPT at 15% of total revenue and deleting Geomatric Software Ltd (Seg) and Megasoft Ltd as comparables without going into specific facts in the case of taxpayer and without adducing the basis for arriving 15% cut off RPT Filter, the case of taxpayer”? Date of Judgment 25-06-2018 I.T.A.No.536/2015

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

SHRI. PARSWANATH vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

Bench: The Hon'Ble Mr. Justice M. Nagaprasanna

15 of 2008 in the Court of the learned Special Judge, Special Court, Cuttack against the petitioner and her late husband. Obviously, the allegation was that the husband of the petitioner, who was a public servant, was in possession of disproportionate assets and hence, charge sheet filed against him under Section 13(1)(e) read with 13(2

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

Bench: S.SUJATHA,JAYANT PATEL

15. It is pertinent to note that under Clause 2 of the MLA with a caption ‘rental procedure’, envisages the provisions of the schedule namely the leasing schedule will prevail over the provisions of the MLA to the extent of any inconsistency between them. It is also to be noted that the description of the equipment and financed items

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

SRI N GOVINDARAJU vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER

Appeal stands disposed of

Bench: S.SUJATHA,VINEET SARAN

15 it becomes the duty of the Assessing Officer to levy tax on the entire income which may have escaped assessment during the assessment year. The said section 147 of the Act, as it now stands after 1.4.1989, may be read in a simple manner, in parts, as follows: If the Assessing Officer has reason to believe that any income

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

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

15 / 39 (7) tax paid under sub-section (2) of Section 3 on the purchase of fuel; (8) tax paid under sub-section (2) of Section 3 on the purchase of goods excluding fuel, until output tax is payable on such goods or other goods in which such goods are put to use except when the said goods are exported

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. PRAVEEN V DODDANAVAR

Bench: SREENIVAS HARISH KUMAR,VINEET KOTHARI

15 / 39 (7) tax paid under sub-section (2) of Section 3 on the purchase of fuel; (8) tax paid under sub-section (2) of Section 3 on the purchase of goods excluding fuel, until output tax is payable on such goods or other goods in which such goods are put to use except when the said goods are exported

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

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

15 / 39 (7) tax paid under sub-section (2) of Section 3 on the purchase of fuel; (8) tax paid under sub-section (2) of Section 3 on the purchase of goods excluding fuel, until output tax is payable on such goods or other goods in which such goods are put to use except when the said goods are exported

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

The appeals stand disposed of, accordingly

Bench: N.KUMAR,B.SREENIVASE GOWDA

15,000/- after claiming deduction under Section 10A of the Income Tax Act (for short, hereinafter referred to as the ‘Act’) to the extent of Rs.620,17,27,569/-. 4. The case for assessment year 2001-02 was selected for scrutiny and notice u/s 143(2) was issued on 09.11.2001. The assessee moved a rectification application u/s 154 for having

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

The appeals stand disposed of, accordingly

Bench: N.KUMAR,B.SREENIVASE GOWDA

15,000/- after claiming deduction under Section 10A of the Income Tax Act (for short, hereinafter referred to as the ‘Act’) to the extent of Rs.620,17,27,569/-. 4. The case for assessment year 2001-02 was selected for scrutiny and notice u/s 143(2) was issued on 09.11.2001. The assessee moved a rectification application u/s 154 for having

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

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

LAHAR SINGH SIROYA vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

The appeal stands allowed

Bench: S.SUJATHA,VINEET SARAN

2(47) of the Act, we are of the view that the appellants were entitled to relief under section 54 of the Act, in respect of the long-term capital gain which they had earned in pursuance of transfer of their residential property being house no.267, sector 9-C, situated in Chandigarh and used for purchase of a new asset/residential

THE PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S CISCO SYSTEMS

The appeals are allowed; the impugned

Bench: SATISH CHANDRA SHARMA,R. NATARAJ

price for which it is sold, so, however, that where the actual cost of a motor car is, in accordance with the proviso to clause (1) of section 43, taken to be twenty-five thousand rupees, the moneys payable in respect of such motor car shall be taken to be a sum which bears to the amount for which