DEVAS MULTIMEDIA PRIVATE LIMITED vs. THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX

Bench: The Hon’Ble Mr.Justice P.B. Bajanthri Writ Petition No.11618 Of 2016 (T-It) Between:

2), or as soon thereafter as may be, after hearing such evidence as the assessee may produce including any information or documents referred to in sub- section (3) of Section 92D and after considering such evidence as the Transfer Pricing Officer may require on any specified points and after taking into account all relevant materials which he has gathered

PR COMMISSIONER OF vs. M/S SOFTBRANDS INDIA

Bench: S.SUJATHA,VINEET KOTHARI

22 hereunder, after considering the Revenue’s appeal. 15. In the result, grounds raised by assessee on the transfer pricing issues are decided partly in its favour. 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., 24/80 16. Since we are deciding on the comparables that

PR COMMISSIONER OF vs. M/S SOFTBRANDS INDIA

Bench: S.SUJATHA,VINEET KOTHARI

22 hereunder, after considering the Revenue’s appeal. 15. In the result, grounds raised by assessee on the transfer pricing issues are decided partly in its favour. 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., 24/80 16. Since we are deciding on the comparables that

SRI N GOVINDARAJU vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER

Appeal stands disposed of

Bench: S.SUJATHA,VINEET SARAN

price received as a result of the transfer of a capital asset. It is different from ‘fair market value’ of the property, which phrase is used in section 45(2) [relating to capital gains] and section 55(2)(b) [relating to cost of acquisition]. 30 Section 45 of the Act provides for how profit or gain arising from transfer

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

Bench: S.SUJATHA,JAYANT PATEL

22 as under: “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

SHRI. PARSWANATH vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

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

22 proceeding against the petitioner under the Special Courts Act, 1979. 10. Hence, this CRLMP filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India challenging the impugned order dated 09-08-2018 passed by the learned Special Judge, Special Court, Cuttack in T.R.Case No.15 of 2018 is dismissed being devoid of any merit.” The Division Bench of High

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 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:

Transfer 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

PR.COMMISSIONER OF INCOMETAX-2 vs. M/S.EYGBS (INDIA) PVT LTD

Bench: CHIEF JUSTICE,C M JOSHI

22. It is apparent from a plain reading of sub-section (4) of Section 92C of the Act that the same is inapplicable. The said sub- section requires the AO to compute the total income, having regard to the ALP determined by the AO under sub-section (3) of Section

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

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

The appeals stand disposed of, accordingly

Bench: N.KUMAR,B.SREENIVASE GOWDA

22 - 10. The assessee-company filed its return of income for the assessment year 2004-05 on 31.10.2004 disclosing a total income of Rs.134,86,47,530/- after claiming deduction u/s 10A of the Act to the extent of Rs.881,34,08,342/- The assessee-company also had international transactions with Associated Enterprises, which were referred to the Transfer Pricing

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

The appeals stand disposed of, accordingly

Bench: N.KUMAR,B.SREENIVASE GOWDA

22 - 10. The assessee-company filed its return of income for the assessment year 2004-05 on 31.10.2004 disclosing a total income of Rs.134,86,47,530/- after claiming deduction u/s 10A of the Act to the extent of Rs.881,34,08,342/- The assessee-company also had international transactions with Associated Enterprises, which were referred to the Transfer Pricing

LAHAR SINGH SIROYA vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

The appeal stands allowed

Bench: S.SUJATHA,VINEET SARAN

price of land came to approximately Rs.4.80 crores) for which an advance of Rs.40.00 lakhs was paid by the assessee to the seller in terms of the agreement. However, because of certain disputes between the seller and one Vikas Housing, with whom also the seller and his brother had agreed to sell a large chunk of their land, including

R JANARDHANA BABU vs. THE MANAGING DIRECTOR

Accordingly, the writ petitions are allowed

Bench: The Hon’Ble Mr. Justice B. Veerappa

2(ra) r/w V schedule of the ‘Act’. The entire action of the management is clear case of unfair labour practice. The workmen refused to sign the application form for voluntary retirement scheme at the dotted line. About 37 workmen were transferred by the management with malafide intention. When they refused to sign the form, the management threatened to transfer

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