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.

Section 92-CA(4) of the Act has come to be framed and remitted to the assessing officer. There was thus no occasion for the transfer pricing officer having resumed proceedings post the passing of the direction by the Dispute Resolution Panel on 20-6-2022. 20. Undisputedly, the directive of the Dispute Resolution Panel came to be uploaded

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

24. It is apparent that in a case where the assessee voluntarily computes the ALP pursuant to an APA entered into with CBDT, none of the conditions as set out in sub-section (3) of Section 92C are attracted. It follows that sub-section (4) of Section 92C is not attracted. 25. More importantly, the proviso to sub-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

price paid or promised or part-paid and part-promised. Sale how made.— 3Such transfer, in the case of tangible immoveable property of the value of one hundred rupees and upwards, or in the case of a reversion or other intangible thing, can be made only by a registered instrument. 1In the case of tangible immoveable property of a value

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

The appeal is allowed

Bench: ARAVIND KUMAR,E.S.INDIRESH

price of the said land and buy the scheduled property situated in 6.3 acres, immediately. 19. Prayer was sought for a direction to the Official Liquidator to sell the said 6.3 acres of schedule property wherein the Institution of the KIAMS is situated by accepting the amount stated therein. 20. Company Court vide order dated 30.09.2008 took note

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

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 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

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

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

24 - RFA No.178 OF 2015 C/W RFA CROB NO.19 OF 2015 conversion of the subject land to non-agricultural user under section 95 of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964 inasmuch as the plaintiff could not acquire and hold the suit land because of bar enacted in section 79A of Karnataka Land Reforms Act, 1961, as the provision then existed

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-III vs. M/S YODLEE INFOTECH PVT LTD

The appeal is disposed of

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,M.I.ARUN

24,888/- was declared and deduction of Rs.5,05,83,628/- under Section 10B of the Act and Rs.3,05,84,109/- as book profits under Section 115JB of the Act was claimed. The return was processed under Section 143(1) of the Act and was subsequently taken up for scrutiny. As the International transactions of the assessee were

SMT. S. JALAJA vs. UNION OF INDIA

In the result, writ appeals are allowed

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR

section 107 (2) and Article 254 (2) is that when there is legislation covering the same ground both by 119 the Centre and by the Province, both of them being competent to enact the same, the law of the Centre should prevail over that of the State". "It is true, as already pointed out, that on a question under Article

KARNATAKA STATE BEVERAGES CORPORTION LIMITED vs. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

Bench: The Hon’Ble Mr. Justice Anand Byrareddy Writ Petition No.12872 Of 2013 (T-It) Connected With Writ Petition No.14687 Of 2014 (T-It), Writ Petition No.15910 Of 2015 (T-It) & Writ Petition No.17514 Of 2015 (T-It) In W.P.No.12872 Of 2013 Between: Karnataka State Beverages Corporation Limited, Represented By It’S Executive Director (Finance), Sri. Shrikant B Vanahalli, Aged About 57 Years, No.78, Seethalakshmi Towers, Mission Road, Bangalore 560 027. …Petitioner

24 of the Excise Act and 1968 Rules, is allowable expenditure as per the provisions of the IT Act. The Assessing Officer, seeking to question the State’s power to levy fees in a federal set up, is wholly without jurisdiction. The State exercises its power and issues a notification pursuant to the Karnataka Excise Act, which

THE PR COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S ACI WORLDWIDE SOLUTIONS PVT LTD

The appeal is disposed of with liberty as prayed for by the learned counsel for

Bench: S.G.PANDIT,C.M. POONACHA

Section 260-A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short, ‘the Act’) questioning the correctness and legality of order dated 12.10.2020 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, ‘A’ Bench, Bengaluru (for short, ‘Appellate Authority’) in IT(TP)A.Nos.160 and 211/Bang/2016 for the assessment year 2011-12, raising the following substantial questions of law: “1. Whether

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%

24 any of the recourse taken by the secured creditor under sub-section (4) of section 13. (4) If, the Debts Recovery Tribunal declares the recourse taken by a secured creditor under sub-section (4) of section 13, is in accordance with the provisions of this Act and the rules made thereunder, then, notwithstanding anything contained in any other

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%

24 any of the recourse taken by the secured creditor under sub-section (4) of section 13. (4) If, the Debts Recovery Tribunal declares the recourse taken by a secured creditor under sub-section (4) of section 13, is in accordance with the provisions of this Act and the rules made thereunder, then, notwithstanding anything contained in any other

PR COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-7 vs. M/S ZYME SOLUTIONS P LTD

Bench: S.SUJATHA,VINEET KOTHARI

Transfer Pricing Adjustments’ made by the concerned authorities below. We consider it appropriate to quote the relevant portions hereunder:- “ 27. We have perused the orders and heard the rival contentions. What was held by this Tribunal in the case of Rampgreen Solutions P. Ltd (supra) is reproduced here under: xxxxxxxxxx 28. There is no dispute that assessee was providing ITES