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:

section (254, 263,264 orders) Post 01.04.2019, If the order is received after 01.04.2019, then in such cases the time limit has been increased to 12 months 153(4) Notwithstandi ng sub-sec, (1), (2) & (3), where a reference has been made to Transfer Pricing

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

THE PR COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. SHRI H NAGARAJA

Bench: S SUNIL DUTT YADAV,B.S PATIL

Section 263 to proceed to re-examine the purchase 21 made by the assessee in respect of the lands in question. The Revisional Commissioner had no justification to add cost price in a sum of Rs.2,71,13,658/- stating that it pertained to sales made for the subsequent year. He also erred in directing the Assessing Officer

PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-5 vs. M/S ORIGAMI CELLULO PVT LTD

Bench: B M SHYAM PRASAD,T.M.NADAF

section 263 of the Act by relying on decision of Kolkota Tribunal Bench in case of DVC Emta Coal Mines Ltd v/s ACIT (ITA No.2430-2432/KOL/2017 dated 1/5/2019) ignoring that as per Instruction No.3/2016 dated 10/3/2016, if the reason or one of the reasons for selection of a case for scrutiny is a Transfer Pricing

PR.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-7 vs. M/S TALLY INDIA PVT LTD

In the result, we do not find

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,M.G.S. KAMAL

Transfer Pricing Officer by an order dated 13.06.2012 after affording an opportunity to the assessee passed an draft order of assessment on 05.07.2012 and forwarded the same to the assessee on 11.07.2012. The assessee filed an objection before the Dispute Resolution Panel on 09.08.2012. Thereafter, the Dispute Resolution Panel passed an order on 22.04.2013. The Assessing Officer passed a final

HERBALIFE INTERNATIONAL INDIA PVT LTD vs. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

In the result, the assessee's appeal for

Bench: V KAMESWAR RAO,S RACHAIAH

Section 263 of the IT Act on the - 11 - ITA No. 433 of 2018 basis of an objection raised by the Audit Department and without application of mind by the Respondent No.1 himself. He contested the revisional proceedings by stating that the same were without appreciating that, the order of the Assessing Officer was neither erroneous nor prejudicial

M/S I G PETROCHEMICALS LTD., vs. THE ASST COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

In the result, the appeal fails and is hereby dismissed

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR

263 of the Act cannot be invoked to correct each and every type of mistake or error committed by the Assessing Officer and it was held that it is only when an order is erroneous that the section will be attracted. An incorrect assumption of facts or an incorrect application of law will satisfy the requirement of the order being

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-III vs. M/S SUBHASH KABINI POWER CORPORATION LIMITED

Bench: B.V.NAGARATHNA,JAYANT PATEL

263 would not be justified. In the above case, the assessment order was erroneous because the learned Assessing Officer failed to compute the long term capital gain and short term capital gain separately. But the Tribunal ultimately arrived at a conclusion that even if this exercise is being done, then there will not be any tax liability and therefore, there

M/S T T K PRESTIGE LTD vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

Bench: The Hon’Ble Mrs.Justice S.Sujatha

TRANSFER PRICING OFFICER AND ANOTHER’ [(2010) 320 ITR 565 [DELHI]. [e] ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX AND OTHERS vs. ICICI SECURITIES PRIMARY DEALERSHIP LTD. [2012] 348 ITR 299 (SC) [f] ‘COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. I.A.E.C. (PUMPS) LTD.,’ [(1998) 150 CTR SC 126 - 14 - 6. Submissions of the learned Counsel for the Revenue: Learned Counsel Sri. K.V. Aravind appearing

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

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. SHRI. VIKRAM REDDY

In the result, the fifth substantial question of

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,R. NATARAJ

263 ITR 706 (SC), STATE OF KARNATAKA VS. VIDEOCON INTERNATIONAL LTD., STRP NO.4/2000 DATED 14.07.2010. 9. We have considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and have perused the 17 record. Before proceeding further, it is apt to take note of statutory provisions viz., relevant extract of Section 2(47), 45(3), and relevant extracts

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX vs. M/S ING VYSYA BANK LTD

The appeal is dismissed

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

263 of the Act and formally dismissed the appeal before CIT(Appeals) for statistical purpose. Assessee challenged the same in ITA No. 254 and 255/Bang/2009. The ITAT restored the appeal on the file of CIT(Appeals). By his order dated June 30, 2010 under Section 250 read with 254 of the IT Act, the CIT(Appeals) partly allowed the appeal

LANGDON & SEAH CONSULTING INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED

The appeal is dismissed

Bench: VINEET KOTHARI

263 of the Act and formally dismissed the appeal before CIT(Appeals) for statistical purpose. Assessee challenged the same in ITA No. 254 and 255/Bang/2009. The ITAT restored the appeal on the file of CIT(Appeals). By his order dated June 30, 2010 under Section 250 read with 254 of the IT Act, the CIT(Appeals) partly allowed the appeal

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

263, 276. A fee is a charge for special services rendered to individuals by some governmental agency and such a charge has an element in it of a quid pro quo. Commissioner H.R.E. Madras vs. Lakshmindra Thirtha Swamiar, 1954 SCR 1005, 1041 = (AIR 1954 SC 282 at p. 295). Excise duty is primarily a duty on the production or manufacture

THE PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (4) vs. M/S CHAMUNDI WINERY AND DISTILLERY

Bench: S.SUJATHA,VINEET KOTHARI

transferred to the trust resulting in diversion of income at source. The Appellate Tribunal held that there was no diversion of income and that section 60 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, applied. On a reference, the High Court held that on assignment of 50 per cent. of the share of the assessee in the firm it became the income

PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S CHAMUNDI WINERY AND DISTILLERY

Bench: S.SUJATHA,VINEET KOTHARI

transferred to the trust resulting in diversion of income at source. The Appellate Tribunal held that there was no diversion of income and that section 60 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, applied. On a reference, the High Court held that on assignment of 50 per cent. of the share of the assessee in the firm it became the income

MR. BINEESH KODIYERI vs. DIRECTORATE OF ENFORCEMENT

Bench: The Hon’Ble Mr. Justice Suraj Govindaraj Writ Petition No. 13261 Of 2020 (Gm-Res) Between: Mr. Bineesh Kodiyeri S/O Mr. Kodiyeri Balakrishnan Aged About 37 Years Kootamvilla Lane, Maruthankuzhi Thiruvananthapuram District Kerala State – 695013

price of which exceeds on e crore rupees; or (d) Fraudulently availing of or attempt to avail of drawback or any exemption from duty provided under this Act, if the amount of drawback or exemption from duty exceeds fifty lakh rupees. WP No. 13261 of 2020 65 (7) Save as otherwise provided in sub-section (6), all other offences under