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 u/s 143(1

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 u/s 143(1

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

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

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

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

THE PR COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. SHRI H NAGARAJA

Bench: S SUNIL DUTT YADAV,B.S PATIL

1) pertaining to development expenses, both the Assessing Officer as well as the Appellate Commissioner did consider the entire matter and for the assessment year 2008-09, disallowed a sum of Rs.50 lakhs and as regards the assessment year 2009-10, disallowed Rs.2 Crores, and therefore, the assessment order passed merged with the appellate order; hence, in view

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

1) The Commissioner may call for and examine the record of any proceeding under this Act, and if he considers that any order passed therein by the Assessing Officer is erroneous in so far as it is prejudicial to the interests of the revenue, he, may, after giving the assessee an opportunity of being heard and after making or causing

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

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

1. Whether, in the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is right in law in quashing the order passed under 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

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

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

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

Transfer Pricing Adjustment of ALP, Doubtful Debts Written Off, Administrative Fees. According to him, no enquiry in the matter of Assessee’s claim for 100% depreciation on leasehold improvements was conducted by the Assessing Officer is established by the admission of the AR of the Assessee before the learned CIT on 13.12.2014 in the course of revisionary proceedings. 14. According

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

Bench: B.V.NAGARATHNA,JAYANT PATEL

1. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in law in quashing the order under Section 263 of the Income Tax Act without appreciating the judgment of Supreme Court in the case of M/s.Liberty India v. CIT [317 ITR 218] and M/s. Sterling Foods v. CIT [237 ITR 579] that any ancillary

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

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

N ASHOK vs. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA

Bench: The Hon’Ble Mr. Justice Aravind Kumar W.P. No.51929/2014 C/W W.P.Nos.42063/2012, 30494/2013, 42671/2013, 638/2014, 797/2014, 1089/2014, 3211/2014, 3389/2014, 6180/2014, 10356/2014, 12014/2014, 12015/2014, 13043/2014, 13045/2014, 13206/2014, 13207/2014, 13398/2014, 13774/2014, 14149/2014, 14161/2014, 14494/2014, 14502/2014, 14521/2014, 14689/2014, 16646/2014, 17051/2014, 17594/2014, 19729/2014, 21158/2014, 23897/2014, 28861/2014, 30731/2014, 31723/2014, 33774/2014, 33777/2014, 34084/2014, 34259/2014, 34272/2014, 34391/2014, 35204/2014, 35243/2014, 35247/2014, 35305/2014, 35609/2014, 36164/2014, 36166/2014, 36489/2014, 36525/2014, 36971/2014, 37446/2014, 38055/2014, 38463/2014, 38471/2014, 38472/2014, 38661/2014, 38753/2014, 39383/2014, 39633/2014, 39832/2014, 40204/2014, 40379/2014, 41394/2014, 41422/2014, 41427/2014, 41428/2014, 41858/2014, 43815/2014, 43963/2014, 44306/2014, 44527/2014, 44742/2014, 44835/2014, 45486/2014, 46766/2014, 47103/2014, 47105/2014, 47106/2014, 47107/2014, 47608/2014, 47731/2014, 47821/2014, 47860/2014, 47913/2014, 48577/2014, 48880/2014, 49567/2014, 50260/2014, 50533/2014, 51294/2014, 51930/2014, 51931/2014, 51932/2014, 52760/2014, 53854/2014, 54059/2014, 54083/2014, 54236/2014

1. STATE OF KARNTAKA REP BY ITS SECRETARY URBAN DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT M S BUILDING, DR AMBEDKAR VEEDHI BANGALORE-560001 2. BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY REP BY ITS COMMISSIONER KUMARA PARK WEST BANGALORE-560020 3. SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY KUMARA PARK WEST BANGALORE-560020 …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. G.V. SHASHIKUMAR, AGA FOR R1; SRI. M.N. RAMANJANEYA GOWDA, ADVOCATE