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

L. VENKATARAMANA RAJU vs. UNION OF INDIA

Bench: The Hon'Ble Mr.Justice S.R.Krishna Kumar

Price Advisory Committee which has been approved by the Board in its 356th meeting held on 20.09.2018, that the compensation shall be awarded at Rs.50 Lakhs per acre on consent and if the land owners are not agreeable for such consent awards, the award shall be made in accordance with law. The Board has filed objections to the said application

M/S SRI BALAJI CORPORATE SERVICES vs. UNION OF INDIA MINISTRY OF FINANCE

Bench: The Hon'Ble Mr.Justice S.R.Krishna Kumar

Price Advisory Committee which has been approved by the Board in its 356th meeting held on 20.09.2018, that the compensation shall be awarded at Rs.50 Lakhs per acre on consent and if the land owners are not agreeable for such consent awards, the award shall be made in accordance with law. The Board has filed objections to the said application

PR COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-5 vs. M/S NOVELL SOFTWARE DEVELOPMENT (INDIA) PVT.LTD.

In the result, we do not find any merit in this appeal

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,R. NATARAJ

Transfer Pricing Officer, there is a definite impact on the net margins of the assessee as compared to comparable companies. Therefore, there is a need of making an adjustment to eliminate differences into accounting policies of the assessee and the comparable companies in terms of the Rules. It is also argued that Tribunal has rightly accepted the aforesaid submission

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S GARNIWAL EXPORTS (P) LTD

Appeal is allowed

Bench: D.V.SHYLENDRA KUMAR,B.S.INDRAKALA

price of Rs.17,78,155/- received by the assessee by way of transfer of quota opining that the amount represented business income of the assessee; that it cannot be attributed to any export activity as the amount is not by export but received 4 within the country; that Section 80HHC benefit being available only to profits derived from an export

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:

28 01.04.2021) and section 147 (post substitution vide Finance Act, 2021 with effect from 01.04.2021)
Explanation to section 147 (post substitution vide Finance Act, 2021 with effect from 01.04.2021)
Section 148 (prior to substitution vide Finance Act, 2021 with effect from 01.04.2021) and section 148 (post substitution vide Finance Act, 2021 with effect from 01.04.2021)
Section 150
Section

THE PR COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S ACUSIS SOFTWARE INDIA

Bench: S.SUJATHA,VINEET KOTHARI

Transfer Pricing Date of Judgment 28-06-2018 I.T.A.No.304/2017 The Pr. Commissioner of Income-tax, CIT (A) & Anr. Vs. M/s. Acusis Software India Pvt. Ltd., 5/18 Officer has rightly chosen the same by applying all the required tests?” 3. Regarding substantial question of law No.1:- Learned counsel for the Appellants-Revenue Mr.K.V.Aravind submits that he does not press

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

THE PR COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-1 vs. ROBERT BOSCH ENGINEERING AND BUSINESS SOLUTIONS PVT LTD

Appeal of the revenue is hereby dismissed

Bench: CHIEF JUSTICE,C M JOSHI

Section 92CA making an transfer pricing adjustment. The learned TPO inter alia adopted the following filter for selection of comparables for the purpose of transfer pricing analysis.
“Companies whose SWD / IT enabled Service is less than 75% of the total operating revenues were excluded The companies whose revenues from software development and related services are more than 75% of their

PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-2 vs. TOYOTA TSUSHO INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED

Bench: CHIEF JUSTICE,C M JOSHI

Section 92-C(2) of the Act instead of 3% in respect to the trading segment. However, the learned DRP rejected the said objection. The learned AO passed the final Assessment Order on the basis of the aforesaid directions on 21.07.2022. 9. The Assessee appealed the said order before the learned ITAT. The learned ITAT considered the appellants' objection regarding

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

The appeal is allowed

Bench: ARAVIND KUMAR,E.S.INDIRESH

Section 457 of the Companies Act r/w Rule 9 of the Companies (Court) Rules. In Paragraph 11 of the said application, KIAMS submitted that the it would be constrained to get the property transferred into their name immediately, failing which, the Institution would not be recognized. It was also said that they were willing

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

28,000 shares at the rate of `200/- as per bond agreement at the prevalent convertible foreign currency rate. It was further held that Clause (xa) of Section 47 of the Act refers to transfer by way of conversion of bonds referred to in Clause (a) of sub-Section 115AC of the Act. Therefore, the aforesaid provision is not applicable

SMT. S. JALAJA vs. UNION OF INDIA

In the result, writ appeals are allowed

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR

28. In the case of Zaverbhai Amaidas v. The State of Bombay this Court laid down the various tests to determine the inconsistency between two enactments and observed as follows- "The important thing to consider with reference to this provision is whether the legislation is 'in respect of the same matter'. If the later legislation deals not with the matters

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

Section 54 of the Transfer of Property Act, reads as under: 54. “Sale” defined.—‘‘Sale” is a transfer of ownership in exchange for a 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

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. M.R.SAMPANGIRAMAIAH

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

price component is already paid and what remains to be paid is Rs.49,80,000/-. Vouchsafing the title to property is a predominant obligation of the vendor, vide condition Nos.6, 7 & 8 in Ex.P4, is not disputed before us. Paragraph 2 stipulates that the plaintiff has to pay this amount in two installments: First installment of Rs.34