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:

3. The second respondent having contexted Section 244A(1A) of the Act has styled the operative portion of the impugned order as under: “In this case, the Hon’ble ITAT, Bengaluru has remitted back the issue of Transfer Pricing

KAVERI PLASTO CONTAINERS PVT LTD vs. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA

Of the Department's clouded interpretation of the Centum

Bench: ANAND BYRAREDDY

price of goods sold to the end consumer. The 24 object of the Act is achieved by allowing dealers to deduct the input tax paid by him on purchases from their output tax liability on sales effected by them, thereby ensuring that tax is levied only on the incremental monetary value addition on each sale of goods. Section 10(3

M/S. HINDUSTAN COCA COLA vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

Of the Department's clouded interpretation of the Centum

Bench: ANAND BYRAREDDY

price of goods sold to the end consumer. The 24 object of the Act is achieved by allowing dealers to deduct the input tax paid by him on purchases from their output tax liability on sales effected by them, thereby ensuring that tax is levied only on the incremental monetary value addition on each sale of goods. Section 10(3

SONAL APPAREL PRIVATE LTD., vs. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA

Of the Department's clouded interpretation of the Centum

Bench: ANAND BYRAREDDY

price of goods sold to the end consumer. The 24 object of the Act is achieved by allowing dealers to deduct the input tax paid by him on purchases from their output tax liability on sales effected by them, thereby ensuring that tax is levied only on the incremental monetary value addition on each sale of goods. Section 10(3

M/S INDIA MOTOR PARTS & ACCESSORIES LTD vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF

Of the Department's clouded interpretation of the Centum

Bench: ANAND BYRAREDDY

price of goods sold to the end consumer. The 24 object of the Act is achieved by allowing dealers to deduct the input tax paid by him on purchases from their output tax liability on sales effected by them, thereby ensuring that tax is levied only on the incremental monetary value addition on each sale of goods. Section 10(3

DEPA INDIA PRIVATE LTD. vs. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA

Of the Department's clouded interpretation of the Centum

Bench: ANAND BYRAREDDY

price of goods sold to the end consumer. The 24 object of the Act is achieved by allowing dealers to deduct the input tax paid by him on purchases from their output tax liability on sales effected by them, thereby ensuring that tax is levied only on the incremental monetary value addition on each sale of goods. Section 10(3

INGRAM MICRO INDIA PVT.LTD. vs. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA

Of the Department's clouded interpretation of the Centum

Bench: ANAND BYRAREDDY

price of goods sold to the end consumer. The 24 object of the Act is achieved by allowing dealers to deduct the input tax paid by him on purchases from their output tax liability on sales effected by them, thereby ensuring that tax is levied only on the incremental monetary value addition on each sale of goods. Section 10(3

ACE DESIGNERS LIMITED vs. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA

Of the Department's clouded interpretation of the Centum

Bench: ANAND BYRAREDDY

price of goods sold to the end consumer. The 24 object of the Act is achieved by allowing dealers to deduct the input tax paid by him on purchases from their output tax liability on sales effected by them, thereby ensuring that tax is levied only on the incremental monetary value addition on each sale of goods. Section 10(3

M/S. HINDUSTAN COCA COLA vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

Of the Department's clouded interpretation of the Centum

Bench: ANAND BYRAREDDY

price of goods sold to the end consumer. The 24 object of the Act is achieved by allowing dealers to deduct the input tax paid by him on purchases from their output tax liability on sales effected by them, thereby ensuring that tax is levied only on the incremental monetary value addition on each sale of goods. Section 10(3

INGRAM MICRO INDIA PVT. LTD. vs. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA

Of the Department's clouded interpretation of the Centum

Bench: ANAND BYRAREDDY

price of goods sold to the end consumer. The 24 object of the Act is achieved by allowing dealers to deduct the input tax paid by him on purchases from their output tax liability on sales effected by them, thereby ensuring that tax is levied only on the incremental monetary value addition on each sale of goods. Section 10(3

PR COMMISSIONER OF vs. M/S SOFTBRANDS INDIA

Bench: S.SUJATHA,VINEET KOTHARI

3. The Indian Income Tax Act, 1961 contains Special Provisions relating to Avoidance of Tax in Chapter X of the Act comprising of Sections 92 to 94-B with regard to assessment to be done for computation of income from international transactions on the principles of ‘Arm’s Length Price’ (ALP) and the relevant Rules for computation of such income

PR COMMISSIONER OF vs. M/S SOFTBRANDS INDIA

Bench: S.SUJATHA,VINEET KOTHARI

3. The Indian Income Tax Act, 1961 contains Special Provisions relating to Avoidance of Tax in Chapter X of the Act comprising of Sections 92 to 94-B with regard to assessment to be done for computation of income from international transactions on the principles of ‘Arm’s Length Price’ (ALP) and the relevant Rules for computation of such income

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

PR COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S TATA POWER SOLAR SYSTEMS LIMITED

Appeals are dismissed at the stage of admission itself as being

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

3. The Transfer Pricing Officer4 passed an order under Section 92CA(3) of the Act on 30.01.2015, proposing an 1 Hereinafter

PR COMMISSIONER OF vs. M/S LUWA INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR

Transfer Pricing Officer, while exercising the jurisdiction under Section 92KA(3) of the Act, can only determine the Arms Length

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.

Transfer Pricing Officer passed order under Section 92CA on 30.01.2015. Thereafter, the respondent passed draft assessment order under Section 144C read with Section - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:19558-DB ITA No. 571 of 2017 143(2) of IT Act on 27.03.2015 for the relevant assessment year. Aggrieved by the said draft assessment order, the appellant is said

THE PR.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S. YOKOGAWA INDIA LTD

The appeal is dismissed

Bench: S.G.PANDIT,K. V. ARAVIND

Transfer Pricing Officer passed under sub-section (3) of section 92CA; and (ii) any non-resident not being a company

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

Bench: CHIEF JUSTICE,C M JOSHI

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 (4) of Section 92C also clearly states that no deduction under Section 10A or 10AA or 10B or under Chapter VI-A of the Act would be allowed in respect of the amount