PR COMMISSIONER OF vs. M/S SOFTBRANDS INDIA

Bench: S.SUJATHA,VINEET KOTHARI

Transfer Date of Judgment 25-06-2018 I.T.A.No.536/2015 C/w I.T.A.No.537/2015 Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax & Anr. Vs. M/s. Softbrands India P. Ltd., 51/80 Pricing cases of International Taxation under these provisions in income arising from international transactions which shall be computed having regard to the ‘Arm’s Length Price’ (Sec.92). 33. Section 92-A defines an ‘Associate Enterprise

PR COMMISSIONER OF vs. M/S SOFTBRANDS INDIA

Bench: S.SUJATHA,VINEET KOTHARI

Transfer Date of Judgment 25-06-2018 I.T.A.No.536/2015 C/w I.T.A.No.537/2015 Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax & Anr. Vs. M/s. Softbrands India P. Ltd., 51/80 Pricing cases of International Taxation under these provisions in income arising from international transactions which shall be computed having regard to the ‘Arm’s Length Price’ (Sec.92). 33. Section 92-A defines an ‘Associate Enterprise

PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX - 6 vs. M/S. SAMSUNG R & D INSTITUTE BANGALORE PVT LTD

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

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,H.T. NARENDRA PRASAD

36,842/- was declared which included the income from other sources to the extent of Rs.14,34,08,185/-. The assessee later on filed a revised return on 30.03.2011. The assessee had international transactions with its associate enterprises. Therefore, the Assessing Officer referred the case of the assessee to the Transfer Pricing Officer to determine the Arms Length price

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S WIPRO LTD

In the result, the appeals are partly allowed

Bench: B.MANOHAR,DILIP B.BHOSALE

price of transfer for the purpose of computation of deduction u/s.80HH and 80I of the Act? A-10. Whether the Tribunal was correct in holding that excise duty and sales tax should not be included in the total turnover for the purpose of computation of deduction u/s.80HHC of the Act? 6. In all the three appeals, the following question

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

Bench: CHIEF JUSTICE,C M JOSHI

Section 10AA of the Act. In addition, the Assessee had also claimed deduction under Chapter VI-A of the Act. Immediately after filing its original return for AY 2015-16, the Assessee had filed a revised return voluntarily declaring transfer pricing [TP] adjustments of ₹14,82,00,000/-, which was reworked at ₹21,36

THE PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S EDS ELECTRONICS DATA SYSTEMS INDIA PVT.LTD.

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

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,R. NATARAJ

Section 92C of the Act deals with computation of Arms Length Price. The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has recorded a finding that since the assessee had earned profit in a technical service segment in contracts other than contracts with SKF and therefore, the Transfer Pricing Officer should not have loaded the mark-up on the costs / expenses incurred

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. ING VYSYA BANK LTD

In the result, this appeal is allowed in part,

Bench: B.MANOHAR,D.V.SHYLENDRA KUMAR

transferred resulting in a loss, on sales, the loss was being computed on the premise that on valuing securities at market value on the last date of the financial year, the market value of 6 the assets having gone down, the assessee had incurred a loss of Rs.1,09,10,252/- as the market value of the securities was less

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

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

The appeal is dismissed

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

36 months of the transfer. From the sale proceeds, assessee deducted an amount of Rs.2.66 Crores, which was later paid to DHFL as part of compromise deed and deducted the same as expenditure. The Assessing Officer disallowed the same and the ITAT has allowed deduction. 19. In support of this case, Shri. Aravind urged two contentions. Firstly, the expenditure

LANGDON & SEAH CONSULTING INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED

The appeal is dismissed

Bench: VINEET KOTHARI

36 months of the transfer. From the sale proceeds, assessee deducted an amount of Rs.2.66 Crores, which was later paid to DHFL as part of compromise deed and deducted the same as expenditure. The Assessing Officer disallowed the same and the ITAT has allowed deduction. 19. In support of this case, Shri. Aravind urged two contentions. Firstly, the expenditure

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

36. As stated above, this court while admitting the appeal on 11-06-2013 framed the following substantial question of law: 1. Can there be a declaration that sale deed dated 16-2-1992 which is unregistered is valid and does 40 it not negate the Section 17 of the Registration Act? 2. Can there be a declaration that

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

PR COMMISSIONER OF vs. M/S ZYME SOLUTIONS P LTD

Bench: S.SUJATHA,VINEET KOTHARI

SECTION 260-A OF INCOME TAX ACT 1961, PRAYING TO DECIDE THE FOREGOING QUESTION OF LAW AND/OR SUCH OTHER QUESTIONS OF LAW AS MAY BE FORMULATED BY THE HON’BLE Court AS DEEMED FIT, AND SET ASIDE THE APPELLATE ORDER DATED 22/01/2016 PASSED BY THE ITAT, ‘B’ BENCH, BENGALURU, AS SOUGHT FOR, IN THE RESPONDENT-ASSESSEE’S CASE, IN Date

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%

36 stipulated in the said provision, the mandate is that the secured asset should not be sold or transferred by the secured creditor. It is further reinforced to the effect that no further step should also be taken by the secured creditor for transfer or sale of the secured creditor asset. The contingency stipulated in the event of the tender

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%

36 stipulated in the said provision, the mandate is that the secured asset should not be sold or transferred by the secured creditor. It is further reinforced to the effect that no further step should also be taken by the secured creditor for transfer or sale of the secured creditor asset. The contingency stipulated in the event of the tender

PR.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S MARLABS INNOVATIONS PVT LTD

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

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 13.05.2020 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, ‘B’ Bench, Bengaluru (for short, ‘Appellate Authority’) in IT(TP)A.No.430/Bang/2015 and CO.No.160/Bang/2015 for the assessment year 2010-11. 3. This Court, admitted the appeal on 11.07.2022 to consider

LAHAR SINGH SIROYA vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

The appeal stands allowed

Bench: S.SUJATHA,VINEET SARAN

price of land came to approximately Rs.4.80 crores) for which an advance of Rs.40.00 lakhs was paid by the assessee to the seller in terms of the agreement. However, because of certain disputes between the seller and one Vikas Housing, with whom also the seller and his brother had agreed to sell a large chunk of their land, including