PR COMMISSIONER OF vs. M/S SOFTBRANDS INDIA

Bench: S.SUJATHA,VINEET KOTHARI

40. The dispute essentially before us is the pairing and matching such comparables with the Transfer Pricing Analysis of the profit margins given by the Assessee himself during the course of determination of such ‘Arm’s Length Price’. 41. The shades of arguments raised by both the sides before us in these appeals and most of which have been filed

PR COMMISSIONER OF vs. M/S SOFTBRANDS INDIA

Bench: S.SUJATHA,VINEET KOTHARI

40. The dispute essentially before us is the pairing and matching such comparables with the Transfer Pricing Analysis of the profit margins given by the Assessee himself during the course of determination of such ‘Arm’s Length Price’. 41. The shades of arguments raised by both the sides before us in these appeals and most of which have been filed

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

40 specify the amounts which shall not be deducted in computing the income chargeable under the head “Profits and gains of business or profession”. It is proposed to insert a new sub-clause (iib) in clause (a) of the aforesaid section so as to provide that any amount paid by way of royalty, licence fee, service fee, privilege fee, service

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 adjustment amounting to Rs.8,50,32,504/- was necessary in the software development services sector. The Assessing Officer, in the draft assessment order dated 10.03.2014, made an addition of a sum of Rs.8,50,32,504/- to the income disclosed by the assessee and also made disallowances under Section 40

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

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:

40 been brought in for the cases covered u/s 153(5); this is for the following reasons:
Both the sections have been enacted vide Finance Act, 2016 and both they have been brought into effect from 01.06.2016.
Both sections 153(5) and 244A(1A) deal with giving effect to orders u/s. 250 or section 254 or section 260 or section

PR COMMISSIONER OF vs. M/S WIPRO LIMITED

In the result, the appeal is disposed of in terms

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,H.T. NARENDRA PRASAD

Transfer Pricing Officer (TPO) to follow the directions given by the tribunal in earlier Assessment Year. The tribunal with regard to claim of assessee under Section 14A of the Act directed the Assessing Officer to follow the directions given the claim of the assessee under Section 14A of the Act set aside the finding recorded by the Assessing Officer

PR COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX - 2 vs. M/S PARAMETRICS TECHNOLOGY 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 ITA.No.359/Bang/2016 for the assessment year 2011-12. 3. This Court, admitted the appeal on 17.02.2022 to consider the following substantial question

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 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

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

price for sale of property sold by her husband which is western portion of Tataguni estate in favour of plaintiff-Company and she has not agreed to sell the plaint schedule property to the plaintiff at the rate of Rs.40,000/- per acre. 17. It is further claimed that Managing Director of plaintiff-Company K.T. Bhagath was with

THE PR.COMMISSIONER OF vs. M/S MAHAVEER CALYX

In the result, the orders passed by the Assessing

Bench: SATISH CHANDRA SHARMA,V SRISHANANDA

price as well as the terms and conditions. The aforesaid quotation states that Dell product would be exported from Malaysia. Thus, the petitioner seeks customer's upfront contractual approval of manufacture and supply of required product from Malaysia. On receipt of the quotation, customer accepts either by signing the same or by raising a purchase order or by making

M/S PADMINI PRODUCTS (P) LTD., vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

In the result, the aforesaid

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,H.T. NARENDRA PRASAD

40,150/- using standard valuation methods. All assets and liabilities of Padmini Products i.e., the erstwhile partnership firm, including the aforesaid intangible assets were transferred to the assessee. In consideration, the assessee allotted shares at the face value of Rs.1,000/- and premium of Rs.13,500/- per share each to the partners of the erstwhile partnership firm and no other

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

PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-5 vs. M/S. PUMA SPORTS INDIA P., LTD.,

The appeal stands dismissed

Bench: SATISH CHANDRA SHARMA,V SRISHANANDA

transfer pricing adjustment for Rs.4,16,65,106/- on the basis of the order passed under Section 92CA of the Act dated 24.10.2016. The assessing authority also made other additions. The assessee’s objections were not considered by the Dispute Resumption Panel and therefore, an appeal was 3 filed before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Bangalore (hereinafter referred

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S FOSROC CHEMICALS INDIA PVT LTD

The appeals are dismissed

Bench: B.V.NAGARATHNA,JAYANT PATEL

Transfer Pricing Officer (hereinafter referred to as ‘TPO’ for brevity) with a direction to recompute the ALP, taking into consideration the allocated expenses by Associated Enterprises to the assessee. Further, the Tribunal has also observed that the entire payment made by the assessee towards ‘management services’ shall be taken as the aggregate payment for all the services rendered

THE PR COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIT (A) vs. M/S APTEAN INDIA PVT LTD

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

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

Transfer Pricing Officer to exclude comparables namely, exclude, Larsen & Tourbo, Mind Tree Ltd, Persistent Systems Ltd, R.S.Software India Ltd, Tech Mahindra Ltd as comparables on account of turnover filter even when the said comparable satisfies qualitative and quantitative filters and as per Rule 10B of I.T.Rules and ignoring its earlier decision in case of M/s.Societe Generale Global Solution Centre