PR COMMISSIONER OF vs. M/S SOFTBRANDS INDIA

Bench: S.SUJATHA,VINEET KOTHARI

42. In sum and substance, we find that such an exercise having been undertaken by the Authorities below may have resulted not only in high pitched Transfer Pricing Adjustments in the declared profits of the Assessee, but a flood of such appeals go before the Tribunal itself where finally the inclusion or exclusion Date of Judgment 25-06-2018 I.T.A.No

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

Bench: CHIEF JUSTICE,C M JOSHI

42,179 7. The AO had denied the exemption under Section 10AA on the TP pricing adjustment made pursuant to the APA. The AO reasoned that the assessee had declared the TP adjustments in anticipation of such TP adjustments by the TPA and to avoid the rigour of Section 92C(4) of the Act. The AO further observed that

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 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

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

42 ITR 57 (SC) and ‘GVK INDUSTRIES LTD. VS. INCOME TAX OFFICER’, (2011) 332 ITR 130 (SC). 5. On the other hand, learned counsel for the revenue submitted that as per Section 45 of the Act, transfer of entire business of firm to company amounts 10 to transfer of capital asset. It is further submitted that Section 47(xiii) only

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-III, vs. M/S SAP LABS INDIA PVT LTD

Bench: S.SUJATHA,VINEET KOTHARI

Section 92-C of the Income Tax Act, 1961? (d) Whether tribunal is justified in rejecting comparable cases adopted by transfer pricing officer for purpose of determination of arms length price and whether the rejection of such comparables by the tribunal is sustainable in law?”. 3. The learned Tribunal, after discussing the rival contentions of both the Appellants-Revenue

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX vs. DR. PRADEEP KUMAR

Bench: RAVI MALIMATH,N.KUMAR

Section 92-C of the Income Tax Act, 1961? (d) Whether tribunal is justified in rejecting comparable cases adopted by transfer pricing officer for purpose of determination of arms length price and whether the rejection of such comparables by the tribunal is sustainable in law?”. 3. The learned Tribunal, after discussing the rival contentions of both the Appellants-Revenue

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 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

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%

Section 13(8) read along with Rules 8(6) and 9(1), the owner/borrower should have clear notice of 30 days before the date and time when the sale or transfer of the secured asset would be made, as that alone would enable the owner/borrower to take all efforts to retain his or her ownership by tendering the dues

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%

Section 13(8) read along with Rules 8(6) and 9(1), the owner/borrower should have clear notice of 30 days before the date and time when the sale or transfer of the secured asset would be made, as that alone would enable the owner/borrower to take all efforts to retain his or her ownership by tendering the dues

THE COMMR OF INCOME TAX vs. NIKE INC

Appeals are dismissed

Bench: B.MANOHAR,N.KUMAR

price, quality, quantity, to whom to be shipped and billed. The local manufacturer in India is conveyed of the decision by the office in USA and once it is accepted, the local manufacturer carries on his activity. The liaison office keeps a close watch on the progress, quality, etc., at the manufacturing workshop. The liaison office also keeps a watch

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX III vs. M/S TIMKEN ENGINEERING

Bench: S.SUJATHA,VINEET KOTHARI

42(P) ELECTRONIC CITY PHASE II DODDATHOGUR VILLAGE BEGUR HOBLI TALUK BANGALORE SOUHT DISTRICT BANGALORE-560 100. …RESPONDENT (By Mr. A. SHANKAR & Mr. M. LAVA ADVS.) THESE I.T.A.s ARE FILED UNDER SECTION 260-A OF INCOME TAX ACT 1961, PRAYING TO FORMULATE THE SUBSTANTIAL QUESTIONS OF LAW STATED THEREIN. ALLOW THE APPEAL AND SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 24/02/2012 Date

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 vs. M/S WIPRO LIMITED

In the result, the appeal is disposed of in terms

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,H.T. NARENDRA PRASAD

section 10A nor under the provisions of the DTAA? (12) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is right in law in setting aside the allocation of corporate expenses for the purpose of deduction in respect of 10A and non-10A units by placing reliance on the orders passed in respect of earlier assessment