PR COMMISSIONER OF vs. M/S SOFTBRANDS INDIA

Bench: S.SUJATHA,VINEET KOTHARI

5 SCC 545, the Two Judges’ Bench of the Hon’ble Supreme Court following the earlier precedents, summarises the principles in the following manner. The relevant portion of the said judgment at para.24 is quoted below for ready reference: “24. The principles relating to Section 100 CPC relevant for this case may be summarized thus: (i) An inference of fact

PR COMMISSIONER OF vs. M/S SOFTBRANDS INDIA

Bench: S.SUJATHA,VINEET KOTHARI

5 SCC 545, the Two Judges’ Bench of the Hon’ble Supreme Court following the earlier precedents, summarises the principles in the following manner. The relevant portion of the said judgment at para.24 is quoted below for ready reference: “24. The principles relating to Section 100 CPC relevant for this case may be summarized thus: (i) An inference of fact

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 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

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.

43 YEARS, D/O SHRI. DAYANANDA ULLAL) PAN:AADFT 3025 B. …APPELLANT (BY SRI. K.K. CHYTHANYA, SR. COUNSEL FOR SRI TATA KRISHNA, ADV.) AND: THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(1) BMTC BUILDING, 80FT. ROAD, KORAMANGALA 6TH BLOCK, BENGALURU-560 095. …RESPONDENT (BY SRI. Y.V. RAVIRAJ, ADV. FOR) THE ADVOCATE FOR THE APPELLANT HAS FILED THE ABOVE

HEWLETT PACKARD FINANCIAL SERVICES INDIA PRIVATE vs. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA

Bench: S.SUJATHA,JAYANT PATEL

transferred to the appellant and till then the rights over the goods wrests with the end customer only. In-fact in the MLA as pointed out by the FAA and AA, the description of leased equipments are not forthcoming and the appellant is not aware of the goods to be leased till the purchase order is placed

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

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 takes out succession of transfer of capital asset or intangible asset within the ambit of Section

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S QUEST GLOBAL ENGINEERING SERVICES PVT. LTD.,

In the result, we don to find any

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,R. NATARAJ

Section 43(5): "speculative transaction" means a transaction in which a contract for the purchase or sale of any commodity, including stocks and shares, is periodically or ultimately settled otherwise than by the actual delivery or transfer of the commodity or scripts: Provided that for the purposes of this clause — (a) a contract in respect of raw materials or merchandise

FEDERATION OF WINES MERCHANTS ASSOCIATION vs. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA

Bench: The Hon’Ble Mr.Justice Aravind Kumar

price of the liquor being sold to the customers depending upon the varying degree of facilities provided by them to the customers. 28. The Legislature has inserted Entry 59A in the III Schedule to KVAT Act and has chosen to provide for levy of tax on liquor sold by certain licence holders. Notification – II bearing No.FD 21 CSL 2014 dated

SRI M MADHAVA GOWDA vs. UNDER SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT

Bench: The Hon’Ble Mr.Justice Aravind Kumar

price of the liquor being sold to the customers depending upon the varying degree of facilities provided by them to the customers. 28. The Legislature has inserted Entry 59A in the III Schedule to KVAT Act and has chosen to provide for levy of tax on liquor sold by certain licence holders. Notification – II bearing No.FD 21 CSL 2014 dated

M. NARAYANAPPA vs. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA

Bench: The Hon’Ble Mr.Justice Aravind Kumar

price of the liquor being sold to the customers depending upon the varying degree of facilities provided by them to the customers. 28. The Legislature has inserted Entry 59A in the III Schedule to KVAT Act and has chosen to provide for levy of tax on liquor sold by certain licence holders. Notification – II bearing No.FD 21 CSL 2014 dated

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

Bench: CHIEF JUSTICE,C M JOSHI

5,60,58,819/- for AY 2015-16 and ₹62,67,14,829/- for AY 2016-17, under 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

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 143(3) of the Act assessed the income at Rs.33,98,72,603/- after making disallowances with regard to addition on account of income from other sources, addition on account of foreign exchange loss and addition on account of Arms 6 Length Price (ALP). 5. The assessee thereupon filed an appeal before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals

SRI SRIDHAR vs. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA

Bench: JAYANT PATEL,N.K.SUDHINDRARAO

price of the liquor being sold to the customers depending upon the varying degree of facilities provided by them to the customers. 28. The Legislature has inserted Entry 59A in the III Schedule to KVAT Act and has chosen to provide for levy of tax on liquor sold by certain licence holders. Notification – II bearing No.FD

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

43, 45, 69, 75, 77, 88 and 89, no document shall be registered under this Act, unless the persons 64 executing such document, or their representatives, assigns or agents authorized as aforesaid, appear before the registering officer within the time allowed for presentation under sections 23, 24, 25 and 26: Provided that, if owing to urgent necessity or unavoidable accident

THE PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S GOLDMAN SACHS SERVICES PVT LTD

Bench: The Hon'Ble Mr. Justice V. Srishananda Civil Revision Petition No.29/2019 Between

43 of the order refers to the fact of realization of the amount by the sale of 145 flats. The amount realized by sale of 145 flats is to be calculated on the basis of the evidence that is placed before the tribunal. The fact that the sale deeds are registered for a lower price than the agreed price

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 vs. M/S ACI WORLDWIDE SOLUTIONS PVT LTD

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

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 12.10.2020 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, ‘A’ Bench, Bengaluru (for short, ‘Appellate Authority’) in IT(TP)A.Nos.160 and 211/Bang/2016 for the assessment year 2011-12, raising the following substantial questions of law: “1. Whether