PR COMMISSIONER OF vs. M/S SOFTBRANDS INDIA

Bench: S.SUJATHA,VINEET KOTHARI

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.536/2015 C/w I.T.A.No.537/2015 Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax & Anr. Vs. M/s. Softbrands India P. Ltd., 58/80 of comparables has been determined by the Tribunal

PR COMMISSIONER OF vs. M/S SOFTBRANDS INDIA

Bench: S.SUJATHA,VINEET KOTHARI

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.536/2015 C/w I.T.A.No.537/2015 Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax & Anr. Vs. M/s. Softbrands India P. Ltd., 58/80 of comparables has been determined by the Tribunal

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S SHASTHA PHARMA LABORATORIES

The appeal is dismissed

Bench: N.KUMAR,RATHNAKALA

price of Rs.50.12/- lakhs did not amount to a transfer and consequently, no capital gains tax was liable to be paid.?” 7. However, before commencement of the arguments, learned Counsel for the revenue sought the permission of the Court to raise additional substantial question of law : “Whether the Tribunal was correct in holding the reopening of assessment under Sections

PROF. P.N. SHETTY vs. OFFICE OF THE INCOME TAX OFFICER

Bench: The

price of Rs.21,32,470/- on 20th August, 2013 which was before the 3 expiry of three years from the date of transfer of the capital assets. The notice which was the subject matter of challenge in the writ petition filed by the appellant was issued with a view to bring the unutilized capital gains

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

Bench: ABHAY SHREENIWAS OKA (CJ),S.G.PANDIT

transfer pricing documents and proceeded to determine the arms length price of the international transactions of the assessee on the basis of the material available on record. The assessee raised objection before the Dispute Resolution Panel (for short ‘the DRP’) on the finding of the TPO. On consideration of the objections of the assessee, the DRP directed the Assessing Officer

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S. NUTRINE CONFECTIONERY CO. P. LTD.,

Appeal stands dismissed

Bench: N.KUMAR,RATHNAKALA

45. That section contemplates that any surplus accruing on transfer of capital assets is chargeable to tax in the previous year in which transfer took place. In this case, transfer took - 5 - place on 18.7.1969. The second test which needs to be applied is the test of allocation/attribution. This test is spelt out in the judgment of this Court

THE COMMISSONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S B V REDDY MARKETING P. LTD

Appeal stands dismissed

Bench: N.KUMAR,RATHNAKALA

45. That section contemplates that any surplus accruing on transfer of capital assets is chargeable to tax in the previous year in which transfer took place. In this case, transfer took place on 18.7.1969. The second test which needs to be applied is the test of allocation/attribution. This test is spelt out in the judgment of this Court in Mugneeram

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

45 shall apply to the following transfers:- 15 (xiii) any transfer of a capital asset or intangible asset by a firm to a company as a result of succession of the firm by a company in the business carried on by the firm, or any transfer of a capital asset to a company in the course of demutualisation or corporatisation

M/S. EVERGREEN HARDWARE STORES vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF

Appeal is allowed

Bench: P.S.DINESH KUMAR,UMESH M ADIGA

Section 45(4) of the IT Act as long term Capital gains, is not sustainable. 13. It was argued by Shri. Shankar that by applying the same logic, the Assessing Officer has 4 (1984)17 Taxmann. 330 KAR (para 4) I.T.A No.201/2017 12 added short-term Capital gains at 30% on the building which was constructed on the plot owned

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:

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 to the AO for fresh assessment/re-assessment as per Para No. 5 & 6 of the ITAT order. Further, fresh approval has been taken from

PR COMMISSIONER OF WEALTH TAX-6 vs. M R KODANDRAM

Appeals stand dismissed

Bench: RAVI MALIMATH,ASHOK S.KINAGI

45, the amount chargeable to income-tax as income of such specified entity under that sub-section which is attributable to the capital asset being transferred by the specified entity, calculated in the prescribed manner: Provided…………….” 12. On combined reading of these provisions, any profits or gains arising from the transfer of a capital asset with the exception as saved

THE PR COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. SMT SAROJINI M KUSHE

Appeal stands dismissed

Bench: S.SUJATHA,HANCHATE SANJEEVKUMAR

45, the amount - 9 - chargeable to income-tax as income of such specified entity under that sub-section which is attributable to the capital asset being transferred by the specified entity, calculated in the prescribed manner: Provided…………….” 10. On combined reading of these provisions, any profits or gains arising from the transfer of a capital asset with the exception

XIAOMI TECHNOLOGY INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

In the result, I pass the following:

Bench: The Hon'Ble Mr.Justice S.R.Krishna Kumar

transfer pricing adjustment. Pursuant to the said order, the Assessing Officer issued a Notice under Section 142(1) of the I.T.Act for the Assessment Year 2018-19 inter alia calling upon the petitioner to show cause, as to why payment of royalty to the foreign entity i.e., Qualcomm and Beijing Xiaomi Mobile should not be disallowed. On 10.08.2022, petitioner submitted

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. SHRI. VIKRAM REDDY

In the result, the fifth substantial question of

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,R. NATARAJ

45 shall apply to the following transfers :— (xiii) any transfer of a capital asset or intangible asset by a firm to a company as a result of succession of the firm by a company in the business carried on by the firm, or any transfer of a capital asset to a company in the course of demutualisation or corporatisation

SRI N GOVINDARAJU vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER

Appeal stands disposed of

Bench: S.SUJATHA,VINEET SARAN

price received as a result of the transfer of a capital asset. It is different from ‘fair market value’ of the property, which phrase is used in section 45

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

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 DIRECTOR OF INCOME-TAX vs. M/S. INTEL CAPITAL (CAYMAN) CORPORATION

In the result, the appeal fails and is hereby

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,H.T. NARENDRA PRASAD

Section 45 of the Act, the cost of acquisition has to be 6 taken as the cost of debentures. It is further submitted that in case of any conflict between scheme / Rules and the provisions of the Act, the provisions of the Act would prevail. It is also submitted that the Bombay High Court in ‘KINGFISHER CAPITAL

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