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

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

PR COMMISSIONER OF vs. M/S SOFTBRANDS INDIA

Bench: S.SUJATHA,VINEET KOTHARI

3 SCC 179, another Three Judges’ Bench of the Honble Supreme Court explained the meaning of the substantial questions of law in paras.11 and 12 in the following manner. “11. Even under the old Section 100 of the Code (pre-1976 amendment), a pure finding of fact was not open to challenge before the High Court in second appeal. However

PR COMMISSIONER OF vs. M/S SOFTBRANDS INDIA

Bench: S.SUJATHA,VINEET KOTHARI

3 SCC 179, another Three Judges’ Bench of the Honble Supreme Court explained the meaning of the substantial questions of law in paras.11 and 12 in the following manner. “11. Even under the old Section 100 of the Code (pre-1976 amendment), a pure finding of fact was not open to challenge before the High Court in second appeal. However

M/S T T K PRESTIGE LTD vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

Bench: The Hon’Ble Mrs.Justice S.Sujatha

TRANSFER PRICING OFFICER AND ANOTHER’ [(2010) 320 ITR 565 [DELHI]. [e] ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX AND OTHERS vs. ICICI SECURITIES PRIMARY DEALERSHIP LTD. [2012] 348 ITR 299 (SC) [f] ‘COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. I.A.E.C. (PUMPS) LTD.,’ [(1998) 150 CTR SC 126 - 14 - 6. Submissions of the learned Counsel for the Revenue: Learned Counsel Sri. K.V. Aravind appearing

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

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

SRI N GOVINDARAJU vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER

Appeal stands disposed of

Bench: S.SUJATHA,VINEET SARAN

45(2) of the Act and denying the benefit of indexation. The reassessment was completed on 4 total income of Rs.29,90,672/-, which was for reasons other than the one recorded in the notice. During the relevant period, the assessee had sold a plot of land measuring 12,430 sq. ft. for a consideration of Rs.74

THE PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S CISCO SYSTEMS

The appeals are allowed; the impugned

Bench: SATISH CHANDRA SHARMA,R. NATARAJ

3.—For the purposes of this sub- section, the expression "assets" shall mean— (a) tangible assets, being buildings, machinery, plant or furniture; (b) intangible assets, being know-how, patents, copyrights, trade marks, licences, franchises or any other business or commercial rights of similar nature. Explanation 4.—For the purposes of this sub- section, the expression "know-how" means any industrial

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

3. 2010 (8) SCC 383 - Meghamala and Ors.-Vs-G Narasimha Reddy and Ors. 4. 2011(9) SCC 1 - K.T.Plantation Private Limited & Anr. Vs. State of Karnataka”. 95. As discussed above, with reference to Section 54 of the Transfer of Property Act, the sale of immoveable property worth 100 or more than 100 is to be effected through registered document

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. SHRI. VIKRAM REDDY

In the result, the fifth substantial question of

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,R. NATARAJ

3) The profits or gains arising from the transfer of a capital asset by a person to a firm or other association of persons or body of individuals (not being a company or a co- operative society) in which he is or becomes a partner or member, by way of capital contribution or otherwise, shall be chargeable

PR COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S IND SING DEVELOPERS P LTD

The appeal is dismissed

Bench: B.V.NAGARATHNA,JAYANT PATEL

3 and 4 of the MOU within thirty (30) days hereof. As regards provision of water for the project, the First Party shall provide the source of water at its cost and the cost of infrastructure for drawing the water from the source shall be that of the project. Upon the tenants vacating the shops the First Party shall ensure

MR. BINEESH KODIYERI vs. DIRECTORATE OF ENFORCEMENT

Bench: The Hon’Ble Mr. Justice Suraj Govindaraj Writ Petition No. 13261 Of 2020 (Gm-Res) Between: Mr. Bineesh Kodiyeri S/O Mr. Kodiyeri Balakrishnan Aged About 37 Years Kootamvilla Lane, Maruthankuzhi Thiruvananthapuram District Kerala State – 695013

price of which exceeds on e crore rupees; or (d) Fraudulently availing of or attempt to avail of drawback or any exemption from duty provided under this Act, if the amount of drawback or exemption from duty exceeds fifty lakh rupees. WP No. 13261 of 2020 65 (7) Save as otherwise provided in sub-section (6), all other offences under

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

3. “Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is right in law in holding that certain comparables are functionally different and liable to be excluded from the list of comparables by following its earlier orders which has not reached finality and even when the Transfer Pricing Officer has chosen the comparables as qualitative

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

Appeal is allowed

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

3 (2021)125 Taxman.com 80 (Karnataka) (para 12) I.T.A No.201/2017 7 6. We have considered rival submissions and perused the authority cited by Shri. Shankar. It is held therein that the sine qua non for invocation of power under Section 14A of the Act read with Rule 8D of the Rules is recording of satisfaction by the Assessing Officer

SHRI. PARSWANATH vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

Bench: The Hon'Ble Mr. Justice M. Nagaprasanna

price in buying or selling. [Wharton's Law Lexicon, 1976 Reprint Ed.]. Expression “abatement” has been separately spelt out, in the same dictionary. “Abatement of criminal proceedings” has been termed to mean their termination 26 without a decision on the merits and without the assent of the prosecutor. If this is the legal position or meaning of abatement

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

Appeal stands dismissed

Bench: N.KUMAR,RATHNAKALA

3. The substantial question of law which arises for consideration in this appeal is as under: “Whether the Tribunal was correct in holding that the consideration received for the transfer of trade marks, patent rights, logo etc. by the assessee from M/s. Sara Lee Bakery India (P) Ltd., cannot be his long term capital gains sustainable under Section

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

Appeal stands dismissed

Bench: N.KUMAR,RATHNAKALA

3. Aggrieved by the said order, the assessee preferred an appeal before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals). The Appellate Authority held that before the introduction of Section 50B with effect from 01.04.2000 which will be relevant for the assessment period 2000-01, the consideration received in slump sale was not liable to tax and therefore, he allowed the appeal