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

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

47 of the Act refers to transfer by way of conversion of bonds referred to in Clause (a) of sub-Section 115AC of the Act. Therefore, the aforesaid provision is not applicable to the case in hand. Accordingly, the order passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) and the Assessing Officer was set aside and the appeal preferred

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

47(xiii) of the Act and therefore, the assessee under Section 32(1) of the Act was entitled for depreciation with reference to actual cost incurred by it 18 with reference to intangible assets. Accordingly, the second substantial question of law is answered in favour of the assessee and against revenue. 8. It is noteworthy to mention here that

LAHAR SINGH SIROYA vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

The appeal stands allowed

Bench: S.SUJATHA,VINEET SARAN

47) of the Act, we are of the view that the appellants were entitled to relief under section 54 of the Act, in respect of the long-term capital gain which they had earned in pursuance of transfer of their residential property being house no.267, sector 9-C, situated in Chandigarh and used for purchase of a new asset/residential house

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

47,691/- and total income of the assessee was determined at Rs.21,51,59,762/-. 5 3. The assessee filed objections before the Dispute Resolution Panel, which vide direction dated 23.12.2014 reduced the transfer price adjustment made by the Transfer Pricing Officer by granting an adjustment towards depreciation as prayed by the assessee and the disallowance made under Section

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 Adjustment constitutes a fresh assessment; as a 47 corollary of that, the balance portion of the order which otherwise warranted giving effect to the ITAT order, does not amount to a fresh assessment or reassessment; both the TPA and the other substantial portion of giving effect were completed by one order giving effect to ITAT, dated

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. SHRI. VIKRAM REDDY

In the result, the fifth substantial question of

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,R. NATARAJ

47 ….. The cost of acquisition of the asset shall be deemed to be the cost for which the previous owner of the property acquired it, as increased by the cost of any improvement of the assets incurred or borne by the previous owner or the assessee, as the case may be. 10. After having noticed relevant statutory provisions

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

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

THE PR.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S SIGMA ALDRICH CHEMICALS 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 92CA(3) of the Act is barred by limitation and bad in law without appreciating that the fact that Transfer - 3 - NC: 2024:KHC:41873-DB ITA No. 47 of 2023 Pricing

THE MANGALORE ELECTRICITY SUPPLY COMPANY LTD., vs. SRI A CHANDRASEKHAR

Bench: G.NARENDAR,P.N.DESAI

price fixed under any law, etc. 29. Deficiency of service is defined under Section 2(1)(g) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 in the following manner: “2. (1)(g) ‘deficiency’ means any fault, imperfection, shortcoming or inadequacy in the quality, nature and manner of performance which is required to be maintained by or under any law for the time

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX vs. M.R.SAMPANGIRAMAIAH

Bench: P.S.DINESH KUMAR,C.M. POONACHA

transfer on account of change in pecuniary jurisdiction, it was renumbered as O.S.No.271/2009. Amongst other Sec. 10 of Specific Relief Act, 1963 came to be amended w.e.f. 01.08.2018 greatly diminishing discretion of Courts to decline decree for specific performance, which otherwise availed to them. Learned Sr. Advocate Mr.Naganand submits that the amendment is with retrospective effect whereas Mr.Patil appearing

CHITTHARANJAN A DASANNACHARYA vs. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-V

In the result, the appeal is allowed

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,H.T. NARENDRA PRASAD

transfer of a long term capital asset under Section 2(47) of the Act? iv. The Hon'ble Tribunal was right in holding that the difference between the option/exercise price

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%

price and no one is allowed to exploit the vulnerable situation in which the borrower is placed. 34. At this juncture, it will also be worthwhile to refer to Rules 8(1) to (3) and in particular sub- rule (3), in order to note the responsibility of the secured creditor vis- à-vis the secured asset taken possession of. Under

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%

price and no one is allowed to exploit the vulnerable situation in which the borrower is placed. 34. At this juncture, it will also be worthwhile to refer to Rules 8(1) to (3) and in particular sub- rule (3), in order to note the responsibility of the secured creditor vis- à-vis the secured asset taken possession of. Under

M/S. TOYOTA KIRLOSKAR MOTOR (P) LTD., vs. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

Bench: S.SUJATHA,VINEET KOTHARI

Transfer Pricing Analysis separately for manufacturing segment and trading segment of the Assessee, but the Tribunal vide para-11 of the same order took a view that Date of Judgment 06-08-2018 I.T.A.No.58/2017 M/s. Toyota Kirloskar Motor (P) Ltd. Vs. The Commissioner of Income Tax & Anr. 5/16 on a comprehensive view of the matter, since the trading activity