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 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

transfer' within the meaning of Income-tax Act. Further it is also proposed to substitute sub- section (2A) of section 49 to provide that the cost of acquisition of the shares received upon conversion of the bond shall be the price

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

49. (1) Where the capital asset became the property of the assessee— (e) under any such transfer as is referred to in clause (iv) or clause (v) or clause (vi) or clause (via) or clause (viaa) or clause (viab) or clause (vib) or clause (vic) or clause (vica) or clause (vicb) or clause (vicc) or clause (xiii) or clause (xiiib

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 paid or promised or part- paid and part-promised. Sale how made.—Such transfer, in the case of tangible immoveable property of the value of one hundred rupees and upwards, or in the case of a reversion or other intangible thing, can be made only by a registered instrument. 1In the case of tangible immoveable property of a value

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

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S ASSOCIATED ELECTRONIC AND ELCTRICAL

The appeal stands dismissed

Bench: S.SUJATHA,VINEET SARAN

price; and (ii) in any other case [not being a case falling under sub-clauses(i) to (iv) of sub-section(1) of section 49, shall be taken to be nil;” 14. A reading of these provisions would make it clear that any profits or gains arising from the transfer

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

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

Bench: S.SUJATHA,VINEET KOTHARI

Transfer Pricing Adjustments’ made by the concerned authorities below. We consider it appropriate to quote from the order of Tribunal rejecting the Application seeking a review before Tribunal as hereunder:- Date of Judgment 02-07-2018 I.T.A.No.443 /2017 The Pr. Commissioner of Income-tax, CIT(A) & Anr. Vs. M/s. Acusis Software India Pvt. Ltd., 9/16 “In the circumstances

PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S. SABRE TRAVEL TECHNOLOGIES PVT.LTD.

Bench: S.SUJATHA,VINEET KOTHARI

SECTION 260-A OF INCOME TAX ACT, 1961, PRAYING TO 1. DECIDE FOREGOING QUESTIONS OF LAW OR SUCH OTHER QUESTIONS OF LAW AS MAY BE FORMULATED BY THE HON’BLE COURT AS DEEMED FIT IN FAVOUR OF THE APPELLATE. 2. SET ASIDE THE ORDER DT:30/06/2015 PASSED BY THE ITAT IN IT(TP)A Date of Judgment

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S. TOYOTA KIRLOSKAR

Bench: S.SUJATHA,VINEET KOTHARI

SECTION 260-A OF INCOME TAX ACT 1961, ARISING OUT OF ORDER DATED 22/10/2014 PASSED IN ITA NO.1356/BANG/2011, FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2007-2008. PRAYING TO 1. FORMULATE THE SUBSTANTIAL QUESTIONS OF LAW STATED ABOVE. 2. ALLOW Date of Judgment 2-8-2018, ITA No.119/2015 The Commissioner of Income Tax & another Vs. M/s Toyota Kirloskar Auto Parts Pvt. Ltd. 2/20

G RAMACHAR vs. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA

Bench: ABHAY SHREENIWAS OKA (CJ),B.V.NAGARATHNA

price of the said property); -: 13 :- 3) Section-131(C) of Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964; read with Rule-46(H) of Karnataka Land Revenue Rules, (to issue survey sketch or land survey map as per prescribed Form-11-E); 4) Sec. 81-A of Karnataka Land Reforms Act, 1961 (to declare in the prescribed format by the purchaser

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

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

Transfer Pricing Officer (TPO) to follow the directions given by the tribunal in earlier Assessment Year. The tribunal with regard to claim of assessee under Section 14A of the Act directed the Assessing Officer to follow the directions given the claim of the assessee under Section 14A of the Act set aside the finding recorded by the Assessing Officer

SMT DURGA KUMARI BOBBA vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER

Appeal is allowed in

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

transfer nor as cost of acquisition, the only two contingencies which can be considered while allowing deduction. The tax component does not fall within the definition of Section 48(1) of the Act; • that the tax paid by the company is not allowed as deduction. By the same analogy, deduction 5 cannot be allowed in the hands of the appellant

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-III vs. WITTNESS SYSTEM

Bench: S.SUJATHA,VINEET KOTHARI

transfer Date of Judgment 11-07-2018, ITA No.347/2013 Commissioner Of Income Tax-III & another Vs. Wittness System Software India Private Ltd. 21/38 prices in relation to the transactions being compared." 19. A reading of the provisions of Rule 10B(2) of the Rules shows that uncontrolled transaction has to be compared with international transaction having regard to the factors