PR COMMISSIONER OF vs. M/S SOFTBRANDS INDIA

Bench: S.SUJATHA,VINEET KOTHARI

2) An appeal may lie under this section from an appellate decree passed ex- parte. 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., 35/80 (3) In an appeal under this section, the memorandum of appeal shall precisely state the substantial question of law involved

PR COMMISSIONER OF vs. M/S SOFTBRANDS INDIA

Bench: S.SUJATHA,VINEET KOTHARI

2) An appeal may lie under this section from an appellate decree passed ex- parte. 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., 35/80 (3) In an appeal under this section, the memorandum of appeal shall precisely state the substantial question of law involved

SRI N GOVINDARAJU vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER

Appeal stands disposed of

Bench: S.SUJATHA,VINEET SARAN

2 of the Act to be the price that the capital asset would ordinarily fetch on sale in the open market on the relevant date. ‘Full value of the consideration’ has not been defined. The legislature has expressly drawn a distinction between the two phrases: ‘full value of the consideration’ and ‘fair market value’. The former would be the price

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

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 Officer during the proceeding for assessment, reassessment made. The period as specified in sub- section (1)(2) & (3) shall be further extended by 12 months. 153(5) To give effect to the order of the higher authorities i.e. CIT (A), ITAT, HC and SC orders To give effect to an order passed by higher authorities other than those

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

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

50. Admittedly the arrest of the Petitioner in the present case has taken place without following Section 19 PMLA read with the relevant PML Arrest Rules and Form III. The grounds of arrest were furnished not “as soon as may be” as mandated by Section 19 (1) PMLA but only along with the short reply filed on 13th

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

LAHAR SINGH SIROYA vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

The appeal stands allowed

Bench: S.SUJATHA,VINEET SARAN

50,000/- and paid tax on the same after claiming benefit of long term capital gains as defined in Section 2(42A) read with Section 2(29A) of the Income Tax Act (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’). 4 The returns filed by the assessee was processed under Section 143(1) of the Act but the Assessing Officer subsequently issued

R JANARDHANA BABU vs. THE MANAGING DIRECTOR

Accordingly, the writ petitions are allowed

Bench: The Hon’Ble Mr. Justice B. Veerappa

50 177(a). Smt. R Bhagyalakshmi w/o late Ramesh Gundegowda, aged about 43 years, 177(b). R Ravindra, s/o late Ramesh Gundegowda, aged about 21 years, 177(c). R Hemanth, s/o late Ramesh Gundegowda, aged about 18 years, 177(a) to 177(c) all are r/a No. 251/14, 7th Main Road, 7th ‘A’ Cross, R.P.C. Layout, Vijayanagar, Bangalore

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

Section 14A of the Act without the same is made in accordance with Rule 8D of I.T. Rules?". Thereafter, additional substantial question of law was formulated which reads as under: "Whether the direction issued by the Tribunal to the Transfer Pricing Officer to exclude depreciation from the cost of tax payer as well as comparables and directing the Assessing Officer

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. ING VYSYA BANK LTD

In the result, this appeal is allowed in part,

Bench: B.MANOHAR,D.V.SHYLENDRA KUMAR

50% of the balance. If 12 the expenditure spent by the assessee-Bank in respect of the expenses incurred on its employees who had accompanied the guests is also to be taken as entertainment expenditure, the restriction in this statutory provision operates otherwise the assessee can claim the entire expenditure by way of deduction in terms of Section

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

The appeals are allowed; the impugned

Bench: SATISH CHANDRA SHARMA,R. NATARAJ

price for which it is sold, so, however, that where the actual cost of a motor car is, in accordance with the proviso to clause (1) of section 43, taken to be twenty-five thousand rupees, the moneys payable in respect of such motor car shall be taken to be a sum which bears to the amount for which

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%

50, Garehatti, Chitradurga 577 501. Represented by its Partner, Sri. V. Rakesh Kumar, Aged about 38 years. …PETITIONER (By Shri Paras Jain, Advocate) AND: 1. M/s. International Asset Reconstruction Company Private Limited, Having its office at #A/508, 5th Floor, 215, Atrium, Kanakia Spaces, Andheri Kurla Road, Andheri (East), Mumbai 400 093, India. 2. M/s. Amma Bhagwan Traders, No.5, APMC Complex

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%

50, Garehatti, Chitradurga 577 501. Represented by its Partner, Sri. V. Rakesh Kumar, Aged about 38 years. …PETITIONER (By Shri Paras Jain, Advocate) AND: 1. M/s. International Asset Reconstruction Company Private Limited, Having its office at #A/508, 5th Floor, 215, Atrium, Kanakia Spaces, Andheri Kurla Road, Andheri (East), Mumbai 400 093, India. 2. M/s. Amma Bhagwan Traders, No.5, APMC Complex

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

price realized by sale of flats.  The further observation of civil court that the observation of arbitrator about the firm being not impleaded in proceedings is questioned by Petitioner is unsustainable in law. There is no dispute between the firm and the partners. A firm is only a compendious name of all the partners. When all the partners

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

Section 54 of the Transfer of Property Act, as under: “Sale” defined.—‘‘Sale” is a transfer of ownership in exchange for a 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