PR COMMISSIONER OF vs. M/S SOFTBRANDS INDIA

Bench: S.SUJATHA,VINEET KOTHARI

54. The procedure of assessment under Chapter X relating to international transactions as indicated above is already a lengthy one and involves multiple Authorities of the Department. A huge, cumbersome and tenacious exercise of Transfer Pricing Analysis has to be undertaken by the Corporate Entities who have to comply with the various provisions of the Act and Rules with

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, reads as under: 54. “Sale” defined.—‘‘Sale” is a transfer of ownership in exchange for a price

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

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 GENISYS INTERGRATING SYSTEMS

Bench: S.SUJATHA,VINEET KOTHARI

Section 92C of the Act did not provide for such a deduction?”. 3. The learned Tribunal, after discussing the rival contentions of both the Appellants-Revenue and the Respondent-assessee, has given the following findings against Revenue with regard to various issues raised before it with regard to ‘Transfer Pricing’ and ‘Transfer Pricing Adjustments’ made by the concerned authorities below

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

Appeals stand dismissed

Bench: RAVI MALIMATH,ASHOK S.KINAGI

54, 54B, - 12 - 54D, 54E, 54EA, 54EB, 54F, 54G and 54H shall be chargeable to income tax under the head capital gains and by legal fiction it is deemed to be the income of the previous year in which the transfer took place. The mode of computation as prescribed under Section 48 would indicate that the income chargeable under

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

Appeal stands dismissed

Bench: S.SUJATHA,HANCHATE SANJEEVKUMAR

54, 54B, 54D, 54E, 54EA, 54EB, 54F, 54G and 54H shall be chargeable to income tax under the head capital gains and by legal fiction it is deemed to be the income of the previous year in which the transfer took place. The mode of computation as prescribed under Section 48 would indicate that the income chargeable under the head

LAHAR SINGH SIROYA vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

The appeal stands allowed

Bench: S.SUJATHA,VINEET SARAN

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. 14 11. The facts of the present case are similar, if not on a stronger footing than

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

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

Section 52 broadly enacts the English doctrine of lis pendens which does not depend upon notice/knowledge of litigation or consideration for the transfer. This view is reiterated by 12 (1857) 1 De G&J 566 - 52 - RFA No.178 OF 2015 C/W RFA CROB NO.19 OF 2015 the Apex Court decision in SHINGARA SINGH vs. DALJIT SINGH13. For the first time

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%

Section 13(8) read along with Rules 8(6) and 9(1), the owner/borrower should have clear notice of 30 days before the date and time when the sale or transfer of the secured asset would be made, as that alone would enable the owner/borrower to take all efforts to retain his or her ownership by tendering the dues

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%

Section 13(8) read along with Rules 8(6) and 9(1), the owner/borrower should have clear notice of 30 days before the date and time when the sale or transfer of the secured asset would be made, as that alone would enable the owner/borrower to take all efforts to retain his or her ownership by tendering the dues

SRI B V S MURTHY vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER

The appeal is disposed of

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,RAVI V HOSMANI

54(f) of the Act. 6. We have considered the submissions made on both the sides and have perused the record. Section 4(1)(ii) of the Companies Act, 1956 defines that a company shall be a subsidiary company of a holding company if, but only if, the holding company holds more than 50% of its equity capital

M/S INDUS TOWERS LTD vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF COMMERCIAL TAXES

In the result, we pass the following order:

Bench: RAVI MALIMATH,N.KUMAR

54 “a tax on the transfer cif the right to use any goods for any purpose (whether or riot for a specified period)for cask deferred payment or other valuable conslderazlon;’ 33. This provision was Introduced by the 46th1 Constitutional Amendment. The objects and reasons appended to the Constitutional (Forty-sixth Amendment) BIll. 1981 Insofar as this provision Is concerned

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

The appeal stands dismissed

Bench: S.SUJATHA,VINEET SARAN

54, 54B, 54D, 54E, 54EA, 54EB, 54F, 54G and 54H be chargeable to income-tax under the head “Capital gains” and shall be deemed to be the income of the previous year in which the transfer took place.” 17 12. Section 48 of the Act reads thus: “48. Mode of Computation The income chargeable under the head “Capital gains” shall

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

MRS MONIKA GOVERDHAN vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER

Appeals are allowed;

Bench: P.S.DINESH KUMAR,G BASAVARAJA

price and cost of construction without having to render accounts to the OWNER; 14.2. On signing of this Development Agreement, the OWNER shall execute a General power of Attorney in favour of the - 12 - ITA No. 328/2018 C/W ITA No. 330/2018 ITA No. 332/2018 ITA No. 334/2018 DEVELOPER of their nominees, empowering the DEVELOPER or their nominee/s to approach

MRS ANITA GOVERDHAN LOEBBERT vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER

Appeals are allowed;

Bench: P.S.DINESH KUMAR,G BASAVARAJA

price and cost of construction without having to render accounts to the OWNER; 14.2. On signing of this Development Agreement, the OWNER shall execute a General power of Attorney in favour of the - 12 - ITA No. 328/2018 C/W ITA No. 330/2018 ITA No. 332/2018 ITA No. 334/2018 DEVELOPER of their nominees, empowering the DEVELOPER or their nominee/s to approach