PR COMMISSIONER OF vs. M/S SOFTBRANDS INDIA

Bench: S.SUJATHA,VINEET KOTHARI

Transfer Pricing Adjustments results in multi- layer litigation at multiple Fora. After the lengthy process of the same, the matter reaches the Tribunal which also takes its own time to decide such appeals. In the course of this dispute resolution, much has already been lost in the form of time, man-hours and money, besides giving an adverse picture

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

The appeal stands dismissed

Bench: S.SUJATHA,VINEET SARAN

transfer; (ii) the cost of acquisition of the asset and the cost of any improvement thereto;” 13. Section 55[2] of the Act reads thus: “55. Meaning of ‘adjusted’, ‘cost of improvement’ and ‘cost of acquisition’ (1) xxx xxx xxx (2) For the purposes of sections 48 and 49, “cost of acquisition” - 18 (a) in relation to a capital asset

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S GENISYS INTERGRATING SYSTEMS

Bench: S.SUJATHA,VINEET KOTHARI

transfer price. In support of his contention, he placed reliance on the following decisions: 1.M/s Sap Labs India Pvt.Ltd., Vs ACIT 2010-TII-44 ITAT-BANG-TP 2.Philips Software Centre Pvt.Ltd., 26 SOT 226 3. MSS India Pvt.Ltd., 32 SOT 132 4. Customer Services India Pvt.Ltd., Vs ACIT 30 SOT 486 5. Skoda Auto India Pvt.Ltd., Vs ACIT

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 FIRST ADVANTAGE OFFSHORE SERVICES PVT LTD

Bench: S.SUJATHA,VINEET KOTHARI

transfer pricing adjustment for the same or similar type of activities. Similarly, it cannot also be said that the same set of filters would suffice for another set of activities having different functions, nature and characteristics. However, if the nature of activity is one and the same is having the same functions such as software development & IT enables services

PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-4 vs. M/S. KSHEMA TECHNOLOGIES LIMITED

Bench: S.SUJATHA,VINEET KOTHARI

transfer pricing under the I.T. Act. Hence in view of the facts and circumstances of the case, we set aside the impugned order of the authorities below and remit the issue to the record of the Assessing Officer / TPO for deciding the matter afresh by considering the segment-wise data of the assessee and then compare the same with

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

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

55 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 mounted on the shoulders of vendor to vouch a clear and marketable title, unless contrary is contracted. It has been held by the Privy Council in MOTILAL vs. NANHELAL5 that there is an implied covenant by the vendor to do all things necessary to effect a transfer; so when a vendor contracts

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

THE PR COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S ACUSIS SOFTWARE INDIA

Bench: S.SUJATHA,VINEET KOTHARI

Section 10A of the IT Act are allowed only Date of Judgment 28-06-2018 I.T.A.No.304/2017 The Pr. Commissioner of Income-tax, CIT (A) & Anr. Vs. M/s. Acusis Software India Pvt. Ltd., 10/18 in Export Turnover but not from the Total Turnover then, it would give rise to inadvertent, unlawful, meaningless and illogical result which would cause grave injustice

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX vs. M/S. CURAM SOFTWARE INTERNATIONAL

Bench: S.SUJATHA,VINEET KOTHARI

transfer pricing regulations in India does not provide for assumptions in respect of adjustments and recorded perverse finding? 8. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law the Tribunal was correct in directing exclusion of telecommunication expenses and expenditure incurred in foreign currency from export turnover Date of Judgment 12-07-2018, ITA No.20/2014

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 COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S 24/7 CUSTOMER .COM PVT. LTD.

Bench: S.SUJATHA,VINEET KOTHARI

transfer pricing regulations do not stipulate any minimum limit of related party transactions which form the threshold for exclusion as a comparable. In this regard, the learned counsel for the assessee objected to the TPO’s setting a limit of 25% on related party transactions. He objected to the inclusion of comparables being related party transactions in excess

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. TNT INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED

Bench: S.SUJATHA,VINEET KOTHARI

transfer price. For this preposition, learned counsel for the assessee drew our attention to sec.92C(2) of the IT Act, wherein it is provided that where more than one price is arrived at by the most appropriate method the arm’s length price shall be taken to be the arithmetical mean of such prices, or at the option

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

55,111/- 5 respectively. The assessee filed return of income for Assessment Year 2006-07 and 2008-09 declaring the income as ‘NIL’. The case of the assessee for the Assessment Year 2005-06 was reopened under Section 147 of the Act on the ground that during the course of the proceeding for Assessment Year 2007-08, it was noticed

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-III, vs. M/S SAP LABS INDIA PVT LTD

Bench: S.SUJATHA,VINEET KOTHARI

Transfer Pricing Adjustments’ made by the concerned authorities below. We consider it appropriate to quote the relevant portions hereunder:- “22. We have considered the submissions of both the parties and carefully gone through the material available on record. In the present case, it is noticed that the Assessing Officer although accepted the comparable which were quoted by the assessee, however

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX vs. DR. PRADEEP KUMAR

Bench: RAVI MALIMATH,N.KUMAR

Transfer Pricing Adjustments’ made by the concerned authorities below. We consider it appropriate to quote the relevant portions hereunder:- “22. We have considered the submissions of both the parties and carefully gone through the material available on record. In the present case, it is noticed that the Assessing Officer although accepted the comparable which were quoted by the assessee, however

PR.COMMISSIONER OF vs. M/S TRIANZ HOLDINGS PVT LTD

Bench: S.SUJATHA,VINEET KOTHARI

Section 10A of the Act only qua the eligible under taking and without reference to other eligible or non eligible units or undertakings of same assessee. Regarding Substantial Question No.2: 4. The learned Tribunal, after discussing the rival contentions of both the Appellants-Revenue and Respondent-Assessee, has returned a finding as under: “(iii) Transfer pricing adjustment: Rs.2

SRI N GOVINDARAJU vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER

Appeal stands disposed of

Bench: S.SUJATHA,VINEET SARAN

price received as a result of the transfer of a capital asset. It is different from ‘fair market value’ of the property, which phrase is used in section 45(2) [relating to capital gains] and section 55