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

M/S FIDELITY BUSINESS SERVICES INDIA PVT LTD vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

Bench: S.SUJATHA,VINEET KOTHARI

transfer of the reserves and surplus to the holding company by avoiding the payment of tax and therefore it will be treated as a colourable device. There are two aspects in this transaction- (i) It is a simple and plain transaction of buy back of shares without having any dispute of price then the same is beyond the scope

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

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

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

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

R JANARDHANA BABU vs. THE MANAGING DIRECTOR

Accordingly, the writ petitions are allowed

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

55 years, Working as pharma Assistant, Glaxosmithkline Pharmaceuticals Limited, Devanahalli Road, Off Old Madras Road, Bangalore-560049 203. P B Joseph, s/o J P Benhamin, aged about 57 years, Devanahalli Road, Off Old Madras Road, Bangalore-560049 … PETITIONERS (BY SRI SUBBA RAO SENIOR COUNSEL FOR SRI M. SUBRAMANYA BHAT, ADVOCATE) 59 AND: The Managing Director, Glaxosmithkline Pharmaceuticals Limited, Represented

THE PR.COMMISSIONER OF vs. M/S MAHAVEER CALYX

In the result, the orders passed by the Assessing

Bench: SATISH CHANDRA SHARMA,V SRISHANANDA

price as well as the terms and conditions. The aforesaid quotation states that Dell product would be exported from Malaysia. Thus, the petitioner seeks customer's upfront contractual approval of manufacture and supply of required product from Malaysia. On receipt of the quotation, customer accepts either by signing the same or by raising a purchase order or by making

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

Bench: S.SUJATHA,VINEET KOTHARI

2) before making adjustments for the 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

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%

55 years. …PETITIONER (By Shri Paras Jain, Advocate) AND: 1. M/s. International Asset Reconstruction 2 Company Private Limited, Having its office at #A/508, 5th Floor, 215, Atrium, Kanakia Spaces, Andheri Kurla Road, Andheri (East), Mumbai 400 093, India, represented by Its Authorised Officer. 2. M/s. Amma Bhagwan Traders, No.5, APMC Complex, APMC Yard, Bicampadi, New Mangalore 575 001, Represented

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%

55 years. …PETITIONER (By Shri Paras Jain, Advocate) AND: 1. M/s. International Asset Reconstruction 2 Company Private Limited, Having its office at #A/508, 5th Floor, 215, Atrium, Kanakia Spaces, Andheri Kurla Road, Andheri (East), Mumbai 400 093, India, represented by Its Authorised Officer. 2. M/s. Amma Bhagwan Traders, No.5, APMC Complex, APMC Yard, Bicampadi, New Mangalore 575 001, Represented

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 FIRST ADVANTAGE OFFSHORE SERVICES PVT LTD

Bench: S.SUJATHA,VINEET KOTHARI

2) of the Act, without considering the corrigendum dated 30-04-2010 to the circular 5/2010 issued by the Board in this regard? 6. Whether the Tribunal was correct in directing cross examination in the case of comparables where information was gathered in terms of provisions of section 133(6) of the Act, without appreciating that no cross examinations

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

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

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