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

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

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

SRI N GOVINDARAJU vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER

Appeal stands disposed of

Bench: S.SUJATHA,VINEET SARAN

56 yrs, S/o Narayanappa # 101, Divyashree Residency H D Devegowda Road R T Nagar, Bangalore 32 Appellant (By Sri A Shankar, Adv. for Sri V S Yogesh Kumar, Adv.)) And 1 Income Tax Officer Ward 8(2), Bangalore 82 2 Commissioner of Income Tax Appeals II, Bangalore 82 Respondents (By Sri E Sanmathi Indrakumar, Adv.) Appeal is filed under S.260

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

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

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

R JANARDHANA BABU vs. THE MANAGING DIRECTOR

Accordingly, the writ petitions are allowed

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

56 years, Working as pharma Assistant, 58 Glaxosmithkline Pharmaceuticals Limited, Devanahalli Road, Off Old Madras Road, Bangalore-560049 201. M Venkatesh, s/o Muniswamy Reddy, aged about 55 years, Working as pharma Assistant, Glaxosmithkline Pharmaceuticals Limited, Devanahalli Road, Off Old Madras Road, Bangalore-560049. 202. Byre Gowda, s/o T Anjanappa, aged about 55 years, Working as pharma Assistant, Glaxosmithkline Pharmaceuticals Limited

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

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

2) provides that the arm’s length price may be accepted with variance of 5% of the arithmetical means, it does not mean that the standard deduction of 5% is to be given before making the adjustment”. 4. However, this Court in a recent judgment in I.T.A.No.536/2015 c/w I.T.A.No.537/2015 (Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax, Bangalore and Another

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

M/S SSJV PROJECTS PRIVATE LIMITED vs. M/S ALLAHABAD BANK

In the result, the writ appeals are disposed in

Bench: B.V.NAGARATHNA,R. NATARAJ

56. Before proceeding further, it would be useful to refer to Articles 246 of the Constitution. Article 246 deals with subject matter of laws made by Parliament and by the Legislatures of States. -: 68 :- (a) Clause (1) of Article 246 states that notwithstanding anything in clauses (2) and (3) Parliament has exclusive power to make laws with respect

SRI U M RAMESH RAO vs. UNION BANK OF INDIA

In the result, the writ appeals are disposed in

Bench: B.V.NAGARATHNA,R. NATARAJ

56. Before proceeding further, it would be useful to refer to Articles 246 of the Constitution. Article 246 deals with subject matter of laws made by Parliament and by the Legislatures of States. -: 68 :- (a) Clause (1) of Article 246 states that notwithstanding anything in clauses (2) and (3) Parliament has exclusive power to make laws with respect

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

56 conclusions for arrest and the Magistrate in turn is to be satisfied that the condition precedent for arrest under Section 41 Cr.P.C. has been satisfied and it is only thereafter that he will authorise the detention of an accused. 8.3. The Magistrate before authorising detention will record his own satisfaction, may be in brief but the said satisfaction must