PR COMMISSIONER OF vs. M/S SOFTBRANDS INDIA

Bench: S.SUJATHA,VINEET KOTHARI

Transfer Pricing/ determination of the ‘Arm’s Length Price’; [II] The Scheme of procedure of assessment and appeals to the Tribunal and High Court/Supreme Court. [III] The scope of interference by High Court under Section 260-A of the Act in these type of cases. Findings of the Tribunal: 12. We find it appropriate to quote some portions

THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER vs. M/S OBULAPURAM MINING

Bench: K.SOMASHEKAR,UMESH M ADIGA

section 92A of the income Tax Act, 1961. 6. It is further stated that the matter was referred to the Transfer Pricing

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

PR COMMISSIONER OF vs. M/S LUWA INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR

Section 37 of the Act. Accordingly, the appeal preferred by the revenue was dismissed and the cross-objection filed by the assessee was disposed of. In the aforesaid factual background, this appeal has been filed. 6 4. Learned counsel for the revenue submitted that the Tribunal erred in holding that the Transfer Pricing

M/S HIMALAYA DRUG COMPANY vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

In the result, both the writ petitions are

Bench: This Court Under Section 260A Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (For Short “It Act”), Questioning The Order Dated 21.06.2017 In It(Tp)A No.807/Bang/2016 Passed By Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “B” Bench, Bengaluru (For Short “Tribunal”), Dismissing The Appeal Refusing To Declare The Proceedings Under Section 144C Of The It Act As Null & Void.

Transfer Pricing Officer passed order under Section 92CA on 30.01.2015. Thereafter, the respondent passed draft assessment order under Section 144C read with Section - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:19558-DB ITA No. 571 of 2017 143(2) of IT Act on 27.03.2015 for the relevant assessment year. Aggrieved by the said draft assessment order, the appellant is said

PR COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-5 vs. M/S PAGE INDUSTRIES LTD

In the result, the appeal fails and is hereby dismissed

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,R. NATARAJ

Transfer Pricing Officer has been affirmed by the Dispute Resolution 6 Panel. However, the Tribunal has partly allowed the appeal preferred by the assessee merely on the ground that the assessee cannot be said to be an associated enterprise and therefore, the requirements of Section

PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX - 6 vs. M/S. SAMSUNG R & D INSTITUTE BANGALORE PVT LTD

In the result, we do not find any merit in this

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,H.T. NARENDRA PRASAD

Section 92-CA of the Act by making an adjustment in respect of software development services. The Assessing Officer thereafter passed an order of assessment incorporating the transfer pricing adjustment. The assessee thereupon filed an appeal before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) in which selection of Infosys Ltd. as comparable was challenged. The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals

PR.COMMISSIONER OF INCOMETAX-2 vs. M/S.EYGBS (INDIA) PVT LTD

Bench: CHIEF JUSTICE,C M JOSHI

Section 10AA of the Act. In addition, the Assessee had also claimed deduction under Chapter VI-A of the Act. Immediately after filing its original return for AY 2015-16, the Assessee had filed a revised return voluntarily declaring transfer pricing [TP] adjustments of ₹14,82,00,000/-, which was reworked at ₹21,36,91,000/- on - 6

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

6 company’ for short) was entrusted the work of construction. 8. The revision petitioner namely Ashok S. Dhariwal is the ‘working partner’ of the firm whereas first respondent is the ‘Managing Partner’. 9. There were some differences between owner of the land i.e., Sri Krishna Reddy and the firm on account of improper handling of the development by the first

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

Transfer Pricing Officer be confirmed and disallowance under Section 14(a)(i)(a) of the Act be made. The Tribunal, by an order dated 30.09.2016, dismissed the appeal preferred by the revenue and allowed the cross-objection preferred by the assessee. In the aforesaid factual background, this appeal has been filed. 6

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

THE PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S EDS ELECTRONICS DATA SYSTEMS INDIA PVT.LTD.

In the result, we do not find any merit in this

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,R. NATARAJ

6. Learned counsel for the revenue submitted that the Transfer Pricing Officer/ has adopted transaction net method or bench marking cost as the profit level indicator and the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has confirmed the aforesaid finding of the Transfer Pricing Officer. It is submitted that having concurred with the finding recorded by the Transfer Pricing Officer

THE PR COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S ARISTA NETWORKS INDIA PVT LTD

The appeal is disposed of with liberty as prayed for by the learned

Bench: S.G.PANDIT,C.M. POONACHA

6. Whether on the facts and in the circumstance's of the case and in law, the Tribunal was right in holding that Transfer Pricing Officer is required to include comparables namely, M/s.Kals Information Systems and M/s.E-Zest Solutions td on the basis that these were accepted during the Transfer Pricing proceedings whereas, the Transfer Pricing Officer in his under section

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 INCOME TAX-7 vs. M/S TEXPORT OVERSEAS PVT LTD

Bench: ARAVIND KUMAR,SURAJ GOVINDARAJ

transfer pricing order under Section 92CA of the Act to determine arms length price as the assessee had entered into specified domestic transaction and on the 4 ground it was covered under Section 92BA of the Act. Despite objections being filed by the assessee before Dispute Resolution Panel (for short ‘DRP’) directions came to be issued

THE PR COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S SWISS RE GLOBAL BUSINESS SOLUTIONS INDIA PVT LTD

The appeal is disposed of with liberty as prayed for by the learned

Bench: S.G.PANDIT,C.M. POONACHA

Transfer Pricing adjustment cannot be made without appreciating the fact that the order under section 92CA(3) of the Act was passed before 30/1/2014 and was dispatched on 30/1/2014 and date mentioned as 31/1/2014 (6

PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-5 vs. M/S ORIGAMI CELLULO PVT LTD

Bench: B M SHYAM PRASAD,T.M.NADAF

Transfer Pricing risk and when domestic transactions are also part of parameters of TP risk. 2. The appeal is belated by 539 days. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax has filed an affidavit in support of the application. Sri E I Sanmathi, the learned counsel for the appellant- Revenue and Sri A Shankar, the learned Senior Counsel for the respondent

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

6) of section 43. Explanation 3.—For the purposes of this sub-section, the expression "assets" shall mean— (a) tangible assets, being buildings, machinery, plant or furniture; 14 (b) intangible assets, being know-how, patents, copyrights, trade marks, licences, franchises or any other business or commercial rights of similar nature. Explanation 3- Where, before the date of acquisition