XIAOMI TECHNOLOGY INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

In the result, I pass the following:

Bench: The Hon'Ble Mr.Justice S.R.Krishna Kumar

transfer pricing adjustment. Pursuant to the said order, the Assessing Officer issued a Notice under Section 142(1) of the I.T.Act for the Assessment Year 2018-19 inter alia calling upon the petitioner to show cause, as to why payment of royalty to the foreign entity i.e., Qualcomm and Beijing Xiaomi Mobile should not be disallowed. On 10.08.2022, petitioner submitted

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

price is less than eight times the net annual income of the land. (2) Nothing in sub-section (1) shall apply to lands granted under Section 77. -: 80 :- 81. Sections 79-A, 79-B, and 80 not to apply in certain cases.- (1) Nothing in Section 79-A or Section 79-B or Section 80 shall apply

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

price is less than eight times the net annual income of the land. (2) Nothing in sub-section (1) shall apply to lands granted under Section 77. -: 80 :- 81. Sections 79-A, 79-B, and 80 not to apply in certain cases.- (1) Nothing in Section 79-A or Section 79-B or Section 80 shall apply

M/S. EVERGREEN HARDWARE STORES vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF

Appeal is allowed

Bench: P.S.DINESH KUMAR,UMESH M ADIGA

Section 45(4) of the IT Act as long term Capital gains, is not sustainable. 13. It was argued by Shri. Shankar that by applying the same logic, the Assessing Officer has 4 (1984)17 Taxmann. 330 KAR (para 4) I.T.A No.201/2017 12 added short-term Capital gains at 30% on the building which was constructed on the plot owned

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

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

SRI N GOVINDARAJU vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER

Appeal stands disposed of

Bench: S.SUJATHA,VINEET SARAN

63 DTR 212 and also the Gujarat High Court in the case of CIT Vs Mohmed Juned Dadani (2013) 214 Taxman 38. With due respect to the view taken in the aforesaid cases, we are unable to persuade ourselves to follow the same. Insertion of ‘Explanation’ in a section of an Act is for a different purpose than insertion

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

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

Section 66 thereof created charge of service tax in regard to taxable services. Service Lax’ is defined in clause (34) of Set lion 65 to mean tax chargeable under the provLsioi is of that napler. 7’axable ceri’icc is dejrnea Iunder sub ‘‘larcsc’ Ib) 1 ½usc 4 1 [ 5j 0 n ° mc a an, srvkc provided tu. znrcr cilia

PR COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-5 vs. M/S IGEFI SOFTWARE

Bench: S.SUJATHA,VINEET KOTHARI

transfer pricing. Comparables selected by the assessee were as under in its TP study: xxxxxxxxxxxxx However the TPO rejected all except R S Software (India) Ltd out of the comparables considered by the assessee, for various reasons like RPT exceeding 20%, export sales lesser than 75%, different financial year being considered etc., TPO thereafter made his own study

CHITTHARANJAN A DASANNACHARYA vs. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-V

In the result, the appeal is allowed

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,H.T. NARENDRA PRASAD

price of shares and market value of shares on the date of exercise of 'income from short term capital 6 gains'. The claims for deduction under Section 54F was disallowed. The assessee thereupon approached the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) who by an order dated 31.10.2011 dismissed the appeal on merits. However, the interest levied under Section 234B

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

63 Commission standard: 4.18. “Reason to believe that accused has committed the offence”. Section 104 of the Customs Act 1962 which is reproduced hereunder for easy reference: 104. Power to arrest.— (1) If an officer of customs empowered in this behalf by general or special order of the [Principal Commissioner of Customs or Commissioner of Customs] has reason to believe

M/S T T K PRESTIGE LTD vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

Bench: The Hon’Ble Mrs.Justice S.Sujatha

TRANSFER PRICING OFFICER AND ANOTHER’ [(2010) 320 ITR 565 [DELHI]. [e] ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX AND OTHERS vs. ICICI SECURITIES PRIMARY DEALERSHIP LTD. [2012] 348 ITR 299 (SC) [f] ‘COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. I.A.E.C. (PUMPS) LTD.,’ [(1998) 150 CTR SC 126 - 14 - 6. Submissions of the learned Counsel for the Revenue: Learned Counsel Sri. K.V. Aravind appearing

M/S. BMM ISPAT LTD vs. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA

In the result, these petitions must succeed

Bench: ABHAY SHREENIWAS OKA (CJ),P.S.DINESH KUMAR

63 5TH FLOOR, RACE COURSE ROAD BANGALORE-560 001 … RESPONDENTS (BY SHRI.S.K.BAGARIA, SENIOR ADVOCATE ALONG WITH SHRI.A.S.PONNANNA, ADDITIONAL ADVOCATE GENERAL AND SHRI.VENKATASWAMY GANGADHAR BHANUPRAKASH, ADDITIONAL GOVERNMENT ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT Nos.1 TO 3; SHRI.ADITYA SONDHI, SENIOR ADVOCATE ALONG WITH SHRI.M.KESHAVA REDDY, ADVOCATE FOR MONITORING COMMITTEE - RESPONDENT No.4) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING

IRON ORE END USERS ASSOCIATION vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

In the result, these petitions must succeed

Bench: ABHAY SHREENIWAS OKA (CJ),P.S.DINESH KUMAR

63 5TH FLOOR, RACE COURSE ROAD BANGALORE-560 001 … RESPONDENTS (BY SHRI.S.K.BAGARIA, SENIOR ADVOCATE ALONG WITH SHRI.A.S.PONNANNA, ADDITIONAL ADVOCATE GENERAL AND SHRI.VENKATASWAMY GANGADHAR BHANUPRAKASH, ADDITIONAL GOVERNMENT ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT Nos.1 TO 3; SHRI.ADITYA SONDHI, SENIOR ADVOCATE ALONG WITH SHRI.M.KESHAVA REDDY, ADVOCATE FOR MONITORING COMMITTEE - RESPONDENT No.4) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING

M/S. HOTHUR TRADERS vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

In the result, these petitions must succeed

Bench: ABHAY SHREENIWAS OKA (CJ),P.S.DINESH KUMAR

63 5TH FLOOR, RACE COURSE ROAD BANGALORE-560 001 … RESPONDENTS (BY SHRI.S.K.BAGARIA, SENIOR ADVOCATE ALONG WITH SHRI.A.S.PONNANNA, ADDITIONAL ADVOCATE GENERAL AND SHRI.VENKATASWAMY GANGADHAR BHANUPRAKASH, ADDITIONAL GOVERNMENT ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT Nos.1 TO 3; SHRI.ADITYA SONDHI, SENIOR ADVOCATE ALONG WITH SHRI.M.KESHAVA REDDY, ADVOCATE FOR MONITORING COMMITTEE - RESPONDENT No.4) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING

M/S PADMAVATHI FERROUS LTD vs. GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA

In the result, these petitions must succeed

Bench: ABHAY SHREENIWAS OKA (CJ),P.S.DINESH KUMAR

63 5TH FLOOR, RACE COURSE ROAD BANGALORE-560 001 … RESPONDENTS (BY SHRI.S.K.BAGARIA, SENIOR ADVOCATE ALONG WITH SHRI.A.S.PONNANNA, ADDITIONAL ADVOCATE GENERAL AND SHRI.VENKATASWAMY GANGADHAR BHANUPRAKASH, ADDITIONAL GOVERNMENT ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT Nos.1 TO 3; SHRI.ADITYA SONDHI, SENIOR ADVOCATE ALONG WITH SHRI.M.KESHAVA REDDY, ADVOCATE FOR MONITORING COMMITTEE - RESPONDENT No.4) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING