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

Section 54 of the Transfer of Property Act, as under: “Sale” defined.—‘‘Sale” is a transfer of ownership in exchange for a price paid or promised or part- paid and part-promised. Sale how made.—Such transfer, in the case of tangible immoveable property of the value of one hundred rupees and upwards, or in the case of a reversion

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

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

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

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

price paid for the land in question. Therefore, there is no scope for plea of poverty. It has come in the evidence of DW.1 that this defendant was informed of plaintiff’s transaction. As a businessman, he ought to have made reasonable enquiry, obviously that would include about the court proceedings. What enquiries were made

PR COMMISSIONER OF vs. M/S ZYME SOLUTIONS P LTD

Bench: S.SUJATHA,VINEET KOTHARI

SECTION 260-A OF INCOME TAX ACT 1961, PRAYING TO DECIDE THE FOREGOING QUESTION OF LAW AND/OR SUCH OTHER QUESTIONS OF LAW AS MAY BE FORMULATED BY THE HON’BLE Court AS DEEMED FIT, AND SET ASIDE THE APPELLATE ORDER DATED 22/01/2016 PASSED BY THE ITAT, ‘B’ BENCH, BENGALURU, AS SOUGHT FOR, IN THE RESPONDENT-ASSESSEE’S CASE, IN Date

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

M/S AMD FAR EAST LTD., vs. THE JOINT DIRECTOR OF INCOME-TAX

Bench: S.SUJATHA,RAVI V HOSMANI

Transfer Pricing Officer [TPO] for determining arm’s length price under Section 92CA of the Act. On receipt of the order passed under Section 92CA Act, the respondent passed the draft assessment order under Section 143[3] read with Section 144C of the Act, making certain disallowances of expenditure. Objection was filed by the assessee against the draft assessment order

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%

transfer or disposed of in a casual manner or by not adhering to the prescriptions contained under the SARFAESI Act and the abovesaid Rules mentioned by us.” The apex court had then addressed the facts of the case, vis- a-vis the legal position and dismissed the appeal in these words: “54. Having pronounced the legal position as above, when

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%

transfer or disposed of in a casual manner or by not adhering to the prescriptions contained under the SARFAESI Act and the abovesaid Rules mentioned by us.” The apex court had then addressed the facts of the case, vis- a-vis the legal position and dismissed the appeal in these words: “54. Having pronounced the legal position as above, when

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

Section 37(2) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. 21. Learned Judge in the First Appellate Court issued the notice of the appeal and after permitting the legal representatives of the first respondent to come on record, noting the death of first respondent, heard the arguments of the revision petitioner alone, as first respondent failed to file objections

PR COMMISSIONER OF INCOME vs. M/S SUNQUEST

Bench: S.SUJATHA,VINEET KOTHARI

Transfer Pricing Adjustments’ made by the concerned authorities below. We consider it appropriate to quote Date of Judgment 02-07-2018 I.T.A.No.4/2016 Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax & Anr. Vs. M/s. Sunquest Information Systems (India) Private Limited. 6/16 from the order of Tribunal rejecting the Application seeking a review before Tribunal as hereunder:- Regarding substantial question of law Nos.1

PR. COMMISSIONER vs. M/S SUNQUEST

Bench: S.SUJATHA,VINEET KOTHARI

Transfer Pricing Adjustments’ made by the concerned authorities below. We consider it appropriate to quote Date of Judgment 02-07-2018 I.T.A.No.5/2016 Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax & Anr. Vs. M/s. Sunquest Information Systems (India) Private Limited. 6/16 from the order of Tribunal rejecting the Application seeking a review before Tribunal as hereunder:- Regarding substantial question of law Nos.1

SMT. KAMAKSHI DEVI AVARU vs. THE WEALTH TAX OFFICER

Bench: JOHN MICHAEL CUNHA,H.G.RAMESH

Transfer Pricing Adjustments’ made by the concerned authorities below. We consider it appropriate to quote Date of Judgment 02-07-2018 I.T.A.No.4/2016 Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax & Anr. Vs. M/s. Sunquest Information Systems (India) Private Limited. 6/16 from the order of Tribunal rejecting the Application seeking a review before Tribunal as hereunder:- Regarding substantial question of law Nos.1

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

The appeal stands dismissed

Bench: S.SUJATHA,VINEET SARAN

75,400/-. 5. Learned counsel has placed reliance on the clauses of the Deed of Assignment and the relevant clauses are excerpted hereunder: 3. The Assignee is desirous of acquiring the said trade marks along with the goodwill and the said copyrights and the Assignor has agreed to assign unto the Assignee the said trade marks together with the goodwill

SRI N GOVINDARAJU vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER

Appeal stands disposed of

Bench: S.SUJATHA,VINEET SARAN

75,000/- being expenditure incurred wholly and exclusively in connection with the transfer more so when the payments are through banking channels, and consequently passed a perverse order on the facts and circumstance of the case. We have heard Sri A.Shanker, learned counsel for the appellant and Sri E.I.Sanmathi learned counsel for the respondent-department, as 7 well

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

price! work of the respondent or riioz’e it out during the period the machinery was in his use: the condition that 11 me contractor i could be respom isible tor the (‘ustodq of the machinery mehile it was on (lie site did not militate aqatnst respondents possession and ontrol of th rnachmenj ReIiar 1 R ciiu

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