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

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-III vs. M/S YODLEE INFOTECH PVT LTD

The appeal is disposed of

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,M.I.ARUN

Section 92CA(1) of the Act was made to Transfer Pricing Officer on 14.05.2011 in respect of international transactions viz., Provision of Software Development Services and Marketing and Sales Support Services. The Transfer Pricing Officer by an order dated 31.10.2011 made an upward adjustment of Rs.3,44,14,532/- to the international transactions of the assessee wherein Arm’s Length

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 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

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 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

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. SHRI. VIKRAM REDDY

In the result, the fifth substantial question of

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,R. NATARAJ

77 (SC) AND KILLICK NIXON LTD VS. DCIT, (2012) 81 CCH 0066 MUM HC. 8. On the other hand, learned counsel for the assessee submitted that transfer of shares by the assessee in favour of the firm viz., BVRE during the previous year relevant to Assessment Year 2006-07 is accepted by the revenue and is assessed to tax which

G RAMACHAR vs. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA

Bench: ABHAY SHREENIWAS OKA (CJ),B.V.NAGARATHNA

77], when the Rajasthan Legislature had amended the Act incorporating Section 22A, which is in pari materia with the Amendment Act of the Karnataka Legislature. The impugned Circular dated 06/04/2009, which is made on the strength of Section 22A of the Amendment Act, is also illegal, as Section 22A of the Amendment Act of State of Rajasthan has been struck

THE PR COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S EXIDE LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY LTD

In the result, both the appeals stand dismissed

Bench: S.SUJATHA,RAVI V HOSMANI

Transfer Pricing Officer (TPO) to determine the Arm’s Length Price and the said officer did not suggest TP adjustment. Assessing Authority made non TP addition pertaining to surplus from shareholders account, treating the same as income from other business and losses from pension fund not allowed to be carried forward. Aggrieved by the said order, the assessee preferred appeals

THE PR COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S EXIDE LIFE INSURANCE CO LTD

In the result, both the appeals stand dismissed

Bench: S.SUJATHA,RAVI V HOSMANI

Transfer Pricing Officer (TPO) to determine the Arm’s Length Price and the said officer did not suggest TP adjustment. Assessing Authority made non TP addition pertaining to surplus from shareholders account, treating the same as income from other business and losses from pension fund not allowed to be carried forward. Aggrieved by the said order, the assessee preferred appeals

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

THE PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIT(A) vs. M/S IDS SOFTWARE SOLUTIONS INDIA PVT. LTD.,

Bench: S.SUJATHA,VINEET KOTHARI

Transfer Pricing Officer to grant Market Risk Adjustment without appreciating that risk adjustment involves two vital pre-conditions i.e., with regard to difference in risk level exist between tested party and the uncontrolled comparables which is possible to calculate in terms of numbers and the adjustment can be made in such circumstances only and in the present case both

THE PR. COMMISSIONER OF vs. M/S FLEXTRONICS TECHNOLOGIES

Appeal is dismissed

Bench: P.S.DINESH KUMAR,G BASAVARAJA

Transfer Pricing Officer ('TPO' for short) for re-working the Arms Length Price (ALP). The Order Giving Effect (OGE) in respect of DRP's direction corrected with the TP adjustments were not received in time and the Assessing Officer has confirmed the draft assessment order and the same is in violation of Section 144C. The ITAT has rightly set aside

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S MINDTECK (INDIA) LIMITED,

Bench: S.SUJATHA,VINEET KOTHARI

transfer pricing Date of Judgment 17-07-2018, ITA No.332/2015 The Commissioner of Income Tax & Another Vs. M/s Mindteck (India) Limited 5/13 on assessee specific FAR analysis and without considering the comparability of these companies on the basis of specific facts brought on record by the TPO in the case of the assessee?” Regarding Substantial Question of law No.1

PR COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-VI, vs. M/S SAMI LABS LTD.

Bench: S.SUJATHA,VINEET KOTHARI

SECTION 260-A OF INCOME TAX ACT 1961, ARISING OUT OF ORDER DATED 08/05/2015 PASSED IN IT(TP)A NO.1197/BANG/2012, FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2008-2009 ANNEXURE-A. PRAYING TO: 1. 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. 2. SET ASIDE THE Date

THE PR COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIT(A) vs. M/S BROADCOM COMMUNICATIONS

Bench: S.SUJATHA,VINEET KOTHARI

Transfer Pricing Officer has considered the comparables on the basis of qualitative and quantitative filters? 2. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, Tribunal is right in law in setting aside the recomputation of 10A deduction made by assessing authority by following the judgment of this Hon’ble High Court in the case

PR COMMISSIONER OF vs. M/S TELELOGIC INDIA PVT LTD

Bench: S.SUJATHA,VINEET KOTHARI

Transfer Pricing Officer has rightly chosen the same by applying qualitative and quantitative filters?” 3. Regarding 1st substantial question of law:- Learned counsel for the appellants-Revenue has submitted that the Hon'ble Supreme Court has settled the controversy in the case of Commissioner of Income-tax V/s. Yokogawa India Ltd., [(2017) 77 taxmann.com 41 (SC)] and therefore the said