PR COMMISSIONER OF vs. M/S SOFTBRANDS INDIA

Bench: S.SUJATHA,VINEET KOTHARI

Price’ determination. The relevant paragraphs 9 to 11 of the said judgment is quoted below for ready reference: “9. This Court is of the opinion that the rationale that Ashok Leyland was deriving major part of its revenue from wind energy Date of Judgment 25-06-2018 I.T.A.No.536/2015 C/w I.T.A.No.537/2015 Pr. Commissioner of Income

PR COMMISSIONER OF vs. M/S SOFTBRANDS INDIA

Bench: S.SUJATHA,VINEET KOTHARI

Price’ determination. The relevant paragraphs 9 to 11 of the said judgment is quoted below for ready reference: “9. This Court is of the opinion that the rationale that Ashok Leyland was deriving major part of its revenue from wind energy Date of Judgment 25-06-2018 I.T.A.No.536/2015 C/w I.T.A.No.537/2015 Pr. Commissioner of Income

THE COMMR OF INCOME TAX vs. NIKE INC

Appeals are dismissed

Bench: B.MANOHAR,N.KUMAR

price, quality, quantity, to whom to be shipped and billed. The local manufacturer in India is conveyed of the decision by the office in USA and once it is accepted, the local manufacturer carries on his activity. The liaison office keeps a close watch on the progress, quality, etc., at the manufacturing workshop. The liaison office also keeps a watch

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

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR

Section 92KA(3) of the Act, can only determine the Arms Length Price of an international transaction, is no longer res integra and the same has already been adjudicated by the decisions of Delhi and Bombay High Courts respectively in 'CIT Vs. EKL APPLIANCES LTD.' and 'CIT Vs. LEVER INDIA EXPORTS LTD', supra. The aforesaid issue is no longer

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.

9. The facts are not in dispute. The appellant/assessee filed returns for the year 2011-12 on 30.09.2011, within the time prescribed. On process of the returns, notice under Section 143(2) of the IT Act was issued to the appellant calling for certain information. Thereafter, the case of the appellant 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:

9 months from the date of referred order’s under this section (254, 263,264 orders) Post 01.04.2019, If the order is received after 01.04.2019, then in such cases the time limit has been increased to 12 months 153(4) Notwithstandi ng sub-sec, (1), (2) & (3), where a reference has been made to Transfer Pricing

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 gone into the provision of Section 92A(2) of the Act. It is further submitted that the provisions of sub- Sections (1) and (2) of Section 92A are interlinked and have been read together harmoniously and therefore, the substantial question of law framed in this appeal is required to be answered in favour of the assessee

PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-5 vs. M/S. PUMA SPORTS INDIA P., LTD.,

The appeal stands dismissed

Bench: SATISH CHANDRA SHARMA,V SRISHANANDA

transfer pricing adjustment for Rs.4,16,65,106/- on the basis of the order passed under Section 92CA of the Act dated 24.10.2016. The assessing authority also made other additions. The assessee’s objections were not considered by the Dispute Resumption Panel and therefore, an appeal was 3 filed before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Bangalore (hereinafter referred

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

9 (1)(vi) of the Act? (2) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is right in setting aside disallowance made under Section 14A of the Act without the same is made in accordance with Rule 8D of I.T. Rules?". Thereafter, additional substantial question of law was formulated which reads as under: "Whether

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

Transfer Pricing Officer and to avoid rigors of Section 92C(4) of the Act and consequently enhanced benefits under section 10AA of the Act"? (ii) "Whether on facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal's order can be said as perverse in nature in not appreciating that the assesee failed to substantiate an furnish details

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

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

Bench: ARAVIND KUMAR,SURAJ GOVINDARAJ

Transfer Pricing Officer- TOP under Section 92CA could be invalid and bad in law. 9 7. It is for this

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S WIPRO LTD

In the result, the appeals are partly allowed

Bench: B.MANOHAR,DILIP B.BHOSALE

Section 40A(9) of the Act? 7 5. In ITA 133/07, the following two substantial questions of law arise for our consideration: A-9. Whether the Tribunal was correct in holding that the stock transfers made to the new industrial undertaking at Amalnar for manufacture of fatty acid and glycerin plant should be taken at market price

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-2 vs. M/S TT STEEL SERVICE INDIA PVT LTD

Bench: V KAMESWAR RAO,S RACHAIAH

9) of Section 10B. In the matter of GENERAL FINANCE CO. vs. ACIT, which judgment has also been taken note of by the tribunal while repelling the contention raised by revenue with regard to retrospectivity of Section 92BA(i) of the Act. Thus, when clause (i) of Section 92BA having been omitted by the Finance Act, 2017, with effect from

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%

price shall be adjusted towards the amount of the claim of the secured creditor for which the auction of enforcement of security interest is taken by the secured creditor, under sub-section (4) of section 13. (5C) The provisions of section 9 of the Banking Regulation Act, 1949 (10 of 1949) shall, as far as may be, 19 apply

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%

price shall be adjusted towards the amount of the claim of the secured creditor for which the auction of enforcement of security interest is taken by the secured creditor, under sub-section (4) of section 13. (5C) The provisions of section 9 of the Banking Regulation Act, 1949 (10 of 1949) shall, as far as may be, 19 apply