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

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

In the result, the appeals are partly allowed

Bench: B.MANOHAR,DILIP B.BHOSALE

price of transfer for the purpose of computation of deduction u/s.80HH and 80I of the Act? A-10. Whether the Tribunal was correct in holding that excise duty and sales tax should not be included in the total turnover for the purpose of computation of deduction u/s.80HHC of the Act? 6. In all the three appeals, the following question

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:

Transfer Pricing Officer during the proceeding for assessment, reassessment made. The period as specified in sub- section (1)(2) & (3) shall be further extended by 12 months. 153(5) To give effect to the order of the higher authorities i.e. CIT (A), ITAT, HC and SC orders To give effect to an order passed by higher authorities other than those

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. ING VYSYA BANK LTD

In the result, this appeal is allowed in part,

Bench: B.MANOHAR,D.V.SHYLENDRA KUMAR

transferred resulting in a loss, on sales, the loss was being computed on the premise that on valuing securities at market value on the last date of the financial year, the market value of 6 the assets having gone down, the assessee had incurred a loss of Rs.1,09,10,252/- as the market value of the securities was less

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

price of which exceeds on e crore rupees; or (d) Fraudulently availing of or attempt to avail of drawback or any exemption from duty provided under this Act, if the amount of drawback or exemption from duty exceeds fifty lakh rupees. WP No. 13261 of 2020 65 (7) Save as otherwise provided in sub-section (6), all other offences under

SMT. M R PRABHAVATHY vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

Bench: The Hon’Ble Mr. Justice K.Natarajan Election Petition No.1 Of 2019 Connected With Election Petition No.2 Of 2019

Section 33A of RP Act and 106 he has committed corrupt practice of bribery as contemplated under Sections 123(1)(A), 123(1)(B), 123(7), 123(7)(b), 123(vii)(d), 123(7)(h) and Section 123(8), 123(3), 3A and 123(6) of R.P. Act ? The petitioner in E.P. No.2/2019 has contended that respondent No.1 committed corrupt

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S URBAN LADDER HOME DECOR SOLUTIONS PVT LTD

Appeals are dismissed

Bench: V KAMESWAR RAO,S RACHAIAH

price fixed. However, in the facts of present case, looking at the documentation, the billing is segregated into various services i.e. AWS services, storage services, etc. and the assessee before us has filed a chart of summary of services availed. The first such services are on account of service charges for Elastic Compute Cloud. As per clause 1

SRI M MADHAVA GOWDA vs. UNDER SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT

Bench: The Hon’Ble Mr.Justice Aravind Kumar

price of the liquor being sold to the customers depending upon the varying degree of facilities provided by them to the customers. 28. The Legislature has inserted Entry 59A in the III Schedule to KVAT Act and has chosen to provide for levy of tax on liquor sold by certain licence holders. Notification – II bearing No.FD 21 CSL 2014 dated

FEDERATION OF WINES MERCHANTS ASSOCIATION vs. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA

Bench: The Hon’Ble Mr.Justice Aravind Kumar

price of the liquor being sold to the customers depending upon the varying degree of facilities provided by them to the customers. 28. The Legislature has inserted Entry 59A in the III Schedule to KVAT Act and has chosen to provide for levy of tax on liquor sold by certain licence holders. Notification – II bearing No.FD 21 CSL 2014 dated

M. NARAYANAPPA vs. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA

Bench: The Hon’Ble Mr.Justice Aravind Kumar

price of the liquor being sold to the customers depending upon the varying degree of facilities provided by them to the customers. 28. The Legislature has inserted Entry 59A in the III Schedule to KVAT Act and has chosen to provide for levy of tax on liquor sold by certain licence holders. Notification – II bearing No.FD 21 CSL 2014 dated

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

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. HUBLI ELECTRIC SUPPLY COMPANY LTD

In the result, these appeals fail and accordingly stand

Bench: S.ABDUL NAZEER,P.S.DINESH KUMAR

vii) of sub-section (1) of section 9; 37[(ba) “royalty” shall have the same meaning as in Explanation 2 to clause (vi) of sub-section (1) of section 9;] (c) where any sum referred to in sub-section (1) is credited to any account, whether called “suspense account” or by any other name, in the books of account

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S GULBARGA ELECTRICITY SUPPLY COMPANY LTD.

Accordingly, appeal of Revenue is dismissed

Bench: B.VEERAPPA,VINEET KOTHARI

vii) of sub-section (1) of section 9; [(ba) “royalty” shall have the same meaning as in Explanation 2 to clause (vi) of sub- section (1) of section 9;] (c) where any sum referred to in sub-section (1) is credited to any account, whether called “suspense account” or by any other name, in the books of account

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 SRIDHAR vs. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA

Bench: JAYANT PATEL,N.K.SUDHINDRARAO

price of the liquor being sold to the customers depending upon the varying degree of facilities provided by them to the customers. 28. The Legislature has inserted Entry 59A in the III Schedule to KVAT Act and has chosen to provide for levy of tax on liquor sold by certain licence holders. Notification – II bearing No.FD

L. VENKATARAMANA RAJU vs. UNION OF INDIA

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

9. The respondents have contended that by claiming compensation under the said Act of 2013, petitioners are actually claiming higher compensation than the compensation awarded in their favour under the said Act of 1894 and since there exists an equally efficacious and alternative remedy of seeking enhancement of compensation by way of reference to the reference court, the present petitions

M/S SRI BALAJI CORPORATE SERVICES vs. UNION OF INDIA MINISTRY OF FINANCE

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

9. The respondents have contended that by claiming compensation under the said Act of 2013, petitioners are actually claiming higher compensation than the compensation awarded in their favour under the said Act of 1894 and since there exists an equally efficacious and alternative remedy of seeking enhancement of compensation by way of reference to the reference court, the present petitions