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

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 SOFTBRANDS INDIA

Bench: S.SUJATHA,VINEET KOTHARI

2) An appeal may lie under this section from an appellate decree passed ex- parte. Date of Judgment 25-06-2018 I.T.A.No.536/2015 C/w I.T.A.No.537/2015 Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax & Anr. Vs. M/s. Softbrands India P. Ltd., 35/80 (3) In an appeal under this section, the memorandum of appeal shall precisely state the substantial question of law involved

PR COMMISSIONER OF vs. M/S SOFTBRANDS INDIA

Bench: S.SUJATHA,VINEET KOTHARI

2) An appeal may lie under this section from an appellate decree passed ex- parte. Date of Judgment 25-06-2018 I.T.A.No.536/2015 C/w I.T.A.No.537/2015 Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax & Anr. Vs. M/s. Softbrands India P. Ltd., 35/80 (3) In an appeal under this section, the memorandum of appeal shall precisely state the substantial question of law involved

M/S FIDELITY BUSINESS SERVICES INDIA PVT LTD vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

Bench: S.SUJATHA,VINEET KOTHARI

9. The learned Tribunal held that after insertion of Section 115-QA of the Act with effect from 01/06/2013, the purchase of its own shares by the Company in accordance with the provisions of Section 77-A of the Companies Act, 1956 is chargeable to income tax as Distribution Dividend Tax (DDT) but since the transaction in the present case

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

HEWLETT PACKARD FINANCIAL SERVICES INDIA PRIVATE vs. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA

Bench: S.SUJATHA,JAYANT PATEL

9. Mohammed Serajuddin vs. State of Orissa [1975] 35 STC 136 (SC) – constitution bench; 10. Deputy Commissioner of Agricultural Income Tax & Sales Tax vs. Indian Explosives Ltd. [1985] 60 STC 30 (SC) – three members bench; 11. State of Maharashtra vs. Embee Corporation [1997] 107 STC 196 (SC) – two members bench; 12. Minerals & Metals Trading Corporation of India Ltd., vs. Sales

SHRI. PARSWANATH vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

Bench: The Hon'Ble Mr. Justice M. Nagaprasanna

price in buying or selling. [Wharton's Law Lexicon, 1976 Reprint Ed.]. Expression “abatement” has been separately spelt out, in the same dictionary. “Abatement of criminal proceedings” has been termed to mean their termination 26 without a decision on the merits and without the assent of the prosecutor. If this is the legal position or meaning of abatement

THE PR.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S. YOKOGAWA INDIA LTD

The appeal is dismissed

Bench: S.G.PANDIT,K. V. ARAVIND

2) of the Act. In view of the international transactions, the Assessing Officer referred the matter to the Transfer Pricing Officer (TPO) for determination of the arm’s length price. The TPO, by order dated 29.01.2016 passed under Section 92CA of the Act, determined the adjustment. Thereafter, the Assessing Officer passed a draft assessment order on 10.03.2016. The assessee preferred

SRI N GOVINDARAJU vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER

Appeal stands disposed of

Bench: S.SUJATHA,VINEET SARAN

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 as Sri K.V.Aravind, learned counsel for the department appearing in the connected appeals

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S SHASTHA PHARMA LABORATORIES

The appeal is dismissed

Bench: N.KUMAR,RATHNAKALA

price of Rs.50.12/- lakhs did not amount to a transfer and consequently, no capital gains tax was liable to be paid.?” 7. However, before commencement of the arguments, learned Counsel for the revenue sought the permission of the Court to raise additional substantial question of law : “Whether the Tribunal was correct in holding the reopening of assessment under Sections

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

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

THE PR.COMMISSIONER OF vs. M/S MAHAVEER CALYX

In the result, the orders passed by the Assessing

Bench: SATISH CHANDRA SHARMA,V SRISHANANDA

price as well as the terms and conditions. The aforesaid quotation states that Dell product would be exported from Malaysia. Thus, the petitioner seeks customer's upfront contractual approval of manufacture and supply of required product from Malaysia. On receipt of the quotation, customer accepts either by signing the same or by raising a purchase order or by making

M/S J K CEMENT WORKS vs. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA

Bench: H.B.PRABHAKARA SASTRY,VINEET KOTHARI

2) of Section 3 on the purchase of goods excluding fuel, until output tax is payable on such goods or other goods in which such goods are put to use except when the said goods are exported out of the territory of India; (9) tax paid on goods purchased by a dealer who is required to be registered under

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. PRAVEEN V DODDANAVAR

Bench: SREENIVAS HARISH KUMAR,VINEET KOTHARI

2) of Section 3 on the purchase of goods excluding fuel, until output tax is payable on such goods or other goods in which such goods are put to use except when the said goods are exported out of the territory of India; (9) tax paid on goods purchased by a dealer who is required to be registered under

THE BAILHONGAL URBAN COOPERATIVE BANK LTD vs. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

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

2) of Section 3 on the purchase of goods excluding fuel, until output tax is payable on such goods or other goods in which such goods are put to use except when the said goods are exported out of the territory of India; (9) tax paid on goods purchased by a dealer who is required to be registered under

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