PR.COMMISSIONER OF INCOMETAX-2 vs. M/S.EYGBS (INDIA) PVT LTD

Bench: CHIEF JUSTICE,C M JOSHI

90,62,637 Income from business of the undertaking after voluntary TP adjustment 80,51,42,179 7. The AO had denied the exemption under Section 10AA on the TP pricing adjustment made pursuant to the APA. The AO reasoned that the assessee had declared the TP adjustments in anticipation of such TP adjustments by the TPA and to avoid

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

90 sufficient non judicial stamp shall be required. Section 54 of the Transfer of Property Act, reads as under: 54. “Sale” defined.—‘‘Sale” is a transfer of ownership in exchange for a price

PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-2 vs. TOYOTA TSUSHO INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED

Bench: CHIEF JUSTICE,C M JOSHI

90,508/-. After the verification, it was found that the Assessee had entered into international transactions with Associated Enterprises [AEs], the value of which was more than `15 Crores. The learned Assessing - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:34395-DB ITA No. 149 of 2025 Officer [AO] made a reference to the TPO for determination of the arms length price

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

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

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S GARNIWAL EXPORTS (P) LTD

Appeal is allowed

Bench: D.V.SHYLENDRA KUMAR,B.S.INDRAKALA

price of Rs.17,78,155/- received by the assessee by way of transfer of quota opining that the amount represented business income of the assessee; that it cannot be attributed to any export activity as the amount is not by export but received 4 within the country; that Section 80HHC benefit being available only to profits derived from an export

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

PR COMMISSIONER OF vs. M/S WIPRO LIMITED

In the result, the appeal is disposed of in terms

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,H.T. NARENDRA PRASAD

90,525/- by placing reliance on the orders passed in the case of the assessee for earlier periods which has not reached finality and even when the ingredients of section 32 are not satisfied to claim depreciation relating to software? (3) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is right in law in setting

SRI N GOVINDARAJU vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER

Appeal stands disposed of

Bench: S.SUJATHA,VINEET SARAN

90,672/-, which was for reasons other than the one recorded in the notice. During the relevant period, the assessee had sold a plot of land measuring 12,430 sq. ft. for a consideration of Rs.74,58,000/-. The property devolved upon the assessee in a family partition in the year 1972. Assessee treated it as a case of sale

SMT DURGA KUMARI BOBBA vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER

Appeal is allowed in

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

transfer nor as cost of acquisition, the only two contingencies which can be considered while allowing deduction. The tax component does not fall within the definition of Section 48(1) of the Act; • that the tax paid by the company is not allowed as deduction. By the same analogy, deduction 5 cannot be allowed in the hands of the appellant

KARNATAKA STATE BEVERAGES CORPORTION LIMITED vs. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

Bench: The Hon’Ble Mr. Justice Anand Byrareddy Writ Petition No.12872 Of 2013 (T-It) Connected With Writ Petition No.14687 Of 2014 (T-It), Writ Petition No.15910 Of 2015 (T-It) & Writ Petition No.17514 Of 2015 (T-It) In W.P.No.12872 Of 2013 Between: Karnataka State Beverages Corporation Limited, Represented By It’S Executive Director (Finance), Sri. Shrikant B Vanahalli, Aged About 57 Years, No.78, Seethalakshmi Towers, Mission Road, Bangalore 560 027. …Petitioner

90(5). But insofar as Section 40(a)(iib) is concerned, there is no such indication and therefore, it can only be treated as prospective from a plain reading thereof and it cannot be construed as being clarificatory. In this regard, attention is drawn to the decision in Vatica Township supra. It is further contended that privilege

THE PR COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S INTEVA PRODUCTS

Bench: S.SUJATHA,VINEET KOTHARI

SECTION 260-A OF INCOME TAX ACT 1961, ARISING OUT OF ORDER DATED 20.07.2016 PASSED IN IT[TP]A No.136/BANG/2015, FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2010-11, ANNEXURE-D, PRAYING TO [i] FORMULATE THE SUBSTANTIAL QUESTIONS OF LAW STATED ABOVE. [ii] ALLOW THE APPEAL AND SET ASIDE THE ORDER PASSED BY THE ITAT, BENGALURU IN IT[TP]A No.136/BANG/2015 DATED

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

Section 66 thereof created charge of service tax in regard to taxable services. Service Lax’ is defined in clause (34) of Set lion 65 to mean tax chargeable under the provLsioi is of that napler. 7’axable ceri’icc is dejrnea Iunder sub ‘‘larcsc’ Ib) 1 ½usc 4 1 [ 5j 0 n ° mc a an, srvkc provided tu. znrcr cilia

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME vs. M/S VENDIO TECHNOLOGIES

Bench: S.SUJATHA,VINEET KOTHARI

SECTION 260-A OF INCOME TAX ACT 1961, ARISING OUT OF ORDER DATED 19.09.2014 PASSED IN IT[TP]A NO.1374/BANG/2011 AND C.O.NO.58/B/2012, FOR THE Date of Judgment 26-06-2018, ITA Nos.152-153/2015 The Commissioner of Income Tax & another Vs. M/s. Vendio Technologies [India] Pvt. Ltd. 2/20 ASSESSMENT YEAR 2005-2006 PRAYING TO I. DECIDE THE FOREGOING QUESTION

M/S T T K PRESTIGE LTD vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

Bench: The Hon’Ble Mrs.Justice S.Sujatha

TRANSFER PRICING OFFICER AND ANOTHER’ [(2010) 320 ITR 565 [DELHI]. [e] ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX AND OTHERS vs. ICICI SECURITIES PRIMARY DEALERSHIP LTD. [2012] 348 ITR 299 (SC) [f] ‘COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. I.A.E.C. (PUMPS) LTD.,’ [(1998) 150 CTR SC 126 - 14 - 6. Submissions of the learned Counsel for the Revenue: Learned Counsel Sri. K.V. Aravind appearing

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