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

Bench: CHIEF JUSTICE,C M JOSHI

Section 10AA of the Act. In addition, the Assessee had also claimed deduction under Chapter VI-A of the Act. Immediately after filing its original return for AY 2015-16, the Assessee had filed a revised return voluntarily declaring transfer pricing [TP] adjustments of ₹14,82,00,000/-, which was reworked at ₹21,36,91

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

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 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, reads as under: 54. “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.— 3Such transfer, in the case of tangible immoveable property of the value of one hundred rupees and upwards, or in the case

THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX -2 vs. M/S MICROCHIP TEHNOLOGIES INDIA PVT LTD

The appeal is disposed of with liberty as prayed for by the learned

Bench: S.G.PANDIT,C.M. POONACHA

Section 260-A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short, ‘the Act’) questioning the correctness and legality of order dated 14.06.2021 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, - 3 - NC: 2024:KHC:39712-DB ITA No. 585 of 2022 ‘A’ Bench, Bengaluru (for short, ‘Appellate Authority’) in ITA.No.323/Bang/2019 for the assessment year 2010-11, raising the following substantial

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

CHITTHARANJAN A DASANNACHARYA vs. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-V

In the result, the appeal is allowed

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,H.T. NARENDRA PRASAD

price of shares and market value of shares on the date of exercise of 'income from short term capital 6 gains'. The claims for deduction under Section 54F was disallowed. The assessee thereupon approached the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) who by an order dated 31.10.2011 dismissed the appeal on merits. However, the interest levied under Section 234B

SHRI A KHADAR BASHA vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

Appeal is allowed

Bench: B.VEERAPPA,N.KUMAR

91) ITR 8 has held that “where a trader transfers his goods to another trader at a price less than the market price and the transaction is a bonafide one, the taxing authority cannot take into account the market price of those - 5 - goods, ignoring the real price fetched to ascertain the profit from the transaction. An assessee

SMT. S. JALAJA vs. UNION OF INDIA

In the result, writ appeals are allowed

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR

91 and First Schedule of the 2013 Act submitted that even provisions pertaining to determination of compensation contained in both the enactments are not in conflict with each other. Our attention has also been invited to resolution dated 27.08.2016 passed by the Board by which it has resolved to take into account the components mentioned in First Schedule appended

THE PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX vs. M/S. ARIS GLOBAL SOFTWARE PVT. LTD.,

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

M/S. HOTHUR TRADERS vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

In the result, these petitions must succeed

Bench: ABHAY SHREENIWAS OKA (CJ),P.S.DINESH KUMAR

price of forest produce was within the legislative competence of the State under Entry 54 of List-II and constitutionally valid. Although the unamended section 98A(1) refers to the levy of a tax, the impost is more in the nature of a fee. The amount collected by way of forest development tax is earmarked for development and regeneration

M/S. BMM ISPAT LTD vs. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA

In the result, these petitions must succeed

Bench: ABHAY SHREENIWAS OKA (CJ),P.S.DINESH KUMAR

price of forest produce was within the legislative competence of the State under Entry 54 of List-II and constitutionally valid. Although the unamended section 98A(1) refers to the levy of a tax, the impost is more in the nature of a fee. The amount collected by way of forest development tax is earmarked for development and regeneration

IRON ORE END USERS ASSOCIATION vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

In the result, these petitions must succeed

Bench: ABHAY SHREENIWAS OKA (CJ),P.S.DINESH KUMAR

price of forest produce was within the legislative competence of the State under Entry 54 of List-II and constitutionally valid. Although the unamended section 98A(1) refers to the levy of a tax, the impost is more in the nature of a fee. The amount collected by way of forest development tax is earmarked for development and regeneration

M/S PADMAVATHI FERROUS LTD vs. GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA

In the result, these petitions must succeed

Bench: ABHAY SHREENIWAS OKA (CJ),P.S.DINESH KUMAR

price of forest produce was within the legislative competence of the State under Entry 54 of List-II and constitutionally valid. Although the unamended section 98A(1) refers to the levy of a tax, the impost is more in the nature of a fee. The amount collected by way of forest development tax is earmarked for development and regeneration

SATHVAHANA ISPAT LIMITED vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

In the result, these petitions must succeed

Bench: ABHAY SHREENIWAS OKA (CJ),P.S.DINESH KUMAR

price of forest produce was within the legislative competence of the State under Entry 54 of List-II and constitutionally valid. Although the unamended section 98A(1) refers to the levy of a tax, the impost is more in the nature of a fee. The amount collected by way of forest development tax is earmarked for development and regeneration

M/S LAKSHMINARAYANA MINING COMPANY vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

In the result, these petitions must succeed

Bench: ABHAY SHREENIWAS OKA (CJ),P.S.DINESH KUMAR

price of forest produce was within the legislative competence of the State under Entry 54 of List-II and constitutionally valid. Although the unamended section 98A(1) refers to the levy of a tax, the impost is more in the nature of a fee. The amount collected by way of forest development tax is earmarked for development and regeneration

M/S HARE KRISHNA METALICS PVT LTD vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

In the result, these petitions must succeed

Bench: ABHAY SHREENIWAS OKA (CJ),P.S.DINESH KUMAR

price of forest produce was within the legislative competence of the State under Entry 54 of List-II and constitutionally valid. Although the unamended section 98A(1) refers to the levy of a tax, the impost is more in the nature of a fee. The amount collected by way of forest development tax is earmarked for development and regeneration

M/S JEEVAKA INDUSTRIES PRIVATE LIMITED vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

In the result, these petitions must succeed

Bench: ABHAY SHREENIWAS OKA (CJ),P.S.DINESH KUMAR

price of forest produce was within the legislative competence of the State under Entry 54 of List-II and constitutionally valid. Although the unamended section 98A(1) refers to the levy of a tax, the impost is more in the nature of a fee. The amount collected by way of forest development tax is earmarked for development and regeneration