PR COMMISSIONER OF vs. M/S SOFTBRANDS INDIA

Bench: S.SUJATHA,VINEET KOTHARI

Transfer 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., 51/80 Pricing cases of International Taxation under these provisions in income arising from international transactions which shall be computed having regard to the ‘Arm’s Length Price’ (Sec.92). 33. Section 92

DEVAS MULTIMEDIA PRIVATE LIMITED vs. THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX

Bench: The Hon’Ble Mr.Justice P.B. Bajanthri Writ Petition No.11618 Of 2016 (T-It) Between:

Transfer Pricing in International Transactions. Further vide the 2016 amendment, the right to appeal was specifically taken away in order to minimize these disputes. 16. Once the DRP has exercised its power under Section 144C of the Act, the Commissioner loses his jurisdiction to 14 exercise power under Section 263 of the Act. Consequently, the Commissioner cannot issue a show

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.

transfer pricing officer comes to an end once an order as contemplated under Section 92-CA(4) of the Act has come

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 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

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

Transfer Pricing Officer, after examining the details furnished by the assessee, passed an order under Section 92-CA of the Act by making

THE PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S EDS ELECTRONICS DATA SYSTEMS INDIA PVT.LTD.

In the result, we do not find any merit in this

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,R. NATARAJ

Transfer Pricing Officer had adopted a method in accordance with Section 92 read with Rule 10B of the Act and therefore

PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-2 vs. M/S TT STEEL SERVICE INDIA PVT LTD

Bench: V KAMESWAR RAO,S RACHAIAH

Transfer Pricing Adjustment to International Transaction with Associated Enterprises only even when same is contrary to Section 92CA of the Act and when assesse is providing service to both AE and Non-AE's where assesse has not made any bifurcation of profit in book of account as overall profit margin is recorded in books without any data

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

Bench: CHIEF JUSTICE,C M JOSHI

transfer pricing adjustment at `25,23,76,521/- in the trading segment. 6. In so far as manufacturing segment is concerned, the learned TPO determined the arms length PLI at 3.45% and accordingly made in adjustment of `6,02,89,351/- for the manufacturing segment

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-III, vs. M/S SAP LABS INDIA PVT LTD

Bench: S.SUJATHA,VINEET KOTHARI

price under the provisions of Section 92-C of the Income Tax Act, 1961? (d) Whether tribunal is justified in rejecting comparable cases adopted by transfer

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX vs. DR. PRADEEP KUMAR

Bench: RAVI MALIMATH,N.KUMAR

price under the provisions of Section 92-C of the Income Tax Act, 1961? (d) Whether tribunal is justified in rejecting comparable cases adopted by transfer

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S FOSROC CHEMICALS INDIA PVT LTD

The appeals are dismissed

Bench: B.V.NAGARATHNA,JAYANT PATEL

Transfer Pricing Officer (hereinafter referred to as ‘TPO’ for brevity) with a direction to recompute the ALP, taking into consideration the allocated expenses by Associated Enterprises to the assessee. Further, the Tribunal has also observed that the entire payment made by the assessee towards ‘management services’ shall be taken as the aggregate payment for all the services rendered

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX III vs. M/S TIMKEN ENGINEERING

Bench: S.SUJATHA,VINEET KOTHARI

Section 92-C of the Income Tax Act, 1961? 4. Whether tribunal is justified in rejecting arms length price determined by Transfer

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

M/S. TOYOTA KIRLOSKAR MOTOR (P) LTD., vs. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

Bench: S.SUJATHA,VINEET KOTHARI

Transfer Pricing Analysis separately for manufacturing segment and trading segment of the Assessee, but the Tribunal vide para-11 of the same order took a view that Date of Judgment 06-08-2018 I.T.A.No.58/2017 M/s. Toyota Kirloskar Motor (P) Ltd. Vs. The Commissioner of Income Tax & Anr. 5/16 on a comprehensive view of the matter, since the trading activity

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-III vs. M/S UE DEVELOPMENT INDIA PVT LTD

Bench: S.SUJATHA,VINEET KOTHARI

Transfer Pricing Officer cannot take different stand with regard accepting Arm’s Length Price in the hands of assessee and in the hands of Associated Enterprises though it is contrary to section 92

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 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