PR COMMISSIONER OF vs. M/S SOFTBRANDS INDIA

Bench: S.SUJATHA,VINEET KOTHARI

3. The Indian Income Tax Act, 1961 contains Special Provisions relating to Avoidance of Tax in Chapter X of the Act comprising of Sections 92 to 94-B with regard to assessment to be done for computation of income from international transactions on the principles of ‘Arm’s Length Price’ (ALP) and the relevant Rules for computation of such income

PR COMMISSIONER OF vs. M/S SOFTBRANDS INDIA

Bench: S.SUJATHA,VINEET KOTHARI

3. The Indian Income Tax Act, 1961 contains Special Provisions relating to Avoidance of Tax in Chapter X of the Act comprising of Sections 92 to 94-B with regard to assessment to be done for computation of income from international transactions on the principles of ‘Arm’s Length Price’ (ALP) and the relevant Rules for computation of such income

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

Bench: CHIEF JUSTICE,C M JOSHI

3) of Section 92C are attracted. It follows that sub-section (4) of Section 92C is not attracted. 25. More importantly, the proviso to sub-section (4) of Section 92C also clearly states that no deduction under Section 10A or 10AA or 10B or under Chapter VI-A of the Act would be allowed in respect of the amount

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.

3) of the Act. Against which, the appellant filed an appeal before the Tribunal. The Tribunal, under impugned order dated 21.06.2017 dismissed the appeal of the appellant. 5. Learned senior counsel Sri.Chythanya for appellant would contend that the final assessment order dated 18.02.2016 is contrary to Section 144C(13) of the IT Act. He invites attention of this Court

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

3) of the Act. The Transfer Pricing Officer treated the expenditure incurred on the advertisement and marketing and product promotion as an international transaction and determined the arms length price by applying bright line method. Pursuant to the order passed by the Transfer Pricing Officer, a draft assessment order was passed by the Assessing Officer, by which disallowance

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

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

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

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

3) of the Act assessed the income at Rs.33,98,72,603/- after making disallowances with regard to addition on account of income from other sources, addition on account of foreign exchange loss and addition on account of Arms 6 Length Price (ALP). 5. The assessee thereupon filed an appeal before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals

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

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[3

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

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

3. The respondent [the Assessee] had filed the aforementioned miscellaneous application seeking rectification/modification of an order dated 02.03.2023 passed by the learned ITAT in IT(TP)A.No.2806/Bang/2017. The said order was passed in an appeal filed by the Assessee against the final assessment order dated 21.07.2022. The principal dispute before the learned ITAT was in respect of transfer pricing

SMT. S. JALAJA vs. UNION OF INDIA

In the result, writ appeals are allowed

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR

92 AND ORS.', (2011) 3 SCC 1. It is also contended that issue with regard to applicability of Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act to the proceeding under 1966 Act is no longer res integra and it has been held that Section 24(2) does not apply to the proceeding under 1966 Act. In this connection, reference has been

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. SHRI. VIKRAM REDDY

In the result, the fifth substantial question of

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,R. NATARAJ

3) The profits or gains arising from the transfer of a capital asset by a person to a firm or other association of persons or body of individuals (not being a company or a co- operative society) in which he is or becomes a partner or member, by way of capital contribution or otherwise, shall be chargeable

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

Bench: S.SUJATHA,VINEET KOTHARI

Section 92-C of the Income Tax Act, 1961? (d) Whether tribunal is justified in rejecting comparable cases adopted by transfer pricing officer for purpose of determination of arms length price and whether the rejection of such comparables by the tribunal is sustainable in law?”. 3

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

Bench: RAVI MALIMATH,N.KUMAR

Section 92-C of the Income Tax Act, 1961? (d) Whether tribunal is justified in rejecting comparable cases adopted by transfer pricing officer for purpose of determination of arms length price and whether the rejection of such comparables by the tribunal is sustainable in law?”. 3

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

The appeals are dismissed

Bench: B.V.NAGARATHNA,JAYANT PATEL

3. It may be recorded that the Tribunal while considering the relevant aspects at paragraphs-9 and 10 has observed thus: “9. Having heard both the parties and having considered the rival contentions and also the material on record, we find that the basic finding of the TPO is that the assessee has not received any services from