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

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

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:

2) of the Act, a reference was made to the Transfer Pricing Officer (hereafter ‘TPO’) qua the international transactions; the TPO in exercise of power u/s 92C(A) carried out an aggregate adjustment of Rs.10,54,52,192/-; the first respondent-Joint Commissioner of Income Tax (hereafter 'JCIT') had proposed a Draft Assessment Order dated

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME vs. M/S TATRA VECTRA MOTORS LTD.,

Bench: S.SUJATHA,VINEET KOTHARI

price which may vary from the arithmetical mean by an amount not exceeding five per cent of such arithmetical mean.” Regarding substantial question of law No.2: “16. As regards to the applicability of the amended provisions in proviso to section 92C(2) of the Act which is applicable w.e.f. 1.10.2009 is concerned, it is noticed that this issue has been

PR COMMISSIONER OF vs. M/S LUWA INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR

2. Facts leading to filing of this appeal briefly stated are that the assessee filed the return of income for the Assessment Year 2007-08 declaring a total income of Rs.3,87,19,390/-. The Assessing Officer initiated proceeding under Section 148 of the Act. As the assessee had entered certain international transactions, the Assessing Officer made a reference

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S GENISYS INTERGRATING SYSTEMS

Bench: S.SUJATHA,VINEET KOTHARI

Transfer Pricing Officer for determination of Arms’ Length Price in the case of the assessee? 4. Whether the Tribunal was correct in holding that 5% standard deduction should be extended to the assessee after quantification of the Arms’ Length Price when the proviso to Sub section 2 to Section 92C

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S FIRST ADVANTAGE OFFSHORE SERVICES PVT LTD

Bench: S.SUJATHA,VINEET KOTHARI

price under the proviso to Section 92C(2) of the Act, without considering the corrigendum dated 30-04-2010 to the circular 5/2010 issued by the Board in this regard? 6. Whether the Tribunal was correct in directing cross examination in the case of comparables where information was gathered in terms of provisions of section

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. TNT INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED

Bench: S.SUJATHA,VINEET KOTHARI

section 92C(2) before making adjustments of the transfer price. For this preposition, learned counsel for the assessee drew our attention

PR.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-7 vs. M/S TALLY INDIA PVT LTD

In the result, we do not find

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,M.G.S. KAMAL

2) of the Act was issued to the assessee on 08.09.2009. Thereafter, the case was referred to the Transfer Pricing Officer (TPO) for computation of Arms Length Price (ALP) under 4 Section 92C

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-III vs. WITTNESS SYSTEM

Bench: S.SUJATHA,VINEET KOTHARI

section 92C, the arm's length price in relation to an international transaction shall be determined by any of the following methods, being the most appropriate method, in the following manner, namely :-- (a)....... to (d)........ (e) transactional net margin method, by which,-- (i) the net profit margin realised by the enterprise from an international transaction entered into with an associated

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-III, vs. M/S MERCEDES BENZ

Bench: S.SUJATHA,VINEET KOTHARI

Transfer Pricing analysis and with regard to risk adjustment, back to the file of assessing authority/Transfer Pricing Officer when there are no fresh facts brought before the tribunal apart from those which are already discussed in the order of assessing authority/Transfer Pricing Officer? 2) Whether the tribunal is right in law by directing the TPO to consider only those uncontrolled

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. SHRI ANIL KABRA

Bench: RAVI MALIMATH,N.KUMAR

Transfer Pricing analysis and with regard to risk adjustment, back to the file of assessing authority/Transfer Pricing Officer when there are no fresh facts brought before the tribunal apart from those which are already discussed in the order of assessing authority/Transfer Pricing Officer? 2) Whether the tribunal is right in law by directing the TPO to consider only those uncontrolled

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

2. Facts leading to filing of this appeal briefly stated are that the respondent provides its technical consultancy services to third parties and operate as entrepreneur. The business of providing technical consultancy services is an independent business segment. The parent company of the assessee is EDS Sweden and another Swedish company i.e., SKF AB had entered into a Master Service

PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-4 vs. M/S. KSHEMA TECHNOLOGIES LIMITED

Bench: S.SUJATHA,VINEET KOTHARI

transfer pricing under the I.T. Act. Hence in view of the facts and circumstances of the case, we set aside the impugned order of the authorities below and remit the issue to the record of the Assessing Officer / TPO for deciding the matter afresh by considering the segment-wise data of the assessee and then compare the same with

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S GENESIS MICROCHIP (I) PVT LTD

Bench: S.SUJATHA,VINEET KOTHARI

price and the proviso to section 92C(2) of the Act, without considering the corrigendum dated 30.04.2010 to the circular No.5/2010 issued by the Board in this regard?” 3. The learned counsel appearing for the Appellants – Revenue, Mr.K.V. Aravind submitted that he does not press substantial question Nos.2 to 4 raised in the present appeal

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S ELECTRONICS FOR IMAGING INDIA PVT LTD

Bench: S.SUJATHA,VINEET KOTHARI

price under the proviso to Section 92C(2) of the Act, without considering the corrigendum dated 30-04-2010 to the circular 5/2010 issued by the Board in this regard? 6. Whether the Tribunal was correct in directing cross examination in the case of comparables where information was gathered in terms of provisions of section

THE NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO LTD vs. SMT GAYATHRI

Bench: H.S.KEMPANNA,K.L.MANJUNATH

price under the proviso to Section 92C(2) of the Act, without considering the corrigendum dated 30-04-2010 to the circular 5/2010 issued by the Board in this regard? 6. Whether the Tribunal was correct in directing cross examination in the case of comparables where information was gathered in terms of provisions of section

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S CONTINUOUS COMPUTING

Bench: S.SUJATHA,VINEET KOTHARI

price and the proviso to section 92C(2) of the Act, without considering the corrigendum dated 30.04.2010 to the circular No.5/2010 issued by the Board in this regard?” 4. Learned Counsel for the Appellants-Revenue does not press substantial question No.2. 5. Submission is taken on record. Regarding first substantial question of law:- 6. Learned counsel for the Appellants-Revenue