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

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:

3. The second respondent having contexted Section 244A(1A) of the Act has styled the operative portion of the impugned order as under: “In this case, the Hon’ble ITAT, Bengaluru has remitted back the issue of Transfer Pricing to the AO for fresh assessment/re-assessment as per Para No. 5 & 6 of the ITAT order. Further, fresh approval has been

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

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR

3) of the Act, can only determine the Arms Length Price of an international transaction, is no longer res integra and the same has already been adjudicated by the decisions of Delhi and Bombay High Courts respectively in 'CIT Vs. EKL APPLIANCES LTD.' and 'CIT Vs. LEVER INDIA EXPORTS LTD', supra. The aforesaid issue is no longer res integra

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

Section 92C of the Act on 11.01.2011. This court in W.P.No.45313/2011 by an order dated 08.12.2011 restrained the Transfer Pricing Officer from proceeding to pass a draft assessment order for a period upto 07.03.2012 i.e., approximately 3

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

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

Bench: S.SUJATHA,VINEET KOTHARI

Price when the proviso to Sub section 2 to Section 92C of the Act did not provide for such a deduction?”. 3. The learned Tribunal, after discussing the rival contentions of both the Appellants-Revenue and the Respondent-assessee, has given the following findings against Revenue with regard to various issues raised before it with regard to ‘Transfer

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

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-III vs. WITTNESS SYSTEM

Bench: S.SUJATHA,VINEET KOTHARI

3) of section 92D, the Assessing Officer may proceed to determine the arm's length price in relation to the said international transaction in accordance with sub-sections (1) and (2), on the basis of such material or information or document available with him: 18. Rule 10B of the IT Rules, 1962 prescribes rules for Determination of arm's length

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

Bench: S.SUJATHA,VINEET KOTHARI

3. The learned Tribunal, after discussing the rival contentions of both the Appellants-Revenue and the Date of Judgment 31-07-2018 I.T.A.No.529/2016 Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax-4 & Anr. Vs. M/s. Kshema Technologies Limited. 5/11 Respondent-assessee, has given the following findings against Revenue with regard to various issues raised before it with regard to ‘Transfer Pricing

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

Bench: S.SUJATHA,VINEET KOTHARI

3. The learned Tribunal, after discussing the rival contentions of both the appellants-Revenue and the Respondent-assessee, has returned the findings as under: Regarding substantial question of law No.1: “12. We have considered the submissions of both the parties and carefully gone through the material available on record. In the present case, the assessee has not disputed the adjustments

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. TNT INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED

Bench: S.SUJATHA,VINEET KOTHARI

3. The learned Tribunal, after discussing the rival contentions of both the Appellants-Revenue and the Respondent-assessee, has given the following findings against Revenue with regard to various issues raised before it with regard to ‘Transfer Pricing’ and ‘Transfer Pricing Adjustments’ made by the concerned authorities below. We consider it appropriate to quote the relevant portion of the order

THE PR.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S. BOSTIK INDIA PVT LTD

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

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

Transfer Pricing Officer ignoring that when TPO had rightly chose CUP method considering factual matrix of the case and parameters set out in Section 92C and Rules framed there under?" 3

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 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 IGATE GLOBAL SOLUTIONS LTD

The appeal stands dismissed

Bench: VINEET SARAN,MOHAN M. SHANTANAGOUDAR

Transfer Pricing adjustments made as a apart of profits and gains of the business contrary to Section 92C of the Act?” 3

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