M/S SRI BALAJI CORPORATE SERVICES vs. UNION OF INDIA MINISTRY OF FINANCE

Bench: The Hon'Ble Mr.Justice S.R.Krishna Kumar

Price Advisory Committee which has been approved by the Board in its 356th meeting held on 20.09.2018, that the compensation shall be awarded at Rs.50 Lakhs per acre on consent and if the land owners are not agreeable for such consent awards, the award shall be made in accordance with law. The Board has filed objections to the said application

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

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:

transfer pricing adjustment actually was not determinative of the refund inasmuch as the tax 8 amount was paid based on book profit, as provided u/s 115JB; the entitlement of the assessee for interest u/s 244A(1A) is intended to bring parity in the converse situation where the Revenue levies interest on delayed payment of taxes as provided u/s 234B

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

M/S WIPRO LIMITED vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

The appeals stand disposed of, accordingly

Bench: N.KUMAR,B.SREENIVASE GOWDA

Section 145A of the Income- tax Act which was inserted with effect from assessment year 1999-2000. The said provision states that the valuation of stock should include the amount of any tax duty, cess or fee - 94 - actually paid or incurred to bring the goods to its present location and condition. The Department has followed a consistent stand

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S WIPRO LTD

The appeals stand disposed of, accordingly

Bench: N.KUMAR,B.SREENIVASE GOWDA

Section 145A of the Income- tax Act which was inserted with effect from assessment year 1999-2000. The said provision states that the valuation of stock should include the amount of any tax duty, cess or fee - 94 - actually paid or incurred to bring the goods to its present location and condition. The Department has followed a consistent stand

SATISH KUMAR PANDEY vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

Appeals are allowed

Bench: P.S.DINESH KUMAR,T.G. SHIVASHANKARE GOWDA

96,000 shares of the said Company, each assessee owned 34,800 shares. They entered into an Agreement with KPMG2 and Khaitan & Co. Advocates in connection with transfer of the aforesaid shares to M/s MAN Diesel & Turbo SE, a Company incorporated in Germany for a consideration of Rs. 58 Crores. 4. The AO3 noted that the selling expenses

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

Bench: B M SHYAM PRASAD,T.M.NADAF

96 ELECTRONIC CITY BENGALURU -560100. …RESPONDENT Digitally signed by VANAMALA N Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:48752-DB ITA No. 455 of 2022 (BY SRI. NAGESWAR RAO D D.,ADVOCATE) THIS INCOME TAX APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SEC.260-A OF INCOME TAX ACT 1961, ARISING OUT OF ORDER DATED 11/03/2022 PASSED IN M.P.NO. 136/BANG/2021

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

price! work of the respondent or riioz’e it out during the period the machinery was in his use: the condition that 11 me contractor i could be respom isible tor the (‘ustodq of the machinery mehile it was on (lie site did not militate aqatnst respondents possession and ontrol of th rnachmenj ReIiar 1 R ciiu

M/S PATEL MARIGOWDA AND BROS., vs. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

The appeal is dismissed

Bench: B.MANOHAR,K.SREEDHAR RAO

transfer, section 45(4) can apply to levy capital gains on such distribution? Without prejudice whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the appellate Tribunal was justified in holding that the provisions of section 45(4) are applicable to the assessee firm for the assessment year 96- 97? Whether on the facts and in the circumstances

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. ING VYSYA BANK LTD

In the result, this appeal is allowed in part,

Bench: B.MANOHAR,D.V.SHYLENDRA KUMAR

96,71,030/- and the balance claim of Rs.5,24,74,740/- had been correctly disallowed as the requirement of Section 36(1)(vii) and 36(1)(vii-a) had not been complied with by the assessee. (4) Whether the Tribunal was correct in holding that the Assessing Officer had correctly disallowed the claim made by the assessee regarding entertainment

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME vs. M/S VENDIO TECHNOLOGIES

Bench: S.SUJATHA,VINEET KOTHARI

SECTION 260-A OF INCOME TAX ACT 1961, ARISING OUT OF ORDER DATED 19.09.2014 PASSED IN IT[TP]A NO.1374/BANG/2011 AND C.O.NO.58/B/2012, FOR THE Date of Judgment 26-06-2018, ITA Nos.152-153/2015 The Commissioner of Income Tax & another Vs. M/s. Vendio Technologies [India] Pvt. Ltd. 2/20 ASSESSMENT YEAR 2005-2006 PRAYING TO I. DECIDE THE FOREGOING QUESTION

THE PR COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S GLOBAL E-BUSINESS

Bench: S.SUJATHA,VINEET KOTHARI

transfer pricing study depends on assessee specific FAR analysis? 4. Whether, on the facts and in circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is right in law in concluding that M/s. Maple E-Solutions Ltd., is not comparable to the assessee overlooking the fact that the company is selected Date of Judgment 31-08-2018, ITA No.117/2018 The Pr. Commissioner

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S A S KUPPARAJU BROTHERS

Appeal is dismissed

Bench: K.RAMANNA,DEEPAK VERMA

Section 96 of CPC against the judgment and decree dated 04-01-2006 passed in OS No.3457/1992 on the file of the XVII Additional City Civil Judge, Bangalore City, CCH-16, partly decreeing the suit for specific performance. This RFA coming on for hearing this day, N. KUMAR J., delivered the following

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