THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER vs. M/S OBULAPURAM MINING

Bench: K.SOMASHEKAR,UMESH M ADIGA

method of computation. On 10.12.2010, reply sent by the assessee to the Transfer Pricing Officer, stating that response filed to the penalty notice dated 04.02.2010 should be taken as a response to the show cause notice. On 23.01.2012 Section 92CA(2B) of the IT Act, the Transfer Pricing Officer, issued notice to the assessee proposing to treat the assessee

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

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR

TP)A No.16/Bang/2015. It is also pointed out that the aforesaid order was challenged by the revenue in ITA No.25/2017 and a Bench of this Court by a judgment dated 27.08.2018 passed in ITA No.25/2017 has dismissed the appeal preferred by the revenue. It is also submitted that the issue that the Transfer Pricing Officer can only determine the Arms

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

TP)A.No.626/Bang/2017 for the assessment year 2012- 13, raising the following substantial questions of law: “i) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal in law directing the Assessing Officer / Transfer pricing Officer to adopt Transaction Net Margin Method

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

TP)A No.163/BANG/2015 FOR A.Y.2010-11 VIDE ANNEXURE-A, & GRANT SUCH OTHER RELIEF AS DEEMED FIT, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE. THIS ITA COMING ON FOR HEARING, THIS DAY, ALOK ARADHE J., DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: JUDGMENT This appeal under Section 260-A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’, for short) has been filed

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

Bench: S.SUJATHA,VINEET KOTHARI

method adopted by the Transfer Pricing Officer including the taxpayers own case for the earlier years and in software industry profits related to fixed costs and not the turnover? 3. Whether the Tribunal was correct in holding that the assessee should be given an opportunity to cross examine all those parties Date of Judgment 09-07-2018 I.T.A.No.17/2012

PR COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-5 vs. M/S NOVELL SOFTWARE DEVELOPMENT (INDIA) PVT.LTD.

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

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,R. NATARAJ

TP)A No.1512/Bang/2010 dated 26.06.2015 even when assessing authority rightly held that payment for 3 purchase of software was in the nature of 'royalty' in terms of Explanation 2 to Section 9 (1)(vi) of the Act? (2) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is right in setting aside disallowance made under Section

PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-6 vs. M/S SANYO INDIA P LTD.,

Bench: S.SUJATHA,VINEET KOTHARI

TP)A.No.436/Bang/2015 for AY 2010-11. 2. The appellants - Revenue have suggested one substantial question of law which is quoted below for ready reference: - “Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is right in law in directing the Transfer Pricing Officer to adopt the resale price method

BOSCH AUTOMOTIVE ELECTRONICS INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER INCOME TAX

The appeal is allowed and the Tribunal's

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

TP) A No.1473/Bang/2024 on the file of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, 'B' Bench, Bengaluru [for short, "the Tribunal"]. The appellant has filed its appeal with the Tribunal calling in question the final assessment order dated 11.06.2024 relevant to the Assessment Year 2020-21. The appellant, while raising multiple grounds on the Transfer Pricing Adjustments and the Corporate Tax Adjustments

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S. TOYOTA KIRLOSKAR

Bench: S.SUJATHA,VINEET KOTHARI

TP method is suitable only for certain transactions. Under CUP method, higher degree of product similarity and similarity of products generally is required and it will have the greatest effect on the comparability. In addition, because even minor differences in contracted terms or economic conditions could Date of Judgment 2-8-2018, ITA No.119/2015 The Commissioner of Income Tax & another

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

Bench: S.SUJATHA,VINEET KOTHARI

TP)A No.1105/Bang/2012 (M/s.Kshema Technologies Ltd., vs. Asst.Commissioner of Income Tax) for A.Y.2005-06. 2. The proposed substantial questions of law framed in the Memorandum of appeal by 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. 3/11 Appellants-Revenue are quoted below for ready reference:- “1. Whether

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

The appeals are dismissed

Bench: B.V.NAGARATHNA,JAYANT PATEL

TP)A NO.1256/BANG/2011 DATED 05/04/13 AND CONFIRM THE ORDER OF THE APPELLATE COMMISSIONER CONFIRMING THE ORDER PASSED BY THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, LTU, BANGALORE. THESE APPEALS COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY, JAYANT PATEL J., DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: 4 JUDGMENT The appellants-Revenue have preferred the present appeals by raising the following substantial questions

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-III vs. WITTNESS SYSTEM

Bench: S.SUJATHA,VINEET KOTHARI

transfer Date of Judgment 11-07-2018, ITA No.347/2013 Commissioner Of Income Tax-III & another Vs. Wittness System Software India Private Ltd. 21/38 prices in relation to the transactions being compared." 19. A reading of the provisions of Rule 10B(2) of the Rules shows that uncontrolled transaction has to be compared with international transaction having regard to the factors

THE PR COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-1 vs. ROBERT BOSCH ENGINEERING AND BUSINESS SOLUTIONS PVT LTD

Appeal of the revenue is hereby dismissed

Bench: CHIEF JUSTICE,C M JOSHI

TP) A No.446 / Bang / 2020. 4. The Revenue has projected the following questions for consideration of this Court: "1. Whether the Tribunal was right in ignoring the fact pertaining to availability of segmental financials and wrongly determining the service revenue for the purpose of exclusion of the comparables universal print system ltd and BNR Udhyog Ltd? 2. Whether the Tribunal

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

Bench: S.SUJATHA,VINEET KOTHARI

TP)A No.1595 (Bang) 2012 for A.Y.2008-09. 2. The Assessee is aggrieved only by the directions of the learned Tribunal for remanding the case back to the TPO/AO for undertaking the Transfer Pricing Analysis with regard to Royalty payments made by the Assessee-Indian company to its Associated Enterprise M/s.Toyota Motors Corporation, Japan and other Date of Judgment

SREE AYYAPPA EDUCATIONAL CHARITABLE TRUST vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

Bench: VINEET KOTHARI

TP)A No.1432/Bang/2014 (Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax vs. M/s.Cegedim Software India Pvt. Ltd.,) for A.Y.2009-10. 2. This appeal has been admitted on 17.03.2016 to consider the following substantial questions of law framed by the learned counsel for the Appellants- Revenue:- Date of Judgment 23-07-2018 I.T.A.No.618/2015 The Commissioner of Income-tax & Anr. Vs. M/s. Cegedim Software India

THE PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S. CONTINU SERVE SOFTECH INDIA PVT. LTD.,

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

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

TP)A.No.242/Bang/2021 for the assessment year 2016-17. 3. This Court, admitted the appeal on 12.12.2023 to consider the following substantial questions of law: “1. Whether the Tribunal was right in law and in fact seeking exact comparability under Transaction Net Margin Method? 2. Whether the Tribunal was right in law to ignore the parameters of analysis prescribed under

THE PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S INGERSOLL RAND TECHNOLOGIES AND SERVICES PVT LTD.,

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

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

TP)A.No.2499/Bang/2019 for the assessment year 2015-16, raising the following substantial questions of law: 1. "Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal's order can be said as perverse in directing Transfer Pricing Officer (for short TPO) to determine the ALP of the international transactions pertaining to cost contribution charges by adopting