M/S.R.S.RANGADAS vs. THE ASST.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

Appeals are disposed of, with no order as to costs

Bench: C.V. BHASKAR REDDY,UJJAL BHUYAN

Deduction under Section 54F in respect of purchase of House No.5, Golf Links, New Delhi for Rs.10.75 Crores was allowed and the balance amount of Rs.4,18,00,000/- was treated as long term capital gains. In other words, the Assessing Officer assumed the transfer price

THE PR COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/s. Value Labs

Bench: P.KESHAVA RAO,V RAMASUBRAMANIAN

deduction under section 10A of the Act was not available. ii) Whether the Tribunal erred in law and on facts in rejecting the comparables selected by the Assessee itself as a comparable in its own Transfer Pricing

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, VIJAYAWADA vs. M/S. PADMAVATHI MANSION (P) LTD., VIJAYAWADA

Bench: C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY,T.AMARNATH GOUD

deduction shall be allowed from the total turnover in same proportion as well”. 4. Regarding substantial question of law No.2 and 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

PR COMMR OF INCOME TAX-2, HYDERABAD vs. K RAVINDER REDDY, HYDERABAD

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,KONGARA VIJAYA LAKSHMI

price, and requesting them to place an order with the foreign headquarters were not auxiliary or preparatory in nature. The observations and findings of the High Court are eerily similar to the facts of this case: “Relying on these provisions, it is contended by the assessee that the liaison office was opened to act as a communication channel between

M\S.CHENNAKESAVA VIJAYAWADA vs. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX VIJAYAWAD

The Appeal is dismissed

Bench: GODA RAGHURAM,M.S.RAMACHANDRA RAO

price is not a transfer of chattel qua chattel, the contract is of work and labour. The Adjudicating authority also made a mention of the judgment of this Court in the case of All Gujarat Federation of Tax Consultants & Ors. vs. CBDT, reported in 214 ITR 276 wherein, the Gujarat High Court had followed the decision of the Bombay High

The Pr. Commissioner of Income-tax vs. D.L.V. Sridhar

Bench: D.V.S.S.SOMAYAJULU,RAMESH RANGANATHAN

Transfer Pricing Officer had not verified whether the expenditure claimed was correct. Recording the aforesaid findings, the Assessing Officer disallowed the entire claim of Rs.1,48,89,090/- under section 10A of the Act. 5. The aforesaid addition was deleted by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), who observed that the respondent-assessee was maintaining separate accounts for STPI

The Commissioner of Income Tax-IV vs. M/s Pokarna Limited

The appeals are dismissed

Bench: P.SAM KOSHY,NARSING RAO NANDIKONDA

deductions from the full value of the consideration for which the sale, exchange or transfer of the capital asset is made. In case of a sale, the full value of the consideration is - - 54 the full sale price

Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-3 vs. M/s Sri Indra Power Energies Limited

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

deduction under section 10A by relying up on the decision of this Hon’ble Court in the case of Tata Elxsi Ltd., to exclude the foreign travel both from the total turnover and the export turnover even when the same is not permissible in law and the decision relied upon by Tribunal has not reached finality? (2) Whether

The COmmissioner of Income Tax -IV vs. Nagarjuna Aqua Exports Ltd.,

Bench: CHALLA KODANDA RAM,C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY

Transfer Pricing Provisions? 5. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal has also erred in excluding comparable’s on the basis of RPT filter being less than 25% by following its earlier decision which has reached finality not even when the comparable’s are chosen as all the required tests are satisfied?” 3. Learned

Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-3, vs. M/s Novus GBS Private Limited,

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

transfer pricing on assessee specific FAR analysis? (3) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in relying on the decision of other Benches of Tribunal, ought to have decided the comparability of these companies on the basis of specific facts brought on record by the TPO in the case of the assessee

Commissioner of Income Tax (TDS), vs. M/s Country Club Inda Limited

transfer pricing adjustment in the hands of Nortel India. 61. Thus, in our view, the question whether the Assessee has a PE in India is not material as it is not possible to hold that any part of the income of the Assessee could be apportioned to operations carried on in India. 62. Having stated the above, for the sake

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX RAJAHMUNDRY vs. M/S.B.KRISHNA MURTHY KAKINADA AND 2 ORS

Bench: CHALLA KODANDA RAM,G.CHANDRAIAH

deductions in respect of the head office expenses as referred to in paragraph (3) of Article III of the Agreement shall in no case be less than what are allowable under the Indian Income-tax Act as on the date of entry into force of this Protocol. 5. It is understood that the taxation of royalty income as consists

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX RAJAHMUNDRY vs. M/S K.SRINIVASA RAO AND OTHERS

Bench: V.V.S.RAO,RAMESH RANGANATHAN

price of the capital asset transferred by party of first part to the party of the second part. The agreement under consideration is very different from the agreement in Devidas Vithaldas and Co. (supra) where the assignor had retained with him the right to share profit so long as the name of Devidas Vithaldas and Co. was used. The payment

Commissioner of Income Tax, vs. M/s.B.Venkateswarlu AND others,

Bench: V.V.S.RAO,RAMESH RANGANATHAN

price of the capital asset transferred by party of first part to the party of the second part. The agreement under consideration is very different from the agreement in Devidas Vithaldas and Co. (supra) where the assignor had retained with him the right to share profit so long as the name of Devidas Vithaldas and Co. was used. The payment

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S K.VENKATESWARA RAO

Bench: V.V.S.RAO,RAMESH RANGANATHAN

deduction under this section, the profits and gains of the industrial undertaking or the business of the hotel shall be computed as if the transfer, in either case, had been made at the market value of such goods as on that date: Provided that where, in the opinion of the Assessing] Officer, the computation of the profits and gains

INCOME TAX BANGALORE vs. SHALINI BHUPAL

Appeal is dismissed

deduction under this section, the profits and gains of the industrial undertaking or the business of the hotel or the operation of the ship [or the business of repairs to ocean-going vessels or other powered craft] shall be computed as if the transfer, in either case, had been made at the market value of such goods as on that

Commissioner of Income Tax - II, vs. M/s. The Andhra Pradesh State Co-op Bank Ltd.,

Appeal is disposed of

Bench: GODA RAGHURAM,M.S.RAMACHANDRA RAO

transferred to the trust at the face value and the employees of the assessee were allowed to exercise the option to buy the shares within the time prescribed under the scheme subject to terms and conditions mentioned therein. The assessee claimed the difference of market price and allotment price as a discount and claimed the same as an expenditure under

The Commissioner of Income TAx-IV, vs. M/s. Mahaveer Enterprises (India) Limited

The Appeal is dismissed

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

deduction of only one unit treating four brothers as a 'Body of Individuals' or 'Association of Persons' and no valid exception to the same could be taken. The appeal against that order also failed as time barred, as the same was filed belatedly after 2 years and 3 months as well as it was dismissed on merits relying on Full