M.Y.Maharshi vs. The Asst. Commissioner of Income-Tax

In the result, we do not find

Section 10A of the Act which requires the concerned expenses to be reduced from total turnover also? (2) Whether the Tribunal on the facts and in circumstances of the case was correct in setting aside the arms length price adjustment on account of interest on external commercial borrowings on the ground the rate of interest is not disputed

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

Bench: P.KESHAVA RAO,V RAMASUBRAMANIAN

Transfer Pricing Officer and/or Dispute Resolution Panel. v) Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in rejecting Tata Elxsi as comparable without examining its FAR Analysis. vi) Whether the Tribunal erred in law and on the fact in rejecting Thirdware Solutions as a comparable by relying upon the decisions of its coordinate benches, without

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

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

Section 10A of the IT Act are allowed only in Export Turnover but not from the Total Turnover then, it would give rise to inadvertent, unlawful, meaningless and illogical result which Date of Judgment 05-07-2018 I.T.A.No 700/2017. The Pr. Commissioner of Income-Tax, CIT (A) & Anr. Vs. M/s. Global E-Business Operations Pvt. Ltd., 6/15 would cause grave

Commissioner of Income Tax-3, vs. M/s State Bank of Hyderabad

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

4. The learned Tribunal, after discussing the rival contentions of both the Appellants-Revenue and Respondent-Assessee, has returned findings as under: Regarding substantial question of law No:1: “9. As far as the revenue’s appeal against the deletion of Vimta Labs Ltd., from the list of comparables is concerned, though the learned Departmental Representative has relied upon

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

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

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, on the facts

The Director of Income Tax, (Exemptions) vs. Exhibition Society

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

10A of the IT Act are allowed only in Export Turnover but not from the Total Turnover then, it would give rise to inadvertent, unlawful, meaningless and illogical result which would cause grave injustice to the Respondent which could have never been the intention of the legislature. 20. Even in common parlance, when the object of the formula

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

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

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

Section 10A provides for exclusion of such expenses from total turnover? 2. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is right in law in excluding certain comparable from list of comparable adopted by TPO on the ground of functional dissimilarity by following its earlier which has not reached finality even when said decisions have

Hyderabad Metropolitan Water Supply AND Sewerage Board vs. The Addl. Commissioner of Income Tax

10A of the IT Act are allowed only in Export Turnover but not from the Total Turnover then, it would give rise to inadvertent, unlawful, meaningless and illogical result which would cause grave injustice to the Respondent which could have never been the intention of the legislature. Date of Judgment 10-07-2018, ITA Nos.390-391/2013 Commissioner of Income

The Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax, 6 vs. Vijay Infotech Ventures

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

4. The relevant portion of the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of HCL Date of Judgment 21-08-2018, ITA No.615/2017 Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax-7 & Another Vs. M/s. Verifone India Technology Private Limited. 4/10 Technologies Ltd. (supra), is quoted below for ready reference:- “17. The similar nature of controversy, akin this case, arose

The Commissioner of Income Tax [Central] vs. Sri K S V Raja

4. The relevant portion of the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of HCL Technologies Ltd. (supra), is quoted below for ready reference:- “17. The similar nature of controversy, akin this case, arose before the Karnataka High Court in CIT v. Tata Elxsi Ltd. [2012] 204 Taxman 321/17/taxman.com 100/349 ITR 98. The issue before the Karnataka

Baldev Goverdhan, vs. The Income Tax officer

10A of the IT Act are allowed only Date of Judgment 11-07-2018 I.T.A.No 286/2013. The Commissioner of Income-Tax, CIT (A) & Anr. Vs. M/s. CSR India Pvt. Ltd., 6/11 in Export Turnover but not from the Total Turnover then, it would give rise to inadvertent, unlawful, meaningless and illogical result which would cause grave injustice to the Respondent

The commissioner of Income Tax IV vs. M/s Lanco Kondapalli Power (P) Ltd

10a Surekha Mahendra kumar Shah 10b Mahendrakumar Mafatlal Shah, both of Mumbai Indian Inhabitants, having present address at A/1003 Gokul Vrindavan, Shantilal Modi X Road No.2, Kandivali (West), Mumbai 400 067. 11a Atul Shakaralal Shah 11b Alpa Atul Shah, both adults, of Mumbai, Indian Inhabitants, having present address at B/104 Shanti Apartment No.1, Mathuradas Ext Road, Kandivali (West), Mumbai

M/s. Canara Securities Ltd vs. Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax

Bench: M.S.RAMACHANDRA RAO,T.AMARNATH GOUD

4 listed companies, 3 subsidiaries of one listed company and an unlisted company is bad in law since the Joint APLs merely represents the estate of PDB and thus, had no rights to seek appointment of Directors in companies in which PDB was not a "Member". Further, without prejudice, it is submitted that such appointment of Directors cannot be made