Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 7 of 7 (0.36 seconds)

M/S. New Delhi Television Ltd., New ... vs Dcit, New Delhi on 14 July, 2017

It is important to note that the Assessing Officer has neither disallowed the loss of the domestic transaction while completing the assessment nor has he disturbed the cost / expense debited in the domestic transaction. Hence, the approach of the Ld. TPO is fallacious and arbitrary, 15.4. The Appellant relies on the order of the Hon'ble ITAT in the case of Aramex India (P.) Ltd. Vs DCIT ([2018] 94 taxmann.com 488 (Mumbai - Trib.)) wherein the Hon'ble Tribunal Quote
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Delhi Cites 278 - Cited by 381 - Full Document

Dcit, Bangalore vs M/S Lg Soft India Pvt. Ltd.,, Bangalore on 5 August, 2020

 DIC India Limited vs Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax (I.T.A. No. 2558/Kol/2017)(refer page 13-34 of the Case Law Compilation)  Asst.CIT vs Netguru Ltd. (ITA No. 1799/Kol/2018)(refer page 35- 52 of the Case Law Compilation)  Birla Soft (India) Limited Vs. DCIT [(2011) 44 SOT 664 (Delhi)](refer page 53-69 of the Case Law Compilation)  Aramex India (P.)
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Bangalore Cites 9 - Cited by 13 - Full Document

Gvk Inds. Ltd & Anr vs The Income Tax Officer & Anr on 1 March, 2011

Ltd. vs. ITO (143 ITD 59) (Hyd)(refer page 90-110 of the Case Law Compilation)  DCIT v. M/s. Parled Technologies Ltd. (formerly Four Soft Ltd.), 2017 (11) TMI 1832(refer page 111-119 of the Case Law Compilation) 15.14. Thus, rejection of segmental financial information which has been specifically drawn for determination of arm's length price merely because it has not been audited is not tenable when in fact there is not statutory requirement to conduct audit of segmentals.
Supreme Court of India Cites 25 - Cited by 855 - Full Document
1