Click Here For Best Books On Taxation & Law. Upto 60% Off On Select Titles. Free Shipping & Pay On Delivery!
 

Click Here To Subscribe To Our Free Newsletter

This section is now closed. Click here for new judgements

Home › All Judgements › Aztec Software vs. ACIT (Karnataka High Court)

Aztec Software vs. ACIT (Karnataka High Court)

Posted on by editor
COURT:
CORAM:
SECTION(S):
GENRE:
CATCH WORDS:
COUNSEL:
DATE: (Date of pronouncement)
DATE: April 8, 2009 (Date of publication)
AY:
FILE:
CITATION:

Click here to download the judgement (aztec_software_high_court_stay.pdf)

High Court stays 5 Member Special Bench judgement on transfer pricing

In admitting the appeal filed under section 260A against the judgement of the 5 Member Special Bench of the Tribunal in Aztec Software vs. ACIT 294 ITR (AT) 32 / 107 ITD 41, the High Court has granted stay of “the operation and all further proceedings” of the said judgement until further orders.

Note: The judgement of the Special Bench deals with various Transfer Pricing issues. No reasons are given in the High Court’s order on why stay was granted.

See Also: Transfer Pricing: A definitive Guide.

Related Judgements

  1. CIT vs. Saumya Leasing (Bombay High Court) 

    Deduction under section 80M can be claimed even in respect of the interim dividend declared for the succeeding financial year before the due date.
  2. Comed Laboratories vs. UOI (Gujarat High Court) 

    Writ petitions were filed challenging the constitutional validity of the provisions of Section 245HA of the Income Tax Act, 1961 under which the petitioners’ applications before the Settlement Commission are to be treated as having abated on account of failure of the Settlement Commission to pass orders under Section…
  3. Dabur India Ltd vs. CIT (Delhi High Court) 

    While computing normal profits which do not involve Ch VI-A relief, an assessee is entitled not to claim depreciation. However, where deduction under Ch VI-A is claimed depreciation is mandatory. Read more ›
  4. CIT vs. Rampur Engineering (Delhi High Court – Full Bench) 

    The judgement of the Division Bench in CIT v. Ram Commercial Enterprises Ltd. (2000) 246 ITR 568 (Delhi) holding that penalty under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act cannot be levied where the authority initiating the penalty proceedings had not recorded its satisfaction regarding concealment of…
  5. Mayawati vs. CIT (Delhi High Court) 

    S. 149, which imposes the limitation period, requires the notice to be “issued” but not “served” within the limitation period. Once a notice is issued within the period of limitation, jurisdiction becomes vested in the AO to proceed to reassess. Service is not a condition precedent to conferment of…
0 comments on “Aztec Software vs. ACIT (Karnataka High Court)”
1 Pings/Trackbacks for "Aztec Software vs. ACIT (Karnataka High Court)"
  1. Transfer Pricing – A definitive guide | Articles says:
    April 8, 2009 at 1:35 pm

    […] Note: The “operation and all further proceedings” of the said judgement has been stayed by the Kar…. […]