U.P. State Industrial Development Corpn. Ltd. v. ITO

81 ITD 173Income Tax Appellate Tribunal2002#21422 most cited
4

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 357,294 Indian tax judgments — from 2016 to 2017.

Judgments citing U.P. State Industrial Development Corpn. Ltd. v. ITO

Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax, Bangalore vs. Commissioner for Collegiate Education, Bangalore

In the result, the appeals filed by the revenue are dismissed

ITA 2291/BANG/2016[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore27 Sept 2017AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Inturi Rama Rao

For Appellant: Shri S.Nambirajan, Addl.CIT(DR)For Respondent: Shri Sreehari Kutsa, CA
Section 194CSection 194JSection 201(1)

…n for payment on actual basis in the nature of re- imbursement. I concur with the argument of Ld. AR that the issue is squarely covered by the Hon'ble ITAT- Lucknow Bench decision in the case of U.P. State Industrial Development Corpn. Ltd. v. ITO reported in 81 ITD 173. The payees in the present case are not contractors within the meaning of section 194C of the Income Tax Act. The entire payment made by the appellant to KHB and Rites are not in the nature of income of the payees, and such entire amounts could not be said to be liable for deduction of tax u/s 194C. In fact, the payment to the extent of remunerati…

Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax, Bangalore vs. Commissioner for Collegiate Education, Bangalore

In the result, the appeals filed by the revenue are dismissed

ITA 2290/BANG/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore27 Sept 2017AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Inturi Rama Rao

For Appellant: Shri S.Nambirajan, Addl.CIT(DR)For Respondent: Shri Sreehari Kutsa, CA
Section 194CSection 194JSection 201(1)

…n for payment on actual basis in the nature of re- imbursement. I concur with the argument of Ld. AR that the issue is squarely covered by the Hon'ble ITAT- Lucknow Bench decision in the case of U.P. State Industrial Development Corpn. Ltd. v. ITO reported in 81 ITD 173. The payees in the present case are not contractors within the meaning of section 194C of the Income Tax Act. The entire payment made by the appellant to KHB and Rites are not in the nature of income of the payees, and such entire amounts could not be said to be liable for deduction of tax u/s 194C. In fact, the payment to the extent of remunerati…

Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax, Bangalore vs. Commissioner for Collegiate Education, Bangalore

In the result, the appeals filed by the revenue are dismissed

ITA 2289/BANG/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore27 Sept 2017AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Inturi Rama Rao

For Appellant: Shri S.Nambirajan, Addl.CIT(DR)For Respondent: Shri Sreehari Kutsa, CA
Section 194CSection 194JSection 201(1)

…n for payment on actual basis in the nature of re- imbursement. I concur with the argument of Ld. AR that the issue is squarely covered by the Hon'ble ITAT- Lucknow Bench decision in the case of U.P. State Industrial Development Corpn. Ltd. v. ITO reported in 81 ITD 173. The payees in the present case are not contractors within the meaning of section 194C of the Income Tax Act. The entire payment made by the appellant to KHB and Rites are not in the nature of income of the payees, and such entire amounts could not be said to be liable for deduction of tax u/s 194C. In fact, the payment to the extent of remunerati…

Asst.C.I.T., Bangalore vs. Director of Technical Education, Bangalore

In the result, the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 1124/BANG/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore20 May 2016AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Inturi Rama Rao

For Appellant: Dr. P.K. Srihari, Addl. CIT(DR)For Respondent: Shri Shreehari Kutsa, CA
Section 194CSection 194JSection 201Section 201(1)

…he AO to work out the remuneration component in the impugned payments and work out tax deductible u/s 194J. 9. The Ld CI-T(A) has erred facts in placing reliance on the decision in the case of M/s U.P. State Industrial Development Corporation Ltd v ITO [2002] 81 ITD 173 (Lucknow) and allowing relief. ITA Nos.1124 to 1127/Bang/2015 Page 3 of 7 10. The Ld CIT(A) has erred in holding that the benefit under proviso to section 201(1) is available on production of declaration in 26A, though no tax is remitted by the payee M/s KHB in its income tax return. 11. The Ld CIT(A) has erred in holding that the benefit under…

U.P. State Industrial Development Corpn. Ltd. v. ITO (81 ITD 173) — Cited in 4 Judgments | BharatTax