← All Phrases

“Section 192(1)”

Section References (mined)Section 192Section 192(1)57 judgments

The decision most relied on for Section 192(1) is 247 ITR 305 (Guj) CIT v. Nestle India Ltd. (140 ITR 832), cited in 172 judgments on BharatTax.

Leading authorities on Section 192(1)

247 ITR 305 (Guj) CIT v. Nestle India Ltd.
140 ITR 832 · 1983 · High Court
172
citing judgments

An employer is not in default under section 201 if they have made a bona fide estimate of employee income and deducted tax at source based on that estimate.

CIT vs. Nicholas Piramal India Ltd (2008) 299 ITR 0356 (BOMBAY); CIT v. Semiconductor Complex Ltd.
282 ITR 263 · 2006 · High Court
159
citing judgments

An employer making a bona fide estimate of taxable salary income is acting in accordance with established legal precedent.

CIT v. Stellar Investment Ltd.
192 ITR 287 · 1991 · High Court
146
citing judgments

Once the identity of the shareholders is established, no addition can be made in the hands of the assessee company under Section 68 for share capital or share application money, as it cannot be treated as undisclosed income.

CIT v. ITI Ltd.
313 ITR 1 · 2009 · Supreme Court
142
citing judgments

An employer is not statutorily obligated to collect evidence from employees regarding the actual utilization of amounts paid towards leave travel concession or conveyance allowance, unless specific requirements are mandated by law or a CBDT circular.

S.S.I Ltd. v. DCIT
293 ITR 146 · 2007 · Reported
63
citing judgments

The estimation of income for deducting tax at source under Section 192(1) of the Income-tax Act is valid when based on an honest and fair assessment by the assessee, a principle affirmed by the Supreme Court.

Science Corp. India (P) Ltd. v. DCIT
163 Taxmann.com 693 · Reported
56
citing judgments

An order dismissing all grounds of appeal based on a single issue, in violation of Section 250(6), is an unlawful adjudication and renders the order irregular, making it a fit case for remand.

Mineral Development Corporation Ltd. v. ITAT
314 ITR 14 · High Court
55
citing judgments

An appellate authority cannot travel beyond the provisions of law when adjudicating matters, as doing so is barred by jurisdiction and renders the action otiose.

DIT v. Abbey Business Services Private Limited
122 Taxmann.com 174 · 2020 · High Court
46
citing judgments

Expenses incurred and reimbursed for seconded employees under a secondment agreement are not liable to tax deduction at source and do not constitute 'fees for technical services'. The secondment agreement itself forms an independent arrangement for securing services.

Judgments citing Section 192(1)

State Bank of India Lake Town Branch, Kolkata vs. Income Tax Officer TDS Circle 3(1), Kolkata

In the result, appeal of the assessee isallowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1146/KOL/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata09 Oct 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Manish Borad, Accountant Member Shri Sonjoy Sarma (Accountant Member)

Section 10(5)Section 192(1)Section 201Section 201(1)Section 250

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “B” BENCH KOLKATA Shri Manish Borad, Accountant Member Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Accountant Member I.T.A

State Bank of India, Udupi vs. Income Tax Officer, TDS, Mangalore

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are dismissed

ITA 985/BANG/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore01 Jul 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year: 2016-17

For Appellant: Sri Raghavendra Chakraborthy R., A.RFor Respondent: Sri Tamil Selvan S., D.R
Section 201Section 201(1)

Delhi-Madurai- Columbo-Kuala LampurSingapore-Columbo-Delhi and his claim was fully reimbursed by the appellant and no tax was deducted under Section 192(1) for the same. 4. The appellant on the other hand through its counsel senior advocate Shri K.V. Vishwanathan, would argue that though the travel made ... provisions of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short ‘the Act’) and the Income Tax Rules, 1962 framed therein. Let us first take Section 192(1) of the Act which casts a statutory duty on the employer to deduct Tax at source from the salary of its employee: “192(1

State Bank of India, Mangalore vs. Income Tax Officer, TDS, Mangalore

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are dismissed

ITA 984/BANG/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore01 Jul 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year: 2016-17

For Appellant: Sri Raghavendra Chakraborthy R., A.RFor Respondent: Sri Tamil Selvan S., D.R
Section 201Section 201(1)

Delhi-Madurai- Columbo-Kuala LampurSingapore-Columbo-Delhi and his claim was fully reimbursed by the appellant and no tax was deducted under Section 192(1) for the same. 4. The appellant on the other hand through its counsel senior advocate Shri K.V. Vishwanathan, would argue that though the travel made ... provisions of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short ‘the Act’) and the Income Tax Rules, 1962 framed therein. Let us first take Section 192(1) of the Act which casts a statutory duty on the employer to deduct Tax at source from the salary of its employee: “192(1

State Bank of India, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, TDS, Circle-3(1), Bangalore

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are dismissed

ITA 983/BANG/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore01 Jul 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year: 2016-17

For Appellant: Sri Raghavendra Chakraborthy R., A.RFor Respondent: Sri Tamil Selvan S., D.R
Section 201Section 201(1)

Delhi-Madurai- Columbo-Kuala LampurSingapore-Columbo-Delhi and his claim was fully reimbursed by the appellant and no tax was deducted under Section 192(1) for the same. 4. The appellant on the other hand through its counsel senior advocate Shri K.V. Vishwanathan, would argue that though the travel made ... provisions of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short ‘the Act’) and the Income Tax Rules, 1962 framed therein. Let us first take Section 192(1) of the Act which casts a statutory duty on the employer to deduct Tax at source from the salary of its employee: “192(1

State Bank of India, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax ( TDS), Circle-3(1), Bangalore

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are dismissed

ITA 317/BANG/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore28 Jun 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessment Year : 2016-17

For Appellant: Shri Raghavendra Chakravarthy, CAFor Respondent: Shri Subramanian S., Jt.CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 10(5)Section 133ASection 192Section 192(1)Section 201Section 201(1)

order was passed raising demand u/s. 201(1) & 201(1A) of the Act for default in deducting tax as per the provisions of section 192(1) of the Act. It was noticed that SBI has filed appeal before various appellate fora and appeals have traversed upto Supreme Cout ... travels. ……….. the assessee employer therefore ought to have applied his mind and deducted tax at source as it was his statutory duty, under section 192(1) of the Act. (para 16) 3. From the above judgment, the AO noticed that the Hon’ble Supreme Court upheld the order of Assessing

Prashanth Baburao Kulkarni, Bengaluru vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-2, Gulbarga

In the result, the appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 321/BANG/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore30 May 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahuassessment Year : 2015-16

For Appellant: Shri Shreehari Kutsa, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Ganesh R. Ghale, Standing Counsel
Section 119(2)(b)Section 139(1)Section 192(1)Section 90

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “C” BENCH : BANGALORE BEFORE SMT. BEENA PILLAI, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI LAXMI PRASAD SAHU

Gloster Ltd(Formerly Known As Kettlewell Bullen & Co. Ltd, Kolkata vs. PCIT-2, Kolkata

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 519/KOL/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata05 Apr 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2018-19

For Appellant: Shri Soumen Adak, FCAFor Respondent: Shri Abhijit Kundu, CIT
Section 115JSection 143Section 143(3)Section 194JSection 263Section 40Section 74

Agnipath Scheme referred to in section 80CCH.” (emphasis supplied by us by underline) 4.2. Ld. Counsel also referred to relevant extract of section 192(1) which specifically mentions that the tax is to be deducted on the income chargeable under the head salaries on the basis of rules in force ... financial year in which the payment is made. Section 192(1) is extracted as under: “192. Salary.—(1) Any person responsible for paying any income chargeable under the head “Salaries” shall, at the time of payment, deduct income-tax1 *** on the amount payable at the average rate of income-tax2

State Bank of India, Main Branch, Delhi vs. ACIT, Circle-77(1), Delhi

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are dismissed

ITA 2513/DEL/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 Feb 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Sh. Kul Bharatdr. B. R. R. Kumar

For Appellant: Sh. Vivek Gupta, CAFor Respondent: Ms. Dipti Kandola, Sr. DR
Section 10(5)Section 201Section 201(1)

Delhi-Madurai- Columbo-Kuala Lampur-Singapore-Columbo-Delhi and his claim was fully reimbursed by the appellant and no tax was deducted under Section 192(1) for the same. 4. The appellant on the other hand through its counsel senior advocate Shri K.V. Vishwanathan, would argue that though the travel ... provisions of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short ‘the Act’) and the Income Tax Rules, 1962 framed therein. Let us first take Section 192(1) of the Act which casts a statutory duty on the employer to deduct Tax at source from the salary of its employee: “192(1

State Bank of India, New Delhi vs. ACIT, Circle-77(1), New Delhi

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are dismissed

ITA 2512/DEL/2022[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 Feb 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Sh. Kul Bharatdr. B. R. R. Kumar

For Appellant: Sh. Vivek Gupta, CAFor Respondent: Ms. Dipti Kandola, Sr. DR
Section 10(5)Section 201Section 201(1)

Delhi-Madurai- Columbo-Kuala Lampur-Singapore-Columbo-Delhi and his claim was fully reimbursed by the appellant and no tax was deducted under Section 192(1) for the same. 4. The appellant on the other hand through its counsel senior advocate Shri K.V. Vishwanathan, would argue that though the travel ... provisions of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short ‘the Act’) and the Income Tax Rules, 1962 framed therein. Let us first take Section 192(1) of the Act which casts a statutory duty on the employer to deduct Tax at source from the salary of its employee: “192(1

State Bank of India, New Delhi vs. ACIT, Circle-77(1), New Delhi

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are dismissed

ITA 2511/DEL/2022[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 Feb 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Sh. Kul Bharatdr. B. R. R. Kumar

For Appellant: Sh. Vivek Gupta, CAFor Respondent: Ms. Dipti Kandola, Sr. DR
Section 10(5)Section 201Section 201(1)

Delhi-Madurai- Columbo-Kuala Lampur-Singapore-Columbo-Delhi and his claim was fully reimbursed by the appellant and no tax was deducted under Section 192(1) for the same. 4. The appellant on the other hand through its counsel senior advocate Shri K.V. Vishwanathan, would argue that though the travel ... provisions of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short ‘the Act’) and the Income Tax Rules, 1962 framed therein. Let us first take Section 192(1) of the Act which casts a statutory duty on the employer to deduct Tax at source from the salary of its employee: “192(1

State Bank of India, New Delhi vs. ACIT, Circle 77(1), New Delhi

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are dismissed

ITA 2510/DEL/2022[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 Feb 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Sh. Kul Bharatdr. B. R. R. Kumar

For Appellant: Sh. Vivek Gupta, CAFor Respondent: Ms. Dipti Kandola, Sr. DR
Section 10(5)Section 201Section 201(1)

Delhi-Madurai- Columbo-Kuala Lampur-Singapore-Columbo-Delhi and his claim was fully reimbursed by the appellant and no tax was deducted under Section 192(1) for the same. 4. The appellant on the other hand through its counsel senior advocate Shri K.V. Vishwanathan, would argue that though the travel ... provisions of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short ‘the Act’) and the Income Tax Rules, 1962 framed therein. Let us first take Section 192(1) of the Act which casts a statutory duty on the employer to deduct Tax at source from the salary of its employee: “192(1

State Bank of India, New Delhi vs. ACIT, Circle-77(1), New Delhi

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are dismissed

ITA 2509/DEL/2022[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 Feb 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Sh. Kul Bharatdr. B. R. R. Kumar

For Appellant: Sh. Vivek Gupta, CAFor Respondent: Ms. Dipti Kandola, Sr. DR
Section 10(5)Section 201Section 201(1)

Delhi-Madurai- Columbo-Kuala Lampur-Singapore-Columbo-Delhi and his claim was fully reimbursed by the appellant and no tax was deducted under Section 192(1) for the same. 4. The appellant on the other hand through its counsel senior advocate Shri K.V. Vishwanathan, would argue that though the travel ... provisions of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short ‘the Act’) and the Income Tax Rules, 1962 framed therein. Let us first take Section 192(1) of the Act which casts a statutory duty on the employer to deduct Tax at source from the salary of its employee: “192(1

State Bank of India, New Delhi vs. ACIT, Circle-77(1), New Delhi

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are dismissed

ITA 2508/DEL/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 Feb 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Sh. Kul Bharatdr. B. R. R. Kumar

For Appellant: Sh. Vivek Gupta, CAFor Respondent: Ms. Dipti Kandola, Sr. DR
Section 10(5)Section 201Section 201(1)

Delhi-Madurai- Columbo-Kuala Lampur-Singapore-Columbo-Delhi and his claim was fully reimbursed by the appellant and no tax was deducted under Section 192(1) for the same. 4. The appellant on the other hand through its counsel senior advocate Shri K.V. Vishwanathan, would argue that though the travel ... provisions of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short ‘the Act’) and the Income Tax Rules, 1962 framed therein. Let us first take Section 192(1) of the Act which casts a statutory duty on the employer to deduct Tax at source from the salary of its employee: “192(1

State Bank of India, New Delhi` vs. ACIT, Circle-77(1), New Delhi

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are dismissed

ITA 2507/DEL/2022[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 Feb 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Sh. Kul Bharatdr. B. R. R. Kumar

For Appellant: Sh. Vivek Gupta, CAFor Respondent: Ms. Dipti Kandola, Sr. DR
Section 10(5)Section 201Section 201(1)

Delhi-Madurai- Columbo-Kuala Lampur-Singapore-Columbo-Delhi and his claim was fully reimbursed by the appellant and no tax was deducted under Section 192(1) for the same. 4. The appellant on the other hand through its counsel senior advocate Shri K.V. Vishwanathan, would argue that though the travel ... provisions of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short ‘the Act’) and the Income Tax Rules, 1962 framed therein. Let us first take Section 192(1) of the Act which casts a statutory duty on the employer to deduct Tax at source from the salary of its employee: “192(1

State Bank of India, New Delhi vs. ACIT, Circle-77(1), New Delhi

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are dismissed

ITA 2506/DEL/2022[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 Feb 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Sh. Kul Bharatdr. B. R. R. Kumar

For Appellant: Sh. Vivek Gupta, CAFor Respondent: Ms. Dipti Kandola, Sr. DR
Section 10(5)Section 201Section 201(1)

Delhi-Madurai- Columbo-Kuala Lampur-Singapore-Columbo-Delhi and his claim was fully reimbursed by the appellant and no tax was deducted under Section 192(1) for the same. 4. The appellant on the other hand through its counsel senior advocate Shri K.V. Vishwanathan, would argue that though the travel ... provisions of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short ‘the Act’) and the Income Tax Rules, 1962 framed therein. Let us first take Section 192(1) of the Act which casts a statutory duty on the employer to deduct Tax at source from the salary of its employee: “192(1

State Bank of India, New Delhi vs. ACIT, Circle-77(1), New Delhi

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are dismissed

ITA 2505/DEL/2022[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 Feb 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Sh. Kul Bharatdr. B. R. R. Kumar

For Appellant: Sh. Vivek Gupta, CAFor Respondent: Ms. Dipti Kandola, Sr. DR
Section 10(5)Section 201Section 201(1)

Delhi-Madurai- Columbo-Kuala Lampur-Singapore-Columbo-Delhi and his claim was fully reimbursed by the appellant and no tax was deducted under Section 192(1) for the same. 4. The appellant on the other hand through its counsel senior advocate Shri K.V. Vishwanathan, would argue that though the travel ... provisions of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short ‘the Act’) and the Income Tax Rules, 1962 framed therein. Let us first take Section 192(1) of the Act which casts a statutory duty on the employer to deduct Tax at source from the salary of its employee: “192(1

State Bank of India Office Administration Department Local Head Office, Delhi vs. ACIT, Circle-77(1), Delhi

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are dismissed

ITA 2504/DEL/2022[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 Feb 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Sh. Kul Bharatdr. B. R. R. Kumar

For Appellant: Sh. Vivek Gupta, CAFor Respondent: Ms. Dipti Kandola, Sr. DR
Section 10(5)Section 201Section 201(1)

Delhi-Madurai- Columbo-Kuala Lampur-Singapore-Columbo-Delhi and his claim was fully reimbursed by the appellant and no tax was deducted under Section 192(1) for the same. 4. The appellant on the other hand through its counsel senior advocate Shri K.V. Vishwanathan, would argue that though the travel ... provisions of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short ‘the Act’) and the Income Tax Rules, 1962 framed therein. Let us first take Section 192(1) of the Act which casts a statutory duty on the employer to deduct Tax at source from the salary of its employee: “192(1

State Bank of India, New Delhi vs. ACIT, Circle 77(1), New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue and the appeals of the

ITA 2318/DEL/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi25 Jan 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu, Vice- & Shri Challa Nagendra Prasadassessment Year: 2013-14 Assistant Cit, Vs. State Bank Of India, Circle 77(1), Officer Administrative Deptt. Delhi Local Head Office,Ii, Sansad Mar, New Delhi-1100

Section 201Section 201(1)

Delhi-Madurai- Columbo-Kuala Lampur-Singapore-Columbo-Delhi and his claim was fully reimbursed by the appellant and no tax was deducted under Section 192(1) for the same. 4. The appellant on the other hand through its counsel senior advocate Shri K.V. Vishwanathan, would argue that though the travel ... provisions of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short ‘the Act’) and the Income Tax Rules, 1962 framed therein. Let us first take Section 192(1) of the Act which casts a statutory duty on the employer to deduct Tax at source from the salary of its employee “192(1

State Bank of India, New Delhi vs. ACIT, Circle 77(1), New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue and the appeals of the

ITA 2317/DEL/2022[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi25 Jan 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu, Vice- & Shri Challa Nagendra Prasadassessment Year: 2013-14 Assistant Cit, Vs. State Bank Of India, Circle 77(1), Officer Administrative Deptt. Delhi Local Head Office,Ii, Sansad Mar, New Delhi-1100

Section 201Section 201(1)

Delhi-Madurai- Columbo-Kuala Lampur-Singapore-Columbo-Delhi and his claim was fully reimbursed by the appellant and no tax was deducted under Section 192(1) for the same. 4. The appellant on the other hand through its counsel senior advocate Shri K.V. Vishwanathan, would argue that though the travel ... provisions of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short ‘the Act’) and the Income Tax Rules, 1962 framed therein. Let us first take Section 192(1) of the Act which casts a statutory duty on the employer to deduct Tax at source from the salary of its employee “192(1

State Bank of India, New Delhi vs. ACIT, Circle -77(1), Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue and the appeals of the

ITA 2316/DEL/2022[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi25 Jan 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu, Vice- & Shri Challa Nagendra Prasadassessment Year: 2013-14 Assistant Cit, Vs. State Bank Of India, Circle 77(1), Officer Administrative Deptt. Delhi Local Head Office,Ii, Sansad Mar, New Delhi-1100

Section 201Section 201(1)

Delhi-Madurai- Columbo-Kuala Lampur-Singapore-Columbo-Delhi and his claim was fully reimbursed by the appellant and no tax was deducted under Section 192(1) for the same. 4. The appellant on the other hand through its counsel senior advocate Shri K.V. Vishwanathan, would argue that though the travel ... provisions of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short ‘the Act’) and the Income Tax Rules, 1962 framed therein. Let us first take Section 192(1) of the Act which casts a statutory duty on the employer to deduct Tax at source from the salary of its employee “192(1