DEYS MEDICAL (U.P.) PRIVATE LIMITED vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL 2 KOLKATA

Bench: HON'BLE JUSTICE RAJARSHI BHARADWAJ,HON'BLE JUSTICE UDAY KUMAR

3,35,07,509, which falls under the ambit of Section 194C or other applicable provisions of the said Act. It is submitted that these payments cannot be treated as mere reimbursements because they were calculated as percentages of the appellant’s turnover without an exact or direct correlation to the actual expenses incurred by the payee companies

PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL-2, KOLKATA vs. M/S.CHANDIMATA MANAGEMENT PVT LTD

The appeal is allowed

Bench: : The Hon’Ble Justice T.S. Sivagnanam

disallowance under Section 40(a)(ia). The CIT was of the view that as per the provisions of Section 40(a)(ia) any amount payable to a contractor or sub-contractor for carrying out any work on which tax is deductible at source under Chapter XVIIIB 3 and if such tax is not being deducted during the previous year

PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL 1, KOLKATA vs. EMC LTD

Bench: HON'BLE JUSTICE T. S. SIVAGNANAM,HON'BLE JUSTICE BIVAS PATTANAYAK

Section 194C of the Act when the said provision has nothing to do with the accrual of income in the hands of the recipients when the assessee under the law was not entitled to claim payment until fulfilment of the terms of contract and expiry of the period for which the retention money was withheld and, as such, under

SRI SUBHASH CHAND JAIN vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, XV, KOLKATA

Bench: HON'BLE JUSTICE T. S. SIVAGNANAM,HON'BLE JUSTICE HIRANMAY BHATTACHARYYA

194C of the Income Tax Act, 1961 were applicable are perverse ? (iii) Whether and in any event, on a true and proper interpretation of the provisions of Section 49(a)(ia) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 as in force for the assessment year 2005-06, the said section was applicable only in respect of amounts remaining payable