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

7. On appeal, the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) reversed this decision, accepting that these payments constituted reimbursements for expenses incurred by the group companies and thus did not attract TDS obligations on the appellant. 8. However, the revenue, herein the respondent challenged this finding before the Tribunal, which partially upheld the assessing officer’s disallowance relating to sales promotion

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

disallowed and added to the total income of the assessee under Section 40(i)(a) of the Act. Aggrieved 5 by such order, the assessee preferred appeal before the CIT(A). Before the appellate authority, the assessee contended that the expenditure was made for purchase of soil from the third parties and the assessee entered into agreement to supply soil

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