COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, vs. M/S CANARA HOUSING DEVELOPMENT CO.,

Bench: B.MANOHAR,VINEET SARAN

deposited by AI with the assessee firm, such repayment would not attract the provisions of section 269 T of the Act. It is also contended that all the transactions were duly recorded in the account books and hence, same were bonafide transactions on which TDS had been deducted and as 20 such, payment by the assessee in cash

THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER vs. M/S OBULAPURAM MINING

Bench: K.SOMASHEKAR,UMESH M ADIGA

cash from the account of the transport concerns. Even common names appearing on the back side of the cheque 16 leaves showing the name of the person withdrawing the case namely, Mr. Pinaji Abdul Saleem, Mr. L. Raghuram Chaudhry, Mr. Suresh, Mr. Srinivasulu Reddy, Mr. Murali and Mr. R. Gangadhar, the above persons close associate of Shri G. Janardhana Reddy

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. SRI CLIFFORD D SOZA

Bench: S.SUJATHA,VINEET SARAN

cash and the remaining amount was paid to the sub-contractors by cheques. It is not disputed that the TDS was deducted by the respondent while making payment to the sub-contractors and was deposited

M/S SRI BALAJI CORPORATE SERVICES vs. UNION OF INDIA MINISTRY OF FINANCE

Bench: The Hon'Ble Mr.Justice S.R.Krishna Kumar

deposit till the date of refund. (iii) DECLARE that the petitioners are not required to pay any tax/advance tax in respect of the compensation amount paid to them by the 7th respondent as per Official Memorandum dated 06.10.2017 (Annexure-A) in view of the exemption granted under Section 96 of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition

L. VENKATARAMANA RAJU vs. UNION OF INDIA

Bench: The Hon'Ble Mr.Justice S.R.Krishna Kumar

deposit till the date of refund. (iii) DECLARE that the petitioners are not required to pay any tax/advance tax in respect of the compensation amount paid to them by the 7th respondent as per Official Memorandum dated 06.10.2017 (Annexure-A) in view of the exemption granted under Section 96 of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition

THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER vs. M/S OBULAPURAM MINING

Bench: K.SOMASHEKAR,UMESH M ADIGA

TDS, stated that they have not rendered any services to the assessee. It was found that some of them never owned any transportation vehicles and some of them did not have any means. Further, some of the vehicles were not transport vehicles but were autos, scooters, ambulances and school buses etc. However, on an examination of the bank accounts

BANGALORE METRO RAIL CORPORATION vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

The appeals are allowed in part

Bench: S.SUJATHA,RAVI V HOSMANI

deposit receipt as shown in the balance sheet. Hence, no deduction of TDS was necessary and there is no income comprised in the payments made. As per the agreement entered with the KIADB, 21% was the service charges which was reduced to 4% for Phase I and subsequently, it was reduced to 1% for Phase II. - 10 - Though Government

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S ASEA BROWN BOVERI LTD

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,M.NAGAPRASANNA

cash exceeding Rs.10,000/- cannot be disallowed by applying Section 40(A)(3) of the Act, as the same were paid in exceptional circumstances when the exceptions claimed by the assessee does not fall under Rule 6 DD (j) of the Rules and recorded a perverse finding? 4 (iv) Whether the tribunal was correct in holding that the interest received

M/S CATHODIC CONTROL CO LTD vs. UNION OF INDIA

Bench: The Hon’Ble Mr.Justice Aravind Kumar

TDS lies in the fact that it prepones the collection of tax to ensure regular source of revenue and wider base for tax. 5. It is contended that under the Act there is an obligation on the Department to process the income tax returns filed by the assessee within specified period and such processing can be done only when

CENTRAL POWER RESEARCH INSTITUTE vs. UNION OF INDIA

Bench: The Hon’Ble Mr.Justice Aravind Kumar

TDS lies in the fact that it prepones the collection of tax to ensure regular source of revenue and wider base for tax. 5. It is contended that under the Act there is an obligation on the Department to process the income tax returns filed by the assessee within specified period and such processing can be done only when

ADITHYA BIZORP SOLUTIONS INDIA PVT LTD vs. UNION OF INDIA

Bench: The Hon’Ble Mr.Justice Aravind Kumar

TDS lies in the fact that it prepones the collection of tax to ensure regular source of revenue and wider base for tax. 5. It is contended that under the Act there is an obligation on the Department to process the income tax returns filed by the assessee within specified period and such processing can be done only when

M/S PROCESS PUMPS (I) PVT LTD vs. UNION OF INDIA

Bench: The Hon’Ble Mr.Justice Aravind Kumar

TDS lies in the fact that it prepones the collection of tax to ensure regular source of revenue and wider base for tax. 5. It is contended that under the Act there is an obligation on the Department to process the income tax returns filed by the assessee within specified period and such processing can be done only when

M/S HOTEL FISHLAND vs. UNION OF INDIA

Bench: The Hon’Ble Mr.Justice Aravind Kumar

TDS lies in the fact that it prepones the collection of tax to ensure regular source of revenue and wider base for tax. 5. It is contended that under the Act there is an obligation on the Department to process the income tax returns filed by the assessee within specified period and such processing can be done only when

SYNDICATE BANK vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

Bench: The Hon’Ble Mr.Justice Aravind Kumar

TDS lies in the fact that it prepones the collection of tax to ensure regular source of revenue and wider base for tax. 5. It is contended that under the Act there is an obligation on the Department to process the income tax returns filed by the assessee within specified period and such processing can be done only when

ECOLE SOLUTIONS PVT LTD vs. UNION OF INDIA

Bench: The Hon’Ble Mr.Justice Aravind Kumar

TDS lies in the fact that it prepones the collection of tax to ensure regular source of revenue and wider base for tax. 5. It is contended that under the Act there is an obligation on the Department to process the income tax returns filed by the assessee within specified period and such processing can be done only when

M/S NEW MEDIA COMPANY vs. UNION OF INDIA

Bench: The Hon’Ble Mr.Justice Aravind Kumar

TDS lies in the fact that it prepones the collection of tax to ensure regular source of revenue and wider base for tax. 5. It is contended that under the Act there is an obligation on the Department to process the income tax returns filed by the assessee within specified period and such processing can be done only when

MINTENT SERVICED APARTMENTS PVT LTD., vs. UNION OF INDIA

Bench: The Hon’Ble Mr.Justice Aravind Kumar

TDS lies in the fact that it prepones the collection of tax to ensure regular source of revenue and wider base for tax. 5. It is contended that under the Act there is an obligation on the Department to process the income tax returns filed by the assessee within specified period and such processing can be done only when

SRI CHANDRAKAR K KAMATH vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF

Bench: The Hon’Ble Mr.Justice Aravind Kumar

TDS lies in the fact that it prepones the collection of tax to ensure regular source of revenue and wider base for tax. 5. It is contended that under the Act there is an obligation on the Department to process the income tax returns filed by the assessee within specified period and such processing can be done only when