PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. SMT. G. LAKSHMI ARUNA

Bench: K.SOMASHEKAR,UMESH M ADIGA

TDS 28,20,543 Balance Tax 14,76,04,186 Less: Advance Tax 7,50,00,000 Balance Tax 7,26,04,186 Add: Interest u/s234A – 1,30,68,753 235B – 1,59,97,806 2,90,66,559 13 Total Tax 10,16,70,745 Less: 140A paid 2,00,00,000 Net Amount Payable

PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. SHRI. GALI JANARDHANA REDDY

Bench: K.SOMASHEKAR,UMESH M ADIGA

TDS 28,20,543 Balance Tax 14,76,04,186 Less: Advance Tax 7,50,00,000 Balance Tax 7,26,04,186 Add: Interest u/s234A – 1,30,68,753 12 235B – 1,59,97,806 2,90,66,559 Total Tax 10,16,70,745 Less: 140A paid 2,00,00,000 Net Amount Payable

PR COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-7 vs. M/S TALLY SOLUTIONS PVT LTD

In the result, the appeals fail and are hereby

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,H.T. NARENDRA PRASAD

TDS on payments made in respect of purchase of intellectual property rights by following its earlier order which has not reached finality and even when the ingredients of 7 section 40(a)(ia) of the Act are satisfied in case of assessee? 4. Facts leading to filing of these appeals briefly stated are that assessee is engaged in business

PR. COMMISSIONER OF vs. M/S TALLY SOLUTIONS PVT LTD.,

In the result, the appeals fail and are hereby

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,H.T. NARENDRA PRASAD

TDS on payments made in respect of purchase of intellectual property rights by following its earlier order which has not reached finality and even when the ingredients of 7 section 40(a)(ia) of the Act are satisfied in case of assessee? 4. Facts leading to filing of these appeals briefly stated are that assessee is engaged in business

PR COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-7 vs. M/S TALLY SOLUTIONS PVT LTD

In the result, the appeals fail and are hereby

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,H.T. NARENDRA PRASAD

TDS on payments made in respect of purchase of intellectual property rights by following its earlier order which has not reached finality and even when the ingredients of 7 section 40(a)(ia) of the Act are satisfied in case of assessee? 4. Facts leading to filing of these appeals briefly stated are that assessee is engaged in business

M/S HAJEE A.P.BAVA & COMPANY vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

In the result, the appeal is

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,M.NAGAPRASANNA

142(1) of the Act were issued. The assessing officer by an order dated 29.11.2016 passed under Section 143(2) of the Act inter alia held that from 4 perusal of the ledger extracts, it is evident that no credit entry on the account of bad debts has been made in the debtors account during

GMR INFRASTRUCTURE LIMITED vs. THE DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX

In the result, we do not find any merit in the appeal

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR

TDS credit to the extent of Rs.8,79,156/-. An order of rectification was passed on 13.07.2010 by which refund of a sum of Rs.10,55,000/- was granted. Thereafter, a search and seizure operation under Section 132 of the Act was initiated on 11.10.2012 and a notice under Section 153A of the Act was issued

DELL INDIA PVT LTD vs. THE JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

Bench: The Hon’Ble Mr.Justice Aravind Kumar

TDS credit is claimed in full in the year in which revenue accrues. It is also possible as in the present case that the company may not offer such amount to tax”. 4. Hence, petitioner has approached this court for quashing of notice issued under section 148 dated 27.03.2014 Annexure-K and order/communication dated 24.02.2015 Annexure-P passed by first

THE DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S ABBEY BUSINESS SERVICES INDIA PVT LTD

In the result, we do not find any merit in this

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,H.T. NARENDRA PRASAD

TDS under Section 195 of the Act? (iv) Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case, the tribunal is right in law in holding that the assessee cannot be held as 'assessee in default under Section 201(1) of the Act' even when the assessing authority after considering the particulars furnished by assessee, passed order under Section 201(1

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. SRI DEVI GRANITES

Bench: The Hon'Ble Mr. Justice Ravi Malimath

section 4 142(1) so issued nor has paid any taxes by way of advance tax, TDS etc.,? ii. In the facts

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. SRI DEVI GRANITES

Bench: The Hon'Ble Mr. Justice Ravi Malimath

section 4 142(1) so issued nor has paid any taxes by way of advance tax, TDS etc.,? ii. In the facts

MPHASIS LTD vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

Bench: The Hon'Ble Mr. Justice Krishna S.Dixit

1) of section 142 or section 148 or to disclose fully and truly all material facts necessary for his assessment, for that assessment year”. (b) in the notice dated 01.09.2017 at Annexure-K the 2nd respondent has assigned the reasons for resorting to re-opening of the assessment, relevant part of which reads as under: “ From the above discussion

PR COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-6 vs. M/S SUBEX TECHNOLOGIES LTD

In the result, the appeal is disposed of

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,H.T. NARENDRA PRASAD

1. PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-6 BMTC COMPLEX, KORMANGALA BANGALORE. 2. THE JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (OSD), CIRCLE-12(3), BENGALURU. ... APPELLANTS (BY SRI. E.I. SANMATHI, ADV.,) AND: M/S. SUBEX TECHNOLOGIES LTD NO.999, 9TH MAIN, HSR LAYOUT SECTOR-7, BENGALURU-560102 PAN:AAICS9433Q. ... RESPONDENT (BY SRI. CHYTHANYA K.K. ADV.) - - - THIS ITA IS FILED UNDER SECTION

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, vs. M/S H. R. DODDANNAVAR

In the result, we pass the following:-

Bench: The Hon’Ble Mr.Justice Ravi Malimath & The Hon’Ble Mr.Justice P.S. Dinesh Kumar

Sections 143(2) and 142(1) were issued along with a questionnaire calling upon the assessee to furnish various information sought for. Assessee’s Chartered Accountant appeared before the authority with the : 4 : Books of Accounts and other documents and furnished certain details. It was noticed by the authorities that a sum of Rs.1,80,76,676/- was shown

M/S. PIXEL PICTURES PVT LTD vs. UNION OF INDIA

Bench: S.SUJATHA

142 DTR (Kar) 281. The relevant paragraphs 14, 21, 23, 24 and 27 reads thus: “14. We may now deal with the contentions raised by the learned counsel for the appellants. The first contention for assailing the legality and validity of the intimation under Section 200A was that, the provision of Section 200A(1)(c)d) and (f) have come

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S ALLOY STEELS,

Accordingly, the appeal filed by the appellant is allowed

Bench: N.K.PATIL,B.MANOHAR

142 (1) notices, Shri.V.S.Halbhavi, C.A. duly authorised by the assessee appeared on behalf of the assessee firm and produced the books of accounts, bills and vouchers and other details called for vide this office letter dated 11.07.2008. It is seen that the assessee is carrying on business of manufacture of CI castings and alloys deriving receipts on labour charges

SRI. M L VENKATESH vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

Bench: The Hon'Ble Mr. Justice Ravi Malimath

TDS), CIRCLE – 18(1), BENGALURU. ... RESPONDENT (BY SRI K.V.ARAVIND, ADVOCATE) THIS INCOME TAX APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 260A OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 ARISING OUT OF ORDER DATED 20.11.2009 PASSED IN ITA NO.803/BNG/2009, FOR THE ASSSESSMENT YEAR 2005- 2 2006, PRAYING THAT THIS HON’BLE COURT MAY BE PLEASED TO; FORMULATE THE SUBSTANTIAL QUESTIONS OF LAW STATE THEREIN

THE COMMISIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S NTT DATA GLOBAL ADVISORY SERVICES PVT LTD.,

Bench: The Hon'Ble Mr Justice Anil B Katti Criminal Appeal No.544 Of 2013 (A) Between:

142(1)(b) of N.I.Act. When once issuance of cheque and signature of accused on Ex.P.1 cheque is - 5 - CRL.A.No.544 of 2013 proved by the complainant, then statutory presumption in terms of Section 118 and 139 of N.I.Act will have to be drawn. 6. In this context of the matter, it is useful to refer the judgment