THE PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, vs. M/S. DELHI INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT PVT. LTD.

Bench: S.SUJATHA,S VISHWAJITH SHETTY

TDS). In that context, the Hon’ble Court of Bombay held that as the substance of the PSF is not for use of land or building, but for providing security services and facilities to the embarking passengers, the decision of the Madras High Court in CIT v. Singapore Airlines Ltd., reported in (2012) 24 taxmann.com 200 would cover the issue

M/S DELHI INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT LTD vs. THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

Bench: S.SUJATHA,S VISHWAJITH SHETTY

TDS). In that context, the Hon’ble Court of Bombay held that as the substance of the PSF is not for use of land or building, but for providing security services and facilities to the embarking passengers, the decision of the Madras High Court in CIT v. Singapore Airlines Ltd., reported in (2012) 24 taxmann.com 200 would cover the issue

M/S DELHI INTERNATIONAL vs. THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER

Bench: S.SUJATHA,S VISHWAJITH SHETTY

TDS). In that context, the Hon’ble Court of Bombay held that as the substance of the PSF is not for use of land or building, but for providing security services and facilities to the embarking passengers, the decision of the Madras High Court in CIT v. Singapore Airlines Ltd., reported in (2012) 24 taxmann.com 200 would cover the issue

M/S DELHI INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT LTD vs. THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

Bench: S.SUJATHA,S VISHWAJITH SHETTY

TDS). In that context, the Hon’ble Court of Bombay held that as the substance of the PSF is not for use of land or building, but for providing security services and facilities to the embarking passengers, the decision of the Madras High Court in CIT v. Singapore Airlines Ltd., reported in (2012) 24 taxmann.com 200 would cover the issue

THE PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, vs. M/S. DELHI INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT PVT. LTD.,

Bench: S.SUJATHA,S VISHWAJITH SHETTY

TDS). In that context, the Hon’ble Court of Bombay held that as the substance of the PSF is not for use of land or building, but for providing security services and facilities to the embarking passengers, the decision of the Madras High Court in CIT v. Singapore Airlines Ltd., reported in (2012) 24 taxmann.com 200 would cover the issue

THE PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, vs. M/S. DELHI INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT PVT. LTD.,

Bench: S.SUJATHA,S VISHWAJITH SHETTY

TDS). In that context, the Hon’ble Court of Bombay held that as the substance of the PSF is not for use of land or building, but for providing security services and facilities to the embarking passengers, the decision of the Madras High Court in CIT v. Singapore Airlines Ltd., reported in (2012) 24 taxmann.com 200 would cover the issue

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, vs. M/S CORPORATION BANK

In the result, the third substantial question of law is also answered

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,H.T. NARENDRA PRASAD

Section 14A(1) of the Income Tax Act read with Rule 8D? (iii) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal erred in holding that on the payment made towards the service charges rendered by M/s. NFS is nether commission nor brokerage which does not attract TDS

PR COMMISSIONER OF vs. M/S WIPRO LIMITED

In the result, the appeal is disposed of in terms

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,H.T. NARENDRA PRASAD

14A of the Act set aside the finding recorded by the Assessing Officer and remitted the matter to the Assessing Officer to re-examine the issue in the light of order passed by the tribunal in assessee's own case as well as in DCIT vs. M.N.DASTUR CO. PVT. LTD. in I.T.A. No.94/bang/2014. The tribunal also allowed

THE PR. COMMISSIONER OF vs. M/S. CORPORATION BANK

Appeal stands dismissed accordingly

Bench: S.SUJATHA,S RACHAIAH

14A read with Rule 8D of the Act by following its earlier order passed in assessee’s own case for A.Y.2010- 11 and 2011-12 which has not reached finality even when the assessing authority rightly disallowed the said expenditure as all the conditions for invoking said provision were satisfied in case of assessee? - 4 - 4. Whether on the facts

PR COMMISSIONER OF vs. M/S GMR HYDERABAD

Appeals stand disposed of accordingly

Bench: S.SUJATHA,RAVI V HOSMANI

14A read with Rule 8D of the Act? 3. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Tribunal is right in law in setting aside disallowance made under Section 40[a][ia] for non deduction of TDS

PR COMMISSIONER OF vs. M/S GMR HYDERABAD

Appeals stand disposed of accordingly

Bench: S.SUJATHA,RAVI V HOSMANI

14A read with Rule 8D of the Act? 3. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Tribunal is right in law in setting aside disallowance made under Section 40[a][ia] for non deduction of TDS

PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (CENTRAL) vs. M/S. DELHI INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT PVT. LTD.,

Appeals stand disposed of accordingly

Bench: S.SUJATHA,RAVI V HOSMANI

14A read with Rule 8D of the Act? 3. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Tribunal is right in law in setting aside disallowance made under Section 40[a][ia] for non deduction of TDS

THE PR. COMMISIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S. GMR INFRASTRUCTURE LTD

Appeals stand disposed of accordingly

Bench: S.SUJATHA,RAVI V HOSMANI

14A read with Rule 8D of the Act? 3. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Tribunal is right in law in setting aside disallowance made under Section 40[a][ia] for non deduction of TDS

PR COMMISSIONER OF vs. M/S GMR HYDERABAD

Appeals stand disposed of accordingly

Bench: S.SUJATHA,RAVI V HOSMANI

14A read with Rule 8D of the Act? 3. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Tribunal is right in law in setting aside disallowance made under Section 40[a][ia] for non deduction of TDS

THE PR. COMMISIONER INCOME TAX vs. M/S. GMR INFRASTRUCTURE LTD

Appeals stand disposed of accordingly

Bench: S.SUJATHA,RAVI V HOSMANI

14A read with Rule 8D of the Act? 3. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Tribunal is right in law in setting aside disallowance made under Section 40[a][ia] for non deduction of TDS

PR COMMISSIONER OF vs. M/S GMR HYDERABAD

Appeals stand disposed of accordingly

Bench: S.SUJATHA,RAVI V HOSMANI

14A read with Rule 8D of the Act? 3. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Tribunal is right in law in setting aside disallowance made under Section 40[a][ia] for non deduction of TDS

PR COMMISSIONER OF vs. M/S GMR HYDERABAD

Appeals stand disposed of accordingly

Bench: S.SUJATHA,RAVI V HOSMANI

14A read with Rule 8D of the Act? 3. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Tribunal is right in law in setting aside disallowance made under Section 40[a][ia] for non deduction of TDS

PR COMMISSIONER OF vs. M/S GMR HYDERABAD

Appeals stand disposed of accordingly

Bench: S.SUJATHA,RAVI V HOSMANI

14A read with Rule 8D of the Act? 3. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Tribunal is right in law in setting aside disallowance made under Section 40[a][ia] for non deduction of TDS

THE PR. COMMISIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S. GMR INFRASTRUCTURE LTD

Appeals stand disposed of accordingly

Bench: S.SUJATHA,RAVI V HOSMANI

14A read with Rule 8D of the Act? 3. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Tribunal is right in law in setting aside disallowance made under Section 40[a][ia] for non deduction of TDS