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

Appeals stand disposed of accordingly

Bench: S.SUJATHA,RAVI V HOSMANI

TDS on payments made to Director’s towards sitting fees by holding that - 16 - the amendment will apply for A.Y.2014-15 onwards?” In ITA No.381/2018: “1. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law the Tribunal was correct in law in holding that incriminating material is necessary condition for proceedings under Section 153A

PR COMMISSIONER OF vs. M/S GMR HYDERABAD

Appeals stand disposed of accordingly

Bench: S.SUJATHA,RAVI V HOSMANI

TDS on payments made to Director’s towards sitting fees by holding that - 16 - the amendment will apply for A.Y.2014-15 onwards?” In ITA No.381/2018: “1. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law the Tribunal was correct in law in holding that incriminating material is necessary condition for proceedings under Section 153A

PR COMMISSIONER OF vs. M/S GMR HYDERABAD

Appeals stand disposed of accordingly

Bench: S.SUJATHA,RAVI V HOSMANI

TDS on payments made to Director’s towards sitting fees by holding that - 16 - the amendment will apply for A.Y.2014-15 onwards?” In ITA No.381/2018: “1. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law the Tribunal was correct in law in holding that incriminating material is necessary condition for proceedings under Section 153A

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

Appeals stand disposed of accordingly

Bench: S.SUJATHA,RAVI V HOSMANI

TDS on payments made to Director’s towards sitting fees by holding that - 16 - the amendment will apply for A.Y.2014-15 onwards?” In ITA No.381/2018: “1. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law the Tribunal was correct in law in holding that incriminating material is necessary condition for proceedings under Section 153A

PR COMMISSIONER OF vs. M/S GMR HYDERABAD

Appeals stand disposed of accordingly

Bench: S.SUJATHA,RAVI V HOSMANI

TDS on payments made to Director’s towards sitting fees by holding that - 16 - the amendment will apply for A.Y.2014-15 onwards?” In ITA No.381/2018: “1. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law the Tribunal was correct in law in holding that incriminating material is necessary condition for proceedings under Section 153A

PR COMMISSIONER OF vs. M/S GMR HYDERABAD

Appeals stand disposed of accordingly

Bench: S.SUJATHA,RAVI V HOSMANI

TDS on payments made to Director’s towards sitting fees by holding that - 16 - the amendment will apply for A.Y.2014-15 onwards?” In ITA No.381/2018: “1. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law the Tribunal was correct in law in holding that incriminating material is necessary condition for proceedings under Section 153A

PR COMMISSIONER OF vs. M/S GMR HYDERABAD

Appeals stand disposed of accordingly

Bench: S.SUJATHA,RAVI V HOSMANI

TDS on payments made to Director’s towards sitting fees by holding that - 16 - the amendment will apply for A.Y.2014-15 onwards?” In ITA No.381/2018: “1. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law the Tribunal was correct in law in holding that incriminating material is necessary condition for proceedings under Section 153A

PR COMMISSIONER OF vs. M/S GMR HYDERABAD

Appeals stand disposed of accordingly

Bench: S.SUJATHA,RAVI V HOSMANI

TDS on payments made to Director’s towards sitting fees by holding that - 16 - the amendment will apply for A.Y.2014-15 onwards?” In ITA No.381/2018: “1. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law the Tribunal was correct in law in holding that incriminating material is necessary condition for proceedings under Section 153A

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

TDS on payments made to Director’s towards sitting fees by holding that - 16 - the amendment will apply for A.Y.2014-15 onwards?” In ITA No.381/2018: “1. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law the Tribunal was correct in law in holding that incriminating material is necessary condition for proceedings under Section 153A

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

Bench: K.SOMASHEKAR,UMESH M ADIGA

153 C of the Act will taken as the year of search for the purpose of clause(a) and (b) of sub-section 1 of Section 153A by making reference to proviso to sub-section 1 of Section 153C despite the fact that the first proviso to sub-section 1 of Section 153C refers to second proviso to sub-section

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

Bench: K.SOMASHEKAR,UMESH M ADIGA

153 C of the Act will taken as the year of search for the purpose of clause(a) and (b) of sub-section 1 of Section 153A by making reference to proviso to sub-section 1 of Section 153C despite the fact that the first proviso to sub-section 1 of Section 153C refers to second proviso to sub-section

MPHASIS LTD vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

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

153 referred to as the relevant assessment year) Provided that where an assessment under sub-section (3) of section 143 or this section has been made for the relevant assessment year, no action shall be taken 4 under this section after the expiry of four years from the end of the relevant assessment year, unless any income chargeable

THE COMMISSIONER OF vs. M/S UNITED SPIRITS LTD

Appeal is allowed

Bench: P.S.DINESH KUMAR,M G UMA

153(2A) of the IT Act, 1961 is not applicable in respect of orders under Sections 201 and 201(1A) of the Act because, as on the date of the Assessing Officer's order namely 30.03.2011, as per Section 201(3), the Assessing Officer could pass the orders for the Financial Year commencing on or before 01.04.2007, provided such order

THE COMMISSIONER OF vs. M/S UNITED SPIRITS LTD

Appeal is allowed

Bench: P.S.DINESH KUMAR,M G UMA

153(2A) of the IT Act, 1961 is not applicable in respect of orders under Sections 201 and 201(1A) of the Act because, as on the date of the Assessing Officer's order namely 30.03.2011, as per Section 201(3), the Assessing Officer could pass the orders for the Financial Year commencing on or before 01.04.2007, provided such order

THE COMMISSIONER OF vs. M/S UNITED SPIRITS LTD

Appeal is allowed

Bench: P.S.DINESH KUMAR,M G UMA

153(2A) of the IT Act, 1961 is not applicable in respect of orders under Sections 201 and 201(1A) of the Act because, as on the date of the Assessing Officer's order namely 30.03.2011, as per Section 201(3), the Assessing Officer could pass the orders for the Financial Year commencing on or before 01.04.2007, provided such order

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 PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX vs. M/S. TE CONNECTIVITY INDIA PVT. LTD.,

Accordingly dispose of the appeal as allowed

Bench: ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE,S RACHAIAH

153(3) of the Act, an order giving effect to the order under Section 263 of the Act is required to be passed by the Assessing Officer within a period of 12 months from the end of the financial year in which the order under Section 263 is - 18 - ITA No.53 of 2024 passed by the Commissioner of Income

M/S. FLIPKART INTERNET PRIVATE LIMITED vs. UNION OF INDIA

In the result, I pass the following:-

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

TDS, the petitioner submitted representations on 10.07.2019, 05.03.2020 and 21.04.2020 requesting the 2nd respondent to process the return and grant refund along with interest. Meanwhile, the petitioner also filed an application dated 30.09.2019 before the Authority for Advance Ruling (AAR), Mumbai, in this regard. Since, the application was not disposed of, petitioner filed an early hearing application before