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 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

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 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 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 INCOME TAX vs. SMT. G. LAKSHMI ARUNA

Bench: K.SOMASHEKAR,UMESH M ADIGA

153A) in the file of the said person ignoring the intention of legislature and even when the assessing authority has passed assessment order after recording satisfaction as required under Section 153C of the Act. Therefore, the 10 appellant/Revenue in this matter raising all these grounds and also substantial questions of law relating to the order passed by the Tribunal

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

Bench: K.SOMASHEKAR,UMESH M ADIGA

153A) in the file of the said person ignoring the intention of legislature and even when the assessing authority has passed assessment order after recording satisfaction as required under Section 153C of the Act. Therefore, the appellant/Revenue in this matter raising all these grounds and also substantial questions of law relating to the order passed by the Tribunal

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

M/S DELHI INTERNATIONAL vs. THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER

Bench: S.SUJATHA,S VISHWAJITH SHETTY

153A of the Act for the assessment year under consideration disallowing the claim of the assessee under Section 40(a)(ia) of the Act being the amount of collection charges retained by the airlines on collection - 9 - of passenger service fees amongst other disallowance. Being aggrieved, the appellant preferred an appeal before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-11, Bengaluru

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

Bench: S.SUJATHA,S VISHWAJITH SHETTY

153A of the Act for the assessment year under consideration disallowing the claim of the assessee under Section 40(a)(ia) of the Act being the amount of collection charges retained by the airlines on collection - 9 - of passenger service fees amongst other disallowance. Being aggrieved, the appellant preferred an appeal before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-11, Bengaluru

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

Bench: S.SUJATHA,S VISHWAJITH SHETTY

153A of the Act for the assessment year under consideration disallowing the claim of the assessee under Section 40(a)(ia) of the Act being the amount of collection charges retained by the airlines on collection - 9 - of passenger service fees amongst other disallowance. Being aggrieved, the appellant preferred an appeal before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-11, Bengaluru

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

Bench: S.SUJATHA,S VISHWAJITH SHETTY

153A of the Act for the assessment year under consideration disallowing the claim of the assessee under Section 40(a)(ia) of the Act being the amount of collection charges retained by the airlines on collection - 9 - of passenger service fees amongst other disallowance. Being aggrieved, the appellant preferred an appeal before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-11, Bengaluru

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

Bench: S.SUJATHA,S VISHWAJITH SHETTY

153A of the Act for the assessment year under consideration disallowing the claim of the assessee under Section 40(a)(ia) of the Act being the amount of collection charges retained by the airlines on collection - 9 - of passenger service fees amongst other disallowance. Being aggrieved, the appellant preferred an appeal before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-11, Bengaluru

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

Bench: S.SUJATHA,S VISHWAJITH SHETTY

153A of the Act for the assessment year under consideration disallowing the claim of the assessee under Section 40(a)(ia) of the Act being the amount of collection charges retained by the airlines on collection - 9 - of passenger service fees amongst other disallowance. Being aggrieved, the appellant preferred an appeal before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-11, Bengaluru

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