TIMES VPL LIMITED vs. THE COMMISSIONR OF INCOME TAX

In the result, the order passed by the

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,P.G.M.PATIL

7. Being aggrieved, an appeal was preferred by the assessee before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Bengaluru. The Tribunal however vide order dated 31.01.2013 upheld the validity of the order passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax. In the aforesaid factual background, this appeal has been filed. 8. Learned senior counsel for the assessee while inviting the attention of this

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER

Appeals are dismissed

Bench: ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE,ANAND BYRAREDDY

7 Income Tax Appeal No.86 of 2014: Between: 1. The Commissioner of Income Tax, Aayakar Bhavan, Sedam Road, Gulbarga-585 105. 2. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax(TDS), Aayakar Bhavan, Staff Road, Fort, Bellary. ... Appellants (By Mr. Y.V Raviraj, Advocate) And : The Executive Engineer, O & M Division, (GESCOM), HOSPET. ... Respondent (By Mr. Anoop G Deshpande, Advocate) This Income

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER

Appeals are dismissed

Bench: ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE,ANAND BYRAREDDY

7 Income Tax Appeal No.86 of 2014: Between: 1. The Commissioner of Income Tax, Aayakar Bhavan, Sedam Road, Gulbarga-585 105. 2. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax(TDS), Aayakar Bhavan, Staff Road, Fort, Bellary. ... Appellants (By Mr. Y.V Raviraj, Advocate) And : The Executive Engineer, O & M Division, (GESCOM), HOSPET. ... Respondent (By Mr. Anoop G Deshpande, Advocate) This Income

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER

Appeals are dismissed

Bench: ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE,ANAND BYRAREDDY

7 Income Tax Appeal No.86 of 2014: Between: 1. The Commissioner of Income Tax, Aayakar Bhavan, Sedam Road, Gulbarga-585 105. 2. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax(TDS), Aayakar Bhavan, Staff Road, Fort, Bellary. ... Appellants (By Mr. Y.V Raviraj, Advocate) And : The Executive Engineer, O & M Division, (GESCOM), HOSPET. ... Respondent (By Mr. Anoop G Deshpande, Advocate) This Income

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER

Appeals are dismissed

Bench: ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE,ANAND BYRAREDDY

7 Income Tax Appeal No.86 of 2014: Between: 1. The Commissioner of Income Tax, Aayakar Bhavan, Sedam Road, Gulbarga-585 105. 2. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax(TDS), Aayakar Bhavan, Staff Road, Fort, Bellary. ... Appellants (By Mr. Y.V Raviraj, Advocate) And : The Executive Engineer, O & M Division, (GESCOM), HOSPET. ... Respondent (By Mr. Anoop G Deshpande, Advocate) This Income

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER

Appeals are dismissed

Bench: A.V.CHANDRASHEKARA,DEEPAK VERMA(ACJ)

7 RAICHUR – 584 101. …RESPONDENT (BY SRI A. SHANKAR, SRI V. CHANDRASHEKAR & SRI M. LAVA, ADVOCATES) THIS INCOME-TAX APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 260A OF THE INCOME TAX ACT 1961, PRAYING TO FORMULATE THE SUBSTANTIAL QUESTIONS OF LAW STATED ABOVE, ALLOW THE APPEAL AND SET ASIDE THE ORDERS PASSED BY THE INCOME-TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, ‘C’ BENCH BANGALORE

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER

Appeals are dismissed

Bench: A.V.CHANDRASHEKARA,DEEPAK VERMA(ACJ)

7 RAICHUR – 584 101. …RESPONDENT (BY SRI A. SHANKAR, SRI V. CHANDRASHEKAR & SRI M. LAVA, ADVOCATES) THIS INCOME-TAX APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 260A OF THE INCOME TAX ACT 1961, PRAYING TO FORMULATE THE SUBSTANTIAL QUESTIONS OF LAW STATED ABOVE, ALLOW THE APPEAL AND SET ASIDE THE ORDERS PASSED BY THE INCOME-TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, ‘C’ BENCH BANGALORE

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER

Appeals are dismissed

Bench: A.V.CHANDRASHEKARA,DEEPAK VERMA(ACJ)

7 RAICHUR – 584 101. …RESPONDENT (BY SRI A. SHANKAR, SRI V. CHANDRASHEKAR & SRI M. LAVA, ADVOCATES) THIS INCOME-TAX APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 260A OF THE INCOME TAX ACT 1961, PRAYING TO FORMULATE THE SUBSTANTIAL QUESTIONS OF LAW STATED ABOVE, ALLOW THE APPEAL AND SET ASIDE THE ORDERS PASSED BY THE INCOME-TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, ‘C’ BENCH BANGALORE

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER

Appeals are dismissed

Bench: A.V.CHANDRASHEKARA,DEEPAK VERMA(ACJ)

7 RAICHUR – 584 101. …RESPONDENT (BY SRI A. SHANKAR, SRI V. CHANDRASHEKAR & SRI M. LAVA, ADVOCATES) THIS INCOME-TAX APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 260A OF THE INCOME TAX ACT 1961, PRAYING TO FORMULATE THE SUBSTANTIAL QUESTIONS OF LAW STATED ABOVE, ALLOW THE APPEAL AND SET ASIDE THE ORDERS PASSED BY THE INCOME-TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, ‘C’ BENCH BANGALORE

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER

Appeals are dismissed

Bench: A.V.CHANDRASHEKARA,DEEPAK VERMA(ACJ)

7 RAICHUR – 584 101. …RESPONDENT (BY SRI A. SHANKAR, SRI V. CHANDRASHEKAR & SRI M. LAVA, ADVOCATES) THIS INCOME-TAX APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 260A OF THE INCOME TAX ACT 1961, PRAYING TO FORMULATE THE SUBSTANTIAL QUESTIONS OF LAW STATED ABOVE, ALLOW THE APPEAL AND SET ASIDE THE ORDERS PASSED BY THE INCOME-TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, ‘C’ BENCH BANGALORE

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER

Appeals are dismissed

Bench: A.V.CHANDRASHEKARA,DEEPAK VERMA(ACJ)

7 RAICHUR – 584 101. …RESPONDENT (BY SRI A. SHANKAR, SRI V. CHANDRASHEKAR & SRI M. LAVA, ADVOCATES) THIS INCOME-TAX APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 260A OF THE INCOME TAX ACT 1961, PRAYING TO FORMULATE THE SUBSTANTIAL QUESTIONS OF LAW STATED ABOVE, ALLOW THE APPEAL AND SET ASIDE THE ORDERS PASSED BY THE INCOME-TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, ‘C’ BENCH BANGALORE

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER

Bench: ANAND BYRAREDDY,S.SUJATHA

TDS Circle, Bellary. These appeals coming on for Admission, ANAND BYRAREDDY J., delivered the following :- JUDGMENT These appeals coming on for admission, are considered for final disposal having regard to the issues raised in these appeals having been addressed in Income-Tax Appeal No.75/2014 and connected cases, disposed of by a judgment dated 11.8.2015. 7 2. These appeals filed

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S GULBARGA ELECTRICITY SUPPLY COMPANY LTD.

Accordingly, appeal of Revenue is dismissed

Bench: B.VEERAPPA,VINEET KOTHARI

TDS), Gulbarga, conducted a survey as contemplated under the provisions of Section 133A of the ‘Act’, found that there were instances where assessee had made payment of transmission charges to KPTCL and State Load Dispatching Centre (‘SLDC’ for short), an arm of KPTCL, without deducting tax at source thereon. The 4 authorities of the Revenue were of the view that

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, vs. SHRIDHAR SHANTINATH PATRAVALI,

Bench: This Court : I. Whether On Facts & In Law The Tribunal Is Right In Ignoring The Provisions Of Second & Third Provisos To Section 194C(3), As Per Which The Assessee Respondent Was Under Obligation To Furnish Particulars Of The Declaration Filed By The Sub-Contractors In Form No.15-I Within Due Date I.E., 30.06.2008, In The Manner Prescribed I.E., Form No. 15J, To The Prescribed Authority & Failure To Do So, Attracts Violation Of Provisions Of Section 194C(3) Viz., Disallowance Under Section 40(A)(Ia)?

194C(3) of the Act have not been fulfilled by the assessee. Relying on the case of Commissioner of Income Tax v. Gurvinder 7 Transport (Tax Appeal No.345 of 2013 decided by the Hon’ble High Court of Gujarat on 01.05.2013), the learned counsel pleads that in a similar case, arising out of identical facts, the Hon’ble Gujarat High

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX vs. THE DIRECTOR OF TECHNICAL EDUCATION

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

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,R. NATARAJ

TDS, CIRCLE-1(1), BENGALURU. (iii) PASS SUCH OTHER SUITABLE ORDERS AS THIS HON'BLE COURT DEEMS FIT TO GRANT IN THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUIYT. THIS I.T.A. COMING ON FOR HEARING, THIS DAY, ALOK ARADHE J., DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: JUDGMENT This appeal under Section 260A of the Income

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S. JANANI TOURS & RESORTS (P) LTD

Appeal is allowed

Bench: B.VEERAPPA,N.KUMAR

TDS as the provisions of Section 194C are not attracted as no agreement was entered into by the assessee with the other operators, when the assessee has admitted applicability of Section 194C and tax was deducted at source? (ii) Whether the Tribunal was correct in proceeding to examine the applicability of Section 194C of the Act when the - 6 - controversy

M/S TOYOTA KIRLOSKAR MOTOR P LTD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER

In the result, the appeal is allowed

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,M.G.S. KAMAL

7 in holding that assessee was liable to deduct tax at source under Section 195, 194C, 194J, 194H and 194I of the Act when it credited the amount of Rs.8,71,32,988/- to the provision for expenditure account for domestic and overseas payment. It is further submitted that the amounts in respect of which a provision was made

M/S TEACHERS CO OPERATIVE BANK vs. UNION OF INDIA

Bench: The Hon’Ble Mr.Justice Aravind Kumar

194C by the payee;] (vii) furnish particulars of amount paid or credited on which tax was not deducted in view of the furnishing of declaration under sub-section (1) or sub-section (1A) or sub- section (1C) of Section 197A by the payee] (viii) furnish particulars of amount paid or credited on which tax was not deducted in view