M/S DELHI INTERNATIONAL vs. THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER

Bench: S.SUJATHA,S VISHWAJITH SHETTY

TDS on the amount retained by the Airlines while making payment to the assessee, for not complying with the mandate of Section 194H, no claim made by the assessee under Section 40(a)(ia) of the Act is allowable. 7. Learned counsel appearing for both the parties have referred to host of judgments which are discussed infra. 8. We have

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

Bench: S.SUJATHA,S VISHWAJITH SHETTY

TDS on the amount retained by the Airlines while making payment to the assessee, for not complying with the mandate of Section 194H, no claim made by the assessee under Section 40(a)(ia) of the Act is allowable. 7. Learned counsel appearing for both the parties have referred to host of judgments which are discussed infra. 8. We have

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

Bench: S.SUJATHA,S VISHWAJITH SHETTY

TDS on the amount retained by the Airlines while making payment to the assessee, for not complying with the mandate of Section 194H, no claim made by the assessee under Section 40(a)(ia) of the Act is allowable. 7. Learned counsel appearing for both the parties have referred to host of judgments which are discussed infra. 8. We have

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

Bench: S.SUJATHA,S VISHWAJITH SHETTY

TDS on the amount retained by the Airlines while making payment to the assessee, for not complying with the mandate of Section 194H, no claim made by the assessee under Section 40(a)(ia) of the Act is allowable. 7. Learned counsel appearing for both the parties have referred to host of judgments which are discussed infra. 8. We have

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

TDS under section 194H of the Income Tax Act? 2. Facts leading to filing of this appeal briefly stated are that the assessee is a Nationalized Bank. The assessee had filed the return of income on 28.09.2011 by which income of Rs.1412,98,.50,750/- was declared. Thereafter, a revised return was filed on 23.12.2011 by which income of Rs.1366

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX vs. M/S ACER INDIA PVT LTD

The appeals are dismissed;

Bench: P.S.DINESH KUMAR,T.G. SHIVASHANKARE GOWDA

TDS), CIRCLE-1(1), BENGALURU AND ETC. THESE ITAs, COMING ON FOR HEARING, THIS DAY, P.S.DINESH KUMAR, J., DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: JUDGMENT These two appeals are by the Revenue challenging the common order dated 05.10.2018 passed by the ITAT1, ‘A’ Bench, Bangalore. 2. ITA No.159/2019 has been filed challenging order passed in ITA No.1940/Bang/2018 for the assessment year