THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S IDEA CELLULAR LTD

Appeals are allowed

Bench: SATISH CHANDRA SHARMA,SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM

section 194H of the Act is that there should be an income payable by the assessee to the distributor. In other words, the income accrued or belonging to the distributor should be in the hands of the assessees. Then out of that income, the assessee has to deduct income-tax thereon at the rate of 10 per cent, and then

M/S DELHI INTERNATIONAL vs. THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER

Bench: S.SUJATHA,S VISHWAJITH SHETTY

Section 194H of the Act. The appellant – assessee was required to deduct TDS on the amount retained by the Airlines

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

Bench: S.SUJATHA,S VISHWAJITH SHETTY

Section 194H of the Act. The appellant – assessee was required to deduct TDS on the amount retained by the Airlines

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

Bench: S.SUJATHA,S VISHWAJITH SHETTY

Section 194H of the Act. The appellant – assessee was required to deduct TDS on the amount retained by the Airlines

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

Bench: S.SUJATHA,S VISHWAJITH SHETTY

Section 194H of the Act. The appellant – assessee was required to deduct TDS on the amount retained by the Airlines

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

Bench: S.SUJATHA,S VISHWAJITH SHETTY

Section 194H of the Act. The appellant – assessee was required to deduct TDS on the amount retained by the Airlines

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

Bench: S.SUJATHA,S VISHWAJITH SHETTY

Section 194H of the Act. The appellant – assessee was required to deduct TDS on the amount retained by the Airlines

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 COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX vs. M/S VODAFONE SOUTH LTD

The appeals are dismissed

Bench: S.N.SATYANARAYANA,JAYANT PATEL

TDS was required to be 12 deducted under Section 194H read with Section 194J of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘the Act’ for short

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

TDS on this sum, the disallowance should have been made in terms of Section 40(a)(ia). He also stated that, the Tribunal has failed to note that, a similar disallowance was made in the assessment years 2013-14 and 2014-15. Moreover, it is not a case where one of the legally plausible views has been taken. In support

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-III, vs. M/S. TELCO CONSTRUCTION

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

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,R. NATARAJ

TDS has been deducted. It is also pointed out that accrual of liabilities is certain on 31st March while vesting of right to receive by recipient is subject to certain conditions. It is further submitted that the tribunal rightly concluded that provisions of Section 194H

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

Appeal stands dismissed accordingly

Bench: S.SUJATHA,S RACHAIAH

TDS as required under Section 194H of the Act? 5. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case

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

TDS as required under the provisions of the Act, he is treated as assessee in default. Section 194C(1) of the Act mandates that a person who makes a payment to any non resident Indian, has to deduct the tax at the time of payment. Similar language is employed in Section 194J, 194H

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

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

Bench: RAVI MALIMATH,N.KUMAR

194H; (ii) “fees for technical services” shall have the same meaning as in Explanation 2 to clause (vii) of sub-section (1) of section 9; (iii) “professional services” shall have the same meaning as in clause (a) of the Explanation to section 194J; (iv) “work” shall have the same meaning as in Explanation III to section 194C; (v) “rent” shall

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S KARNATAKA BANK LTD

In the result, appeal filed by the revenue fails and is

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR

194H and Explanation to said section is applicable to assessee-Bank and as such assessee ought to have deducted TDS

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

In the result, appeal filed by the revenue fails and is

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR

194H and Explanation to said section is applicable to assessee-Bank and as such assessee ought to have deducted TDS

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S KARNATAKA BANK LTD

In the result, appeal filed by the revenue fails and is

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR

194H and Explanation to said section is applicable to assessee-Bank and as such assessee ought to have deducted TDS