SYNDICATE BANK vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

The appeals are partly allowed to the aforesaid extent

Bench: JAYANT PATEL,B.SREENIVASE GOWDA

30 under Section 234E, the appellant-petitioners would not press the challenge to the constitutional validity of Section 234E of the Act. But, they submitted that the question of constitutional validity of Section 234E may be kept open to be considered by the Division Bench and the Judgment of the learned Single Judge may not conclude the constitutional validity

M/S PROCESS PUMPS vs. UNION OF INDIA

The appeals are partly allowed to the aforesaid extent

Bench: JAYANT PATEL,B.SREENIVASE GOWDA

30 under Section 234E, the appellant-petitioners would not press the challenge to the constitutional validity of Section 234E of the Act. But, they submitted that the question of constitutional validity of Section 234E may be kept open to be considered by the Division Bench and the Judgment of the learned Single Judge may not conclude the constitutional validity

SRI.FATHERAJ SINGHVI, vs. UNION OF INDIA

The appeals are partly allowed to the aforesaid extent

Bench: JAYANT PATEL,B.SREENIVASE GOWDA

30 under Section 234E, the appellant-petitioners would not press the challenge to the constitutional validity of Section 234E of the Act. But, they submitted that the question of constitutional validity of Section 234E may be kept open to be considered by the Division Bench and the Judgment of the learned Single Judge may not conclude the constitutional validity

M/S CATHODIC CONTROL CO. LTD., vs. UNION OF INDIA

The appeals are partly allowed to the aforesaid extent

Bench: JAYANT PATEL,B.SREENIVASE GOWDA

30 under Section 234E, the appellant-petitioners would not press the challenge to the constitutional validity of Section 234E of the Act. But, they submitted that the question of constitutional validity of Section 234E may be kept open to be considered by the Division Bench and the Judgment of the learned Single Judge may not conclude the constitutional validity

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S MANIPAL HEALTH SYSTEMS PVT LTD

Appeals are partly allowed to the extent indicated

Bench: S.SUJATHA,VINEET SARAN

TDS) vs APOLLO HOSPITALS INTERNATIONAL LTD. reported in (2013 (359) ITR 78) (Gujarat) has taken a similar view that the consultant doctors were not getting salary, but the payment to them was in the nature of professional fees liable to deduction under Section 194G and Section 192 of the Act had no application. 19. We are in agreement with

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S MANIPAL HEALTH SYSTEMS

Appeals are partly allowed to the extent indicated

Bench: S.SUJATHA,VINEET SARAN

TDS) vs APOLLO HOSPITALS INTERNATIONAL LTD. reported in (2013 (359) ITR 78) (Gujarat) has taken a similar view that the consultant doctors were not getting salary, but the payment to them was in the nature of professional fees liable to deduction under Section 194G and Section 192 of the Act had no application. 19. We are in agreement with

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S ICE NETWORK (P) LTD

Bench: S.SUJATHA,VINEET KOTHARI

30-7-2018 I.T.A. No.462/2008 The Commissioner of Income-tax (TDS) & Anr. vs. M/s.Ice Network (P) Ltd., 2/22 THIS INCOME TAX APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION

NICE LTD vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

Bench: SATISH CHANDRA SHARMA,S VISHWAJITH SHETTY

TDS is made under Section 195(1) of the Income Tax Act, or such person has, after applying Section 195(2) of the Income Tax Act, not deducted such proportion of tax as is required, that the consequences of a failure to deduct and pay, reflected in Section 201 of the Income Tax Act, follow, by virtue of which

S C GOKARNA vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

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

30 & 31 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894for deciding the title of the properties for apportionment of the compensation amount”. Thus, it is very clear that the Reference is only for adjudication of the title and not for enhancement. 7) The Petitioner had received the Notice of Offer of the Compensation Package under Section 29(2) of the KIAD

C. MUNIREDDY vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

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

30 & 31 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894for deciding the title of the properties for apportionment of the compensation amount”. Thus, it is very clear that the Reference is only for adjudication of the title and not for enhancement. 7) The Petitioner had received the Notice of Offer of the Compensation Package under Section 29(2) of the KIAD

C MUNIREDDY vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

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

30 & 8 31 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894for deciding the title of the properties for apportionment of the compensation amount”. Thus, it is very clear that the Reference is only for adjudication of the title and not for enhancement. 7) The Petitioner had received the Notice of Offer of the Compensation Package under Section 29(2) of the KIAD

PR COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-7 vs. M/S TALLY SOLUTIONS PVT LTD

In the result, the appeals fail and are hereby

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,H.T. NARENDRA PRASAD

TDS was deduction under Section 195 of the Act on the aforesaid payment, therefore, disallowance under Section 40(a)(ia) of the Act has rightly been made. It is also argued that Section 40 of the Act begins with a non obstante clause and has an overriding effect on Sections 3 to 38 of the Act and therefore, in case

PR. COMMISSIONER OF vs. M/S TALLY SOLUTIONS PVT LTD.,

In the result, the appeals fail and are hereby

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,H.T. NARENDRA PRASAD

TDS was deduction under Section 195 of the Act on the aforesaid payment, therefore, disallowance under Section 40(a)(ia) of the Act has rightly been made. It is also argued that Section 40 of the Act begins with a non obstante clause and has an overriding effect on Sections 3 to 38 of the Act and therefore, in case

PR COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-7 vs. M/S TALLY SOLUTIONS PVT LTD

In the result, the appeals fail and are hereby

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,H.T. NARENDRA PRASAD

TDS was deduction under Section 195 of the Act on the aforesaid payment, therefore, disallowance under Section 40(a)(ia) of the Act has rightly been made. It is also argued that Section 40 of the Act begins with a non obstante clause and has an overriding effect on Sections 3 to 38 of the Act and therefore, in case

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. THE NATIONAL CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD

Appeals are dismissed

Bench: JAYANT PATEL,B.SREENIVASE GOWDA

TDS Under Section 194A. 3. A question has also been raised as to whether normal members, associate members and sympathizer members are also covered by the exemptions Under Section 194A(3)(v). It is hereby clarified that the exemption is available only to such members who have joined in application for the registration of the co-operative society and those

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

The appeals are dismissed

Bench: S.N.SATYANARAYANA,JAYANT PATEL

TDS on such payment was deductible under Section 194J of the Act. But the learned Counsel for the appellants – Revenue attempted to contend that in paragraphs 7 and 8 of the above referred decision of the Apex Court, it has been observed that if a distinguishable and identifiable service is 30

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