M/S POWER GRID CORPORATION OF INDIA LIMITED vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER

Bench: The Hon’Ble Mr.Justice Aravind Kumar

34 of LA Act, then, it would not form part of compensation and as such would be exigible to tax and in the event interest is ordered to be paid on the enhanced compensation as indicated under Section 28, such interest would form part of compensation and thus, would be outside the purview of exigibility. 8. Sriyuths Krishnamurthy Hasyagar

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

The appeals are dismissed

Bench: S.N.SATYANARAYANA,JAYANT PATEL

section 194J refers to “any sum” paid by the payer and does not distinguish between the payment made by someone on its behalf or its customer’s behalf. Therefore, the plea of the assessee that the payment received by the assessee from the customers of the assessee and paid to other mobile company does not fall under TDS provision

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

34,10,000/- debited towards commission on sales of profit and loss account without TDS was not disallowed under Section

STATE BANK OF INDIA vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER

Appeals stand dismissed

Bench: S.SUJATHA,RAVI V HOSMANI

TDS], Kanpur [(2016) 158 ITD 194 (Luck–Trib)], dismissed the appeals. The fact that the employees departed from a place in India and ended up his journey in a place in India should have been considered and atleast the cost for the shortage route incurred by the employee should have been considered for exemption under Section

STATE BANK OF INDIA vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER

Appeals stand dismissed

Bench: S.SUJATHA,RAVI V HOSMANI

TDS], Kanpur [(2016) 158 ITD 194 (Luck–Trib)], dismissed the appeals. The fact that the employees departed from a place in India and ended up his journey in a place in India should have been considered and atleast the cost for the shortage route incurred by the employee should have been considered for exemption under Section

STATE BANK OF INDIA vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER

Appeals stand dismissed

Bench: S.SUJATHA,RAVI V HOSMANI

TDS], Kanpur [(2016) 158 ITD 194 (Luck–Trib)], dismissed the appeals. The fact that the employees departed from a place in India and ended up his journey in a place in India should have been considered and atleast the cost for the shortage route incurred by the employee should have been considered for exemption under Section

STATE BANK OF INDIA vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER

Appeals stand dismissed

Bench: S.SUJATHA,RAVI V HOSMANI

TDS], Kanpur [(2016) 158 ITD 194 (Luck–Trib)], dismissed the appeals. The fact that the employees departed from a place in India and ended up his journey in a place in India should have been considered and atleast the cost for the shortage route incurred by the employee should have been considered for exemption under Section

STATE BANK OF INDIA vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER

Appeals stand dismissed

Bench: S.SUJATHA,RAVI V HOSMANI

TDS], Kanpur [(2016) 158 ITD 194 (Luck–Trib)], dismissed the appeals. The fact that the employees departed from a place in India and ended up his journey in a place in India should have been considered and atleast the cost for the shortage route incurred by the employee should have been considered for exemption under Section

STATE BANK OF INDIA vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER

Appeals stand dismissed

Bench: S.SUJATHA,RAVI V HOSMANI

TDS], Kanpur [(2016) 158 ITD 194 (Luck–Trib)], dismissed the appeals. The fact that the employees departed from a place in India and ended up his journey in a place in India should have been considered and atleast the cost for the shortage route incurred by the employee should have been considered for exemption under Section

STATE BANK OF INDIA vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER

Appeals stand dismissed

Bench: S.SUJATHA,RAVI V HOSMANI

TDS], Kanpur [(2016) 158 ITD 194 (Luck–Trib)], dismissed the appeals. The fact that the employees departed from a place in India and ended up his journey in a place in India should have been considered and atleast the cost for the shortage route incurred by the employee should have been considered for exemption under Section

STATE BANK OF INDIA vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER

Appeals stand dismissed

Bench: S.SUJATHA,RAVI V HOSMANI

TDS], Kanpur [(2016) 158 ITD 194 (Luck–Trib)], dismissed the appeals. The fact that the employees departed from a place in India and ended up his journey in a place in India should have been considered and atleast the cost for the shortage route incurred by the employee should have been considered for exemption under Section

STATE BANK OF INDIA vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER

Appeals stand dismissed

Bench: S.SUJATHA,RAVI V HOSMANI

TDS], Kanpur [(2016) 158 ITD 194 (Luck–Trib)], dismissed the appeals. The fact that the employees departed from a place in India and ended up his journey in a place in India should have been considered and atleast the cost for the shortage route incurred by the employee should have been considered for exemption under Section

STATE BANK OF INDIA vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER

Appeals stand dismissed

Bench: S.SUJATHA,RAVI V HOSMANI

TDS], Kanpur [(2016) 158 ITD 194 (Luck–Trib)], dismissed the appeals. The fact that the employees departed from a place in India and ended up his journey in a place in India should have been considered and atleast the cost for the shortage route incurred by the employee should have been considered for exemption under Section

STATE BANK OF INDIA vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER

Appeals stand dismissed

Bench: S.SUJATHA,RAVI V HOSMANI

TDS], Kanpur [(2016) 158 ITD 194 (Luck–Trib)], dismissed the appeals. The fact that the employees departed from a place in India and ended up his journey in a place in India should have been considered and atleast the cost for the shortage route incurred by the employee should have been considered for exemption under Section

STATE BANK OF INDIA vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER

Appeals stand dismissed

Bench: S.SUJATHA,RAVI V HOSMANI

TDS], Kanpur [(2016) 158 ITD 194 (Luck–Trib)], dismissed the appeals. The fact that the employees departed from a place in India and ended up his journey in a place in India should have been considered and atleast the cost for the shortage route incurred by the employee should have been considered for exemption under Section

STATE BANK OF INDIA vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER

Appeals stand dismissed

Bench: S.SUJATHA,RAVI V HOSMANI

TDS], Kanpur [(2016) 158 ITD 194 (Luck–Trib)], dismissed the appeals. The fact that the employees departed from a place in India and ended up his journey in a place in India should have been considered and atleast the cost for the shortage route incurred by the employee should have been considered for exemption under Section

STATE BANK OF INDIA vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER

Appeals stand dismissed

Bench: S.SUJATHA,RAVI V HOSMANI

TDS], Kanpur [(2016) 158 ITD 194 (Luck–Trib)], dismissed the appeals. The fact that the employees departed from a place in India and ended up his journey in a place in India should have been considered and atleast the cost for the shortage route incurred by the employee should have been considered for exemption under Section