M/S WIPRO LIMITED vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

The appeals stand disposed of, accordingly

Bench: N.KUMAR,B.SREENIVASE GOWDA

TDS of Rs.6,02,14,066/- and advance tax payment of Rs.59,50,80,000/-. The assessee claimed refund of Rs.17,12,21,725/-. The return of income was processed u/s 143(1) on 31.01.2005 and the case was selected for scrutiny and notice u/s 143(2) was issued on 14.02.2005. A questionnaire was issued on 27.04.2006 calling for certain

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S WIPRO LTD

The appeals stand disposed of, accordingly

Bench: N.KUMAR,B.SREENIVASE GOWDA

TDS of Rs.6,02,14,066/- and advance tax payment of Rs.59,50,80,000/-. The assessee claimed refund of Rs.17,12,21,725/-. The return of income was processed u/s 143(1) on 31.01.2005 and the case was selected for scrutiny and notice u/s 143(2) was issued on 14.02.2005. A questionnaire was issued on 27.04.2006 calling for certain

SYNDICATE BANK vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

Bench: The Hon’Ble Mr.Justice Aravind Kumar

1) of the Act or in other words it militates against Section 4 and as such the impugned provision is unconstitutional. (e) When the reasons for introduction of impugned provision indicates that as a deterrence against delayed filing of the TDS

M/S HOTEL FISHLAND vs. UNION OF INDIA

Bench: The Hon’Ble Mr.Justice Aravind Kumar

1) of the Act or in other words it militates against Section 4 and as such the impugned provision is unconstitutional. (e) When the reasons for introduction of impugned provision indicates that as a deterrence against delayed filing of the TDS

CENTRAL POWER RESEARCH INSTITUTE vs. UNION OF INDIA

Bench: The Hon’Ble Mr.Justice Aravind Kumar

1) of the Act or in other words it militates against Section 4 and as such the impugned provision is unconstitutional. (e) When the reasons for introduction of impugned provision indicates that as a deterrence against delayed filing of the TDS

ADITHYA BIZORP SOLUTIONS INDIA PVT LTD vs. UNION OF INDIA

Bench: The Hon’Ble Mr.Justice Aravind Kumar

1) of the Act or in other words it militates against Section 4 and as such the impugned provision is unconstitutional. (e) When the reasons for introduction of impugned provision indicates that as a deterrence against delayed filing of the TDS

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

Bench: The Hon’Ble Mr.Justice Aravind Kumar

1) of the Act or in other words it militates against Section 4 and as such the impugned provision is unconstitutional. (e) When the reasons for introduction of impugned provision indicates that as a deterrence against delayed filing of the TDS

M/S PROCESS PUMPS (I) PVT LTD vs. UNION OF INDIA

Bench: The Hon’Ble Mr.Justice Aravind Kumar

1) of the Act or in other words it militates against Section 4 and as such the impugned provision is unconstitutional. (e) When the reasons for introduction of impugned provision indicates that as a deterrence against delayed filing of the TDS

M/S PRAKASH BUS CORPORATION PVT LTD vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF

Bench: The Hon’Ble Mr.Justice Aravind Kumar

1) of the Act or in other words it militates against Section 4 and as such the impugned provision is unconstitutional. (e) When the reasons for introduction of impugned provision indicates that as a deterrence against delayed filing of the TDS

ECOLE SOLUTIONS PVT LTD vs. UNION OF INDIA

Bench: The Hon’Ble Mr.Justice Aravind Kumar

1) of the Act or in other words it militates against Section 4 and as such the impugned provision is unconstitutional. (e) When the reasons for introduction of impugned provision indicates that as a deterrence against delayed filing of the TDS

DR V. NARAYANASWAMY vs. UNION OF INDIA

Bench: The Hon’Ble Mr.Justice Aravind Kumar

1) of the Act or in other words it militates against Section 4 and as such the impugned provision is unconstitutional. (e) When the reasons for introduction of impugned provision indicates that as a deterrence against delayed filing of the TDS

M/S TEE ENN ENTERPRISES vs. UNION OF INDIA

Bench: The Hon’Ble Mr.Justice Aravind Kumar

1) of the Act or in other words it militates against Section 4 and as such the impugned provision is unconstitutional. (e) When the reasons for introduction of impugned provision indicates that as a deterrence against delayed filing of the TDS

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

Bench: The Hon’Ble Mr.Justice Aravind Kumar

1) of the Act or in other words it militates against Section 4 and as such the impugned provision is unconstitutional. (e) When the reasons for introduction of impugned provision indicates that as a deterrence against delayed filing of the TDS

M/S. LAKSHMINIRMAN BANGALORE PVT.LTD vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX

Bench: The Hon’Ble Mr.Justice Aravind Kumar

1) of the Act or in other words it militates against Section 4 and as such the impugned provision is unconstitutional. (e) When the reasons for introduction of impugned provision indicates that as a deterrence against delayed filing of the TDS

M/S NEW MEDIA COMPANY vs. UNION OF INDIA

Bench: The Hon’Ble Mr.Justice Aravind Kumar

1) of the Act or in other words it militates against Section 4 and as such the impugned provision is unconstitutional. (e) When the reasons for introduction of impugned provision indicates that as a deterrence against delayed filing of the TDS

SRI CHANDRAKAR K KAMATH vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF

Bench: The Hon’Ble Mr.Justice Aravind Kumar

1) of the Act or in other words it militates against Section 4 and as such the impugned provision is unconstitutional. (e) When the reasons for introduction of impugned provision indicates that as a deterrence against delayed filing of the TDS

M/S NEW MEDIA COMPANY vs. UNION OF INDIA

Bench: The Hon’Ble Mr.Justice Aravind Kumar

1) of the Act or in other words it militates against Section 4 and as such the impugned provision is unconstitutional. (e) When the reasons for introduction of impugned provision indicates that as a deterrence against delayed filing of the TDS

M/S PRODIGY TECHNOVATIONS PVT LTD vs. UNION OF INDIA

Bench: The Hon’Ble Mr.Justice Aravind Kumar

1) of the Act or in other words it militates against Section 4 and as such the impugned provision is unconstitutional. (e) When the reasons for introduction of impugned provision indicates that as a deterrence against delayed filing of the TDS

MINTENT SERVICED APARTMENTS PVT LTD., vs. UNION OF INDIA

Bench: The Hon’Ble Mr.Justice Aravind Kumar

1) of the Act or in other words it militates against Section 4 and as such the impugned provision is unconstitutional. (e) When the reasons for introduction of impugned provision indicates that as a deterrence against delayed filing of the TDS

M/S. K K BROTHERS vs. UNION OF INDIA

Bench: The Hon’Ble Mr.Justice Aravind Kumar

1) of the Act or in other words it militates against Section 4 and as such the impugned provision is unconstitutional. (e) When the reasons for introduction of impugned provision indicates that as a deterrence against delayed filing of the TDS