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

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 was not disallowed under Section 40(a)(ia) of the Act in the assessment order. Failure to do so has resulted

PR COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-6 vs. M/S SUBEX TECHNOLOGIES LTD

In the result, the appeal is disposed of

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,H.T. NARENDRA PRASAD

40(a)(ia) of the Act by holding that assessee made only journal entries in the books and as such it does not require deduction of TDS even when the assessing authority has rightly held that the assessee required to deduct TDS towards payments made sub- 3 contractor as per section

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

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

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

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

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

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

THE PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME -TAX vs. M/S KAWASAKI MICRO ELECTRONICS INC

The appeal is disposed of

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,H.T. NARENDRA PRASAD

TDS as required under section 195 of the Act without appreciating that section 40 starts with a non-obstante clause

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S MARUTI SUBRAY PATIL

The appeal stands disposed of in the above terms

Bench: The Hon’Ble Mr.Justice Ravi Malimath & The Hon’Ble Mr.Justice G. Narendar

TDS). The assessee has also relied upon a circular dated 01.10.2004 and the same has also been rejected in view of the fact that the provisions of Section 194C(i) had been amended with effect from 01.10.2004. Thus, in effect all the contentions raised by the assessee were negated and the assessing authority invoking the provisions of section 40

PR COMMISSIONER OF vs. M/S WIPRO LIMITED

In the result, the appeal is disposed of in terms

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,H.T. NARENDRA PRASAD

40 does not apply to a claim for depreciation and claim under Section 32 is a claim for deduction. Therefore, the amount claimed as deduction while computing income chargeable under the head profits and gains from business and profession under Section 32 can be disallowed specially in case, where the assessee has failed to deduct TDS

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

Bench: RAVI MALIMATH,N.KUMAR

TDS deductible and deducted in the last month of previous year if was not paid till the due date of filing of return under sub-section (1) of Section 139 and in any other case, on or before the last day of the previous year, Section 40

PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-5 vs. M/S. PUMA SPORTS INDIA P., LTD.,

The appeal stands dismissed

Bench: SATISH CHANDRA SHARMA,V SRISHANANDA

TDS are not at all permissible keeping in view Section 40(a)(i) of the Act. 3. The appeal has been

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME vs. SRI SCORPIO ENGINEERING

Bench: B.V.NAGARATHNA,JAYANT PATEL

TDS deductible and deducted in the last month of previous year if was not paid till the due date of filing of return under sub-section (1) of Section 139 and in any other case, on or before the last day of the previous year, Section 40

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX vs. TEXAS INSTRUMENTS INDIA PVT LTD

The appeals are dismissed

Bench: SATISH CHANDRA SHARMA,SURAJ GOVINDARAJ

section 40(a)(i)/(ia) of the Act does not require assessing authority to invoke specific provisions relating to TDS

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, vs. SHRIDHAR SHANTINATH PATRAVALI,

Bench: This Court : I. Whether On Facts & In Law The Tribunal Is Right In Ignoring The Provisions Of Second & Third Provisos To Section 194C(3), As Per Which The Assessee Respondent Was Under Obligation To Furnish Particulars Of The Declaration Filed By The Sub-Contractors In Form No.15-I Within Due Date I.E., 30.06.2008, In The Manner Prescribed I.E., Form No. 15J, To The Prescribed Authority & Failure To Do So, Attracts Violation Of Provisions Of Section 194C(3) Viz., Disallowance Under Section 40(A)(Ia)?

Section 40(a)(ia) of the Act was not justified. Therefore, the learned Tribunal has rightly upheld the disallowance. Hence, the learned counsel submits that no substantial questions of law arise in the present case, which needs to be answered by this Court. 10. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the impugned order. 11. A bare perusal

M/S ANILKUMAR AND COMPANY COTTON MERCHANTS vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER

Appeal is allowed and impugned order

Bench: K.BHAKTHAVATSALA,B.S.INDRAKALA

TDS deducted during the previous year and paid before the due date for filing the return of income under Section 139(i) of the Income Tax Act, no disallowance can be made under Section 40