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 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

MR. VIKRAM MEHTA vs. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (TDS)

Bench: The Hon’Ble Mr. Justice John Michael Cunha

TDS), CIRCLE-PANAJI. : 2 : 3. QUEST GLOBAL ENGINEERING PRIVATE LTD., QUEST SPECIAL ECONOMIC ZONE, NO.437/A, HATTARGI VILLAGE, YEMAKANAMARADI HOBLI, HUKKERI TALUK, BELAGAVI DISTRICT-591243, REPRESENTED HEREIN BY MR.ANKUR CHHAPOLIKA. ... RESPONDENTS (BY SRI.Y.V.RAVIRAJ, ADV. FOR R1) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA READ WITH SECTION 482

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 overruling the section 30 to 38 of the Act and therefore the claim of depreciation on the capitalized assets is also subject to disallowance under section 40(a)(i) of the Act? 2. We have heard the learned counsel

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 amount, the AO should have disallowed this amount u/s 40(a)(ia). The AO has not made this disallowance even though a similar disallowance has been made in AY 13-14 and AY 14-15. The AO has erroneously not made the disallowance in the asstt. order. Not making this disallowance is untenable

SMT SHASHIKALA vs. SRI R PRAVEEN

Bench: The Hon’Ble Mr. Justice Aravind Kumar

482 OF CR.P.C., PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER DATED 19.08.2017 IN CASE NO.CRL.A.6/2016 PASSED BY THE PRL. DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, CHIKKABALLAPUR AS PER ANNEXURE – A AND DIRECTING THE OFFICE TO RELEASE THE ENTIRE AMOUNT TO THE PETITIONER OR IN THE ALTERNATIVE DIRECT THE RESPONDENT HEREIN TO WITHDRAW THE AMOUNT IN DEPOSIT BY THE RESPONDENT I.E., (RS.25