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

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

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

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 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

PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (CENTRAL) vs. M/S. DELHI INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT PVT. 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

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

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

Bench: S.SUJATHA,VINEET KOTHARI

Income-tax (TDS) & Anr. vs. M/s.Ice Network (P) Ltd., 18/22 (a) Where the Constitutional validity of the provisions of an Act or Rule is under challenge, or (b) Where Board’s order, Notification, Instruction or Circular has been held to be illegal or ultra vires, or (c) Where Revenue Audit objection in the case has been accepted by the Department

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S. HM EXPORTS

The appeal stands dismissed

Bench: B.MANOHAR,VINEET SARAN

TDS. On such basis, the assessee therein was claiming that there was disclosure of income made by it and that in such circumstances, it would not amount to undisclosed

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME -TAX TDS vs. M/S CENTRAL POWER RESEARCH INSTITUTE

Appeal is disposed of as withdrawn/not pressed without answering

Bench: S.SUJATHA,VINEET KOTHARI

TDS, WARD – 1 (2), BENGALURU AND ETC. THIS I.T.A. COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY, Dr. VINEET KOTHARI. J., MADE THE FOLLOWING: ORDER Mr. Aravind K.V., Adv. for Appellants-Revenue. 1. Learned counsel for the Appellants-Revenue has brought to the notice of this Court that the Central Board of Direct Taxes, Department of Revenue, Ministry of Finance, Government

THE PR COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. SHRI H NAGARAJA

Bench: S SUNIL DUTT YADAV,B.S PATIL

undisclosed profit for the respective assessment years. 20. The assessee challenged this order by filing appeal before the Appellate Commissioner. The Appellate Authority considered both the appeals and in his order dated 28.03.2013, has held after examining the legality and correctness of the order passed by the Assessing Officer that addition made by the Assessing Officer regarding unexplained income

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME -TAX TDS vs. M/S CENTRAL POWER RESEARCH INSTITUTE

Appeal is disposed of as withdrawn/not pressed without answering

Bench: S.SUJATHA,VINEET KOTHARI

TDS, WARD-1(2), BENGALURU AND ETC. THIS I.T.A. COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY, Dr. VINEET KOTHARI. J., MADE THE FOLLOWING: ORDER Mr. Aravind K.V., Adv. for Appellants-Revenue. 1. Learned counsel for the Appellants-Revenue has brought to the notice of this Court that the Central Board of Direct Taxes, Department of Revenue, Ministry of Finance, Government

GMR INFRASTRUCTURE LIMITED vs. THE DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX

In the result, we do not find any merit in the appeal

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR

TDS credit to the extent of Rs.8,79,156/-. An order of rectification was passed on 13.07.2010 by which refund of a sum of Rs.10,55,000/- was granted. Thereafter, a search and seizure operation under Section 132 of the Act was initiated on 11.10.2012 and a notice under Section 153A of the Act was issued

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. SRI DEVI GRANITES

Bench: The Hon'Ble Mr. Justice Ravi Malimath

undisclosed income was determined at Rs.1,49,43,800/-. Aggrieved by the same, the assessee preferred an appeal. The appeal was partly 3 allowed. No relief was granted for the year 2000-2001. Aggrieved by the same, the Revenue as well the assessee preferred appeals before the Tribunal. The Tribunal allowed the appeals and granted relief to the assessee

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. SRI DEVI GRANITES

Bench: The Hon'Ble Mr. Justice Ravi Malimath

undisclosed income was determined at Rs.1,49,43,800/-. Aggrieved by the same, the assessee preferred an appeal. The appeal was partly 3 allowed. No relief was granted for the year 2000-2001. Aggrieved by the same, the Revenue as well the assessee preferred appeals before the Tribunal. The Tribunal allowed the appeals and granted relief to the assessee