M/S DELHI INTERNATIONAL vs. THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER

Bench: S.SUJATHA,S VISHWAJITH SHETTY

disallowance under Section 40(a)(ia) of the Act. - 18 - 15. The arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the appellant that this order of the Tribunal suffers from infirmity, for the reason, that the net proceeds of PSF-(SC) was held by it in fiduciary capacity and collected the same on behalf of Government of India which

M/S DELHI INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT LTD vs. THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

Bench: S.SUJATHA,S VISHWAJITH SHETTY

disallowance under Section 40(a)(ia) of the Act. - 18 - 15. The arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the appellant that this order of the Tribunal suffers from infirmity, for the reason, that the net proceeds of PSF-(SC) was held by it in fiduciary capacity and collected the same on behalf of Government of India which

M/S DELHI INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT LTD vs. THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

Bench: S.SUJATHA,S VISHWAJITH SHETTY

disallowance under Section 40(a)(ia) of the Act. - 18 - 15. The arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the appellant that this order of the Tribunal suffers from infirmity, for the reason, that the net proceeds of PSF-(SC) was held by it in fiduciary capacity and collected the same on behalf of Government of India which

THE PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, vs. M/S. DELHI INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT PVT. LTD.

Bench: S.SUJATHA,S VISHWAJITH SHETTY

disallowance under Section 40(a)(ia) of the Act. - 18 - 15. The arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the appellant that this order of the Tribunal suffers from infirmity, for the reason, that the net proceeds of PSF-(SC) was held by it in fiduciary capacity and collected the same on behalf of Government of India which

THE PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, vs. M/S. DELHI INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT PVT. LTD.,

Bench: S.SUJATHA,S VISHWAJITH SHETTY

disallowance under Section 40(a)(ia) of the Act. - 18 - 15. The arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the appellant that this order of the Tribunal suffers from infirmity, for the reason, that the net proceeds of PSF-(SC) was held by it in fiduciary capacity and collected the same on behalf of Government of India which

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S GULBARGA ELECTRICITY SUPPLY COMPANY LTD.

Accordingly, appeal of Revenue is dismissed

Bench: B.VEERAPPA,VINEET KOTHARI

disallowances under Section 40(a)(ia) of the Act: (i) on payments made to KPTCL, without deducting tax at source under section194J of the Act on transmission charges and SLDC charges `113,05,08,348/- (ii) on payments towards composite contracts without deducting tax at source as required under Section 194C of the Act `136,18,17,186/- 8. Aggrieved

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX vs. M/S BANGALORE METRO RAIL CORPORATION LTD.,

Bench: P.S.DINESH KUMAR,ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE

194(j) of the I.T. Act is applicable so far as the Technical services are concerned. 10. Shri. Chaitanya, learned Senior Advocate, opposing the appeal submitted that the specific case of both assessee and the Revenue 5 (2007)158 Taxman 259 (SC) 6 (1999)105 Taxman 742 (SC) I.T.A. No.60/2014 C/W I.T.A. No.59/2014 9 throughout is that

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX vs. M/S BANGALORE METRO RAIL CORPORATION LTD

Bench: P.S.DINESH KUMAR,ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE

194(j) of the I.T. Act is applicable so far as the Technical services are concerned. 10. Shri. Chaitanya, learned Senior Advocate, opposing the appeal submitted that the specific case of both assessee and the Revenue 5 (2007)158 Taxman 259 (SC) 6 (1999)105 Taxman 742 (SC) I.T.A. No.60/2014 C/W I.T.A. No.59/2014 9 throughout is that

THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER vs. M/S OBULAPURAM MINING

Bench: K.SOMASHEKAR,UMESH M ADIGA

Disallowance of Expenses under Explanation to section 37(1) and in respect of third issue i.e., addition made on account of sale of Land, the ITAT set-aside the order of CIT (A) on that issue and restored the matter to A.O. for a fresh decision with the same directions as were given by the tribunal

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

194 of the Act and where no single payment of Rs.20,000/-, the same are exempted from the purview of sub-section 3 of Section 194C and failure attracts the consequences under Section 40(a)(ia) of the Act. 23. In reply, the assessee has reiterated that the word freight paid has been mistakenly used by his accountant and that

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

Bench: RAVI MALIMATH,N.KUMAR

194-I; (vi) “royalty” shall have the same meaning as in Explanation 2 to clause (vi) of sub- section (1) of section 9; By Finance Act, 2010, the said provision is substituted by the following: Substituted by the Finance Act, 2010, w.e.f. 01.04.2010. Prior to its substitution, proviso as substituted by the Finance Act, 2008, w.r.e.f. 01.04.2005, read as under

K R SATYANARAYANA vs. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

In the result, the orders passed by the Commissioner of

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,H.T. NARENDRA PRASAD

194/- and also declared income from the house property for a sum of Rs.2,03,986/- and capital gains at Rs.19,06,984/- and declared income from other sources at Rs.1,55,438/-. The case of the assessee was selected for scrutiny and a notice under Section 143(2) of the Act was issued on 30.08.2010. The Assessing Officer

THE COMMISSINER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) AND ANR vs. THE BIJAPUR DISTRICT CENTRAL

Bench: R.DEVDAS,VINEET KOTHARI

disallowance of such interest paid to the members without TDS, was liable to be made as per the provisions of Section 40 (a) (ia) of the Act. 4. Both the learned counsel at Bar fairly submitted that the said issue is no longer res-integra in view of the CBTD Circular No.19/2015 holding that such Co-operative Banks

PR COMMISSIONER OF vs. M/S SUBEX LTD

In the result, appeal stands dismissed

Bench: S.SUJATHA,RAVI V HOSMANI

disallowed the deduction/debit. This fact is - 8 - important. It indicates the double standards adopted by the Department.” 10. Analyzing Section 43A [Un-amended] held that “what triggers the adjustment in the actual cost of the assets, in terms of un-amended Section 43A is the change in the rate of exchange subsequent to the acquisition of asset in foreign currency

M/S EMBASSY DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER

The appeals are dismissed

Bench: B.MANOHAR,VINEET SARAN

Section 36(1)(iii) of the Act. The finding recorded by the Tribunal, First Appellate Authority and Assessing Authority, is without any basis and contrary to law. Apart from that, the 11 profit earned out of the said amount has already been taxed for the assessment year 2003-04. Disallowing the interest portion amounts to double taxation and sought

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

The appeals stand disposed of, accordingly

Bench: N.KUMAR,B.SREENIVASE GOWDA

Section 145A of the Income- tax Act which was inserted with effect from assessment year 1999-2000. The said provision states that the valuation of stock should include the amount of any tax duty, cess or fee - 94 - actually paid or incurred to bring the goods to its present location and condition. The Department has followed a consistent stand

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

The appeals stand disposed of, accordingly

Bench: N.KUMAR,B.SREENIVASE GOWDA

Section 145A of the Income- tax Act which was inserted with effect from assessment year 1999-2000. The said provision states that the valuation of stock should include the amount of any tax duty, cess or fee - 94 - actually paid or incurred to bring the goods to its present location and condition. The Department has followed a consistent stand