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)?

194C(3) of the Act had not been fulfilled. Therefore, the said amount was disallowed under Section 40(a)(ia) of the Act. 5

TIMES VPL LIMITED vs. THE COMMISSIONR OF INCOME TAX

In the result, the order passed by the

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,P.G.M.PATIL

disallowance for an alleged failure by the assessee to deduct tax at the source under Section 194C of the Act on the cost of advertisement space. The assessment for the subsequent year i.e. assessment year 2008-09 was finalized on 06.12.2009, wherein Assessing Officer has taken view contrary to the view taken under consideration that expenditure 5

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

The appeals are dismissed

Bench: SATISH CHANDRA SHARMA,SURAJ GOVINDARAJ

disallowance if the order passed in sum and substance meets the legal requirements then it is said to be a valid order and appellate authorities has power to either enhance or reduce tax liability?”. I.T.A. NO.141 OF 2020 c/w I.T.A. NO.151 OF 2020 12 11. Sri.K.V.Aravind, learned Senior Standing Counsel for the Revenue, submits that: 11.1. The deduction under Section

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

Accordingly, appeal of Revenue is dismissed

Bench: B.VEERAPPA,VINEET KOTHARI

5. In respect of payments made towards composite contracts for setting of electric sub-stations, Revenue was of the opinion that such payments made were liable for tax to be deducted at source in accordance with the provisions of Section 194C of the Income Tax Act, but that is not the issue raised in the present appeal, and no substantial

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S. JANANI TOURS & RESORTS (P) LTD

Appeal is allowed

Bench: B.VEERAPPA,N.KUMAR

5. Aggrieved by the said order, the revenue is in appeal. The following two substantial questions of law were framed for consideration at the time of admission: (i) Whether the Tribunal was correct in holding that the assessee is not bound to deduct TDS as the provisions of Section 194C are not attracted as no agreement was entered into

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

5. In respect of exclusion of communication charges and reimbursement expenses incurred in foreign currency from export turnover for purpose of computing the deduction under Section 10A of the Act, the claim of the assessee was allowed and the Assessing Officer was directed to exclude the expenses from total turnover as well. The claim of the assessee for deduction under

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S DELL INTERNATIONAL SERVICES INDIA PVT LTD

Appeal is dismissed;

Bench: P.S.DINESH KUMAR,RAMACHANDRA D. HUDDAR

disallowed under section 40(a)(ia) of the Act even though the interpretation in the Tribunal’s judgment rendered provisions under section 194C(2) and Explanation (C) to Section 194J otiose?” 3. Heard Shri E.I. Sanmathi, learned Standing Counsel for the appellants-Revenue and Ms.Tanmayee Rajkumar, learned Advocate for the respondent-Assessee. 4. At the outset, Ms.Tanmayee Rajkumar submits that

M/S TOYOTA KIRLOSKAR MOTOR P LTD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER

In the result, the appeal is allowed

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,M.G.S. KAMAL

disallowances made under Section 40a(i) and (ia) of the Act. The assessee thereupon furnished the information vide communication dated 12.08.2013. 4. The Assessing Officer initiated the proceeding under Section 201 and 201(1A) of the Act and treated the assessee as assessee in default in respect of the 6 amount made in provision, which was reversed / un- utilized

RYATAR SAHAKARI SAKKARRE KARKHANE vs. ASST. COMMISSIONER OF

In the result, the impugned order dated

Bench: N.S.SANJAY GOWDA,ALOK ARADHE

5 : disallowance of provisions under Section 40(a)(ia) of the Act. 7. On the other hand, learned counsel for the revenue has submitted that the Tribunal grossly erred in deciding the appeal merely by placing reliance on the decision rendered by the Allahabad High Court in the case of Vector Shipping Services Pvt. Ltd. without reference to the facts

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

Bench: RAVI MALIMATH,N.KUMAR

194C; (v) “rent” shall have the same meaning as in clause (i) to the Explanation to section 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

THE PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S APIGEE TECHNOLOGIES

Bench: S.SUJATHA,VINEET KOTHARI

section 194c of the act” and the assessing officer had rightly disallowed a sum of Rs.5,14,595/- bearing an amount on which the assessee had failed to deduct TDS as per provisions of the Act? 4. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the Tribunal is right in law in holding assessing authority is not right

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

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

194C or 194J would not apply. It was also contended that assessee was not aware as to how the consortium partners had utilized the 10% of the Contract amount given as ‘Mobilization Amount’. 6. The Assessing Officer, not being satisfied with BMRCL’s reply, treated it as ‘an assessee in default’ and levied tax and interest thereon under Section

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

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

194C or 194J would not apply. It was also contended that assessee was not aware as to how the consortium partners had utilized the 10% of the Contract amount given as ‘Mobilization Amount’. 6. The Assessing Officer, not being satisfied with BMRCL’s reply, treated it as ‘an assessee in default’ and levied tax and interest thereon under Section