TIMES VPL LIMITED vs. THE COMMISSIONR OF INCOME TAX

In the result, the order passed by the

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

disallowed under Section 40(a)(ia) of the Act. In the notice, it is 6 further stated that the order of assessment dated 22.12.2009 is erroneous and is prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue. 6. The assessee furnished detailed submissions on 17.11.2011 in which inter alia, it was pointed out that the contract in question was a contract

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)?

disallowance as claimed by the assessee. Hence, the present appeal before this Court. 7. The learned counsel for the Revenue, Mr. Y. V. Raviraj has pleaded that since Section 194C

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

The appeals are dismissed

Bench: SATISH CHANDRA SHARMA,SURAJ GOVINDARAJ

7. Aggrieved by the said order, the Assessee preferred an appeal before the Commissioner of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal [ITAT] on I.T.A. NO.141 OF 2020 c/w I.T.A. NO.151 OF 2020 8 27.12.2012, Bengaluru Bench, Bengaluru in IT (TP)A No.169/Bang/2014, so did the Revenue in IT(TP)A No.149/Bang/2014. 8. The Assessee has filed an appeal as regards disallowance

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

Accordingly, appeal of Revenue is dismissed

Bench: B.VEERAPPA,VINEET KOTHARI

194C of the Act. 7. The assessment was completed by an order under Section 143(3) of the Act on 30.11.2011 wherein the income of the assessee was determined at `69,76,80,360/- in view of the following disallowances

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

Appeal is allowed

Bench: B.VEERAPPA,N.KUMAR

194C of the Act when the - 6 - controversy was with resp[ect to the disallowance under Section 40(a)(ia) of the Act? 6. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties. This Court had an occasion to consider the said substantial question of law in he case of Smt. J.Rama Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax and Another reported

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

7. It is also argued that since payment to non resident was in the nature of royalty in terms of Explanation 2 to Section 9(1)(vi) of the Act and no TDS 16 was deducted on the payment, therefore, disallowance under Section 40(a)(ia) of the Act has rightly been made. It is also pointed out that Section

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

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

RYATAR SAHAKARI SAKKARRE KARKHANE vs. ASST. COMMISSIONER OF

In the result, the impugned order dated

Bench: N.S.SANJAY GOWDA,ALOK ARADHE

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 of the case on hand. It is further submitted that 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

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