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

Bench: S.SUJATHA,S VISHWAJITH SHETTY

disallowing the claim under section 40(a)(ia) of the Act. 6. Learned counsel appearing for the Revenue, justifying the impugned order of the Tribunal submitted that, the Airlines Operators while paying Passenger Service Fees [PSF (SC & FC) were retaining the amount - 12 - of 2.5% of the invoice value on account of prompt payment by them to the assessee before

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

Bench: S.SUJATHA,S VISHWAJITH SHETTY

disallowing the claim under section 40(a)(ia) of the Act. 6. Learned counsel appearing for the Revenue, justifying the impugned order of the Tribunal submitted that, the Airlines Operators while paying Passenger Service Fees [PSF (SC & FC) were retaining the amount - 12 - of 2.5% of the invoice value on account of prompt payment by them to the assessee before

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

Bench: S.SUJATHA,S VISHWAJITH SHETTY

disallowing the claim under section 40(a)(ia) of the Act. 6. Learned counsel appearing for the Revenue, justifying the impugned order of the Tribunal submitted that, the Airlines Operators while paying Passenger Service Fees [PSF (SC & FC) were retaining the amount - 12 - of 2.5% of the invoice value on account of prompt payment by them to the assessee before

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

Bench: S.SUJATHA,S VISHWAJITH SHETTY

disallowing the claim under section 40(a)(ia) of the Act. 6. Learned counsel appearing for the Revenue, justifying the impugned order of the Tribunal submitted that, the Airlines Operators while paying Passenger Service Fees [PSF (SC & FC) were retaining the amount - 12 - of 2.5% of the invoice value on account of prompt payment by them to the assessee before

M/S DELHI INTERNATIONAL vs. THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER

Bench: S.SUJATHA,S VISHWAJITH SHETTY

disallowing the claim under section 40(a)(ia) of the Act. 6. Learned counsel appearing for the Revenue, justifying the impugned order of the Tribunal submitted that, the Airlines Operators while paying Passenger Service Fees [PSF (SC & FC) were retaining the amount - 12 - of 2.5% of the invoice value on account of prompt payment by them to the assessee before

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, vs. M/S CORPORATION BANK

In the result, the third substantial question of law is also answered

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,H.T. NARENDRA PRASAD

disallowance under Section 36(1)(vii) of the Act. 3. The assessee thereupon filed an appeal before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) who by an order dated 18.07.2013 partly allowed the appeal preferred by the assessee. The revenue thereupon filed an appeal before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as 'the tribunal' for short). The tribunal

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-III, vs. M/S. TELCO CONSTRUCTION

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

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,R. NATARAJ

194H states that "where any income is credited to any account, whether called "suspense account" or by any other name, in the books of accounts of the person liable to pay such income, such crediting shall be deemed to be income to the account of the payee and the provisions of this Section shall apply accordingly?" "2. Whether

THE PR. COMMISSIONER OF vs. M/S. CORPORATION BANK

Appeal stands dismissed accordingly

Bench: S.SUJATHA,S RACHAIAH

disallowance as the payments made to NFS is nothing but commission/brokerage and as such the assessing authority invoked said section as since assessee had not deducted TDS as required under Section 194H

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S KARNATAKA BANK LTD

In the result, appeal filed by the revenue fails and is

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR

disallowance made under Section 40(a) (ia) of the Act on ATM charges of other Banks even though Section 194H

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S KARNATAKA BANK LTD

In the result, appeal filed by the revenue fails and is

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR

disallowance made under Section 40(a) (ia) of the Act on ATM charges of other Banks even though Section 194H

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S KARNATAKA BANK LTD

In the result, appeal filed by the revenue fails and is

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR

disallowance made under Section 40(a) (ia) of the Act on ATM charges of other Banks even though Section 194H

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S KARNATAKA BANK LTD

In the result, appeal filed by the revenue fails and is

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR

disallowance made under Section 40(a) (ia) of the Act on ATM charges of other Banks even though Section 194H

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX vs. M/S. KARNATAKA BANK LTD.,

In the result, appeal filed by the revenue fails and is

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR

disallowance made under Section 40(a) (ia) of the Act on ATM charges of other Banks even though Section 194H

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S KARNATAKA BANK LTD

In the result, appeal filed by the revenue fails and is

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR

disallowance made under Section 40(a) (ia) of the Act on ATM charges of other Banks even though Section 194H

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

194H; (ii) “fees for technical services” shall have the same meaning as in Explanation 2 to clause (vii) of sub-section (1) of section 9; (iii) “professional services” shall have the same meaning as in clause (a) of the Explanation to section 194J; (iv) “work” shall have the same meaning as in Explanation III to section 194C; (v) “rent” shall

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S. ADISHWAR INDIA LTD

Bench: B.MANOHAR,VINEET SARAN

disallowance of expenditure under Section 40(a)(ia) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short ‘the Act’) was made. 2. We have heard the learned counsel for the appellants and are in conformity with the order of the Tribunal that the fee charged by the assessee would not be a commission or brokerage that would attract the provisions