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

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

Section 194J. 21. In para 14 of its order, the ITAT has recorded Revenue’s contention and it reads as follows: “14. The learned DR also placed reliance upon the following decisions in support of his contention that the project being a composite contract, it has to be considered as one indivisible contract and the tax is to be deducted

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

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

Section 194J. 21. In para 14 of its order, the ITAT has recorded Revenue’s contention and it reads as follows: “14. The learned DR also placed reliance upon the following decisions in support of his contention that the project being a composite contract, it has to be considered as one indivisible contract and the tax is to be deducted

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 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

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

Bench: RAVI MALIMATH,N.KUMAR

194J; (iv) “work” shall have the same meaning as in Explanation III to section 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

RYATAR SAHAKARI SAKKARRE KARKHANE vs. ASST. COMMISSIONER OF

In the result, the impugned order dated

Bench: N.S.SANJAY GOWDA,ALOK ARADHE

Section 40(a)(ia) is applicable to the whole contract amount and not to the amount payable at the end of the year. 8. We have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties and have perused the records. 9. The relevant extract of the order passed by the Tribunal reads as under: “6. We have considered

SRI MUKESH GUPTA vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF

The appeal is dismissed

Bench: D K SINGH,RAJESH RAI K

disallowance of interest expenditure. The Tribunal while dismissing the appeals observed in the impugned order in Para 6 to 10-10.4 as under: 6. Aggrieved by the order of assessment, the assessee preferred an appeal to the first appellate authority. The CIT(A) confirmed the view taken by the Assessing Officer. 10 The relevant finding