THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, vs. SMT.GRACY BABU,

Bench: HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE A.K.JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR,HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SYAM KUMAR V.M.

sections however embody nothing more or less than the principles which have been applied to all trusts in all countries. The principle of the rule I.T.A.Noa.48, 46, 47, 49, 51, 54, 55, 56 & 68/20 & 6/21 :: 25 :: against delegation with which we are concerned in the present case, is clear; a fiduciary relationship having been created, it is against

THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. REENA JOSE

Bench: HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE A.K.JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR,HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SYAM KUMAR V.M.

sections however embody nothing more or less than the principles which have been applied to all trusts in all countries. The principle of the rule I.T.A.Noa.48, 46, 47, 49, 51, 54, 55, 56 & 68/20 & 6/21 :: 25 :: against delegation with which we are concerned in the present case, is clear; a fiduciary relationship having been created, it is against

THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, vs. GRACY BABU,

Bench: HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE A.K.JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR,HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SYAM KUMAR V.M.

sections however embody nothing more or less than the principles which have been applied to all trusts in all countries. The principle of the rule I.T.A.Noa.48, 46, 47, 49, 51, 54, 55, 56 & 68/20 & 6/21 :: 25 :: against delegation with which we are concerned in the present case, is clear; a fiduciary relationship having been created, it is against

THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. JOSE THOMAS,

Bench: HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE A.K.JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR,HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SYAM KUMAR V.M.

sections however embody nothing more or less than the principles which have been applied to all trusts in all countries. The principle of the rule I.T.A.Noa.48, 46, 47, 49, 51, 54, 55, 56 & 68/20 & 6/21 :: 25 :: against delegation with which we are concerned in the present case, is clear; a fiduciary relationship having been created, it is against

ALL KOSHYS ALL SPICES vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

Appeal is allowed as above

Bench: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.V.BHATTI,HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BECHU KURIAN THOMAS

TDS as per the provisions of the statute. 7. The CIT(Appeals) in Annexure B order proceeded on the basis of the earlier order of ITAT for assessment year 2008-09 and held that payments to M/s.Seven Ocean Shipping Company ought to have been subjected to tax deduction at source. None of the specific ITA No.23/2021 -:6:- contentions raised

M/S.CARBON AND CHEMICALS (INDIA) LTD vs. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOMETAX, KOCHI

Bench: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.V.BHATTI,HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BECHU KURIAN THOMAS

Section 41(1)(a) of the Act. Such an interpretation, if adopted, will in fact be expanding the fiction created and even transform the chargeability. 16. The amount deducted in 1990-91 as an expenditure I.T.R. No.70/2000 -:10:- consisted of an element of tax being TDS

THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. USHA MURUGAN

Bench: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.V.BHATTI,HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BECHU KURIAN THOMAS

TDS should have been deducted and Section 194G is attracted in all fours. Alternatively, in the admitted fact situation of the subject assessment Section 194H is attracted. 7. Advocate Anil Sivaraman invites our attention to the explanation given by the assessee to the notice under Section 143(2) of the Act and contends that from the nature of lottery ticket

M/S. DEVICE DRIVEN (INDIA) PVT. LTD. vs. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

Bench: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.VINOD CHANDRAN,HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE T.R.RAVI

TDS) [(2010) 321 ITR 31 (Karn)] the Karnataka High Court held that the effect of the Supreme Court decision in Ishikawajima had not been obliterated. Insofar as how the explanation has to be construed, reliance has been placed on Sedco Forex International Drill Inc. v. CIT [(2015) 279 ITR 310 (SC)]. 5. Section 195 casts a liability on the person

KADUTHURUTHY REGIONAL SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD.NO.4061 vs. THE JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (TDS)

Bench: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.V.BHATTI,HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE BASANT BALAJI

10 SCC 1, that privacy is a fundamental right, won't the notice issued by Income Tax Officer call for the information pertaining to the account details of members of the appellant co-operative society under Section 133(6), becomes non-est in the eyes of law? Whether penalty orders under Section 272 A (2) (c) can be issued

M/S. APPOLLO TYRES LTD vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

Bench: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.V.BHATTI,HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE VIJU ABRAHAM

Section 40(a)(ia) of the Act. A mere provision of expenditure is not allowable as expenditure inasmuch as the assessee has not suffered actual expenditure on account of the said commission payable to the agents. The conclusion and reasoning of the Assessing Officer was affirmed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals). The Tribunal independently examined the tenability

M/S. POPULAR TRADERS vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER

Bench: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.VINOD CHANDRAN,HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE T.R.RAVI

TDS) 345 ITR 288? (c) Ought not the learned Tribunal have held that Section 201 is found on the instance when the deductee/payee fails to pay the tax on the payment made by the deductor or fails to show the same in the return filed? (d) Ought not the learned Tribunal have held that the assessing authority passed a vague

POPULAR DEALERS vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER (TDS)

Bench: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.VINOD CHANDRAN,HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE T.R.RAVI

TDS) 345 ITR 288? (c) Ought not the learned Tribunal have held that Section 201 is found on the instance when the deductee/payee fails to pay the tax on the payment made by the deductor or fails to show the same in the return filed? (d) Ought not the learned Tribunal have held that the assessing authority passed a vague

POPULAR PRINTERS vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER (TDS)

Bench: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.VINOD CHANDRAN,HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE T.R.RAVI

TDS) 345 ITR 288? (c) Ought not the learned Tribunal have held that Section 201 is found on the instance when the deductee/payee fails to pay the tax on the payment made by the deductor or fails to show the same in the return filed? (d) Ought not the learned Tribunal have held that the assessing authority passed a vague