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

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

TDS) reported in [2012 (21) Taxman.com.489 (Allahabad) in support of his contention. It can be seen that the judgment was rendered in a case which relates to the assessment years 2009-10 and 2010-11. The proviso to Section 201 came into force only in 2012. As such, no reliance can ITA.209/2019, ITA.210/2019, ITA.212/2019, ITA.220/2019, ITA.221/2019, ITA.222/2019, ITA.224/2019, ITA.226/2019

POPULAR DEALERS vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER (TDS)

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

TDS) reported in [2012 (21) Taxman.com.489 (Allahabad) in support of his contention. It can be seen that the judgment was rendered in a case which relates to the assessment years 2009-10 and 2010-11. The proviso to Section 201 came into force only in 2012. As such, no reliance can ITA.209/2019, ITA.210/2019, ITA.212/2019, ITA.220/2019, ITA.221/2019, ITA.222/2019, ITA.224/2019, ITA.226/2019

POPULAR PRINTERS vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER (TDS)

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

TDS) reported in [2012 (21) Taxman.com.489 (Allahabad) in support of his contention. It can be seen that the judgment was rendered in a case which relates to the assessment years 2009-10 and 2010-11. The proviso to Section 201 came into force only in 2012. As such, no reliance can ITA.209/2019, ITA.210/2019, ITA.212/2019, ITA.220/2019, ITA.221/2019, ITA.222/2019, ITA.224/2019, ITA.226/2019

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

M/S. SUBSCRIBERS CHITS (P) LTD. vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

Appeals stand allowed accordingly

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

33. The next point to be considered is with regard to the observation/finding rendered by the Bench in U.S. Technologies case, holding that failure to remit the tax after deducting the same, will constitute a more grievous default than the omission to deduct the tax under Section 271C(1)(a) and hence it cannot come within the purview of Section

THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. JOSE THOMAS,

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

section 13(2)(g). It was submitted that the payments were made to offset the cost of construction of building done by the erstwhile Trustees and hence, there was no diversion. 19.3 The Ld. AR submitted that the Trust did not claim Rs. 14.55 crores as expenditure or application and hence, the same cannot be added to income

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.

section 13(2)(g). It was submitted that the payments were made to offset the cost of construction of building done by the erstwhile Trustees and hence, there was no diversion. 19.3 The Ld. AR submitted that the Trust did not claim Rs. 14.55 crores as expenditure or application and hence, the same cannot be added to income

THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. REENA JOSE

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

section 13(2)(g). It was submitted that the payments were made to offset the cost of construction of building done by the erstwhile Trustees and hence, there was no diversion. 19.3 The Ld. AR submitted that the Trust did not claim Rs. 14.55 crores as expenditure or application and hence, the same cannot be added to income

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

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

section 13(2)(g). It was submitted that the payments were made to offset the cost of construction of building done by the erstwhile Trustees and hence, there was no diversion. 19.3 The Ld. AR submitted that the Trust did not claim Rs. 14.55 crores as expenditure or application and hence, the same cannot be added to income

THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. JOSE THOMAS

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

section 13(2)(g). It was submitted that the payments were made to offset the cost of construction of building done by the erstwhile Trustees and hence, there was no diversion. 19.3 The Ld. AR submitted that the Trust did not claim Rs. 14.55 crores as expenditure or application and hence, the same cannot be added to income