ENGINEERING ANALYSIS CENTRE OF EXCELLENCE PRIVATE LIMITED vs. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ROHINTON FALI NARIMAN

additional income-tax) of, this Act in respect of the total income of the previous year of every person: Provided that where by virtue of any provision of this Act income-tax is to be charged in respect of the income of a period other than the previous year, income-tax shall be charged accordingly. (2) In respect of income

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX KOLKATA XII vs. M/S CALCUTTA EXPORT COMPANY

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.K. AGRAWAL

TDS made during the previous year can be deposited with the Government by the due date of filing the return of income. The idea was to allow additional

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (TDS), KANPUR vs. CANARA BANK

The appeals are dismissed

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.K. SIKRI

TDS),   Kanpur   and   Anr.   vs. Canara   Bank   wherein   the   judgment   of   the   High   Court   dated 04.04.2016 in ITA No. 64 of 2016 has been questioned. 4 3.   The New Okhla Industrial Development Authority  (NOIDA), hereinafter referred to as “Authority” has been constituted by Notification dated 17.04.1976 issued under Section 3 of the Uttar   Pradesh   Industrial   Area   Development   Act,   1976 hereinafter

NEW OKHLA INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY vs. CHIEF COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK BHUSHAN

TDS), Kanpur vs. Canara Bank where we have considered and decided those issues by our judgment of this date. After dismissal of the writ petition dated 28.02.2011 the appellant filed a review application which too was dismissed on 04.11.2011. Aggrieved by those two judgments Civil Appeal Nos.792-793 of 2014 have been filed by the appellant. 6. We have heard Shri

THE DIR. PRASAR BHARATI vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, THIRUVANANTH

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ABHAY MANOHAR SAPRE

additional documents at page 134/135). Learned counsel then took us to the relevant provisions of the proper agreement filed in this Court as Annexure P-12 and contended that having regard to the nature of the 10 agreement and its terms, the submission urged deserves acceptance. 23. In reply, learned counsel for the respondent (Revenue) supported the impugned judgment

COMMNR. OF INCOME TAX, SHIMLA vs. M/S. AMBUJA DARLA KARSOG MANGU T.C.S.LTD

The appeals are disposed of accordingly

Bench: Us A Copy Of The Order Passed By A Bench Of This Court In Commr. Of Income Tax,Shimla Vs. M/S Sirmour Truck Operators Union, Gondpr \026 Civil Appeal No. 5845/2007 Stating As Under: " Delay Condoned. Leave Granted. M/S Gujarat Ambuja Cement Ltd. Entered Into A Contract With M/S Sirmour Truck Operators Union, The Respondent Herein. Respondent Assessee Is A Society. Its Members Consist Of Truck Operators. The Question Which Arose Before The High Court In The Income Tax Appeals Under Section 260A Was Whether Assessee Was Liable Or Not Liable To Deduct Tds Under Section 194 C Of The Income Tax Act. -1- In Our View, The Afore-Stated Question Is A Substantial Question Of Law. The High Court Ought To Have Decided The Said Question. It Ought Not To Have Dismissed The Appeals Summarily.

Additional Solicitor General placed before us a copy of the order passed by a Bench of this Court in Commr. of Income Tax,Shimla Vs. M/s Sirmour Truck Operators Union, Gondpr \026 Civil Appeal No. 5845/2007 stating as under: " Delay condoned. Leave granted. M/s Gujarat Ambuja Cement Ltd. entered into a contract with M/s Sirmour Truck Operators Union, the respondent

SHREE CHOUDHARY TRANSPORT CO. vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DINESH MAHESHWARI

TDS, which in total amounted to Rs. 57,11,625/-; and added the same back to the total income of the assessee-appellant. The AO also disallowed a lump sum of Rs. 20,000/- from various expenses debited to the Profit and Loss Account and finalised the assessment, accordingly, as under:- “Therefore, considering the provisions of Section 194C, Section

THE AUTHORITY FOR ADVANCE RULINGS (INCOME TAX) vs. TIGER GLOBAL INTERNATIONAL II HOLDINGS

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R. MAHADEVAN

income from capital gains on the sale of shares. Circular No. 789 reiterated the stand taken in Circular No. 682, holding that a resident of Mauritius would not be subjected to capital gains tax arising in India consequent to the sale of shares under Article 13(4) of the DTAA. Of equal significance were certain proposed amendments

VINUBHAI MOHANLAL DOBARIA vs. CHIEF COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

The appeal is disposed of in the aforesaid terms

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE J.B. PARDIWALA

additional categories of offences which are generally not to be considered for compounding. They are reproduced hereinbelow: “iii. Offences committed by a person who, as a result of investigation conducted by any Central or State agency and as per information available with the CCIT/DGIT SLP (C) NO. 20519 of 2024 Page 46 of 59 concerned, has been found involved

SHATRUSAILYA DIGVIJAYSINGH JADEJA vs. COMMNR. OF INCOME TAX, RAJKOT

Appeals are allowed, with no order as

Income Tax,Rajkot. DATE OF JUDGMENT: 01/09/2005 BENCH: B.P. SINGH & S.H. KAPADIA JUDGMENT: J U D G M E N T KAPADIA, J. These appeals by special leave have been filed against an additional direction given by the Gujarat High Court vide judgment dated 25.9.2002 holding the appellant liable to pay interest under the Kar Vivad Samadhan Scheme

M/S K LAKSHMANYA AND COMPANY vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

The appeal is dismissed in terms of the signed order

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ROHINTON FALI NARIMAN

addition to the said amount, simple interest thereon calculated in the following manner, namely :— (a) where the refund is out of any tax collected at source under Section 206C or paid by way of advance tax or treated as paid under Secttion 199, during the financial year immedaitely preceding the assessment year, such interest shall be calculated at the rate

COMMR.OF INCOME TAX,BANGALORE vs. M/S INFOSYS TECHNOLOGIES LTD

TDS under Section 192 amounting to Rs. 49.52 crores on the above perquisite value of Rs. 165 crores. Similar orders were also passed by the AO for assessment years 1997-98 and 1998-99. These orders were confirmed by CIT(A). No http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 6 weightage was given by both the authorities

HONDA SIEL CARS INDIA LTD vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, GHAZIABAD

In the results. As a consequence, we find no

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.K. SIKRI

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) were allowed and the ITAT held that the expenditure is to be treated as the revenue expenditure. Against the order of the ITAT, the Department went in appeal before the High Court of Allahabad which has allowed these appeals thereby reversing the order of the ITAT and agreeing with the view taken by the Assessing

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (IT)4 vs. M/S. RELIANCE TELECOM LTD

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.R. SHAH

TDS. It was contended by the Assessee that it was for the purchase of software and Ericsson A.B. had no permanent establishment in India and in terms of the DTAA between India and Sweden & USA, the amount paid is not taxable in India. 2 2.2 The Assessing Officer passed an order dated 12.03.2007 rejecting the Assessee’s application holding that