SHREE CHOUDHARY TRANSPORT CO. vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DINESH MAHESHWARI

TDS, as shown in Form No. 16A issued by the company. 4. On 28.10.2005, the assessee-appellant filed its return for the assessment year 2005-2006, showing total income at Rs. 2,89,633/- in the financial year 2004-2005 arising out of the business

M/S US TECHNOLOGIES INTERNATIONAL PVT. LTD. vs. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

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

Income Tax Act,  1961 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) on failure of the respective assessees to deposit the tax deducted   at   source   (TDS)   (or   belated remittance   of   the   TDS),   the   respective assessees have preferred the present appeals. CIVIL APPEAL NO. 7934/2011 2. The   facts   leading   the   present   appeal   in   a nutshell are as under: ­ 2.1 From   01.04.2002   to   February

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

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

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ROHINTON FALI NARIMAN

TDS, without any reference to chargeability of tax under the Income Tax Act by the concerned non- resident assessee. This section is similar to sections 193 and 194 of the Income Tax Act by which deductions have to be made without any reference to the chargeability of a sum received by a non-resident assessee under the Income

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

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

business at Kolkata. The Respondent filed its return of income for the Assessment Year 2005-06 for Rs. 4,18,17,910/-. The case was selected for scrutiny and the assessment under Section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short ‘the IT Act’) was completed on 28.12.2007. The Assessing Officer, vide order dated 12.10.2009, disallowed the export

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

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

business or profession, the date of the expiry of four months from the end of the previous year or where there is more than one previous year, from the end of the previous year which expired last before the commencement of the assessment year or the 30th day of June of the assessment year, whichever is later

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CHENNAI vs. TULSYAN NEC LTD

Business income 163,486,461 163,486,461 Capital gains-short 14,937 14,937 Capital gains-long 90,780,066 90,780,066 Gross Total Income 254,281,464 254,281,464 Less deduction under Chapter VI-A 80G-Donation 80HHC-profits 80-1A new industrial unit

M/S JAPAN AIRLINES CO.LTD. vs. COMMR.OF INCOME TAX,NEW DELHI

TDS is to be deducted under Section 194-I of the Act. In the other appeal which involves SAL, it is the Commissioner of Income Tax/Revenue which has filed the appeals as the High Court of Madras in its judgment dated Civil Appeal No. 9875 of 2013 & Ors. Page 2 of 18 Page 3 JUDGMENT 13.07.2012 has taken contrary view

NATIONAL PETROLEUM CONSTRUCTION COMPANY vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE 2(2) INTERNATIONAL TAXATION NEW DELHI

Appeal is hereby allowed to the extent

Bench: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE INDIRA BANERJEE

business through a permanent establishment in India, and income taxed is on the basis of extent appropriate to the part played by permanent establishment in those transactions, and that only such part of the income, as is attributable to the operations carried out in India can be taxed in India. In the said case, a clear distinction could be identified

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

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ABHAY MANOHAR SAPRE

business for the appellant. 33. Once it is held that the provisions of Section 194H apply to the transactions in question, it is obligatory upon the appellant to have deducted the income tax while making payment to the 17 advertisement agencies. The non-compliance of Section 194H by the assessee attracts the rigor of Section 201 which provides for consequences

COMMNR. OF INCOME TAX, BANGALORE vs. M/S. CENTURY BUILDING INDUSTRIES PVT.LTD

business of banking;] (viii) to such income credited or paid by the Central Government under any provision of this Act or the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922 (11 of 1922), or the Estate Duty Act, 1953 (34 of 1953), or the Wealth-tax Act, 1957 (27 of 1957), or the Gift-tax Act, 1958 (18 of 1958), or the Super

DY. COMMR. OF INCOME TAX, UJJAIN vs. M/S TORQOUISE INVESTMENT & FINANCE LTD

Appeals are dismissed

business a s investment and finance, which was processed under Section 143(1)(a) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short ’the Act’) on 18.1.1996 on the same income. Along with the return the assess ee CIVIL APPEAL NO. 4485 OF 2007 -2- claimed refund amounting to Rs.29,16.660/- on the basis of credit of deemed TDS

MALAYALA MANORAMA CO LTD. vs. COMMR.OF INCOME TAX, TRIVANDRUM

The appeals are allowed and the

business, the profits from which are eligible for deduction under Section 80-HHC or Section 80-HHD; so, however, that such amounts are computed in the manner specified in sub-section (3) or sub-section (3-A) of Section 80-HHC or sub-section (3) of Section 80-HHD, as the case may be; or (iv) the amount

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

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R. MAHADEVAN

business operation in India nor any taxable revenue generated. Thus, the arrangement was held to be a preordained transaction created for the purpose of tax avoidance. 19 6.9. Ultimately, the AAR held that the question raised in the applications filed under Section 197 was prima facie designed for avoidance of tax. Though the assessees contended that the shares

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

business of development, manufacture and sale of automobiles and their parts agreed to give ‘license’ and ‘technical assistance’ to the assessee. The TCA also stipulated different kinds of technical know-how and technical information which were to be provided by HMCL, Japan (as a licensor) to the assessee (as a licensee). For providing the aforesaid facilities, it was Civil Appeal