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

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

TDS. That the assessee replied to the Page 3 of 31 said   show   cause   notice   vide   reply   dated 28.10.2003.   That   on   06.11.2003,   another order   under   Section   201(1A)   was   passed levying the penal interest of Rs. 22,015/­. On 10.11.2003, the Additional Commissioner of Income Tax (ACIT) vide order under Section 271C  levied a penalty of  Rs.  1

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CHENNAI vs. TULSYAN NEC LTD

1) provides that where a return is made under Section 139 and if any tax or interest is found due on the basis of such return 17 after adjustment of any TDS

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

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ROHINTON FALI NARIMAN

TDS is made under section 195(1) of the Income Tax Act, or such person has, after applying section 195(2) of the Income

SHREE CHOUDHARY TRANSPORT CO. vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DINESH MAHESHWARI

Section 40(a)(ia) of the Income Tax Act, 19611, for failure of the assessee- appellant to deduct the requisite tax at source2. 1 Hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act of 1961’ or simply ‘the Act’. 2 ‘Tax deducted at source’ being referred as ‘TDS

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

TDS in respect of payments for activities outside India. This direction was in respect of both LEWPP Contract as well as R-Series Contract. 28. However, in departure from the position taken in the previous years, the Respondent No.1 issued a certificate dated 26th June 2019 under Section 197(1

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

The appeals are allowed and the

TDS deducted, the Assessing Officer created a total demand of Rs.26,83,327/-. It is relevant to mention here that since the provision of section 80VV stood deleted with effect from 01.4.1988 the claim made under that section was rejected. It was submitted that Chapter XII-B containing \023special provisions relating to certain companies\024 was introduced in the Income

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

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

1) of section 139, such sum shall be allowed as a deducted in computing the income of the previous year in which such tax has been paid.” 24) Thus, the Finance Act, 2010 further relaxed the rigors of Section 40(a)(ia) of the IT Act to provide that all TDS

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

TDS was not deducted at source by the assessee on the interest payments as required under Section 194A(1) of the Act and, therefore

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

1 of 18 Page 2 JUDGMENT the aircrafts and parking thereof at New Delhi Airport i.e. Indira Gandhi International Airport ('IGIA'), New Delhi, the Airports Authority of India ('AAI') which manages IGIA levies charges on these two Airlines. For payment of landing and parking charges in respect of its aircrafts, the two Airlines are deducting TDS under Section

INCOME TAX OFFICER, NEW DELHI vs. DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY

TDS) found that the D.D.A. failed to deduct income-tax at source on the payment of interest made to the buyers as provided under Section 194A of the Income-tax Act. Accordingly, a demand was raised for the Assessment Years 1987-88, 1988-89 and 1989-1990. An appeal to C.I.T. failed and it was found that the Assessing Officer

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

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R. MAHADEVAN

TDS Officer and the AAR had expressed only a prima facie view of the matter. The order dated 17.08.2018 passed under Section 197 of the Act merely prescribed a tentative and provisional rate of deduction of tax at source and did not amount to a conclusive determination of tax liability. Likewise, the AAR while observing that the transaction appeared prima

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

TDS under Section 192. Consequently, Section 201(1) and 201(1A) were also not applicable to the facts of this

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

Section 244(A)(1). This question was answered as follows: “5.In the present case, as stated above, there are two components of the tax paid by the assessee for which the assessee was granted refund, namely TDS

STATE BANK OF INDIA vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

The appeal is dismissed

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUDHANSHU DHULIA

1. Leave granted. The appellant (State Bank of India) has challenged the judgement dated 13.01.2020 passed by a Division Bench of the Delhi High Court in ITA No. 05/2020 which has dismissed the appeal filed by the appellant and upheld the order passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) dated 09.07.2019, holding the appellant as an assessee in default

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

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK BHUSHAN

1) was also enclosed for the above purpose. 4. Notices were also issued to different Banks requiring different information. The appellant vide its letter dated 20.09.2005 replied the notice dated 29.08.2005 stating that it is a local authority and exempt from Income Tax hence notice under Section 142 be withdrawn. The Income Tax authorities also issued notice to the different

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

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

1 Digitally signed by DEEPAK SINGH Date: 2021.12.03 15:43:56 IST Reason: Signature Not Verified (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Revenue’) and has confirmed the order passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Bench at Mumbai (hereinafter referred to as the ‘ITAT’) dated 18.11.2016 passed in Miscellaneous Application Nos. 261/M/2014 and 419/M/2013, by which the ITAT in exercise

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

Appeals are dismissed

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

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

The appeals are dismissed

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

1 REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NO.6020  OF 2018 (ARISING OUT OF SLP (C) NO. 3168 OF 2017) COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX(TDS)       ... APPELLANTS KANPUR AND ANR. VERSUS CANARA BANK        ... RESPONDENT WITH  C.A.NO.6064 of 2018 @ SLP(C)No.9295/2017, C.A.NO.6056 of 2018 2018   @   SLP  (C)No.3162/2017,   C.A.NO