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

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

10 of 31 in Section 271C are “fails to deduct the whole or any part of the tax.” It is submitted that it does not speak “fails to deduct and remitted belatedly.”  5.6 Shri   Arijit   Prasad,   learned   Senior   Advocate appearing   on   behalf   of   the   assessee   has drawn our attention to Section 276B of the Act, 1961. It is submitted that

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

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ROHINTON FALI NARIMAN

section 30 of the Copyright Act, which transfers an interest in all or any of the rights contained in sections 14(a) and 14(b) of the Copyright Act, but is a “licence” which imposes restrictions or conditions for the use of computer software. Thus, it cannot be said that any of the EULAs that we are concerned with

STATE BANK OF INDIA vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

The appeal is dismissed

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUDHANSHU DHULIA

14, for not deducting TDS of its employees. Digitally signed by SNEHA DAS Date: 2022.11.05 12:29:35 IST Reason: Signature Not Verified 2 2. The question which has fallen for our consideration is whether the appellant was in default for not deducting tax at source while releasing payments to its employees as Leave Travel Concession

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

10. Before proceeding further, it would be apposite to take note of the provisions of Section 194-C as well as 194-I of the Act. Insofar as Section 194-C is concerned, our purpose would be served by reproducing sub-section (1) which deals that the nature of payments on which tax at source is to be deducted

SHREE CHOUDHARY TRANSPORT CO. vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DINESH MAHESHWARI

14 10. Assailing the order so passed by the High Court in summary dismissal of the appeal as also the views expressed in the assessment and appellate orders, learned counsel for the assessee-appellant has urged before us multiple contentions on the scope and applicability of Section 194C of the Act as also Section 40(a)(ia) thereof

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 to the Appellant for the financial year 2019-20 under Section 197 of the IT Act. 31. Mr. Ganesh argued that Appellant was assessed for Assessment Years 2007-08, 2008-09 and 2009-10 in respect of contracts similar to the above noted contracts and was held not to be taxable in India. Even though the Assessing Authority

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

10. We quote hereinbelow Sections 17(1) and (2), which read as follows: \023"Salary", "perquisite" and "profits in lieu of salary" defined. 17. For the purposes of sections 15 and 16 and of this section,- (1) "salary" includes- (i) wages; http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 6 (ii) any annuity or pension; (iii) any gratuity

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CHENNAI vs. TULSYAN NEC LTD

TDS, any advance tax, any tax paid on self assessment and any amount paid otherwise by way of tax or interest, then, without prejudice to provisions of sub-section (2), an intimation will be sent to the assessee specifying the amount so payable and such intimation shall be deemed to be a notice of demand under Section

COMMR.OF INCOME TAX,NEW DELHI vs. M/S ELI LILLY & COMPANY (INDIA) P.LTD

10 the learned counsel, the chosen employer, in such circumstances, would be liable to deduct tax on the total income taxable under the head “salaries”. In the absence of exercise of option under Section 192(2), the obligation of each employer, according to the learned counsel, is confined to the amounts of salary actually paid and there is no statutory

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

10 of 1949) applies (including any bank or banking institution referred to in section 51 of that Act); (viia) to such income credited or paid in respect of,- (a) deposits with a primary agricultural credit society or a primary credit society or a co-operative land mortgage bank or a co- operative land development bank; (b) deposits (other than time

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

14 was 31.10.2013, whereas the appellant filed the return for the said year on 29.11.2014. Hence, the appellant once again breached the requirement of Section 276CC and thus committed an offence as defined under the said provision. 43. Even otherwise, it has not been disputed by the appellant that an offence under Section 276CC was committed

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

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R. MAHADEVAN

14 (2004) 10 SCC 1 24 jurisdiction, cannot by itself lead to an adverse inference. The High Court further found that Mauritius has long been recognised as a favourable investment destination and that “treaty shopping” per se is not impermissible unless it is clearly shown to be a device for tax evasion or contrary to the intent of the treaty

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

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ABHAY MANOHAR SAPRE

14 attract the rigor of the Section for ensuring its compliance. 29. Keeping in mind the requirements of Section 194H when we examine the transaction in question, we are of the considered view that the reasoning and the conclusion arrived at by the AO, CIT (Appeals) and the High Court appears to be just and proper and does not call

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

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

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

10) Per contra, learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the Respondent submitted that the purpose of insertion of provisions of Section 40(a)(ia) of the IT Act was to ensure the compliance of TDS provisions and not to punish those assessees who have deducted and paid the TDS to the government sooner or later. The said purpose

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

10 In Commissioner of Income-Tax, Bhopal Vs. H.E.G.Limited 2010 (15) SCC 349, this Court was squarely confronted with the meaning of the expression “ where refund of any amount become due to the assessee” in 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

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

Section 148 of the Income Tax Act (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Act’) stating that said expenditure was capital in nature and, therefore, instalment towards royalty paid in the sum of Rs. 79602000/-, by the assessee to HMCL, Japan in that year had escaped assessment. Ultimately, orders were passed treating the same as capital expenditure. In the subsequent years