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

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ROHINTON FALI NARIMAN

34 have the same meaning as assigned to it in the Act and explanation, if any, given to it by the Central Government.” “195. Other sums. (1) Any person responsible for paying to a non-resident, not being a company, or to a foreign company, any interest (not being interest referred to in section 194LB or section 194LC) or section

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

10 challenging the said certificate dated 26th June 2019. The Writ Petition has been dismissed by the judgment and order impugned in this Court. 30. Mr. Ganesh appearing on behalf of the Appellant forcefully argued that the Respondent No.1 had erred in law in not granting Nil rate TDS to the Appellant for the financial year 2019-20 under Section

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

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

TDS provisions have extra-territorial operations as also the inter- linking of various provisions in the 1961 Act dealing with chargeability, liability, collection and recovery of taxes. 24. On the question of extra-territorial operation of the 1961 Act the general concept as to the scope of income-tax is that, given a sufficient territorial connection or nexus between

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

34 of 59 42. Similarly, the due date for filing the return of income for the AY 2013- 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

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

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ABHAY MANOHAR SAPRE

34. In our view, the provisions of Section 201 were, therefore, rightly invoked in this case against the appellant by the assessing authority once having held that the appellant failed to comply with the provisions of Section 194H of the Act. 35. Learned counsel for the appellant (assessee) placed reliance on the decision of the Allahabad High Court in Jagran

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

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

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

34 in particular, to show that when the power to waive interest payable under a substantive provision of the Act was given by a circular of the Board to the Settlement Commission, interest could be so waived and that a circular of the Board gave such power which was exercised by the Settlement Commission in the present case. According