M/S NEW OKHLA INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY vs. COMMISSIONER INCOME TAX APPEALS(41)

The appeals are dismissed

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

TDS.” 5. Aggrieved by the aforesaid judgment of Delhi High Court, Greater   Noida,   Noida   as   well   as   Revenue   has   filed   these appeals.  6. Learned counsel appearing for the Noida and Greater Noida contended that Noida and Greater Noida have been constituted under   Section   3   of   the   Uttar   Pradesh   Industrial   Area 9 Development   Act,   1976   and   is   a   local   authority   within

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

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

10,41,898/­ equivalent to the amount of TDS deducted for AY   2003­04.   That   order   of   Additional   CIT levying the penalty under Section 271C came to   be   confirmed   by   the   High   Court   by   the impugned   judgment   and   order.   The   High Court vide impugned judgment and order has dismissed   the   appeal   preferred   by   the assessee   by   holding   that   failure   to deduct/remit

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CHENNAI vs. TULSYAN NEC LTD

Sections 234B and C. The result was that claim for refund in favour of the assessee of an amount of `10,60,394/- having regard to the pre-paid taxes got converted into the demand by Department of `1,50,58,707/- after giving full credit for the prepaid taxes only because the A.O. gave

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

5) of section 132, or computing the income-tax chargeable under sub-section (4) of section 172 or sub-section (2) of section 174 or section 175 or sub-section(2) of section 176 or deducting income-tax under section 192 from income chargeable under the head “Salaries” or computation of the “advance tax” payable under Chapter XVII

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

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ROHINTON FALI NARIMAN

5 of the Act, then there was no purpose in making those sections “subject to the provisions of the Act”. The very object of grafting the said two sections with the said clause is to enable the Central Government to issue a notification under Section 90 towards implementation of the terms of DTACs which would automatically override the provisions

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

TDS comes to Rs.1,57,082/- when calculated @2% which was deducted from the payments made to AAI and deposited with the Revenue. The JAL thereafter filed its annual return in Form 26-C for the financial year 1997-1998. 7. The Assessing Officer passed an order under Section 201(1) of the Act on 04.06.1999 holding

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

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

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 certificate dated 26.06.2019   and   seeking   relief   to   issue   the   fresh   certificate under Section 197, therefore, for ready reference, it is hereby reproduced as thus: 197. Certificate for deduction at lower rate. (1) Subject to rules made under sub-section (2A), where, in the case of any income of any person or sum payable to any person, income

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

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

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

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ABHAY MANOHAR SAPRE

TDS amount which was originally 5% until it was enhanced to 10% by Finance Act 2007 with effect from 1.6.2007. 62. In the aforesaid case, the relationship of principal and agent was fully established since the advertising agency was appointed as agent by written agreement and there was specific clause that tax shall be deductible at source on payment

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

5 of the 2014 guidelines provides that the guidelines would not be applicable for the compounding of any prosecution initiated under the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and the same can only be withdrawn under Section 321 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. 57. Paragraph 6 of the guidelines provides two categories of offences which can be compounded - category

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

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

TDS) on such commission amount on 07.07.2004, 07.09.2004 and 07.10.2004 ought to have been deposited by the Respondent before the end of the previous year i.e. 31.03.2005 to get the commission amount deducted from the total income in terms of the provisions of Section 40(a)(ia) of the IT Act as it stood then. But the same was deposited

M/S. HINDUSTAN COCA COLA BEVREGE P.LTD. vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

The appeal is allowed with no

5. The appellant preferred an appeal against the order of the Assessing Officer before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) and thereafter before the http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 3 Tribunal. The Tribunal also took the view that the appellant-assessee to be an ’assessee in default’ in respect of the amount of short deduction

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

The appeals are allowed and the

5 of Schedule XIV contemplates that rates may be different from the rates specified in the said Schedule. This note reads as under: \0235. The following information should also be disclosed in the accounts: (i) depreciation methods used; and (ii) depreciation rates or the useful lives of the assets, if they are different from the principal rates, specified

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