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

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

D G M E N T M.R. SHAH, J. 1. Feeling   aggrieved   and   dissatisfied   with   the impugned judgment(s) and order(s) passed by the   High   Court   of   Kerala   at   Ernakulam   in Page 1 of 31 Digitally signed by R Natarajan Date: 2023.04.10 16:38:22 IST Reason: Signature Not Verified confirming the levy of interest/penalty under Section  271C

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CHENNAI vs. TULSYAN NEC LTD

13% 68,586,949 8,916,303 68,586,950 8,916,304 Total tax payable 77,503,252 77,503,254 Less: Set-off of MAT credit Less: TDS Less: Advance Tax 54,015,189 5,231,557 19,316,900 4,198,191 19,316,900 Balance tax payable 1,060,394 53,988,163 Interest under 234B

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

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ROHINTON FALI NARIMAN

D G M E N T R.F. Nariman, J. 1. Leave granted. 2. The appeals in these cases are by both the assessees as well as the Department of Revenue, Ministry of Finance [“Revenue”]. Whereas the 6 assessees have succeeded in the question that was posed before the High Court of Delhi,1 the Revenue has succeeded insofar

SHREE CHOUDHARY TRANSPORT CO. vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DINESH MAHESHWARI

section (1) of section 139; or (B) in any other case, on or before the last day of the previous year: Provided that where in respect of any such sum, tax has been deducted in any subsequent year or, has been deducted – (A) during the last month of the previous year but paid after the said due date

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

D G M E N T Indira Banerjee, J. Leave granted. 2. This appeal is against the judgment and final order dated 20th December 2019 passed by High Court of Delhi dismissing the Writ Petition being Writ Petition (C) No.8527 of 2019 filed by the Appellant against the refusal of the Respondent No.1 to modify the Certificate dated 26th June

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

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R. MAHADEVAN

1)(d), and thus could not be used to nullify the grandfathering clause. 6.19. Lastly, the High Court found the AAR’s interpretation of Article 13(3A) to be legally unsound and held that the AAR had erroneously concluded that the sale of shares in a Singapore company would not fall under Article 13(3A), on the premise that

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

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

1) Leave granted. 8 2) The present appeal has been filed against the impugned final judgment and order dated 03.09.2012 passed by the High Court at Calcutta in GA No. 2029 of 2012 ITAT No. 175 of 2012 whereby a Division Bench of the High Court dismissed the appeal filed by the Appellant against the order dated 29.02.2012 passed

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

D G M E N T A.K. SIKRI, J. In these appeals, the issue involved relates to the deduction of tax at source ('TDS'). In both the cases, assessees are foreign Airlines. One is Japan Airlines Company Limited (hereinafter referred to as the 'JAL') and the other is Singapore Airlines Limited (hereinafter referred to as the 'SAL'). As both

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

TDS under Section 192 amounting to Rs. 49.52 crores on the above perquisite value of Rs. 165 crores. Similar orders were also passed by the AO for assessment years 1997-98 and 1998-99. These orders were confirmed by CIT(A). No http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 6 weightage was given by both the authorities

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

TDS of Rs. 45,73,528 and tax paid after original assessment of Rs. 1,71,00,320. The Department contends that the words “any amount” will not include the interest which accrued to the respondent for not refunding Rs. 45,73,528 for 57 months. We see no merit in this argument. The interest component will partake

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

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK BHUSHAN

D G M E N T ASHOK BHUSHAN, J. The appellant by these appeals has challenged the Division Bench judgment of Allahabad High Court dated 28.02.2011 dismissing the writ petition filled by the appellant challenging the notices issued by the Income Tax Authority under Section 142 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 as well as the judgment dated 04.11.2011 rejecting

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

STATE BANK OF INDIA vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

The appeal is dismissed

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUDHANSHU DHULIA

D E R Sudhanshu Dhulia, J. 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 DIR. PRASAR BHARATI vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, THIRUVANANTH

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ABHAY MANOHAR SAPRE

D G M E N T Abhay Manohar Sapre, J. 1. Delay condoned. 2. Leave granted. 3. These appeals are directed against the final judgment and order dated 20.11.2009 passed by the High Court of Kerala at Ernakulam in Income Tax Appeal No.27 of 2009 and Income Tax Appeal No.62 of 2009 whereby the High Court allowed the appeals preferred

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) Kanpur and Anr. Vs. Canara Bank.   Having held   that   Noida   is   covered   by   the   notification   dated 22.10.1970, the judgment of the Delhi High Court holding that 12 Noida/Greater   Noida   is   entitled   for   the   benefit   of   Section 194A(3)(iii)(f) has to be approved.    13. Now coming to the direction of the High Court regarding deduction

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

The appeal is allowed with no

D G M E N T CIVIL APPEAL NO. 3765 OF 2007 (Arising out of SLP(c) No. 3883 of 2007) B.SUDERSHAN REDDY,J. Leave granted. 2. This appeal by Special Leave preferred by the appellant-assessee is directed against the judgment of Delhi High Court dated 11.10.2006 in ITA No. 478 of 2005. 3. Briefly stated the facts

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

D G M E N T A.K. SIKRI, J. Assessee in all these appeals is Honda SIEL Cars Ltd. Civil Appeal No. 4918 of 2017 & Ors. Page 1 of 34 Digitally signed by SATISH KUMAR YADAV Date: 2017.06.09 18:47:18 TLT Reason: Signature Not Verified (hereinafter referred to as the “Assessee”). Question of law that is raised is also