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

14. From the reading of this Section, it becomes clear that TDS is to be made on the 'rent'. The expression

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

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

TDS on the interests paid by the assessee to the creditors. The first question which arises for determination in these civil appeals is : whether it is open to the directors of the assessee-company to contend before the A.O., after search and survey operations, that the transactions entered into by the assessee were for namesake and that they actually related

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

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

Section 201 of the Act, the tax alleged to be in default cannot be once again recovered from the assessee herein since the same stood paid by the expatriate(s). 12 14. Shri S. Ganesh, learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of M/s Ericsson Communications Pvt. Ltd. (Civil Appeal No. 4082/07), submitted that the TDS

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

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

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

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CHENNAI vs. TULSYAN NEC LTD

TDS and Advance Tax paid by the assessee resulting in the figure of `5,39,88,163/- being the balance tax payable by the assessee plus interest under Section 234B and under Section 234C in all amounting to 14

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

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK BHUSHAN

TDS), Kanpur vs. Canara Bank where we have considered and decided those issues by our judgment of this date. After dismissal of the writ petition dated 28.02.2011 the appellant filed a review application which too was dismissed on 04.11.2011. Aggrieved by those two judgments Civil Appeal Nos.792-793 of 2014 have been filed by the appellant. 6. We have heard Shri

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

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

14) For deciding as to the retrospective effect of the amendment made by Finance Act, 2010, it is required to see the Section as it stands before and after the amendment made through the Finance Act, 2010 and the purpose of such insertion or amendment to the said provisions. The provisions of Section 40(a)(ia) came into force

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

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

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

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

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

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