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

TDS provisions. 15. On the point of interpretation of Section 192(1), learned counsel submitted that the said section can be divided

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

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

15. The record of the case indicates that for the financial year 2017­18 two certificates each dated 08.06.2017 (Annexures P­6 &   P­7)   were   issued   for   zero   TDS   which   is   related   to   the assessment year 2018­19. Similarly, for financial year 2018­19 (assessment year 2019­20) two certificates dated 10.04.2018 and 08.05.2019 (Annexures P­8 & P­9 respectively) were issued for zero TDS. Therefore, after

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

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ROHINTON FALI NARIMAN

TDS, along with interest under section 201(1A) of the Income Tax Act amounting to Rs. 15,76,567. The appeal

SHREE CHOUDHARY TRANSPORT CO. vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DINESH MAHESHWARI

15 assessee merely acted as facilitator or intermediary in the process of transportation of goods, he had no liability to deduct TDS under Section

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

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

Section has been highlighted in the 15 memorandum explaining the provision which reads as under:- “With a view to augment compliance of TDS

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

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 by the assessee for which the assessee was granted refund

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 shall be deducted on the payment of the lease rent to the Greater Noida as per Section 194­I.  Reliance on circular dated 30.01.1995 has been placed by the Noida/Greater Noida.  A perusal of the circular dated 30.01.1995 indicate that the query which has been answered in the   above   circular   is   “Whether   requirement   of   deduction   of income­tax at source under

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

STATE BANK OF INDIA vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

The appeal is dismissed

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUDHANSHU DHULIA

TDS on this payment. All the same, LTC has to be availed by an employee within certain limitations, prescribed by the law. Firstly, the travel must be done from one designated place in India to another designated place within India. In other words, LTC is not for a foreign travel. Secondly, LTC is given for the shortest route between these

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

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ABHAY MANOHAR SAPRE

Section 194H of the Act. 35. Learned counsel for the appellant (assessee) placed reliance on the decision of the Allahabad High Court in Jagran Prakashan Ltd vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax(TDS), (2012)345 ITR 288 in support of his submission. 36. On perusal of the said judgment, we find that the law laid down by the Allahabad High

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

15% reckoned from the day immediately following the specified date notwithstanding the fact that the Assessing Officer has extended the date for furnishing of return. SLP (C) NO. 20519 of 2024 Page 33 of 59 39. Accepting the contention of the respondents would mean that the commission of an offence under Section 276CC is made contingent upon the filing

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 `6,90,73,894/- from which the A.O. deducts the MAT credit of `5,40,15

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

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

The appeals are allowed and the

15% of its book profit. This measure will yield a revenue gain of approximately Rs.75 crores.\024 The Court held that the purpose of introducing this section was that the Income Tax Authorities were unable to bring certain companies within the net of income tax because these companies were adjusting their accounts in such a manner as to attract

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (IT)4 vs. M/S. RELIANCE TELECOM LTD

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

15:43:56 IST Reason: Signature Not Verified (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Revenue’) and has confirmed the order passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Bench at Mumbai (hereinafter referred to as the ‘ITAT’) dated 18.11.2016 passed in Miscellaneous Application Nos. 261/M/2014 and 419/M/2013, by which the ITAT in exercise of powers under Section 254(2) of the Income

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, GUJARAT vs. GUJARAT FLLURO CHEMICALS LTD

TDS paid exceeds the assessed tax?" 2. In the aforesaid order of reference, this Court has briefly noticed the facts and the Page 4 JUDGMENT 4 discussion in Sandvik case (supra) wherein, the main issue for consideration and determination by this Court was, whether the assessee is entitled to be compensated by the Revenue for delay in payment