SHREE CHOUDHARY TRANSPORT CO. vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DINESH MAHESHWARI

Section 40(a)(ia) of the Income Tax Act, 19611, for failure of the assessee- appellant to deduct the requisite tax at source2. 1 Hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act of 1961’ or simply ‘the Act’. 2 ‘Tax deducted at source’ being referred as ‘TDS

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

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ROHINTON FALI NARIMAN

TDS is made under section 195(1) of the Income Tax Act, or such person has, after applying section 195(2

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

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

Section  271C of  the Income Tax Act,  1961 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) on failure of the respective assessees to deposit the tax deducted   at   source   (TDS)   (or   belated remittance   of   the   TDS),   the   respective assessees have preferred the present appeals. CIVIL APPEAL NO. 7934/2011 2

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

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

Section 195(2) of the Act before the Assessing Officer, to make payment to the non- resident company for purchase of software without TDS

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CHENNAI vs. TULSYAN NEC LTD

TDS, any advance tax, any tax paid on self assessment and any amount paid otherwise by way of tax or interest, then, without prejudice to provisions of sub-section (2

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

TDS under Section 194-C of the Act is deductible @ 2%. After deducting this TDS while making payment to AAI, the same

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

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

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

Section 197 of the Income Tax Act 1961, hereinafter referred to as the Digitally signed by GULSHAN KUMAR ARORA Date: 2022.07.29 16:27:35 IST Reason: Signature Not Verified 2 “IT Act”, for Tax Deduction at Source (TDS

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

The appeals are allowed and the

2. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the tribunal was justified in law in upholding the computation under section 115J through the order passed on 09.10.1992?\024 Mr. Gulati submitted that the facts of this case are that for the assessment years 1988-89, the assessee filed a return declaring loss of Rs.1

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

2 of 5 the accounts of the directors in the books of the assessee- company. 3 The A.O. found that when interest was paid by cheques issued by the company to the creditor, TDS was not deducted at source by the assessee on the interest payments as required under Section

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

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

2) Amounts constituting annual lease rent, expressed in   terms   of   percentage   (e.g.   1%)   of   the   total premium for the duration of the lease, are rent, and therefore   subject   to   TDS.   Since   the   petitioners could not make the deductions due to the insistence of   GNOIDA,   a   direction   is   issued   to   the   said authority (GNOIDA) to comply with the provisions

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

The appeal is allowed with no

2) of the Act. The Tribunal accordingly recalled its earlier order dated 12.7.2002 for the limited purpose of taking up the particular ground raised in Ground No. 7 in the memorandum of appeal. This order directing the reopening of the matter has attained its finality. The department did not challenge the said order. 7. The Tribunal upon rehearing the appeal

INCOME TAX OFFICER, NEW DELHI vs. DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY

TDS) found that the D.D.A. failed to deduct income-tax at source on the payment of interest made to the buyers as provided under Section 194A of the Income-tax Act. Accordingly, a demand was raised for the Assessment Years 1987-88, 1988-89 and 1989-1990. An appeal to C.I.T. failed and it was found that the Assessing Officer

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

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK BHUSHAN

2 referred to as the ‘Act, 1976’) by notification dated 17.04.1976. The Act, 1976 was enacted by State Legislature to provide for the constitution of an Authority for the development of certain areas in the State into industrial and urban township and for matters connected therewith. Under the Act, 1976 various functions have been entrusted to the Authorities. Notices under

COMMNR. OF INCOME TAX, SHIMLA vs. M/S. AMBUJA DARLA KARSOG MANGU T.C.S.LTD

The appeals are disposed of accordingly

Bench: Us A Copy Of The Order Passed By A Bench Of This Court In Commr. Of Income Tax,Shimla Vs. M/S Sirmour Truck Operators Union, Gondpr \026 Civil Appeal No. 5845/2007 Stating As Under: " Delay Condoned. Leave Granted. M/S Gujarat Ambuja Cement Ltd. Entered Into A Contract With M/S Sirmour Truck Operators Union, The Respondent Herein. Respondent Assessee Is A Society. Its Members Consist Of Truck Operators. The Question Which Arose Before The High Court In The Income Tax Appeals Under Section 260A Was Whether Assessee Was Liable Or Not Liable To Deduct Tds Under Section 194 C Of The Income Tax Act. -1- In Our View, The Afore-Stated Question Is A Substantial Question Of Law. The High Court Ought To Have Decided The Said Question. It Ought Not To Have Dismissed The Appeals Summarily.

TDS under Section 194 C of the Income Tax Act. -1- In our view, the afore-stated question is a substantial question of law. The High Court ought to have decided the said question. It ought not to have dismissed the appeals summarily. http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2

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

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ABHAY MANOHAR SAPRE

2 of the Securities Contracts (Regulation) Act, 1956 (42 of 1956); (iv) where any income is credited to any account, whether called “suspense account’ or by any other name, in the books of account of the person liable to pay such income, such crediting shall be deemed to be credit of such income to the account of the payee