SHREE CHOUDHARY TRANSPORT CO. vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DINESH MAHESHWARI

13. … ‘The term “shall” used in all these sections make it clear that these are mandatory provisions and applicable to the entire sum contemplated under the respective sections. These sections do not give any leverage to the assessee to make the payment without making TDS. On the contrary, the intention of the Legislature is evident from the fact that timing

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

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ROHINTON FALI NARIMAN

TDS, without any reference to chargeability of tax under the Income Tax Act by the concerned non- resident assessee. This section is similar to sections 193 and 194 of the Income Tax Act by which deductions have to be made without any reference to the chargeability of a sum received by a non-resident assessee under the Income

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

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

13 of 31 failure   to   remit   the   TDS   belatedly.   It   is submitted that once the ITAT found the case falling under Section 273B, the same was not required   to   be   interfered   with   by   the   High Court   as   the   same   cannot   be   said   to   a substantial question of law.  5.10 Making the above submissions, it is prayed to allow the present

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), an intimation will be sent to the assessee specifying the amount so payable and such intimation shall be deemed to be a notice of demand under Section

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

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

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R. MAHADEVAN

2) signified that it would apply only in scenarios not already addressed by Rule 10U(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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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 by the Income Tax Appellate

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

2) SCC 508. According to him, since Section 244(A) is wider than the pre-existing Section 241, it is clear that all the judgments which deal with Section 241 apply with all force to the facts of this case. He also relied upon the judgment of this Court in Commissioner of Income Tax, Mumbai Vs. Anjum M.H.Ghaswala

STATE BANK OF INDIA vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

The appeal is dismissed

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUDHANSHU DHULIA

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 (LTC) 3. LTC is a payment made to an employee which is exempted as ‘income’ and hence under normal circumstances, there should be no question of TDS

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