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 194C of the Act. 10.2. The main plank of the submissions of learned counsel for the appellant has been that disallowance under Section 40(a)(ia) of the Act is confined to the expenses that

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 before the Commissioner of Income Tax [“CIT”] was dismissed by an order dated 23.01.2004. However, the appeal before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal [“ITAT”] succeeded vide an order dated 25.11.2005, in which the ITAT followed its previous order dated

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

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

15 of 31 Government and/or belatedly remits the TDS after deducting, such an assessee is liable to pay the penalty under Section 271C of the Act.   6.2 It   is   submitted   that   any   other   view   will frustrate the object and purpose of insertion of Section 271C of the Act. Then, Shri Balbir Singh,   learned   ASG   has   taken   us   to   the CBDT

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 CHENNAI vs. TULSYAN NEC LTD

15,058,707 9. We have discussed hereinabove the scheme of Section 115JA(1) and Section 115JAA. The entire scheme of Sections 115JA(1) and 115JAA shows that if an assessee is entitled to a tax credit as a consequence of the assessee making payment of tax under Section 115JA(1) in the year one, then

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

2%. The JAL filed the appeal against this order before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals). The CIT(A) accepted the contention of the JAL and allowed the appeal vide order dated 31.01.2001, holding that landing and parking charges were inclusive of number of services in compliance with the International Protocol of the ICAO. The Revenue challenged the order

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

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

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

2 to section 195 and at the stage of section 197 proceedings, the question of existence of permanent establishment is not required to be gone into. Therefore, having regard to the aforesaid provision, we cannot direct the Revenue to hold that the petitioner does not have a PE and give the consequent effect of such finding while deciding an application

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

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[(i)   “rent”   means   any   payment,   by   whatever name   called,   under   any   lease,   sublease, tenancy or any other agreement or arrangement for the use of (either separately or together) any,­ (a) land; or (b) building (including factory building); or (c) land appurtenant to a building (including factory building); or (d) machinery; or (e) plant; or (f) equipment; or (g) furniture

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 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

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

15 IST Reason: Signature Not Verified CIVIL APPEAL No. 4449 OF 2018 (Arising out of Special Leave Petition (C) No. 26649 OF 2014 CIVIL APPEAL No. 4448 OF 2018 (Arising out of Special Leave Petition (C) No. 22282 OF 2014 CIVIL APPEAL No. 4451 OF 2018 (Arising out of Special Leave Petition (C) No. 19974 OF 2014 CIVIL 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

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

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