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

The appeals are allowed and the

TDS deducted, the Assessing Officer created a total demand of Rs.26,83,327/-. It is relevant to mention here that since the provision of section 80VV stood deleted with effect from 01.4.1988 the claim made under that section was rejected. It was submitted that Chapter XII-B containing \023special provisions relating to certain companies\024 was introduced in the Income

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

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK BHUSHAN

3 in exercise of the power under the proviso to clause (1) of Article 243Q of the Constitution of India specifying the appellant to be an “industrial township” with effect from the date of the notification in the Official Gazette. A notice dated 29.08.2005 was issued by the Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax to the appellant for furnishing Income

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

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

3 of 31 said   show   cause   notice   vide   reply   dated 28.10.2003.   That   on   06.11.2003,   another order   under   Section   201(1A)   was   passed levying the penal interest of Rs. 22,015/­. On 10.11.2003, the Additional Commissioner of Income Tax (ACIT) vide order under Section 271C  levied a penalty of  Rs.  1,10,41,898/­ equivalent to the amount of 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

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

Section   194A(3)(f)   and therefore, not subjected to TDS. (4) For the reason mentioned in (3) above, any payment

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

TDS is to be deducted under Section 194-I of the Act. In the other appeal which involves SAL, it is the Commissioner of Income Tax/Revenue which has filed the appeals as the High Court of Madras in its judgment dated Civil Appeal No. 9875 of 2013 & Ors. Page 2 of 18 Page 3

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

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

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

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

3 (2007) 291 ITR 482 (SC) 17 42. By its letter dated 22nd June 2019, referred to above, the Appellant made a request to the Revenue for issuance of Certificate under Section 197(1) of the IT Act permitting deduction of TDS

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

3) of section 200.” Penalty for Failure to Deduct Tax at Source: “Section 271C: (1) If any person fails to – (a) Deduct the whole or any part of the tax as required by or under the provisions of Chapter XVII-B; or (b) Pay the whole or any part of the tax as required by or under, - (i) Sub-section

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

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

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

Section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short ‘the IT Act’) was completed on 28.12.2007. The Assessing Officer, vide order dated 12.10.2009, disallowed the export commission charges paid by the assessee to M/s. Steel Crackers Pvt. Ltd. 9 amounting to Rs. 40,82,089/- while stating that the tax deducted at source (TDS

COMMNR. OF INCOME TAX, RAJKOT vs. SHATRUSHAILYA DIGVIJAYSINGH JADEJA

3 of 7 9.2.1999 Rejected 31.3.2000 Delay not condoned 1986-87 Revision 26.11.98 to 8.12.1998 28/29.12.98 9.2.1999 Rejected 31.3.2000 Delay not condoned 1987-88 Revision 26.11.98 to 8.12.1998 28/29.12.98 9.2.1999 Rejected 31.3.2000 Delay not condoned 1988-89 Appeal 13/15.01.99 Last Week of Jan., 1999 15/22/23.2.99 & 5.3.99 Accepted Delay condoned 1988-89 Revision 26.11.98 to 8.12.1998 28/29.12.98 9.2.1999 Rejected 31.3.2000 Delay

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

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

TDS. It was contended by the Assessee that it was for the purchase of software and Ericsson A.B. had no permanent establishment in India and in terms of the DTAA between India and Sweden & USA, the amount paid is not taxable in India. 2 2.2 The Assessing Officer passed an order dated 12.03.2007 rejecting the Assessee’s application holding that

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

3 stipulates the authorities who are authorised to compound the offences in exercise of the power conferred under Section 279(2). 55. Paragraph 4 of the 2014 guidelines provides that compounding of offences is not a matter of right of the assessee. However, the offences SLP (C) NO. 20519 of 2024 Page 42 of 59 may be compounded

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

The appeal is allowed with no

3 same by the appellant was dismissed by the High Court on 21.5.2004; the point based on Ground No. 7 was not taken up in the appeal preferred by the appellant in the High Court. The High Court further held that the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal’s order dated 12.7.2002 got itself merged into the order passed