COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CHENNAI vs. TULSYAN NEC LTD

b) or (c) of sub-section (3) or sub-section (3A), as the case may be, of that section, and subject to the conditions specified in sub-sections (4) and (4A) of that section; (ix) the amount of profits eligible for deduction under section 80HHE, computed under sub-section (3) of that section. (3) Nothing contained in sub-section (1

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

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

3) of Section 200:] Section 271C of the Act 271­C. Penalty for failure to deduct tax at source. (1) If any person fails to— Page 18 of 31 (a) deduct the whole or any part of the tax   as   required   by   or   under   the provisions of Chapter XVII­B; or (b) pay the whole or any part

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

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ROHINTON FALI NARIMAN

3.- For the purposes of this clause, the expression “computer software” shall have the meaning assigned to it in clause (b) of the Explanation to section 80HHE”. 19 Inserted by the Finance Act 2012 (23 of 2012), sec 4(b) (w.r.e.f 1-6-1976). 32 computer software (including granting of a licence) irrespective of the medium through which such right

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

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

SHREE CHOUDHARY TRANSPORT CO. vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DINESH MAHESHWARI

B and such tax has not been deducted or, after deduction, has not been paid,- (A) in a case where the tax was deductible and was so deducted during the last month of the previous year, on or before the due date specified in sub-section (1) of section 139; or (B) in any other case, on or before

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

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

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R. MAHADEVAN

B) HIGH COURT 6.11. On the preliminary objections raised by the Revenue, the High Court found that the Commissioner of Income Tax13, after referring to a detailed examination conducted by the Department during the Section 197 certification process, had concluded that the question of chargeability of capital gains and the identification of the beneficial owner, upon piercing the corporate veil

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

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

1) of section 139, such sum shall be allowed as a deducted in computing the income of the previous year in which such tax has been paid.” 24) Thus, the Finance Act, 2010 further relaxed the rigors of Section 40(a)(ia) of the IT Act to provide that all TDS made during the previous year can be deposited with

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

3) The provisions of sub-section (1) shall not apply- (i) where the amount of such income or, as the case may be, the aggregate of the amounts of such income credited or paid or likely to be credited or paid during the financial year by the person referred to in sub-section (1) to the account

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

3)(iii)(f) has to be approved.    13. Now coming to the direction of the High Court regarding deduction of tax at source on the payment of lease rent as per Section 194­I of the Income Tax Act, 1961, the authority has relied on Circular dated 30.01.1995.   Section 194­I of the Income Tax Act provides as follows:­ “Section 194­I : Rent

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

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

3 of 18 Page 4 JUDGMENT for Airports and Air Navigation Services. All member States abide by the guidelines and rules prescribed for various charges to be levied for facilities and services provided including landing/parking charges. 5. The AAI under the provisions of the Airport Authority of India Act, 1994 has been authorized to fix and collect charges for landing

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

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

3 was dismissed. However, in appeal to the High Court, by the impugned judgment dated 09.12.2009, the High Court of Karnataka held that, since waiver of interest was within the discretion of the Settlement Commission, no right flowed to the assessee to claim refund as a matter of right under law. In the aforesaid circumstances, the judgments of the Tribunal

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

3 person, advertiser or representative of any advertiser for whom it may be acting or has acted as an advertising agency. The agreement also provided the manner, mode and the time within which the payment was to be made by the Agency to the appellant. The failure to make the payment was to result in losing the accredited status

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