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

SHREE CHOUDHARY TRANSPORT CO. vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DINESH MAHESHWARI

Section 3 of the Act of 1961 as follows: - “2. Definitions.- In this Act, unless the context otherwise requires,- *** *** *** (9) “assessment year” means the period of twelve months commencing on the 1st day of April every year; *** *** ***” “3. “Previous year” defined.- For the purposes of this Act, “previous year” means the financial year immediately preceding the assessment year

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

2 (2007) 288 ITR 408 (SC) 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

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

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

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

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

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