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

SHREE CHOUDHARY TRANSPORT CO. vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DINESH MAHESHWARI

TDS requirement, tax has been deducted in any subsequent year, or has been deducted during the previous year but paid in any subsequent year after the expiry of the time prescribed in Section 200(1), such sum shall be allowed as a deduction in computing the income of the previous year in which such tax has been paid

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

35. The High Court further observed and held: 12 “18. Sub Section (1) of Section 195 of the Act provides that any person responsible for paying to a non-resident, any sum chargeable to tax under the provisions of the Act, shall, at the time of credit of such income to the account of the payee, or at the time

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

The appeals are allowed and the

35 of the 1961 Act would be assessed to tax under this section. It was submitted on behalf of the appellant that in the profit & loss account the assessee has debited depreciation at the rates prescribed by the Income-tax Rules, 1962. This has been the consistent practice of the assessee throughout. Section 211(2) of the 1956 Act mandates

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

STATE BANK OF INDIA vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

The appeal is dismissed

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUDHANSHU DHULIA

1. Leave granted. The appellant (State Bank of India) has challenged the judgement dated 13.01.2020 passed by a Division Bench of the Delhi High Court in ITA No. 05/2020 which has dismissed the appeal filed by the appellant and upheld the order passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) dated 09.07.2019, holding the appellant as an assessee in default

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

DY. COMMR. OF INCOME TAX, UJJAIN vs. M/S TORQOUISE INVESTMENT & FINANCE LTD

Appeals are dismissed

Section 143(1)(a) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short ’the Act’) on 18.1.1996 on the same income. Along with the return the assess ee CIVIL APPEAL NO. 4485 OF 2007 -2- claimed refund amounting to Rs.29,16.660/- on the basis of credit of deemed TDS on dividend received from a Malaysian company i.e. Pan Century Edible Oils

THE DIR. PRASAR BHARATI vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, THIRUVANANTH

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ABHAY MANOHAR SAPRE

1-A) of the Act. 14. The appellant felt aggrieved and filed appeals before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-II, Thiruvanathapuram. By order dated 04.03.2005, the Commissioner concurred with the reasoning and conclusion arrived at by AO and accordingly dismissed the appeals. 15. The appellant felt aggrieved and filed appeals before the Tribunal. By order dated 28.03.2007, the Tribunal

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

35,63,99,995 shares were held by HMCL, Japan while remaining 3600005 shares held by M/s. Seil India. In other words, joint venture was almost owned by HMCL, Japan, having around 99% shares and Seil India (local Indian Civil Appeal No. 4918 of 2017 & Ors. Page 4 of 34 company) owned only 1% shares. 9. Thereafter, M/s. HMCL, Japan