SHREE CHOUDHARY TRANSPORT CO. vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DINESH MAHESHWARI

TDS amount only in the previous year in which such payment was made to the Government.” 16.4. Taking up the question as to whether disallowance under Section 40(a)(ia) of the Act is confined to the amount “payable” and not to the amount “already paid”, we find that these aspects of interpretation do not require much dilation in view

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

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

Section 271C as the respondent in each case has discharged its 45 burden of showing reasonable cause for failure to deduct tax at source. VI. Directions-cum-Conclusion: 36. For the reasons stated hereinabove, we hold that the TDS

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

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

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ABHAY MANOHAR SAPRE

Section 194H of the Act. 35. Learned counsel for the appellant (assessee) placed reliance on the decision of the Allahabad High Court in Jagran Prakashan Ltd vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax(TDS), (2012)345 ITR 288 in support of his submission. 36

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

36 of 59 hence we deem it appropriate to first examine the provisions of the Act before discussing the guidelines. ii. Provisions pertaining to compounding of offences 48. Section 279 of the Act is reproduced hereinbelow: “279. Prosecution to be at instance of Principal Chief Commissioner or Chief Commissioner or Principal Commissioner or Commissioner.— (1) A person shall

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

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R. MAHADEVAN

36,473.83 3. Tiger Global International IV Holdings, Mauritius 66,026 USD 8,435,171.44 equivalent to INR Rs.58,45,57,380.79 5.6. Thereafter, the assessees approached the Indian tax authorities by filing applications under Section 197 of the Income Tax Act, 19619, seeking certification of nil withholding prior to consummation of the transfer. By notices dated

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

Section 148 of the Income Tax Act (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Act’) stating that said expenditure was capital in nature and, therefore, instalment towards royalty paid in the sum of Rs. 79602000/-, by the assessee to HMCL, Japan in that year had escaped assessment. Ultimately, orders were passed treating the same as capital expenditure. In the subsequent years