COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CHENNAI vs. TULSYAN NEC LTD

4,018,170 Less: Set-off of MAT credit 54,015,189 Net tax payable 1,060,394 15,058,707 9. We have discussed hereinabove the scheme of Section 115JA(1) and Section 115JAA. The entire scheme of Sections 115JA(1) and 115JAA shows that if an assessee is entitled to a tax credit as a consequence

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

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ROHINTON FALI NARIMAN

4 to section 9(1)(vi) of the Income Tax Act is clarificatory of the position in law right from 01.06.1976 when section 9(1)(vi) of the Income Tax Act was first brought into force. He then argued that the provisions for TDS

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

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

4,97,920/­   for   the   period   of   delay   in remittance   of   TDS.   On   09.10.2003,   the Additional   Commissioner   of   Income   Tax issued a show cause notice proposing to levy penalty under Section 271C of the amount equal to TDS. That the assessee replied to the Page 3 of 31 said   show   cause   notice   vide   reply   dated 28.10.2003.   That   on   06.11.2003,   another

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

Section 197(1) of the IT Act for the Financial Year 2019-2020 corresponding to the Assessment Year 2020-2021 directing ONGC to deduct TDS at the rate of 4

SHREE CHOUDHARY TRANSPORT CO. vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DINESH MAHESHWARI

Section 40(a)(ia) of the Income Tax Act, 19611, for failure of the assessee- appellant to deduct the requisite tax at source2. 1 Hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act of 1961’ or simply ‘the Act’. 2 ‘Tax deducted at source’ being referred as ‘TDS’ 1 Digitally signed by DEEPAK SINGH Date: 2025.08.26 12:57:09 IST Reason: Signature

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

The appeals are allowed and the

4 of 12 section (2) of Section 32 or sub-section (3) of Section 32-A or clause (ii) of sub-section (1) of Section 72 or Section 73 or Section 74 or sub-section (3) of Section 74-A or sub- section (3) of Section 80-J.\024 A new Chapter XII-B containing section 115J was inserted

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

4) Heard learned senior counsel for the parties and perused the factual matrix of the case. Point(s) for consideration:- 5) Whether the amendment made by the Finance Act, 2010 in Section 40(a)(ia) of the IT Act is retrospective in nature to apply to the present facts and circumstances of the case. Rival contentions:- 6) Learned senior counsel

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

4) The person responsible for making the payment referred to in sub-section (1) may, at the time of making any deduction, increase or reduce the amount to be deducted under this section for the purpose of adjusting any excess or deficiency arising out of any previous deduction or failure to deduct during the financial year.\024 (emphasis supplied

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

4 of 18 Page 5 JUDGMENT and parking charges @2% under Section 194-C. JAL, accordingly, starting making TDS @2%. In the relevant assessement year, it paid AAI a sum of Rs.61,60,486/- towards landing and parking charges. On this amount, TDS comes to Rs.1,57,082/- when calculated @2% which was deducted from the payments made

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

4) is an order passed in “other proceeding under this Act” Thus, it is clear that the assessee in the present case is covered by Section 240 of the Act. When it comes to interest on refund, Section 244, which applied to assessment years up to and including assessment year 1989-90, made it clear that it would apply where

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

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK BHUSHAN

1) was also enclosed for the above purpose. 4. Notices were also issued to different Banks requiring different information. The appellant vide its letter dated 20.09.2005 replied the notice dated 29.08.2005 stating that it is a local authority and exempt from Income Tax hence notice under Section 142 be withdrawn. The Income Tax authorities also issued notice to the different

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

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

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

Appeals are dismissed

Section 5(1)(c) of the Act did not arise from the order of the Tribu nal. On question Nos.3 and 4, it was observed that this point had been raised by the asse ssee before the CIT(Appeals). Since, the CIT(Appeals) had decided the appeal against the assessee, assessee filed cross-objections before the Tribunal and therefore

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

4. The revenue refuted the contention of Greater Noida and Noida contending that w.e.f. 01.04.2003, the   Greater Noida and   Noida   is   not   a   local   authority   within   the   meaning   of Section 10(20) and further they are also not entitled for the benefit of notification issued under Section 194A(3)(iii)(f). It was further contended that with regard to payment