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

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

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 order   under   Section   201(1A)   was   passed levying the penal interest of Rs. 22,015/­. On 10.11.2003, the Additional Commissioner of Income Tax (ACIT) vide order under Section 271C  levied a penalty of  Rs.  1,10,41

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

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ROHINTON FALI NARIMAN

TDS is made under section 195(1) of the Income Tax Act, or such person has, after applying section 195(2) of the Income Tax Act, not deducted such proportion of tax as is required, that the consequences of a failure to deduct and pay, reflected in section 201 of the Income Tax Act, follow, by virtue of which

SHREE CHOUDHARY TRANSPORT CO. vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DINESH MAHESHWARI

1) of section 9; (iii) “professional services” shall have the same meaning as in clause (a) of the Explanation to section 194J; (iv) “work” shall have the same meaning as in Explanation III to section 194C; *** *** ***”12 13.3. Section 43 in the very same Part D of Chapter IV of the Act of 1961 defines various terms relevant

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

TDS is limited to appropriate proportion of income chargeable to tax under the IT Act that forms part of the gross sum of money payable to the non-resident. A person paying any sum to a non-resident is not liable to deduct any tax at source if such sum is not chargeable to tax under

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

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

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

1 REPORTABLE   IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NO.15613 OF 2017 M/S. NEW OKHLA INDUSTRIAL  DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY  … APPELLANT(S) VERSUS COMMISSIONER OF  INCOME TAX – APPEALS & ORS.              … RESPONDENT(S) WITH CIVIL APPEAL NO.9365 OF 2017 GREATER NOIDA INDUSTRIAL  DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY  … APPELLANT(S) VERSUS ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF  INCOME TAX (TDS) & ORS.                  … RESPONDENT(S) WITH CIVIL APPEAL NO.12750