SHREE CHOUDHARY TRANSPORT CO. vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DINESH MAHESHWARI

5 was issued only on 15-7-2005 by which date the time for payment of tax at source has also expired and as such it was contended that the provisions as contained in Section 40(a)(ia) of the Act would be applicable not from A.Y. 2005-06 but from 2006-07. We, however, do not subscribe

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

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ROHINTON FALI NARIMAN

5 of the Act, then there was no purpose in making those sections “subject to the provisions of the Act”. The very object of grafting the said two sections with the said clause is to enable the Central Government to issue a notification under Section 90 towards implementation of the terms of DTACs which would automatically override the provisions

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 (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

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

43. The impugned Certificate being as per the request of the Appellant, it is not open to the Appellant to make a volte-face and challenge the impugned Certificate. 44. It may be true that the letter of request dated 22nd June 2019, of the Appellant, referred to above, for issuance of a Certificate under Section

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

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK BHUSHAN

D G M E N T ASHOK BHUSHAN, J. The appellant by these appeals has challenged the Division Bench judgment of Allahabad High Court dated 28.02.2011 dismissing the writ petition filled by the appellant challenging the notices issued by the Income Tax Authority under Section 142 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 as well as the judgment dated 04.11.2011 rejecting

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX KOLKATA XII vs. M/S CALCUTTA EXPORT COMPANY

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.K. AGRAWAL

d) Being aggrieved by the order dated 29.02.2012, the Revenue preferred an appeal before the High Court. The High Court, vide judgment and order dated 03.09.2012, had dismissed the appeal. (e) Aggrieved by the judgment and order dated 03.09.2012, the Revenue has preferred this appeal before this Court. 4) Heard learned senior counsel for the parties and perused the factual

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

d. Whether the 2014 guidelines are mandatory or directory in nature? E. ANALYSIS i. Section 276CC of the Income Tax Act, 1961 27. Chapter XXII of the Act deals with offences and prosecutions and consists of Sections 275A to 280D. Section 276CC of the Act inter-alia provides that if a person fails to furnish the return of income which

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (IT)4 vs. M/S. RELIANCE TELECOM LTD

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

D G M E N T M.R. SHAH, J. 1. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned common judgment and order dated 08.08.2017 passed by the High Court of Judicature at Bombay in Writ Petition No. 1432/2017 and Writ Petition No. 1406/2017, by which the High Court has dismissed the aforesaid writ petitions preferred by the Commissioner of Income