COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CHENNAI vs. TULSYAN NEC LTD

TDS and Advance Tax paid by the assessee resulting in the figure of `5,39,88,163/- being the balance tax payable by the assessee plus interest under Section 234B and under Section 234C in all amounting to 14 `6,90,73,894/- from which the A.O. deducts the MAT credit of `5,40,15,189/-. Consequently, under the computation

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

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ROHINTON FALI NARIMAN

1) which in clear terms lays down that tax at source is deductible only from “sums chargeable” under the provisions of the IT Act i.e. chargeable under Sections 4, 5 and 9 of the IT Act. 25. Before concluding we may clarify that in the present case on facts ITO(TDS

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

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

1,10,41,898/­ equivalent to the amount of TDS deducted for AY   2003­04.   That   order   of   Additional   CIT levying the penalty under Section 271C came to   be   confirmed   by   the   High   Court   by   the impugned   judgment   and   order.   The   High Court vide impugned judgment and order has dismissed   the   appeal   preferred   by   the assessee   by   holding   that   failure

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

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 certificate dated 26.06.2019   and   seeking   relief   to   issue   the   fresh   certificate under Section 197, therefore, for ready reference, it is hereby reproduced as thus: 197. Certificate for deduction at lower rate. (1) Subject to rules made under sub-section (2A), where, in the case of any income of any person or sum payable to any person, income

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

The appeals are allowed and the

5 of Schedule XIV contemplates that rates may be different from the rates specified in the said Schedule. This note reads as under: \0235. The following information should also be disclosed in the accounts: (i) depreciation methods used; and (ii) depreciation rates or the useful lives of the assets, if they are different from the principal rates, specified

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

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 appearing on behalf of the Revenue contended that the impugned judgment passed by the High Court

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

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

5 the accounts of the directors in the books of the assessee- company. 3 The A.O. found that when interest was paid by cheques issued by the company to the creditor, TDS was not deducted at source by the assessee on the interest payments as required under Section 194A(1

INCOME TAX OFFICER, NEW DELHI vs. DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY

1 of 5 CASE NO.: Appeal (civil) 3544 of 1998 PETITIONER: THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, NEW DELHI Vs. RESPONDENT: DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY DATE OF JUDGMENT: 27/11/2001 BENCH: CJI, Y.K. Sabharwal & Brijesh Kumar JUDGMENT: BRIJESH KUMAR, J. This civil appeal arises out of judgment and order passed by the Delhi High Court dated July 31, 1997 directing the appellant namely

M/S JAPAN AIRLINES CO.LTD. vs. COMMR.OF INCOME TAX,NEW DELHI

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 to AAI and deposited with

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

COMMR.OF INCOME TAX,BANGALORE vs. M/S INFOSYS TECHNOLOGIES LTD

1 year. At the end of that period, the employee was entitled to elect and obtain shares allotted to him on payment of the balance Rs. 99. The option could be exercised at any time after 12 months but before expiry of the period of 5 years. The allotted shares were subject to a lock in period. During the lock

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (TDS), KANPUR vs. CANARA BANK

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.6020  OF 2018 (ARISING OUT OF SLP (C) NO. 3168 OF 2017) COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX(TDS)       ... APPELLANTS KANPUR AND ANR. VERSUS CANARA BANK        ... RESPONDENT WITH  C.A.NO.6064 of 2018 @ SLP(C)No.9295/2017, C.A.NO.6056 of 2018 2018   @   SLP  (C)No.3162/2017,   C.A.NO

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

5 Assessing Officer shall, except as otherwise provided in this Act, refund the amount to the assessee without his having to make any claim in that behalf: Provided that where, by the order aforesaid,-- (a) an assessment is set aside or cancelled and an order of fresh assessment is directed to be made, the refund, if nay, shall become

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

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