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

SHREE CHOUDHARY TRANSPORT CO. vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DINESH MAHESHWARI

TDS, which in total amounted to Rs. 57,11,625/-; and added the same back to the total income of the assessee-appellant. The AO also disallowed a lump sum of Rs. 20,000/- from various expenses debited to the Profit and Loss Account and finalised the assessment, accordingly, as under:- “Therefore, considering the provisions of Section 194C, Section

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CHENNAI vs. TULSYAN NEC LTD

b) or (c) of sub-section (3) or sub-section (3A), as the case may be, of that section, and subject to the conditions specified in sub-sections (4) and (4A) of that section; (ix) the amount of profits eligible for deduction under section 80HHE, computed under sub-section (3) of that section. (3) Nothing contained in sub-section

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

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

2 of 31 assessment year (AY) 2003­04. In March, the assessee remitted part of the TDS being Rs. 38,94,687/­ and balance of Rs. 71,47,211/­ was remitted later. Thus, the period of delay ranged   from   05   days   to   10   months.   On 10.03.2003, a survey was conducted by the Revenue   at  assessee’s   premises   and   it  was noted

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

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R. MAHADEVAN

B) HIGH COURT 6.11. On the preliminary objections raised by the Revenue, the High Court found that the Commissioner of Income Tax13, after referring to a detailed examination conducted by the Department during the Section 197 certification process, had concluded that the question of chargeability of capital gains and the identification of the beneficial owner, upon piercing the corporate veil

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

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

TDS comes to Rs.1,57,082/- when calculated @2% which was deducted from the payments made to AAI and deposited with the Revenue. The JAL thereafter filed its annual return in Form 26-C for the financial year 1997-1998. 7. The Assessing Officer passed an order under Section 201(1) of the Act on 04.06.1999 holding

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

The appeals are allowed and the

b) of the http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 5 of 12 Companies Act, 1956, for the purposes of declaration of dividends. Section 205 of the Companies Act requires every company desirous of declaring dividend to provide for depreciation for the relevant accounting year. Further, the company is required under section 205 to set off against the profit

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

b) specified security means the securities as defined in clause (h) of section 2 of the Securities Contracts (Regulation) Act, 1956 (42 of 1956) and includes employees stock option and http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 5 of 6 sweat equity shares; (c) sweat equity shares means equity shares issued by a company to its employees or directors

STATE BANK OF INDIA vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

The appeal is dismissed

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUDHANSHU DHULIA

2. The question which has fallen for our consideration is whether the appellant was in default for not deducting tax at source while releasing payments to its employees as Leave Travel Concession (LTC) 3. LTC is a payment made to an employee which is exempted as ‘income’ and hence under normal circumstances, there should be no question of TDS

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

2 of 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) of the Act and, therefore, the A.O. applied

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

5[one hundred eighty thousand rupees] : 13 6[Provided   further   that   an   individual   or   a Hindu   undivided   family,   whose   total   sales, gross receipts or turnover from the business or   profession   carried   on   by   him   exceed   the monetary limits specified under clause (a) or clause   (b)   of   section   44AB   during   the financial   year   immediately   preceding   the financial year in which such

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

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

5 CIVIL APPEAL No. 4552 OF 2018 (Arising out of Special Leave Petition (C) No.11202 OF 2018 @ SLP(C)... CC No. 12371 OF 2016 CIVIL APPEAL No. 4650 OF 2018 (Arising out of Special Leave Petition (C) No. 23676 OF 2016 CIVIL APPEAL No. 4486 OF 2018 (Arising out of Special Leave Petition (C) No. 26173 OF 2016 CIVIL APPEAL

M/S. HINDUSTAN COCA COLA BEVREGE P.LTD. vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

The appeal is allowed with no

5. The appellant preferred an appeal against the order of the Assessing Officer before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) and thereafter before the http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 3 Tribunal. The Tribunal also took the view that the appellant-assessee to be an ’assessee in default’ in respect of the amount of short deduction

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

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ABHAY MANOHAR SAPRE

b) of section 44AB during the financial year immediately preceding the financial year in which such commission or brokerage is credited or paid, shall be liable to deduct income-tax under this section. Provided also that no deduction shall be made under this section on any commission or brokerage payable by Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited or Mahanagar Telephone Nigam Limited

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

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

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK BHUSHAN

5 out of SLP(C) No.3168 of 2017-Commissioner of Income Tax(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

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

2) SCC 508. According to him, since Section 244(A) is wider than the pre-existing Section 241, it is clear that all the judgments which deal with Section 241 apply with all force to the facts of this case. He also relied upon the judgment of this Court in Commissioner of Income Tax, Mumbai Vs. Anjum M.H.Ghaswala