COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CHENNAI vs. TULSYAN NEC LTD

III of Schedule VI to the Companies Act, 1956, subject to the adjustments specified in the Explanation to Section 115JA. The higher of the two computations is deemed to be the “total income” chargeable to tax and tax is payable accordingly. Thus, Section 115JA enacts a deeming fiction by deeming 30% of book profits to be the “total income” chargeable

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

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ROHINTON FALI NARIMAN

6, is necessary in most cases. By section 4(1), income tax shall be charged for any assessment year at any rate or rates, as defined by section 2(37A) of the Income Tax Act, in respect of the total income of the previous year of every person. Under section 4(2), in respect of income chargeable under sub-section

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

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

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

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R. MAHADEVAN

iii) of the proviso to Section 245R(2) of the Act was held to be squarely applicable, and the applications filed by the assessees were rejected. (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

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

The appeals are allowed and the

6 of 12 & loss account of the assessee is not in compliance with the provisions of the 1956 Act, particularly Schedule VI, Parts II and III. In Schedule VI, there is no reference to sections 205 and 350 or Schedule XIV to the 1956 Act. The appellant referred to Note 3 (iv) to Part II (Requirements as to profit

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

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

6 In our view, such a submission cannot be accepted. Section 194A of the Act forms part of recovery mechanism. We quote hereinbelow the said section which reads as under: \023194A. Interest other than "Interest on securities". (1) Any person, not being an individual or a Hindu undivided family, who is responsible for paying to a resident any income

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 NEW OKHLA INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY vs. COMMISSIONER INCOME TAX APPEALS(41)

The appeals are dismissed

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.K. SIKRI

iii)(f) has to be approved.    13. Now coming to the direction of the High Court regarding deduction of tax at source on the payment of lease rent as per Section 194­I of the Income Tax Act, 1961, the authority has relied on Circular dated 30.01.1995.   Section 194­I of the Income Tax Act provides as follows:­ “Section 194­I : Rent

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

TDS of Rs. 45,73,528 and tax paid after original assessment of Rs. 1,71,00,320. The Department contends that the words “any amount” will not include the interest which accrued to the respondent for not refunding Rs. 45,73,528 for 57 months. We see no merit in this argument. The interest component will partake

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

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

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

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

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ABHAY MANOHAR SAPRE

6 2003-2004, the appellant had paid a sum of Rs.2,29,65,922/- towards the commission to the Agencies and on this sum, they were required to deduct tax amounting to Rs.11,15,944/- and a sum of Rs.1,54,050/- towards interest for delayed payment under Section 201(1-A) of the Act. 14. The appellant felt aggrieved

HONDA SIEL CARS INDIA LTD vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, GHAZIABAD

In the results. As a consequence, we find no

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.K. SIKRI

Section 148 of the Income Tax Act (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Act’) stating that said expenditure was capital in nature and, therefore, instalment towards royalty paid in the sum of Rs. 79602000/-, by the assessee to HMCL, Japan in that year had escaped assessment. Ultimately, orders were passed treating the same as capital expenditure. In the subsequent years