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

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ROHINTON FALI NARIMAN

TDS, without any reference to chargeability of tax under the Income Tax Act by the concerned non- resident assessee. This section is similar to sections 193 and 194 of the Income Tax Act by which deductions have to be made without any reference to the chargeability of a sum received by a non-resident assessee under the Income

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

7 The material expression in Section 194A(1) of the Act is \023at the time of credit of such income to the account of the payee\024. When interest is debited to \023Interest Account\024 the debit is for a specific amount calculated with reference to the liability of the deductor to a particular creditor in accordance with the terms

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

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK BHUSHAN

Section 194A but the High Court did not advert to the said issue. We do not find any necessity to advert to the aforesaid issues, since, different concerned Banks have already filed civil appeals challenging the judgment of the High Court rendered in their writ petition which has been separately challenged by a group of civil appeals being Civil Appeal

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

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

COMMR.OF INCOME TAX,NEW DELHI vs. M/S ELI LILLY & COMPANY (INDIA) P.LTD

TDS provisions in Chapter XVII-B, which are in the nature of machinery provisions to enable collection and recovery of taxes, are independent of the charging provisions which determines the assessability of income chargeable under the head “Salaries” in the hands of the recipient? Broadly stated, we have cases in which the tax-deductor-assessee(s) has not deducted

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

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

7. Eligibility Conditions for compounding: The following conditions should be satisfied for considering compounding of an offence :- i. The person makes an application to the CCIT/DGIT having jurisdiction over the case for compounding of the offence(s) in the prescribed format (Annexure-1) ii. The person has paid the outstanding tax, interest, penalty and any other sum due, relating

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

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

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R. MAHADEVAN

7. Mr. N. Venkataraman, learned Additional Solicitor General appearing on behalf of the appellants – Revenue, submitted that both the TDS Officer and the AAR had expressed only a prima facie view of the matter. The order dated 17.08.2018 passed under Section

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

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

7) Learned senior counsel further contended that the courts below have erred in extending the meaning of the amendment made in Section 40(a) (ia) and in not accepting the plain meaning of the Section as being prohibitory in nature which makes the Respondent to deduct the TDS

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CHENNAI vs. TULSYAN NEC LTD

7,75,03,252/- minus 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

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

7 held that interest income of the Noida and Greater Noida is exempted under the notification dated 22.10.1970 issued under Section 194A(3)(iii)(f) of the Income Tax Act.  The High Court further held that as far as payment of rent to the Noida and Greater   Noida,   the   respondent­company   was   liable   to   deduct income tax at source.  The High

COMMNR. OF INCOME TAX, RAJKOT vs. SHATRUSHAILYA DIGVIJAYSINGH JADEJA

section 87(f), "disputed tax" was defined to mean total http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 7 of 7 tax determined and payable under the IT Act/Wealth Tax Act in respect of an assessment year but which remained unpaid as on the date of making of the declaration from which TDS

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

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ABHAY MANOHAR SAPRE

7 Court. By impugned judgment, the High Court allowed the appeals and while setting aside the Tribunal's order restored the order of CIT (Appeals) and AO. 17. The High Court was of the opinion that the provisions of Section 194H are applicable to the payments made by the appellant to the Agencies during the period in question because

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

The appeal is allowed with no

7 has attained its finality. In the circumstances, the High Court could not have interfered with the final order passed by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal. 10. Be that as it may, the circular No. 275/201/95- IT(B) dated 29.1.1997 issued by the Central Board of Direct Taxes, in our considered opinion, should put an end to the controversy

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

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

The appeals are allowed and the

7 of 12 It was submitted by the learned counsel on behalf of the appellant that this case is squarely covered by a three-Judge Bench decision of this Court in Apollo Tyres Ltd. etc. v. Commissioner of Income Tax, Kochi etc. (2002) 9 SCC 1. In this view of the matter, we deem it proper to examine the Apollo