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

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

7 of 31 liable to pay the penal interest leviable under Section   201(1A)   of   the   Act,   1961.   It   is submitted  that however,  there  shall not  be any levy of penalty under Section 271C of the Act, 1961 on mere late remittance of the TDS though deducted.  5.2 It is further submitted by Shri Arijit Prasad, learned Senior Advocate appearing

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

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 (1

SHREE CHOUDHARY TRANSPORT CO. vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DINESH MAHESHWARI

B and such tax has not been deducted or, after deduction, has not been paid during the previous year, or in the subsequent year before the expiry of the time prescribed under sub-section (1) of Section 200, such sum shall not be allowed as a deduction while computing the total income. As can be seen, the provisions are mandatorily

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

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 and remit it in government account within the time limit prescribed under

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

TDS on the interests paid by the assessee to the creditors. The first question which arises for determination in these civil appeals is : whether it is open to the directors of the assessee-company to contend before the A.O., after search and survey operations, that the transactions entered into by the assessee were for namesake and that they actually related

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 197 of the Act merely prescribed a tentative and provisional rate of deduction of tax at source

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

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

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

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

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 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

7 granted.” Explanation:---For the purpose of this clause,”date of payment of tax or penalty” means the date on and from which the amount of tax or penalty specified in the notice of demand issued under section 156 is paid in excess of such demand. A cursory look at the aforesaid section shows that the aforesaid section is even

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

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

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

1) has also been placed to contend that by virtue of   said   notification   both   Greater   Noida   and   Noida   are municipalities   and   are   covered   by   the   local   authorities   as explained   under   the   explanation   to   Section   10(20)   of   the Income Tax Act.  It is further contended that interest income of the authorities is exempted under the notification issued under   Section   194A

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