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

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

8 Consequently, Department was right in invoking the provisions of Sections 201 and 201(1A) of the Act. However, on facts we are of the view that in the first instance over the years the Department should have not allowed non-deduction of TDS

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

8 of the guidelines for the purposes of compounding in a deserving case upon the consideration of a report from the Board on a petition made by an applicant. SLP (C) NO. 20519 of 2024 Page 47 of 59 64. Paragraph 10 of the 2014 guidelines prescribes the competent authority for the purpose of compounding an offence under the guidelines

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

Section 197 of the Income Tax Act 1961, hereinafter referred to as the Digitally signed by GULSHAN KUMAR ARORA Date: 2022.07.29 16:27:35 IST Reason: Signature Not Verified 2 “IT Act”, for Tax Deduction at Source (TDS) at the rate of 4% in respect of payments received by the Appellant from Oil and Natural Gas Company Ltd. hereinafter referred

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

TDS and remit it in government account within the time limit prescribed under the Section. He further contended that the amendment made under Section 40 (a) (ia) by the Finance Act, 2010, clearly states that the amendment has the retrospective effect from the Assessment Year 2010-11 and it cannot be held to be retrospective from the Assessment Year

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

8. Learned counsel for the revenue in support of its appeal submits that Noida and Greater Noida are not covered by the definition   of   local   authority   as   contained   under   Section 10(20) and their income is not exempted under Section 10(20). Judgment   of   Allahabad   High   Court   dated   28.02.2011   in   Writ Petition Tax No. 1338 of 2005 was also relied

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

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

8 interest was not paid by the Department to the assessee for money remaining with the Government. To remove this inequity, as also to simplify the provisions in this regard, the Amending Act, 1987, has inserted a new Section 244A in the Income Tax Act, applicable from the assessment year 1989-90 and onwards which contains all the provisions

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

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R. MAHADEVAN

8,435,171.44 equivalent to INR Rs.58,45,57,380.79 5.6. Thereafter, the assessees approached the Indian tax authorities by filing applications under Section 197 of the Income Tax Act, 19619, seeking certification of nil withholding prior to consummation of the transfer. By notices dated 17.08.2018, the tax authorities informed that the assessees would not be eligible to avail

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

The appeal is allowed with no

8. The High Court interfered with the order passed by the Tribunal on the ground that the order dated 12.7.2002 of the Income-Tax Appellate Tribunal has attained its finality since the appeal filed against the http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 3 same by the appellant was dismissed by the High Court on 21.5.2004; the point

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, GUJARAT vs. GUJARAT FLLURO CHEMICALS LTD

TDS paid exceeds the assessed tax?" 2. In the aforesaid order of reference, this Court has briefly noticed the facts and the Page 4 JUDGMENT 4 discussion in Sandvik case (supra) wherein, the main issue for consideration and determination by this Court was, whether the assessee is entitled to be compensated by the Revenue for delay in payment

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

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ABHAY MANOHAR SAPRE

8 19. Heard Mr. Rajeev Sharma, learned counsel for the appellant and Mr. Rupesh Kumar, learned counsel for the respondent. 20. Submissions of learned counsel for the appellant (assesse) were two-fold. In the first place, he argued that the payments made by the appellant to the accredited agencies during the assessment years in question were not in the nature