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

TDS, self- assessed tax, advanced tax paid, if any, had to be deducted under section 90; the DA had to determine the amount payable and for that purpose, he had to determine the tax arrear as well as the disputed amount as defined under section 87(f). Thus, the DA had to make an assessment of tax arrears, disputed amount

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 KOLKATA XII vs. M/S CALCUTTA EXPORT COMPANY

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

TDS) on such commission amount on 07.07.2004, 07.09.2004 and 07.10.2004 ought to have been deposited by the Respondent before the end of the previous year i.e. 31.03.2005 to get the commission amount deducted from the total income in terms of the provisions of Section 40(a)(ia) of the IT Act as it stood then. But the same was deposited

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

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

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R. MAHADEVAN

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 and did not amount to a conclusive determination of tax liability. Likewise, the AAR while observing that the transaction appeared prima