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

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

9 of 31 Statute   provides   for   penal   interest   under Section   201(1A)   of   the   Act,   1961.   It   is submitted that the penal interest levied under Section 201(1A) is compensatory in nature. It is   submitted   that   therefore,   when   the Parliament   thought   it   fit   to   levy   the   penal interest on late remittance of the TDS

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

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

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

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

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 by the company and nothing prevented the A.O. from raising the objection to such practice. 9

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

Section 44BB of the Act at an effective tax rate of 4% plus applicable surcharge and cess. 9 In light of the above, it is our humble request to your goodself to kindly issue the certificate at your earliest convenience.” 26. The Appellant contends that a certificate of Nil TDS

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CHENNAI vs. TULSYAN NEC LTD

9. We have discussed hereinabove the scheme of Section 115JA(1) and Section 115JAA. The entire scheme of Sections 115JA(1) and 115JAA shows that if an assessee is entitled to a tax credit as a consequence of the assessee making payment of tax under Section 115JA(1) in the year one, then, the set off of such tax credit

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

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK BHUSHAN

TDS as required under Section 194A of the Income Tax Act and remit the same to the Central Government Account. 5. The appellant filed a writ petition praying for quashing the notice under Section 142 of the Income Tax Act dated 29.08.2005. The appellant also challenged notice dated 31.08.2005 issued under Section 131 to the 4 Bankers of the appellant

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

The appeals are dismissed

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

TDS.” 5. Aggrieved by the aforesaid judgment of Delhi High Court, Greater   Noida,   Noida   as   well   as   Revenue   has   filed   these appeals.  6. Learned counsel appearing for the Noida and Greater Noida contended that Noida and Greater Noida have been constituted under   Section   3   of   the   Uttar   Pradesh   Industrial   Area 9

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

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

Section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short ‘the IT Act’) was completed on 28.12.2007. The Assessing Officer, vide order dated 12.10.2009, disallowed the export commission charges paid by the assessee to M/s. Steel Crackers Pvt. Ltd. 9 amounting to Rs. 40,82,089/- while stating that the tax deducted at source (TDS

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

9 of 12 is authorised by the definition given in Explanation to Section 115J of the Income- tax Act, if the accounts are prepared and certified to be in accordance with Parts II and III of Schedule VI to the Companies Act, 1956. In the case of Apollo Tyres Ltd. [2002] 255 JTR 273, the apex court held that while

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

9 of the 2014 guidelines empowers the Minister of Finance to relax the restrictions stipulated in Paragraph 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

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

The appeal is allowed with no

9. We have already noticed that the order passed by the Tribunal to reopen the matter for further hearing as regards ground 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-

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

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ABHAY MANOHAR SAPRE

9 from the appellant and then sold it in the market for advertisement to their customer after retaining 15% commission given to them by the appellant. It was, therefore, his submission that such transaction cannot be regarded as being between the principal and agent and nor the payment can be regarded as having been made by way of commission

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

9 Court in Sandvik Asia Ltd. (supra) set out several questions of law which arose on the facts of that case. We are concerned with questions C and E which read as follows: “(C). Whether on a proper interpretation of the various provisions of the Act an assessee was entitled to be compensated for the delay in paying