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

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

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

90 onwards and for avoidance of double tax, the procedure has been prescribed in Chapter X. In the above said agreement/treaty between India and UAE known as Agreement of Avoidance of Double Taxation (in short “AADT”) was   executed.   Clause   (1)   and   (6)   of   Article   7   of   the   said agreement   are   relevant   to   the   present   case,   which   are reproduced for ready

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

Appeals are allowed, with no order as

1) of the Scheme. In these appeals, the only grievance of the appellant is that the additional direction given by the impugned judgment making the appellant liable to pay interest on the amount payable under section 90 was illegal and without authority of law. Mr. M.L. Varma, learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant submitted that under

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

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

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 REPORTABLE   IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NO.15613 OF 2017 M/S. NEW OKHLA INDUSTRIAL  DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY  … APPELLANT(S) VERSUS COMMISSIONER OF  INCOME TAX – APPEALS & ORS.              … RESPONDENT(S) WITH CIVIL APPEAL NO.9365 OF 2017 GREATER NOIDA INDUSTRIAL  DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY  … APPELLANT(S) VERSUS ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF  INCOME TAX (TDS) & ORS.                  … RESPONDENT(S) WITH CIVIL APPEAL NO.12750

HONDA SIEL CARS INDIA LTD vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, GHAZIABAD

In the results. As a consequence, we find no

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

Section 148 of the Income Tax Act (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Act’) stating that said expenditure was capital in nature and, therefore, instalment towards royalty paid in the sum of Rs. 79602000/-, by the assessee to HMCL, Japan in that year had escaped assessment. Ultimately, orders were passed treating the same as capital expenditure. In the subsequent years