Commissioner of Income Tax-II vs. Smt G Sailaja

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

additional income- tax) of, this Act in respect of the total income of the previous year of every person: Provided that where by virtue of any provision of this Act income-tax is to be charged in respect of the income of a period other than the previous year, income-tax shall be charged accordingly. (2) In respect of income

Commissioner of Income TAx-II, Hyderabad vs. M/s. Sri Balaji Bio MAss Power Pvt. Ltd.,

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

additional income- tax) of, this Act in respect of the total income of the previous year of every person: Provided that where by virtue of any provision of this Act income-tax is to be charged in respect of the income of a period other than the previous year, income-tax shall be charged accordingly. (2) In respect of income

The Commissioner of Income Tax -1 vs. Harmahendar Singh Bagga

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

additional income- tax) of, this Act in respect of the total income of the previous year of every person: Provided that where by virtue of any provision of this Act income-tax is to be charged in respect of the income of a period other than the previous year, income-tax shall be charged accordingly. (2) In respect of income

Commissioner of Income Tax-II, vs. The Sirpur Paper Mills Ltd.,

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

additional income- tax) of, this Act in respect of the total income of the previous year of every person: Provided that where by virtue of any provision of this Act income-tax is to be charged in respect of the income of a period other than the previous year, income-tax shall be charged accordingly. (2) In respect of income

The Commissioner of Income Tax-III vs. Smt.D.K.Aruna

The appeals are disposed of accordingly

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

Income Tax (TDS) Shimla …. Respondent. 3 Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice M.S. Ramachandra Rao, Chief Justice. The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Ajay Mohan Goel, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? For the appellants : Mr. Anup Rattan, Advocate General, with M/s Rakesh Dhaulta, Pranay Pratap Singh, Additional

PENDURTHI CHANDRASEKHAR vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,

The appeal is allowed and all the four substantial

addition of Rs.30,38,589/- as interest income on mere ground of claiming credit for TDS on entire amount in utter

The Commissioner of Income Tax-I, vs. M/s. Celestial Laboratories Limited,

In the result, the appeal is disposed of

INCOME-TAX VS. CARGO LINKERS’, (2009) 179 TAXMAN 151 (DELHI), ‘CIT VS. VEGETABLE PRODUCTS LTD.’, (1973) 88 ITR 192 (SC), ‘CIT VS. MADHO PD. JATIA’, (1976) 105 ITR 179 (SC), CIT VS. KULU VALLEY TRANSPORT CO. P. LTD.’, (1970) 77 ITR 518 (SC), ‘GE INDIA TECHNOLOGY CEN. (P.) LTD. VS. CIT’, (2010) 193 TAXMAN 234 (SC) and ‘CIT VS. TARA

Commissioner of Income tax-V, vs. M/s. INTRACK INC,

ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, RANGE-3, BANGALORE. IN I.T.A.NO.595/2013 BETWEEN: 1. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX C R BUILDING QUEENS ROAD BANGALORE 2. THE ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-3(1) C R BUILDING QUEENS ROAD BANGALORE … APPELLANTS (BY SRI KAMALADHAR G, ADV.) AND: 9 SMT. VIMALA S.W. WARAD PROP: M/S MAHENDRA ROAD LINES NO.13, RANGAPPA REDDY

Commissioner of Income Tax, vs. M/s Polisetty Somasundaram,

income from undisclosed sources. (5) Addition of Rs.60,000/- on account of interest charged on investment in shares. (6) The assessee has diverted its borrowed funds to non- interest bearing advances to the tune of Rs.1,58,86,441/-. As such interest of Rs.19,06,373/- worked out @12% on interest free advances was disallowed. (7) The assessee had debited

M/s.V.R.Farms Pvt Ltd vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax

The appeals are dismissed

Bench: P.SAM KOSHY,SUDDALA CHALAPATHI RAO

income. Here, too, according to the revenue, the only reduction permissible is in respect of TDS. 7. It was further contended that this was the position in law prior to 01.04.2007. Since this was causing hardship, various ITA Nos. 402/2005 & Others Page No.12 of 44 representations were received by the Central Board of Direct Taxes to treat the tax credit

Commissioner of Income Tax-II, Hyderabad. vs. M/s.Trinity Advanced Software Labs (P) Ltd.,

The appeal is disposed of in

Bench: The Hon'Ble Mr Justice Anant Ramanath Hegde Regular First Appeal No. 179 Of 2013 (Dec/Pos) Between:

TDS as per the Income Tax has been - 7 - NC: 2024:KHC:8380 RFA No. 179 of 2013 deducted from out of the sale price and paid to the Account of the Vendor (Respondent) vide Challan No 24022700054750ICIC dated 27 February 2024 of ICICI Bank, Chickpet Branch, Bangalore The aforesaid sum of Rs. 1,08,65,000/- is payable

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-III vs. M/S. SOMA ENTERPRISES LTD

The appeal is disposed off accordingly

Bench: The Hon'Ble Mr. Justice Ravi Malimath

ADDITIONAL COMMISSINER OF INCOME TAX, RANGE- 2, MYSORE, INL THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY. THIS INCOME TAX APPEAL COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING THIS DAY, RAVI MALIMATH, J., DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: J U D G M E N T The assessee is a charitable trust having its office at Nagamangala Taluk, Tumakuru District. It has been in existence since

The Commissioner of Income Tax-I, vs. M/s. Prasad Film Laboratories Ltd.,

addition it is entitled to 1 ½ times the rate of the paddy in the form of the economic cost. Such a double benefit cannot be granted, especially in cases where the millers have acted in a bonafide manner. 39. The court cannot lose sight of the fact that awards have to be passed in consonance with public policy. The documents

Commissioner of Income Tax V vs. C Eswar Reddy AND Co.,

The appeals stand dismissed answering all the

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

Additional Commissioner of Income Tax, Range-2, Patna. ... ... Respondent/s ====================================================== Appearance : (In Miscellaneous Appeal No. 451 of 2015) For the Appellant/s : Mr. D.V.Pathy, Advocate For the Respondent/s : Mrs. Archana Sinha, Sr. SC, Income Tax Deptt. (In Miscellaneous Appeal No. 452 of 2015) For the Appellant/s : Mr. D.V.Pathy, Advocate For the Respondent/s : Mrs. Archana Sinha, Sr. SC, Income Tax Deptt. ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE

The Commissioner of Income Tax, vs. Shri Chidipotu Sridhar,

In the result, the appeal is allowed, as follows;

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,SURESH KUMAR KAIT

TDS deducted by Sales Tax Department in From No.501 B paid by Jampana Constructions to the deceased Firm Sri Srinivasa Constructions for the year 20-04-2012 relating to March 2012, for a sum of Rs.3,04,731/- EX.A17 EX.A18 For the respondent Copy of Insurance Policy NO.1506053112P163237387 bearing Ex.B-1 5 9. Oral Evidence:- P.W.1: Rudraraju Rukmini 1. Claimant

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX IV vs. M/S. PRABHATH AGRI BIO TECH P. LTD.,

The appeals stand dismissed

Bench: P.SAM KOSHY,NARSING RAO NANDIKONDA

addition to, any salary. Section 17(2) defines "perquisites" to include, inter alia, "(iv) any sum paid by the employer in respect of any obligation which, but for such payment, would have been payable by the assessee ". It, therefore, follows that, if the employer pays any income-tax, the obligation to pay which lies on the employees, the amount

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, RAJAHMUNDRY vs. SRI P. VENKATA NANCHARAIAH

The appeal is allowed in the above terms

Bench: C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY,M.S.K.JAISWAL

Additional Commissioner of Income Tax, Range-1, Bhubaneswar and others …. Opposite Parties Mr. S.S. Mohapatra, Senior Standing Counsel CORAM: THE CHIEF JUSTICE JUSTICE R. K. PATTANAIK Order No. ORDER 02.02.2022 1. 1. This matter is taken up by video conferencing mode. 2. The present appeal by the Assessee arises from an order dated 29th August, 2006 passed by the Income

Commissioner of Income Tax-II, vs. M/s Infotech Infin AND Trading Private Limited,

The appeal is disposed of in the above terms

Bench: The Learned Tribunal, Are As Under:- A) That The Learned Tribunal Has Erred In Adopting The Multiplier Dependent On The Age Of The Mother Of The Deceased, Rather Than On The Age Of The Deceased. The Learned Counsel For The Appellants Submits That The Multiplier Has To Be Based On The Age Of The Deceased. He Submits That, In The Present Case, The Deceased Was Aged Digitally Signed By:Sunil Signing Date:04.09.2023 18:34:06 Signature Not Verified

TDS has been deducted and deposited by the employer. He submits that, therefore, the income of the deceased should have been taken at a minimum of Rs.10,00,000/- per annum. 3. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondent no.3, while not disputing that the learned Tribunal has erred in taking the multiplier based