Commissioner of Income Tax, vs. M/s. Kokivenkateswara Reddy AND others,

Appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: V.V.S.RAO,RAMESH RANGANATHAN

income in their returns. Thus on the one hand, there was credit of TDS and on the other hand there was debit of tax paid on behalf of the owners. 78. The Court is of the view that there was no occasion to invoke Section 154 of the Act, since the issue was a debatable one. The decisions

The Commissioner of Income Tax (Central) vs. Sri R.Gowsreesham,

The appeals stand allowed leaving the

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

income from ‘Profits and Gains of Business and Profession’. 9. In the case of H.R. Properties Ltd., the Assessment Order has recorded that on perusal of balance- sheet, P & L Account and its enclosures as well as TDS

The Commissioner of Income Tax IV, vs. M/s. Maheshwari Plaza Resorts (P) Ltd.,

The appeals stand allowed leaving the

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

income from ‘Profits and Gains of Business and Profession’. 9. In the case of H.R. Properties Ltd., the Assessment Order has recorded that on perusal of balance- sheet, P & L Account and its enclosures as well as TDS

The Commissioner of Income Tax I vs. M/S Alloy Nitrides Limited,

The appeals stand allowed leaving the

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

income from ‘Profits and Gains of Business and Profession’. 9. In the case of H.R. Properties Ltd., the Assessment Order has recorded that on perusal of balance- sheet, P & L Account and its enclosures as well as TDS

The Commissioner of Income Tax -IV vs. M/s. Meghadoot Drillers

The appeals stand allowed leaving the

income from ‘Profits and Gains of Business and Profession’. 9. In the case of H.R. Properties Ltd., the Assessment Order has recorded that on perusal of balance- sheet, P & L Account and its enclosures as well as TDS

Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Agricultural Market Committee,

The appeals stand allowed leaving the

Bench: V.V.S.RAO,SANJAY KUMAR

income from ‘Profits and Gains of Business and Profession’. 9. In the case of H.R. Properties Ltd., the Assessment Order has recorded that on perusal of balance- sheet, P & L Account and its enclosures as well as TDS

Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Agricultural Market Committee

The appeals stand allowed leaving the

Bench: V.V.S.RAO,SANJAY KUMAR

income from ‘Profits and Gains of Business and Profession’. 9. In the case of H.R. Properties Ltd., the Assessment Order has recorded that on perusal of balance- sheet, P & L Account and its enclosures as well as TDS

Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Agricultural Market Committee

The appeals stand allowed leaving the

Bench: V.V.S.RAO,SANJAY KUMAR

income from ‘Profits and Gains of Business and Profession’. 9. In the case of H.R. Properties Ltd., the Assessment Order has recorded that on perusal of balance- sheet, P & L Account and its enclosures as well as TDS

Commissioner of Income Tax-2 vs. Agricultural Market Committee

The appeals stand allowed leaving the

Bench: V.V.S.RAO,SANJAY KUMAR

income from ‘Profits and Gains of Business and Profession’. 9. In the case of H.R. Properties Ltd., the Assessment Order has recorded that on perusal of balance- sheet, P & L Account and its enclosures as well as TDS

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

The appeals are disposed of accordingly

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

business as defined under section 2(13) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. (iii) That collection of Toll under HP Tolls Act, 1975 is not a toll plaza under section 206C (IC) of the Income Tax, 1961. (iv) The collection of toll under HP Tolls Act, 1975 has been 4 levied under Entry 59 of List-II of Seventh Schedule

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

In the result, the appeal is disposed of

TDS). The assessee thereupon approached the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (hereinafter referred to 8 as 'the Tribunal' for short) by filing appeals against the order passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals). During the pendency of the appeals before the Tribunal, a division bench of this court by order dated 14.03.2012, set aside the order passed by the learned

DIRECTOR OF INCOMD TAX [INTERNATIONAL TAXATION] HYDERABAD vs. M/S M W ZANDER [S] PTE LIMITED-INDIA BR, HYDERABAD

Appeals are dismissed

Bench: P.SAM KOSHY,SUDDALA CHALAPATHI RAO

TDS such income credited or paid in respect of deposits (other than time-deposits made on or after 1st July, 1995) with a co- operative society engaged in carrying on the business

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-II, HYDERABAD vs. M/S. PATNI TELECOM SOLUTIONS PVT. LTD.,

Appeals are dismissed

Bench: P.SAM KOSHY,SUDDALA CHALAPATHI RAO

TDS such income credited or paid in respect of deposits (other than time-deposits made on or after 1st July, 1995) with a co- operative society engaged in carrying on the business

Commissioner of Income Tax-(TDS), vs. M/s.Neeladri Chit Funds Private Ltd.,

Appeals are dismissed

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

TDS such income credited or paid in respect of deposits (other than time-deposits made on or after 1st July, 1995) with a co- operative society engaged in carrying on the business

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

TDS either not deducted or deducted but not paid in respect of payment of interest, commission or brokerage etc., before the expiry of time prescribed under sub-section (1) of Section 200 and in accordance with the other provisions of Chapter XVII, such amount shall not be deducted in computing the ‘income’ chargeable under the head ‘Profit & Gains’ of business

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

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

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,SURESH KUMAR KAIT

income, if the annual turnover is below Rs.60 lakhs. 8) Rs. 1,77,022/- is the TDS for the assessment year 2011-2012. 9) Rs.5,39,685/- is TDS for the assessment year 2012-2013. 10) After the death of the deceased, his family members formed the Firm and they are continuing the contract business

The Commissioner of Income Tax, vs. N. Annapurna

The appeals are dismissed with no order as to costs

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

business income. This is one more reason for not imposing penalty under Section 271C because by not claiming deduction under Section 40(a)(iii), in some cases, higher corporate tax has been paid to the extent of Rs. 906.52 lacs (see Civil Appeal No. 1778/06 entitled CIT v. The Bank of Tokyo- Mitsubishi Ltd). In some of the cases

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

TDS cannot be disallowed u/s. 40(a)(ia) of the Act as the provisions of Section 11 of the Act was applicable to the assessee? ii. Whether the Tribunal was correct in holding that professional fee of Rs.45,69,998/- paid to Apollo Hospital for managing and running BGS Medical Foundation would not attract Section 194J