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

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

deduct TDS. While deducting the TDS under section 192 of the Act, the person deducting it, is not obliged to or required

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

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

deduct TDS. While deducting the TDS under section 192 of the Act, the person deducting it, is not obliged to or required

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

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

deduct TDS. While deducting the TDS under section 192 of the Act, the person deducting it, is not obliged to or required

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

Late Smt. Hoorjahan Begum vs. Tghe Income Tax Officer

Appeal stands disposed off

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,S.RAVI KUMAR

deducted at source (“TDS”, for short). When the employer fails in default to deduct the TDS from the employee's salary

The Commissioner of Income Tax vs. M/s.A.Venkateswarlu AND Co

Bench: GODA RAGHURAM,M.S.RAMACHANDRA RAO

deduct TDS on the interest part @ 20% and 2 accordingly deducted TDS of `1,23,673/- and submitted with the Income

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX III, vs. M/S. SAVIJANA SEA FOODS PVT. LTD.,

Appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: J SREENIVAS RAO,ALOK ARADHE

TDS 72. The next issue to be considered is whether the Assessee was liable to deduct tax at source (TDS

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

Appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

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

TDS 72. The next issue to be considered is whether the Assessee was liable to deduct tax at source (TDS

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

deducted source (TDS) in terms of Section 201(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘IT Act’). The AO had levied

THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, VISAKHAPATNAM vs. M/S. DR. VEMPALA BALA MANOHER, VISAKHAPATNAM

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,KONGARA VIJAYA LAKSHMI

deducted as TDS on the interest component of the compensation paid to the claimants- respondents by way of an award

Mr. Vasamsetty Veera Venkata Satyanarayana vs. The Principal Commissioner of Income Tax -1

Appeal stands dismissed

Bench: P.SAM KOSHY,NARSING RAO NANDIKONDA

deduction of TDS/TCS and interest with regard to following payments:- Name of expenses Amount paid TDS TDS deducted Non deduction

Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-1 vs. M/s Sri Sri Gruha Nirman India Pvt. Ltd.

Appeals are dismissed

Bench: P.SAM KOSHY,NARSING RAO NANDIKONDA

deductable at source (TDS) under Section 194H of the Act was not deducted by the respondent/assessee. 3.3 As regards the deduction

Commissioner of Income Tax - IV vs. M/s. Anand Food Products,

The appeal stands disposed of on the ground of low tax effect

Bench: : The Hon’Ble Justice T.S. Sivagnanam & The Hon’Ble Justice Hiranmay Bhattacharyya Date : 1St March, 2023 Appearance : Mr. Soumen Bhattacharjee, Adv. …For Appellant The Court : - This Appeal Has Been Filed By The Revenue Under Section 260A Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (The Act) Is Directed Against The Order Dated 12.04.2013 Passed By The Learned Income Tax Appellate Tribunal “B” Bench, Kolkata In I.T.A. No. 1336/Kol/2011 Relating To The Assessment Year 2005-2006. The Revenue Has Raised The Following Substantial Questions Of Law For Consideration :- I) Whether On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case The Ld. Tribunal Has Erred In Law In Deleting The Addition Made By The Assessing Officer Under Section 40(A)(Ia) Of Income Tax Act, 1961, An Amount Of Rs.30,44,166/- Relating To The Payment Made By The Assessee On Account Of Online Advertisement, To M/S Google Ltd. & M/S. Overture Services Without Deducting Tds, By Holding That The Assessee Was Under No Obligation To Deduct Tds Under Section 195 Of The I.T. Act, 1961? Ii) Whether On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case The Ld. Tribunal Has Erred In Law In Deleting The Addition Of Rs.30,44,166/- Made

deducting TDS, by holding that the assessee was under no obligation to deduct TDS under Section 195 of the I.T. Act, 1961? ii) Whether

M\S.CHENNAKESAVA VIJAYAWADA vs. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX VIJAYAWAD

The Appeal is dismissed

Bench: GODA RAGHURAM,M.S.RAMACHANDRA RAO

TDS amount. It was adjudicated by the ITO holding that the assessee was in default for not deducting the TDS

The Commissioner of Income Tax - VI vs. Sri Danda Dharanidhar

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

deduct TDS arises. The realities of how the airline industry functioned during the period in question bolsters our conclusion that

The Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax - Central vs. Smt. Gavireddygari Aparna Kalyani

Bench: J SREENIVAS RAO,ALOK ARADHE

Deducted at Source [“TDS”] deducted by the petitioner. Learned counsel on both sides are hopeful that they will be able

The Commissioner of Income Tax-IV vs. M/s.OCV Reinforcement Manufacturing Limited

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

TDS has been deducted and a sum of Rs.26,711/_ was remitted to Income Tax Department and though the said