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

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

TDS). Appellants relied upon circulars issued by the Central Board of Direct Taxes (‘the CBDT’ for short) in the year 1944 as well as in 1977, to claim exemption

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

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

TDS). Appellants relied upon circulars issued by the Central Board of Direct Taxes (‘the CBDT’ for short) in the year 1944 as well as in 1977, to claim exemption

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

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

TDS). Appellants relied upon circulars issued by the Central Board of Direct Taxes (‘the CBDT’ for short) in the year 1944 as well as in 1977, to claim exemption

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

Appeals are dismissed

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

TDS. On the other hand, clause(viia) of Sub Section(3) of Section 194A exempts from the requirement of TDS

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. On the other hand, clause(viia) of Sub Section(3) of Section 194A exempts from the requirement of TDS

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. On the other hand, clause(viia) of Sub Section(3) of Section 194A exempts from the requirement of TDS

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

Appeal stands dismissed

Bench: P.SAM KOSHY,NARSING RAO NANDIKONDA

TDS under the provisions of the Act which allow certain exemptions to charitable trusts under Section 12A. The CIT (TDS

The Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax-6 vs. Mrs. Urmila Singh

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

TDS), HUBLI. THESE APPEALS COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, RAVI MALIMATH J., DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: JUDGMENT Revenue, with a question of law as to whether Tribunal was correct in holding that a Co-operative Bank was not required to deduct tax on the interest paid to the members on the ground that they were exempt

The Commissioner of Income Tax -11 vs. The AP Mineral Development Corporation Ltd

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

TDS), HUBLI. THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, RAVI MALIMATH J., DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: JUDGMENT Revenue, with a question of law as to whether Tribunal was correct in holding that a Co-operative Bank was not required to deduct tax on the interest paid to the members on the ground that they were exempt

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

exemption under Section 11 of the Act. 5. So far as the disallowance under Section 40(a)(ia) is concerned, a survey under Section 133A was conducted in the case of M/s. BGS Medical Foundation, known as BGS Appolo Hospital, Mysuru on 16.03.2007. As a result of the survey, it came to light, that the hospital has not deducted taxes

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

The appeals stand dismissed answering all the

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

exemption from payment of tax. With respect to the defective declarations, the Commissioner permitted the assessee to cure the defects before the Assessing Officer. Insofar as the remaining depositors, whose interest payments were made without deduction of tax at source, without any declaration in Form-15 furnished, the assessee was held liable to pay tax and interest. A rectification petition

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

The appeals are disposed of accordingly

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

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 Advocate Generals and M/s Arsh Rattan, Sidharth Jalta, Deputy Advocate Generals, with Mr. Rakesh Sharma, Standing

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

The appeals are dismissed

Bench: P.SAM KOSHY,SUDDALA CHALAPATHI RAO

TDS amount. It was further contended that by virtue of section 115JAA(4) the assessee is entitled to set off MAT credit at the stage at which the tax has become payable. Consequently, it was submitted, that the assessee is entitled to take into account the tax credit (MAT credit) available to it under section 115JAA when it computes

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

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-I, vs. AYYAPPA INFRA PROJECTS PVT LTD.,

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

exemption from tax as per Section 10A (2) of the Income Tax Act. The petitioner has placed reliance on certain circulars in support of the contention that the petitioner is also eligible for 100% deduction of Income Tax. WP(C) No. 673 of 2014 3 3. The petitioner had availed the services of an US Company called M/s. Points

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

The Appeal is dismissed

Bench: GODA RAGHURAM,M.S.RAMACHANDRA RAO

TDS, that taxes due have been paid by the assessee. It further says that this will not alter the liability to charge interest under Section 201(1A) of the Act till the date of payment of taxes by the assessee or the liability for penalty under Section 271C of the Act. In the case between Commissioner of Income

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

exempted from payment of tax; (d) the value of perquisites specified in clause (2) of section 17 of the Income-tax Act; (e) any payment or expenditure specifically excluded under proviso to sub-clause (iii) of clause (2) or proviso to clause (2) of section 17; (vii) ―maximum outstanding monthly balance‖ means the aggregate outstanding balance for each loan