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

penalty order passed by the Assessing Officer (AO). 4. The Appellant is the Managing Director of Bharat Motors Ltd. and has been deemed to be an Assessee-in-default for non- deduction of tax deducted source (TDS

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

In the result, the appeal is disposed of

TDS as prescribed under Section 194J has been upheld by the Bombay as well as Delhi High Court except to the extent of penalty

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

TDS may vary between 1% to 10%, whereas, legitimate business expenditure denied is 100% - resulting into taxation of gross receipts 18 coupled with levy of interest and penalty

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

The appeals stand dismissed answering all the

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

TDS, was directed to decide the application for rectification made by the petitioner-Bank under Section 154 on merits after giving opportunity of hearing to the petitioner Bank. 4. Both on the levy of interest and penalty

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

The Commissioner of Income Tax, vs. N. Annapurna

The appeals are dismissed with no order as to costs

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

TDS, the Court is not persuaded to entertain the present appeals. The question that has been framed does not require to be answered for the simple reason that the decision of this Court cannot possibly be contrary to what has been held by the Supreme Court on merits on the question of the liability of the Assessee to pay penalty

K.DEVENDER REDDY vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER

Bench: C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY,T.AMARNATH GOUD

penalty for failure to get the accounts audited and whether the order of the Tribunal in confirming the order of the first Appellate Authority is proper and legal. 3. Mr.A.V.A.Siva Kartikeya, learned counsel representing Mr.A.V.Krishna Kaundinya, learned counsel for the appellant-assessee, has submitted that due to the auditor refusing to audit the accounts of hic client

The Commissioner of Income Tax-I, vs. Aditya Music (India) Pvt.Ltd.,

TDS Circle, Patna, by his order dated 19.01.2011 under Section 201(1)/201(1A) of the Act held that the deduction ought to have been made by the assessee under Section 194I of the Act and accordingly directed further amounts of Rs.5,04,86,721/- to be deposited by the assessee including the amount of interest on short deduction

Commissioner of Income Tax, Guntur. vs. Agricultural Market Committee, Parchuru

TDS Circle, Patna, by his order dated 19.01.2011 under Section 201(1)/201(1A) of the Act held that the deduction ought to have been made by the assessee under Section 194I of the Act and accordingly directed further amounts of Rs.5,04,86,721/- to be deposited by the assessee including the amount of interest on short deduction

The Commissioner of Income Tax -III vs. Sri T.C. Reddy

The appeal stands dismissed

Penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) r.w 274 of the Income-tax Act for concealment and furnishing of inaccurate particulars are initiated separately. (iv) The assessee has booked various expenses of contractual nature, vide order sheet entry dated 29.12.2009, the assessee was asked to show cause why the same should not disallowed u/s40a(ia). In response thereto the assessee

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

M/s Modi Builders AND Realtors (P) Ltd., vs. Asst. Commissioner of Income tax,

The appeals are disposed of

Bench: P.SAM KOSHY,NARSING RAO NANDIKONDA

penalty specified in the notice of demand issued under section 156 is paid in excess of such demand. (2) If the proceedings resulting in the refund are delayed for reasons attributable to the assessee, whether wholly or in part, the period of the delay so attributable to him shall be excluded from the period for which interest is payable

Commissioner of Income Tax-III, vs. M/s Sree Rayalaseema Green Energy Limited,

penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c) are being initiated separately.” 7. This is the entire discussion on the said addition, in the assessment order. The amounts in question are substantial. The Assessing Officer must discuss the facts before he affirms his final ITA No. 439/2013 Page 4 of 5 conclusion, especially when significant additions are made creating tax liability