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

Appeals are dismissed

Bench: P.SAM KOSHY,SUDDALA CHALAPATHI RAO

10 co-operative bank shall receive interest on both time deposits and deposits other than time deposits with such co-operative bank without TDS Under Section 194A by virtue of exemption granted vide clause (v) of Sub Section (3) of the said section. The provisions of clause (viia) of the said Sub Section are applicable only in case

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 III, vs. M/S. SAVIJANA SEA FOODS PVT. LTD.,

Appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: J SREENIVAS RAO,ALOK ARADHE

10(2)(xv) of the Indian Income Tax Act, 1922? It was acknowledged that “In choosing to compensate its constituents for the loss of their jewellery and maintain its business connections and goodwill, the bank laid out expenditure for the purpose of its business.” 32. It was further explained that “The sole question is whether the bank in incurring

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

Appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

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

10(2)(xv) of the Indian Income Tax Act, 1922? It was acknowledged that “In choosing to compensate its constituents for the loss of their jewellery and maintain its business connections and goodwill, the bank laid out expenditure for the purpose of its business.” 32. It was further explained that “The sole question is whether the bank in incurring

Commissioner of Income Tax [TDS] vs. Sri VAraha Laxmi Nrusimha Swamy DEvastanam

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

10. Thus, contrary to the understanding of the Appellants, the CBDT has submitted before this Court that the circulars of 1944 and even that of 1977 do not exempt the members of the religious congregations from the requirement of TDS on the payments received by them as remuneration in their individual capacity. 11. With the above prelude, we refer

The Commissioner of Income Tax (Central) vs. Swapna Lahari Pvt Ltd.,

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

10. Thus, contrary to the understanding of the Appellants, the CBDT has submitted before this Court that the circulars of 1944 and even that of 1977 do not exempt the members of the religious congregations from the requirement of TDS on the payments received by them as remuneration in their individual capacity. 11. With the above prelude, we refer

Commissioner of Income Tax-II vs. Smt G Sailaja

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

10. Thus, contrary to the understanding of the Appellants, the CBDT has submitted before this Court that the circulars of 1944 and even that of 1977 do not exempt the members of the religious congregations from the requirement of TDS on the payments received by them as remuneration in their individual capacity. 11. With the above prelude, we refer

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

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

10. Thus, contrary to the understanding of the Appellants, the CBDT has submitted before this Court that the circulars of 1944 and even that of 1977 do not exempt the members of the religious congregations from the requirement of TDS on the payments received by them as remuneration in their individual capacity. 11. With the above prelude, we refer

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

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

10. Thus, contrary to the understanding of the Appellants, the CBDT has submitted before this Court that the circulars of 1944 and even that of 1977 do not exempt the members of the religious congregations from the requirement of TDS on the payments received by them as remuneration in their individual capacity. 11. With the above prelude, we refer

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

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

10. Thus, contrary to the understanding of the Appellants, the CBDT has submitted before this Court that the circulars of 1944 and even that of 1977 do not exempt the members of the religious congregations from the requirement of TDS on the payments received by them as remuneration in their individual capacity. 11. With the above prelude, we refer

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

The appeals are dismissed

Bench: P.SAM KOSHY,SUDDALA CHALAPATHI RAO

10. Referring to the provisions of chapter XVII-C relating to advance tax, it was submitted by the learned counsel for the revenue that section 207 imposes the liability for payment of advance tax and that section 208 stipulates that the advance tax must be paid in the ITA Nos. 402/2005 & Others Page No.14 of 44 financial year itself. Section

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

10 3. The substantial questions of law that arise for consideration in all these appeals is whether, the amendment to Section 40(a)(ia) by the Finance Act, 2010, which is given effect from 01.04.2010 is retrospective in nature. 4. Prior to the amendment, the said provision read as under:- Section 40(a)(ia) : any interest, commission or brokerage, rent

M/S.P.SATYANARAYANA AND SONS vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 1[9], HYDERABAD

Appeals are allowed

Bench: P.SAM KOSHY,NARSING RAO NANDIKONDA

TDS at 20% under Section 195(1) of the Act and also paid the same to Government account. However, according to the assessee, since it is a cost sharing agreement and payments were made by the assesee for reimbursement of cost/expenses, no 16 income is embedded therein. Therefore, the assessee is not liable to deduct tax under Section

Commissioner of Income Tax, vs. Agricultural Market Committee,

The appeals are dismissed

Bench: GODA RAGHURAM,M.S.RAMACHANDRA RAO

10 I. T. A.No.462/2012 BETWEEN: 1. The Commissioner of Income-Tax TDS, HMT Bhavan, Bellary Road, Bangalore 2. The Income-Tax Officer TDS Ward, Aayakar Bhavan, Sedam Road, Gulbarga – 585 105 …Appellants (By Sri K.V.Aravind and Sri Ameetkumar Deshpande, Advocates) AND: Gulbarga Electricity Supply Company Ltd., Corporate Office, Main Road, Gulbarga - 585 102 ... Respondent (By Sri A Shankar

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 default for the relevant assessment year to be Rs.1,36,040/- and the Assessing Officer was directed to pass revised order under Section 201 of the Act. Similarly, reckoning the deduction made under Annexure-9 produced in M.A. No. 452 of 2015, the Commissioner restricted the penalty under Section 271C to Rs.74,669/-. Both the orders of the Commissioner

Late Smt. Hoorjahan Begum vs. Tghe Income Tax Officer

Appeal stands disposed off

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,S.RAVI KUMAR

Section 192(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 has deducted the tax at source from the employee's salary. In case if an objection is raised by any party, the objector is required to prove by producing evidence such as LPC to suggest that the employer failed to deduct the TDS from the salary of the employee. However, there

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

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

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,SURESH KUMAR KAIT

Section 44 (a) (d) of Income Tax Act, 8% of the turnover would be treated as 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

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

14 of 20 been observed that payment of tax by an employer should be regarded and treated as a perquisite under Section 17(2)(iv) of the Act. 17. The assessing officer in the assessment order has referred to the provisions of tax deduction at source and observed that the employer was liable and under an obligation to deduct