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

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

25 taxmann.com 201(SC). 7. Therefore, insofar as proposed question no. (ii) is concerned, in our view, that question does not arise for consideration. 8. As regards the proposed question no.(i), since Ms Sujatha Shirolkar, Advocate seeks accommodation, list the appeal on 07.12.2023”. 2.2 ITA No. 157/2023 order dated 16.03.2023 “1. This appeal concerns Assessment Year

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

In the result, the appeal is disposed of

10. On the other hand, learned counsel for the revenue submitted that Section 194J refers to “person” and therefore, includes the assessee and cannot be confined to individuals alone. It is also pointed out that definition of “professional service” in Section 194J is for 16 the purposes of the Section and the same has rightly been interpreted by Bombay High

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 [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

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

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, 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

Late Smt. Hoorjahan Begum vs. Tghe Income Tax Officer

Appeal stands disposed off

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,S.RAVI KUMAR

25,000/- 3. Loss of estate Rs. 10,000/- 4. Loss of Consortium Rs. 1,00,000 /- Non- Pecuniary Damages 5. Loss of love and affection etc. Rs.1,00,000 /- Total Compensation awarded Rs. 66,18,976/- 3. Aggrieved by the impugned Award of the learned Claims Tribunal, the Appellants herein preferred the present Appeal. SUBMISSION ON BEHALF

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

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

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,SURESH KUMAR KAIT

25% where the deceased is between 40-50 years, at 10% where the deceased is between 50-60 years. Further, adding of compensation for loss of estate, loss of consortium and funeral expenses at Rs. 15,000/- and Rs.40,000/- and Rs. 15,000/- respectively is recommended by Hon’ble Apex court with an addition of 10% for three years

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

25 and 29 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + ITA 323/2012 CIT ..... Appellant Through: Ms. Rashmi Chopra, Advocate versus TELSUO MITERA ..... Respondent Through: None. + ITA 325/2012 CIT ..... Appellant Through: Ms. Rashmi Chopra, Advocate versus ISAO SAKAI ..... Respondent Through: None + ITA 326/2012 CIT ..... Appellant Through: Ms. Rashmi Chopra, Advocate versus YOSHIMI KAMANO ..... Respondent Through: None + ITA 343/2012

The Commissioner of Income Tax- I vs. M/s. Avon Organics Limited

Bench: GODA RAGHURAM,M.S.RAMACHANDRA RAO

25 Lease Line Charges 274331 26 Telephone Expenses 68182 27. Printing Charges 7350 28. Travelling Expenses International 7732 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Total Expenses pertaining to April & May 04 5902448/- ” This break-up was noticed in the assessment order itself and is not disputed. 6. What is clearly noticeable is that the appellant-assessee had incurred substantial expenses on wages and salary in addition

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 Assessee stated that it had been advised that salary paid outside India was not liable to tax in India. The Assessee accordingly submitted that it was prevented by reasonable cause for not deducting tax at source on the sum paid outside India. ITA 371/2005 & connected matters Page 6 of 15 6. The Assessing Officer (‘AO’) passed an order

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

25,790/- from 1st June, 1999 upto the date of refund. Interest on the said amounts is payable under Section 244A of the Act. (d) The contention of the Revenue is that this would amount to payment of interest on interest and this is forbidden and should not be paid. ASSESSMENT YEAR 1990-91 (a) In this year also

M/S. SREE TRADING CORPORATION vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 4(1), HYDERABAD

Bench: N.TUKARAMJI,UJJAL BHUYAN

10 confirmation letter was submitted, it was pointed out that no such letter was issued by M/s. Kuldip Vasta, proprietor of M/s. Trans India Express who had stated that he had received only commission brokerage from the appellant to the tune of Rs.8,000.00. According to him, no amount was receivable from the appellant as on 31.03.2001. Similarly

The Commissioner of Income Tax I vs. Mesmer Technologies Ltd

The appeals are allowed in part

Bench: SANJAY KUMAR,M.S.K.JAISWAL

10. Learned counsel for the revenue has relied upon catena of judgments in support of his contentions. 11. We have carefully considered the rival submissions of the learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the material on record. 12. Section 194J of the Act reads thus: “194J. (1) Any person, not being an individual or a Hindu undivided family