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

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

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.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

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 I vs. Mesmer Technologies Ltd

The appeals are allowed in part

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

26,09,86,779/- is inclusive of service charges payable to KIADB. It was submitted that the nature of assessment in the hands of payee is irrelevant. Application and registration under Section 12A of the Act is subject to complying with Sections 11 and 12. The assessee cannot take the contention that the amounts paid to KIADB

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- I vs. M/s. Avon Organics Limited

Bench: GODA RAGHURAM,M.S.RAMACHANDRA RAO

26 ITR 151, this distinction was highlighted and elucidated in the following words:- “................That is why it is important to consider ITA 257/2012 Page 6 of 18 whether the expression used in the Indian statute for setting up a business is different from the expression Mr. Justice Rowlatt was considering, viz., "commencing of the business." It seems to us, that

The Commissioner of Income Tax, vs. N. Annapurna

The appeals are dismissed with no order as to costs

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

10 of 15 of the order, as under: “In the circumstances, therefore, and keeping in view the fact that the Tribunal and this Court have in similar other cases involving non- deduction of tax from the salaries paid to expatriate employees in countries outside India held that the failure to make the deduction at source was for a reasonable cause

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. M/s. Prasad Film Laboratories Ltd.,

Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 challenges the award dated 19th December, 2011 passed by the Learned Sole Arbitrator. 2. The Petitioner – Food Corporation of India (hereinafter, ‘FCI’) and M/s Shankar Rice and General Mills (hereinafter ‘miller’) had entered into two milling agreements dated 8th November, 1994 and 15th November, 1994. Under the said contracts, the miller