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-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

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

In the result, the appeal is disposed of

TDS that the relevant taxes have been paid by the deductee- assessee (hospitals etc.). A certificate from the auditor of the deductee assessee stating that the tax and interest due from deductee- assessee has been paid for the assessment year concerned would be sufficient compliance for the above purpose. However, this will not alter the liability to charge interest under

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

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

TDS cannot be disallowed u/s. 40(a)(ia) of the Act as the provisions of Section 11 of the Act was applicable to the assessee? ii. Whether the Tribunal was correct in holding that professional fee of Rs.45,69,998/- paid to Apollo Hospital for managing and running BGS Medical Foundation would not attract Section 194J

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

PENDURTHI CHANDRASEKHAR vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,

The appeal is allowed and all the four substantial

38,589/- as interest on the unsecured loans advanced to M/s. Dakshin Shelters Private Limited. VRS, J & JUD, J I.T.T.A.No.706 of 2016 4 7. The Assessing Officer added the unsecured loan received by the assessee from Smt. Shanti Chowdary and the unexplained gift received by the assessee from his father-in-law, as unexplained cash credit under Section

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