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

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

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 IV vs. M/S. PRABHATH AGRI BIO TECH P. LTD.,

The appeals stand dismissed

Bench: P.SAM KOSHY,NARSING RAO NANDIKONDA

46 of 1948), or, as the case may be, section 6C of the Employees’ Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 (19 of 1952)], to effect an assurance on the life of the assessee or to effect a contract for an annuity; [***] ITA 323/2012 etc. Page 8 of 20 (vi) the value of any specified security or sweat equity shares

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

Bench: GODA RAGHURAM,M.S.RAMACHANDRA RAO

46 ITR 820.This is a case under the Wealth-tax Act and the expression " set up " came to be interpreted in the context of section 5(1)(xxi) as exemption was claimed as a new and separate unit set up after the commencement of the Act. The Madras High ITA 257/2012 Page 9 of 18 Court at page 824 observes