Commissioner of Income Tax-II vs. Smt G Sailaja

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

5. Controverting the claim of the petitioners, statements were filed by the second respondent in all the writ petitions, pleading that the CBDT circular does not have the effect of exempting deduction of TDS from the salary paid by the Government to the teachers through their respective institutions. It also stated that the nuns and priests receiving salary from Government

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

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

5. Controverting the claim of the petitioners, statements were filed by the second respondent in all the writ petitions, pleading that the CBDT circular does not have the effect of exempting deduction of TDS from the salary paid by the Government to the teachers through their respective institutions. It also stated that the nuns and priests receiving salary from Government

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

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

5. Controverting the claim of the petitioners, statements were filed by the second respondent in all the writ petitions, pleading that the CBDT circular does not have the effect of exempting deduction of TDS from the salary paid by the Government to the teachers through their respective institutions. It also stated that the nuns and priests receiving salary from Government

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

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

5. Controverting the claim of the petitioners, statements were filed by the second respondent in all the writ petitions, pleading that the CBDT circular does not have the effect of exempting deduction of TDS from the salary paid by the Government to the teachers through their respective institutions. It also stated that the nuns and priests receiving salary from Government

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-(TDS), vs. M/s.Neeladri Chit Funds Private Ltd.,

Appeals are dismissed

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

10 provisions of clause (viia) of the said Sub Section are applicable only in case of a non- member depositor of the co-operative bank, who shall receive interest only on deposits other than time deposits made on or after 1st July, 1995 without TDS Under Section 194A. 3. A question has also been raised as to whether normal members

DIRECTOR OF INCOMD TAX [INTERNATIONAL TAXATION] HYDERABAD vs. M/S M W ZANDER [S] PTE LIMITED-INDIA BR, HYDERABAD

Appeals are dismissed

Bench: P.SAM KOSHY,SUDDALA CHALAPATHI RAO

10 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 of a non- member depositor of the co-operative bank, who shall receive interest only on deposits other than time deposits made

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, vs. N. Annapurna

The appeals are dismissed with no order as to costs

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

5,74,10,405 levied by the AO. 10. The Assessee filed appeals being ITA Nos. 3233 to 3242/Del/2003 against the order passed by the CIT (A) on 1st May 2003. Thereafter, the Department filed appeals before the ITAT against the earlier order dated 29th January 2003 of the CIT (A). These appeals were numbered as TDSA

Commissioner of Income Tax-I vs. M/s. Cargo Handling Pvt. Workers Pool

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

10. Upon presentation of the said Police Reports/Challans, the court of Special Judge (Anti Corruption), Jammu came to undertake charge framing exercise in respective cases which resulted in discharge of the respondent-Rajesh Koul and the respondent-Madan Lal Dogra from suffering prosecution of offences under Section 5(2) (d) of the Jammu and Kashmir Prevention of Corruption

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

TDS under Section 194H of the Act and as such, addition under Section 40(a)(ia) of the Act was not sustainable. 3.5 The appeals filed by the appellant/revenue pertaining to both assessment years were dismissed by the Tribunal by way of the orders, impugned in the present two appeals. 4. As mentioned above, these appeals revolve around two common

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

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-I, vs. AYYAPPA INFRA PROJECTS PVT LTD.,

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

TDS on the said amount. The assessing authority thereafter added this amount of Rs. 23,48,979/- to the total income and disallowed the expense which was debited in the Profit & Loss Account. Against Ext.P3 Order dated 17.12.2010 passed by the assessing authority, the petitioner filed a Revision Petition under section 264 of the Income Tax Act before

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-III vs. M/S. SOMA ENTERPRISES LTD

The appeal is disposed off accordingly

Bench: The Hon'Ble Mr. Justice Ravi Malimath

10,011/- which was already allowed in the earlier assessment years, was disallowed for the purpose of computing exemption under Section 11 of the Act. 5. So far as the disallowance under Section 40(a)(ia) is concerned, a survey under Section 133A was conducted in the case of M/s. BGS Medical Foundation, known as BGS Appolo Hospital, Mysuru

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, RAJAHMUNDRY vs. SRI P. VENKATA NANCHARAIAH

The appeal is allowed in the above terms

Bench: C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY,M.S.K.JAISWAL

5. While admitting the appeal on 21st September 2007, this Court framed the following substantial questions of law for consideration: (i) Whether the ITAT was justified in dismissing the appeal ignoring the facts and figures on record, particularly when specific ground regarding the same had been taken, taking into consideration the fact that the ITAT is the last fact finding

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

In the result, the appeal is disposed of

5. In the meanwhile, the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) by an order dated 22.02.2011 inter alia relying on the order passed by the learned Single Judge of this court in case of Medi Assist as well as Circular No.8/2009 dated 24.11.2009 upheld the order passed by the Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax (TDS). The assessee thereupon approached the Income