COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-II, HYDERABAD vs. M/S. PATNI TELECOM SOLUTIONS PVT. LTD.,

Appeals are dismissed

Bench: P.SAM KOSHY,SUDDALA CHALAPATHI RAO

TDS Under Section 194A. 3. A question has also been raised as to whether normal members, associate members and sympathizer members are also covered by the exemptions Under Section 194A(3)(v). It is hereby clarified that the exemption is available only to such members who have joined in application for the registration of the co-operative society and those

Commissioner of Income Tax-(TDS), vs. M/s.Neeladri Chit Funds Private Ltd.,

Appeals are dismissed

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

TDS Under Section 194A. 3. A question has also been raised as to whether normal members, associate members and sympathizer members are also covered by the exemptions Under Section 194A(3)(v). It is hereby clarified that the exemption is available only to such members who have joined in application for the registration of the co-operative society and those

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

Sections 36 (1) (iii) of the Act are met, deduction of interest cannot be denied merely because the Assessee was a cash rich company having enough resources of its own. 68. It is pointed out that in the earlier years Gopal Das Bhawan was still under construction and the interest was capitalised only up to the stage of completion

Commissioner of Income Tax, vs. M/s. Kokivenkateswara Reddy AND others,

Appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: V.V.S.RAO,RAMESH RANGANATHAN

Sections 36 (1) (iii) of the Act are met, deduction of interest cannot be denied merely because the Assessee was a cash rich company having enough resources of its own. 68. It is pointed out that in the earlier years Gopal Das Bhawan was still under construction and the interest was capitalised only up to the stage of completion

M/s.V.R.Farms Pvt Ltd vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax

The appeals are dismissed

Bench: P.SAM KOSHY,SUDDALA CHALAPATHI RAO

section 140A which lays down the procedure for payment and computation of self-assessment tax. This, too, according to the learned counsel for the revenue, speaks of reduction of only the TDS amount from the tax payable. It was submitted that whether it is the computation of advance tax or self- assessment tax, the only reduction permissible

Commissioner of Income Tax [TDS] vs. Sri VAraha Laxmi Nrusimha Swamy DEvastanam

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

11. With the above prelude, we refer to the contentions raised by W.A. No.410/15 & Conn. Cases 76 the learned counsel for the appellants. Adv. Joseph Kodianthara, the learned Senior Counsel contended that the 1944 notification continued to hold the field even after the coming into force of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short ‘the Act’), and thereafter, the contents

The Commissioner of Income Tax (Central) vs. Swapna Lahari Pvt Ltd.,

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

11. With the above prelude, we refer to the contentions raised by W.A. No.410/15 & Conn. Cases 76 the learned counsel for the appellants. Adv. Joseph Kodianthara, the learned Senior Counsel contended that the 1944 notification continued to hold the field even after the coming into force of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short ‘the Act’), and thereafter, the contents

Commissioner of Income Tax-II vs. Smt G Sailaja

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

11. With the above prelude, we refer to the contentions raised by W.A. No.410/15 & Conn. Cases 76 the learned counsel for the appellants. Adv. Joseph Kodianthara, the learned Senior Counsel contended that the 1944 notification continued to hold the field even after the coming into force of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short ‘the Act’), and thereafter, the contents

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

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

11. With the above prelude, we refer to the contentions raised by W.A. No.410/15 & Conn. Cases 76 the learned counsel for the appellants. Adv. Joseph Kodianthara, the learned Senior Counsel contended that the 1944 notification continued to hold the field even after the coming into force of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short ‘the Act’), and thereafter, the contents

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

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

11. With the above prelude, we refer to the contentions raised by W.A. No.410/15 & Conn. Cases 76 the learned counsel for the appellants. Adv. Joseph Kodianthara, the learned Senior Counsel contended that the 1944 notification continued to hold the field even after the coming into force of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short ‘the Act’), and thereafter, the contents

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

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

11. With the above prelude, we refer to the contentions raised by W.A. No.410/15 & Conn. Cases 76 the learned counsel for the appellants. Adv. Joseph Kodianthara, the learned Senior Counsel contended that the 1944 notification continued to hold the field even after the coming into force of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short ‘the Act’), and thereafter, the contents

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

In the result, the appeal is disposed of

TDS as prescribed under Section 194J has been upheld by the Bombay as well as Delhi High Court except to the extent of penalty as prescribed under Section 271C. It is also argued that the person referred to in Section 194J and Explanation (a) appended to Section 194J(1) need not himself / herself is to be a Doctor and therefore

Commissioner of Income Tax V vs. C Eswar Reddy AND Co.,

The appeals stand dismissed answering all the

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

TDS default for the relevant assessment year to be Rs.1,36,040/- and the Assessing Officer was directed to pass revised order under Section 201 of the Act. Similarly, reckoning the deduction made under Annexure-9 produced in M.A. No. 452 of 2015, the Commissioner restricted the penalty under Section 271C to Rs.74,669/-. Both the orders of the Commissioner

Commissioner of Income Tax, vs. Agricultural Market Committee,

The appeals are dismissed

Bench: GODA RAGHURAM,M.S.RAMACHANDRA RAO

11 I. T. A.No.463/2012 BETWEEN: 1. The Commissioner of Income-Tax TDS, HMT Bhavan, Bellary Road, Bangalore 2. The Income-Tax Officer TDS Ward, Aayakar Bhavan, Sedam Road, Gulbarga – 585 105 …Appellants (By Sri K.V.Aravind and Sri Ameetkumar Deshpande, Advocates) AND: Gulbarga Electricity Supply Company Ltd., Corporate Office, Main Road, Gulbarga - 585 102 ... Respondent (By Sri A Shankar

Commissioner of Income tax-V, vs. M/s. INTRACK INC,

11 be an assessee in default under the first proviso to sub-section (1) of section 201, then, for the purpose of this sub-clause, it shall be deemed that the assessee has deducted and paid the tax on such sum on the date of furnishing of return of income by the resident payee referred to in the said proviso

The Principal Commissioner of Income Tax vs. M/s.Midwest Granites Private Limited

Appeal stands dismissed accordingly

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,KONGARA VIJAYA LAKSHMI

11 and 2011-12 which has not reached finality even when the assessing authority rightly disallowed the said expenditure as all the conditions for invoking said provision were satisfied in case of assessee? - 4 - 4. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, Tribunal is right in law in setting aside the disallowance made under Section

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 I vs. Mesmer Technologies Ltd

The appeals are allowed in part

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

Section 194J of the Act. In the present case, the KIADB has not recognized any income out of Rs.1,225 Crores paid by the assessee, the entire amount is shown as deposit receipt as shown in the balance sheet. Hence, no deduction of TDS was necessary and there is no income comprised in the payments made. As per the agreement