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

Allam Bali Reddy, vs. Asst.Commissioner of Income Tax,

Appeals stand disposed of in terms of

SECTION 260-A OF I.T.ACT, 1961, ARISING OUT OF ORDER DATED 28/02/2013 PASSED IN ITA NO.866/BANG/2012, FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2005-06, PRAYING THIS HON’BLE COURT TO: I. FORMULATE THE SUBSTANTIAL QUESTIONS OF LAW STATED THEREIN, II. ALLOW THE APPEAL AND SET ASIDE THE ORDER OF THE ITAT, BANGALORE IN ITA NO.866/BANG/2012 DATED 28/02/2013 AND CONFIRM THE ORDER

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

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

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 195(1

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

11 of 20 excluded from “salary” for the purpose of ascertaining the perquisite value of rent free accommodation in view of the specific language of Rule 3, Explanation Clause (vi)(d). Explanation to Rule 3 clause (vi), no doubt includes monitory benefit under the term “salary” for the purpose of Rule 3 but by specific stipulation excludes the value

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 Modi Builders AND Realtors (P) Ltd., vs. Asst. Commissioner of Income tax,

The appeals are disposed of

Bench: P.SAM KOSHY,NARSING RAO NANDIKONDA

11. In R.K. Jain and Sons versus Commissioner of Income Tax, 2005 (142) Taxman 445 (Delhi) reference was made to several judgments passed by Gujarat High Court and decision of the Supreme Court in CIT versus Narender Doshi, (2002) 245 ITR 606 and it was held that interest should be awarded on the interest component of the unpaid refund. Recently

COMMR OF INCOME TAX-II, HYDERABAD vs. M/S JAPSON ESTATES PVT LTD., HYDERABAD

The appeal is allowed;

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,KONGARA VIJAYA LAKSHMI

11 TO 13/BANG/2015 DATED 12/08/2016 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEARS 2007-08 TO 2009-10 (ANNEXURE-A) AND ETC. THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S.G.PANDIT and HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.M. POONACHA ORAL JUDGMENT (PER: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S.G.PANDIT) This appeal by the assessee questioning

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 [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

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. 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