Commissioner of Income Tax-II vs. Smt G Sailaja

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

2. Few of the nuns and priests indulge in pedagogy apart from their religious calling. Those pedagogues are paid salaries. Under W.A. No.410/15 & Conn. Cases 72 their religious covenant, nuns and priests bind themselves to a vow not to own property. At the time of initiation into their religious calling, they claim to have taken that vow - known

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

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

2. Few of the nuns and priests indulge in pedagogy apart from their religious calling. Those pedagogues are paid salaries. Under W.A. No.410/15 & Conn. Cases 72 their religious covenant, nuns and priests bind themselves to a vow not to own property. At the time of initiation into their religious calling, they claim to have taken that vow - known

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

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

2. Few of the nuns and priests indulge in pedagogy apart from their religious calling. Those pedagogues are paid salaries. Under W.A. No.410/15 & Conn. Cases 72 their religious covenant, nuns and priests bind themselves to a vow not to own property. At the time of initiation into their religious calling, they claim to have taken that vow - known

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

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

2. Few of the nuns and priests indulge in pedagogy apart from their religious calling. Those pedagogues are paid salaries. Under W.A. No.410/15 & Conn. Cases 72 their religious covenant, nuns and priests bind themselves to a vow not to own property. At the time of initiation into their religious calling, they claim to have taken that vow - known

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 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

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

The appeals are dismissed

Bench: P.SAM KOSHY,SUDDALA CHALAPATHI RAO

11. The learned counsel for the revenue referred to the Supreme Court decision in Commissioner of Income-tax v. Xpro India Ltd: 300 ITR 337 wherein, while setting aside the order passed by the Calcutta High Court that no substantial question of law arose, it held that the question of interpretation of section 234B in the context of short payment

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-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

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

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. SOMA ENTERPRISES LTD

The appeal is disposed off accordingly

Bench: The Hon'Ble Mr. Justice Ravi Malimath

2) was issued and served on the assessee on 23.08.2007. In response to the same, the Internal Auditor has appeared and represented the case and produced various documents and books of account for verification. 4. On the question of depreciation, the Trust had claimed deduction towards depreciation allowance 4 amounting to Rs.8,41,36,636/- which includes depreciation

PENDURTHI CHANDRASEKHAR vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,

The appeal is allowed and all the four substantial

Section 68. 8. Similarly, the Assessing Officer added interest income as per the TDS Certificate, to the Income Tax return. 9. The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) granted relief in so far as the unsecured loan received by the assessee from Smt. Shanti Chowdary, who was none else than the wife of the assessee. This was on the basis

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

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

2), inter alia, provides that where a refund is due to the assessee, "in pursuance of an order referred to in Section 240" and the Assessing Officer does not grant the refund within the stipulated time, the Central Government is required to pay simple interest at the stipulated rate. Section 240 deals with refund on appeal, etc. This provision clearly

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