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

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 (Central) vs. Swapna Lahari 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. 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

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

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, 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

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 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

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

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

5(2) (d) of the Jammu and Kashmir Prevention of Corruption Act, Svt. 2006 read with Section 120- B/420/465/468 and 471 of the Ranbir Penal Code. The discharge came to take place by virtue of respective order dated 06.12.2010. 6 CRR No. 18/2011 c/w CRR No. 17/2011 CRR No. 19/2011 CRR No. 20/2011 11. The Court of Special Judge (Anti

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

5 instalments. 67. According to the AO, given that the aggregate interest burden was Rs.10 crores up to 31st March in the relevant year, the Assessee would get only 1 lac per acre, the interest was not incurred for the purposes of the Assessee‟s own business but to benefit associate companies. The case of the Assessee was that

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

Appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

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

5 instalments. 67. According to the AO, given that the aggregate interest burden was Rs.10 crores up to 31st March in the relevant year, the Assessee would get only 1 lac per acre, the interest was not incurred for the purposes of the Assessee‟s own business but to benefit associate companies. The case of the Assessee was that

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 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

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

The appeals stand dismissed answering all the

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

5. By the order produced as Annexure-9 in M.A. No. 451 of 2015, the Tribunal found the amount of 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

The Commissioner of Income Tax I vs. Mesmer Technologies Ltd

The appeals are allowed in part

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

5. The Assessing Officer initiated proceedings under Section 201 of the Act for the assessment years under consideration on the ground that the appellant ought to have deducted tax at source on payments made to KIADB and passed separate orders holding that - 7 - the appellant, as an assessee in default under Section 201(1), levied interest under Section

PENDURTHI CHANDRASEKHAR vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,

The appeal is allowed and all the four substantial

5. After issuing notice under Section 153 A and receiving the assessee’s return of income on 02-02-2009, the Department issued notices under Sections 143 (2) and 142 (1) of the Act on 27-04-2009 and an order of assessment was passed on 24-12-2009 in relation to the assessment year 2007-08. 6. Two issues