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

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

The appeals are dismissed

Bench: P.SAM KOSHY,SUDDALA CHALAPATHI RAO

13. It must be pointed out that this decision was in the context of section 115J, the question being – ―Whether interest under section 234B and section 234C is chargeable even in a case where tax liability arises only by applicability of section 115J ? ‖ The question was answered in the affirmative in favour of the revenue and against the assessee

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

13. As regards the deduction pertaining to the Assessment Year 2011-12, on being called upon by the Assessing Officer to explain the claim, the respondent/assessee furnished detailed submissions, but the same were rejected by the Assessing Officer observing that the respondent/assessee did not carry out any printing or binding of books in the eligible undertaking at Rudrapur as neither

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

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

13 SCC 459 in the following manner: 31. It appears from the record that in several assessment years, the Revenue accepted the order of the Tribunal in favour of the assessee and did not pursue the matter any further but in respect of some assessment years the matter was taken up in appeal before the Bombay High Court but without

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

Appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

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

13 SCC 459 in the following manner: 31. It appears from the record that in several assessment years, the Revenue accepted the order of the Tribunal in favour of the assessee and did not pursue the matter any further but in respect of some assessment years the matter was taken up in appeal before the Bombay High Court but without

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

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

13. Adv. A.Kumar, the learned counsel appearing for the three priests who have individually filed appeals, after adopting the arguments of the learned Senior Counsel, further added that the right claimed by the three individual appellants is sourced from the canon law and according to him, the circulars of 1944 and 1977 only recognized the right of diversion of income

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

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

13. Adv. A.Kumar, the learned counsel appearing for the three priests who have individually filed appeals, after adopting the arguments of the learned Senior Counsel, further added that the right claimed by the three individual appellants is sourced from the canon law and according to him, the circulars of 1944 and 1977 only recognized the right of diversion of income

Commissioner of Income Tax-II vs. Smt G Sailaja

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

13. Adv. A.Kumar, the learned counsel appearing for the three priests who have individually filed appeals, after adopting the arguments of the learned Senior Counsel, further added that the right claimed by the three individual appellants is sourced from the canon law and according to him, the circulars of 1944 and 1977 only recognized the right of diversion of income

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

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

13. Adv. A.Kumar, the learned counsel appearing for the three priests who have individually filed appeals, after adopting the arguments of the learned Senior Counsel, further added that the right claimed by the three individual appellants is sourced from the canon law and according to him, the circulars of 1944 and 1977 only recognized the right of diversion of income

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

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

13. Adv. A.Kumar, the learned counsel appearing for the three priests who have individually filed appeals, after adopting the arguments of the learned Senior Counsel, further added that the right claimed by the three individual appellants is sourced from the canon law and according to him, the circulars of 1944 and 1977 only recognized the right of diversion of income

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

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

13. Adv. A.Kumar, the learned counsel appearing for the three priests who have individually filed appeals, after adopting the arguments of the learned Senior Counsel, further added that the right claimed by the three individual appellants is sourced from the canon law and according to him, the circulars of 1944 and 1977 only recognized the right of diversion of income

Commissioner of Income Tax, vs. Agricultural Market Committee,

The appeals are dismissed

Bench: GODA RAGHURAM,M.S.RAMACHANDRA RAO

TDS Ward, Gulbarga. 13 These Appeals coming on for final hearing this day, S. SUJATHA J., delivered the following: JUDGMENT All these appeals arise from the common judgment passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal “A” Bench, Bangalore in ITA Nos.839 to 844/Bang/2011 relating to the assessment years 2006-07 to 2011-12. Hence, all these matters are clubbed, heard

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

13 Chaudhary in Tax Appeal Nos.412/2013 and connected matter, which came to be decided on 22.11.2013, after referring to the judgments of Alide Motors (P.) Ltd. Vs. CIT reported in AIR 1997 SC 1361 and CIT Vs. Alom Extrusions Limited reported in (2009) 319 ITR 306, has held as under: “15.4: Thus, considering relevant legislative changes made by the Parliament

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-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

Late Smt. Hoorjahan Begum vs. Tghe Income Tax Officer

Appeal stands disposed off

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,S.RAVI KUMAR

Section 192(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 has deducted the tax at source from the employee's salary. In case if an objection is raised by any party, the objector is required to prove by producing evidence such as LPC to suggest that the employer failed to deduct the TDS from the salary of the employee. However, there

The Commissioner of Income Tax-III vs. Smt.D.K.Aruna

The appeals are disposed of accordingly

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

13) Though, learned counsel for the Excise & Taxation Department of the State of Himachal Pradesh, which is the appellant herein contended that Section 206 C(1-C) of the Income Tax Act is not attracted since the collection of toll under the Himachal Pradesh Tolls Act, 1975 is not in force at a Toll Plaza, but said contention