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

1) of section 9; By Finance Act, 2010, the said provision is substituted by the following: Substituted by the Finance Act, 2010, w.e.f. 01.04.2010. Prior to its substitution, proviso as substituted by the Finance Act, 2008, w.r.e.f. 01.04.2005, read as under: 12 “Provided that where in respect of any such sum, tax has been deducted in any subsequent year

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

13. It is trite that, if there is no income embedded in a payment, then TDS provisions would not apply as TDS is only an alternative method of collection of taxes. It is beneficial to refer to the judgment of this Court in the case of Hyderabad Industries Ltd., vs. ITO [1991] 59 Taxmann 202/188 ITR 749 (Kar.), wherein

Commissioner of Income Tax, vs. Agricultural Market Committee,

The appeals are dismissed

Bench: GODA RAGHURAM,M.S.RAMACHANDRA RAO

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, Sri Chandrashekhar, Sri M.Lava, & Sri Mallayya Shetty

M\S.CHENNAKESAVA VIJAYAWADA vs. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX VIJAYAWAD

The Appeal is dismissed

Bench: GODA RAGHURAM,M.S.RAMACHANDRA RAO

TDS, that taxes due have been paid by the assessee. It further says that this will not alter the liability to charge interest under Section 201(1A) of the Act till the date of payment of taxes by the assessee or the liability for penalty under Section 271C of the Act. In the case between Commissioner of Income

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

13 of 20 clause (iii) of clause (24) thereof, includes the value of any perquisite or profit in lieu of salary taxable under clauses (2) and (3) of section 17, within the meaning of ‗‗income‘‘. All these statutory provisions make it clear that an amount of tax which would have been payable by an employee-assessee, if paid

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

1)(a) of the Act, refund along with interest under Section 244A was given of the excess TDS and advance tax. Again, after the orders of the Tribunal were passed and the refund became payable as a consequence thereof, the excess amount of tax was refunded along with interest payable thereupon under Section 244A of the Act. Thus, the calculations

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

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

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

1) KLT 868). As an alternative W.A. No.410/15 & Conn. Cases 78 contention, it was submitted that since a co-ordinate Bench had adopted a different view in MSGR. Xavier Chullickal and Others v. C.G.Raphael and Others [2017 (3) KHC 193 (DB)], the question must be referred for consideration by a Full Bench. 13. Adv. A.Kumar, the learned counsel appearing

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

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

1) KLT 868). As an alternative W.A. No.410/15 & Conn. Cases 78 contention, it was submitted that since a co-ordinate Bench had adopted a different view in MSGR. Xavier Chullickal and Others v. C.G.Raphael and Others [2017 (3) KHC 193 (DB)], the question must be referred for consideration by a Full Bench. 13. Adv. A.Kumar, the learned counsel appearing

Commissioner of Income Tax-II vs. Smt G Sailaja

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

1) KLT 868). As an alternative W.A. No.410/15 & Conn. Cases 78 contention, it was submitted that since a co-ordinate Bench had adopted a different view in MSGR. Xavier Chullickal and Others v. C.G.Raphael and Others [2017 (3) KHC 193 (DB)], the question must be referred for consideration by a Full Bench. 13. Adv. A.Kumar, the learned counsel appearing

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

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

1) KLT 868). As an alternative W.A. No.410/15 & Conn. Cases 78 contention, it was submitted that since a co-ordinate Bench had adopted a different view in MSGR. Xavier Chullickal and Others v. C.G.Raphael and Others [2017 (3) KHC 193 (DB)], the question must be referred for consideration by a Full Bench. 13. Adv. A.Kumar, the learned counsel appearing

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

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

1) KLT 868). As an alternative W.A. No.410/15 & Conn. Cases 78 contention, it was submitted that since a co-ordinate Bench had adopted a different view in MSGR. Xavier Chullickal and Others v. C.G.Raphael and Others [2017 (3) KHC 193 (DB)], the question must be referred for consideration by a Full Bench. 13. Adv. A.Kumar, the learned counsel appearing

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

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

1) KLT 868). As an alternative W.A. No.410/15 & Conn. Cases 78 contention, it was submitted that since a co-ordinate Bench had adopted a different view in MSGR. Xavier Chullickal and Others v. C.G.Raphael and Others [2017 (3) KHC 193 (DB)], the question must be referred for consideration by a Full Bench. 13. Adv. A.Kumar, the learned counsel appearing

The Commissioner of Income Tax, vs. N. Annapurna

The appeals are dismissed with no order as to costs

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

1)(a) makes it clear that the penalty leviable shall be equal to the amount of tax which such person failed to deduct. We cannot hold this provision to be mandatory or compensatory or automatic because under Section 273B Parliament has enacted that penalty shall not be imposed in cases falling thereunder. Section 271C falls in the category of such

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

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