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

C R BUILDING QUEENS ROAD BANGALORE … APPELLANTS (BY SRI KAMALADHAR G, ADV.) AND: 9 SMT. VIMALA S.W. WARAD PROP: M/S MAHENDRA ROAD LINES NO.13, RANGAPPA REDDY COMPLEX R V ROAD, MINERVA CIRCLE BANGALORE - 560004 .. RESPONDENT (BY SRI S PARTHASARATHI, ADV.) THIS APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 260-A OF I.T. ACT, 1961, ARISING OUT OF ORDER DATED 11/06/2013, PASSED

The Commissioner of Income Tax I vs. Mesmer Technologies Ltd

The appeals are allowed in part

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

TDS was necessary and there is no income comprised in the payments made. As per the agreement entered with the KIADB, 21% was the service charges which was reduced to 4% for Phase I and subsequently, it was reduced to 1% for Phase II. - 10 - Though Government of Karnataka issued the Government Order dated 21.06.2012 fixing the service charges

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

The Appeal is dismissed

Bench: GODA RAGHURAM,M.S.RAMACHANDRA RAO

c) any corporation established by or under a Central, State or Provincial Act; or (d) any company, or (e) any co-operative society, or (f) any authority, constituted in India by or under any law,engaged either for the purpose of dealing with and satisfying the need for housing accommodation or for the purpose of planning, development or improvement

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

c) allowances which are exempted from payment of tax; (d) the value of perquisites specified in clause (2) of section 17 of the Income-tax Act; (e) any payment or expenditure specifically excluded under proviso to sub-clause (iii) of clause (2) or proviso to clause (2) of section 17; (vii) ―maximum outstanding monthly balance‖ means the aggregate outstanding balance

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

c) The appellant claims that they are entitled to interest on this amount, i.e., on Rs.1,42,04,705/- with effect from 1st April, 1995 to 31st may, ITA Nos. 167/2012 & 168/2012 Page 4 of 17 2008 upto the date of refund of Rs.1,42,04,705/- and interest on Rs.18,25,790/- from 1st June, 1999 upto the date

The Commissioner of Income Tax, vs. N. Annapurna

The appeals are dismissed with no order as to costs

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

C was warranted. 8. About three months thereafter, on 1st May 2003, the CIT (A) suo motu passed an order under Section 154 of the Act. The opening lines of the said order stated: “in this case action for rectification of mistakes in the appeal order passed on 29th January 2003 was initiated under Section

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

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

c) administrative overheads that do not contribute to bringing ITA 210/2003 & connected matters Page 16 of 36 the inventories to their present location and condition; and (d) selling and distribution costs.” 28. There is, therefore, merit in the contention of the Assessee that the compensation paid to the flat buyers upon surrender of the respective allotted commercial spaces cannot

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

Appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

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

c) administrative overheads that do not contribute to bringing ITA 210/2003 & connected matters Page 16 of 36 the inventories to their present location and condition; and (d) selling and distribution costs.” 28. There is, therefore, merit in the contention of the Assessee that the compensation paid to the flat buyers upon surrender of the respective allotted commercial spaces cannot

The Commissioner of Income Tax -III vs. Sri T.C. Reddy

The appeal stands dismissed

c) r.w 274 of the Income-tax Act for concealment and furnishing of inaccurate particulars are initiated separately. (iv) The assessee has booked various expenses of contractual nature, vide order sheet entry dated 29.12.2009, the assessee was asked to show cause why the same should not disallowed u/s40a(ia). In response thereto the assessee has only filed copy of bills

M/S. SREE TRADING CORPORATION vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 4(1), HYDERABAD

Bench: N.TUKARAMJI,UJJAL BHUYAN

TDS certificate and annual return of deduction of tax filed in Form No.26 (c) by the assessee and rely upon the oral evidence of the sundry creditors given behind the back of the assessee?” 5. Appellant is an assessee under the Act carrying on the business of commission agent for M/s. Parle Products, Mumbai which includes transportation of its products

PRL COMMR OF INCOME TAX [TDS] HYDERABAD vs. M/S HCC-MEIL-NCC-WPIL [JV] HYDERABAD

Bench: P.SAM KOSHY,NARSING RAO NANDIKONDA

TDS]' l'T Towers'A C'Guards' Hyderabad. M/S HCC-MEIL-NCC-WPIL tJVl S-2' Technocrat lndustrial Estates Balanagar, HYderabad ...APPELLANT .,.RESPONDENT Counsel for the Appellant: MS' K' MAMATA-CI{OUDARY' SENIOR STANDING couNSEL FOR tNcoME riri"riei;riii-r,iex'r'xepntseNieo ev sRl A. RAMA KRISHNA REDDY , stanafrgLounsel for lncome Tax Department' I 1

The Commissioner of Income Tax-I, vs. M/s. Prasad Film Laboratories Ltd.,

Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 challenges the award dated 19th December, 2011 passed by the Learned Sole Arbitrator. 2. The Petitioner – Food Corporation of India (hereinafter, ‘FCI’) and M/s Shankar Rice and General Mills (hereinafter ‘miller’) had entered into two milling agreements dated 8th November, 1994 and 15th November, 1994. Under the said contracts, the miller

The Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax - Central vs. Smt. Gavireddygari Aparna Kalyani

Bench: J SREENIVAS RAO,ALOK ARADHE

1 – DUSIB will permit the petitioner to remove its telecom towers/poles and related equipment from the concerned sites immediately. B. The petitioner undertakes to pay a sum of Rs.23.51 lakhs, less TDS as applicable, to the respondent within a maximum period of one This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi