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

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

The Appeal is dismissed

Bench: GODA RAGHURAM,M.S.RAMACHANDRA RAO

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 of cities, towns and villages, or for both; or (g) any society registered under

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

D. J. Works v. Deputy CIT [1992]195 ITR 227and Chiman Lal S. Patel v. CIT [1994]210 ITR 419 though with different conclusions. Above being the position, we answer the question in the affirmative, in favor of the assessee and against the Revenue.‖ 11. In R.K. Jain and Sons versus Commissioner of Income Tax, 2005 (142) Taxman 445 (Delhi

The Commissioner of Income Tax, vs. N. Annapurna

The appeals are dismissed with no order as to costs

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

D E R % 31.08.2017 Dr. S. Muralidhar, J. 1. These are ten appeals by the Income Tax Department (‘Department’) under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘Act’) directed against the common order dated 2nd September 2004 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (‘ITAT’) in ITA Nos. 3233 to 3242/Del/2003 for the Financial Years

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

D G M E N T The assessee is a charitable trust having its office at Nagamangala Taluk, Tumakuru District. It has been in existence since 1973. 2. The Trust has got registered under Section 12A of the Act on 17.07.1974. It is running various educational institutions throughout the State of 3 Karnataka. During the financial year

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

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 be added to the value of „stock and trade.‟ In the considered view of the Court, the view expressed by the CIT (A) merits acceptance. The conclusion

The Commissioner of Income Tax, vs. Shri Chidipotu Sridhar,

In the result, the appeal is allowed, as follows;

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,SURESH KUMAR KAIT

Section 44 (a) (d) of Income Tax Act, 8% of the turnover would be treated as income, if the annual turnover is below Rs.60 lakhs. 8) Rs. 1,77,022/- is the TDS for the assessment year 2011-2012. 9) Rs.5,39,685/- is TDS for the assessment year 2012-2013. 10) After the death of the deceased, his family

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

The appeals stand dismissed answering all the

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

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 in M.A. No. 452 of 2015, the Commissioner restricted the penalty under Section 271C to Rs.74,669/-. Both the orders of the Commissioner

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

Appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

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

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 be added to the value of „stock and trade.‟ In the considered view of the Court, the view expressed by the CIT (A) merits acceptance. The conclusion

Late Smt. Hoorjahan Begum vs. Tghe Income Tax Officer

Appeal stands disposed off

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,S.RAVI KUMAR

D G M E N T GAURANG KANTH, J. 1. The present appeal emanates from the award dated 30.01.2015 (“Impugned Award”) passed by the learned Presiding Officer, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal: Karkardooma Courts: East District: Delhi (“Claims Tribunal”) in Motor Accident Claim No. 52/2013 titled as Smt. Surya Sharma and Ors. v. Sh. Anil Kumar Sharma

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

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

1 of 2005 on file No. 99/Challan of the Court of Special Judge, Anti Corruption Jammu, the CBI Jammu came forward with a Police Report/Challan against four accused persons, namely, Rajinder Dutt, Rajesh Koul (respondent herein), Mohd. Muneer Wani and Bashir Ahmed Dar. 6. Criminal Revision No. 19 of 2011 is borne out of CBI presented Police Report/Challan

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

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

The appeal stands dismissed

TDS. These expenses are hereby disallowed u/s40a(ia). Surveying & consultation exp B L G Construction 89809 Office renovation Ghanshyam Jangid 180335 Advertisement Kalarthi 134549 Site office Kaluram Sonel 55230 Advertisement Kushal Global Ltd 24750 Supervision over contractors @ 2% Sudesh Purohit 69317 Advertisement Vikalp Events & Promotion 77000 Advertisement Vyas Enterprises 22448 CD Presentation Sandeep Yadav 75000 Total 728438 Subject

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