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

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

3) KHC 193 (DB)], the question must be referred for consideration by a Full Bench. 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

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

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

3) KHC 193 (DB)], the question must be referred for consideration by a Full Bench. 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

Commissioner of Income Tax-II vs. Smt G Sailaja

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

3) KHC 193 (DB)], the question must be referred for consideration by a Full Bench. 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

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

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

3) KHC 193 (DB)], the question must be referred for consideration by a Full Bench. 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

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

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

3) KHC 193 (DB)], the question must be referred for consideration by a Full Bench. 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

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

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

3) KHC 193 (DB)], the question must be referred for consideration by a Full Bench. 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

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

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

3) of section 143 or section 144 or section 147 or section 154 or section 155 or section 250 or section 254 or section 260 or section 262 or section 263 or section 264 or an order of the Settlement Commission under sub-section (4) of section 245D, the amount on which interest was ITA Nos. 167/2012 & 168/2012 Page

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

3. The Assessee filed its return of income on 31.10.2006 admitting a total income of Rs.nil. The return of Income was processed under Section 143(1) by the Income Tax Officer, Mandya. The case was selected for scrutiny in accordance with the scrutiny guidelines issued by the Central Board of Direct Taxes. Notice under Section 143(2) was issued

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. Smt.D.K.Aruna

The appeals are disposed of accordingly

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

TDS) Shimla …. Respondent. 3 Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice M.S. Ramachandra Rao, Chief Justice. The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Ajay Mohan Goel, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? For the appellants : Mr. Anup Rattan, Advocate General, with M/s Rakesh Dhaulta, Pranay Pratap Singh, Additional Advocate Generals and M/s Arsh Rattan, Sidharth Jalta, Deputy Advocate Generals, with Mr. Rakesh Sharma, Standing

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

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

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

3. Briefly stated, the circumstances relevant for present purposes are as follows. 3.1 Pertaining to the assessment years 2011-12 and 2012-13, the respondent/assessee timely filed the returns of income, which were processed under Section 143(1) of the Act and selected for scrutiny assessments, so notices under Section 143(2) of the Act were issued

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

3. The Assessee states that the Gopal Das Bhawan Project was completed in the Financial Year („FY‟) 1994-95 relevant to Assessment Year („AY‟) 1995-96. Some of the allottees of the flats refused to take them for completion since the New Delhi Municipal Council („NDMC‟) changed the ITA 210/2003 & connected matters Page 6 of 36 usage of the Lower

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

Appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

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

3. The Assessee states that the Gopal Das Bhawan Project was completed in the Financial Year („FY‟) 1994-95 relevant to Assessment Year („AY‟) 1995-96. Some of the allottees of the flats refused to take them for completion since the New Delhi Municipal Council („NDMC‟) changed the ITA 210/2003 & connected matters Page 6 of 36 usage of the Lower

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

3. The substantial questions of law that arise for consideration in all these appeals is whether, the amendment to Section 40(a)(ia) by the Finance Act, 2010, which is given effect from 01.04.2010 is retrospective in nature. 4. Prior to the amendment, the said provision read as under:- Section 40(a)(ia) : any interest, commission or brokerage, rent, royalty