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) CIRCLE-16(2) NO.59, HMT BHAVAN, 4TH FLOOR BELLARY ROAD, GANGANAGAR BANGALORE – 560 032. ... APPELLANTS (BY SRI.DILIP, ADV. AND SRI.K.V. ARAVIND, ADV.) AND: THE KARNATAKA STATE APEX CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD., ASHOKA PILLAR BRANCH BANGALORE. ... RESPONDENT 2 THIS ITA FILED UNDER SECTION 260-A OF INCOME TAX ACT 1961, ARISING OUT OF ORDER DATED 30.04.2015 PASSED IN ITA NO.1421/BANG/2014

The Commissioner of Income Tax-I, vs. M/s. Celestial Laboratories Limited,

In the result, the appeal is disposed of

TDS). The assessee thereupon approached the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (hereinafter referred to 8 as 'the Tribunal' for short) by filing appeals against the order passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals). During the pendency of the appeals before the Tribunal, a division bench of this court by order dated 14.03.2012, set aside the order passed by the learned

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

The appeals are dismissed

Bench: P.SAM KOSHY,SUDDALA CHALAPATHI RAO

8. In this context, the learned counsel for the revenue drew our attention to Circular No.14/2006 which contains the ―Explanatory Notes on provisions relating to Direct Taxes‖ under the Finance Act, 2006. The relevant portions of the said circular are as under:- “38. Credit for payment of Minimum Alternate Tax (MAT) and tax paid in a country or specified territory

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

8. As regards the proposed question no.(i), since Ms Sujatha Shirolkar, Advocate seeks accommodation, list the appeal on 07.12.2023”. 2.2 ITA No. 157/2023 order dated 16.03.2023 “1. This appeal concerns Assessment Year (AY) 2012-13. 2. This appeal seeks to assail the order dated 14.11.2019 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal [in short, “Tribunal”]. 3. In passing

Commissioner of Income Tax, vs. Agricultural Market Committee,

The appeals are dismissed

Bench: GODA RAGHURAM,M.S.RAMACHANDRA RAO

8 I. T. A.No.459/2012 BETWEEN: 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

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

8 of AS 7 talks of “Costs to be Accumulated for Construction Contracts”. Para 8.1 states that “Costs attributable to a contract are identified with reference to the period that commences with the securing of the contract and closes when the contract is completed.” 19. Under para 8.4, the costs incurred by a contractor are stated to be divided into

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

Appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

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

8 of AS 7 talks of “Costs to be Accumulated for Construction Contracts”. Para 8.1 states that “Costs attributable to a contract are identified with reference to the period that commences with the securing of the contract and closes when the contract is completed.” 19. Under para 8.4, the costs incurred by a contractor are stated to be divided into

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

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

8. We must mention at this juncture that, at the time when the writ appeals came up for admission, this Court had, on 09.03.2015, while interdicting deduction of tax at source during the pendency of the appeals, directed consideration of the issue of the 1944 and the 1977 circulars, by the CBDT and to place its views/decision before this Court

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

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

8. We must mention at this juncture that, at the time when the writ appeals came up for admission, this Court had, on 09.03.2015, while interdicting deduction of tax at source during the pendency of the appeals, directed consideration of the issue of the 1944 and the 1977 circulars, by the CBDT and to place its views/decision before this Court

Commissioner of Income Tax-II vs. Smt G Sailaja

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

8. We must mention at this juncture that, at the time when the writ appeals came up for admission, this Court had, on 09.03.2015, while interdicting deduction of tax at source during the pendency of the appeals, directed consideration of the issue of the 1944 and the 1977 circulars, by the CBDT and to place its views/decision before this Court

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

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

8. We must mention at this juncture that, at the time when the writ appeals came up for admission, this Court had, on 09.03.2015, while interdicting deduction of tax at source during the pendency of the appeals, directed consideration of the issue of the 1944 and the 1977 circulars, by the CBDT and to place its views/decision before this Court

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

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

8. We must mention at this juncture that, at the time when the writ appeals came up for admission, this Court had, on 09.03.2015, while interdicting deduction of tax at source during the pendency of the appeals, directed consideration of the issue of the 1944 and the 1977 circulars, by the CBDT and to place its views/decision before this Court

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

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

8. We must mention at this juncture that, at the time when the writ appeals came up for admission, this Court had, on 09.03.2015, while interdicting deduction of tax at source during the pendency of the appeals, directed consideration of the issue of the 1944 and the 1977 circulars, by the CBDT and to place its views/decision before this Court

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

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-V, vs. M/s. INTRACK INC,

8 PROP: M/S KARNATAKA ROADLINES 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 03/08/2012 PASSED IN ITA NO.375/BANG/2012, FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEARS 2009-2010, PRAYING THAT THIS HON'BLE COURT MAY BE PLEASED TO: I. FORMULATE

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