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

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

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

TDS) under Section 194H of the Act was not deducted by the respondent/assessee. 3.3 As regards the deduction under Section 80IC of the Act claimed by the respondent/assessee for the Assessment Year 2012-13, the Assessing Officer reiterated the above mentioned reasoning of the previous year i.e., Assessment Year 2011-12 and held that the respondent/assessee had not carried

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

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

15(a) of the Act provides that any salary due from an employer to an assessee in the previous year whether paid or not, is chargeable to income tax under the head “Salaries”. Further, section 16 deals with permissible deductions while section 17 of the Act deals with what all are included as salary. 23. Since we are dealing with

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

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

15(a) of the Act provides that any salary due from an employer to an assessee in the previous year whether paid or not, is chargeable to income tax under the head “Salaries”. Further, section 16 deals with permissible deductions while section 17 of the Act deals with what all are included as salary. 23. Since we are dealing with

Commissioner of Income Tax-II vs. Smt G Sailaja

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

15(a) of the Act provides that any salary due from an employer to an assessee in the previous year whether paid or not, is chargeable to income tax under the head “Salaries”. Further, section 16 deals with permissible deductions while section 17 of the Act deals with what all are included as salary. 23. Since we are dealing with

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

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

15(a) of the Act provides that any salary due from an employer to an assessee in the previous year whether paid or not, is chargeable to income tax under the head “Salaries”. Further, section 16 deals with permissible deductions while section 17 of the Act deals with what all are included as salary. 23. Since we are dealing with

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

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

15(a) of the Act provides that any salary due from an employer to an assessee in the previous year whether paid or not, is chargeable to income tax under the head “Salaries”. Further, section 16 deals with permissible deductions while section 17 of the Act deals with what all are included as salary. 23. Since we are dealing with

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

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

15(a) of the Act provides that any salary due from an employer to an assessee in the previous year whether paid or not, is chargeable to income tax under the head “Salaries”. Further, section 16 deals with permissible deductions while section 17 of the Act deals with what all are included as salary. 23. Since we are dealing with

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

15 of 36 the basis that it would be for commercial use. However, in terms of the completion certificate issued by the NDMC, the LGF was sanctioned as „storage.‟ It was for this reason that the buyers lost interest. The Assessee then decided to return the advance received and also compensate the buyers since the buyers‟ funds had remained with

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

Appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

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

15 of 36 the basis that it would be for commercial use. However, in terms of the completion certificate issued by the NDMC, the LGF was sanctioned as „storage.‟ It was for this reason that the buyers lost interest. The Assessee then decided to return the advance received and also compensate the buyers since the buyers‟ funds had remained with

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 need be made as the provisions of Section 195(1) read with 15 9(1)(vi) and (vii) read

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

TDS deductible and deducted in the last month of previous year if was not paid till the due date of filing of return under sub-section (1) of Section 139 and in any other case, on or before the last day of the previous year, Section 40(a)(ia) provided for 15

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

TDS amount. It was further contended that by virtue of section 115JAA(4) the assessee is entitled to set off MAT credit at the stage at which the tax has become payable. Consequently, it was submitted, that the assessee is entitled to take into account the tax credit (MAT credit) available to it under section 115JAA when it computes

The Commissioner of Income Tax vs. M/s.A.Venkateswarlu AND Co

Bench: GODA RAGHURAM,M.S.RAMACHANDRA RAO

15 days in the court. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that since the amount of interest was more than `50,000 which was payable to the respondent, therefore, it was the statutory duty of the petitioner to deduct the income tax by way of TDS under section

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

TDS of Rs.45,73,528 and tax paid after original assessment of Rs.1,71,00,320. The Department contends that the words ―any amount‖ will not include the interest which accrued to the respondent for not refunding Rs.45,73,528 for 57 months. We see no merit in this argument. The interest component will partake of the character

The Commissioner of Income Tax, vs. N. Annapurna

The appeals are dismissed with no order as to costs

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

Section 201 (1) (a) of the Act. The Assessee stated that it had no intention of concealing any income or TDS. The Assessee stated that it had been advised that salary paid outside India was not liable to tax in India. The Assessee accordingly submitted that it was prevented by reasonable cause for not deducting tax at source