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

In the result, the appeal is disposed of

16 the purposes of the Section and the same has rightly been interpreted by Bombay High Court in 324 ITR 345 and Delhi High Court in 245 CTR 125. The meaning assigned under other enactments cannot be applied to assign a meaning to the expression “professional services”. It is also argued that relation between assessee and hospital is principal

Commissioner of Income Tax-(TDS), vs. M/s.Neeladri Chit Funds Private Ltd.,

Appeals are dismissed

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

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., GANDHINAGAR 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.1420/BANG/2014

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

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

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 question of deduction of tax at source from salaries, it is advantageous to extract section 192(1) of the Act, which is as follows:- “192. Salary (1) Any person responsible for paying any income

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

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

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 question of deduction of tax at source from salaries, it is advantageous to extract section 192(1) of the Act, which is as follows:- “192. Salary (1) Any person responsible for paying any income

Commissioner of Income Tax-II vs. Smt G Sailaja

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

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 question of deduction of tax at source from salaries, it is advantageous to extract section 192(1) of the Act, which is as follows:- “192. Salary (1) Any person responsible for paying any income

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

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

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 question of deduction of tax at source from salaries, it is advantageous to extract section 192(1) of the Act, which is as follows:- “192. Salary (1) Any person responsible for paying any income

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

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

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 question of deduction of tax at source from salaries, it is advantageous to extract section 192(1) of the Act, which is as follows:- “192. Salary (1) Any person responsible for paying any income

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

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

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 question of deduction of tax at source from salaries, it is advantageous to extract section 192(1) of the Act, which is as follows:- “192. Salary (1) Any person responsible for paying any income

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

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 be added to the value of „stock and trade.‟ In the considered view

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

Appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

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

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 be added to the value of „stock and trade.‟ In the considered view

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

TDS provisions relate to and prescribe one of the modes of collection of tax. It is with this objective that duties or “obligations” are imposed on the payer. This does not override or disturb the primary “obligation” imposed by the charging section read with the computation provisions. Further, we are specifically concerned with Section

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

The appeals are dismissed

Bench: P.SAM KOSHY,SUDDALA CHALAPATHI RAO

16. Mr C.S. Aggarwal, the learned senior counsel who appeared for the respondent/assessee in ITA 402/2005, submitted that for an assessee to be liable to pay interest under section 234B, the assessee must first be liable to pay advance tax. The liability to pay advance tax, in turn, arises under section 208 if the advance tax payable by 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

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

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

Section 40 [a](ia) with effect from 1st April 2010 could be said to be clarificatory in nature for attending to unintended consequences, and therefore, is having retrospective effect from 1st April 2005. 16: A closer examination needs to be done as to whether the amended provision aims to expand the prevailing position and whether the same being

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

Late Smt. Hoorjahan Begum vs. Tghe Income Tax Officer

Appeal stands disposed off

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,S.RAVI KUMAR

Section 192(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 has deducted the tax at source from the employee's salary. In case if an objection is raised by any party, the objector is required to prove by producing evidence such as LPC to suggest that the employer failed to deduct the TDS from the salary of the employee. However, there

Commissioner of Income Tax, vs. Agricultural Market Committee,

The appeals are dismissed

Bench: GODA RAGHURAM,M.S.RAMACHANDRA RAO

TDS on the amount paid to the KPTCL towards SLDC charges. The Assessing Officer invoking the provisions of Section 201(1) of the Act and Section 201(1A) of the Act, treated the assessee as an assessee in default for not deducting the tax at source on the payments made to the KPTCL. The assessing Officer held that the transaction

The Commissioner of Income Tax I vs. Mesmer Technologies Ltd

The appeals are allowed in part

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

TDS applies only to those sums which are "chargeable to tax" under the Income-tax Act.” 19. The words “such sum” and “income tax on income comprised therein” also finds a place in Section 194C[1]. Adverting to the said provision and referring to Brij Bhushan Parduman Kumar V/s. CIT reported in 1979 [2] SCR 16