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

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

iv) Whether the circulars of 1944 and 1977 are valid? If yes, do they exclude TDS from the salaries of nuns or priests? (v) Whether deduction of tax at source violates Article 25 of the Constitution of India? (vi) Whether the non-deduction of tax at source from the salaries of nuns or priests for more than 76 years confers

Commissioner of Income Tax-II vs. Smt G Sailaja

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

iv) Whether the circulars of 1944 and 1977 are valid? If yes, do they exclude TDS from the salaries of nuns or priests? (v) Whether deduction of tax at source violates Article 25 of the Constitution of India? (vi) Whether the non-deduction of tax at source from the salaries of nuns or priests for more than 76 years confers

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

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

iv) Whether the circulars of 1944 and 1977 are valid? If yes, do they exclude TDS from the salaries of nuns or priests? (v) Whether deduction of tax at source violates Article 25 of the Constitution of India? (vi) Whether the non-deduction of tax at source from the salaries of nuns or priests for more than 76 years confers

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

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

iv) Whether the circulars of 1944 and 1977 are valid? If yes, do they exclude TDS from the salaries of nuns or priests? (v) Whether deduction of tax at source violates Article 25 of the Constitution of India? (vi) Whether the non-deduction of tax at source from the salaries of nuns or priests for more than 76 years confers

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

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

iv) Whether the circulars of 1944 and 1977 are valid? If yes, do they exclude TDS from the salaries of nuns or priests? (v) Whether deduction of tax at source violates Article 25 of the Constitution of India? (vi) Whether the non-deduction of tax at source from the salaries of nuns or priests for more than 76 years confers

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

The appeals are dismissed

Bench: P.SAM KOSHY,SUDDALA CHALAPATHI RAO

17. Reliance was placed on paragraph 45 of Circular No. 763 (230 ITR 54 [St], 81) which contained the Explanatory Notes on provisions relating to Direct Taxes in the Finance Act, 1997. The relevant portions of the said paragraph 45 are as under:- ―Minimum alternative tax on companies 45.1 The minimum alternative tax (MAT) on companies was introduced

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

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

iv) The appellant became entitled to interest under Section 244A of Rs.36,58,084/- upto 28th March, 1995. This interest is calculated on Rs.53,01,570/-. (v) Interest of Rs.3,57,302/- upto 31st March, 1997 on amount of Rs.14,88,760/- (Rs.53,01,570/- minus Rs.38,12,810/-). (vi) Interest of Rs.96,258/- on Rs.4,01,074/- from 19th

DIRECTOR OF INCOMD TAX [INTERNATIONAL TAXATION] HYDERABAD vs. M/S M W ZANDER [S] PTE LIMITED-INDIA BR, HYDERABAD

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., VYALIKAVAL 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.1418/BANG/2014

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-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

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

IV of the ‘computation of business income’. 16.3: Thereafter, by way of amendment of Finance Act, 2008, further amendment was made whereby 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 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

iv. depreciation of plant and equipment that cannot be allocated to a particular contract.” 21. The pros and cons of the CCM are discussed in para 10. Para 11.2 of AS 7 states that when a contractor uses a particular method of accounting for a contract, “then in respect of all other contracts that meet similar criteria, the same method

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

Appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

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

iv. depreciation of plant and equipment that cannot be allocated to a particular contract.” 21. The pros and cons of the CCM are discussed in para 10. Para 11.2 of AS 7 states that when a contractor uses a particular method of accounting for a contract, “then in respect of all other contracts that meet similar criteria, the same method

The Commissioner of Income Tax-III vs. Smt.D.K.Aruna

The appeals are disposed of accordingly

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

iv) The collection of toll under HP Tolls Act, 1975 has been 4 levied under Entry 59 of List-II of Seventh Schedule to the constitution of India irrespective of whether collected by the Govt. machinery or other agents of the Govt., levy remains an income of the State exempted from Union Taxation by virtue of Article

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

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-II, Hyderabad. vs. M/s.Trinity Advanced Software Labs (P) Ltd.,

The appeal is disposed of in

Bench: The Hon'Ble Mr Justice Anant Ramanath Hegde Regular First Appeal No. 179 Of 2013 (Dec/Pos) Between:

SECTION 151 OF THE CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE: The parties hereby submit that with the intervention of the family members, well wishers and friends the above appeal has been compromised between the parties under the following terms and conditions. 1. The appellants in the above appeal are the defendants and the respondents is the plaintiff in the suit filed before