Commissioner of Income Tax-II vs. Smt G Sailaja

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

192 of the Act, upon the person paying the salary, is whether the income is chargeable under the head 'Salaries'. If the income payable will fall under the head 'Salaries', the statute attaches an obligation to the W.A. No.410/15 & Conn. Cases 85 person paying the salary to deduct TDS. While deducting the TDS under section

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

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

192 of the Act, upon the person paying the salary, is whether the income is chargeable under the head 'Salaries'. If the income payable will fall under the head 'Salaries', the statute attaches an obligation to the W.A. No.410/15 & Conn. Cases 85 person paying the salary to deduct TDS. While deducting the TDS under section

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

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

192 of the Act, upon the person paying the salary, is whether the income is chargeable under the head 'Salaries'. If the income payable will fall under the head 'Salaries', the statute attaches an obligation to the W.A. No.410/15 & Conn. Cases 85 person paying the salary to deduct TDS. While deducting the TDS under section

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

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

192 of the Act, upon the person paying the salary, is whether the income is chargeable under the head 'Salaries'. If the income payable will fall under the head 'Salaries', the statute attaches an obligation to the W.A. No.410/15 & Conn. Cases 85 person paying the salary to deduct TDS. While deducting the TDS under section

The Commissioner of Income Tax, vs. N. Annapurna

The appeals are dismissed with no order as to costs

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

192 was a nascent issue. It has not be considered by this Court before. Further, in most of these cases, the tax- deductor-Assessee has not claimed deduction under Section 40(a)(iii) in computation of its business income. This is one more reason for not imposing penalty under Section 271C because by not claiming deduction under Section

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, RAJAHMUNDRY vs. SRI P. VENKATA NANCHARAIAH

The appeal is allowed in the above terms

Bench: C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY,M.S.K.JAISWAL

TDS was in contravention of Section 192 of the IT Act. 5. While admitting the appeal on 21st September 2007, this

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

Late Smt. Hoorjahan Begum vs. Tghe Income Tax Officer

Appeal stands disposed off

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,S.RAVI KUMAR

TDS is prescribed under Section 201(1-A) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. Therefore, in case the income of the victim is only from “salary”, the presumption would be that the employer under Section 192

M\S.CHENNAKESAVA VIJAYAWADA vs. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX VIJAYAWAD

The Appeal is dismissed

Bench: GODA RAGHURAM,M.S.RAMACHANDRA RAO

TDS, that taxes due have been paid by the assessee. It further says that this will not alter the liability to charge interest under Section 201(1A) of the Act till the date of payment of taxes by the assessee or the liability for penalty under Section 271C of the Act. In the case between Commissioner of Income

Commissioner of Income Tax, vs. Agricultural Market committee,

The appeals are dismissed

Bench: V.V.S.RAO,SANJAY KUMAR

TDS. 2. While admitting the matter following questions were framed:- 1. Whether Tribunal was justified in holding that the payment made by the assessee in form of transmission/ wheeling/ SLDC charges were not liable to be deducted at source either under Section 194J or 194C of the Income Tax Act? 2. Whether Tribunal was justified in holding -2- that

The Commissioner of Income Tax I vs. Mesmer Technologies Ltd

The appeals are allowed in part

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

TDS was necessary and there is no income comprised in the payments made. As per the agreement entered with the KIADB, 21% was the service charges which was reduced to 4% for Phase I and subsequently, it was reduced to 1% for Phase II. - 10 - Though Government of Karnataka issued the Government Order dated 21.06.2012 fixing the service charges

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 173 of M.V. Act, aggrieved by the Decree and Judgment dated 09.11.2015 in MVOP No.51/2013 on the file of the Court of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal cum District Judge, Rajahmundry, East Godavari District. Between: 1. Rudraraju Rukmini, W/o.late Sri Venkatalakshmi Narasimha Raju, Hindu, Occ: Housewife, R/o.Vuyyurivari Meraka, Near Antarvedipalem, Sakhinetipalli - 533 251, East Godavari District. 2. Pericherla Lakshmi