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

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

TDS under section 192 of the Act, the person deducting it, is not obliged to or required to ascertain the nature of calling or vocation of the assessee or utilization or application of the income by the assessee. 27. Chargeability to tax is not dependent on the manner of utilization of the income. The utilization of a person’s income

Commissioner of Income Tax-II vs. Smt G Sailaja

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

TDS under section 192 of the Act, the person deducting it, is not obliged to or required to ascertain the nature of calling or vocation of the assessee or utilization or application of the income by the assessee. 27. Chargeability to tax is not dependent on the manner of utilization of the income. The utilization of a person’s income

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

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

TDS under section 192 of the Act, the person deducting it, is not obliged to or required to ascertain the nature of calling or vocation of the assessee or utilization or application of the income by the assessee. 27. Chargeability to tax is not dependent on the manner of utilization of the income. The utilization of a person’s income

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

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

TDS under section 192 of the Act, the person deducting it, is not obliged to or required to ascertain the nature of calling or vocation of the assessee or utilization or application of the income by the assessee. 27. Chargeability to tax is not dependent on the manner of utilization of the income. The utilization of a person’s income

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

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

TDS under section 192 of the Act, the person deducting it, is not obliged to or required to ascertain the nature of calling or vocation of the assessee or utilization or application of the income by the assessee. 27. Chargeability to tax is not dependent on the manner of utilization of the income. The utilization of a person’s income

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

The Appeal is dismissed

Bench: GODA RAGHURAM,M.S.RAMACHANDRA RAO

1) of the Act should be enforced after the tax deductor has satisfied TAXAP/33/2000 11/27 JUDGMENT the officer-in-charge of 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

The Commissioner of Income Tax I vs. Mesmer Technologies Ltd

The appeals are allowed in part

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

1) Any person, not being an individual or a Hindu undivided family, who is responsible for paying to a resident any sum by way of – (a) fees for professional services, or (b) fees for technical services, or [(ba) any remuneration or fees or commission by whatever name called, other than those on which tax is deductible under section 192

The Commissioner of Income Tax, vs. N. Annapurna

The appeals are dismissed with no order as to costs

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

1)(a) makes it clear that the penalty leviable shall be equal to the amount of tax which such person failed to deduct. We cannot hold this provision to be mandatory or compensatory or automatic because under Section 273B Parliament has enacted that penalty shall not be imposed in cases falling thereunder. Section 271C falls in the category of such

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

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

1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘IT Act’). The AO had levied a penalty of Rs.6,52,675/- on the ground that the alleged short deduction of TDS was in contravention of Section 192

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

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