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

In the result, the appeal is disposed of

193 TAXMAN 234 (SC) and ‘CIT VS. TARA AGENCIES’, (2007) 162 TAXMAN 337 (SC). SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE REVENUE: 10. On the other hand, learned counsel for the revenue submitted that Section 194J refers to “person” and therefore, includes the assessee and cannot be confined to individuals alone. It is also pointed out that definition of “professional service

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

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

193 (DB)], the question must be referred for consideration by a Full Bench. 13. Adv. A.Kumar, the learned counsel appearing for the three priests who have individually filed appeals, after adopting the arguments of the learned Senior Counsel, further added that the right claimed by the three individual appellants is sourced from the canon law and according

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

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

193 (DB)], the question must be referred for consideration by a Full Bench. 13. Adv. A.Kumar, the learned counsel appearing for the three priests who have individually filed appeals, after adopting the arguments of the learned Senior Counsel, further added that the right claimed by the three individual appellants is sourced from the canon law and according

Commissioner of Income Tax-II vs. Smt G Sailaja

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

193 (DB)], the question must be referred for consideration by a Full Bench. 13. Adv. A.Kumar, the learned counsel appearing for the three priests who have individually filed appeals, after adopting the arguments of the learned Senior Counsel, further added that the right claimed by the three individual appellants is sourced from the canon law and according

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

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

193 (DB)], the question must be referred for consideration by a Full Bench. 13. Adv. A.Kumar, the learned counsel appearing for the three priests who have individually filed appeals, after adopting the arguments of the learned Senior Counsel, further added that the right claimed by the three individual appellants is sourced from the canon law and according

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

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

193 (DB)], the question must be referred for consideration by a Full Bench. 13. Adv. A.Kumar, the learned counsel appearing for the three priests who have individually filed appeals, after adopting the arguments of the learned Senior Counsel, further added that the right claimed by the three individual appellants is sourced from the canon law and according

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

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

193 (DB)], the question must be referred for consideration by a Full Bench. 13. Adv. A.Kumar, the learned counsel appearing for the three priests who have individually filed appeals, after adopting the arguments of the learned Senior Counsel, further added that the right claimed by the three individual appellants is sourced from the canon law and according

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

The Appeal is dismissed

Bench: GODA RAGHURAM,M.S.RAMACHANDRA RAO

TDS was deductible from the entire payment made to Messrs. Essar TAXAP/33/2000 6/27 JUDGMENT Projects Limited for the construction of refinery. When this issue travelled to the Tribunal, it concurred with the findings of the CIT [A] by discussing at length not only the order of CIT [A] but also independently examining the issue and in terms held that there

The Commissioner of Income Tax I vs. Mesmer Technologies Ltd

The appeals are allowed in part

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

TDS is only an alternative method of collection of taxes. It is beneficial to refer to the judgment of this Court in the case of Hyderabad Industries Ltd., vs. ITO [1991] 59 Taxmann 202/188 ITR 749 (Kar.), wherein it is held that, “an amount which will not be included in the total income of a person cannot be considered