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 Under Section 194A. 3. A question has also been raised as to whether normal members, associate members and sympathizer members are also covered by the exemptions Under Section 194A(3)(v). It is hereby clarified that the exemption is available only to such members who have joined in application for the registration of the co-operative society and those

The Commissioner of Income Tax -11 vs. The AP Mineral Development Corporation Ltd

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

TDS), HUBLI. THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, RAVI MALIMATH J., DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: JUDGMENT Revenue, with a question of law as to whether Tribunal was correct in holding that a Co-operative Bank was not required to deduct tax on the interest paid to the members on the ground that they were exempt under Section 194A(3

The Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax-6 vs. Mrs. Urmila Singh

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

TDS), HUBLI. THESE APPEALS COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, RAVI MALIMATH J., DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: JUDGMENT Revenue, with a question of law as to whether Tribunal was correct in holding that a Co-operative Bank was not required to deduct tax on the interest paid to the members on the ground that they were exempt under Section 194A(3

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

In the result, the appeal is disposed of

v) The Appellant is liable to pay interest in terms of Section 201(1A) of the Act? 4 FACTUAL BACKGROUND: 2. Factual background, in which the aforesaid substantial questions of law arise for our consideration in this appeal need mention. The assessee is a company engaged inter alia in the business of providing Third Party Administration (hereinafter referred

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

The Appeal is dismissed

Bench: GODA RAGHURAM,M.S.RAMACHANDRA RAO

194-I of the Act and therefore, tax ought to have been deducted at 20 per cent under the said provisions as against deduction of tax at 2 per cent under Section 194C of the Act. The Assessing Officer therefore levied interest under Section 201(1A) of the Act on the amount of tax alleged to be short deducted. This

THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, VISAKHAPATNAM vs. M/S. DR. VEMPALA BALA MANOHER, VISAKHAPATNAM

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,KONGARA VIJAYA LAKSHMI

v. Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Company Limited is subject matter of challenge in this petition filed by the Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Company Limited [“the Insurance Company”]. 3. The dispute pertains to deduction of a sum of Rs.44,662/-, deducted as TDS on the interest component of the compensation paid to the claimants- respondents by way of an award passed

The Commissioner of Income Tax - VI vs. Sri Danda Dharanidhar

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

v. Commissioner of Income Tax, reported in (2023) 1 Supreme Court 497. 2. Learned counsel submitted that in light of the adjudication made by this Court and affirmed by Hon’ble the Supreme Court, the appeal deserves to be allowed. Signed By:PRAMOD KUMAR VATS Signing Date:23.01.2026 14:51:51 Signature Not Verified ITA 187/2008 Page

Commissioner of Income Tax-1, vs. Agricultural Market Committee,

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

3} DB INCOME TAX APPEAL NO.235/2011 & THREE OTHER INCOME TAX APPEALS 5. We have considered the submissions of the learned counsel for appellant and examined the Circulars dated 28.04.2008 and 30.06.2008 and also the provisions of Sections 194-I and 194J and other provisions of the Income Tax Act. 6. The assessee, Rajasthan Urban Infrastructure Development Project(in short 'RUIDP

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

3. The substantial questions of law that arise for consideration in all these appeals is whether, the amendment to Section 40(a)(ia) by the Finance Act, 2010, which is given effect from 01.04.2010 is retrospective in nature. 4. Prior to the amendment, the said provision read as under:- Section 40(a)(ia) : any interest, commission or brokerage, rent, royalty

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

3. The Assessee states that the Gopal Das Bhawan Project was completed in the Financial Year („FY‟) 1994-95 relevant to Assessment Year („AY‟) 1995-96. Some of the allottees of the flats refused to take them for completion since the New Delhi Municipal Council („NDMC‟) changed the ITA 210/2003 & connected matters Page 6 of 36 usage of the Lower

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

Appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

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

3. The Assessee states that the Gopal Das Bhawan Project was completed in the Financial Year („FY‟) 1994-95 relevant to Assessment Year („AY‟) 1995-96. Some of the allottees of the flats refused to take them for completion since the New Delhi Municipal Council („NDMC‟) changed the ITA 210/2003 & connected matters Page 6 of 36 usage of the Lower