Mr. Vasamsetty Veera Venkata Satyanarayana vs. The Principal Commissioner of Income Tax -1

Appeal stands dismissed

Bench: P.SAM KOSHY,NARSING RAO NANDIKONDA

194C) Dharamveer S/o Hukum Singh Babita & Manoj Swami 1,32,000/- 62,300/- 1320 623/- Nil 1,943/- 4. For the purpose of verification, the assessee was directed to provide details of payments made to the trusts. The assessee thereafter filed a paragraph-wise reply to the notice, after which the AO passed an order holding that the assessee

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

194C; (v) “rent” shall have the same meaning as in clause (i) to the Explanation to section 194-I; (vi) “royalty” shall have the same meaning as in Explanation 2 to clause (vi) of sub- section (1) of section 9; By Finance Act, 2010, the said provision is substituted by the following: Substituted by the Finance Act, 2010, w.e.f

Commissioner of Income Tax, vs. Agricultural Market committee,

The appeals are dismissed

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

194C. (1) Any person responsible for paying any sum to any resident (hereafter in this section referred to as the contractor85) for carrying out any work85 (including supply of labour for carrying out any work) in pursuance of a contract between the contractor and a specified person shall, at the time of credit of such sum to the account

The Commissioner of Income Tax I vs. Mesmer Technologies Ltd

The appeals are allowed in part

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

6. Learned Senior counsel Sri. A. Shankar for the appellant - assessee submitted that the impugned service charges do not constitute income in the hands of recipient - KIADB and hence the question of TDS requirement does not arise. The rate of service charges - 8 - has not reached finality and the matter is still pending before the High Power committee of Karnataka