Commissioner of Income Tax-II vs. Smt G Sailaja

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

14 of the Act deals with Heads of Income and clause A is the head “Salaries”. Section 15(a) of the Act provides that any salary due from an employer to an assessee in the previous year whether paid or not, is chargeable to income tax under the head “Salaries”. Further, section 16 deals with permissible deductions while section

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

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

14 of the Act deals with Heads of Income and clause A is the head “Salaries”. Section 15(a) of the Act provides that any salary due from an employer to an assessee in the previous year whether paid or not, is chargeable to income tax under the head “Salaries”. Further, section 16 deals with permissible deductions while section

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

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

14 of the Act deals with Heads of Income and clause A is the head “Salaries”. Section 15(a) of the Act provides that any salary due from an employer to an assessee in the previous year whether paid or not, is chargeable to income tax under the head “Salaries”. Further, section 16 deals with permissible deductions while section

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

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

14 of the Act deals with Heads of Income and clause A is the head “Salaries”. Section 15(a) of the Act provides that any salary due from an employer to an assessee in the previous year whether paid or not, is chargeable to income tax under the head “Salaries”. Further, section 16 deals with permissible deductions while section

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX IV vs. M/S. PRABHATH AGRI BIO TECH P. LTD.,

The appeals stand dismissed

Bench: P.SAM KOSHY,NARSING RAO NANDIKONDA

14 of 20 been observed that payment of tax by an employer should be regarded and treated as a perquisite under Section 17(2)(iv) of the Act. 17. The assessing officer in the assessment order has referred to the provisions of tax deduction at source and observed that the employer was liable and under an obligation to deduct

Commissioner of Income Tax, vs. Agricultural Market Committee,

The appeals are dismissed

Bench: GODA RAGHURAM,M.S.RAMACHANDRA RAO

14 qualified technicians and trained, skilled personal/manpower does not amount to technical services to attract provisions of Section 194-J of the Act? 2. Whether the Tribunal committed an error in not recording a finding regarding application of other provisions of TDS

M/s.V.R.Farms Pvt Ltd vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax

The appeals are dismissed

Bench: P.SAM KOSHY,SUDDALA CHALAPATHI RAO

14. With regard to the issue of rectification proceedings, it was submitted that the provisions are clear. There is no scope for debate. Moreover, the provisions being mandatory and automatic, there is no question of waiver. That being the position, it was submitted, if ITA Nos. 402/2005 & Others Page No.16 of 44 interest under section 234B or 234C

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

In the result, the appeal is disposed of

14 TAX VS, LALLUBHAI NAGARDAS & SONS’, (1993) 204 ITR 93 (CALCUTTA), ‘STATE OF BOMBAY AND OTHERS VS. HOSPITAL MAZDOOR SABHA AND OTHERS’, (1960) 2 SCR 866, ‘DR.P.VADAMALAYAN VS. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX’, (1969) 74 ITR 94 (MADRAS), ‘COMMISSIONER OF INCOME- TAX VS. DR.V.K.RAMACHANDRAN’, (1981) 6 TAXMAN 348 (MADRAS), ‘NATVARLAL AMBALAL DAVE VS. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-TDS vs. M/S.IDEA CELLULAR LTD

Appeals are dismissed as withdrawn

Bench: SUJOY PAUL,NAMAVARAPU RAJESHWAR RAO

14(2), Hyderabad. Between: The Commissioner of lncome Tax-TDS, Hyderabad ...Appellant AND M/s.ldea Cellular Ltd., H.No.5-9-62, KLK Estates, Fateh Maidan Road, Hyderabad ...Respondent |.T.T.A.No. 270 of 2018 lncome Tax Tribunal Appeal Under Section

DIRECTOR OF INCOMD TAX [INTERNATIONAL TAXATION] HYDERABAD vs. M/S M W ZANDER [S] PTE LIMITED-INDIA BR, HYDERABAD

Appeals are dismissed

Bench: P.SAM KOSHY,SUDDALA CHALAPATHI RAO

TDS) CIRCLE-16(2) NO.59, HMT BHAVAN, 4TH FLOOR BELLARY ROAD, GANGANAGAR BANGALORE – 560 032. ... APPELLANTS (BY SRI.DILIP, ADV. AND SRI.K.V. ARAVIND, ADV.) AND: THE KARNATAKA STATE APEX CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD., VYALIKAVAL BRANCH BANGALORE. ... RESPONDENT 2 THIS ITA FILED UNDER SECTION 260-A OF INCOME TAX ACT 1961, ARISING OUT OF ORDER DATED 30.04.2015 PASSED IN ITA NO.1418/BANG/2014

Commissioner of Income Tax-(TDS), vs. M/s.Neeladri Chit Funds Private Ltd.,

Appeals are dismissed

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

TDS) CIRCLE-16(2) NO.59, HMT BHAVAN, 4TH FLOOR BELLARY ROAD, GANGANAGAR BANGALORE – 560 032. ... APPELLANTS (BY SRI.DILIP, ADV. AND SRI.K.V. ARAVIND, ADV.) AND: THE KARNATAKA STATE APEX CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD., GANDHINAGAR BRANCH BANGALORE. ... RESPONDENT 2 THIS ITA FILED UNDER SECTION 260-A OF INCOME TAX ACT 1961, ARISING OUT OF ORDER DATED 30.04.2015 PASSED IN ITA NO.1420/BANG/2014

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) CIRCLE-16(2) NO.59, HMT BHAVAN, 4TH FLOOR BELLARY ROAD, GANGANAGAR BANGALORE – 560 032. ... APPELLANTS (BY SRI.DILIP, ADV. AND SRI.K.V. ARAVIND, ADV.) AND: THE KARNATAKA STATE APEX CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD., ASHOKA PILLAR BRANCH BANGALORE. ... RESPONDENT 2 THIS ITA FILED UNDER SECTION 260-A OF INCOME TAX ACT 1961, ARISING OUT OF ORDER DATED 30.04.2015 PASSED IN ITA NO.1421/BANG/2014

PENDURTHI CHANDRASEKHAR vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,

The appeal is allowed and all the four substantial

Section 68. 8. Similarly, the Assessing Officer added interest income as per the TDS Certificate, to the Income Tax return. 9. The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) granted relief in so far as the unsecured loan received by the assessee from Smt. Shanti Chowdary, who was none else than the wife of the assessee. This was on the basis

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

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. 01.04.2010. Prior to its substitution, proviso as substituted by the Finance Act, 2008, w.r.e.f. 01.04.2005, read as under: 12 “Provided that where in respect of any such

M/s Modi Builders AND Realtors (P) Ltd., vs. Asst. Commissioner of Income tax,

The appeals are disposed of

Bench: P.SAM KOSHY,NARSING RAO NANDIKONDA

2), inter alia, provides that where a refund is due to the assessee, "in pursuance of an order referred to in Section 240" and the Assessing Officer does not grant the refund within the stipulated time, the Central Government is required to pay simple interest at the stipulated rate. Section 240 deals with refund on appeal, etc. This provision clearly

Commissioner of Income Tax-I vs. M/s. Cargo Handling Pvt. Workers Pool

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

Section 5(2) (d) of the Jammu and Kashmir Prevention of Corruption Act, Svt. 2006 and also of the other offences alleged against him and, therefore, held him deserving to be discharged. 13. Further the court of Special Judge, Anti Corruption, Jammu with respect to the respondent- Rajesh Koul came to observe that from the facts and circumstances

Commissioner of Income Tax V vs. C Eswar Reddy AND Co.,

The appeals stand dismissed answering all the

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

TDS default for the relevant assessment year to be Rs.1,36,040/- and the Assessing Officer was directed to pass revised order under Section 201 of the Act. Similarly, reckoning the deduction made under Annexure-9 produced in M.A. No. 452 of 2015, the Commissioner restricted the penalty under Section 271C to Rs.74,669/-. Both the orders of the Commissioner

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

14,33,848/- on loan of Rs.9 Cr. taken from Citi Bank.” 65. The AO disallowed the interest paid to IndusInd Bank on the ground that the interest was required to be capitalized under the head of „capital work ITA 210/2003 & connected matters Page 29 of 36 and progress.‟ In fact