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

iii) of clause (24) thereof, includes the value of any perquisite or profit in lieu of salary taxable under clauses (2) and (3) of section 17, within the meaning of ‗‗income‘‘. All these statutory provisions make it clear that an amount of tax which would have been payable by an employee-assessee, if paid by the employer on behalf

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

iii) Circular No.8/2009 dated 24.11.2009 issued by the CBDT can be said to be in conformity with the provision contained in Section 194J of the Act? (iv) The Hon’ble Tribunal was correct in remanding the matter to the CIT(A) to consider de novo the alternate contention of the Appellant that it cannot be held to be an ‘assessee

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

III to section 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

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

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

iii) On 19th March, 1999, Rs.4,01,074/- was refunded. (iv) The appellant became entitled to interest under Section 244A of Rs.36,58,084/- upto 28th March, 1995. This interest is calculated on Rs.53,01,570/-. (v) Interest of Rs.3,57,302/- upto 31st March, 1997 on amount of Rs.14,88,760/- (Rs.53,01,570/- minus Rs.38

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

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

Appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

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

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

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. Smt.D.K.Aruna

The appeals are disposed of accordingly

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

14 of 2011 Decided on: 10.08.2023 ITA No.56 of 2009 Asstt. Excise & Taxation Commissioner, Bilaspur, H.P. .… Appellant. Versus Income Tax Officer (TDS), Palampur, Camp at Shimla …. Respondent. ITA No.57 of 2009 Asstt. Excise & Taxation Commissioner, Una, H.P. .… Appellant. Versus Income Tax Officer (TDS), Palampur, HP …. Respondent. ITA No.58 of 2009 Asstt. Excise & Taxation Commissioner, Bilaspur, H.P. .… Appellant. Versus Income

M/S.P.SATYANARAYANA AND SONS vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 1[9], HYDERABAD

Appeals are allowed

Bench: P.SAM KOSHY,NARSING RAO NANDIKONDA

TDS at 20% under Section 195(1) of the Act and also paid the same to Government account. However, according to the assessee, since it is a cost sharing agreement and payments were made by the assesee for reimbursement of cost/expenses, no 16 income is embedded therein. Therefore, the assessee is not liable to deduct tax under Section

The Commissioner of Income Tax, vs. N. Annapurna

The appeals are dismissed with no order as to costs

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

TDS. The Assessee stated that it had been advised that salary paid outside India was not liable to tax in India. The Assessee accordingly submitted that it was prevented by reasonable cause for not deducting tax at source on the sum paid outside India. ITA 371/2005 & connected matters Page 6 of 15 6. The Assessing Officer (‘AO’) passed an order