Commissioner of Income Tax-II vs. Smt G Sailaja

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

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 17 of the Act deals with what all are included as salary. 23. Since we are dealing with

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

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

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 17 of the Act deals with what all are included as salary. 23. Since we are dealing with

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

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

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 17 of the Act deals with what all are included as salary. 23. Since we are dealing with

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

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

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 17 of the Act deals with what all are included as salary. 23. Since we are dealing with

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

TDS provisions relate to and prescribe one of the modes of collection of tax. It is with this objective that duties or “obligations” are imposed on the payer. This does not override or disturb the primary “obligation” imposed by the charging section read with the computation provisions. Further, we are specifically concerned with Section 17(1) and 17(2

Commissioner of Income Tax, vs. Agricultural Market Committee,

The appeals are dismissed

Bench: GODA RAGHURAM,M.S.RAMACHANDRA RAO

2. Whether the Tribunal committed an error in not recording a finding regarding application of other provisions of TDS after holding that the provisions of Section 194-J of the Act are not attracted? 3. Whether the Tribunal was correct in deleting the interest levied u/s.201(1A) of the Act, for non deduction of tax at source as required u/s.194-J

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

The appeals are dismissed

Bench: P.SAM KOSHY,SUDDALA CHALAPATHI RAO

TDS amount. It was further contended that by virtue of section 115JAA(4) the assessee is entitled to set off MAT credit at the stage at which the tax has become payable. Consequently, it was submitted, that the assessee is entitled to take into account the tax credit (MAT credit) available to it under section 115JAA when it computes

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

In the result, the appeal is disposed of

TDS). The assessee thereupon approached the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (hereinafter referred to 8 as 'the Tribunal' for short) by filing appeals against the order passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals). During the pendency of the appeals before the Tribunal, a division bench of this court by order dated 14.03.2012, set aside the order passed by the learned

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

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

15 the disallowance of expenses like interest, commission, brokerage, etc. 16.4: Since, this had created anomaly, whereby tax deducted in the last month was permitted payment till filing of return as per sub-section (1) of Section 139 whereas for the TDS deducted during the rest of the months, period was provided only till 31st March of the previous year

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

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

The Commissioner of Income Tax vs. M/s.A.Venkateswarlu AND Co

Bench: GODA RAGHURAM,M.S.RAMACHANDRA RAO

15 days in the court. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that since the amount of interest was more than `50,000 which was payable to the respondent, therefore, it was the statutory duty of the petitioner to deduct the income tax by way of TDS under section

Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-1 vs. M/s Sri Sri Gruha Nirman India Pvt. Ltd.

Appeals are dismissed

Bench: P.SAM KOSHY,NARSING RAO NANDIKONDA

2) of the Act were issued. 3.2 In the course of assessment proceedings, the Assessing Officer noticed that the respondent/assessee had claimed deductions under Section Digitally Signed By:VAISHALI CHAUHAN Signing Date:10.01.2024 15:43:36 Signature Not Verified ITA 1021/2019 & 157/2023 Page 5 of 9 pages 80IC of the Act to the tune of Rs.7,88,63,013/- pertaining

M/s. Vodafone Mobile Services Limited vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax (TDS)

Bench: SUJOY PAUL,NAMAVARAPU RAJESHWAR RAO

TDS), Circle_15(2), Hyderabad. ...RespondenURespondent l.A. NO: 'l OF 2017(ITTAMP. NO: 750 OF 2017) Petition under Section i 5 i cpc praying

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