The Commissioner of Income Tax (Central) vs. Swapna Lahari Pvt Ltd.,

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

2) empowers deduction of tax at source wherever it is so deductible under the provisions of the Act. The effect of the aforesaid charging provision is that, if the statute imposes tax and provides for deducting tax at source through its provisions, the same has to be done, peremptorily. 22. Section 14 of the Act deals with Heads of Income

Commissioner of Income Tax-II vs. Smt G Sailaja

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

2) empowers deduction of tax at source wherever it is so deductible under the provisions of the Act. The effect of the aforesaid charging provision is that, if the statute imposes tax and provides for deducting tax at source through its provisions, the same has to be done, peremptorily. 22. Section 14 of the Act deals with Heads of Income

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

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

2) empowers deduction of tax at source wherever it is so deductible under the provisions of the Act. The effect of the aforesaid charging provision is that, if the statute imposes tax and provides for deducting tax at source through its provisions, the same has to be done, peremptorily. 22. Section 14 of the Act deals with Heads of Income

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

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

2) empowers deduction of tax at source wherever it is so deductible under the provisions of the Act. The effect of the aforesaid charging provision is that, if the statute imposes tax and provides for deducting tax at source through its provisions, the same has to be done, peremptorily. 22. Section 14 of the Act deals with Heads of Income

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

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

2) empowers deduction of tax at source wherever it is so deductible under the provisions of the Act. The effect of the aforesaid charging provision is that, if the statute imposes tax and provides for deducting tax at source through its provisions, the same has to be done, peremptorily. 22. Section 14 of the Act deals with Heads of Income

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 as prescribed under Section 194J has been upheld by the Bombay as well as Delhi High Court except to the extent of penalty as prescribed under Section 271C. It is also argued that the person referred to in Section 194J and Explanation (a) appended to Section 194J(1) need not himself / herself is to be a Doctor and therefore

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

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,

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

PENDURTHI CHANDRASEKHAR vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,

The appeal is allowed and all the four substantial

2) of Section 56, we have held against the assessee in ITTA.No. 703 of 2016 by a judgment rendered today, VRS, J & JUD, J I.T.T.A.No.706 of 2016 7 distinguishing the decision dated 23-02-2018 passed in ITTA. Nos.701 and 702 of 2016. But in this case, the decision in ITTA.Nos.701 and 702 of 2016 squarely applies. 17

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

Appeal stands dismissed

Bench: P.SAM KOSHY,NARSING RAO NANDIKONDA

2 of 3) [ITA-13/2025] of TDS under the provisions of the Act which allow certain exemptions to charitable trusts under Section 12A. The CIT (TDS), by order dated 22.03.2024, reached to the conclusion that the AO had not properly conducted the inquiry and remanded the matter to the AO for conducting proper inquiry into all the aspects, which

PRL COMMISSOER OF INCOME TAX vs. SRISURAM VENKATESWARA REDDY

In the result, appeal filed by the revenue fails and is

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,KONGARA VIJAYA LAKSHMI

2(17) of the Act, the Company is defined as an Institution, association or body which is or otherwise assessable or assessed as a Company and as such Section 115JB is applicable to assessee Bank for MAT purposes? 4. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is right in law in setting aside disallowance

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

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

17 of 2011 is borne out of CBI presented Police Report/Challan No. 02 dated 26.12.2005, arising out of FIR No. 0042004A0005 of 2004, which came to be taken on file No. 100/Challan on 27.12.2005 by the court of Special Judge, Anti-Corruption, Jammu in which the accused No. 2 is the respondent-Rajesh Koul in the array of four accused

The Principal Commissioner of Income Tax vs. M/s.Midwest Granites Private Limited

Appeal stands dismissed accordingly

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,KONGARA VIJAYA LAKSHMI

TDS as required under Section 194H of the Act? 5. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, Tribunal is right in law in setting aside the disallowances made under Section 36(1) (viia) and (viii) by relying upon its earlier orders passed for the assessment years 2009-10 to 2011-12 which have been challenged before