Commissioner of Income Tax-II vs. Smt G Sailaja

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

2. Few of the nuns and priests indulge in pedagogy apart from their religious calling. Those pedagogues are paid salaries. Under W.A. No.410/15 & Conn. Cases 72 their religious covenant, nuns and priests bind themselves to a vow not to own property. At the time of initiation into their religious calling, they claim to have taken that vow - known

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

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

2. Few of the nuns and priests indulge in pedagogy apart from their religious calling. Those pedagogues are paid salaries. Under W.A. No.410/15 & Conn. Cases 72 their religious covenant, nuns and priests bind themselves to a vow not to own property. At the time of initiation into their religious calling, they claim to have taken that vow - known

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

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

2. Few of the nuns and priests indulge in pedagogy apart from their religious calling. Those pedagogues are paid salaries. Under W.A. No.410/15 & Conn. Cases 72 their religious covenant, nuns and priests bind themselves to a vow not to own property. At the time of initiation into their religious calling, they claim to have taken that vow - known

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

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

2. Few of the nuns and priests indulge in pedagogy apart from their religious calling. Those pedagogues are paid salaries. Under W.A. No.410/15 & Conn. Cases 72 their religious covenant, nuns and priests bind themselves to a vow not to own property. At the time of initiation into their religious calling, they claim to have taken that vow - known

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 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

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 Under Section 194A. 3. A question has also been raised as to whether normal members, associate members and sympathizer members are also covered by the exemptions Under Section 194A(3)(v). It is hereby clarified that the exemption is available only to such members who have joined in application for the registration of the co-operative society and those

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

Appeals are dismissed

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

TDS Under Section 194A. 3. A question has also been raised as to whether normal members, associate members and sympathizer members are also covered by the exemptions Under Section 194A(3)(v). It is hereby clarified that the exemption is available only to such members who have joined in application for the registration of the co-operative society and those

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 Under Section 194A. 3. A question has also been raised as to whether normal members, associate members and sympathizer members are also covered by the exemptions Under Section 194A(3)(v). It is hereby clarified that the exemption is available only to such members who have joined in application for the registration of the co-operative society and those

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

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

Appeals are allowed

Bench: P.SAM KOSHY,NARSING RAO NANDIKONDA

2. The substantial question of law that arises for consideration in these appeals is as under:- Whether the Tribunal was correct in holding that the payments made by the assessee for utilizing intranet facilities provided by the non-resident assessee is not liable to tax in India and no TDS need be made as the provisions of Section

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

Section 201 (1A), assessee was liable to pay simple interest at one per cent for every month or part of month, in case of failure to deduct tax on payment of deducted tax, increase is made correspondingly from one per cent to one and half per cent for every month or part of month for discouraging delay in deposit

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

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

19 of 2011 is borne out of CBI presented Police Report/Challan No. 04 dated 26.12.2005, arising out of FIR No. 0042004A0005 of 2004, which came to be taken on file No. 102/Challan on 29.12.2005 by the court of Special Judge, Anti-Corruption, Jammu in which also the accused No. 5 is the respondent-Madan Lal Dogra in the array

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

19 of 36 synonymous; the latter is wider than the former. Expenditure may be for the purpose of the business although it may not be incurred for the purpose of earning the profits of the business. This is established by the decision of the Supreme Court in Meenakshi Mills Ltd. v. CIT 63 ITR 207. The expression “for the purposes

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

Appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

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

19 of 36 synonymous; the latter is wider than the former. Expenditure may be for the purpose of the business although it may not be incurred for the purpose of earning the profits of the business. This is established by the decision of the Supreme Court in Meenakshi Mills Ltd. v. CIT 63 ITR 207. The expression “for the purposes

Late Smt. Hoorjahan Begum vs. Tghe Income Tax Officer

Appeal stands disposed off

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,S.RAVI KUMAR

Section 192(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 has deducted the tax at source from the employee's salary. In case if an objection is raised by any party, the objector is required to prove by producing evidence such as LPC to suggest that the employer failed to deduct the TDS from the salary of the employee. However, there