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

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

E N T Dr. S. Muralidhar, J.: 1. These are 11 appeals under Section 260-A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 („Act‟) of which 1 is by the Assessee and 10 are by the Revenue. Apart from the facts being similar, the questions of law too are common to many of the appeals. They are accordingly disposed

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

Appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

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

E N T Dr. S. Muralidhar, J.: 1. These are 11 appeals under Section 260-A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 („Act‟) of which 1 is by the Assessee and 10 are by the Revenue. Apart from the facts being similar, the questions of law too are common to many of the appeals. They are accordingly disposed

M\S.CHENNAKESAVA VIJAYAWADA vs. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX VIJAYAWAD

The Appeal is dismissed

Bench: GODA RAGHURAM,M.S.RAMACHANDRA RAO

e) any co-operative society, or (f) any authority, constituted in India by or under any law,engaged either for the purpose of dealing with and satisfying the need for housing accommodation or for the purpose of planning, development or improvement of cities, towns and villages, or for both; or (g) any society registered under the Societies Registration

The Commissioner of Income Tax- I vs. M/s. Avon Organics Limited

Bench: GODA RAGHURAM,M.S.RAMACHANDRA RAO

22 Office Maintenance 23724 23 Transportation charges 628284 24 Stationery 18375 25 Lease Line Charges 274331 26 Telephone Expenses 68182 27. Printing Charges 7350 28. Travelling Expenses International 7732 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Total Expenses pertaining to April & May 04 5902448/- ” This break-up was noticed in the assessment order itself and is not disputed. 6. What is clearly noticeable is that the appellant

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

Appeals are allowed

Bench: P.SAM KOSHY,NARSING RAO NANDIKONDA

E N T All these appeals are by the revenue challenging the order passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Bangalore Bench, holding that the assessee was not liable to deduct tax under Section 195(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) from the remittances made to a non-resident. 2

Late Smt. Hoorjahan Begum vs. Tghe Income Tax Officer

Appeal stands disposed off

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,S.RAVI KUMAR

E N T GAURANG KANTH, J. 1. The present appeal emanates from the award dated 30.01.2015 (“Impugned Award”) passed by the learned Presiding Officer, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal: Karkardooma Courts: East District: Delhi (“Claims Tribunal”) in Motor Accident Claim No. 52/2013 titled as Smt. Surya Sharma and Ors. v. Sh. Anil Kumar Sharma and Ors. 2. The unfortunate accident

The Commissioner of Income Tax, vs. N. Annapurna

The appeals are dismissed with no order as to costs

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

E R % 31.08.2017 Dr. S. Muralidhar, J. 1. These are ten appeals by the Income Tax Department (‘Department’) under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘Act’) directed against the common order dated 2nd September 2004 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (‘ITAT’) in ITA Nos. 3233 to 3242/Del/2003 for the Financial Years

The Commissioner of Income Tax I vs. Mesmer Technologies Ltd

The appeals are allowed in part

Bench: SANJAY KUMAR,M.S.K.JAISWAL

E N T Since common and akin issues are involved in these appeals, they are heard together and disposed of by this common judgment. 2. ITA Nos.671/2016, 672/2016 and 673/2016 are filed by the assessee under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘Act’ for short) challenging the common order dated 05.08.2016 of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Bangalore

The Commissioner of Income Tax-I, vs. M/s. Prasad Film Laboratories Ltd.,

Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 challenges the award dated 19th December, 2011 passed by the Learned Sole Arbitrator. 2. The Petitioner – Food Corporation of India (hereinafter, ‘FCI’) and M/s Shankar Rice and General Mills (hereinafter ‘miller’) had entered into two milling agreements dated 8th November, 1994 and 15th November, 1994. Under the said contracts, the miller