Commissioner of Income Tax-II vs. Smt G Sailaja

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

43. We are fortified in the above conclusion from the decision in Kerala Financial Corporation v. Commissioner of Income Tax [(1994) 4 SCC 375]. It was held in the above referred decision as follows: “14. The fact that the circular to which Shri Salve has referred is one which had been issued in exercise of powers conferred by section

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

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

43. We are fortified in the above conclusion from the decision in Kerala Financial Corporation v. Commissioner of Income Tax [(1994) 4 SCC 375]. It was held in the above referred decision as follows: “14. The fact that the circular to which Shri Salve has referred is one which had been issued in exercise of powers conferred by section

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

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

43. We are fortified in the above conclusion from the decision in Kerala Financial Corporation v. Commissioner of Income Tax [(1994) 4 SCC 375]. It was held in the above referred decision as follows: “14. The fact that the circular to which Shri Salve has referred is one which had been issued in exercise of powers conferred by section

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

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

43. We are fortified in the above conclusion from the decision in Kerala Financial Corporation v. Commissioner of Income Tax [(1994) 4 SCC 375]. It was held in the above referred decision as follows: “14. The fact that the circular to which Shri Salve has referred is one which had been issued in exercise of powers conferred by section

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

The appeals are dismissed

Bench: P.SAM KOSHY,SUDDALA CHALAPATHI RAO

2(43) of the said Act refers to income tax chargeable under the provisions of the said Act which includes section 115JA and 115JAA. Hence, MAT credit has to be set-off against the tax payable before computing the liability to advance tax. He submitted that if the set-off is not allowed in this manner, it would lead

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

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

43. During the assessment proceedings, in its reply dated 15th December 1997 to the query raised by the AO, the Assessee pointed out that there is nothing in law which prohibited the leasing out of stock and trade. It relied on the decision in CIT v. Chagan Das and Company 54 ITR 17 where the Supreme Court held that where

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

Appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

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

43. During the assessment proceedings, in its reply dated 15th December 1997 to the query raised by the AO, the Assessee pointed out that there is nothing in law which prohibited the leasing out of stock and trade. It relied on the decision in CIT v. Chagan Das and Company 54 ITR 17 where the Supreme Court held that where

The Commissioner of Income Tax-I, vs. Aditya Music (India) Pvt.Ltd.,

2%. The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, TDS Circle, Patna, by his order dated 19.01.2011 under Section 201(1)/201(1A) of the Act held that the deduction ought to have been made by the assessee under Section 194I of the Act and accordingly directed further amounts of Rs.5,04,86,721/- to be deposited by the assessee including

Commissioner of Income Tax, Guntur. vs. Agricultural Market Committee, Parchuru

2%. The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, TDS Circle, Patna, by his order dated 19.01.2011 under Section 201(1)/201(1A) of the Act held that the deduction ought to have been made by the assessee under Section 194I of the Act and accordingly directed further amounts of Rs.5,04,86,721/- to be deposited by the assessee including

Commissioner of Income Tax vs. M/s. Southern Packaging

Bench: The Hon'Ble Mr. Justice Ravi Malimath

43,800/-. Aggrieved by the same, the assessee preferred an appeal. The appeal was partly 3 allowed. No relief was granted for the year 2000-2001. Aggrieved by the same, the Revenue as well the assessee preferred appeals before the Tribunal. The Tribunal allowed the appeals and granted relief to the assessee to an extent of the entire amount. Aggrieved

Commissioner of Income Tax, vs. M/s Polisetty Somasundaram,

TDS was deducted and deposited in the Government account. Since no information was furnished by the assessee nor any evidence is available on record to substantiate the claim of the assessee as genuine, the expenses of Rs.2,00,00,000/- not relating to the business were disallowed and added to the income of the assessee.” Against the said order

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 - IV vs. National Mineral Development Corporation Ltd.,

The appeal is dismissed

2 issue. Reliance was placed upon the decision of the majority view of the Special Bench of Vishakhapatnam Tribunal in ACIT Vs. Merilyn Shipping and Transports, (2012) 16 ITR 1, which thereafter had been set aside by the Gurjarat High Court in CIT Vs. Sikanderkhan N. Tunvar and others, (2013) 357 ITR 312 and Calcutta High Court