Commissioner of Income Tax-II vs. Smt G Sailaja

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

7 SCC 728] and canvassed that there cannot be any estoppel against law. It was also argued that the circular cannot override the statutory provisions under any circumstances whatsoever and in the absence of any independent exemption from tax, the appellants cannot rely upon the 1944 or even 1977 circular to claim exclusion from TDS. The learned standing counsel also

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

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

7 SCC 728] and canvassed that there cannot be any estoppel against law. It was also argued that the circular cannot override the statutory provisions under any circumstances whatsoever and in the absence of any independent exemption from tax, the appellants cannot rely upon the 1944 or even 1977 circular to claim exclusion from TDS. The learned standing counsel also

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

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

7 SCC 728] and canvassed that there cannot be any estoppel against law. It was also argued that the circular cannot override the statutory provisions under any circumstances whatsoever and in the absence of any independent exemption from tax, the appellants cannot rely upon the 1944 or even 1977 circular to claim exclusion from TDS. The learned standing counsel also

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

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

7 SCC 728] and canvassed that there cannot be any estoppel against law. It was also argued that the circular cannot override the statutory provisions under any circumstances whatsoever and in the absence of any independent exemption from tax, the appellants cannot rely upon the 1944 or even 1977 circular to claim exclusion from TDS. The learned standing counsel also

Allam Bali Reddy, vs. Asst.Commissioner of Income Tax,

Appeals stand disposed of in terms of

SECTION 260-A OF I.T.ACT, 1961, ARISING OUT OF ORDER DATED 28/02/2013 PASSED IN ITA NO.866/BANG/2012, FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2005-06, PRAYING THIS HON’BLE COURT TO: I. FORMULATE THE SUBSTANTIAL QUESTIONS OF LAW STATED THEREIN, II. ALLOW THE APPEAL AND SET ASIDE THE ORDER OF THE ITAT, BANGALORE IN ITA NO.866/BANG/2012 DATED 28/02/2013 AND CONFIRM THE ORDER

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

7. A careful reading of the clause (iv) exposits that perquisites and profits in lieu of or in addition to “salary” and wages, have been treated as a part of salary. This becomes clear when we refer to the definition of the term “perquisites” in Section 17(2) of the Act, which is reproduced below: (2) “perquisite” includes

Commissioner of Income Tax, vs. Agricultural Market Committee,

The appeals are dismissed

Bench: GODA RAGHURAM,M.S.RAMACHANDRA RAO

7 I. T. A.No.457/2012 BETWEEN: 1. The Commissioner of Income-Tax TDS, HMT Bhavan, Bellary Road, Bangalore 2. The Income-Tax Officer TDS Ward, Aayakar Bhavan, Sedam Road, Gulbarga – 585 105 …Appellants (By Sri K.V.Aravind and Sri Ameetkumar Deshpande, Advocates) AND: Gulbarga Electricity Supply Company Ltd., Corporate Office, Main Road, Gulbarga - 585 102 ... Respondent (By Sri A Shankar

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

The appeals are dismissed

Bench: P.SAM KOSHY,SUDDALA CHALAPATHI RAO

7. It was further contended that this was the position in law prior to 01.04.2007. Since this was causing hardship, various ITA Nos. 402/2005 & Others Page No.12 of 44 representations were received by the Central Board of Direct Taxes to treat the tax credit under section 115JAA (MAT credit) as advance tax. Subsequently, the amendment to Explanation 1 after section

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

In the result, the appeal is disposed of

7. It is contended that hospitals do not carry on any profession but are engaged in business activity. Therefore, they would be outside the definition of Explanation (a) to Section 194J(3) of the Act. It is further submitted that only an individual can carry on a medical profession and a hospital cannot carry on profession. In this connection

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

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-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

7. The Assessing Officer added the unsecured loan received by the assessee from Smt. Shanti Chowdary and the unexplained gift received by the assessee from his father-in-law, as unexplained cash credit under 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

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

Appeal stands dismissed

Bench: P.SAM KOSHY,NARSING RAO NANDIKONDA

TDS) also ultimately held that there were specific defects. However, the ITAT found that merely because of a change of opinion, the order passed by the AO cannot be disturbed under Section 263 of the Act of 1961. It is only when the assessment order has been passed without making inquiry and verification from reasonable and prudent officer that

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

7 of 17 commercial world and even in civil suits while computing interest under Section 34 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 the principal amount and the interest due are added and treated as the primary amount in the decree drawn. Interest becomes due and payable on this primary amount. In other words, interest stands capitalised. We further note

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

7. Therefore, insofar as proposed question no. (ii) is concerned, in our view, that question does not arise for consideration. 8. As regards the proposed question no.(i), since Ms Sujatha Shirolkar, Advocate seeks accommodation, list the appeal on 07.12.2023”. 2.2 ITA No. 157/2023 order dated 16.03.2023 “1. This appeal concerns Assessment Year (AY) 2012-13. 2. This appeal seeks

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

Bench: GODA RAGHURAM,M.S.RAMACHANDRA RAO

2 accordingly deducted TDS of `1,23,673/- and submitted with the Income Tax Department. 3. Learned counsel for the respondent would submit that the petitioner company has wrongly deducted TDS on the amount of interest paid to the claimants as the amount payable towards interest is to be spread over in number of years for which such interest