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

The Appeal is dismissed

Bench: GODA RAGHURAM,M.S.RAMACHANDRA RAO

Section 201(1) of the Act should be enforced after the tax deductor has satisfied TAXAP/33/2000 11/27 JUDGMENT the officer-in-charge of TDS

COMMR OF INCOME TAX-II, HYDERABAD vs. M/S JAPSON ESTATES PVT LTD., HYDERABAD

The appeal is allowed;

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,KONGARA VIJAYA LAKSHMI

TDS v. Bharat Hotels Ltd., reported in (2015) 64 taxmann.com 325 (Karnataka) and in the case of The Director of Income Tax International Taxation & Anr., v. The Execution Engineer, M/s. Bangalore Water Supply and Sewerage Board (ITA No.166/2011 c/w ITA No.148/2011, disposed of on 24.8.2020) would state that to pass order under Section 201(1

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

1) of Section 139. This has been given retrospective effect from 1st April 2010. 16.5: Of course, the Legislature has given the effect from a specified date and applied the same to A.Y.2010-11 and subsequent years, this provision being curative in nature, its effect needs to be read retrospectively in operation. Its very purpose would not be sub-served

Commissioner of Income Tax, vs. Agricultural Market Committee,

The appeals are dismissed

Bench: GODA RAGHURAM,M.S.RAMACHANDRA RAO

TDS on the amount paid to the KPTCL towards SLDC charges. The Assessing Officer invoking the provisions of Section 201(1

Commissioner of Income Tax V vs. C Eswar Reddy AND Co.,

The appeals stand dismissed answering all the

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

TDS default for the relevant assessment year to be Rs.1,36,040/- and the Assessing Officer was directed to pass revised order under Section 201 of the Act. Similarly, reckoning the deduction made under Annexure-9 produced in M.A. No. 452 of 2015, the Commissioner restricted the penalty under Section 271C to Rs.74,669/-. Both the orders of the Commissioner

The Commissioner of Income Tax, vs. N. Annapurna

The appeals are dismissed with no order as to costs

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

Section 201 (1) (a) of the Act. The Assessee stated that it had no intention of concealing any income or TDS

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, RAJAHMUNDRY vs. SRI P. VENKATA NANCHARAIAH

The appeal is allowed in the above terms

Bench: C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY,M.S.K.JAISWAL

TDS) in terms of Section 201(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘IT Act’). The AO had levied a penalty

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

Appeal stands dismissed

Bench: P.SAM KOSHY,NARSING RAO NANDIKONDA

1) and under Section 201(1A) of Rs.2,753/- towards interest. 5. Learned CIT (TDS) also ultimately held that there

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

1 (SC) which has been followed in Hero Cycles v. CIT (2015) 379 ITR 347. The ratio of the decision of the Bombay High Court in CIT v. Lokhandwala Constructions Industries Ltd. (2003) 260 ITR 579 (Bom) was rightly relied upon by the ITAT to allow the plea of the Assessee and treat the said interest payments as revenue expenditure

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-III vs. M/S. SOMA ENTERPRISES LTD

The appeal is disposed off accordingly

Bench: The Hon'Ble Mr. Justice Ravi Malimath

TDS cannot be disallowed u/s. 40(a)(ia) of the Act as the provisions of Section 11 of the Act was applicable to the assessee? ii. Whether the Tribunal was correct in holding that professional fee of Rs.45,69,998/- paid to Apollo Hospital for managing and running BGS Medical Foundation would not attract Section 194J

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

Appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

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

1 (SC) which has been followed in Hero Cycles v. CIT (2015) 379 ITR 347. The ratio of the decision of the Bombay High Court in CIT v. Lokhandwala Constructions Industries Ltd. (2003) 260 ITR 579 (Bom) was rightly relied upon by the ITAT to allow the plea of the Assessee and treat the said interest payments as revenue expenditure

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

TDS Circle, Patna, by his order dated 19.01.2011 under Section 201(1)/201(1A) of the Act held that the deduction

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

TDS Circle, Patna, by his order dated 19.01.2011 under Section 201(1)/201(1A) of the Act held that the deduction

Late Smt. Hoorjahan Begum vs. Tghe Income Tax Officer

Appeal stands disposed off

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,S.RAVI KUMAR

TDS is prescribed under Section 201(1-A) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. Therefore, in case the income of the victim

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

201(SC). 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

The Commissioner of Income Tax-III vs. Smt.D.K.Aruna

The appeals are disposed of accordingly

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

TDS. However, it was held that it would be open to the revenue to seek payment of interest under Section 201 (1

The Commissioner of Income Tax-I vs. M/s DST Global Solutions India [p] Ltd.,

In the result the appeal is dismissed

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

TDS, WARD-16(1), BANGALORE, ETC., THIS ITA COMING ON FOR HEARING, THIS DAY ALOK ARADE J., DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:- JUDGMENT This appeal under Section 260-A of the Income Tax Act has been filed by the revenue which was admitted by a Bench of this Court vide order dated 18.09.2012 by framing the following the substantial questions

The Commissioner of Income Tax - III vs. Smt. Phoola Rani Gupta

In the result the appeal is dismissed

Bench: GODA RAGHURAM,N.RAVI SHANKAR

TDS, WARD-16(1), BANGALORE, ETC., THIS ITA COMING ON FOR HEARING, THIS DAY ALOK ARADE J., DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:- JUDGMENT This appeal under Section 260-A of the Income Tax Act has been filed by the revenue which was admitted by a Bench of this Court vide order dated 18.9.2012 by framing the following the substantial questions