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.CHENNAKESAVA VIJAYAWADA vs. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX VIJAYAWAD

The Appeal is dismissed

Bench: GODA RAGHURAM,M.S.RAMACHANDRA RAO

2 per cent under Section 194C of the Act. The Assessing Officer therefore levied interest under Section 201(1A) of the Act on the amount of tax alleged to be short deducted. This decision also notes a circular issued by the CBDT to put an end to the controversy and the circular declaring that no payment visualized under Section 201

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

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

The appeal is allowed;

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,KONGARA VIJAYA LAKSHMI

2) Whether the Tribunal was right in holding that payment made by the Appellant are fees for - 3 - NC: 2024:KHC:32520-DB ITA No. 84 of 2017 technical services and hence the Appellant should have deducted tax at source under section 195 of the Act, even though nothing has been made available to the Appellant from the consultant

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

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

Appeal stands dismissed

Bench: P.SAM KOSHY,NARSING RAO NANDIKONDA

2 of 3) [ITA-13/2025] of TDS under the provisions of the Act which allow certain exemptions to charitable trusts under Section 12A. The CIT (TDS), by order dated 22.03.2024, reached to the conclusion that the AO had not properly conducted the inquiry and remanded the matter to the AO for conducting proper inquiry into all the aspects, which

The Commissioner of Income Tax-I, Hyderabad. vs. Biological - E Ltd.,

In the result, the appeal is partly

TDS CIRCLE- 18(2), BANGALORE. THIS ITA COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING, THIS DAY, ALOK ARADHE J., DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: JUDGMENT This appeal under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the Act for short) has been preferred by the revenue. The subject matter of the appeal pertains to the Assessment year

Commissioner of Income Tax II vs. Sri G.K.Kabra,

In the result, the appeal is partly

TDS CIRCLE- 18(2), BANGALORE. THIS ITA COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING, THIS DAY, ALOK ARADHE J., DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: JUDGMENT This appeal under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the Act for short) has been preferred by the revenue. The subject matter of the appeal pertains to the Assessment year

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

201 (1A) of the Act was also liable to be paid. 81. While the AO levied interest, the CIT (A) following the order in AY 1995-96 where it held that the Assessee was not liable to deduct TDS in respect of rent received on behalf of others, cancelled the interest. The ITAT agreed with the CIT (A). 82. Under

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

Appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

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

201 (1A) of the Act was also liable to be paid. 81. While the AO levied interest, the CIT (A) following the order in AY 1995-96 where it held that the Assessee was not liable to deduct TDS in respect of rent received on behalf of others, cancelled the interest. The ITAT agreed with the CIT (A). 82. Under

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

2 of 4 Bhubaneswar [CIT (A)] dismissing the Assessee’s appeal thereby affirming the penalty order passed by the Assessing Officer (AO). 4. The Appellant is the Managing Director of Bharat Motors Ltd. and has been deemed to be an Assessee-in-default for non- deduction of tax deducted source (TDS) in terms of Section 201

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

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

The Commissioner of Income Tax, vs. N. Annapurna

The appeals are dismissed with no order as to costs

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

2. While admitting these appeals on 23rd August, 2006 this Court framed the following question of law for consideration: “Whether the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal was correct in law in holding that the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) had in fact reviewed its earlier order dated 29th January 2003 while exercising jurisdiction under Section 154 of the Income

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

2 THIS ITA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 260A OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 PRAYING TO ALLOW THE APPEAL AND SET ASIDE THE ORDERS PASSED BY THE ITAT, BANGALORE IN ITA NO.535/Bang/2011 DATED 16/03/2012 AND CONFIRM THE ORDER OF THE APPELLATE COMMISSIONER CONFIRMING THE ORDER PASSED BY THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, TDS, WARD-16(1), BANGALORE, ETC., THIS ITA COMING

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

In the result the appeal is dismissed

Bench: GODA RAGHURAM,N.RAVI SHANKAR

2 THIS ITA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 260A OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 PRAYING TO ALLOW THE APPEAL AND SET ASIDE THE ORDERS PASSED BY THE ITAT, BANGALORE IN ITA NO.545/Bang/2010 DATED 16/03/2012 CONFIRMING THE ORDER OF THE APPELLATE COMMISSIONER AND CONFIRM THE ORDER PASSED BY THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, TDS, WARD-16(1), BANGALORE, ETC., THIS ITA COMING

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-TDS vs. M/S.IDEA CELLULAR LTD

Appeals are dismissed as withdrawn

Bench: SUJOY PAUL,NAMAVARAPU RAJESHWAR RAO

TDS, Hyderabad ...AppellanU Appellant AND IVI/s. ldea Ce:llular Ltd., Hyderabad H.No.5-9-62, KLK Estates, Fateh [vlaidan Road, ...RespondenU Respondent s. Counsel for the Appellant (in all ITTA's) : Sri A. Rama Krishna Reddy, Junior SC representing Sri A. Radha Krishna, Senior SC for lT Department Counsel for the Respondent (in all ITTA's) : Sri T. Bala Mohan