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

The Appeal is dismissed

Bench: GODA RAGHURAM,M.S.RAMACHANDRA RAO

TDS, that taxes due have been paid by the assessee. It further says that this will not alter the liability to charge interest under Section 201(1A) of the Act till the date of payment of taxes by the assessee or the liability for penalty under Section 271C of the Act. In the case between Commissioner of Income

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

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

Appeal stands dismissed

Bench: P.SAM KOSHY,NARSING RAO NANDIKONDA

3) [ITA-13/2025] Section 201(1) and under Section 201(1A) of Rs.2,753/- towards interest. 5. Learned CIT (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

3. Heard Sri A Shankar, learned Senior Counsel for the appellant - assessee and learned counsel Sri E.I.Sanmathi, learned counsel for the respondent – revenue. Perused the appeal papers. 4. Learned Senior Counsel for the appellant would submit that the appeal relates to the financial years 2006-07, 2007-08 and 2008-09. The assessee company is engaged in the business

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

3. The Assessee filed its return of income on 31.10.2006 admitting a total income of Rs.nil. The return of Income was processed under Section 143(1) by the Income Tax Officer, Mandya. The case was selected for scrutiny in accordance with the scrutiny guidelines issued by the Central Board of Direct Taxes. Notice under Section 143(2) was issued

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

3. The Assessee states that the Gopal Das Bhawan Project was completed in the Financial Year („FY‟) 1994-95 relevant to Assessment Year („AY‟) 1995-96. Some of the allottees of the flats refused to take them for completion since the New Delhi Municipal Council („NDMC‟) changed the ITA 210/2003 & connected matters Page 6 of 36 usage of the Lower

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

Appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

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

3. The Assessee states that the Gopal Das Bhawan Project was completed in the Financial Year („FY‟) 1994-95 relevant to Assessment Year („AY‟) 1995-96. Some of the allottees of the flats refused to take them for completion since the New Delhi Municipal Council („NDMC‟) changed the ITA 210/2003 & connected matters Page 6 of 36 usage of the Lower

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

3. The substantial questions of law that arise for consideration in all these appeals is whether, the amendment to Section 40(a)(ia) by the Finance Act, 2010, which is given effect from 01.04.2010 is retrospective in nature. 4. Prior to the amendment, the said provision read as under:- Section 40(a)(ia) : any interest, commission or brokerage, rent, royalty

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

The appeals are disposed of accordingly

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

Section 201 (1-A) of the Act for the period between the date of default in deduction of TDS and the date on which the recipient actually paid income tax on the amount for which there has been a short fall in such deduction. 16) Therefore, before any liability is imposed on the appellant for payment

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

201(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘IT Act’). The AO had levied a penalty of Rs.6,52,675/- on the ground that the alleged short deduction of TDS was in contravention of Section 192 of the IT Act. 5. While admitting the appeal on 21st September 2007, this Court framed the following substantial questions of law for consideration

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

3 under Section 194C of the Act at the rate of 2%. The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, TDS Circle, Patna, by his order dated 19.01.2011 under Section 201

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

3 under Section 194C of the Act at the rate of 2%. The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, TDS Circle, Patna, by his order dated 19.01.2011 under Section 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

3. The background facts are that the Respondent-Assessee was incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956. It has a manufacturing unit at Greater Noida (Uttar Pradesh). It is an admitted position that M/s. Denso ITA 371/2005 & connected matters Page 5 of 15 Corporation, Japan had, during the period under consideration, deputed technicians to work for the Assessee at its manufacturing

Commissioner of Income Tax, vs. Agricultural Market Committee,

The appeals are dismissed

Bench: GODA RAGHURAM,M.S.RAMACHANDRA RAO

3. Briefly stated the facts are: - that the assessee is the limited Company engaged in the business of buying and selling of electricity. The assessee purchases electricity from the generators of electricity. The power from the generation point to the consumers is transmitted through the transmission network of Karnataka Power Transmission 15 Corporation Limited (for short ‘KPTCL’). The assessee

Commissioner of Income Tax, vs. Agricultural Market committee,

The appeals are dismissed

Bench: V.V.S.RAO,SANJAY KUMAR

201 (1A) of the Act?” 3. Counsel for the appellant relied on the provisions of Section 194C and 194J which reads as under :- 194C. (1) Any person responsible for paying any sum to any resident (hereafter in this section referred to as the contractor85) for carrying out any work85 (including supply of labour for carrying out any work) in pursuance

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

Late Smt. Hoorjahan Begum vs. Tghe Income Tax Officer

Appeal stands disposed off

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,S.RAVI KUMAR

201(1-A) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. Therefore, in case the income of the victim is only from “salary”, the presumption would be that the employer under Section 192(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 has deducted the tax at source from the employee's salary. In case if an objection is raised by any party

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