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

23 of 36 is that the Revenue has accepted the finding of the ITAT as affirmed by this Court. 48. For AY 1996-97, the ITAT decided the issue following its decision for AY 1997-98 which, as already noticed, attained finality. However, the Revenue chose to challenge the ITAT‟s finding on the issue

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

Appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

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

23 of 36 is that the Revenue has accepted the finding of the ITAT as affirmed by this Court. 48. For AY 1996-97, the ITAT decided the issue following its decision for AY 1997-98 which, as already noticed, attained finality. However, the Revenue chose to challenge the ITAT‟s finding on the issue

Commissioner of Income Tax [TDS] vs. Sri VAraha Laxmi Nrusimha Swamy DEvastanam

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

23. Since we are dealing with the question of deduction of tax at source from salaries, it is advantageous to extract section 192(1) of the Act, which is as follows:- “192. Salary (1) Any person responsible for paying any income chargeable under the head "Salaries" shall, at the time of payment, deduct income-tax on the amount payable

The Commissioner of Income Tax (Central) vs. Swapna Lahari Pvt Ltd.,

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

23. Since we are dealing with the question of deduction of tax at source from salaries, it is advantageous to extract section 192(1) of the Act, which is as follows:- “192. Salary (1) Any person responsible for paying any income chargeable under the head "Salaries" shall, at the time of payment, deduct income-tax on the amount payable

Commissioner of Income Tax-II vs. Smt G Sailaja

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

23. Since we are dealing with the question of deduction of tax at source from salaries, it is advantageous to extract section 192(1) of the Act, which is as follows:- “192. Salary (1) Any person responsible for paying any income chargeable under the head "Salaries" shall, at the time of payment, deduct income-tax on the amount payable

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

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

23. Since we are dealing with the question of deduction of tax at source from salaries, it is advantageous to extract section 192(1) of the Act, which is as follows:- “192. Salary (1) Any person responsible for paying any income chargeable under the head "Salaries" shall, at the time of payment, deduct income-tax on the amount payable

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

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

23. Since we are dealing with the question of deduction of tax at source from salaries, it is advantageous to extract section 192(1) of the Act, which is as follows:- “192. Salary (1) Any person responsible for paying any income chargeable under the head "Salaries" shall, at the time of payment, deduct income-tax on the amount payable

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

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

23. Since we are dealing with the question of deduction of tax at source from salaries, it is advantageous to extract section 192(1) of the Act, which is as follows:- “192. Salary (1) Any person responsible for paying any income chargeable under the head "Salaries" shall, at the time of payment, deduct income-tax on the amount payable

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

In the result, the appeal is disposed of

TDS as prescribed under Section 194J has been upheld by the Bombay as well as Delhi High Court except to the extent of penalty as prescribed under Section 271C. It is also argued that the person referred to in Section 194J and Explanation (a) appended to Section 194J(1) need not himself / herself is to be a Doctor and therefore

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

Late Smt. Hoorjahan Begum vs. Tghe Income Tax Officer

Appeal stands disposed off

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,S.RAVI KUMAR

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 objector is required to prove by producing evidence such as LPC to suggest that the employer failed to deduct the TDS from the salary of the employee. However, there

PENDURTHI CHANDRASEKHAR vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,

The appeal is allowed and all the four substantial

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 Tax (Appeals) granted relief in so far as the unsecured loan received by the assessee from Smt. Shanti Chowdary, who was none else than the wife of the assessee. This was on the basis

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-I, vs. AYYAPPA INFRA PROJECTS PVT LTD.,

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

section 143(3) on 17.12.2010 raising a demand of Rs.5,15,095/-. A sum of Rs.23,48,979/- for the CAD documentation and other charges, the petitioner was required to explain why the expense should not be disallowed as the petitioner did not deduct TDS on the said amount. The assessing authority thereafter added this amount of Rs. 23

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

23. As observed by the House of Lords in Owen v. Pook (1969) 74 ITR 147 (HL), 'perquisite' has a known normal meaning, namely, a personal advantage. The word would not apply to a mere reimbursement of a necessary disbursement. In Rendell v. Went, (1964) 2 All ER 464 (HL), the House held that any benefit or advantage, having

The Commissioner of Income Tax V vs. M/s. S.L. Enterprises,

Bench: The Hon'Ble Mr. Justice Ravi Malimath

TDS), CIRCLE – 18(1), BENGALURU. ... RESPONDENT (BY SRI K.V.ARAVIND, ADVOCATE) THIS INCOME TAX APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 260A OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 ARISING OUT OF ORDER DATED 20.11.2009 PASSED IN ITA NO.803/BNG/2009, FOR THE ASSSESSMENT YEAR 2005- 2 2006, PRAYING THAT THIS HON’BLE COURT MAY BE PLEASED TO; FORMULATE THE SUBSTANTIAL QUESTIONS OF LAW STATE THEREIN

The Commissioner of Income Tax, vs. N. Annapurna

The appeals are dismissed with no order as to costs

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

TDS. The Assessee stated that it had been advised that salary paid outside India was not liable to tax in India. The Assessee accordingly submitted that it was prevented by reasonable cause for not deducting tax at source on the sum paid outside India. ITA 371/2005 & connected matters Page 6 of 15 6. The Assessing Officer (‘AO’) passed an order

The Commissioner of Income Tax I vs. Mesmer Technologies Ltd

The appeals are allowed in part

Bench: SANJAY KUMAR,M.S.K.JAISWAL

TDS applies only to those sums which are "chargeable to tax" under the Income-tax Act.” 19. The words “such sum” and “income tax on income comprised therein” also finds a place in Section 194C[1]. Adverting to the said provision and referring to Brij Bhushan Parduman Kumar V/s. CIT reported in 1979 [2] SCR 16, in Associated Cement

M/S. SREE TRADING CORPORATION vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 4(1), HYDERABAD

Bench: N.TUKARAMJI,UJJAL BHUYAN

TDS certificate was filed to prima facie show credit of the appellant towards the four transporters. HCJ & NTRJ I.T.T.A.No.205 of 2006 12 18. It is true that in appeal before the first appellate authority, appellant did not raise the ground relating to cross-examination and thus violation of the principles of natural justice. However, the first appellate authority extracted