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

The appeals are dismissed

Bench: P.SAM KOSHY,SUDDALA CHALAPATHI RAO

24. He submitted further that the nature of interest under sections 234A, 234B and 234C was compensatory. Reliance was placed by him on the decision of this court in Dr Prannoy Roy (supra) wherein it had been held that interest under section 234A was compensatory in nature. He submitted that the ratio of the decision is fully applicable to sections

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

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

24 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.V.BHATTI & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BECHU KURIAN THOMAS TUESDAY, THE 13TH DAY OF JULY 2021 / 22ND ASHADHA, 1943 WA NO. 444 OF 2015 AGAINST THE JUDGMENT IN WPC 353/2015 OF HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM APPELLANT/PETITIONER: THE SISTER SUPERIOR, VIMALA MARY CONVENT MSMI CONGREGATION, VALAVOOR

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

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

24 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.V.BHATTI & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BECHU KURIAN THOMAS TUESDAY, THE 13TH DAY OF JULY 2021 / 22ND ASHADHA, 1943 WA NO. 444 OF 2015 AGAINST THE JUDGMENT IN WPC 353/2015 OF HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM APPELLANT/PETITIONER: THE SISTER SUPERIOR, VIMALA MARY CONVENT MSMI CONGREGATION, VALAVOOR

Commissioner of Income Tax-II vs. Smt G Sailaja

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

24 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.V.BHATTI & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BECHU KURIAN THOMAS TUESDAY, THE 13TH DAY OF JULY 2021 / 22ND ASHADHA, 1943 WA NO. 444 OF 2015 AGAINST THE JUDGMENT IN WPC 353/2015 OF HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM APPELLANT/PETITIONER: THE SISTER SUPERIOR, VIMALA MARY CONVENT MSMI CONGREGATION, VALAVOOR

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

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

24 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.V.BHATTI & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BECHU KURIAN THOMAS TUESDAY, THE 13TH DAY OF JULY 2021 / 22ND ASHADHA, 1943 WA NO. 444 OF 2015 AGAINST THE JUDGMENT IN WPC 353/2015 OF HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM APPELLANT/PETITIONER: THE SISTER SUPERIOR, VIMALA MARY CONVENT MSMI CONGREGATION, VALAVOOR

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

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

24 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.V.BHATTI & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BECHU KURIAN THOMAS TUESDAY, THE 13TH DAY OF JULY 2021 / 22ND ASHADHA, 1943 WA NO. 444 OF 2015 AGAINST THE JUDGMENT IN WPC 353/2015 OF HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM APPELLANT/PETITIONER: THE SISTER SUPERIOR, VIMALA MARY CONVENT MSMI CONGREGATION, VALAVOOR

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

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

24 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.V.BHATTI & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BECHU KURIAN THOMAS TUESDAY, THE 13TH DAY OF JULY 2021 / 22ND ASHADHA, 1943 WA NO. 444 OF 2015 AGAINST THE JUDGMENT IN WPC 353/2015 OF HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM APPELLANT/PETITIONER: THE SISTER SUPERIOR, VIMALA MARY CONVENT MSMI CONGREGATION, VALAVOOR

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

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

TDS provisions relate to and prescribe one of the modes of collection of tax. It is with this objective that duties or “obligations” are imposed on the payer. This does not override or disturb the primary “obligation” imposed by the charging section read with the computation provisions. Further, we are specifically concerned with Section

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

Bench: N.TUKARAMJI,UJJAL BHUYAN

Section 131(1)(b) of the Act which was adverse to the appellant. Therefore, the appellant should have been afforded an opportunity to rebut the same by cross-examining the deponent for extracting the truth. Failure to provide such an opportunity amounted to violation of the principles of natural justice which vitiated the order of the Tribunal

PENDURTHI CHANDRASEKHAR vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,

The appeal is allowed and all the four substantial

TDS on entire amount in utter disregard to the provisions of Sec.145 of the Act and method of accounting followed by the assessee? 3. Heard Mr. K. Vasantha Kumar, learned counsel for the appellant and Smt. M. Kiranmayee, learned senior standing counsel for the Department. 4. A search and seizure operation under Section 132 of the Income

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

The Commissioner of Income Tax-I, vs. M/s. Prasad Film Laboratories Ltd.,

Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 challenges the award dated 19th December, 2011 passed by the Learned Sole Arbitrator. 2. The Petitioner – Food Corporation of India (hereinafter, ‘FCI’) and M/s Shankar Rice and General Mills (hereinafter ‘miller’) had entered into two milling agreements dated 8th November, 1994 and 15th November, 1994. Under the said contracts, the miller

Commissioner of Income Tax-I vs. M/s. Cargo Handling Pvt. Workers Pool

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

TDS certificate being fake and still 9 CRR No. 18/2011 c/w CRR No. 17/2011 CRR No. 19/2011 CRR No. 20/2011 proceeding ahead to process the refund claim which was not sanctioned by him but was sanctioned by some other officer who was not named as an accused in the case and, therefore, even the said allegation against the respondent-Rajesh

Commissioner of Income Tax [TDS] vs. M/s Madhucon sino Hydro.,

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

TDS certificate purported to be issued by L.I.C. and other documents before the Income Tax Department, Dhanbad by putting signature on the verification portion of the said return and thereby claimed refund of Rs.40,437/- on account of excess deduction of tax at source and repayment of housing loan and others. It was alleged that in course of inquiry from