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

25 taxmann.com 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

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

25,708 to the P&L account as brokerage and commission towards service rendered by brokers for sale of flats and leasing out commercial spaces/flats. 55. According to the AO, the amount so paid appeared to be extraordinary. The Assessee‟s plea was that the brokers were demanding higher amounts as they were not being compensated with income which

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

Appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

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

25,708 to the P&L account as brokerage and commission towards service rendered by brokers for sale of flats and leasing out commercial spaces/flats. 55. According to the AO, the amount so paid appeared to be extraordinary. The Assessee‟s plea was that the brokers were demanding higher amounts as they were not being compensated with income which

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

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

25. As mentioned by us earlier, when the incidence of tax under the Act falls on every person based upon his income, the deduction of tax at source under section 192 of the Act must be effected from every person who receives any income as salary, if they fall within the purview of chargeability. 26. Section

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

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

25. As mentioned by us earlier, when the incidence of tax under the Act falls on every person based upon his income, the deduction of tax at source under section 192 of the Act must be effected from every person who receives any income as salary, if they fall within the purview of chargeability. 26. Section

Commissioner of Income Tax-II vs. Smt G Sailaja

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

25. As mentioned by us earlier, when the incidence of tax under the Act falls on every person based upon his income, the deduction of tax at source under section 192 of the Act must be effected from every person who receives any income as salary, if they fall within the purview of chargeability. 26. Section

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

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

25. As mentioned by us earlier, when the incidence of tax under the Act falls on every person based upon his income, the deduction of tax at source under section 192 of the Act must be effected from every person who receives any income as salary, if they fall within the purview of chargeability. 26. Section

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

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

25. As mentioned by us earlier, when the incidence of tax under the Act falls on every person based upon his income, the deduction of tax at source under section 192 of the Act must be effected from every person who receives any income as salary, if they fall within the purview of chargeability. 26. Section

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

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

25. As mentioned by us earlier, when the incidence of tax under the Act falls on every person based upon his income, the deduction of tax at source under section 192 of the Act must be effected from every person who receives any income as salary, if they fall within the purview of chargeability. 26. Section

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

The Commissioner of Income Tax, vs. N. Annapurna

The appeals are dismissed with no order as to costs

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

25. The Court fails to understand how, after the Supreme Court has by its judgment dated 25th March 2009 categorically held on facts that the Respondent-Assessee had discharged the burden of showing reasonable cause for the failure to deduct TDS, this Court can possibly pass an order in the present appeals which might have the effect of contradicting

M/s Modi Builders AND Realtors (P) Ltd., vs. Asst. Commissioner of Income tax,

The appeals are disposed of

Bench: P.SAM KOSHY,NARSING RAO NANDIKONDA

25,790/- from 1st June, 1999 upto the date of refund. Interest on the said amounts is payable under Section 244A of the Act. (d) The contention of the Revenue is that this would amount to payment of interest on interest and this is forbidden and should not be paid. ASSESSMENT YEAR 1990-91 (a) In this year also

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

25 and 29 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + ITA 323/2012 CIT ..... Appellant Through: Ms. Rashmi Chopra, Advocate versus TELSUO MITERA ..... Respondent Through: None. + ITA 325/2012 CIT ..... Appellant Through: Ms. Rashmi Chopra, Advocate versus ISAO SAKAI ..... Respondent Through: None + ITA 326/2012 CIT ..... Appellant Through: Ms. Rashmi Chopra, Advocate versus YOSHIMI KAMANO ..... Respondent Through: None + ITA 343/2012

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

The Commissioner of Income Tax, vs. Shri Chidipotu Sridhar,

In the result, the appeal is allowed, as follows;

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,SURESH KUMAR KAIT

Section 173 of M.V. Act, aggrieved by the Decree and Judgment dated 09.11.2015 in MVOP No.51/2013 on the file of the Court of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal cum District Judge, Rajahmundry, East Godavari District. Between: 1. Rudraraju Rukmini, W/o.late Sri Venkatalakshmi Narasimha Raju, Hindu, Occ: Housewife, R/o.Vuyyurivari Meraka, Near Antarvedipalem, Sakhinetipalli - 533 251, East Godavari District. 2. Pericherla Lakshmi

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