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

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

26. Section 192 of the Act does not contemplate any exemption from the liability to deduct tax at source on the basis of the nature of calling, profession, or vocation of the person who receives the salary. The statute makes it an obligation upon the person who pays the salary to deduct tax, at the time when payment of salary

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

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

26. Section 192 of the Act does not contemplate any exemption from the liability to deduct tax at source on the basis of the nature of calling, profession, or vocation of the person who receives the salary. The statute makes it an obligation upon the person who pays the salary to deduct tax, at the time when payment of salary

Commissioner of Income Tax-II vs. Smt G Sailaja

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

26. Section 192 of the Act does not contemplate any exemption from the liability to deduct tax at source on the basis of the nature of calling, profession, or vocation of the person who receives the salary. The statute makes it an obligation upon the person who pays the salary to deduct tax, at the time when payment of salary

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

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

26. Section 192 of the Act does not contemplate any exemption from the liability to deduct tax at source on the basis of the nature of calling, profession, or vocation of the person who receives the salary. The statute makes it an obligation upon the person who pays the salary to deduct tax, at the time when payment of salary

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

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

26. Section 192 of the Act does not contemplate any exemption from the liability to deduct tax at source on the basis of the nature of calling, profession, or vocation of the person who receives the salary. The statute makes it an obligation upon the person who pays the salary to deduct tax, at the time when payment of salary

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

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

26. Section 192 of the Act does not contemplate any exemption from the liability to deduct tax at source on the basis of the nature of calling, profession, or vocation of the person who receives the salary. The statute makes it an obligation upon the person who pays the salary to deduct tax, at the time when payment of salary

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

26 of 36 Brokerage and Commission 54. The next major issue concerns the expenditure on brokerage and commission. The issue arose in AY 1995-96 when the Assessee debited Rs.1,45,25,708 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

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

Appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

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

26 of 36 Brokerage and Commission 54. The next major issue concerns the expenditure on brokerage and commission. The issue arose in AY 1995-96 when the Assessee debited Rs.1,45,25,708 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

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

The Commissioner of Income Tax I vs. Mesmer Technologies Ltd

The appeals are allowed in part

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

26,09,86,779/- is inclusive of service charges payable to KIADB. It was submitted that the nature of assessment in the hands of payee is irrelevant. Application and registration under Section 12A of the Act is subject to complying with Sections 11 and 12. The assessee cannot take the contention that the amounts paid to KIADB

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

Section 271C as the Respondent in each case has discharged its burden of showing reasonable cause for failure to deduct tax at source.” The resultant position as far as the order dated 29th January 2003 of the CIT (A) reversing the penalty order of the AO is concerned, it stood affirmed by the ITAT by its order dated 13th

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 44 (a) (d) of Income Tax Act, 8% of the turnover would be treated as income, if the annual turnover is below Rs.60 lakhs. 8) Rs. 1,77,022/- is the TDS for the assessment year 2011-2012. 9) Rs.5,39,685/- is TDS for the assessment year 2012-2013. 10) After the death of the deceased, his family

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-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

The Commissioner of Income Tax- I vs. M/s. Avon Organics Limited

Bench: GODA RAGHURAM,M.S.RAMACHANDRA RAO

26 ITR 151, this distinction was highlighted and elucidated in the following words:- “................That is why it is important to consider ITA 257/2012 Page 6 of 18 whether the expression used in the Indian statute for setting up a business is different from the expression Mr. Justice Rowlatt was considering, viz., "commencing of the business." It seems to us, that