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.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 195(1

The Commissioner of Income Tax, vs. N. Annapurna

The appeals are dismissed with no order as to costs

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

1)(a) makes it clear that the penalty leviable shall be equal to the amount of tax which such person failed to deduct. We cannot hold this provision to be mandatory or compensatory or automatic because under Section 273B Parliament has enacted that penalty shall not be imposed in cases falling thereunder. Section 271C falls in the category of such

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

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

iii) Whether the principle of diversion of income by overriding title apply to the salary received by nuns and priests? (iv) Whether the circulars of 1944 and 1977 are valid? If yes, do they exclude TDS from the salaries of nuns or priests? (v) Whether deduction of tax at source violates Article 25 of the Constitution of India? (vi) Whether

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

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

iii) Whether the principle of diversion of income by overriding title apply to the salary received by nuns and priests? (iv) Whether the circulars of 1944 and 1977 are valid? If yes, do they exclude TDS from the salaries of nuns or priests? (v) Whether deduction of tax at source violates Article 25 of the Constitution of India? (vi) Whether

Commissioner of Income Tax-II vs. Smt G Sailaja

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

iii) Whether the principle of diversion of income by overriding title apply to the salary received by nuns and priests? (iv) Whether the circulars of 1944 and 1977 are valid? If yes, do they exclude TDS from the salaries of nuns or priests? (v) Whether deduction of tax at source violates Article 25 of the Constitution of India? (vi) Whether

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

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

iii) Whether the principle of diversion of income by overriding title apply to the salary received by nuns and priests? (iv) Whether the circulars of 1944 and 1977 are valid? If yes, do they exclude TDS from the salaries of nuns or priests? (v) Whether deduction of tax at source violates Article 25 of the Constitution of India? (vi) Whether

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

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

iii) Whether the principle of diversion of income by overriding title apply to the salary received by nuns and priests? (iv) Whether the circulars of 1944 and 1977 are valid? If yes, do they exclude TDS from the salaries of nuns or priests? (v) Whether deduction of tax at source violates Article 25 of the Constitution of India? (vi) Whether

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

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

iii) Whether the principle of diversion of income by overriding title apply to the salary received by nuns and priests? (iv) Whether the circulars of 1944 and 1977 are valid? If yes, do they exclude TDS from the salaries of nuns or priests? (v) Whether deduction of tax at source violates Article 25 of the Constitution of India? (vi) Whether

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

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

Late Smt. Hoorjahan Begum vs. Tghe Income Tax Officer

Appeal stands disposed off

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,S.RAVI KUMAR

iii) the multiplier to be applied with reference to the age of the deceased. If these determinants are standardized, there will be uniformity and consistency in these decisions. There Digitally Signed By:RITU DHIRANIA Signing Date:20.10.2022 17:44:01 Signature Not Verified NEUTRAL CITATION NO: 2022/DHC/004332 MAC.APP. 448/2015 Page 6 of 19 will be lesser need for detailed evidence

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