DIRECTOR OF INCOMD TAX [INTERNATIONAL TAXATION] HYDERABAD vs. M/S M W ZANDER [S] PTE LIMITED-INDIA BR, HYDERABAD

Appeals are dismissed

Bench: P.SAM KOSHY,SUDDALA CHALAPATHI RAO

TDS) CIRCLE-16(2) NO.59, HMT BHAVAN, 4TH FLOOR BELLARY ROAD, GANGANAGAR BANGALORE – 560 032. ... APPELLANTS (BY SRI.DILIP, ADV. AND SRI.K.V. ARAVIND, ADV.) AND: THE KARNATAKA STATE APEX CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD., VYALIKAVAL BRANCH BANGALORE. ... RESPONDENT 2 THIS ITA FILED UNDER SECTION 260

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-II, HYDERABAD vs. M/S. PATNI TELECOM SOLUTIONS PVT. LTD.,

Appeals are dismissed

Bench: P.SAM KOSHY,SUDDALA CHALAPATHI RAO

TDS) CIRCLE-16(2) NO.59, HMT BHAVAN, 4TH FLOOR BELLARY ROAD, GANGANAGAR BANGALORE – 560 032. ... APPELLANTS (BY SRI.DILIP, ADV. AND SRI.K.V. ARAVIND, ADV.) AND: THE KARNATAKA STATE APEX CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD., ASHOKA PILLAR BRANCH BANGALORE. ... RESPONDENT 2 THIS ITA FILED UNDER SECTION 260

Commissioner of Income Tax-(TDS), vs. M/s.Neeladri Chit Funds Private Ltd.,

Appeals are dismissed

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

TDS) CIRCLE-16(2) NO.59, HMT BHAVAN, 4TH FLOOR BELLARY ROAD, GANGANAGAR BANGALORE – 560 032. ... APPELLANTS (BY SRI.DILIP, ADV. AND SRI.K.V. ARAVIND, ADV.) AND: THE KARNATAKA STATE APEX CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD., GANDHINAGAR BRANCH BANGALORE. ... RESPONDENT 2 THIS ITA FILED UNDER SECTION 260

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

Sections 36 (1) (iii) of the Act are met, deduction of interest cannot be denied merely because the Assessee was a cash rich company having enough resources of its own. 68. It is pointed out that in the earlier years Gopal Das Bhawan was still under construction and the interest was capitalised only up to the stage of completion

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

The appeals are dismissed

Bench: P.SAM KOSHY,SUDDALA CHALAPATHI RAO

TDS 4,26,357 4,26,357 Less Advance Tax -- -- 24,19,743 18,71,668 Add: Interest u/s 234B 2,31,376 1,64,666 Add: Interest u/s 234C 1,52,748 1,18,149 Tax + interest payable 28,03,867 21,54,483 Less: MAT credit 5,48,075 -- Total Tax + interest liability

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

Appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

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

Sections 36 (1) (iii) of the Act are met, deduction of interest cannot be denied merely because the Assessee was a cash rich company having enough resources of its own. 68. It is pointed out that in the earlier years Gopal Das Bhawan was still under construction and the interest was capitalised only up to the stage of completion

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

In the result, the appeal is disposed of

TDS), 4TH FLOOR, NO.59, HMT BHAVAN BELLARY ROAD, BANGALORE-560032. ... RESPONDENTS (BY Mr. K.V. ARAVIND, ADV.) - - - THIS ITA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 260

The Commissioner of Income Tax I vs. Mesmer Technologies Ltd

The appeals are allowed in part

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

260-A OF INCOME TAX ACT 1961, ARISING OUT OF ORDER DATED 05.08.2016 PASSED IN ITA NO.873/BANG/2015, FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2012-2013 PRAYING TO A) TO FORMULATE THE SUBSTANTIAL QUESTIONS OF LAW AS STATED ABOVE AND ANSWER THE SAME IN FAVOUR OF THE APPELLANT. B) TO ALLOW THE APPEAL AND SET ASIDE THE FINDINGS TO THE EXTENT AGAINST

Commissioner of Income Tax, vs. Agricultural Market Committee,

The appeals are dismissed

Bench: GODA RAGHURAM,M.S.RAMACHANDRA RAO

TDS on the amount paid to the KPTCL towards SLDC charges. The Assessing Officer invoking the provisions of Section 201(1) of the Act and Section 201(1A) of the Act, treated the assessee as an assessee in default for not deducting the tax at source on the payments made to the KPTCL. The assessing Officer held that the transaction

The Principal Commissioner of Income Tax vs. M/s.Midwest Granites Private Limited

Appeal stands dismissed accordingly

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,KONGARA VIJAYA LAKSHMI

260-A OF INCOME TAX ACT 1961, ARISING OUT OF ORDER DATED 17.01.2018 PASSED IN ITA NO.206/Pan./2016, FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2012-13. THIS INCOME TAX APPEAL COMING ON FOR HEARING, THIS DAY, S.SUJATHA J., DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: JUDGMENT This appeal is filed by the revenue/appellants under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [‘Act’ for short] assailing

Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax-2, vs. M/s Trinity Advanced Software Labs Private Limited,

In the result, we do not find any merit in the appeal

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

Section 260-A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’, for short) has been filed by the revenue. The subject matter of the appeal pertains to the Assessment Year 2006-07. The appeal was admitted by a Bench of this Court on the following substantial questions of law: "a) Whether the Tribunal was correct

Commissioner of Income Tax-III vs. Sigma Constructions

In the result, the appeal is dismissed

Section 260-A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’, for short) has been preferred by the revenue. The subject matter of the appeal pertains to the Assessment Year 2003-04. The appeal was admitted by a Bench of this 3 Court vide order dated 21.09.2015 to consider the following substantial questions

The Commissioner of Income Tax IV vs. M/s. Nagarjuna Fertilizers and Chemicals Limited,

In the result, the appeal fails and is hereby

TDS CIRCLE-18(2) BANGALORE. ... RESPONDENT (BY Mr. K.V. ARAVIND, ADV.) - - - THIS ITA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 260-A OF I.T. ACT, 1961 ARISING

PENDURTHI CHANDRASEKHAR vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,

The appeal is allowed and all the four substantial

260 A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, challenging an order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal. The assessment year to which the dispute on hand relates is 2007-08. 2. Though the appellant initially raised about six questions of law, the assessee came up with a memo seeking to reframe the substantial questions of law as follows: 1) Whether

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-III vs. M/S. SOMA ENTERPRISES LTD

The appeal is disposed off accordingly

Bench: The Hon'Ble Mr. Justice Ravi Malimath

260-A OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961, PRAYING TO (1) FORMULATE THE SUBSTANTIAL QUESTIONS OF LAW STATED THEREIN; (2) ALLOW THE APPEAL AND SET ASIDE THE ORDER PASSED BY THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, BENGALURU IN INCOME TAX APPEAL NO.775/BANG/2009 DATED 29.01.2010 AND CONFIRM THE ORDER PASSED BY THE ADDITIONAL COMMISSINER OF INCOME TAX, RANGE- 2, MYSORE

IDEA CELLURAL LTD., vs. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (TDS)

Bench: T.VINOD KUMAR,M.S.RAMACHANDRA RAO

Section 260-A of the lncome Tax Act -1961 against the order dated 23.05.2014 in l.T.A.No.10B7lHydl2011 on the file of the lncome Tax Appellate Tribunal, Hyderabad Bench 'A', Hyderabad the Assessment Year 2008- 2009, preferred against the order dated 25.03.2011 in Appeal No.lTA No.0253/ClT [A]- ll/09-10, on the file of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-ll, Hyderabad preferred

PRL COMMISSOER OF INCOME TAX vs. SRISURAM VENKATESWARA REDDY

In the result, appeal filed by the revenue fails and is

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,KONGARA VIJAYA LAKSHMI

260-A OF INCOME TAX ACT 1961, ARISING OUT OF ORDER DATED 19.01.2018 PASSED IN ITA NO.753/BANG/2011, FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2008-2009, VIDE ANNEXURE-C, PRAYING TO: I. FORMULATE THE SUBSTANTIAL QUESTIONS OF LAW STATED ABOVE. II. ALLOW THE APPEAL AND SET ASIDE THE ORDERS PASSED BY THE INCOME-TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, BENGALURU IN ITA NO. 753/BANG/2011 DATED

Commissioner of Income Tax vs. M/s. Southern Packaging

Bench: The Hon'Ble Mr. Justice Ravi Malimath

260-A OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961, PRAYING TO DECIDE THE FOREGOING QUESTIONS OF LAW AND/OR SUCH OTHER QUESTIONS OF LAW AS MAY BE FORMULATED BY THE HON’BLE COURT AS DEEMED FIT AND TO MODIFY THE APPELLATE ORDER DATED 16-4-2010 PASSED BY THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, ‘A’ BENCH, BANGALORE, IN APPEAL PROCEEDINGS IN I.T.A.NO.16/BANG/2008