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

Appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

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

27 of 36 not frame any question on this issue following its earlier order dated 8th January 2004 in ITA 69 of 2003. 58. Again, only for AY 1996-97, the Revenue‟s appeal ITA 2078 of 2010 on this issue was admitted by this Court by its order dated 3rd January 2011. The Assessee has pointed out that

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

The appeals are dismissed

Bench: P.SAM KOSHY,SUDDALA CHALAPATHI RAO

sections 234B and 234C also, the tax credit is to be set- off first and only thereafter the deductions of the TDS amount and the advance tax paid are to be made. 27

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

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

TDS under section 192 of the Act, the person deducting it, is not obliged to or required to ascertain the nature of calling or vocation of the assessee or utilization or application of the income by the assessee. 27

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

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

TDS under section 192 of the Act, the person deducting it, is not obliged to or required to ascertain the nature of calling or vocation of the assessee or utilization or application of the income by the assessee. 27

Commissioner of Income Tax-II vs. Smt G Sailaja

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

TDS under section 192 of the Act, the person deducting it, is not obliged to or required to ascertain the nature of calling or vocation of the assessee or utilization or application of the income by the assessee. 27

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

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

TDS under section 192 of the Act, the person deducting it, is not obliged to or required to ascertain the nature of calling or vocation of the assessee or utilization or application of the income by the assessee. 27

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

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

TDS under section 192 of the Act, the person deducting it, is not obliged to or required to ascertain the nature of calling or vocation of the assessee or utilization or application of the income by the assessee. 27

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

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

TDS under section 192 of the Act, the person deducting it, is not obliged to or required to ascertain the nature of calling or vocation of the assessee or utilization or application of the income by the assessee. 27

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

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

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

Commissioner of Income Tax-II, Hyderabad. vs. M/s.Trinity Advanced Software Labs (P) Ltd.,

The appeal is disposed of in

Bench: The Hon'Ble Mr Justice Anant Ramanath Hegde Regular First Appeal No. 179 Of 2013 (Dec/Pos) Between:

SECTION 151 OF THE CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE: The parties hereby submit that with the intervention of the family members, well wishers and friends the above appeal has been compromised between the parties under the following terms and conditions. 1. The appellants in the above appeal are the defendants and the respondents is the plaintiff in the suit filed before

Commissioner of Income Tax, vs. Agricultural Market committee,

The appeals are dismissed

Bench: V.V.S.RAO,SANJAY KUMAR

27[or] [(ba) any remuneration or fees or commission by whatever name called, other than those on which tax is deductible under section 192, to a director of a company, or] [(c) royalty, or (d) any sum referred to in clause (va) of section 28,]shall, at the time of credit of such sum to the account of the payee

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-TDS vs. M/S.IDEA CELLULAR LTD

Appeals are dismissed as withdrawn

Bench: SUJOY PAUL,NAMAVARAPU RAJESHWAR RAO

TDS, Hyderabad ...AppellanU Appellant AND IVI/s. ldea Ce:llular Ltd., Hyderabad H.No.5-9-62, KLK Estates, Fateh [vlaidan Road, ...RespondenU Respondent s. Counsel for the Appellant (in all ITTA's) : Sri A. Rama Krishna Reddy, Junior SC representing Sri A. Radha Krishna, Senior SC for lT Department Counsel for the Respondent (in all ITTA's) : Sri T. Bala Mohan

The Commissioner of Income Tax I vs. Mesmer Technologies Ltd

The appeals are allowed in part

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

TDS was necessary and there is no income comprised in the payments made. As per the agreement entered with the KIADB, 21% was the service charges which was reduced to 4% for Phase I and subsequently, it was reduced to 1% for Phase II. - 10 - Though Government of Karnataka issued the Government Order dated 21.06.2012 fixing the service charges

The Commissioner of Income Tax -III vs. Sri T.C. Reddy

The appeal stands dismissed

27,000/- without any justification for the same. ii. Whether the tribunal was justified in deleting the addition of Rs.15,19,340/- being commission paid by it to M/s. Mrigiya Electronics Industries Private Limited for giving accommodation entries, when it was deposed by it’s Director that the company was involved in providing accommodation entries after charging commission

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

TDS u/s.195 of the Act and consequently the said payments are not laible for disallowance u/s.40(a)(i) of the Act? b) Whether the Tribunal was correct in allowing relief to the assessee holding that the reimbursement of salary costs and other expenditure was without any profit element and hence cannot be regarded as income chargeable in the hands