Commissioner of Income Tax-II vs. Smt G Sailaja

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

2) empowers deduction of tax at source wherever it is so deductible under the provisions of the Act. The effect of the aforesaid charging provision is that, if the statute imposes tax and provides for deducting tax at source through its provisions, the same has to be done, peremptorily. 22. Section 14 of the Act deals with Heads of Income

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

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

2) empowers deduction of tax at source wherever it is so deductible under the provisions of the Act. The effect of the aforesaid charging provision is that, if the statute imposes tax and provides for deducting tax at source through its provisions, the same has to be done, peremptorily. 22. Section 14 of the Act deals with Heads of Income

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

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

2) empowers deduction of tax at source wherever it is so deductible under the provisions of the Act. The effect of the aforesaid charging provision is that, if the statute imposes tax and provides for deducting tax at source through its provisions, the same has to be done, peremptorily. 22. Section 14 of the Act deals with Heads of Income

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

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

2) empowers deduction of tax at source wherever it is so deductible under the provisions of the Act. The effect of the aforesaid charging provision is that, if the statute imposes tax and provides for deducting tax at source through its provisions, the same has to be done, peremptorily. 22. Section 14 of the Act deals with Heads of Income

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

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 CIT ..... Appellant Through

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

The appeals are dismissed

Bench: P.SAM KOSHY,SUDDALA CHALAPATHI RAO

29. Mr Ajay Vohra, the learned counsel appearing for the respondents in some of the appeals, adopted the arguments of Mr Aggarwal and Mr Syali and made additional submissions. 30. Mr Vohra’s first submission is that MAT credit is equivalent to payment of tax in advance. According to him, MAT credit available under section 115JAA is essentially credit

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

In the result, the appeal is disposed of

2 to clause (vi) of sub-section (1) of section 9; (c) where any sum referred to in sub- section (1) is credited to any account, whether called "suspense account" or by any other name, in the books of account of the person liable to pay such sum, such crediting shall be deemed to be credit of such

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

29 of 36 and progress.‟ In fact in AYs 1992-93, 1993-94 and 1994-95, the Assessee itself had capitalised interest in the capital work and progress. The cash credit limit available to the Assessee was used by it to give a loan to its sister concerns for purchasing land in Gurgaon. 66. As regards the payment of interest

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

Appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

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

29 of 36 and progress.‟ In fact in AYs 1992-93, 1993-94 and 1994-95, the Assessee itself had capitalised interest in the capital work and progress. The cash credit limit available to the Assessee was used by it to give a loan to its sister concerns for purchasing land in Gurgaon. 66. As regards the payment of interest

Commissioner of Income Tax V vs. C Eswar Reddy AND Co.,

The appeals stand dismissed answering all the

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

TDS default for the relevant assessment year to be Rs.1,36,040/- and the Assessing Officer was directed to pass revised order under Section 201 of the Act. Similarly, reckoning the deduction made under Annexure-9 produced in M.A. No. 452 of 2015, the Commissioner restricted the penalty under Section 271C to Rs.74,669/-. Both the orders of the Commissioner

M\S.CHENNAKESAVA VIJAYAWADA vs. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX VIJAYAWAD

The Appeal is dismissed

Bench: GODA RAGHURAM,M.S.RAMACHANDRA RAO

TDS deductible @ 2% was Rs. 1,84,41,814/=. The appellant-Company, while submitting a letter dated 18th May 1998 providing the details of payments made to Messrs. Essar Projects Limited, made a mention of payment made towards procurement of material to the tune of Rs. 72.60 Crores. The I.T.O with regard to the supply of these materials, discussed

M/s. Vodafone Mobile Services Limited vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax (TDS)

Bench: SUJOY PAUL,NAMAVARAPU RAJESHWAR RAO

section 260 A of the rncome Tax Act 1961 against the order dated 29-09-20 1 7 on the fire of the rncome Tax Appeilate Tribunal, Hyderabad Benches - A, Hyderabad in l.T.A.No. 14O3lHydt2015 for Assessment Year 2013-14 preferred against the order dated 0g-10-2015 on the file of Commissioner of lncome Tax (Appeals)_g, Hyderabad in ITTA.No

M/s Vodafone Mobile Services Limited vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax (TDS)

Bench: SUJOY PAUL,NAMAVARAPU RAJESHWAR RAO

Section 260 A of the lncome Tax Act '1961 against the order dated 29-09-2017 on the file of the lncome Tax Appellate Tribunal, Hyderabad Benches - A, Hyderabad in l.T.A.No.1402lHydl2015 for Assessment Year 2012-13 preferred against the order dated 09-10-2015 on the file of Commissioner of lncome Tax (Appeals)-8, Hyderabad in ITTA No' O414rcI

Commissioner of Income Tax, vs. Agricultural Market committee,

The appeals are dismissed

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

29[ten] per cent of such sum as income-tax on income comprised therein “ 4. The assessee was bound to deduct TDS in lieu of services received by them and for the services received by them was liable to pay tax within the meaning of Explanation 2 to Section

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

Commissioner of Income Tax-III, vs. M/s Sree Rayalaseema Green Energy Limited,

29,643 Total Rs 2,51,96,577 Since this provision is not allowable, the amount of Rs 2,51,96,577 is disallowed and added to the income of the assessee. Since I am satisfied that the assessee has furnished inaccurate particulars of its income, penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c) are being initiated separately.” 7. This

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-I, vs. AYYAPPA INFRA PROJECTS PVT LTD.,

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

2) of the Income Tax Act. The petitioner has placed reliance on certain circulars in support of the contention that the petitioner is also eligible for 100% deduction of Income Tax. WP(C) No. 673 of 2014 3 3. The petitioner had availed the services of an US Company called M/s. Points and Lines LLC, USA and also outsourced