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

Commissioner of Income tax-V, vs. M/s. INTRACK INC,

30 to 38 of the Income-tax Act, if the tax deducted at source is not paid within prescribed time [under Section 200 (1)], no amount could be deducted while computing the income, under Chapter IV of the ‘computation of business income’. 16.3: Thereafter, by way of amendment of Finance Act, 2008, further amendment was made whereby TDS

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. Chargeability to tax is not dependent on the manner of utilization of the income. The utilization of a person’s income

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. Chargeability to tax is not dependent on the manner of utilization of the income. The utilization of a person’s income

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. Chargeability to tax is not dependent on the manner of utilization of the income. The utilization of a person’s income

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. Chargeability to tax is not dependent on the manner of utilization of the income. The utilization of a person’s income

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. Chargeability to tax is not dependent on the manner of utilization of the income. The utilization of a person’s income

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. Chargeability to tax is not dependent on the manner of utilization of the income. The utilization of a person’s income

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 amount. It was further contended that by virtue of section 115JAA(4) the assessee is entitled to set off MAT credit at the stage at which the tax has become payable. Consequently, it was submitted, that the assessee is entitled to take into account the tax credit (MAT credit) available to it under section 115JAA when it computes

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

TDS cannot be disallowed u/s. 40(a)(ia) of the Act as the provisions of Section 11 of the Act was applicable to the assessee? ii. Whether the Tribunal was correct in holding that professional fee of Rs.45,69,998/- paid to Apollo Hospital for managing and running BGS Medical Foundation would not attract Section 194J

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

M/s Modi Builders AND Realtors (P) Ltd., vs. Asst. Commissioner of Income tax,

The appeals are disposed of

Bench: P.SAM KOSHY,NARSING RAO NANDIKONDA

30,495/- was paid on 11th June, 2008. (c) The appellant claims that they are entitled to interest on this amount, i.e., on Rs.1,42,04,705/- with effect from 1st April, 1995 to 31st may, ITA Nos. 167/2012 & 168/2012 Page 4 of 17 2008 upto the date of refund of Rs.1,42,04,705/- and interest on Rs.18

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 173 of M.V. Act, aggrieved by the Decree and Judgment dated 09.11.2015 in MVOP No.51/2013 on the file of the Court of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal cum District Judge, Rajahmundry, East Godavari District. Between: 1. Rudraraju Rukmini, W/o.late Sri Venkatalakshmi Narasimha Raju, Hindu, Occ: Housewife, R/o.Vuyyurivari Meraka, Near Antarvedipalem, Sakhinetipalli - 533 251, East Godavari District. 2. Pericherla Lakshmi

M/S.VODAFONE IDEA LIMITED vs. THE ASST COMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

The Appeal is allowed

Bench: P.SAM KOSHY,NARSING RAO NANDIKONDA

Section 260(4) of the lncome-Tax Act, against the order dated.20-07-2018 passed in lTA.No. 14451Hyd12015 (Assessment year 2014-15) on the file of the lncome Tax Appellate Tribunal Hyderabad Bench'B', Hyderabad preferred against the Order dated: 30-10-2015 passed in ITA No.0513/C|T(A)- 8iHydel2015-16 on the file of the Commissioner of lncome Tax (Appeals

Commissioner of Income Tax, vs. M/s Polisetty Somasundaram,

TDS was deducted and deposited in the Government account. Since no information was furnished by the assessee nor any evidence is available on record to substantiate the claim of the assessee as genuine, the expenses of Rs.2,00,00,000/- not relating to the business were disallowed and added to the income of the assessee.” Against the said order

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

The appeal stands dismissed

TDS. These expenses are hereby disallowed u/s40a(ia). Surveying & consultation exp B L G Construction 89809 Office renovation Ghanshyam Jangid 180335 Advertisement Kalarthi 134549 Site office Kaluram Sonel 55230 Advertisement Kushal Global Ltd 24750 Supervision over contractors @ 2% Sudesh Purohit 69317 Advertisement Vikalp Events & Promotion 77000 Advertisement Vyas Enterprises 22448 CD Presentation Sandeep Yadav 75000 Total 728438 Subject

The Commissioner of Income Tax-IV vs. M/s.OCV Reinforcement Manufacturing Limited

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

TDS amount once again into Court and erred in entrusting ,,varrant of attachment for the said amount to the bailiff for execution against company." the revision petitioner 5. Respondent Nos.1 to 3, who are the claimants, failed to dispute the version of the revision petitioners. On what basis the Principal Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Warangal came to a conclusion that