Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-1 vs. M/s Sri Sri Gruha Nirman India Pvt. Ltd.

Appeals are dismissed

Bench: P.SAM KOSHY,NARSING RAO NANDIKONDA

TDS) under Section 194H of the Act was not deducted by the respondent/assessee. 3.3 As regards the deduction under Section 80IC of the Act claimed by the respondent/assessee for the Assessment Year 2012-13, the Assessing Officer reiterated the above mentioned reasoning of the previous year i.e., Assessment Year 2011-12 and held that the respondent/assessee had not carried

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

Appeal stands dismissed accordingly

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,KONGARA VIJAYA LAKSHMI

TDS as required under Section 194H of the Act? 5. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, Tribunal is right in law in setting aside the disallowances made under Section 36

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

In the result, the appeal is disposed of

TDS that the relevant taxes have been paid by the deductee- assessee (hospitals etc.). A certificate from the auditor of the deductee assessee stating that the tax and interest due from deductee- assessee has been paid for the assessment year concerned would be sufficient compliance for the above purpose. However, this will not alter the liability to charge interest under

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

sections 234A, 234B and 234C of the said Act. 35. The counsel for the respondents in all the other appeals adopted the arguments of the various learned counsel for the respondents/assesses mentioned above. In ITA 829/2007 the comparative tax computation for the assessment year 2003-04 as per the department and as per the assessee was placed before

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

The Commissioner of Income Tax, vs. N. Annapurna

The appeals are dismissed with no order as to costs

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

36. Section 271C inter alia states that if any person fails to deduct the whole or any part of the tax as required by the provisions of Chapter XVII-B then such person shall be liable to pay, by way of penalty, a sum equal to the amount of tax which such person failed to deduct. In these cases

Commissioner of Income Tax-III vs. Sigma Constructions

In the result, the appeal is dismissed

Section 36(1)(vii) of the Act and the expenditure relating to prior period could not be claimed in the guise of bad debts. In support of aforesaid submission, reliance has been placed on the decision of the Supreme Court in 'GOETZE INDIA LTD. Vs. CIT' 284 ITR 323. 5. On the other hand, learned counsel for the assessee

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

The appeals stand dismissed answering all the

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

Section 264 deducting the said amount from the total amount payable. 5. By the order produced as Annexure-9 in M.A. No. 451 of 2015, the Tribunal found the amount of TDS default for the relevant assessment year to be Rs.1,36

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

36,636/- which includes depreciation of the building block of Rs.4,92,10,011/-. The Assessing Officer came to the conclusion that the asseessee is not entitled to claim deduction of any amount twice, while arriving at the income of the concern. Accordingly, the depreciation claimed by the assessee in respect of the buildings amounting to Rs.4

The Commissioner of Income Tax-III vs. Smt.D.K.Aruna

The appeals are disposed of accordingly

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

36 & 44 of 2010 & ITA Nos.3 and 14 of 2011 Decided on: 10.08.2023 ITA No.56 of 2009 Asstt. Excise & Taxation Commissioner, Bilaspur, H.P. .… Appellant. Versus Income Tax Officer (TDS), Palampur, Camp at Shimla …. Respondent. ITA No.57 of 2009 Asstt. Excise & Taxation Commissioner, Una, H.P. .… Appellant. Versus Income Tax Officer (TDS), Palampur, HP …. Respondent. ITA No.58 of 2009 Asstt. Excise & Taxation