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

Appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

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

38. The result of the above discussion is that the Court holds that the payment made by the Assessee to the allottees of the flats for their surrendering the rights therein should be allowed as business expenditure of the Assessee. 39. This Court accordingly answers the question of law framed in ITA 210 of 2003 the affirmative i.e. in favour

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

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

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.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-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

PENDURTHI CHANDRASEKHAR vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,

The appeal is allowed and all the four substantial

38,589/- as interest income on mere ground of claiming credit for 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

PRL COMMR OF INCOME TAX [TDS] HYDERABAD vs. M/S HCC-MEIL-NCC-WPIL [JV] HYDERABAD

Bench: P.SAM KOSHY,NARSING RAO NANDIKONDA

TDS]' l'T Towers'A C'Guards' Hyderabad. M/S HCC-MEIL-NCC-WPIL tJVl S-2' Technocrat lndustrial Estates Balanagar, HYderabad ...APPELLANT .,.RESPONDENT Counsel for the Appellant: MS' K' MAMATA-CI{OUDARY' SENIOR STANDING couNSEL FOR tNcoME riri"riei;riii-r,iex'r'xepntseNieo ev sRl A. RAMA KRISHNA REDDY , stanafrgLounsel for lncome Tax Department

The Commissioner of Income Tax-I, vs. M/s. Prasad Film Laboratories Ltd.,

Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 challenges the award dated 19th December, 2011 passed by the Learned Sole Arbitrator. 2. The Petitioner – Food Corporation of India (hereinafter, ‘FCI’) and M/s Shankar Rice and General Mills (hereinafter ‘miller’) had entered into two milling agreements dated 8th November, 1994 and 15th November, 1994. Under the said contracts, the miller