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

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

4. Surprisingly, in the year 2014, Income Tax Officers informed District Treasury Officers that proper deduction of TDS must be effected in the case of employees of Government or aided W.A. No.410/15 & Conn. Cases 73 institutions, who are members of religious congregations receiving salary from the Government exchequer. The aforesaid communication resulted in the writ petitions challenging the direction issued

Commissioner of Income Tax-II vs. Smt G Sailaja

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

4. Surprisingly, in the year 2014, Income Tax Officers informed District Treasury Officers that proper deduction of TDS must be effected in the case of employees of Government or aided W.A. No.410/15 & Conn. Cases 73 institutions, who are members of religious congregations receiving salary from the Government exchequer. The aforesaid communication resulted in the writ petitions challenging the direction issued

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

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

4. Surprisingly, in the year 2014, Income Tax Officers informed District Treasury Officers that proper deduction of TDS must be effected in the case of employees of Government or aided W.A. No.410/15 & Conn. Cases 73 institutions, who are members of religious congregations receiving salary from the Government exchequer. The aforesaid communication resulted in the writ petitions challenging the direction issued

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

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

4. Surprisingly, in the year 2014, Income Tax Officers informed District Treasury Officers that proper deduction of TDS must be effected in the case of employees of Government or aided W.A. No.410/15 & Conn. Cases 73 institutions, who are members of religious congregations receiving salary from the Government exchequer. The aforesaid communication resulted in the writ petitions challenging the direction issued

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

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

4. Surprisingly, in the year 2014, Income Tax Officers informed District Treasury Officers that proper deduction of TDS must be effected in the case of employees of Government or aided W.A. No.410/15 & Conn. Cases 73 institutions, who are members of religious congregations receiving salary from the Government exchequer. The aforesaid communication resulted in the writ petitions challenging the direction issued

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

4) The provisions of this section shall apply in respect of assessments for the assessment year commencing on the 1st day of April, 1989, and subsequent assessment years: Provided that in respect of assessment of fringe benefits, the provisions of this sub-section shall have effect as if for the figures ―1989‖, the figures ―2006‖ had been substituted

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

In the result, the appeal is disposed of

TDS as prescribed under Section 194J has been upheld by the Bombay as well as Delhi High Court except to the extent of penalty as prescribed under Section 271C. It is also argued that the person referred to in Section 194J and Explanation (a) appended to Section 194J(1) need not himself / herself is to be a Doctor and therefore

DIRECTOR OF INCOMD TAX [INTERNATIONAL TAXATION] HYDERABAD vs. M/S M W ZANDER [S] PTE LIMITED-INDIA BR, HYDERABAD

Appeals are dismissed

Bench: P.SAM KOSHY,SUDDALA CHALAPATHI RAO

4. Whether the Tribunal was correct in not appreciating the fact that the provision of Section 194A(3)(v) is a general provision granting benefit to all co-operative societies, whereas, the provisions of Section 194A(3)(i)(b) deals with co-operative society carrying on the business of banking, hence specific provisions in any case overrides the general provisions

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-II, HYDERABAD vs. M/S. PATNI TELECOM SOLUTIONS PVT. LTD.,

Appeals are dismissed

Bench: P.SAM KOSHY,SUDDALA CHALAPATHI RAO

4. Whether the Tribunal was correct in not appreciating the fact that the provision of Section 194A(3)(v) is a general provision granting benefit to all co-operative societies, whereas, the provisions of Section 194A(3)(i)(b) deals with co-operative society carrying on the business of banking, hence specific provisions in any case overrides the general provisions

Commissioner of Income Tax-(TDS), vs. M/s.Neeladri Chit Funds Private Ltd.,

Appeals are dismissed

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

4. Whether the Tribunal was correct in not appreciating the fact that the provision of Section 194A(3)(v) is a general provision granting benefit to all co-operative societies, whereas, the provisions of Section 194A(3)(i)(b) deals with co-operative society carrying on the business of banking, hence specific provisions in any case overrides the general provisions

Mr. Vasamsetty Veera Venkata Satyanarayana vs. The Principal Commissioner of Income Tax -1

Appeal stands dismissed

Bench: P.SAM KOSHY,NARSING RAO NANDIKONDA

TDS deducted Non deduction Mela mandir Security Expenses (u/s194C) (Apka Electric & Decoration centre TSS security expenses 46,000/- 8,28,771/- 460/- 8287/- Nil 8,747/- Mela Tent Decoration expenses (194C) (Apka Electric & Decoration centre) 4,17,885/- 4178/- Nil 4,178/- Mela Mandir Roshni expenses (194C) Apka Electric & Decoration centre) 4,92,940/- 4,929/- Nil 4,929/- Mela

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 and as such, addition under Section 40(a)(ia) of the Act was not sustainable. 3.5 The appeals filed by the appellant/revenue pertaining to both assessment years were dismissed by the Tribunal by way of the orders, impugned in the present two appeals. 4

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, RAJAHMUNDRY vs. SRI P. VENKATA NANCHARAIAH

The appeal is allowed in the above terms

Bench: C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY,M.S.K.JAISWAL

TDS, the question of categorising the Appellant as Assessee-in-default for the purposes of Section 201 (1) of the IT Act did not arise. There was, therefore, no occasion for imposition of the penalty under Section 271C of the IT Act. Page 4

Commissioner of Income Tax vs. M/s. Southern Packaging

Bench: The Hon'Ble Mr. Justice Ravi Malimath

section 4 142(1) so issued nor has paid any taxes by way of advance tax, TDS etc.,? ii. In the facts

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

4. Prior to the amendment, the said provision read as under:- Section 40(a)(ia) : any interest, commission or brokerage, rent, royalty fees for professional services or fees for technical services payable to a resident, or amounts payable to a contractor or sub-contractor, being resident, for carrying out any work (including supply of labour for carrying out any work

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

4. The Assessing Officer („AO‟) who picked up for scrutiny the Assessee‟s return for AY 1995-96 by an order-sheet entry dated 5th December 1997 required the Assessee to give the full details and addresses of the persons to whom the aforementioned compensation amounts were paid. The Assessee was asked to explain why the said amounts should

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

Appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

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

4. The Assessing Officer („AO‟) who picked up for scrutiny the Assessee‟s return for AY 1995-96 by an order-sheet entry dated 5th December 1997 required the Assessee to give the full details and addresses of the persons to whom the aforementioned compensation amounts were paid. The Assessee was asked to explain why the said amounts should

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