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

Allam Bali Reddy, vs. Asst.Commissioner of Income Tax,

Appeals stand disposed of in terms of

SECTION 260-A OF I.T.ACT, 1961, ARISING OUT OF ORDER DATED 28/02/2013 PASSED IN ITA NO.866/BANG/2012, FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2005-06, PRAYING THIS HON’BLE COURT TO: I. FORMULATE THE SUBSTANTIAL QUESTIONS OF LAW STATED THEREIN, II. ALLOW THE APPEAL AND SET ASIDE THE ORDER OF THE ITAT, BANGALORE IN ITA NO.866/BANG/2012 DATED 28/02/2013 AND CONFIRM THE ORDER

Commissioner of Income Tax [TDS] vs. Sri VAraha Laxmi Nrusimha Swamy DEvastanam

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 (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

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, 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

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

The Commissioner of Income Tax I vs. Mesmer Technologies Ltd

The appeals are allowed in part

Bench: SANJAY KUMAR,M.S.K.JAISWAL

TDS was necessary and there is no income comprised in the payments made. As per the agreement entered with the KIADB, 21% was the service charges which was reduced to 4% for Phase I and subsequently, it was reduced to 1% for Phase II. - 10 - Though Government of Karnataka issued the Government Order dated 21.06.2012 fixing the service charges

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

The Appeal is dismissed

Bench: GODA RAGHURAM,M.S.RAMACHANDRA RAO

TDS, that taxes due have been paid by the assessee. It further says that this will not alter the liability to charge interest under Section 201(1A) of the Act till the date of payment of taxes by the assessee or the liability for penalty under Section 271C of the Act. In the case between Commissioner of Income

Commissioner of Income Tax, vs. Agricultural Market Committee,

The appeals are dismissed

Bench: GODA RAGHURAM,M.S.RAMACHANDRA RAO

TDS on the amount paid to the KPTCL towards SLDC charges. The Assessing Officer invoking the provisions of Section 201(1) of the Act and Section 201(1A) of the Act, treated the assessee as an assessee in default for not deducting the tax at source on the payments made to the KPTCL. The assessing Officer held that the transaction

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

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 195(1

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

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

4) thereof; and (viii) the contribution made by the Central Government or any other employer in the previous ITA 323/2012 etc. Page 7 of 20 year, to the account of an employee under a pension scheme referred to in section 80CCD” (emphasis supplied) 7. A careful reading of the clause (iv) exposits that perquisites and profits in lieu

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 44 (a) (d) of Income Tax Act, 8% of the turnover would be treated as income, if the annual turnover is below Rs.60 lakhs. 8) Rs. 1,77,022/- is the TDS for the assessment year 2011-2012. 9) Rs.5,39,685/- is TDS for the assessment year 2012-2013. 10) After the death of the deceased, his family

COMMR OF INCOME TAX-II, HYDERABAD vs. M/S JAPSON ESTATES PVT LTD., HYDERABAD

The appeal is allowed;

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,KONGARA VIJAYA LAKSHMI

4 - NC: 2024:KHC:32520-DB ITA No. 84 of 2017 Consultancy Pvt. Ltd., during the above stated financial years should not be treated as fees for technical services as per the provisions of Section 9(1)(vii) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short the ‘Act’). The appellant is said to have submitted its reply. Thereafter, order dated

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