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

TDS deductible and deducted in the last month of previous year if was not paid till the due date of filing of return under sub-section (1) of Section 139 and in any other case, on or before the last day of the previous year, Section 40

The Commissioner of Income Tax-III vs. M/s.Vishwas Investments Pvt.Ltd,

Bench: GODA RAGHURAM,M.S.RAMACHANDRA RAO

Section 40(a) (ia) of the Act. Further issue may also arise whether the payees had made payments of the TDS

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 4,26,357 4,26,357 Less Advance Tax -- -- 24,19,743 18,71,668 Add: Interest u/s 234B 2,31,376 1,64,666 Add: Interest u/s 234C 1,52,748 1,18,149 Tax + interest payable 28,03,867 21,54,483 Less: MAT credit 5,48,075 -- Total Tax + interest liability

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

40,492 as a rental income from the flat/space given on rent to various parties. These spaces/flats were part of the stock and trade and the rental income was claimed as income from house property. The Assessee also claimed deduction of 1/5th of the repairs amounting to Rs. 41,29,837 under Section 24 of the Act. 43. During

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

Appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

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

40,492 as a rental income from the flat/space given on rent to various parties. These spaces/flats were part of the stock and trade and the rental income was claimed as income from house property. The Assessee also claimed deduction of 1/5th of the repairs amounting to Rs. 41,29,837 under Section 24 of the Act. 43. During

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

Appeal stands dismissed accordingly

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,KONGARA VIJAYA LAKSHMI

40(a)(ia) of the Act by following its earlier order passed in assessee’s own case for A.Y.2010-11 and 2011-12 which has not reached finality even when the assessing authority rightly made disallowance as the payments made to NFS is nothing but commission/brokerage and as such the assessing authority invoked said section as since assessee had not deducted

The Commissioner of Income Tax, vs. N. Annapurna

The appeals are dismissed with no order as to costs

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

TDS. The Assessee stated that it had been advised that salary paid outside India was not liable to tax in India. The Assessee accordingly submitted that it was prevented by reasonable cause for not deducting tax at source on the sum paid outside India. ITA 371/2005 & connected matters Page 6 of 15 6. The Assessing Officer (‘AO’) passed an order

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

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

40 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.V.BHATTI & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BECHU KURIAN THOMAS TUESDAY, THE 13TH DAY OF JULY 2021 / 22ND ASHADHA, 1943 WA NO. 475 OF 2015 AGAINST THE JUDGMENT IN WPC 545/2015 OF HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM APPELLANT/PETITIONER: THE PROVINCIAL, SANJO PROVINCIAL HOUSE KIDANGOOR P.O., ANGAMALY

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

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

40 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.V.BHATTI & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BECHU KURIAN THOMAS TUESDAY, THE 13TH DAY OF JULY 2021 / 22ND ASHADHA, 1943 WA NO. 475 OF 2015 AGAINST THE JUDGMENT IN WPC 545/2015 OF HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM APPELLANT/PETITIONER: THE PROVINCIAL, SANJO PROVINCIAL HOUSE KIDANGOOR P.O., ANGAMALY

Commissioner of Income Tax-II vs. Smt G Sailaja

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

40 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.V.BHATTI & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BECHU KURIAN THOMAS TUESDAY, THE 13TH DAY OF JULY 2021 / 22ND ASHADHA, 1943 WA NO. 475 OF 2015 AGAINST THE JUDGMENT IN WPC 545/2015 OF HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM APPELLANT/PETITIONER: THE PROVINCIAL, SANJO PROVINCIAL HOUSE KIDANGOOR P.O., ANGAMALY

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

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

40 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.V.BHATTI & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BECHU KURIAN THOMAS TUESDAY, THE 13TH DAY OF JULY 2021 / 22ND ASHADHA, 1943 WA NO. 475 OF 2015 AGAINST THE JUDGMENT IN WPC 545/2015 OF HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM APPELLANT/PETITIONER: THE PROVINCIAL, SANJO PROVINCIAL HOUSE KIDANGOOR P.O., ANGAMALY

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

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

40 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.V.BHATTI & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BECHU KURIAN THOMAS TUESDAY, THE 13TH DAY OF JULY 2021 / 22ND ASHADHA, 1943 WA NO. 475 OF 2015 AGAINST THE JUDGMENT IN WPC 545/2015 OF HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM APPELLANT/PETITIONER: THE PROVINCIAL, SANJO PROVINCIAL HOUSE KIDANGOOR P.O., ANGAMALY

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

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

40 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.V.BHATTI & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BECHU KURIAN THOMAS TUESDAY, THE 13TH DAY OF JULY 2021 / 22ND ASHADHA, 1943 WA NO. 475 OF 2015 AGAINST THE JUDGMENT IN WPC 545/2015 OF HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM APPELLANT/PETITIONER: THE PROVINCIAL, SANJO PROVINCIAL HOUSE KIDANGOOR P.O., ANGAMALY

Commissioner of Income Tax - IV vs. M/s. Anand Food Products,

The appeal stands disposed of on the ground of low tax effect

Bench: : The Hon’Ble Justice T.S. Sivagnanam & The Hon’Ble Justice Hiranmay Bhattacharyya Date : 1St March, 2023 Appearance : Mr. Soumen Bhattacharjee, Adv. …For Appellant The Court : - This Appeal Has Been Filed By The Revenue Under Section 260A Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (The Act) Is Directed Against The Order Dated 12.04.2013 Passed By The Learned Income Tax Appellate Tribunal “B” Bench, Kolkata In I.T.A. No. 1336/Kol/2011 Relating To The Assessment Year 2005-2006. The Revenue Has Raised The Following Substantial Questions Of Law For Consideration :- I) Whether On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case The Ld. Tribunal Has Erred In Law In Deleting The Addition Made By The Assessing Officer Under Section 40(A)(Ia) Of Income Tax Act, 1961, An Amount Of Rs.30,44,166/- Relating To The Payment Made By The Assessee On Account Of Online Advertisement, To M/S Google Ltd. & M/S. Overture Services Without Deducting Tds, By Holding That The Assessee Was Under No Obligation To Deduct Tds Under Section 195 Of The I.T. Act, 1961? Ii) Whether On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case The Ld. Tribunal Has Erred In Law In Deleting The Addition Of Rs.30,44,166/- Made

40(a)(ia) of Income Tax Act, 1961, an amount of Rs.30,44,166/- relating to the payment made by the assessee on account of online advertisement, to M/s Google Ltd. and M/s. Overture Services without deducting TDS, by holding that the assessee was under no obligation to deduct TDS under Section

The Commissioner of Income Tax - IV vs. National Mineral Development Corporation Ltd.,

The appeal is dismissed

40(a)(ia) of the Act regarding to the non-deduction of tax at source to the labour charges was a debatable PRINCE SAINI 2024.02.07 09:53 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment ITA No.330 of 2013(O&M) 2024:PHHC:012644-DB 2 issue. Reliance was placed upon the decision of the majority view

Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax-2, vs. M/s Trinity Advanced Software Labs Private Limited,

In the result, we do not find any merit in the appeal

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

TDS u/s.195 of the Act and consequently the said payments are not laible for disallowance u/s.40(a)(i) of the Act? b) Whether the Tribunal was correct in allowing relief to the assessee holding that the reimbursement of salary costs and other expenditure was without any profit element and hence cannot be regarded as income chargeable in the hands

PENDURTHI CHANDRASEKHAR vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,

The appeal is allowed and all the four substantial

40,000/- as unexplained credit under Section 68 of the Income Tax Act, is right in law in holding that there should be sufficient reasons for receiving gifts though it is from father-in-law and the gift is covered by the provisions of Section 56 of the Act? 2) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances

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