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

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

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

41 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. 476 OF 2015 AGAINST THE JUDGMENT IN WPC 544/2015 OF HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM APPELLANT/PETITIONER: THE SUPERIOR GENERAL APOSTOLIC SISTERS OF MARY IMMACULATE, CHEERANCHIRA, CHANGANACHERRY

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

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

41 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. 476 OF 2015 AGAINST THE JUDGMENT IN WPC 544/2015 OF HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM APPELLANT/PETITIONER: THE SUPERIOR GENERAL APOSTOLIC SISTERS OF MARY IMMACULATE, CHEERANCHIRA, CHANGANACHERRY

Commissioner of Income Tax-II vs. Smt G Sailaja

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

41 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. 476 OF 2015 AGAINST THE JUDGMENT IN WPC 544/2015 OF HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM APPELLANT/PETITIONER: THE SUPERIOR GENERAL APOSTOLIC SISTERS OF MARY IMMACULATE, CHEERANCHIRA, CHANGANACHERRY

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

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

41 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. 476 OF 2015 AGAINST THE JUDGMENT IN WPC 544/2015 OF HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM APPELLANT/PETITIONER: THE SUPERIOR GENERAL APOSTOLIC SISTERS OF MARY IMMACULATE, CHEERANCHIRA, CHANGANACHERRY

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

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

41 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. 476 OF 2015 AGAINST THE JUDGMENT IN WPC 544/2015 OF HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM APPELLANT/PETITIONER: THE SUPERIOR GENERAL APOSTOLIC SISTERS OF MARY IMMACULATE, CHEERANCHIRA, CHANGANACHERRY

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

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

41 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. 476 OF 2015 AGAINST THE JUDGMENT IN WPC 544/2015 OF HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM APPELLANT/PETITIONER: THE SUPERIOR GENERAL APOSTOLIC SISTERS OF MARY IMMACULATE, CHEERANCHIRA, CHANGANACHERRY

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

41,29,837 under Section 24 of the Act. 43. During the assessment proceedings, in its reply dated 15th December 1997 to the query raised by the AO, the Assessee pointed out that there is nothing in law which prohibited the leasing out of stock and trade. It relied on the decision in CIT v. Chagan Das and Company

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

1) by the Income Tax Officer, Mandya. The case was selected for scrutiny in accordance with the scrutiny guidelines issued by the Central Board of Direct Taxes. Notice under Section 143(2) was issued and served on the assessee on 23.08.2007. In response to the same, the Internal Auditor has appeared and represented the case and produced various documents

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

Appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

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

41,29,837 under Section 24 of the Act. 43. During the assessment proceedings, in its reply dated 15th December 1997 to the query raised by the AO, the Assessee pointed out that there is nothing in law which prohibited the leasing out of stock and trade. It relied on the decision in CIT v. Chagan Das and Company

M/S. SREE TRADING CORPORATION vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 4(1), HYDERABAD

Bench: N.TUKARAMJI,UJJAL BHUYAN

41, Hyderabad. Respondent ! Counsel for Appellant : Ms. I.Maamu Vani ^ Counsel for respondent : Mr. J.V.Prasad HEAD NOTE: ? Cases referred 1 1980 (Supp) Supreme Court Cases 660 2 (2016) 15 SCC 785 HCJ & NTRJ I.T.T.A.No.205 of 2006 2 THE HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE UJJAL BHUYAN AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE N. TUKARAMJI I.T.T.A.No.205 of 2006 JUDGMENT

PENDURTHI CHANDRASEKHAR vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,

The appeal is allowed and all the four substantial

1)(vii). Further, the provision of the Act (e.g. Section 43D) shall prevail over the provisions of ICDS.” 41. In his order, the AO has proceeded on the assumption that since interest has accrued in the account books of M/s. Dakshin Shelters Private VRS, J & JUD, J I.T.T.A.No.706 of 2016 8 Limited, there is no prohibition on the assessee

The Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax - Central vs. Smt. Gavireddygari Aparna Kalyani

Bench: J SREENIVAS RAO,ALOK ARADHE

1. The petitioner has filed this petition under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 [“the Act”], in anticipation of arbitral proceedings, pursuant to a contract between the parties for renting of the respondent’s sites for installation of mobile towers at the respondent’s community centres and office locations. 2. Learned counsel for the parties state that