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

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

4(2) empowers deduction of tax at source wherever it is so deductible under the provisions of the Act. The effect of the aforesaid charging provision is that, if the statute imposes tax and provides for deducting tax at source through its provisions, the same has to be done, peremptorily. 22. Section 14 of the Act deals with Heads

Commissioner of Income Tax-II vs. Smt G Sailaja

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

4(2) empowers deduction of tax at source wherever it is so deductible under the provisions of the Act. The effect of the aforesaid charging provision is that, if the statute imposes tax and provides for deducting tax at source through its provisions, the same has to be done, peremptorily. 22. Section 14 of the Act deals with Heads

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

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

4(2) empowers deduction of tax at source wherever it is so deductible under the provisions of the Act. The effect of the aforesaid charging provision is that, if the statute imposes tax and provides for deducting tax at source through its provisions, the same has to be done, peremptorily. 22. Section 14 of the Act deals with Heads

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

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

4(2) empowers deduction of tax at source wherever it is so deductible under the provisions of the Act. The effect of the aforesaid charging provision is that, if the statute imposes tax and provides for deducting tax at source through its provisions, the same has to be done, peremptorily. 22. Section 14 of the Act deals with Heads

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

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

4(2) empowers deduction of tax at source wherever it is so deductible under the provisions of the Act. The effect of the aforesaid charging provision is that, if the statute imposes tax and provides for deducting tax at source through its provisions, the same has to be done, peremptorily. 22. Section 14 of the Act deals with Heads

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

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

Bench: J SREENIVAS RAO,ALOK ARADHE

41:50 O.M.P.(I) (COMM.) 127/2023 Page 3 of 4 week from today. C. The parties may make an effort to resolve the disputes with regard to the difference in their computation of arrears of license fee, and also with regard to the question of TDS deducted by the petitioner. D. If they are not able to reconcile these disputes

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

PENDURTHI CHANDRASEKHAR vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,

The appeal is allowed and all the four substantial

4 7. The Assessing Officer added the unsecured loan received by the assessee from Smt. Shanti Chowdary and the unexplained gift received by the assessee from his father-in-law, as unexplained cash credit under Section 68. 8. Similarly, the Assessing Officer added interest income as per the TDS Certificate, to the Income Tax return. 9. The Commissioner of Income

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

4 amounting to Rs.8,41,36,636/- which includes depreciation of the building block of Rs.4,92,10,011/-. The Assessing Officer came to the conclusion that the asseessee is not entitled to claim deduction of any amount twice, while arriving at the income of the concern. Accordingly, the depreciation claimed by the assessee in respect of the buildings amounting

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

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

The Appeal is dismissed

Bench: GODA RAGHURAM,M.S.RAMACHANDRA RAO

4 Whether this case involves a substantial question of law as to the interpretation of the constitution of India, 1950 or any order made thereunder ? 5 Whether it is to be circulated to civil judge ? ========================================================= ESSAR OIL LTD. - Appellant(s) Versus INCOME-TAXOFFICER - Opponent(s) ========================================================= Appearance : MR JP SHAH for Appellant MR MANISH R BHATT Sr Advocate with Mrs MAUNA