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

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

42. The power of the CBDT to issue circulars can be traced to section 119 of the Act. A reading of section 119 of the Act will make it explicit that the power to issue circulars, or instructions by the CBDT is only for the ‘proper administration’ of the Act. In the process of proper administration

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

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

42. The power of the CBDT to issue circulars can be traced to section 119 of the Act. A reading of section 119 of the Act will make it explicit that the power to issue circulars, or instructions by the CBDT is only for the ‘proper administration’ of the Act. In the process of proper administration

Commissioner of Income Tax-II vs. Smt G Sailaja

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

42. The power of the CBDT to issue circulars can be traced to section 119 of the Act. A reading of section 119 of the Act will make it explicit that the power to issue circulars, or instructions by the CBDT is only for the ‘proper administration’ of the Act. In the process of proper administration

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

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

42. The power of the CBDT to issue circulars can be traced to section 119 of the Act. A reading of section 119 of the Act will make it explicit that the power to issue circulars, or instructions by the CBDT is only for the ‘proper administration’ of the Act. In the process of proper administration

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

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

42. The power of the CBDT to issue circulars can be traced to section 119 of the Act. A reading of section 119 of the Act will make it explicit that the power to issue circulars, or instructions by the CBDT is only for the ‘proper administration’ of the Act. In the process of proper administration

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

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

42. The power of the CBDT to issue circulars can be traced to section 119 of the Act. A reading of section 119 of the Act will make it explicit that the power to issue circulars, or instructions by the CBDT is only for the ‘proper administration’ of the Act. In the process of proper administration

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

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

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

42,04,705/- and interest on Rs.18,25,790/- from 1st June, 1999 upto the date of refund. Interest on the said amounts is payable under Section 244A of the Act. (d) The contention of the Revenue is that this would amount to payment of interest on interest and this is forbidden and should not be paid. ASSESSMENT YEAR

PENDURTHI CHANDRASEKHAR vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,

The appeal is allowed and all the four substantial

Section 56, we have held against the assessee in ITTA.No. 703 of 2016 by a judgment rendered today, VRS, J & JUD, J I.T.T.A.No.706 of 2016 7 distinguishing the decision dated 23-02-2018 passed in ITTA. Nos.701 and 702 of 2016. But in this case, the decision in ITTA.Nos.701 and 702 of 2016 squarely applies. 17. Therefore

Commissioner of Income Tax V vs. C Eswar Reddy AND Co.,

The appeals stand dismissed answering all the

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

TDS, was directed to decide the application for rectification made by the petitioner-Bank under Section 154 on merits after giving opportunity of hearing to the petitioner Bank. 4. Both on the levy of interest and penalty, the Commissioner passed orders under Section 264 / 154 of the Act dated 15.03.2012, which are produced in both the appeals as Annexure