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

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

1 of 1944 C.No.26(43)IT43 dated 24.1.1944 in which the liability to tax on the fees received by Missionaries and subsequently made over to the society have been considered. Representations have been received from the members of religious congregations situated all over the country regarding the taxability of the fees received by them. The question for consideration

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

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

1 of 1944 C.No.26(43)IT43 dated 24.1.1944 in which the liability to tax on the fees received by Missionaries and subsequently made over to the society have been considered. Representations have been received from the members of religious congregations situated all over the country regarding the taxability of the fees received by them. The question for consideration

Commissioner of Income Tax-II vs. Smt G Sailaja

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

1 of 1944 C.No.26(43)IT43 dated 24.1.1944 in which the liability to tax on the fees received by Missionaries and subsequently made over to the society have been considered. Representations have been received from the members of religious congregations situated all over the country regarding the taxability of the fees received by them. The question for consideration

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

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

1 of 1944 C.No.26(43)IT43 dated 24.1.1944 in which the liability to tax on the fees received by Missionaries and subsequently made over to the society have been considered. Representations have been received from the members of religious congregations situated all over the country regarding the taxability of the fees received by them. The question for consideration

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

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

1 of 1944 C.No.26(43)IT43 dated 24.1.1944 in which the liability to tax on the fees received by Missionaries and subsequently made over to the society have been considered. Representations have been received from the members of religious congregations situated all over the country regarding the taxability of the fees received by them. The question for consideration

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

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

1 of 1944 C.No.26(43)IT43 dated 24.1.1944 in which the liability to tax on the fees received by Missionaries and subsequently made over to the society have been considered. Representations have been received from the members of religious congregations situated all over the country regarding the taxability of the fees received by them. The question for consideration

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

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 54 ITR 17 where the Supreme Court held that where

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

Appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

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

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 54 ITR 17 where the Supreme Court held that where

Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-1 vs. M/s Sri Sri Gruha Nirman India Pvt. Ltd.

Appeals are dismissed

Bench: P.SAM KOSHY,NARSING RAO NANDIKONDA

1) of the Act and selected for scrutiny assessments, so notices under Section 143(2) of the Act were issued. 3.2 In the course of assessment proceedings, the Assessing Officer noticed that the respondent/assessee had claimed deductions under Section Digitally Signed By:VAISHALI CHAUHAN Signing Date:10.01.2024 15:43:36 Signature Not Verified ITA 1021/2019 & 157/2023 Page

The Commissioner of Income Tax-I, vs. Aditya Music (India) Pvt.Ltd.,

1) and 201(1A) of the Act. It was noticed by the CIT (Appeals) that the operators had simply provided the vehicles to the company for using the same as per its requirements. Thus, he was of the opinion that provision of Section 194I of the Act and not 194C of the Act was attracted in the case. However

Commissioner of Income Tax, Guntur. vs. Agricultural Market Committee, Parchuru

1) and 201(1A) of the Act. It was noticed by the CIT (Appeals) that the operators had simply provided the vehicles to the company for using the same as per its requirements. Thus, he was of the opinion that provision of Section 194I of the Act and not 194C of the Act was attracted in the case. However

Commissioner of Income Tax vs. M/s. Southern Packaging

Bench: The Hon'Ble Mr. Justice Ravi Malimath

43,800/-. Aggrieved by the same, the assessee preferred an appeal. The appeal was partly 3 allowed. No relief was granted for the year 2000-2001. Aggrieved by the same, the Revenue as well the assessee preferred appeals before the Tribunal. The Tribunal allowed the appeals and granted relief to the assessee to an extent of the entire amount. Aggrieved

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

The appeal is dismissed

1) ITR OL1. Reference was also made to the judgment of the Apex Court in Mepco Industries Ltd. Vs. CIT, 319 ITR 208 recording that the issue being debatable, recourse to rectification under Section 154 of the Act to change the opinion, could not be undertaken. [3]. It is not disputed that the tax effect in the present appeal

Commissioner of Income Tax, vs. M/s Polisetty Somasundaram,

TDS was deducted and deposited in the Government account. Since no information was furnished by the assessee nor any evidence is available on record to substantiate the claim of the assessee as genuine, the expenses of Rs.2,00,00,000/- not relating to the business were disallowed and added to the income of the assessee.” Against the said order