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

Appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

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

44 ITR 362 (SC), the Supreme Court held that the Assessee had rightly disclosed the income under the head „Income from Business‟ and restored the decision of the ITAT. 51.4 The said decision is distinguishable on fact in its application to the case on hand. Here the question is confined to the letting of properties forming ITA 210/2003 & connected matters

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

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

44 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 13THDAY OF JULY 2021 / 22ND ASHADHA, 1943 WA NO. 492 OF 2015 AGAINST THE JUDGMENT IN WPC 66/2015 OF HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM APPELLANT/PETITIONER: THE PROVINCIAL SUPERIOR NIRMALRANI PROVINCE, SABS CONGREGATION, CHETTUPUZHA P.O., THRISSUR DISTRICT

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

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

44 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 13THDAY OF JULY 2021 / 22ND ASHADHA, 1943 WA NO. 492 OF 2015 AGAINST THE JUDGMENT IN WPC 66/2015 OF HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM APPELLANT/PETITIONER: THE PROVINCIAL SUPERIOR NIRMALRANI PROVINCE, SABS CONGREGATION, CHETTUPUZHA P.O., THRISSUR DISTRICT

Commissioner of Income Tax-II vs. Smt G Sailaja

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

44 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 13THDAY OF JULY 2021 / 22ND ASHADHA, 1943 WA NO. 492 OF 2015 AGAINST THE JUDGMENT IN WPC 66/2015 OF HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM APPELLANT/PETITIONER: THE PROVINCIAL SUPERIOR NIRMALRANI PROVINCE, SABS CONGREGATION, CHETTUPUZHA P.O., THRISSUR DISTRICT

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

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

44 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 13THDAY OF JULY 2021 / 22ND ASHADHA, 1943 WA NO. 492 OF 2015 AGAINST THE JUDGMENT IN WPC 66/2015 OF HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM APPELLANT/PETITIONER: THE PROVINCIAL SUPERIOR NIRMALRANI PROVINCE, SABS CONGREGATION, CHETTUPUZHA P.O., THRISSUR DISTRICT

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

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

44 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 13THDAY OF JULY 2021 / 22ND ASHADHA, 1943 WA NO. 492 OF 2015 AGAINST THE JUDGMENT IN WPC 66/2015 OF HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM APPELLANT/PETITIONER: THE PROVINCIAL SUPERIOR NIRMALRANI PROVINCE, SABS CONGREGATION, CHETTUPUZHA P.O., THRISSUR DISTRICT

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

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

44 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 13THDAY OF JULY 2021 / 22ND ASHADHA, 1943 WA NO. 492 OF 2015 AGAINST THE JUDGMENT IN WPC 66/2015 OF HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM APPELLANT/PETITIONER: THE PROVINCIAL SUPERIOR NIRMALRANI PROVINCE, SABS CONGREGATION, CHETTUPUZHA P.O., THRISSUR DISTRICT

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

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

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

Late Smt. Hoorjahan Begum vs. Tghe Income Tax Officer

Appeal stands disposed off

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,S.RAVI KUMAR

44:01 Signature Not Verified NEUTRAL CITATION NO: 2022/DHC/004332 MAC.APP. 448/2015 Page 10 of 19 financial year. Such deduction is commonly known as tax deducted at source (“TDS”, for short). When the employer fails in default to deduct the TDS from the employee's salary, as it is his duty to deduct the TDS, then the penalty for non-deduction

The Commissioner of Income Tax, vs. Shri Chidipotu Sridhar,

In the result, the appeal is allowed, as follows;

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,SURESH KUMAR KAIT

Section 44 (a) (d) of Income Tax Act, 8% of the turnover would be treated as income, if the annual turnover is below Rs.60 lakhs. 8) Rs. 1,77,022/- is the TDS

The Commissioner of Income Tax-III vs. Smt.D.K.Aruna

The appeals are disposed of accordingly

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

44 of 2010 & ITA Nos.3 and 14 of 2011 Decided on: 10.08.2023 ITA No.56 of 2009 Asstt. Excise & Taxation Commissioner, Bilaspur, H.P. .… Appellant. Versus Income Tax Officer (TDS), Palampur, Camp at Shimla …. Respondent. ITA No.57 of 2009 Asstt. Excise & Taxation Commissioner, Una, H.P. .… Appellant. Versus Income Tax Officer (TDS), Palampur, HP …. Respondent. ITA No.58 of 2009 Asstt. Excise & Taxation Commissioner

Commissioner of Income Tax-III, vs. M/s Sree Rayalaseema Green Energy Limited,

44,71,261/- in mutual funds. The substantial investment of Rs.2 crores was made, as noticed above, from share allotment money. Dividend of Rs.3,95,439 was received from this fund. Dividend of Rs.153/- and Rs.1649/- was received from two mutual funds. Thus in all dividend income of Rs.3,97,241/- was received. The assessee had himself disallowed an amount

The Commissioner of Income Tax- I vs. M/s. Avon Organics Limited

Bench: GODA RAGHURAM,M.S.RAMACHANDRA RAO

section 5(1)(xxi) as exemption was claimed as a new and separate unit set up after the commencement of the Act. The Madras High ITA 257/2012 Page 9 of 18 Court at page 824 observes : “Unless a factory is erected and the plant and machinery installed therein, it cannot be said to have been set up. The resolutions

The Commissioner of Income Tax -III vs. Sri T.C. Reddy

The appeal stands dismissed

TDS. These expenses are hereby disallowed u/s40a(ia). Surveying & consultation exp B L G Construction 89809 Office renovation Ghanshyam Jangid 180335 Advertisement Kalarthi 134549 Site office Kaluram Sonel 55230 Advertisement Kushal Global Ltd 24750 Supervision over contractors @ 2% Sudesh Purohit 69317 Advertisement Vikalp Events & Promotion 77000 Advertisement Vyas Enterprises 22448 CD Presentation Sandeep Yadav 75000 Total 728438 Subject