Commissioner of Income tax-V, vs. M/s. INTRACK INC,

1) of section 9; By Finance Act, 2010, the said provision is substituted by the following: Substituted by the Finance Act, 2010, w.e.f. 01.04.2010. Prior to its substitution, proviso as substituted by the Finance Act, 2008, w.r.e.f. 01.04.2005, read as under: 12 “Provided that where in respect of any such sum, tax has been deducted in any subsequent year

Allam Bali Reddy, vs. Asst.Commissioner of Income Tax,

Appeals stand disposed of in terms of

SECTION 260-A OF I.T.ACT, 1961, ARISING OUT OF ORDER DATED 28/02/2013 PASSED IN ITA NO.866/BANG/2012, FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2005-06, PRAYING THIS HON’BLE COURT TO: I. FORMULATE THE SUBSTANTIAL QUESTIONS OF LAW STATED THEREIN, II. ALLOW THE APPEAL AND SET ASIDE THE ORDER OF THE ITAT, BANGALORE IN ITA NO.866/BANG/2012 DATED 28/02/2013 AND CONFIRM THE ORDER

The Commissioner of Income Tax I vs. Mesmer Technologies Ltd

The appeals are allowed in part

Bench: SANJAY KUMAR,M.S.K.JAISWAL

5. The Assessing Officer initiated proceedings under Section 201 of the Act for the assessment years under consideration on the ground that the appellant ought to have deducted tax at source on payments made to KIADB and passed separate orders holding that - 7 - the appellant, as an assessee in default under Section 201(1), levied interest under Section

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

The Appeal is dismissed

Bench: GODA RAGHURAM,M.S.RAMACHANDRA RAO

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 M BHATT for Opponent ========================================================= CORAM : HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE AKIL KURESHI and HONOURABLE MS JUSTICE SONIA GOKANI 3rd September 2012 CAV JUDGMENT (Per : HONOURABLE Ms. JUSTICE SONIA

Commissioner of Income Tax, vs. Agricultural Market Committee,

The appeals are dismissed

Bench: GODA RAGHURAM,M.S.RAMACHANDRA RAO

TDS on the amount paid to the KPTCL towards SLDC charges. The Assessing Officer invoking the provisions of Section 201(1) of the Act and Section 201(1A) of the Act, treated the assessee as an assessee in default for not deducting the tax at source on the payments made to the KPTCL. The assessing Officer held that the transaction

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

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX IV vs. M/S. PRABHATH AGRI BIO TECH P. LTD.,

The appeals stand dismissed

Bench: P.SAM KOSHY,NARSING RAO NANDIKONDA

5. The short question, therefore, is whether the tax component paid by the employer towards and as income tax, when an employee is entitled to tax free salary, is a perquisite within the meaning of Section 17(2) of the Act. 6. The term “salary” has been defined in Section 17 of the Act so as to include wages

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

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

5. Controverting the claim of the petitioners, statements were filed by the second respondent in all the writ petitions, pleading that the CBDT circular does not have the effect of exempting deduction of TDS from the salary paid by the Government to the teachers through their respective institutions. It also stated that the nuns and priests receiving salary from Government

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

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

5. Controverting the claim of the petitioners, statements were filed by the second respondent in all the writ petitions, pleading that the CBDT circular does not have the effect of exempting deduction of TDS from the salary paid by the Government to the teachers through their respective institutions. It also stated that the nuns and priests receiving salary from Government

Commissioner of Income Tax-II vs. Smt G Sailaja

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

5. Controverting the claim of the petitioners, statements were filed by the second respondent in all the writ petitions, pleading that the CBDT circular does not have the effect of exempting deduction of TDS from the salary paid by the Government to the teachers through their respective institutions. It also stated that the nuns and priests receiving salary from Government

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

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

5. Controverting the claim of the petitioners, statements were filed by the second respondent in all the writ petitions, pleading that the CBDT circular does not have the effect of exempting deduction of TDS from the salary paid by the Government to the teachers through their respective institutions. It also stated that the nuns and priests receiving salary from Government

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

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

5. Controverting the claim of the petitioners, statements were filed by the second respondent in all the writ petitions, pleading that the CBDT circular does not have the effect of exempting deduction of TDS from the salary paid by the Government to the teachers through their respective institutions. It also stated that the nuns and priests receiving salary from Government

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

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

5. Controverting the claim of the petitioners, statements were filed by the second respondent in all the writ petitions, pleading that the CBDT circular does not have the effect of exempting deduction of TDS from the salary paid by the Government to the teachers through their respective institutions. It also stated that the nuns and priests receiving salary from Government

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

5. At the outset, we note that there is no dispute and debate on the initial interest, which is payable and should have been paid by the Revenue when they made the refund of the taxes. The dispute has arisen as the Revenue did not pay along with the refund of taxes, the ITA Nos. 167/2012 & 168/2012 Page

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

5 payments made to the doctors as envisaged under Section 194J of the Act. Therefore, an amount of Rs.65,32,000/- was disallowed by invoking Section 40(a)(ia) of the Act. On the very same reason, an amount of Rs.45,69,998/- was disallowed on account of operation management service charges. 6. Aggrieved by the same, an appeal

M/S.VODAFONE IDEA LIMITED vs. THE ASST COMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

The Appeal is allowed

Bench: P.SAM KOSHY,NARSING RAO NANDIKONDA

Section 260(4) of the lncome-Tax Act, against the order dated.20-07-2018 passed in lTA.No. 14451Hyd12015 (Assessment year 2014-15) on the file of the lncome Tax Appellate Tribunal Hyderabad Bench'B', Hyderabad preferred against the Order dated: 30-10-2015 passed in ITA No.0513/C|T(A)- 8iHydel2015-16 on the file of the Commissioner of lncome Tax (Appeals

COMMR OF INCOME TAX-II, HYDERABAD vs. M/S JAPSON ESTATES PVT LTD., HYDERABAD

The appeal is allowed;

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,KONGARA VIJAYA LAKSHMI

1) and 201(1A) of the Act is barred by limitation. Learned Senior Counsel would submit that though the Section would specifically not prescribe any limitation for non residents or payment made to foreign firm/company towards consultancy fees, the judgments of this - 5 - NC: 2024:KHC:32520-DB ITA No. 84 of 2017 Court passed in the case of Commissioner

Mr. Vasamsetty Veera Venkata Satyanarayana vs. The Principal Commissioner of Income Tax -1

Appeal stands dismissed

Bench: P.SAM KOSHY,NARSING RAO NANDIKONDA

1) and under Section 201(1A) of Rs.2,753/- towards interest. 5. Learned CIT (TDS) also ultimately held that there