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

C R BUILDING QUEENS ROAD BANGALORE … APPELLANTS (BY SRI KAMALADHAR G, ADV.) AND: 9 SMT. VIMALA S.W. WARAD PROP: M/S MAHENDRA ROAD LINES NO.13, RANGAPPA REDDY COMPLEX R V ROAD, MINERVA CIRCLE BANGALORE - 560004 .. RESPONDENT (BY SRI S PARTHASARATHI, ADV.) THIS APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 260-A OF I.T. ACT, 1961, ARISING OUT OF ORDER DATED 11/06/2013, PASSED

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

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

c) allowances which are exempted from payment of tax; (d) the value of perquisites specified in clause (2) of section 17 of the Income-tax Act; (e) any payment or expenditure specifically excluded under proviso to sub-clause (iii) of clause (2) or proviso to clause (2) of section 17; (vii) ―maximum outstanding monthly balance‖ means the aggregate outstanding balance

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

c) The appellant claims that they are entitled to interest on this amount, i.e., on Rs.1,42,04,705/- with effect from 1st April, 1995 to 31st may, ITA Nos. 167/2012 & 168/2012 Page 4 of 17 2008 upto the date of refund of Rs.1,42,04,705/- and interest on Rs.18,25,790/- from 1st June, 1999 upto the date

The Commissioner of Income Tax, vs. N. Annapurna

The appeals are dismissed with no order as to costs

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

5. A show-cause notice (‘SCN’) dated 28th January 2000 was issued to the Assessee. In response thereto, the Assessee by its letters dated 2nd February and 8th February 2000 stated that after discussion with the Japanese Chamber of Commerce and Industry, CBDT, CCIT and CIT-VI, the Assessee had paid revised tax and interest under Section 201 (1

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

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-TDS vs. M/S.IDEA CELLULAR LTD

Appeals are dismissed as withdrawn

Bench: SUJOY PAUL,NAMAVARAPU RAJESHWAR RAO

1 d),Hyderabad. Between: The Commissioner of lncome Tax-TDS, Hyderabad ...Appellant AND Mis. ldea Cellular Ltd., H.No.5-9-62, KLK Estates, Fateh Maidan Road, Hyderabad ...Respondent lncome Tax Tribunal Appeal Under Section 2604 of the lncome Tax Act,1961 against the Order dated 25.10.2017 passed in ITA No. 17641HYD12014 for the Assessment Year 2005-2006 on the file

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

The appeal stands dismissed

c) r.w 274 of the Income-tax Act for concealment and furnishing of inaccurate particulars are initiated separately. (iv) The assessee has booked various expenses of contractual nature, vide order sheet entry dated 29.12.2009, the assessee was asked to show cause why the same should not disallowed u/s40a(ia). In response thereto the assessee has only filed copy of bills

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

c) administrative overheads that do not contribute to bringing ITA 210/2003 & connected matters Page 16 of 36 the inventories to their present location and condition; and (d) selling and distribution costs.” 28. There is, therefore, merit in the contention of the Assessee that the compensation paid to the flat buyers upon surrender of the respective allotted commercial spaces cannot

The Principal Commissioner of Income Tax vs. M/s.Midwest Granites Private Limited

Appeal stands dismissed accordingly

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,KONGARA VIJAYA LAKSHMI

C” Bench, Bangalore [‘Tribunal’ for short] dated 17.01.2018 passed in ITA No.206/Pan/2016 relating to the Assessment Year 2012-13. 2. The revenue has filed the appeal raising the following substantial question of law No.1 to 6: 1. “Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, Tribunal is right in law in setting aside the disallowance made under

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

The appeals are disposed of accordingly

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

TDS) Shimla …. Respondent. 3 Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice M.S. Ramachandra Rao, Chief Justice. The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Ajay Mohan Goel, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? For the appellants : Mr. Anup Rattan, Advocate General, with M/s Rakesh Dhaulta, Pranay Pratap Singh, Additional Advocate Generals and M/s Arsh Rattan, Sidharth Jalta, Deputy Advocate Generals, with Mr. Rakesh Sharma, Standing

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

Appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

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

c) administrative overheads that do not contribute to bringing ITA 210/2003 & connected matters Page 16 of 36 the inventories to their present location and condition; and (d) selling and distribution costs.” 28. There is, therefore, merit in the contention of the Assessee that the compensation paid to the flat buyers upon surrender of the respective allotted commercial spaces cannot

Commissioner of Income Tax, vs. Agricultural Market committee,

The appeals are dismissed

Bench: V.V.S.RAO,SANJAY KUMAR

TDS. 2. While admitting the matter following questions were framed:- 1. Whether Tribunal was justified in holding that the payment made by the assessee in form of transmission/ wheeling/ SLDC charges were not liable to be deducted at source either under Section 194J or 194C of the Income Tax Act? 2. Whether Tribunal was justified in holding -2- that

Commissioner of Income Tax-II, Hyderabad. vs. M/s.Trinity Advanced Software Labs (P) Ltd.,

The appeal is disposed of in

Bench: The Hon'Ble Mr Justice Anant Ramanath Hegde Regular First Appeal No. 179 Of 2013 (Dec/Pos) Between:

SECTION 151 OF THE CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE: The parties hereby submit that with the intervention of the family members, well wishers and friends the above appeal has been compromised between the parties under the following terms and conditions. 1. The appellants in the above appeal are the defendants and the respondents is the plaintiff in the suit filed before

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

section 271(1)(c) are being initiated separately.” 7. This is the entire discussion on the said addition, in the assessment order. The amounts in question are substantial. The Assessing Officer must discuss the facts before he affirms his final ITA No. 439/2013 Page 4 of 5 conclusion, especially when significant additions are made creating tax liability. 8. CIT(Appeals

M/s Vodafone Mobile Services Limited vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax (TDS)

Bench: SUJOY PAUL,NAMAVARAPU RAJESHWAR RAO

section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High court may be pleased to direct the Respondent not to take any coercive steps for the recovery of the balance alleged demand, pending disposal of the above appeal Counsel for the Appellant : Sri A V A Siva Kartikeya Counsel