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

III to section 194C; (v) “rent” shall have the same meaning as in clause (i) to the Explanation to section 194-I; (vi) “royalty” shall have the same meaning as in Explanation 2 to clause (vi) of sub- section (1) of section 9; By Finance Act, 2010, the said provision is substituted by the following: Substituted by the Finance

The Commissioner of Income Tax I vs. Mesmer Technologies Ltd

The appeals are allowed in part

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

6. Learned Senior counsel Sri. A. Shankar for the appellant - assessee submitted that the impugned service charges do not constitute income in the hands of recipient - KIADB and hence the question of TDS requirement does not arise. The rate of service charges - 8 - has not reached finality and the matter is still pending before the High Power committee of Karnataka

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

iii) of clause (24) thereof, includes the value of any perquisite or profit in lieu of salary taxable under clauses (2) and (3) of section 17, within the meaning of ‗‗income‘‘. All these statutory provisions make it clear that an amount of tax which would have been payable by an employee-assessee, if paid by the employer on behalf

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

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

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

TDS under section 192 of the Act, the person deducting it, is not obliged to or required to ascertain the nature of calling or vocation of the assessee or utilization or application of the income by the assessee. 27. Chargeability to tax is not dependent on the manner of utilization of the income. The utilization of a person’s income

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

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

TDS under section 192 of the Act, the person deducting it, is not obliged to or required to ascertain the nature of calling or vocation of the assessee or utilization or application of the income by the assessee. 27. Chargeability to tax is not dependent on the manner of utilization of the income. The utilization of a person’s income

Commissioner of Income Tax-II vs. Smt G Sailaja

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

TDS under section 192 of the Act, the person deducting it, is not obliged to or required to ascertain the nature of calling or vocation of the assessee or utilization or application of the income by the assessee. 27. Chargeability to tax is not dependent on the manner of utilization of the income. The utilization of a person’s income

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

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

TDS under section 192 of the Act, the person deducting it, is not obliged to or required to ascertain the nature of calling or vocation of the assessee or utilization or application of the income by the assessee. 27. Chargeability to tax is not dependent on the manner of utilization of the income. The utilization of a person’s income

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

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

TDS under section 192 of the Act, the person deducting it, is not obliged to or required to ascertain the nature of calling or vocation of the assessee or utilization or application of the income by the assessee. 27. Chargeability to tax is not dependent on the manner of utilization of the income. The utilization of a person’s income

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

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

TDS under section 192 of the Act, the person deducting it, is not obliged to or required to ascertain the nature of calling or vocation of the assessee or utilization or application of the income by the assessee. 27. Chargeability to tax is not dependent on the manner of utilization of the income. The utilization of a person’s income

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

iii) On 19th March, 1999, Rs.4,01,074/- was refunded. (iv) The appellant became entitled to interest under Section 244A of Rs.36,58,084/- upto 28th March, 1995. This interest is calculated on Rs.53,01,570/-. (v) Interest of Rs.3,57,302/- upto 31st March, 1997 on amount of Rs.14,88,760/- (Rs.53,01,570/- minus Rs.38

The Commissioner of Income Tax, vs. N. Annapurna

The appeals are dismissed with no order as to costs

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

TDS. The Assessee stated that it had been advised that salary paid outside India was not liable to tax in India. The Assessee accordingly submitted that it was prevented by reasonable cause for not deducting tax at source on the sum paid outside India. ITA 371/2005 & connected matters Page 6 of 15 6. The Assessing Officer (‘AO’) passed an order

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

6. The AO negatived the above plea of the Assessee by holding that the Assessee had not paid any compensation to the allottees but had in fact “repurchased these flats” since the allottees had “surrendered their rights in those flats.” Consequently, it was held that the compensation paid to the flat owners could not be said to be business expenditure

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

Appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

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

6. The AO negatived the above plea of the Assessee by holding that the Assessee had not paid any compensation to the allottees but had in fact “repurchased these flats” since the allottees had “surrendered their rights in those flats.” Consequently, it was held that the compensation paid to the flat owners could not be said to be business expenditure

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, RAJAHMUNDRY vs. SRI P. VENKATA NANCHARAIAH

The appeal is allowed in the above terms

Bench: C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY,M.S.K.JAISWAL

1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘IT Act’). The AO had levied a penalty of Rs.6,52,675/- on the ground that the alleged short deduction of TDS was in contravention of Section 192 of the IT Act. 5. While admitting the appeal on 21st September 2007, this Court framed the following substantial questions of law for consideration

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 default for the relevant assessment year to be Rs.1,36,040/- and the Assessing Officer was directed to pass revised order under Section 201 of the Act. Similarly, reckoning the deduction made under Annexure-9 produced in M.A. No. 452 of 2015, the Commissioner restricted the penalty under Section 271C to Rs.74,669/-. Both the orders of the Commissioner

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

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

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,SURESH KUMAR KAIT

6) Ex.A7, Ex.A8 do not reflect the Tax audit. 7) As per 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 for the assessment year 2011-2012. 9) Rs.5,39,685/- is TDS for the assessment

DIRECTOR OF INCOMD TAX [INTERNATIONAL TAXATION] HYDERABAD vs. M/S M W ZANDER [S] PTE LIMITED-INDIA BR, HYDERABAD

Appeals are dismissed

Bench: P.SAM KOSHY,SUDDALA CHALAPATHI RAO

TDS) CIRCLE-16(2) NO.59, HMT BHAVAN, 4TH FLOOR BELLARY ROAD, GANGANAGAR BANGALORE – 560 032. ... APPELLANTS (BY SRI.DILIP, ADV. AND SRI.K.V. ARAVIND, ADV.) AND: THE KARNATAKA STATE APEX CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD., VYALIKAVAL BRANCH BANGALORE. ... RESPONDENT 2 THIS ITA FILED UNDER SECTION 260-A OF INCOME TAX ACT 1961, ARISING OUT OF ORDER DATED 30.04.2015 PASSED IN ITA NO.1418/BANG/2014