Commissioner of Income Tax-(TDS), vs. M/s.Neeladri Chit Funds Private Ltd.,

Appeals are dismissed

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

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., GANDHINAGAR 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.1420/BANG/2014

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

TDS under Section 194H of the Act and as such, addition under Section 40(a)(ia) of the Act was not sustainable. 3.5 The appeals filed by the appellant/revenue pertaining to both assessment years were dismissed by the Tribunal by way of the orders, impugned in the present two appeals. 4. As mentioned above, these appeals revolve around two common

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

Appeal stands dismissed

Bench: P.SAM KOSHY,NARSING RAO NANDIKONDA

TDS) also ultimately held that there were specific defects. However, the ITAT found that merely because of a change of opinion, the order passed by the AO cannot be disturbed under Section 263 of the Act of 1961. It is only when the assessment order has been passed without making inquiry and verification from reasonable and prudent officer that

M/s.V.R.Farms Pvt Ltd vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax

The appeals are dismissed

Bench: P.SAM KOSHY,SUDDALA CHALAPATHI RAO

TDS. 7. It was further contended that this was the position in law prior to 01.04.2007. Since this was causing hardship, various ITA Nos. 402/2005 & Others Page No.12 of 44 representations were received by the Central Board of Direct Taxes to treat the tax credit under section

The Commissioner of Income Tax-I, vs. M/s. Celestial Laboratories Limited,

In the result, the appeal is disposed of

Section 194J of the Act. In the meanwhile, 7 the aforesaid Medi Assist India filed writ appeals challenging the order passed by the learned Single Judge on 18.12.2009. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax (TDS

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

7 states that when a contractor uses a particular method of accounting for a contract, “then in respect of all other contracts that meet similar criteria, the same method is used.” Para 11.3 states that the methods of accounting used by the contractor and the criteria adopted in selecting the method represents “an accounting policy.” If the contractor changes from

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

Appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

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

7 states that when a contractor uses a particular method of accounting for a contract, “then in respect of all other contracts that meet similar criteria, the same method is used.” Para 11.3 states that the methods of accounting used by the contractor and the criteria adopted in selecting the method represents “an accounting policy.” If the contractor changes from

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

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

7 SCC 728] and canvassed that there cannot be any estoppel against law. It was also argued that the circular cannot override the statutory provisions under any circumstances whatsoever and in the absence of any independent exemption from tax, the appellants cannot rely upon the 1944 or even 1977 circular to claim exclusion from TDS. The learned standing counsel also

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

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

7 SCC 728] and canvassed that there cannot be any estoppel against law. It was also argued that the circular cannot override the statutory provisions under any circumstances whatsoever and in the absence of any independent exemption from tax, the appellants cannot rely upon the 1944 or even 1977 circular to claim exclusion from TDS. The learned standing counsel also

Commissioner of Income Tax-II vs. Smt G Sailaja

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

7 SCC 728] and canvassed that there cannot be any estoppel against law. It was also argued that the circular cannot override the statutory provisions under any circumstances whatsoever and in the absence of any independent exemption from tax, the appellants cannot rely upon the 1944 or even 1977 circular to claim exclusion from TDS. The learned standing counsel also

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

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

7 SCC 728] and canvassed that there cannot be any estoppel against law. It was also argued that the circular cannot override the statutory provisions under any circumstances whatsoever and in the absence of any independent exemption from tax, the appellants cannot rely upon the 1944 or even 1977 circular to claim exclusion from TDS. The learned standing counsel also

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

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

7 SCC 728] and canvassed that there cannot be any estoppel against law. It was also argued that the circular cannot override the statutory provisions under any circumstances whatsoever and in the absence of any independent exemption from tax, the appellants cannot rely upon the 1944 or even 1977 circular to claim exclusion from TDS. The learned standing counsel also

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

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

7 SCC 728] and canvassed that there cannot be any estoppel against law. It was also argued that the circular cannot override the statutory provisions under any circumstances whatsoever and in the absence of any independent exemption from tax, the appellants cannot rely upon the 1944 or even 1977 circular to claim exclusion from TDS. The learned standing counsel also

The Commissioner of Income Tax vs. M/s.A.Venkateswarlu AND Co

Bench: GODA RAGHURAM,M.S.RAMACHANDRA RAO

Section 194-A of the Act and has thereafter recorded a finding that TDS of `1,23,673/- has been calculated on the total interest amount of the award of compensation, whereas in fact interest is less than `50,000/- per annum. The executing Court is justified in arriving to the conclusion that the interest payable to the claimant

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

7. It was specifically concluded by the CIT(A) that the penalty demand of Rs. 6,52,675/- treating the Appellant as Assessee in default under Section 201 (1) of the IT Act to the extent of short deduction of TDS

Commissioner of Income Tax, vs. Agricultural Market Committee,

The appeals are dismissed

Bench: GODA RAGHURAM,M.S.RAMACHANDRA RAO

7 I. T. A.No.457/2012 BETWEEN: 1. The Commissioner of Income-Tax TDS, HMT Bhavan, Bellary Road, Bangalore 2. The Income-Tax Officer TDS Ward, Aayakar Bhavan, Sedam Road, Gulbarga – 585 105 …Appellants (By Sri K.V.Aravind and Sri Ameetkumar Deshpande, Advocates) AND: Gulbarga Electricity Supply Company Ltd., Corporate Office, Main Road, Gulbarga - 585 102 ... Respondent (By Sri A Shankar

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

The appeals are disposed of accordingly

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

7) Accordingly, notices were issued under Section 156(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 against the Department of Excise & Taxation. 8) Orders were passed on 30.06.2008 for the year 2004-05 to 2008-09, and according to the Income Tax Department huge demand is due on this count. 9) Against the orders passed on 30.06.2008, the Department preferred appeals

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

7 BANGALORE-560022 .. RESPONDENT (BY SRI S PARTHASARATHI, ADV.) THIS APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 260-A OF I.T. ACT, 1961, ARISING OUT OF ORDER DATED 25/05/2012 PASSED IN ITA NO.692/BANG/2011, FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2008-2009, PRAYING THAT THIS HON'BLE COURT MAY BE PLEASED TO: I. FORMULATE THE SUBSTANTIAL QUESTIONS OF LAW STATED THEREIN, II. ALLOW THE APPEAL