COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-II, HYDERABAD vs. M/S. PATNI TELECOM SOLUTIONS PVT. LTD.,

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., ASHOKA PILLAR 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.1421/BANG/2014

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

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

Appeal stands dismissed

Bench: P.SAM KOSHY,NARSING RAO NANDIKONDA

TDS deducted Non deduction Mela mandir Security Expenses (u/s194C) (Apka Electric & Decoration centre TSS security expenses 46,000/- 8,28,771/- 460/- 8287/- Nil 8,747/- Mela Tent Decoration expenses (194C) (Apka Electric & Decoration centre) 4,17,885/- 4178/- Nil 4,178/- Mela Mandir Roshni expenses (194C) Apka Electric & Decoration centre) 4,92,940/- 4,929/- Nil 4,929/- Mela

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

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

8 of AS 7 talks of “Costs to be Accumulated for Construction Contracts”. Para 8.1 states that “Costs attributable to a contract are identified with reference to the period that commences with the securing of the contract and closes when the contract is completed.” 19. Under para 8.4, the costs incurred by a contractor are stated to be divided into

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

Appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

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

8 of AS 7 talks of “Costs to be Accumulated for Construction Contracts”. Para 8.1 states that “Costs attributable to a contract are identified with reference to the period that commences with the securing of the contract and closes when the contract is completed.” 19. Under para 8.4, the costs incurred by a contractor are stated to be divided into

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

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

8. We must mention at this juncture that, at the time when the writ appeals came up for admission, this Court had, on 09.03.2015, while interdicting deduction of tax at source during the pendency of the appeals, directed consideration of the issue of the 1944 and the 1977 circulars, by the CBDT and to place its views/decision before this Court

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

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

8. We must mention at this juncture that, at the time when the writ appeals came up for admission, this Court had, on 09.03.2015, while interdicting deduction of tax at source during the pendency of the appeals, directed consideration of the issue of the 1944 and the 1977 circulars, by the CBDT and to place its views/decision before this Court

Commissioner of Income Tax-II vs. Smt G Sailaja

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

8. We must mention at this juncture that, at the time when the writ appeals came up for admission, this Court had, on 09.03.2015, while interdicting deduction of tax at source during the pendency of the appeals, directed consideration of the issue of the 1944 and the 1977 circulars, by the CBDT and to place its views/decision before this Court

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

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

8. We must mention at this juncture that, at the time when the writ appeals came up for admission, this Court had, on 09.03.2015, while interdicting deduction of tax at source during the pendency of the appeals, directed consideration of the issue of the 1944 and the 1977 circulars, by the CBDT and to place its views/decision before this Court

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

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

8. We must mention at this juncture that, at the time when the writ appeals came up for admission, this Court had, on 09.03.2015, while interdicting deduction of tax at source during the pendency of the appeals, directed consideration of the issue of the 1944 and the 1977 circulars, by the CBDT and to place its views/decision before this Court

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

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

8. We must mention at this juncture that, at the time when the writ appeals came up for admission, this Court had, on 09.03.2015, while interdicting deduction of tax at source during the pendency of the appeals, directed consideration of the issue of the 1944 and the 1977 circulars, by the CBDT and to place its views/decision before this Court

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

The appeals are dismissed

Bench: P.SAM KOSHY,SUDDALA CHALAPATHI RAO

section 115JAA in addition to the existing reduction of TDS so as to arrive at the figure of ―assessed tax‖ which formed the basis of the charge of interest. A similar amendment was brought about in the Explanation after 234C(1). 8

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

Section 201 (1) of the IT Act to the extent of short deduction of TDS “is hereby deleted”. The reason was that the employees had paid their taxes directly through self assessment and had filed details of their income. Therefore, no further tax was payable. 8

Commissioner of Income Tax, vs. Agricultural Market Committee,

The appeals are dismissed

Bench: GODA RAGHURAM,M.S.RAMACHANDRA RAO

8 I. T. A.No.459/2012 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

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

8 PROP: M/S KARNATAKA ROADLINES 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 03/08/2012 PASSED IN ITA NO.375/BANG/2012, FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEARS 2009-2010, PRAYING THAT THIS HON'BLE COURT MAY BE PLEASED TO: I. FORMULATE

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

Appeal stands dismissed accordingly

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,KONGARA VIJAYA LAKSHMI

TDS as required under Section 194H of the Act? 5. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, Tribunal is right in law in setting aside the disallowances made under Section 36(1) (viia) and (viii) by relying upon its earlier orders passed for the assessment years 2009-10 to 2011-12 which have been challenged before

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