Commissioner of Income Tax-II vs. Smt G Sailaja

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

2. Few of the nuns and priests indulge in pedagogy apart from their religious calling. Those pedagogues are paid salaries. Under W.A. No.410/15 & Conn. Cases 72 their religious covenant, nuns and priests bind themselves to a vow not to own property. At the time of initiation into their religious calling, they claim to have taken that vow - known

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

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

2. Few of the nuns and priests indulge in pedagogy apart from their religious calling. Those pedagogues are paid salaries. Under W.A. No.410/15 & Conn. Cases 72 their religious covenant, nuns and priests bind themselves to a vow not to own property. At the time of initiation into their religious calling, they claim to have taken that vow - known

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

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

2. Few of the nuns and priests indulge in pedagogy apart from their religious calling. Those pedagogues are paid salaries. Under W.A. No.410/15 & Conn. Cases 72 their religious covenant, nuns and priests bind themselves to a vow not to own property. At the time of initiation into their religious calling, they claim to have taken that vow - known

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

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

2. Few of the nuns and priests indulge in pedagogy apart from their religious calling. Those pedagogues are paid salaries. Under W.A. No.410/15 & Conn. Cases 72 their religious covenant, nuns and priests bind themselves to a vow not to own property. At the time of initiation into their religious calling, they claim to have taken that vow - known

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 IV vs. M/S. PRABHATH AGRI BIO TECH P. LTD.,

The appeals stand dismissed

Bench: P.SAM KOSHY,NARSING RAO NANDIKONDA

8 TC 332 (HL) and Hartland v. Diggines [1926] 10 TC 247 (HL). Both these decisions have been followed by two High Courts in India, i.e., the Bombay High Court in CIT v. H. D. Dennis [1982] 135 ITR 1 and the Madras High Court in CIT v. I. G. Mackintosh [1975] 99 ITR 419. Both the High Courts have

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

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

The appeals are dismissed

Bench: P.SAM KOSHY,SUDDALA CHALAPATHI RAO

2. Question A has been formulated in ITA Nos. 402/2005, 407/2007, 907/2007, 914/2007, 969/2007, 989/2007, 1350/2007, 546/2008, 701/2008, and 893/2008. Question B has been framed in ITA Nos. 1474/2006, 708/2007, 719/2007, 791/2007, 829/2007, 986/2007, 992/2007, 1063/2007, 271/2008, 272/2008, 295/2008, 344/2008, 453/2008, 456/2008, 462/2008, 476/2008, 477/2008, 801/2008 and 802/2008. Essentially, these questions raise the common issue as to whether interest under

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

In the result, the appeal is disposed of

TDS). The assessee thereupon approached the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (hereinafter referred to 8 as 'the Tribunal' for short) by filing appeals against the order passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals). During the pendency of the appeals before the Tribunal, a division bench of this court by order dated 14.03.2012, set aside the order passed by the learned

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

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

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

PENDURTHI CHANDRASEKHAR vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,

The appeal is allowed and all the four substantial

Section 68. 8. Similarly, the Assessing Officer added interest income as per the TDS Certificate, to the Income Tax return. 9. The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) granted relief in so far as the unsecured loan received by the assessee from Smt. Shanti Chowdary, who was none else than the wife of the assessee. This was on the basis

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

Appeal stands dismissed

Bench: P.SAM KOSHY,NARSING RAO NANDIKONDA

2 of 3) [ITA-13/2025] of TDS under the provisions of the Act which allow certain exemptions to charitable trusts under Section 12A. The CIT (TDS), by order dated 22.03.2024, reached to the conclusion that the AO had not properly conducted the inquiry and remanded the matter to the AO for conducting proper inquiry into all the aspects, which

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

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

8 of 17 the period from the 1st day of April of the assessment year to the date on which the refund is granted: Provided that no interest shall be payable if the amount of refund is less than ten per cent of the tax as determined under sub-section (1) of section 115WE or sub-section (1) of section

Commissioner of Income Tax-I vs. M/s. Cargo Handling Pvt. Workers Pool

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

Section 5(2) (d) of the Jammu and Kashmir Prevention of Corruption Act, Svt. 2006 and also of the other offences alleged against him and, therefore, held him deserving to be discharged. 13. Further the court of Special Judge, Anti Corruption, Jammu with respect to the respondent- Rajesh Koul came to observe that from the facts and circumstances

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