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

Appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

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

80. The next question is about charging of interest under Section 201(1A). The view that while passing on the rents collected to the respective owners the Assessee should have deducted TDS

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

Commissioner of Income Tax vs. M/s. Southern Packaging

Bench: The Hon'Ble Mr. Justice Ravi Malimath

TDS etc.,? ii. In the facts and circumstances of the case, whether the tribunal is correct directing the assessing authority to allow deduction under section 80HHC when the assessee has failed to file the same before assessing authority when the assessing authority had specifically asked the assessee to file the same during the course of assessment proceedings and has filed

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

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

80 Madras [(2019) 412 ITR 545] wherein the Madras High Court had, after approving the judgment of the learned Single Judge impugned in this appeal, declared that the TDS is liable to be deducted from the salaries paid to the nuns or priests. 15. The rival contentions adverted to at the Bar has given rise to the following questions

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

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

80 Madras [(2019) 412 ITR 545] wherein the Madras High Court had, after approving the judgment of the learned Single Judge impugned in this appeal, declared that the TDS is liable to be deducted from the salaries paid to the nuns or priests. 15. The rival contentions adverted to at the Bar has given rise to the following questions

Commissioner of Income Tax-II vs. Smt G Sailaja

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

80 Madras [(2019) 412 ITR 545] wherein the Madras High Court had, after approving the judgment of the learned Single Judge impugned in this appeal, declared that the TDS is liable to be deducted from the salaries paid to the nuns or priests. 15. The rival contentions adverted to at the Bar has given rise to the following questions

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

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

80 Madras [(2019) 412 ITR 545] wherein the Madras High Court had, after approving the judgment of the learned Single Judge impugned in this appeal, declared that the TDS is liable to be deducted from the salaries paid to the nuns or priests. 15. The rival contentions adverted to at the Bar has given rise to the following questions

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

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

80 Madras [(2019) 412 ITR 545] wherein the Madras High Court had, after approving the judgment of the learned Single Judge impugned in this appeal, declared that the TDS is liable to be deducted from the salaries paid to the nuns or priests. 15. The rival contentions adverted to at the Bar has given rise to the following questions

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

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

80 Madras [(2019) 412 ITR 545] wherein the Madras High Court had, after approving the judgment of the learned Single Judge impugned in this appeal, declared that the TDS is liable to be deducted from the salaries paid to the nuns or priests. 15. The rival contentions adverted to at the Bar has given rise to the following questions

Commissioner of Income Tax, vs. M/s Polisetty Somasundaram,

Section 80-G. (10) The assessee-company had claimed total expenses of Rs.1,97,72,54,772/- under different heads in the P & L Account. No details were furnished by the assessee to prove the genuineness of these expenses. Moreover, the expenses under various heads were allowable only when TDS

The Commissioner of Income Tax-IV vs. M/s. Pennar Industries Limited

Bench: SANJAY KUMAR,GUDISEVA SHYAM PRASAD

80 FEET ROAD, KORAMANGALA, BENGALURU-560095. 2. THE ASST.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (TDS), CIRCLE-16(1), NO.59, HMT BHAVAN, 4TH FLOOR, BALLARY ROAD, GANGANAGAR, BENGALURU-560032. ...APPELLANTS (BY SRI. K.V. ARAVIND AND SRI. DILIP. M., ADVOCAES) AND: M/S SHYAMARAJU & CO (INDIA) PVT.LTD. "DIVYASREE CHAMBERS", WING-A, #11, SHAUGNESSY ROAD, BENGALURU-560025. ... RESPONDENT (BY SRI. M LAVA, ADVOCATE) 2 THIS

M/S. SREE TRADING CORPORATION vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 4(1), HYDERABAD

Bench: N.TUKARAMJI,UJJAL BHUYAN

80,500/- 14. In support of the above claim, appellant had furnished confirmation letters from the four transporters. In order to verify correctness of the confirmation letters, assessing officer issued notice to the transporters under Section 133(6) of the Act. All the four transporters (creditors) denied that the above outstanding credits were receivable by them from the appellant

COMMR OF INCOME TAX-II, HYDERABAD vs. M/S JAPSON ESTATES PVT LTD., HYDERABAD

The appeal is allowed;

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,KONGARA VIJAYA LAKSHMI

80 FEET ROAD, 6TH BLOCK, KORAMANGALA, BENGALURU 560095 …RESPONDENT (BY SRI. SANMATHI E.I ., ADVOCATE) THIS ITA / INCOME TAX APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SEC.260-A OF INCOME TAX ACT 1961, PRAYING TO FORMULATE THE SUBSTANTIAL QUESTIONS OF LAW AS STATED ABOVE AND ANSWER THE SAME IN FAVOR OF THE APPELLANT, TO ALLOW THE APPEAL AND SET ASIDE THE FINDINGS TO THE EXTENT

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

80,283 AMC charges of Serviont Global dialer Rs 10,29,643 Total Rs 2,51,96,577 Since this provision is not allowable, the amount of Rs 2,51,96,577 is disallowed and added to the income of the assessee. Since I am satisfied that the assessee has furnished inaccurate particulars of its income, penalty proceedings under section

Commissioner of Income Tax-II, vs. M/s. Kura Homes Pvt. Ltd.,

Appeal stands allowed

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

Section 166 of the M.V. Act. Learned Tribunal, on perusal of the documents brought on record and after hearing counsel for the parties and upon going through the written statement as well as other documents, framed following issues for proper and just adjudication of the case:- i) Whether this claim case is maintainable in the present form