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

vii) of sub-section (1) of section 9; (iii) “professional services” shall have the same meaning as in clause (a) of the Explanation to section 194J; (iv) “work” shall have the same meaning as in Explanation III to section 194C; (v) “rent” shall have the same meaning as in clause (i) to the Explanation to section 194-I; (vi) “royalty

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

The appeal is allowed;

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,KONGARA VIJAYA LAKSHMI

9(1)(vii) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short the ‘Act’). The appellant is said to have submitted its reply. Thereafter, order dated 6.3.2014 was passed under Section 201(1) and 201(1A) of the Act (Annexure-B) and a demand of `50,48,098/- under Section 156 of the Act was issued. Questioning the same, the assessee

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

vii) would indicate that the term perquisites has been defined in an inclusive and expansive manner in the sub-clauses. Sub-clause (iv), which has been underlined, states that any sum paid by the employer in respect of any obligation which, but for such payment, would have been payable by the assessee, i.e., the employee, is treated and regarded

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

vii) The interest of Rs.1,60,30,495/- was paid on 11th June, 2008. (c) The appellant claims that they are entitled to interest on this amount, i.e., on Rs.1,42,04,705/- with effect from 1st April, 1995 to 31st may, ITA Nos. 167/2012 & 168/2012 Page 4 of 17 2008 upto the date of refund of Rs.1

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

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

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,SURESH KUMAR KAIT

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 year 2012-2013. 10) After the death of the deceased, his family

Commissioner of Income Tax, vs. Agricultural Market committee,

The appeals are dismissed

Bench: V.V.S.RAO,SANJAY KUMAR

TDS in lieu of services received by them and for the services received by them was liable to pay tax within the meaning of Explanation 2 to Section 9(1)(vii

The Commissioner of Income Tax-I, Hyderabad. vs. Biological - E Ltd.,

In the result, the appeal is partly

1. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX TDS, NO.59 HMT BHAVAN 4TH FLOOR BELLARY ROAD GANGANAGAR, BANGALORE. 2. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (TDS) TDS CIRCLE 18(2), NO.59, HMT BHAVAN 4TH FLOOR BELLARY ROAD GANGANAGAR, BANGALORE 560 032. ... APPELLANTS (BY Mr. K V ARAVIND, ADV.,) AND: M/S. TTK HEALTHCARE TPA PVT. LTD., NO 2, H B COMPLEX 100 FEET

Commissioner of Income Tax II vs. Sri G.K.Kabra,

In the result, the appeal is partly

1. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX TDS, NO.59 HMT BHAVAN 4TH FLOOR, BELLARY ROAD GANGANAGAR, BANGALORE. 2. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (TDS) TDS CIRCLE 18(2), NO.59, HMT BHAVAN 4TH FLOOR BELLARY ROAD GANGANAGAR, BANGALORE. ... APPELLANTS (BY Mr. K V ARAVIND, ADV.,) AND: M/S. MEDI ASSIST INDIA TAP (P) LTD., ‘SHILPA VIDYA’, NO.49, 1ST MAIN ROAD SARAKKI INDL

PENDURTHI CHANDRASEKHAR vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,

The appeal is allowed and all the four substantial

1)(vii). Further, the provision of the Act (e.g. Section 43D) shall prevail over the provisions of ICDS.” 41. In his order, the AO has proceeded on the assumption that since interest has accrued in the account books of M/s. Dakshin Shelters Private VRS, J & JUD, J I.T.T.A.No.706 of 2016 8 Limited, there is no prohibition on the assessee

Commissioner of Income Tax [TDS] vs. M/s Madhucon sino Hydro.,

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

TDS certificate purported to be issued by L.I.C. and other documents before the Income Tax Department, Dhanbad by putting signature on the verification portion of the said return and thereby claimed refund of Rs.40,437/- on account of excess deduction of tax at source and repayment of housing loan and others. It was alleged that in course of inquiry from