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 III, vs. M/S. SAVIJANA SEA FOODS PVT. LTD.,

Appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: J SREENIVAS RAO,ALOK ARADHE

94,144/- paid by the assessee on account of interest and bank guarantee commission respectively to the bank as business expenditure, when the loan raised from the bank was given by the assessee to its sister concerns without charging interest? b) Whether the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal was correct in law in allowing expenditure towards marketing and publicity, advertisement

Late Smt. Hoorjahan Begum vs. Tghe Income Tax Officer

Appeal stands disposed off

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,S.RAVI KUMAR

Section 192(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 has deducted the tax at source from the employee's salary. In case if an objection is raised by any party, the objector is required to prove by producing evidence such as LPC to suggest that the employer failed to deduct the TDS from the salary of the employee. However, there

The Commissioner of Income Tax-I, vs. M/s. Prasad Film Laboratories Ltd.,

Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 challenges the award dated 19th December, 2011 passed by the Learned Sole Arbitrator. 2. The Petitioner – Food Corporation of India (hereinafter, ‘FCI’) and M/s Shankar Rice and General Mills (hereinafter ‘miller’) had entered into two milling agreements dated 8th November, 1994 and 15th November, 1994. Under the said contracts, the miller