THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-I, vs. AYYAPPA INFRA PROJECTS PVT LTD.,

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

disallowed as the petitioner did not deduct TDS on the said amount. The assessing authority thereafter added this amount of Rs. 23,48,979/- to the total

Commissioner of Income Tax-III vs. Sigma Constructions

In the result, the appeal is dismissed

disallowance of Rs.2,28,95,853/- being TDS payment made on behalf of sale promoters. In paragraph 6.3.5, it has also

Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax-2, vs. M/s Trinity Advanced Software Labs Private Limited,

In the result, we do not find any merit in the appeal

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

disallowance made u/s.40(a)(i) 3 for non-deduction of tax on payment made to abbey National Plc., UK., in not liable to TDS

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

Appeal stands dismissed accordingly

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,KONGARA VIJAYA LAKSHMI

disallowance as the payments made to NFS is nothing but commission/brokerage and as such the assessing authority invoked said section as since assessee had not deducted TDS

PRL COMMISSOER OF INCOME TAX vs. SRISURAM VENKATESWARA REDDY

In the result, appeal filed by the revenue fails and is

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,KONGARA VIJAYA LAKSHMI

disallowance made under Section 40(a) (ia) of the Act on ATM charges of other Banks even though Section 194H and Explanation to said section is applicable to assessee-Bank and as such assessee ought to have deducted TDS

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

TDS deductible and deducted in the last month of previous year if was not paid till the due date of filing of return under sub-section (1) of Section 139 and in any other case, on or before the last day of the previous year, Section 40(a)(ia) provided for 15 the disallowance

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

TDS was deducted and deposited in the Government account. Since no information was furnished by the assessee nor any evidence is available on record to substantiate the claim of the assessee as genuine, the expenses of Rs.2,00,00,000/- not relating to the business were disallowed

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

disallowed as business expenditure. 71. Further as rightly pointed out, AS 2 would apply in terms of which, with ITA 210/2003 & connected matters Page 31 of 36 the Assessee following the CCM, the expenditure incurred subsequent to the completion of the project cannot be attributed to work and had to be allowed only as revenue expenditure. Consequently, the question

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

Appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

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

disallowed as business expenditure. 71. Further as rightly pointed out, AS 2 would apply in terms of which, with ITA 210/2003 & connected matters Page 31 of 36 the Assessee following the CCM, the expenditure incurred subsequent to the completion of the project cannot be attributed to work and had to be allowed only as revenue expenditure. Consequently, the question

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

disallowance under Section 40(a)(ia) of the Act could not be sustained. 6. We may note that this view has been accepted by the Supreme Court in Commissioner of Income-tax v. Ahmedabad Stamp Vendors Association, [2012] 25 taxmann.com 201(SC). 7. Therefore, insofar as proposed question no. (ii) is concerned, in our view, that question does not arise

Commissioner of Income Tax (TDS) vs. Hyderabad Race Club

Bench: The Tribunal, That The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), Hyderabad Had Erred In Granting The Threshold Limit Of Rs.2,500/- On Each Transaction For The Assessment Years 2007-08 & 2008-09 & In Deleting The Addition Made Under Section 194Bb Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (For Short “The Act”). The Tribunal, However, Proceeded On The Premise That What Was Disallowed By The Assessing Authority Was The Aggregate Of The Transactions; & Held That It Is Only If Each Payment Exceeds A Sum Of Rs.2,500/- Can Tax Be Deducted At Source & Not Otherwise. The Question Before The Tribunal Was Not Whether Tax Deduction At Source Is Applicable For Each Payment Exceeding Rs.2,500/-, Or Payments Exceeding Rs.2,500/- In Aggregate. What Was Put In Issue By The Revenue Before The Tribunal Was That, Even For Each Individual Payment Exceeding Rs.2,500/-, Whether The Assessee Was Entitled To Deduct Rs.2,500/- As The Threshold Limit & Deduct Tds Only For The Balance. This Question Of Law, Though Specifically Raised By The Revenue Before The Tribunal, Has Not Even Been Considered, Let Alone Answered. We Consider It Appropriate, Therefore, To Set Aside The Orders Under Appeal & Remand The Matter To The Tribunal To Examine This Question Afresh In Accordance With Law.

disallowed by the assessing authority was the aggregate of the transactions; and held that it is only if each payment exceeds a sum of Rs.2,500/- can tax be deducted at source and not otherwise. The question before the Tribunal was not whether tax deduction at source is applicable for each payment exceeding Rs.2,500/-, or payments exceeding Rs.2

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

Bench: N.TUKARAMJI,UJJAL BHUYAN

TDS certificate and annual return of deduction of tax filed in Form No.26 (c) by the assessee and rely upon the oral evidence of the sundry creditors given behind the back of the assessee?” 5. Appellant is an assessee under the Act carrying on the business of commission agent for M/s. Parle Products, Mumbai which includes transportation of its products

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

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 271(1)(c) are being initiated separately.” 7. This is the entire discussion on the said addition, in the assessment order. The amounts in question are substantial. The Assessing Officer must discuss

The Commissioner of Income Tax-III vs. M/s.Vishwas Investments Pvt.Ltd,

Bench: GODA RAGHURAM,M.S.RAMACHANDRA RAO

disallowance of the expenditure payment of which, though required deduction of tax at source, has not been made, would be confined only to those cases where the amount remains payable till the end of the previous years or would include all amounts which became payable during the entire previous year? (ii) Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case

The Commissioner of Income Tax- I vs. M/s. Avon Organics Limited

Bench: GODA RAGHURAM,M.S.RAMACHANDRA RAO

disallowed as revenue expenditure but capitalised, is as under:- “S.No. Expenses Head Amount 01. Salary & Wages 2283936 02 Employer Contribution to PF 46658 03 Employer Contribution to ESI 46919 04 Admin Charges PF/EDLI 4316 05 ESLI Charges 1943 06 Medical Expenses 151 07 Books & Periodicals 986 08 House Keeping Expenses 42493 09 Generator Running Maintt. 25121 ITA 257/2012 Page