2015 (11) TMI 116 - ITAT KOLKATA
Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax Versus M/s. Height Insurance Services Ltd.
Penalty u/s. 271C - failure to deduct tax and deposit to Govt. account - short deduction of TDS u/s. 194D of the Act treating the payments as contractual receipts u/s. 194C - CIT(A) deleted penalty - Held that - The assessee has made payments treating the same as contractual payments in lieu of the agreement after obtaining opinion from the advocate. There is no dispute that the assessee has deducted tax u/s. 194C of the Act for contractual payment on the basis of the opinion of advocate and this is also not under dispute that the deductions were required to be made by the assessee u/s. 194D o ....... - .......
2014 (12) TMI 1174 - ITAT VISAKHAPATNAM
Smt. Susheela Davi Bothra Jain, Shree Carrying Corporation Versus ITO Ward-1, Rajahmundry.
Revision u/s 263 - as per CIT(A) the amount has been split into two parts so as to avoid the attraction of provisions section 40A(3) - Held that - The copies of the ledger account of the Lorries demonstrate that the payment in question has been made in different points of time. The advance has been paid to the lorry at the first instance and, thereafter when the delivery of the goods has been made, the balance amount has been paid. This fact is reflected by way of passing of journal entries, wherein, the lorries have been credited with the balance payable on the day of payment of advance and i ....... - .......
2011 (12) TMI 226 - ITAT CHENNAI
Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax, Company Circle V(4) Versus Richard Strauss Insurance Broking (P.) Ltd.
Business expenditure - CIT(A) deleted disallowance of various expenses expenses disallowed by A.O. on ground that same have been incurred by Shriram Group Companies(SGC) though paid by assessee invoices are raised in name of Shriram group of companies absence of agreement between assessee & SGC for incurrence of such expenses Held that Revenue did not brought any material on record to show that the expenses were not incurred for the purposes of the assessee s business. In our considered opinion, the maintaining or writing in the vouchers in a particular manner will not empower the A.O. to ....... - .......
2010 (10) TMI 359 - ITAT, MUMBAI
Tata AIG General Insurance Co. Ltd. Versus Income-tax Officer (OSD) 3(2)
TDS on reinsurance commission - Survey - Assessee in default - there was no agency relationship between the assessee and Bajaj and the arrangement between the parties was to share the premium, risk etc. on principal-to-principal basis - assessee company has provided reinsurance to the insurance company and if the reinsurance companies have reduced the premium directly from the premium payable by the insured, such a deduction will not attract provisions of section 194D - Decided in the favour of the assessee - The next issue relating to the liability of the assessee to deduct tax at source from ....... - .......
2009 (2) TMI 234 - ITAT BOMBAY-G
General Insurance Corporation Of India. Versus Assistant Commissioner Of Income-Tax.
....... - ...... rendered for soliciting or procuring insurance business. If the insurance companies reduce the premium directly from the premium payable by the insured on account of no claim bonus, etc. such a deduction will not attract the provisions of s. 194D. On the facts of the present case. s. 194D is not attracted. We hold accordingly. The order under ss. 201(1) and 201(1A) is accordingly set aside. 38. In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed.
2007 (9) TMI 190 - DELHI HIGH COURT
COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX Versus TELEVISTA ELECTRONICS P. LTD.
Since assessee was assessed to a loss for the A.Y. 1976-77 to 1978-79, thus for the AY 1979-80, assessee was not required to compute advance tax as per sec. 209(1)(a) or file a statement of advance tax interest levied for non-furnishing of statement is not justified
2007 (7) TMI 7 - HIGH COURT , BOMBAY
Yashpal Sahni Versus 1. Rekha Hajarnavis, 2. KC Meena, 3. Tarkeshwar Singh, 4. KM Verma, 5. The Union of India, 6. Lan Eseda Industries Ltd.
Where the employer deduct TDS from the salary of employee, whether the revenue can recover the said amount of TDS with interest from the concerned employee? It was held that revenue can not collect TDS from the employee directly. Bar contained in section 205 applicable.
2006 (9) TMI 81 - HIGH COURT, PUNJAB AND HARYANA
COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX Versus HIND WOOLLEN AND HOSIERY MILLS
Revenue contended that (i) Extra shift allowance has to be calculated on the basis of the number of days on which the concern worked (ii) Assessee liable for interest u/s 215 and 217(1A) Held that revenue contention was not correct and allowed appeal of assessee in both cases
2006 (4) TMI 50 - ITAT, KOLKATA
ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX Versus BHARTI CELLULAR LTD.
Deduction of tax at source - Revenue contended that assessee had paid commission to the franchisees and liable to deduct tax at source but as per assessee it is discount on sale - Held that revenue contention was correct and regarded assessee as defaulter