2016 (5) TMI 1254 - ITAT MUMBAI
TDS u/s 194J OR 194C - nature of services received by the assessee by incurring data storage expenses - Held that - CIT(A) after having examined and perused agreements with the service providers and after going into the various services provided reac... ... ...
2015 (11) TMI 116 - ITAT KOLKATA
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 treatin... ... ...
2014 (12) TMI 1174 - ITAT VISAKHAPATNAM
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 ... ... ...
2011 (12) TMI 226 - ITAT CHENNAI
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 companie... ... ...
2010 (10) TMI 359 - ITAT, MUMBAI
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 comp... ... ...
2009 (2) TMI 234 - ITAT BOMBAY-G
... ... tion 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
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
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
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
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