Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 4 of 4 (2.30 seconds)
Documents citing First Income-Tax Officer vs South India Corporation (A) Ltd., ... on 25 July, 1995

M/S. Angre Port (P) Ltd.,, Ratnagiri vs Income-Tax Officer,, on 22 April, 2019

However, Mumbai Bench of Tribunal in ITO Vs. M Dharamdas and Company in ITA Nos.1505 to 1507/Mum/2013, relating to assessment years 2008-09 to 2010-11, order dated 10.07.2015 and the Kolkata Bench of Tribunal in M/s. MCC PTA India Corp. Pvt. Ltd. Vs. ACIT in ITA Nos.151 & 152/Kol/2016, relating to assessment years 2011-12 and 2012-13, order dated 18.07.2018 relying on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Japan Airlines Co. Ltd. reported in 377 ITR 372 (SC), was in favour of assessee. He further referred to provisions of section 194-I of the Act and pointed out that obligation to deduct TDS was when the income was by way of rent; Explanation under the said section defines 'rent'.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Pune Cites 30 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Agencies (India) Corporation, ... vs Department Of Income Tax on 20 March, 2015

4. Before us, Ld. DR submitted that when the partial disallowance on account of interest has been confirmed by Ld. CIT(A) then in that case proportionate penalty should be confirmed. Ld. AR on the other hand submitted that Assessee had furnished the necessary explanation and had not furnished any inaccurate particulars of income. He further submitted that merely because the claim of assessee has not been accepted that by itself would not attract penalty u/s. 271(1)(c). He thus supported the order of CIT(A).
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Ahmedabad Cites 2 - Cited by 1 - Full Document
1