Delhi H.C : The assessee is not liable to pay the TDS
High Court Of Delhi CIT vs. Trans Bharat Aviation (P) Ltd. Section 201(1), 201(1A) A.K. Sikri & Valmiki J. Mehta, […]
Sec. 201(1), Sec. 201(1A)
Sec. 201(1)
Sec. 17(2), Sec. 201(1), Sec. 201(1A), Section 192, Section 201
S.C : The “perquisite value” was the difference between the market value and the price paid by the employees for exercise of the option
Supreme Court Of India CIT vs. Infosys Technologies Ltd. Section 17(2)(iii), 17(2)(iiia), 192, 201(1), 201(1A) Asst. Year 1997-98 to 1999-2000
Sec. 201(1), Sec. 201(1A), Section 192, Section 201
Delhi H.C : the appeals filed by the respondent-assessee were allowed and the order passed by the CIT(A) for the asst. yrs. 1999-2000 and 2000-01 levying interest under s. 201(1A) of the IT Act, 1961
High Court Of Delhi CIT vs. Marubeni India (P) Ltd. Section 192, 201(1), 201(1A) Asst. Year 1999-2000 & 2002-01 Madan
Sec. 201(1), Section 201
S.C : the appellant had paid the warehousing charges to M/s Pradeep Oil Corporation on which tax was deducted under s. 194C
Supreme Court Of India Hindustan Coca Cola Beverage (P) Ltd. vs. CIT Section 201(1) S.H. Kapadia & B. Sudershan Reddy,
Sec. 194A, Sec. 201(1), Sec. 201(1A), Section 201
S.C : Whether Tribunal was right in holding that there was no obligation on the part of the assessee company to comply with the statutory requirements of s. 194A
Supreme Court Of India CIT & Anr. vs. Century Building Industries (P) Ltd. Section 194A, 201(1), 201(1A) S.H. Kapadia &
Sec. 201(1), Section 201, Section 221
Allahabad H.C : Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was, in law, justified in cancelling the penalties amounting to Rs. 67,618 and Rs. 1,99,888 imposed under s. 201(1)/221 for the default during the financial years 1982-83 and 1983-84 ?
High Court Of Allahabad CIT vs. Bareilly Development Authority Section 201(1), 221 Asst. Year 1983-84, 1984-85 R.K. Agrawal & Vikram
Sec. 17(2), Sec. 201(1), Section 192
Karnataka H.C : The assessee company was not liable to deduct TDS under s. 192 of the Act over the issue of its shares under stock option plan to its employees at a concessional rate as it cannot be treated as a perquisite (salary) and therefore the assessee cannot be treated as a defaulter under s. 201(1) of the Act, and consequently no interest under s. 201(1A) of the Act can be levied
High Court Of Karnataka CIT & Anr. vs. Infosys Technologies Ltd. Sections 17(2), 192, 201(1) Asst. Years 1997-98, 1998-99, 1999-2000
Sec. 201(1), Sec. 201(1A), Section 201
Delhi H.C : the respondent-assessee had taken on lease a premises for the purposes of its head office
High Court Of Delhi CIT vs. Adidas India Marketing (P) Ltd. Sections 191, 201(1), 201(1A) Asst. Years 2000-01, 2001-02 Madan
Sec. 194A, Sec. 201(1), Sec. 201(1A)
Delhi H.C : The assessee could not be treated to be in default under s. 201 of the IT Act as he was under a bona fide belief that the payments made to TFCI were exempt from deduction of tax at source under s. 194A(3)(iii)(b) of the said Act. If so, what is the effect of non-deduction of the tax in the facts and circumstances of the present case
High Court Of Delhi CIT vs. Majestic Hotel Ltd. Sections 194A, 201(1), 201(1A) Asst. Years 1995-96, 1996-97, 1997-98, 1998-99, 1999-2000,
Sec. 201(1), Sec. 201(1A), Section 201, Section 221
Rajasthan H.C : Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in invoking provisions of s. 231 of the IT Act, 1961, and thus holding the levy of penalty under s. 221 for non-payment of tax deductible at source as barred by time ?
High Court Of Rajasthan CIT vs. Munni Lal & Company Sections 201(1), 201(1), proviso, 201(1A), 221, 231 Asst. Years 1974-75,
