2017 (11) TMI 389

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... law: "1.Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law the ITAT has erred in deleting addition of Rs. 1,09,018/- made depositing the employee's contribution to PF and ESI beyond the prescribed time limit provided in the respective Acts. 2. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law the ITAT has erred in holding that payment of Rs. 2,81,23,73,125/- on account of transmission/wheeling/SLDC charges to RRVPN were not for technical services liable for making TDS under section 194J of the I.T. Act as such provisions of Section 40 (a)(ia) are not applicable. 3. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law the ITAT has erred in deleting the addition ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....y other name, in the books of account of the person liable to pay such income, such crediting shall be deemed to be credit of such income to the account of the payee and the provisions of this section shall apply accordingly. (3) Where any sum is paid or credited for carrying out any work mentioned in sub-clause (e) of clause (iv) of the Explanation, tax shall be deducted at source- (I) on the invoice value excluding the value of material, if such value is mentioned separately in the invoice; or (ii) on the whole of the invoice value, if the value of material is not mentioned separately in the invoice. (4) No individual or Hindu undivided family shall be liable to deduct income-tax on the sum credited or ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....sions: 1. Commission of Income Tax Vs. Bharti Cellular Ltd. (2011) 330 ITR 239 (SC), 2. Union of India Vs. Satish Panalal Shah (2001) 249 ITR 221 (SC), 3. Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Jaipur Vidyut Vitran Nigam Ltd. D.B. ITA No. 579/2009, High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan, Jaipur 4. Commissioner of Income Tax Vs Bharti Cellular Ltd (2009) 319 ITR 139 (Del.) 5. Skycell communications Ltd. And Anr. Vs Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax and Ors. (2001) 251 ITR 53 (MAD.) 6. M.S. Jewellery Vs. Assistant Commissioner (ASSESSMENT) Agricultural Income Tax and Sales 7. CIT vs. Maharashtra State Electricity Distribution Co. Ltd., (2015) 119 DTR (BOM) 278, 8. Commissioner of....