SURESH SAMAT HUF,SECUNDERABAD vs. DCIT, WARD-10(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, all the seven appeals filed by the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Laliet Kumar

rectification u/s 154 being requested. Copy of application u/s 154 dated 19.03.2018 before ITO TDS-2(2), Hyderabad was also

SURESH SAMAT HUF,SECUNDERABAD vs. DCIT, WARD-10(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, all the seven appeals filed by the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Laliet Kumar

rectification u/s 154 being requested. Copy of application u/s 154 dated 19.03.2018 before ITO TDS-2(2), Hyderabad was also

SURESH SAMAT HUF,SECUNDERABAD vs. DCIT, WARD-10(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, all the seven appeals filed by the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Laliet Kumar

rectification u/s 154 being requested. Copy of application u/s 154 dated 19.03.2018 before ITO TDS-2(2), Hyderabad was also

SURESH SAMAT HUF,SECUNDERABAD vs. DCIT, WARD-10(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, all the seven appeals filed by the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Laliet Kumar

rectification u/s 154 being requested. Copy of application u/s 154 dated 19.03.2018 before ITO TDS-2(2), Hyderabad was also

SURESH SAMAT HUF,SECUNDERABAD vs. DCIT, WARD-10(1),, HYDERABAD

In the result, all the seven appeals filed by the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Laliet Kumar

rectification u/s 154 being requested. Copy of application u/s 154 dated 19.03.2018 before ITO TDS-2(2), Hyderabad was also

MADHUCON PROJECTS LTD, HYDERABAD,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3, HYD, HYDERABAD

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Laliet Kumar

TDS Rs. 26165215 Less : Advance Tax Rs. 12000000 Balance Tax Rs. 32835948 Add: Interest u/s 234A Rs. 1970157 Add: Interest u/s 234B Rs. 10835863 Add: Interest u/s 234C Rs. 0 Total tax + Int payable Rs. 45641967 Less: Self tax paid Rs. Less: Regular by Rs. 29414128 adjustment of refund Balance Payable. Rs. 16227839 Madhucon Projects Limited, Hyderabad. 25. The assessee

MADHUCON PROJECTS LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT., CENTRAL CIRCLE-3, HYDERABAD, HYDERABAD

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Laliet Kumar

TDS Rs. 26165215 Less : Advance Tax Rs. 12000000 Balance Tax Rs. 32835948 Add: Interest u/s 234A Rs. 1970157 Add: Interest u/s 234B Rs. 10835863 Add: Interest u/s 234C Rs. 0 Total tax + Int payable Rs. 45641967 Less: Self tax paid Rs. Less: Regular by Rs. 29414128 adjustment of refund Balance Payable. Rs. 16227839 Madhucon Projects Limited, Hyderabad. 25. The assessee

MADHUCON PROJECTS LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT., CENTRAL CIRCLE-3, HYDERABAD, HYDERABAD

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Laliet Kumar

TDS Rs. 26165215 Less : Advance Tax Rs. 12000000 Balance Tax Rs. 32835948 Add: Interest u/s 234A Rs. 1970157 Add: Interest u/s 234B Rs. 10835863 Add: Interest u/s 234C Rs. 0 Total tax + Int payable Rs. 45641967 Less: Self tax paid Rs. Less: Regular by Rs. 29414128 adjustment of refund Balance Payable. Rs. 16227839 Madhucon Projects Limited, Hyderabad. 25. The assessee

SIBY MINING AND INFRASTRUCTURE PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. ITO (TDS), WARD-2(2), HYDERABAD

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee are accordingly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda, Vice- & Shri Laliet Kumar

rectification application must have been decided in its favour. No documents have been shown to us demonstrating any inquiry or efforts were made by the assessee for seeking information about its application u/s 154 of the Act. The assessee has taken the things for granted and wrongly presumed that the application made by it must have been decided in favour

SIBY MINING AND INFRASTRUCTURE PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. ITO (TDS), WARD-2(2), HYDERABAD

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee are accordingly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda, Vice- & Shri Laliet Kumar

rectification application must have been decided in its favour. No documents have been shown to us demonstrating any inquiry or efforts were made by the assessee for seeking information about its application u/s 154 of the Act. The assessee has taken the things for granted and wrongly presumed that the application made by it must have been decided in favour

SIBY MINING AND INFRASTRUCTURE PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. ITO (TDS), WARD-2(2), HYDERABAD

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee are accordingly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda, Vice- & Shri Laliet Kumar

rectification application must have been decided in its favour. No documents have been shown to us demonstrating any inquiry or efforts were made by the assessee for seeking information about its application u/s 154 of the Act. The assessee has taken the things for granted and wrongly presumed that the application made by it must have been decided in favour

SIBY MINING AND INFRASTRUCTURE PRIVATE LIMITED ,HYDERABAD vs. ITO (TDS),WARD-2(2), HYDERABAD

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee are accordingly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda, Vice- & Shri Laliet Kumar

rectification application must have been decided in its favour. No documents have been shown to us demonstrating any inquiry or efforts were made by the assessee for seeking information about its application u/s 154 of the Act. The assessee has taken the things for granted and wrongly presumed that the application made by it must have been decided in favour

SIBY MINING AND INFRASTRUCTURE PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. ITO (TDS), WARD-2(2), HYDERABAD

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee are accordingly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda, Vice- & Shri Laliet Kumar

rectification application must have been decided in its favour. No documents have been shown to us demonstrating any inquiry or efforts were made by the assessee for seeking information about its application u/s 154 of the Act. The assessee has taken the things for granted and wrongly presumed that the application made by it must have been decided in favour

SIBY MINING AND INFRASTRUCTURE PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. ITO (TDS), WARD-2(2), HYDERABAD

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee are accordingly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda, Vice- & Shri Laliet Kumar

rectification application must have been decided in its favour. No documents have been shown to us demonstrating any inquiry or efforts were made by the assessee for seeking information about its application u/s 154 of the Act. The assessee has taken the things for granted and wrongly presumed that the application made by it must have been decided in favour

SIBY MINING AND INFRASTRUCTURE PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. ITO (TDS), WARD-2(2), HYDERABAD

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee are accordingly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda, Vice- & Shri Laliet Kumar

rectification application must have been decided in its favour. No documents have been shown to us demonstrating any inquiry or efforts were made by the assessee for seeking information about its application u/s 154 of the Act. The assessee has taken the things for granted and wrongly presumed that the application made by it must have been decided in favour

KATEPALLY VENKATA SUBRAMANYAM ,KURNOOL vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER (TDS),WARD-1, KURNOOL

In the result, these three appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri Laliet Kumar

TDS for both appeals under consideration on 23.10.2020 and 02.11.2020.In both cases, the orders u/s. 154 r.w.s. 200A were passed after 01.06.2015. 4. On the basis of the above finding given by ld.CIT(A) , ld.DR had submitted decision relied upon by the assessee are 4 Katepally Venkata Subramanyam distinguishable, as rectification

ICONCEPT SOFTWARE SERVICES PRIVATE LIMITED ,HYDERABAD vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX ,TDS,CIRCLE-1(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes as indicated herein above

Bench: Shri A. Mohan Alankamony & Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddya.Y. 2017-18 Iconcept Software Services Vs. Acit, Private Limited, Tds, Circle-1(1), Hyderabad. Hyderabad. Pan: Aabci 3086 J (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Sri S. Rama Rao Revenue By Sri T. Sunil Goutam, Sr. Ar Date Of Hearing: 18/01/2022 Date Of Pronouncement: 22/02/2022 Order

rectification order U/s. 154, dated 3/5/2019 issued by the ACIT, TDS, Circle-1(1), Hyderabad which implies that without considering

SOWBHAGYA BIOTECH PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD (TDS)-2(2), HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda, Vice- & Shri Laliet Kumar

rectification order u/s 154 passed-by the ACIT, CPC-TDS have been perused. On perusal of the records, it is seen