Commissioner of Income Tax, vs. M/s. Kokivenkateswara Reddy AND others,

Appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: V.V.S.RAO,RAMESH RANGANATHAN

TDS certificates were issued to such owners. 74. By virtue of the exercise of power under Section 154, the AO withdrew

M/s Modi Builders AND Realtors (P) Ltd., vs. Asst. Commissioner of Income tax,

The appeals are disposed of

Bench: P.SAM KOSHY,NARSING RAO NANDIKONDA

154 or section 155 or section 250 or section 254 or section 260 or section 262 or section 263 or section 264 or an order of the Settlement Commission under sub-section (4) of section 245D, the amount on which interest was ITA Nos. 167/2012 & 168/2012 Page 9 of 17 payable under sub-section (1) has been increased or reduced

The Commissioner of Income Tax-III vs. Smt.Anjana Sanghi

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

TDS certificates submitted by the appellant-assessee were defective, calling for rectification is again a question of fact to be determined on the basis of material on record and the circulars governing the subject. 5. From reading of the impugned order, whereby the ITAT has upheld the order of CIT(A) passed in terms of Section 154

Commissioner of Income Tax V vs. C Eswar Reddy AND Co.,

The appeals stand dismissed answering all the

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

Section 154 of the Act was filed, which was rejected by order dated 25.08.2010. A writ petition was filed in which Annexure-8 judgment was passed. The Commissioner, TDS

The Commissioner of Income Tax, vs. N. Annapurna

The appeals are dismissed with no order as to costs

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

154 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, which only permits rectification of error apparent on the fact of the record?” 3. The background facts are that the Respondent-Assessee was incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956. It has a manufacturing unit at Greater Noida (Uttar Pradesh). It is an admitted position that M/s. Denso ITA 371/2005 & connected matters Page

The Commissioner of Income Tax - IV vs. National Mineral Development Corporation Ltd.,

The appeal is dismissed

154 of the Act to change the opinion, could not be undertaken. [3]. It is not disputed that the tax effect in the present appeal is only of Rs.22,73,715/- and that was the amount which was demanded by way of order of the Income Tax Officer by passing the rectification order and raising the said demand. The same

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX IV vs. M/S. PRABHATH AGRI BIO TECH P. LTD.,

The appeals stand dismissed

Bench: P.SAM KOSHY,NARSING RAO NANDIKONDA

TDS provisions relate to and prescribe one of the modes of collection of tax. It is with this objective that duties or “obligations” are imposed on the payer. This does not override or disturb the primary “obligation” imposed by the charging section read with the computation provisions. Further, we are specifically concerned with Section

Commissioner of Income Tax, vs. M/s Polisetty Somasundaram,

TDS was deducted and deposited in the Government account. Since no information was furnished by the assessee nor any evidence is available on record to substantiate the claim of the assessee as genuine, the expenses of Rs.2,00,00,000/- not relating to the business were disallowed and added to the income of the assessee.” Against the said order