9911796707
TMI Blog2010 (4) TMI 50X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... addition of Rs 23,54,619/- was similarly made. The Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, however, deleted the said additions accepting the explanation given by the assessee. – held that - It was apparent that the error had happened due to the fact that though the tax was deducted at the rate of 2.20%, yet when the certificates were made, the rate of tax deduction was shown as 2.05%. Since the computer to ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2. To be referred to the Reporter or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in Digest? BADAR DURREZ AHMED, J (ORAL) CM Nos.3924/2010 3938/2010 The delay in re-filing the appeals is condoned. These applications stand disposed of. ITA Nos. 438/2010 460/2010 1. These appeals raise identical issues and are ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... however, deleted the said additions accepting the explanation given by the assessee. 3. The revenues were on account of fabrication charges stated to be received by the assessee from Fabritex Exports Pvt. Ltd. As aforesaid, the addition was made on the basis of the TDS certificate issued by the said Fabritex Exports Pvt Ltd. When the assessee was asked to reconcile the difference in the figures ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ter took the rate of deduction as 2.05% and applied the same to the amount of Rs 5,39,443/-, being the tax actually deducted, the amount shown as paid to the assessee by Fabritex Exports Pvt. Ltd was correspondingly increased. The certificate also indicated that as per the ledger account maintained by Fabritex Exports Pvt. Ltd., the amount payable and paid to the assessee for the fabrication charg ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
