ITAT Patna Judgments — April 2024

The Tribunal noted that the assessee did not get a proper opportunity for hearing before the lower authorities and that the TDS was calculated at a higher rate due to non-availability of PAN. The matter was restored to the Assessing Officer for re-verification and correct calculation of commission and TDS.

The Tribunal noted that the assessee did not get a proper opportunity for hearing before the lower authorities and that the TDS was calculated at a higher rate due to non-availability of PAN. The matter was restored to the Assessing Officer for re-verification and correct calculation of commission and TDS.

The Tribunal noted that the assessee did not get a proper opportunity for hearing before the lower authorities and that the TDS was calculated at a higher rate due to non-availability of PAN. The matter was restored to the Assessing Officer for re-verification and correct calculation of commission and TDS.

The Tribunal noted that the assessee did not get a proper opportunity for hearing before the lower authorities and that the TDS was calculated at a higher rate due to non-availability of PAN. The matter was restored to the Assessing Officer for re-verification and correct calculation of commission and TDS.

The Tribunal noted that the assessee did not get a proper opportunity for hearing before the lower authorities and that the TDS was calculated at a higher rate due to non-availability of PAN. The matter was restored to the Assessing Officer for re-verification and correct calculation of commission and TDS.

The Tribunal noted that the assessee did not get a proper opportunity for hearing before the lower authorities and that the TDS was calculated at a higher rate due to non-availability of PAN. The matter was restored to the Assessing Officer for re-verification and correct calculation of commission and TDS.

The Tribunal noted that the assessee did not get a proper opportunity for hearing before the lower authorities and that the TDS was calculated at a higher rate due to non-availability of PAN. The matter was restored to the Assessing Officer for re-verification and correct calculation of commission and TDS.

The Tribunal noted that the assessee did not get a proper opportunity for hearing before the lower authorities and that the TDS was calculated at a higher rate due to non-availability of PAN. The matter was restored to the Assessing Officer for re-verification and correct calculation of commission and TDS.

The Tribunal noted that the assessee did not get a proper opportunity for hearing before the lower authorities and that the TDS was calculated at a higher rate due to non-availability of PAN. The matter was restored to the Assessing Officer for re-verification and correct calculation of commission and TDS.

The Tribunal noted that the assessee did not get a proper opportunity for hearing before the lower authorities and that the TDS was calculated at a higher rate due to non-availability of PAN. The matter was restored to the Assessing Officer for re-verification and correct calculation of commission and TDS.

The Tribunal noted that the assessee did not get a proper opportunity for hearing before the lower authorities and that the TDS was calculated at a higher rate due to non-availability of PAN. The matter was restored to the Assessing Officer for re-verification and correct calculation of commission and TDS.

The Tribunal noted that the assessee did not get a proper opportunity for hearing before the lower authorities and that the TDS was calculated at a higher rate due to non-availability of PAN. The matter was restored to the Assessing Officer for re-verification and correct calculation of commission and TDS.

The Tribunal noted that the assessee did not get a proper opportunity for hearing before the lower authorities and that the TDS was calculated at a higher rate due to non-availability of PAN. The matter was restored to the Assessing Officer for re-verification and correct calculation of commission and TDS.

The Tribunal noted that the assessee did not get a proper opportunity for hearing before the lower authorities and that the TDS was calculated at a higher rate due to non-availability of PAN. The matter was restored to the Assessing Officer for re-verification and correct calculation of commission and TDS.

The Tribunal noted that the assessee did not get a proper opportunity for hearing before the lower authorities and that the TDS was calculated at a higher rate due to non-availability of PAN. The matter was restored to the Assessing Officer for re-verification and correct calculation of commission and TDS.

The Tribunal noted that the assessee did not get a proper opportunity for hearing before the lower authorities and that the TDS was calculated at a higher rate due to non-availability of PAN. The matter was restored to the Assessing Officer for re-verification and correct calculation of commission and TDS.

The Tribunal noted that the assessee did not get a proper opportunity for hearing before the lower authorities and that the TDS was calculated at a higher rate due to non-availability of PAN. The matter was restored to the Assessing Officer for re-verification and correct calculation of commission and TDS.

The Tribunal noted that the assessee did not get a proper opportunity for hearing before the lower authorities and that the TDS was calculated at a higher rate due to non-availability of PAN. The matter was restored to the Assessing Officer for re-verification and correct calculation of commission and TDS.

The Tribunal held that PACS were acting as agents of the State Government and thus, commission paid was liable for TDS under Section 194H. However, due to procedural lapses and incorrect calculation of commission and TDS by the AO, the matter was restored to the AO for fresh verification.

The Tribunal held that PACS were acting as agents of the State Government and thus, commission paid was liable for TDS under Section 194H. However, due to procedural lapses and incorrect calculation of commission and TDS by the AO, the matter was restored to the AO for fresh verification.

The Tribunal held that PACS were acting as agents of the State Government and thus, commission paid was liable for TDS under Section 194H. However, due to procedural lapses and incorrect calculation of commission and TDS by the AO, the matter was restored to the AO for fresh verification.

The Tribunal held that PACS were acting as agents of the State Government and thus, commission paid was liable for TDS under Section 194H. However, due to procedural lapses and incorrect calculation of commission and TDS by the AO, the matter was restored to the AO for fresh verification.

The Tribunal held that PACS were acting as agents of the State Government and thus, commission paid was liable for TDS under Section 194H. However, due to procedural lapses and incorrect calculation of commission and TDS by the AO, the matter was restored to the AO for fresh verification.

The Tribunal held that PACS were acting as agents of the State Government and thus, commission paid was liable for TDS under Section 194H. However, due to procedural lapses and incorrect calculation of commission and TDS by the AO, the matter was restored to the AO for fresh verification.

The Tribunal held that PACS were acting as agents of the State Government and thus, commission paid was liable for TDS under Section 194H. However, due to procedural lapses and incorrect calculation of commission and TDS by the AO, the matter was restored to the AO for fresh verification.

The Tribunal held that PACS were acting as agents of the State Government and thus, commission paid was liable for TDS under Section 194H. However, due to procedural lapses and incorrect calculation of commission and TDS by the AO, the matter was restored to the AO for fresh verification.

The Tribunal held that PACS were acting as agents of the State Government and thus, commission paid was liable for TDS under Section 194H. However, due to procedural lapses and incorrect calculation of commission and TDS by the AO, the matter was restored to the AO for fresh verification.

The Tribunal held that PACS were acting as agents of the State Government and thus, commission paid was liable for TDS under Section 194H. However, due to procedural lapses and incorrect calculation of commission and TDS by the AO, the matter was restored to the AO for fresh verification.

The Tribunal held that PACS were acting as agents of the State Government and thus, commission paid was liable for TDS under Section 194H. However, due to procedural lapses and incorrect calculation of commission and TDS by the AO, the matter was restored to the AO for fresh verification.

The Tribunal held that PACS were acting as agents of the State Government and thus, commission paid was liable for TDS under Section 194H. However, due to procedural lapses and incorrect calculation of commission and TDS by the AO, the matter was restored to the AO for fresh verification.

The Tribunal held that PACS were acting as agents of the State Government and thus, commission paid was liable for TDS under Section 194H. However, due to procedural lapses and incorrect calculation of commission and TDS by the AO, the matter was restored to the AO for fresh verification.

The Tribunal held that PACS were acting as agents of the State Government and thus, commission paid was liable for TDS under Section 194H. However, due to procedural lapses and incorrect calculation of commission and TDS by the AO, the matter was restored to the AO for fresh verification.

The Tribunal held that PACS were acting as agents of the State Government and thus, commission paid was liable for TDS under Section 194H. However, due to procedural lapses and incorrect calculation of commission and TDS by the AO, the matter was restored to the AO for fresh verification.

The Tribunal held that PACS were acting as agents of the State Government and thus, commission paid was liable for TDS under Section 194H. However, due to procedural lapses and incorrect calculation of commission and TDS by the AO, the matter was restored to the AO for fresh verification.

The Tribunal held that the PACS were acting as agents of the State Government and thus the commission paid was liable for TDS under Section 194H. However, due to procedural irregularities and incorrect calculation of commission and TDS by the AO, the matter was remanded.

The Tribunal held that the PACS were acting as agents of the State Government and therefore, the commission paid was liable for TDS deduction. However, due to procedural lapses and incorrect calculation by the AO, the matter was restored to the AO for fresh verification and calculation.

The Tribunal held that PACS were acting as agents of the State Government and thus, commission paid was liable for TDS under Section 194H. However, due to procedural lapses and incorrect calculation of commission and TDS by the AO, the matter was restored to the AO for fresh verification.

The Tribunal held that PACS were acting as agents of the State Government and thus, commission paid was liable for TDS under Section 194H. However, due to procedural lapses and incorrect calculation of commission and TDS by the AO, the matter was restored to the AO for fresh verification.

The Tribunal held that PACS were acting as agents of the State Government and thus, commission paid was liable for TDS under Section 194H. However, due to procedural lapses and incorrect calculation of commission and TDS by the AO, the matter was restored to the AO for fresh verification.

The Tribunal held that PACS were acting as agents of the State Government and thus, commission paid was liable for TDS under Section 194H. However, due to procedural lapses and incorrect calculation of commission and TDS by the AO, the matter was restored to the AO for fresh verification.

The Tribunal held that PACS were acting as agents of the State Government and thus, commission paid was liable for TDS under Section 194H. However, due to procedural lapses and incorrect calculation of commission and TDS by the AO, the matter was restored to the AO for fresh verification.

The Tribunal held that PACS were acting as agents of the State Government and thus, commission paid was liable for TDS under Section 194H. However, due to procedural lapses and incorrect calculation of commission and TDS by the AO, the matter was restored to the AO for fresh verification.

The Tribunal held that PACS were acting as agents of the State Government and thus, commission paid was liable for TDS under Section 194H. However, due to procedural lapses and incorrect calculation of commission and TDS by the AO, the matter was restored to the AO for fresh verification.

The Tribunal held that PACS were acting as agents of the State Government and thus, commission paid was liable for TDS under Section 194H. However, due to procedural lapses and incorrect calculation of commission and TDS by the AO, the matter was restored to the AO for fresh verification.

The Tribunal held that PACS were acting as agents of the State Government and thus, commission paid was liable for TDS under Section 194H. However, due to procedural lapses and incorrect calculation of commission and TDS by the AO, the matter was restored to the AO for fresh verification.

The Tribunal held that PACS were acting as agents of the State Government and thus, commission paid was liable for TDS under Section 194H. However, due to procedural lapses and incorrect calculation of commission and TDS by the AO, the matter was restored to the AO for fresh verification.

The Tribunal held that PACS were acting as agents of the State Government and thus, commission paid was liable for TDS under Section 194H. However, due to procedural lapses and incorrect calculation of commission and TDS by the AO, the matter was restored to the AO for fresh verification.

The Tribunal held that PACS were acting as agents of the State Government and thus, commission paid was liable for TDS under Section 194H. However, due to procedural lapses and incorrect calculation of commission and TDS by the AO, the matter was restored to the AO for fresh verification.

The Tribunal held that PACS were acting as agents of the State Government and thus, commission paid was liable for TDS under Section 194H. However, due to procedural lapses and incorrect calculation of commission and TDS by the AO, the matter was restored to the AO for fresh verification.

The Tribunal held that PACS were acting as agents of the State Government and thus, commission paid was liable for TDS under Section 194H. However, due to procedural lapses and incorrect calculation of commission and TDS by the AO, the matter was restored to the AO for fresh verification.