MOHAMMAD TANWEER ALI IMAM,PATNA vs. ITO, WARD- 5(1), PATNA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am & Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey, Jm Mohammad Tanweer Ali Imam, Income Tax Officer, Darul Aman Po Bv College, Ward 5(1), Patna Samanpura, Rajabazar, Vs. Patna-800014 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aanpi1722J Assessee By : Shri Manish Rastogi, Ar Revenue By : Shri Ashwani Kr. Singal, Dr Date Of Hearing: 08.07.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 22.07.2025

section 144B of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (the Act) dated 29.03.2022, assessing the income at ₹1,10,00,000/-. 05. The facts in brief are that the assessee has not filed any return of income. As per information received from ITO (INTL), stating that assessee has not complied with the notices. It was further stated that the assessee

HYGIENIC PRODUCTS FOR COMMON CITIZENS,MADHEPURA vs. ITO WARD 3(4), SAHARSA, SAHARSA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical\npurposes

TDS statement, in-\nterest received. Hence, AO passed assessment order u/s 147 r.w.s. 144 read\nwith section 144B dated 29.02.2024 by making

DEEPAK SHRAWAN BUDHIA,MUMBAI vs. PR. COMMISSIONER OF I.T., PATNA-1, PATNA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: SHRI LAXMI PRASAD SAHU, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI SONJOY SARMA (Judicial Member)

144B of the Act was completed on 19.03.2023 assessed the total income at Rs. 68,24,861/- in which he observed that that as per section 40(a)(ia) of the Act the AO has not disallowed the certain payments made towards freight charges are covered under the TDS

ANIL KUMAR,NALANDA vs. ITO, WARD- 2 (3), BIHARSHARIF

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Dr. Manish Boradi.T.A. No. 361/Pat/2023 Assessment Year: 2014-15 Anil Kumar National Faceless Assessment Centre M/S Raj Trading Company, Nfac, Delhi Harnaut, Nalanda, Patna-803110 Vs Bihar [Pan : Azopc268H] अपीलार्थी/ (Appellant) प्रत्‍यर्थी/ (Respondent)

144B of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (the Act) dated 22nd August, 2021, framed by Income Tax officer, NFAC. 2. The registry has informed that the appeal is time barred by 46 days. The assessee had filed an application for condonation of delay. Perusal of the same indicates that the assessee did not came to know about the impugned order

MASUDAN TANTI,BHAGALPUR vs. CIT, NFAC, DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Rakesh Mishraassessment Year: 2013-14

144B of the Income Tax Act. Subsequently Appeal was filled and appeal was also rejected on the ground that documents and reply not submitted. Later, after so many request on 21.05.2024 the appellant had able to collect the ledger and Form 27D from BIHAR STATE BEVERAGE CORPORATION LIMITED for the Financial Year 2012-13 and attaching here the documents with

DIGGA ENTERPRISES,EAST CHAMPARAN vs. NFAC, DELHI, DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Vice-(Kz) & Shri Sanjay Awasthii.T.A. No. 480/Pat/2024 Assessment Year: 2018-2019 Digga Enterprises,…………….…………....……Appellant Amodel, Nh-28, Raxual, East Champaran-845433, Bihar [Pan:Aakfd4723D] -Vs.- National Faceless Assessment Centre,....Respondent Delhi Appearances By: Shri Sanjeev Kr. Anwar, Advocate, Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee Shri Ashwani Kr. Singal, Jcit, Appeared On Behalf Of The Revenue Date Of Concluding The Hearing: February 13, 2025 Date Of Pronouncing The Order: February 13, 2025 O R D E R

TDS deducted, GP ratio, NP ratio for the last three years. The assessee furnished the details on 28.01.2021. However, the assessee claimed huge expenditure on account of interest on loan, travelling expenses, warehouse charges etc. Accordingly notice under section 142(1) was issued calling for evidences in support of expenditure claimed but no compliance was made from

SANJAY YADAV,JAHANABAD vs. NFAC, DELHI, DELHI

In the result, all the three appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Rakesh Mishra

144B of the Act, and penalty orders under section 271(1)(c) I.T.A. Nos.: 216, 217 & 218/PAT/2025 Assessment Year: 2016-17 Sanjay Yadav and 271(1)(b) of the Act respectively. Since all these appeals were taken up together, they were heard together and are being decided vide this common order for the sake of convenience and brevity

SANJAY YADAV,JAHANABAD vs. NFAC, DELHI, DELHI

In the result, all the three appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Rakesh Mishra

144B of the Act, and penalty orders under section 271(1)(c) I.T.A. Nos.: 216, 217 & 218/PAT/2025 Assessment Year: 2016-17 Sanjay Yadav and 271(1)(b) of the Act respectively. Since all these appeals were taken up together, they were heard together and are being decided vide this common order for the sake of convenience and brevity

SANJAY YADAV,JAHANABAD vs. NFAC, DELHI, DELHI

In the result, all the three appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Rakesh Mishra

144B of the Act, and penalty orders under section 271(1)(c) I.T.A. Nos.: 216, 217 & 218/PAT/2025 Assessment Year: 2016-17 Sanjay Yadav and 271(1)(b) of the Act respectively. Since all these appeals were taken up together, they were heard together and are being decided vide this common order for the sake of convenience and brevity

MD IFTAKHAR ALAM,ARARIA vs. ITO, PURNEA

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishra

144B of the Act, dated 24.03.2023. 2. The assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal raising the following grounds of appeal: “1. For that on the facts and circumstances of the case Appellate authority ignored the facts in spite of available evidences and documents submitted by assessee along with reply petition under section 250 of Income

SHEKHAR NARAYAN,PATNA vs. NFAC, DELHI

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

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishra

TDS return of Anand Kumar Jaiswal with TAN No.DELA17915C was accepted by Income Tax Department in which nature of payment of Faculty Member has been shown as Professional Payment and these return has not been rejected by the same till date. ITA Nos.: 354 & 355/PAT/2025 AYs: 2017-18 & 2018-19 Shekhar Narayan. 9. For that the Ld. CIT(A), NFAC

SHEKHAR NARAYAN,PATNA vs. NFAC, DELHI

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

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishra

TDS return of Anand Kumar Jaiswal with TAN No.DELA17915C was accepted by Income Tax Department in which nature of payment of Faculty Member has been shown as Professional Payment and these return has not been rejected by the same till date. ITA Nos.: 354 & 355/PAT/2025 AYs: 2017-18 & 2018-19 Shekhar Narayan. 9. For that the Ld. CIT(A), NFAC

NILU KUMARI,SARAN vs. ASSESSMENT UNIT, INCOME TX DPTT., DELHI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Rakesh Mishra

144B of the Act, dated 06.03.2023. 2. The assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal raising the following grounds of appeal: “1. For that the ld. A.O. has erred in passing order in both law and facts assessing the appellant on declared by the appellant. A total income Rs.1,83,65,620/- as against