BIJAY KUMAR SARAF,DALDALI BAZAR, MUZAFFARPUR vs. DC/AC CIRCLE 1,MUZFFARPUR, IT-OFFICE, POLICE LINE, SIKANDERPUR MUZZAFFARPUR

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishra

TDS under section 194J and for the assessment year 2014-15, no such liability had arisen. The Ld. DR relied

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1, PATNA, PATNA vs. YASHI FILMS PRIVATE LIMITED, PATNA

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishra

section 194J of the Act and debited as expense in its ITR. The Ld. AO further observed that as per the tax audit report the assessee had paid 7,72,56,061/-towards PTS and an additional sum of Rs.2,69,08,000/- to M/s Enter 10 Television Pvt. Ltd. Due to the absence of any reply from the assessee

RAVI LOCHAN SINGH,PATNA vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-5, PATNA

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed

Bench: SHRI DUVVURU RL REDDY, VICE PRESIDENT SHRI SANJAY AWASTHI (Accountant Member)

194J of the Income Tax Act, 1961, section 40(a)(ia) is attracted here also. Hence, 5 Ravi Lochan Singh It is my opinion that the assessee has claimed Rs. 2,93,160/- under the head of consultancy fee but he has not deducted TDS

SHARAD SINHA,LACKNOW vs. AO,NFAC, DELHI

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

TDS under section\n194J would not make the salary receipts of the assessee as professional\nreceipt. It was the submission that the orders of the Assessing Officer and\nthe Ld. CIT(A) are liable to be upheld.\n4. We have heard the Ld. DR and perused the material available on\nrecord. One of the primary issues raised by the assessee

INDIAN INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY, PATNA,PATNA vs. ACIT, TDS CIRCLE, PATNA

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

Bench: The Ld. Cit(A), It Is Seen That 5 Notices Of Hearing Were Given But The Same Could Not Be Attended By The Assessee & Thereafter The Action Of Ld. Ao Was Upheld Through The Impugned Order.

194J of the Act. 10. For that on the facts and in circumstances of the case, the Ld. Assessing Officer has erred in holding that the assessee is responsible to deduct tax at source under the section 194C of the Act to for payments made to NBCC Lid wherein the entire payment for the construction of building has been made

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)

Section 40(a)(ia). 10. For that the order passed by the Ld. CIT(A) is wrong, illegal and unjustified in the facts and circumstances of the appellant's case. 11. For that the appellant reserves its right to furnish detailed written submission along with documents and evidences on or before date of hearing. 12. For that the appellant