ASHOK KUMAR,BHOJPUR vs. ITO, WARD-1, ARA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed as indicated above

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice-(Kz) & Dr. Manish Borad

section 194C or 194(I). To our mind, the ld. Assessing Officer has not demonstrated the actual defaults committed by the assessee and, therefore, under such circumstances, he cannot disallow

SIS CASH SERVICES PRIVATE LIMITED,PATNA vs. ADIT, CPC, BANGALORE, BANGALORE

In the result, this appeal of assessee is dismissed

disallow Rs.2,25,91,254/- u/s. 36(1)(va) r.w.s. 2(24)(x) of the Act. The impugned amount represented delayed payment of employees' contribution towards PF and another amount of Rs.20,78,087/- u/s. 40(a)(i) of the Act. it needs to be mentioned that the second amount is not under challenge before the ITAT.\n1.2. Aggrieved with

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

194(7) of the act to whom the details appellant had made the payment of above Rs 1 Lakhs during the year under consideration as per section 194C(6). All the compliance had been complied ITA No.: 205/PAT/2025 Assessment Year: 2014-15 Bijay Kumar Saraf. by the appellant during the year under consideration as per the prevailing law during

DINESH KUMAR,PATNA vs. ITO WARD (5), PATNA

The appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishrai.T.A. No.427/Pat/2024 Assessment Year: 2016-17 Dinesh Kumar……………………….....…..…………………....Appellant C/O Bhurendra Prasad, Near B D Public School, Buddha Colony, Patna – 800001. [Pan: Bxbpk1456M] Vs. Ito, Ward-5, Patna…………. ….…….…............................…..…..... Respondent Appearances By: Shri Shailendra Sinha, Ar Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri Ashwani Kumar, Sr. Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : January 27, 2025 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : January 28, 2025 आदेश / Order Per Sonjoy Sarma: The Present Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 31.03.2024 Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), Jaipur [Hereinafter Referred To As ‘Cit(A)’] Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Act’). 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Filed His Return Of Income For The Assessment Year 2016-17 By Showing Total Income Of Rs.2,71,810/-. The Case Of The Assessee Was Selected For Scrutiny Under Cass Followed By Notices Issued U/S 143(2) & 142(1) Of The Act. The Assessing Officer Asked The Assessee To Produce Books Of Accounts, Ledger, Cash Book Etc. Before Him But The Assessee Did Not Comply. Accordingly, The Assessing Officer After Verification Of Return Of Income Found That The Assessee Had Filed Balance Sheet Showing Gross Total Income Of Rs.36,00,712/- & The Assessee Incurred Miscellaneous

section 194, Rs.4025927/- on which TDS was deducted. As the assessee was shown gross receipts of Rs.3600712/-, therefore, the difference of Rs.425212/- was treated as income from business and profession. The Assessing Officer also disallowed

SEEMA SRIVASTAVA,PATNA vs. ITO,DC/AC-6, PATNA, PATNA

In the result, the appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Rakesh Mishra

sections. 9. For that the appellant reserves its right to furnish detailed written submission along with documents and evidences on or before date of hearing. 10. For that the appellant may be given opportunity of personal hearing physically/virtually at the time of hearing of the appeal. 11. For that the whole order is bad in fact

GRAM NIRMAN MANDAL,NAWADA vs. DC/AC EXEMPTION, CIR, PATNA, PATNA

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

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishra

disallowed every claimed exemption of RS 3,16,98,714 under section 11, 12& 10(23B). 7) For that, as per assessment order u/s 143(3) assessed income is Rs 3,16,98,714/-and Gross tax liability is Rs 30,09,194

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

Section 44A for the purposes of holding that teaching activity is not a profession. 3. For that the Ld. CIT (A), NFAC, Delhi has erred in holding that the agreement between the institute and the faculty member imposes various restrictions such as the process of recruitment, biometric attendance and scheduling of classes and imposition of monetary penalty in certain cases

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

Section 44A for the purposes of holding that teaching activity is not a profession. 3. For that the Ld. CIT (A), NFAC, Delhi has erred in holding that the agreement between the institute and the faculty member imposes various restrictions such as the process of recruitment, biometric attendance and scheduling of classes and imposition of monetary penalty in certain cases