AGLOWMED LIMITED,PATNA vs. ADIT(CPC), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Sonjoy Sarma]

disallowance made u/s. 36(1)(va) of the Act in respect of delay in deposit of Employees’ Contribution of Provident Fund and Employees State Insurance (PF & ESI) totaling to Rs.3,82,386/-. The issue relating to ground taken by the assessee have come to rest by the recent verdict of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Chekmate Services

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

In the result, this appeal of assessee is dismissed

disallowance, irrespective of subsequent actions.", "result": "Dismissed", "sections": [ "Sec. 36(1)(va)", "Sec. 2(24)(x)", "Sec. 40(a)(i)", "Sec. 154", "Sec. 143(1)", "Sec. 139(1)", "Sec. 43B", "Sec. 254(2

GANADHIPATI CONSTRUCTION PRIVATE LIMITED,PATNA vs. PCIT, CENTRAL, PATNA

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee bearing

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

disallowance and deduction under section 80IA of the Act. Therefore, it cannot be said that the assessment has been completed without making proper inquiries or no inquiries. He also submitted that the draft assessment orders were sent to the ld. JCIT for granting approval under section 153D of the Act and the same was granted on 31.03.2022, which itself proves

GANADHIPATI CONSTRUCTION PRIVATE LTD,PATNA vs. PCIT, CENTRAL, PATNA

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee bearing

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

disallowance and deduction under section 80IA of the Act. Therefore, it cannot be said that the assessment has been completed without making proper inquiries or no inquiries. He also submitted that the draft assessment orders were sent to the ld. JCIT for granting approval under section 153D of the Act and the same was granted on 31.03.2022, which itself proves

GANADHIPATI CONSTRUCTION PRIVATE LIMITED,PATNA vs. PCIT, CENTRAL, PATNA

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee bearing

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

disallowance and deduction under section 80IA of the Act. Therefore, it cannot be said that the assessment has been completed without making proper inquiries or no inquiries. He also submitted that the draft assessment orders were sent to the ld. JCIT for granting approval under section 153D of the Act and the same was granted on 31.03.2022, which itself proves

GANADHIPATI CONSTRUCTION PRIVATE LIMITED,PATNA vs. PCIT, CENTRAL , PATNA

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee bearing

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

disallowance and deduction under section 80IA of the Act. Therefore, it cannot be said that the assessment has been completed without making proper inquiries or no inquiries. He also submitted that the draft assessment orders were sent to the ld. JCIT for granting approval under section 153D of the Act and the same was granted on 31.03.2022, which itself proves

GANADHIPATI CONSTRUCTION PVT LTD,PATNA vs. PCIT, CENTRAL, PATNA

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee bearing

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

disallowance and deduction under section 80IA of the Act. Therefore, it cannot be said that the assessment has been completed without making proper inquiries or no inquiries. He also submitted that the draft assessment orders were sent to the ld. JCIT for granting approval under section 153D of the Act and the same was granted on 31.03.2022, which itself proves

SONA GOLD AGROCHEM PVT LTD,PATNA vs. ADCIR, CPC

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands dismissed”

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

2(24)(x), thus, the said clause would not absolve assessee-employer from its 5 A.Y. 2019-2020 Sona Gold Agrochem Pvt. Limited liability to deposit employee’s contribution on or before due date as prescribed u/s 36(1)(va) as a condition for deduction. 27. Contention -4 The later enactment must prevail over the earlier one. Accordingly, the application

AJIT KUMAR SINGH,PATNA vs. DCIT/AC, CIRCLE-4, PATNA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Hon’Ble & Dr. Manish Borad, Hon’Blei.T.A. No. 72/Pat/2021 Assessment Year: 2018-19 Ajit Kumar Singh Dc/Ac, Circle-4, Patna Geeta Mansion, Gujral Path Vs Nalapar, P.O. Keshrinagar Rajivnagar Patna - 800024 [Pan : Algps9902G] अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Somil Agarwal, C.A. Revenue By : Shri Sushil Kumar Mishra, Jcit, D/R सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 06/05/2024 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 24/06/2024 आदेश/O R D E R Per Dr. Manish Borad: The Present Appeal Is Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre (Hereinafter The “Ld. Cit(A)”) Dated 05/08/2021, Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (“The Act’), For Assessment Year 2018-19. 2. The Sole Issue Involved In This Appeal Is Regarding The Disallowance U/S 36(1)(Va) Of The Act On Account Of Delayed Payment Of Employees’ Contribution To Pf & Esi Of Rs.1,80,45,483/-, Made By The Ld. Assessing Officer As Confirmed By The Ld. Cit(A). 3. We Have Heard Rival Contentions & Perused The Material Placed Before Us. The Sole Issue Involved In This Appeal Is Relating To The Disallowance Of Rs. 1,80,45,483/- Made By The Assessing Officer/Cpc U/S 36(1)(Va) Of The Act, On Account Of Delay In Deposit Of Employees’ Contribution To Pf & Esi. It Remains An Admitted Fact

disallowance of Rs. 1,80,45,483/- made by the Assessing Officer/CPC u/s 36(1)(va) of the Act, on account of delay in deposit of employees’ contribution to PF & ESI. It remains an admitted fact I.T.A. No. 72/Pat/2021 Assessment Year: 2018-19 Ajit Kumar Singh 2 that the same has been deposited after the due date prescribed under

RAKESH KUMAR,PATNA vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-4, PATNA

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee for AYs 2012-13

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Dr. Manish Boradi.T.A. Nos.85 & 86/Pat/2017 Assessment Years: 2012-13 & 2013-14

2. Ultrasonograhy and X-ray machines were produced/manufactured by him in his factory premises at Dehradun as the assessee did not have requisite plant & machinery, did not deploy any competent engineer/technicians and as stated, has not shown consumption of electricity adequate to even run a small household. 3. And after production, delivery/transportation of machines from factory premises to customers / buyers

RAKESH KUMAR,PATNA vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-4, PATNA

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee for AYs 2012-13

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Dr. Manish Boradi.T.A. Nos.85 & 86/Pat/2017 Assessment Years: 2012-13 & 2013-14

2. Ultrasonograhy and X-ray machines were produced/manufactured by him in his factory premises at Dehradun as the assessee did not have requisite plant & machinery, did not deploy any competent engineer/technicians and as stated, has not shown consumption of electricity adequate to even run a small household. 3. And after production, delivery/transportation of machines from factory premises to customers / buyers