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

M/S MANISH FINLEASE (P) LTD,PATNA vs. ITO, WARD-2(1), PATNA

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Garg & Laxmi Prasad Sahuassessment Year : 2010-2011 Manish Finlease Pvt Ltd., Vs. Ito, Ward 2(1), Patna Chandi House Exhibition Road, Patna Pan/Gir No.Aaccm 6252 B (Appellant) .. ( Respondent) Assessee By : Shri A.K.Rastogi & Rakesh Kumar, Ars Revenue By : Shri Indrajeet Singh, Dr Date Of Hearing : 20/06/ 2019 Date Of Pronouncement : 09/08/ 2019 O R D E R Per Bench This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Cit(A)-1, Patna Dated 27.9.2018 For The Assessment Year 2010-2011. 2. The Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Delayed By 51 Days. The Assessee Has Filed Application For Condonation Of Delay Stating The Reasons For Not Filing The Appeal In Time Before The Tribunal. After Hearing The Submissions Of The Parties, We Are Satisfied That The Assessee Had A Bonafide Reason For Not Filing The Appeal In Time. Therefore, We Condone The Delay & Proceed To Decide The Appeal Of The Assessee On Merits.

disallowed the said amount on the ground that mere establishing the identity of the creditor or the transaction have been routed through banking channel is not enough to prove the creditworthiness and genuineness of the transaction. On appeal, the CIT(A) called for remand report from the Assessing officer and after considering the same confirmed the addition. However, the Tribunal

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

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 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

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

I.T.O., WARD -2(1),, PATNA vs. M/S BIHAR STATE FOOD & CIVIL SUPPLIES CORPORATION LTD., PATNA

In the result, the appeals of the department are dismissed

Bench: Sh. N. K. Saini, Am & Sh. Amit Shukla, Jm Ita No. 144/Pat./2017 : Asstt. Year : 2003-04 Ita No. 145/Pat./2017 : Asstt. Year : 2005-06 Income Tax Officer, Vs M/S Bihar State Food & Civil Ward-2(1), Supplies Corporation Ltd., Sone Bhawan, 5Th Floor, Birchand Patna Patel Marg, Patna (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaccb0679F Assessee By : Sh. Manish Rastogi, Adv. Revenue By : Smt. Archna Sinha, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 09.03.2018 Date Of Pronouncement : 09.03.2018 Order Per N. K. Saini, Am: These Two Appeals By The Department Are Directed Against The Separate Order Each Dated 21.07.2017 Of The Ld. Cit(A)-1, Patna

disallowance made by the AO by observing in paras 5.3 & 5.4 of the impugned order as under: “5.3 I have gone through the assessment order, facts of the case and submission made by the appellant. Section 2(24 )(x

I.T.O., WARD -2(1),, PATNA vs. M/S BIHAR STATE FOOD & CIVIL SUPPLIES CORPORATION LTD., PATNA

In the result, the appeals of the department are dismissed

Bench: Sh. N. K. Saini, Am & Sh. Amit Shukla, Jm Ita No. 144/Pat./2017 : Asstt. Year : 2003-04 Ita No. 145/Pat./2017 : Asstt. Year : 2005-06 Income Tax Officer, Vs M/S Bihar State Food & Civil Ward-2(1), Supplies Corporation Ltd., Sone Bhawan, 5Th Floor, Birchand Patna Patel Marg, Patna (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaccb0679F Assessee By : Sh. Manish Rastogi, Adv. Revenue By : Smt. Archna Sinha, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 09.03.2018 Date Of Pronouncement : 09.03.2018 Order Per N. K. Saini, Am: These Two Appeals By The Department Are Directed Against The Separate Order Each Dated 21.07.2017 Of The Ld. Cit(A)-1, Patna

disallowance made by the AO by observing in paras 5.3 & 5.4 of the impugned order as under: “5.3 I have gone through the assessment order, facts of the case and submission made by the appellant. Section 2(24 )(x

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

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

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. 1.2. Aggrieved with

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