INDIAN EDUCATION TRUST,DHANBAD vs. COMMISSIONER INCOME TAX APPEAL, INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT DELHI

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

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Ratnesh Nandan Sahay(Virtual Hearing) Indian Education Trust, Exemption Ward, Shishu Vihar, Bastacolla, Dhansar, Dhanbad. Vs. Dhanbad, Jharkhand. Pan No. Aaati 4414 L Appellant/ Assessee Respondent/ Revenue

condoning the delay in filing the appeal. 2. That the order passed under Section 250 is perverse, arbitrary, and against the principles of natural justice as adequate opportunities were not provided for presenting the case. 3. That the learned Assessing Officer erred in disallowing the entire revenue expenditure amounting to Rs. 3,24,32

RAJENDRA KUMAR SAHI,RANCHI vs. CIT (APPEAL), DELHI

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

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Ratnesh Nandan Sahayi.T.A. No.148/Ran/2025 Assessment Year: 2022-23 Rajendra Kumar Sahi………….……………............................……….……Appellant Hulhundu, Hatia, Ranchi, Jharkhand – 834003. [Pan: Agkps0098L] Vs. Cit(Appeal), Jharkhand….....…..….…..….........……........……...…..…..Respondent Appearances By: None Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri Khubchand T. Pandya, Sr. Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : October 15, 2025 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : October 29, 2025 Order Per Sonjoy Sarma: This Appeal By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of The Nfac, Delhi [“Cit(A)”] Dated 07.08.2024 Under Section 250 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (The “Act”) For The Assessment Year 2022–23. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Filed The Return Of Income For The Assessment Year 2022–23 Declaring A Total Income Of ₹4,96,520. The Case Was Selected For Scrutiny As The Assessee Had Disclosed Comparatively Low Income Against Receipts On Which Tcs Had Been Deducted. The Assessing Officer (Ao) Noted A Possibility That The Assessee Had Shown Low Income In Order To Reduce Taxable Profits. It Was Also Observed That The Assessee Had Claimed Significantly Higher Tds In The Revised Itr. Therefore, The Ao Intended To Verify The Genuineness Of The Additional Tds Claim & Whether The Corresponding Receipts Had Been Offered To Tax. Accordingly, Notices Under Sections 143(2) & 142(1) Of The Income-Tax Act Were Issued To The Assessee. However, The Assessee Did Not Comply With The Notices. Consequently, The Ao

sections 143(2) and 142(1) of the Income-tax Act were issued to the assessee. However, the assessee did not comply with the notices. Consequently, the AO I.T.A. No.148/Ran/2025 Rajendra Kumar Sahi completed the assessment ex parte and determined the total income at ₹32,28,841. 3. The appeal filed by the assessee before the CIT(A) was delayed

SHRI VIJAY PRASAD,WEST SINGHBHUM vs. PR. CIT, PATNA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri N.S.Saini & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadalea.Y. : 2012-2013 Sri Vijay Prasad, Vs The Principal Cit, 161, Thana No.745, Central, Patna Balijhoran, Nowamundi, West Singhbum-711102 Pan No. : Ailpp 0228 L Respondent (Appellant) .

32,834/-. The case was selected for scrutiny under CASS. The AO completed the assessment u/s.143(3) of the Act, dated 28.03.2014 determining total 2 income at Rs.15,43,400/- and made addition of Rs.1,10,569/- as 5% of the total expenditure on account of repair and maintenance. 4. Subsequently, the CIT having powers vested u/s.263

SHRI SACHIDANAND PRASAD,WEST SINGHBHUM vs. SRI MAHABIR PRASAD RUNGTA, PATNA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri N.S.Saini & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadalea.Y. : 2012-2013 Sri Sachidanand Prasad, Vs The Principal Cit, 161, Thana No.745, Central, Patna Balijhoran, Nowamundi, West Singhbum-711102 Pan No. : Abwpp 8560 D Respondent (Appellant) .

32,120/-. The case was selected for scrutiny under CASS. The AO completed the assessment u/s.143(3) of the Act, dated 28.03.2014 determining total 2 income at Rs.11,84,160/- and made addition of Rs.1,52,036/- as 5% of the total expenditure on account of repair and maintenance. 4. Subsequently, the CIT having powers vested u/s.263

M/S RAM SWARUP RUNGTA & BROTHERS,RANCHI vs. DCIT, RANCHI

In the result, the appeals of assessee in ITA

Delay condoned. We do not find any merit in this petition. The special leave petition is , accordingly dismissed. Pending application, if any, stands disposed of. 9. Respectfully following the aforesaid judicial precedents, we cancel the penalty levied of Rs. 11,24,721/- by the AO U/Sec.271(1)( c) of the Act and confirmed by the CIT-A. Accordingly, the grounds