MOUSAMI CHOUDHURY,VARANASI vs. DY. CIT, RANGE - 02,, VARANASI

In the result , the appeal filed the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Ramit Kochar

TDS of Assessment Years: 2009-10 & 2010-11 Mousami Choudhury, District Varanasi v. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-2, Varanasi Rs. 24,02,503/-, for ay: 2009-10. It was also submitted that the assessee e- filed income tax return in ITR-4, which is a return of income for declaring business income. The ld. Sr. DR submitted

PRATAP DIAGNOSTIC CENTER,AZAMGARH vs. ITO (TDS),, AZAMGARH

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Shri.Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Ramit Kochar

TDS provisions in respect of the various payments made by the assessee. 6. On the other hand, the learned DR has submitted that despite various opportunities, the assessee did not appear before the AO as well as CIT(A) and hence ,the assessee should not be given any further opportunity. 7. We have considered the rival submissions as well

PRATAP DIAGNOSTIC CENTER,AZAMGARH vs. ITO (TDS), AZAMGARH

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Shri.Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Ramit Kochar

TDS provisions in respect of the various payments made by the assessee. 6. On the other hand, the learned DR has submitted that despite various opportunities, the assessee did not appear before the AO as well as CIT(A) and hence ,the assessee should not be given any further opportunity. 7. We have considered the rival submissions as well

MANISH JAISWAL,GORAKHPUR vs. ADDL. CIT, (TDS), ALLAHABAD

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Ramit Kocharassessment Year: 2016-17 Mr. Manish Jaiswal, Addl.Cit (Tds), Prop. New Manish Medical V. Allahabad-211001, U.P. Agencies Pashupati Market, Gandhi Park, Gorakhpur, U.P. Pan: Akdpj7675D (Appellant) (Respondent)

5 Assessment Year: 2016-17 Manish Jaiswal vs. Addl. CIT to the Government . The ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that the assessee being individual was not knowing the provisions of Section 194IA of the 1961 Act . The ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that provisions of Section 271C is subject to provisions of Section 273B. The ld. Counsel