M/S. LALA BHARAT LAL AND SONS,LUCKNOW vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER (TDS), LUCKNOW

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed whereas the stay petitions are dismissed

Bench: Shri. A. D. Jain & Shri. T.S. Kapoor

section 206C of the Act, it is necessary that waste and scrap sold by the assessee should arise from the manufacturing or mechanical working of the material. The ld. Counsel for the assessee further relied on the decision of the ITAT Rajkot Bench in the case of ‘Nathulal P. Lavti vs. ITO(TDS)’, order dated 17/6/2011, wherein

M/S SINGHAL CONCAST PVT. LTD,LUCKNOW vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER(TDS)-1, LUCKNOW

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed

Bench: Shri A. D. Jain & Shri T. S. Kapoor

section 206C(1). Having said so, we restore the issue to Assessing Officer with direction to grant relief to assessee under the provision of 206C(1) of Act, with regards to only sale of scrap arising out of manufacturing activity in course of ship breaking after providing due opportunity of hearing to assessee.” 7. The Hon'ble High Court

THE DISTRICT MINING OFFICER,BAREILLY vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER (TDS), BAREILLY

Bench: Sh. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Sh. Nikhil Choudhary

TDS) u/s 206C (6A) of the Income Tax Act is unsustainable and bad in law since the authorities have not considered the proviso contained under sub section (6A) of Section 206C of the Income Tax Act. 3

M/S. WIRE ONE,LUCKNOW vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER (TDS)-I, LUCKNOW

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed

Bench: Shri A. D. Jain & Shri T. S. Kapoor

section 206C(1). Having said so, we restore the issue to Assessing Officer with direction to grant relief to assessee under the provision of 206C(1) of Act, with regards to only sale of scrap arising out of manufacturing activity in course of ship breaking after providing due opportunity of hearing to assessee.” 7. The Hon'ble High Court

THE DISTRICT MAGISTRATE COLLECTORATE,SHAHJAHANPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER (TDS), BAREILLY

In the result, all the six appeals of the assessee for Assessment Years 2010-11 to 2015-16 are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri. Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Ramit Kochar

3. BECAUSE, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the impugned order passed by the Ld. CIT (A), sustaining the order of ITO (TDS) u/s 206C (6A) of the Income Tax Act is unsustainable and bad in law since the authorities have not considered the proviso contained under sub section

THE DISTRICT MAGISTRATE COLLECTORATE,SHAHJAHANPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER (TDS), BAREILLY

In the result, all the six appeals of the assessee for Assessment Years 2010-11 to 2015-16 are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri. Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Ramit Kochar

3. BECAUSE, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the impugned order passed by the Ld. CIT (A), sustaining the order of ITO (TDS) u/s 206C (6A) of the Income Tax Act is unsustainable and bad in law since the authorities have not considered the proviso contained under sub section

THE DISTRICT MAGISTRATE COLLECTORATE,SHAHJAHANPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER (TDS), BAREILLY

In the result, all the six appeals of the assessee for Assessment Years 2010-11 to 2015-16 are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri. Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Ramit Kochar

3. BECAUSE, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the impugned order passed by the Ld. CIT (A), sustaining the order of ITO (TDS) u/s 206C (6A) of the Income Tax Act is unsustainable and bad in law since the authorities have not considered the proviso contained under sub section

THE DISTRICT MAGISTRATE COLLECTORATE,SHAHJAHANPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER (TDS), BAREILLY

In the result, all the six appeals of the assessee for Assessment Years 2010-11 to 2015-16 are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri. Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Ramit Kochar

3. BECAUSE, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the impugned order passed by the Ld. CIT (A), sustaining the order of ITO (TDS) u/s 206C (6A) of the Income Tax Act is unsustainable and bad in law since the authorities have not considered the proviso contained under sub section

THE DISTRICT MAGISTRATE COLLECTORATE,SHAHJAHANPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER (TDS), BAREILLY

In the result, all the six appeals of the assessee for Assessment Years 2010-11 to 2015-16 are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri. Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Ramit Kochar

3. BECAUSE, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the impugned order passed by the Ld. CIT (A), sustaining the order of ITO (TDS) u/s 206C (6A) of the Income Tax Act is unsustainable and bad in law since the authorities have not considered the proviso contained under sub section

THE DISTRICT MAGISTRATE COLLECTORATE,SHAHJAHANPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER (TDS), BAREILLY

In the result, all the six appeals of the assessee for Assessment Years 2010-11 to 2015-16 are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri. Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Ramit Kochar

3. BECAUSE, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the impugned order passed by the Ld. CIT (A), sustaining the order of ITO (TDS) u/s 206C (6A) of the Income Tax Act is unsustainable and bad in law since the authorities have not considered the proviso contained under sub section

THE DISTRICT MAGISTRATE/DISTRICT MINING OFFICER,PILIBHIT vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER (TDS), BAREILY

In the result, the appeals of the assessee stand allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri A.D Jain & Shri T.S. Kapoor

3. BECAUSE, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the impugned order passed by the Ld. CIT(A), sustaining the order of ITO (TDS) u/s 206C (6A) of die Income Tax Act is unsustainable and bad in law since the authorities have not considered the proviso contained under sub section

THE DISTRICT MAGISTRATE/DISTRICT MINING OFFICER,PILIBHIT vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER (TDS), BAREILY

In the result, the appeals of the assessee stand allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri A.D Jain & Shri T.S. Kapoor

3. BECAUSE, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the impugned order passed by the Ld. CIT(A), sustaining the order of ITO (TDS) u/s 206C (6A) of die Income Tax Act is unsustainable and bad in law since the authorities have not considered the proviso contained under sub section

THE DISTRICT MAGISTRATE/DISTRICT MINING OFFICER,PILIBHIT vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER (TDS), BAREILY

In the result, the appeals of the assessee stand allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri A.D Jain & Shri T.S. Kapoor

3. BECAUSE, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the impugned order passed by the Ld. CIT(A), sustaining the order of ITO (TDS) u/s 206C (6A) of die Income Tax Act is unsustainable and bad in law since the authorities have not considered the proviso contained under sub section

THE DISTRICT MAGISTRATE/DISTRICT MINING OFFICER,PILIBHIT vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER (TDS), BAREILY

In the result, the appeals of the assessee stand allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri A.D Jain & Shri T.S. Kapoor

3. BECAUSE, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the impugned order passed by the Ld. CIT(A), sustaining the order of ITO (TDS) u/s 206C (6A) of die Income Tax Act is unsustainable and bad in law since the authorities have not considered the proviso contained under sub section

THE DISTRICT MAGISTRATE/DISTRICT MINING OFFICER,PILIBHIT vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER (TDS), BAREILY

In the result, the appeals of the assessee stand allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri A.D Jain & Shri T.S. Kapoor

3. BECAUSE, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the impugned order passed by the Ld. CIT(A), sustaining the order of ITO (TDS) u/s 206C (6A) of die Income Tax Act is unsustainable and bad in law since the authorities have not considered the proviso contained under sub section

THE DISTRICT MAGISTRATE/DISTRICT MINING OFFICER,PILIBHIT vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER (TDS), BAREILY

In the result, the appeals of the assessee stand allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri A.D Jain & Shri T.S. Kapoor

3. BECAUSE, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the impugned order passed by the Ld. CIT(A), sustaining the order of ITO (TDS) u/s 206C (6A) of die Income Tax Act is unsustainable and bad in law since the authorities have not considered the proviso contained under sub section

THE DISTRICT MAGISTRATE/DISTRICT MINING OFFICER,PILIBHIT vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER (TDS), BAREILY

In the result, the appeals of the assessee stand allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri A.D Jain & Shri T.S. Kapoor

3. BECAUSE, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the impugned order passed by the Ld. CIT(A), sustaining the order of ITO (TDS) u/s 206C (6A) of die Income Tax Act is unsustainable and bad in law since the authorities have not considered the proviso contained under sub section

SUB REGISTRAR, TAMKUHIRAJ,KUSHINAGAR vs. ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (I&CI), LUCKNOW

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat, Videshri Anadee Nath Misshra**

TDS from salaries of their state Government Employees as per the provisions of section 192 of the Income-tax Act quoted above. As the Sub-Registrars accept that they are includible in the category of "person" as per section 192 of the Act, on similar reasoning, they would be includible under "person" in any other provision of the Income