I.T.O.(T.D.S.) WARD 2(3), CHANDRAPUR vs. ULTRATECH CEMENT LTD UNIT AWARPUR CEMENT WORKS,

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Shri Ram Lal Negi

section 194C itself. It has already been held that the appellant was never required to deduct any TDS as per 194C of the Act. In such facts, the action of the Id. AO of raising the demand for tax of Rs.,1,78,095/-, Rs.57,84,468/-, Rs.69,27,997/ Rs.2,43,03,965/- & Rs.34

I.T.O.(T.D.S.) WARD 2(3), CHANDRAPUR vs. BILT GRAPHIC PAPER PROUDUCTS LTD.,

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue in ITA

TDS as per section 194C of the Act. In such facts, the action of the ld. A.O. of raising the demand for tax and interest on the appellant u/s. 201(1)/201(1A) of the Act is held to be erroneous and is therefore directed to be deleted.” 7

I.T.O.(T.D.S.) WARD 2(3), CHANDRAPUR vs. BILT GRAPHIC PAPER PROUDUCTS LTD.,

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue in ITA

TDS as per section 194C of the Act. In such facts, the action of the ld. A.O. of raising the demand for tax and interest on the appellant u/s. 201(1)/201(1A) of the Act is held to be erroneous and is therefore directed to be deleted.” 7

I.T.O.(T.D.S.) WARD 2(3), CHANDRAPUR vs. BILT GRAPHIC PAPER PROUDUCTS LTD., CHANDRAPUR

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue in ITA

TDS as per section 194C of the Act. In such facts, the action of the ld. A.O. of raising the demand for tax and interest on the appellant u/s. 201(1)/201(1A) of the Act is held to be erroneous and is therefore directed to be deleted.” 7

I.T.O.(T.D.S.) WARD 2(3), CHANDRAPUR vs. BILT GRAPHIC PAPER PROUDUCTS LTD.,

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue in ITA

TDS as per section 194C of the Act. In such facts, the action of the ld. A.O. of raising the demand for tax and interest on the appellant u/s. 201(1)/201(1A) of the Act is held to be erroneous and is therefore directed to be deleted.” 7

I.T.O.(T.D.S.) WARD 2(3), CHANDRAPUR vs. BILT GRAPHIC PAPER PROUDUCTS LTD., CHANDRAPUR

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue in ITA

TDS as per section 194C of the Act. In such facts, the action of the ld. A.O. of raising the demand for tax and interest on the appellant u/s. 201(1)/201(1A) of the Act is held to be erroneous and is therefore directed to be deleted.” 7

I.T.O.(T.D.S.) WARD 2(3), CHANDRAPUR vs. BILT GRAPHIC PAPER PROUDUCTS LTD., CHANDRAPUR

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue in ITA

TDS as per section 194C of the Act. In such facts, the action of the ld. A.O. of raising the demand for tax and interest on the appellant u/s. 201(1)/201(1A) of the Act is held to be erroneous and is therefore directed to be deleted.” 7

ITO (TDS), WARD-2(3),, NAGPUR vs. ACC LTD.,, CHANDRAPUR

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue in ITA

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri S. S. Viswanethra Raviआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.73 To 76/Nag/2017 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2011-12 To 2014-15 Ito (Tds), Ward-2(3), Vs. Acc Ltd., Chandrapur- 442401. Chanda Cement Works, P.O. Cement Nagar, Chandrapur, Dist.- Chandrapur, Chandrapur - 442502. Pan : Aaact1507C Appellant Respondent Revenue By : Shri Maurya Pratap Assessee By : Shri Chaitanya D. Joshi Date Of Hearing : 20.07.2023 Date Of Pronouncement : 31.07.2023 आदेश / Order Per Inturi Rama Rao, Am: These Are The Appeals Filed By The Revenue Directed Against The Common Order Of Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-2, Nagpur [‘The Cit(A)’] Dated 26.12.2016 Quashing The Order Passed By The Income Tax Officer (Tds), Ward-2(3), Chandrapur U/S 201(1) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘The Act’) For The Assessment Years 2011-12 To 2014-15 Respectively. 2. Since The Identical Facts & Common Issues Are Involved In The Above Captioned Four Appeals Of The Revenue, We Proceed To Dispose Of The Same By This Common Order. 3. For The Sake Of Convenience & Clarity, The Facts Relevant To The Appeal Of The Revenue In Ita No.73/Nag/2017 For The Assessment Year 2011-12 Are Stated Herein.

7. The ld. CIT-DR submits that the ld. CIT(A) was not justified in granting relief without satisfying himself as to compliance with the provisions of sub-section (6) of section 194C of the Act. 8. On the other hand, ld. AR submits that the assessee is not required to deduct tax at source on the payments made

ITO (TDS), WARD-2(3),, CHANDRAPUR vs. ACC LTD.,, CHANDRAPUR

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue in ITA

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri S. S. Viswanethra Raviआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.73 To 76/Nag/2017 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2011-12 To 2014-15 Ito (Tds), Ward-2(3), Vs. Acc Ltd., Chandrapur- 442401. Chanda Cement Works, P.O. Cement Nagar, Chandrapur, Dist.- Chandrapur, Chandrapur - 442502. Pan : Aaact1507C Appellant Respondent Revenue By : Shri Maurya Pratap Assessee By : Shri Chaitanya D. Joshi Date Of Hearing : 20.07.2023 Date Of Pronouncement : 31.07.2023 आदेश / Order Per Inturi Rama Rao, Am: These Are The Appeals Filed By The Revenue Directed Against The Common Order Of Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-2, Nagpur [‘The Cit(A)’] Dated 26.12.2016 Quashing The Order Passed By The Income Tax Officer (Tds), Ward-2(3), Chandrapur U/S 201(1) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘The Act’) For The Assessment Years 2011-12 To 2014-15 Respectively. 2. Since The Identical Facts & Common Issues Are Involved In The Above Captioned Four Appeals Of The Revenue, We Proceed To Dispose Of The Same By This Common Order. 3. For The Sake Of Convenience & Clarity, The Facts Relevant To The Appeal Of The Revenue In Ita No.73/Nag/2017 For The Assessment Year 2011-12 Are Stated Herein.

7. The ld. CIT-DR submits that the ld. CIT(A) was not justified in granting relief without satisfying himself as to compliance with the provisions of sub-section (6) of section 194C of the Act. 8. On the other hand, ld. AR submits that the assessee is not required to deduct tax at source on the payments made

ITO (TDS), WARD-2(3),, CHANDRAPUR vs. ACC LTD.,, CHANDRAPUR

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue in ITA

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri S. S. Viswanethra Raviआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.73 To 76/Nag/2017 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2011-12 To 2014-15 Ito (Tds), Ward-2(3), Vs. Acc Ltd., Chandrapur- 442401. Chanda Cement Works, P.O. Cement Nagar, Chandrapur, Dist.- Chandrapur, Chandrapur - 442502. Pan : Aaact1507C Appellant Respondent Revenue By : Shri Maurya Pratap Assessee By : Shri Chaitanya D. Joshi Date Of Hearing : 20.07.2023 Date Of Pronouncement : 31.07.2023 आदेश / Order Per Inturi Rama Rao, Am: These Are The Appeals Filed By The Revenue Directed Against The Common Order Of Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-2, Nagpur [‘The Cit(A)’] Dated 26.12.2016 Quashing The Order Passed By The Income Tax Officer (Tds), Ward-2(3), Chandrapur U/S 201(1) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘The Act’) For The Assessment Years 2011-12 To 2014-15 Respectively. 2. Since The Identical Facts & Common Issues Are Involved In The Above Captioned Four Appeals Of The Revenue, We Proceed To Dispose Of The Same By This Common Order. 3. For The Sake Of Convenience & Clarity, The Facts Relevant To The Appeal Of The Revenue In Ita No.73/Nag/2017 For The Assessment Year 2011-12 Are Stated Herein.

7. The ld. CIT-DR submits that the ld. CIT(A) was not justified in granting relief without satisfying himself as to compliance with the provisions of sub-section (6) of section 194C of the Act. 8. On the other hand, ld. AR submits that the assessee is not required to deduct tax at source on the payments made

ITO (TDS), WARD-2(3),, CHANDRAPUR vs. ACC LTD.,, CHANDRAPUR

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue in ITA

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri S. S. Viswanethra Raviआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.73 To 76/Nag/2017 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2011-12 To 2014-15 Ito (Tds), Ward-2(3), Vs. Acc Ltd., Chandrapur- 442401. Chanda Cement Works, P.O. Cement Nagar, Chandrapur, Dist.- Chandrapur, Chandrapur - 442502. Pan : Aaact1507C Appellant Respondent Revenue By : Shri Maurya Pratap Assessee By : Shri Chaitanya D. Joshi Date Of Hearing : 20.07.2023 Date Of Pronouncement : 31.07.2023 आदेश / Order Per Inturi Rama Rao, Am: These Are The Appeals Filed By The Revenue Directed Against The Common Order Of Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-2, Nagpur [‘The Cit(A)’] Dated 26.12.2016 Quashing The Order Passed By The Income Tax Officer (Tds), Ward-2(3), Chandrapur U/S 201(1) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘The Act’) For The Assessment Years 2011-12 To 2014-15 Respectively. 2. Since The Identical Facts & Common Issues Are Involved In The Above Captioned Four Appeals Of The Revenue, We Proceed To Dispose Of The Same By This Common Order. 3. For The Sake Of Convenience & Clarity, The Facts Relevant To The Appeal Of The Revenue In Ita No.73/Nag/2017 For The Assessment Year 2011-12 Are Stated Herein.

7. The ld. CIT-DR submits that the ld. CIT(A) was not justified in granting relief without satisfying himself as to compliance with the provisions of sub-section (6) of section 194C of the Act. 8. On the other hand, ld. AR submits that the assessee is not required to deduct tax at source on the payments made

THE PROJECT DIRECTOR, NATIONAL HIGHWAY AUTHORITY OF INDIA,,NAGPUR vs. I.T.O. T.D.S. WARD 2-(1), NAGPUR

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri G.D. Agrawal & Shri Mahavir Singh

7) of the Income Tax Act. The interest charged is improper.” 4. Similarly in respect to other five appeals, which are in respect to the dispute of TDS u/s 194C of the Act, learned CIT(A) confirmed the action of the Assessing Officer in holding that the assessee is in default u/s 201(1) of the Act and consequent charging

INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-7(2), NAGPUR vs. M/S SHIVPRAKASH RAJNARAYAN MISHRA(HUF), NAGPUR

In the result, Revenue’s appeal is dismissed and assessee’s

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri G. Manjunatha

section 194C of the Act which mandates deduction of tax at source on any payment made to any transporter including agent. The assessee has filed all the details including confirmation which clearly shows that he is acting as a commission agent for facilitating movement of goods from South Indian truck owners to Uttar Pradesh and Madhya Pradesh States by arranging

ACIT, CIRCLE-4, NAGPUR vs. M/S NANDLAL ENTERPRISES, NAGPUR

In the result, appeal of Revenue in ITA No

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Jm

TDS and therefore, the provisions of section 40(a)(ia) of the Income- tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) were invoked by the Assessing Officer apart from other reasons. The CIT(A) granted relief to the assessee holding that the addition is uncalled for. However, it is case of Revenue that these payments attract the provisions

ACIT, CIRCLE-4, NAGPUR vs. M/S NANDLAL ENTERPRISES, NAGPUR

In the result, appeal of Revenue in ITA No

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Jm

TDS and therefore, the provisions of section 40(a)(ia) of the Income- tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) were invoked by the Assessing Officer apart from other reasons. The CIT(A) granted relief to the assessee holding that the addition is uncalled for. However, it is case of Revenue that these payments attract the provisions

ACIT, CIRCLE-4, NAGPUR vs. M/S NANDLAL ENTERPRISES, NAGPUR

In the result, appeal of Revenue in ITA No

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Jm

TDS and therefore, the provisions of section 40(a)(ia) of the Income- tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) were invoked by the Assessing Officer apart from other reasons. The CIT(A) granted relief to the assessee holding that the addition is uncalled for. However, it is case of Revenue that these payments attract the provisions

SANJAY KISAN CHOPDE,NAGPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1, NAGPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr. Dipak P. Ripoteआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.176/Nag/2022 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2014-15 Sanjay Kisan Chopde, The Deputy Balaji Associates, Gs 37, Vs Commissioner Of Amar Jyoti Palace, Lomat Income Tax, Circle-1, Square, Wardha Road, Nagpur. Nagpur – 440012. Pan: Abapc6968N Appellant/ Assessee Respondent/Revenue Assessee By Shri Abhay Agrawal – Advocate Revenue By Shri Abhay Y. Marathe – Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing 25/01/2024 Date Of Pronouncement 30/01/2024 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of Ld.Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeals)[Nfac], Dated 30.3.2022 Emanating From Assessment Order Under Section 143(3) Dated 30.06.2016 For A.Y.2014-15. The Grounds Of Appeal Raised By The Assessee Are As Under : Sanjay Kisan Chopde [A]

194C unlike in this case wherein the said party had deducted TDS at the rate of 10% under section 194J (a section applicable when payee is a professional/ technical service provider). It was also stated that, the entries in the TDS statement hosted by the Department are based on the TDS returns filed by the deductors and as such

ASSTT.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX ,CIRCLE-4, NAGPUR vs. SHRI NANDLAL B MALOO, NAGPUR

In the result, assessee’s cross objection is partly allowed

Bench: Shri P.K. Bansal & Shri Amarjit Singh

section 148 of the Act was issued on 12th May 2008. The Assessing Officer has reopened the assessment on the ground that investment in shares of IFSL amounting to ` 2,75,000, was made in cash and the purported source of such investment namely withdrawal from M/s Nandlal Enterprises, was not verifiable with reference to the books of account

ASTT.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,AMRAVATI CIR.AMRAVATI, AMRAVATI vs. SHRI AKASH RAMESHWAR PANPALIA,

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Sh. G.D.Agrawal, Hon’Ble & Sh. Mahavir Singhacit, Vs Akash Rameshwar Panpalia, Amravati Circle, Ward No.14, Dhamangaon Amravati, Aayakar Railway, Distt.-Amravati–4447–9. Bhawan, Ambapeth, Pan–Aiopp8687J Amravati–444601. (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By Sh.R.K.Baral, Sr.Dr Respondent By Sh.K.P.Dewani, Adv. Date Of Hearing 08.03.2018 Date Of Pronouncement 08.03.2018

194C for making disallowance as the payments are made without deduction of TDS and also for making cash payment in excess of Rs.20,000/– in a single day in violation of provision of section 40A(3) of the Act. But we have gone through the assessment order, and it is noticed that the Assessing Officer has not invoked the provision