8TH BATALIAN INDIA RESERVE CAF,RAJNANDGAON vs. ACIT, CPC, TDS, GHAZIABAD

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Arun Khodpia

TDS, Ghaziabad ITA Nos. 184 to 191/RPR/2022 the aforementioned respective years were in itself not maintainable. For the sake of clarity, sub-section (7) of Section 154

8TH BATALIAN INDIA RESERVE CAF,RAJNANDGAON vs. ACIT, CPC, TDS, GHAZIABAD

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Arun Khodpia

TDS, Ghaziabad ITA Nos. 184 to 191/RPR/2022 the aforementioned respective years were in itself not maintainable. For the sake of clarity, sub-section (7) of Section 154

8TH BATALIAN INDIA RESERVE CAF,RAJNANDGAON vs. ACIT, CPC, TDS, GHAZIABAD

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Arun Khodpia

TDS, Ghaziabad ITA Nos. 184 to 191/RPR/2022 the aforementioned respective years were in itself not maintainable. For the sake of clarity, sub-section (7) of Section 154

8TH BATALIAN INDIA RESERVE CAF,RAJNANDGAON vs. ACIT, CPC, TDS, GHAZIABAD

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Arun Khodpia

TDS, Ghaziabad ITA Nos. 184 to 191/RPR/2022 the aforementioned respective years were in itself not maintainable. For the sake of clarity, sub-section (7) of Section 154

8TH BATALIAN INDIA RESERVE CAF,RAJNANDGAON vs. ACIT, CPC, TDS, GHAZIABAD

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Arun Khodpia

TDS, Ghaziabad ITA Nos. 184 to 191/RPR/2022 the aforementioned respective years were in itself not maintainable. For the sake of clarity, sub-section (7) of Section 154

8TH BATALIAN INDIA RESERVE CAF,RAJNANDGAON vs. ACIT, CPC, TDS, GHAZIABAD

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Arun Khodpia

TDS, Ghaziabad ITA Nos. 184 to 191/RPR/2022 the aforementioned respective years were in itself not maintainable. For the sake of clarity, sub-section (7) of Section 154

MAHESWARI PANCHAYAT BALOD, BALOD vs. ITO, WARD-1(3), BHILAI, BHILAI

In the result, appeals of the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhuryआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.137, 138, 139 & 140/Rpr/2026 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Years : 2013-14 & 2014-15 Maheshwari Panchayat Balod Rajnandgaon, Balod, Chhattisgarh-491 226 Pan: Aaaam7320E

TDS), Raipur (C.G.), TAX Case No.17/2025, dated 24.02.2025 and (iv) Inder Singh Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh, Civil Appeal No…………/2025, Special Leave Petition (Civil) No.6145 of 2024, dated 21st March, 2025. 4. That so far as merits of the case is concerned, the Ld. CIT(Appeals)/NFAC had dismissed the appeal on the ground of delay of rectification

MAHESWARI PANCHAYAT BALOD,BALOD vs. ITO, WARD-1(3), BHILAI, BHILAI

In the result, appeals of the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhuryआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.137, 138, 139 & 140/Rpr/2026 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Years : 2013-14 & 2014-15 Maheshwari Panchayat Balod Rajnandgaon, Balod, Chhattisgarh-491 226 Pan: Aaaam7320E

TDS), Raipur (C.G.), TAX Case No.17/2025, dated 24.02.2025 and (iv) Inder Singh Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh, Civil Appeal No…………/2025, Special Leave Petition (Civil) No.6145 of 2024, dated 21st March, 2025. 4. That so far as merits of the case is concerned, the Ld. CIT(Appeals)/NFAC had dismissed the appeal on the ground of delay of rectification

MAHESWARI PANCHAYAT BALOD, BALOD vs. ITO, WARD-1(3), BHILAI, BHILAI

In the result, appeals of the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhuryआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.137, 138, 139 & 140/Rpr/2026 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Years : 2013-14 & 2014-15 Maheshwari Panchayat Balod Rajnandgaon, Balod, Chhattisgarh-491 226 Pan: Aaaam7320E

TDS), Raipur (C.G.), TAX Case No.17/2025, dated 24.02.2025 and (iv) Inder Singh Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh, Civil Appeal No…………/2025, Special Leave Petition (Civil) No.6145 of 2024, dated 21st March, 2025. 4. That so far as merits of the case is concerned, the Ld. CIT(Appeals)/NFAC had dismissed the appeal on the ground of delay of rectification

MAHESWARI PANCHAYAT BALOD,BALOD vs. ITO, WARD-1(3), BHILAI, BHILAI

In the result, appeals of the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhuryआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.137, 138, 139 & 140/Rpr/2026 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Years : 2013-14 & 2014-15 Maheshwari Panchayat Balod Rajnandgaon, Balod, Chhattisgarh-491 226 Pan: Aaaam7320E

TDS), Raipur (C.G.), TAX Case No.17/2025, dated 24.02.2025 and (iv) Inder Singh Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh, Civil Appeal No…………/2025, Special Leave Petition (Civil) No.6145 of 2024, dated 21st March, 2025. 4. That so far as merits of the case is concerned, the Ld. CIT(Appeals)/NFAC had dismissed the appeal on the ground of delay of rectification

XANDER FINANCE PVT. LTD., MUMBAI,MUMBAI vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-1(1), RAIPUR, RAIPUR

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood, Jm & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No: 549/Rpr/2024 ("नधा"रण वष" Assessment Year: 2019-20)

TDS credit 1.1. On facts and in the circumstance of the case and in law, the Hon'ble CIT(A) erred in upholding the order of the Central Processing Centre (passed under section 154

PRIYESH SINGHANIA, RAIPUR,RAIPUR vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-1(1), RAIPUR, RAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury & Shri G. D. Padmahshaliआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.462/Rpr/2025 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2017-18 Priyesh Singhania 730/1, Radha Kunj, Opposite Vip Guest House, Pahuna, Shankar Nagar Main Road, Raipur (C.G.)-492 001 Pan: Aoups7838A ........अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. The Income Tax Officer, Circle-1(1), Raipur (C.G.) ……""यथ" / Respondent

TDS u/s 194DA and based on such information in 26AS Statement, CPC made an upward adjustment while processing the Return u/s 143(1) and raised Demand, hence this Appeal Further to your specific queries reply is as under: Q1. Whether any rectification order u/s 154 against the Intimation u/s 143(1) or the subsequent order u/s 154 for the present

TOUCHSTONE SERVICES P. LTD.,RAJNANDGAON vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER (TDS), DURG

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Dr. Dipak P. Ripoteआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.68 & 69/Rpr/2021 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2013-14 & 2014-15 Touchstone Services P. Ltd., V The Income Tax C/O.Uday Raj Parakh, S Officer(Tds), Bhilai, “Mangaldeep”, G.E.Road, Ground Floor, Aayakar Rajnandgaon (C.G.) – 491441 Bhawan, New Civic Centre, Pan: Aacct 6932 F Bhilai, Dist. Durg(C.G) – 490006. Appellant/ Assessee Respondent /Revenue Assessee By None Revenue By Shri G.N.Singh – Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing 22/11/2022 Date Of Pronouncement 12/12/2022 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: These Are Two Appeals Filed By The Assessee I.E. Touchstone Services Pvt. Ltd., For The A.Y.2013-14 & 2014-15 Against The Two Separate Orders Of Ld.Cit(A)[Nfac] Dated 05.08.2021. Both These Appeals Were Clubbed, Heard Together & Disposed Of By A Common Order. For The Sake Of Convenience We Take The Appeal No.68/Rpr/2021 For A.Y.2013-14 Treated As Lead Case. The Assessee For A.Y.2013-14 Has Raised Following Grounds Of Appeal: “1) On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case, Cit(A) Erred In Upholding Demand Raised In Respect Of Levying Fee U/S 234E In Intimation U/S 200A For Default In Furnishing Tds Statements So Far As Period Prior To 01.06.2015 By Ignoring Binding Decisions Of Hon’Ble Jurisdictional It At, Raipur Bench In Cases Of "Chhattisgarh Gramin Bank & Others Vs. Ito (Tds) Dt. 23.06.2016 Reported In (2016) 29 Itj 310" And

TDS) [2018] 100 taxmann.com 78 (Pune Tribunal) has observed as under: “11. We have heard the rival contentions and perused the record. The issue arising in the present bunch of appeals is against levy of late filing fees under section 234E of the Act while issuing intimation under section 200A of the Act, in the first bunch of appeals

TOUCHSTONE SERVICES P. LTD.,RAJNANDGAON vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER (TDS), BHILAI

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Dr. Dipak P. Ripoteआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.68 & 69/Rpr/2021 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2013-14 & 2014-15 Touchstone Services P. Ltd., V The Income Tax C/O.Uday Raj Parakh, S Officer(Tds), Bhilai, “Mangaldeep”, G.E.Road, Ground Floor, Aayakar Rajnandgaon (C.G.) – 491441 Bhawan, New Civic Centre, Pan: Aacct 6932 F Bhilai, Dist. Durg(C.G) – 490006. Appellant/ Assessee Respondent /Revenue Assessee By None Revenue By Shri G.N.Singh – Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing 22/11/2022 Date Of Pronouncement 12/12/2022 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: These Are Two Appeals Filed By The Assessee I.E. Touchstone Services Pvt. Ltd., For The A.Y.2013-14 & 2014-15 Against The Two Separate Orders Of Ld.Cit(A)[Nfac] Dated 05.08.2021. Both These Appeals Were Clubbed, Heard Together & Disposed Of By A Common Order. For The Sake Of Convenience We Take The Appeal No.68/Rpr/2021 For A.Y.2013-14 Treated As Lead Case. The Assessee For A.Y.2013-14 Has Raised Following Grounds Of Appeal: “1) On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case, Cit(A) Erred In Upholding Demand Raised In Respect Of Levying Fee U/S 234E In Intimation U/S 200A For Default In Furnishing Tds Statements So Far As Period Prior To 01.06.2015 By Ignoring Binding Decisions Of Hon’Ble Jurisdictional It At, Raipur Bench In Cases Of "Chhattisgarh Gramin Bank & Others Vs. Ito (Tds) Dt. 23.06.2016 Reported In (2016) 29 Itj 310" And

TDS) [2018] 100 taxmann.com 78 (Pune Tribunal) has observed as under: “11. We have heard the rival contentions and perused the record. The issue arising in the present bunch of appeals is against levy of late filing fees under section 234E of the Act while issuing intimation under section 200A of the Act, in the first bunch of appeals

SOUTH EASTERN COALFIELDS LIMITED, BILASPUR,BILASPUR vs. ASSISSTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1(1), BILASPUR, BILASPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee company is allowed for statistical purposes in terms of our aforesaid observations

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Arun Khodpiaआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No. 43/Rpr/2023 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2018-19 M/S. South Eastern Coalfields Limited Seepat Road, Sarkanda, Bilaspur (C.G.)-495006 Pan: Aadcs2066E .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. The Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle-1(1), Bilaspur (C.G.) ……""यथ" / Respondent

TDS credit. 13. Without prejudice to the above, the Ld.CIT(A), NFAC erred in not adjudicating the ground raised for initiating penalty proceedings on account of disallowance relating to amortization of leased land compensation expenses. 14. Without prejudice to the above, the Ld. CIT(A), NFAC erred in not adjudicating the ground raised for initiating penalty proceedings on account

HE DISTRICT MARKETING OFFICER, CHHATTISGARH,RAIPUR vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, TDS, RAIPUR (CG)

In the result, the appeal of assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Dr. Dipak P. Ripoteआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.291/Rpr/2016 िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year : 2013-14 District Marketing Officer, The Ito (Tds), Chhattisgarh State Co-Operative Vs Raipur (Cg). Marketing Federation Limited, Near Hotel Atithi, Near Railway Station, Jagdalpur (Cg). Tan: Jbpc0191B Appellant/Assessee Respondent / Revenue Applicant By Shri Nikhilesh Beghani Respondent By Shri G.N. Singh Date Of Hearing 03/11/2022 Date Of Pronouncement 19/12/2022 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)-I, Raipur, Dated 01.03.2016For Assessment Year 2013-14Emanating From The Order Of Ito (Tds) U/S 201(1) & 201(1A) Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Also Called As ‘The Act’)Dated 18.03.2014. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Ground Of Appeal: “Ground No.I That The Ex-Parte Appellate Order Passed By The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) ("The Ld.Cit(A)") Is Highly Unjustified, Bad In Law, Without Providing Reasonable Opportunity Of Being Heard & Not In Accordance With The Provisions Of Law. It Is

TDS) [2018] 100 taxmann.com 78 (Pune Tribunal) has observed as under: “11.We have heard the rival contentions and perused the record. The issue arising in the present bunch of appeals is against levy of late filing fees under section 234E of the Act while issuing intimation under section 200A of the Act, in the first bunch of appeals. The second

SANJAY KUMAR BAID,RAIPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 4(1), RAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury & Shri Arun Khodpiaआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.57/Rpr/2025 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2017-18 Sanjay Kumar Baid Arihant Bearing & Mill Stores, Opp. Deshbandhu School, Station Road, Raipur (C.G.)-492 001 Pan: Acipj2887L ........अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-4(1), Raipur (C.G.) ……""यथ" / Respondent

154. [CIT v Keshri Metal Pvt. Ltd. (1999) 237 ITR 165 (SC)]. 4. Further, section 96 of the RCTLAAR Act, 2013 states that "No income tax or stamp duty shall be levied on any award or agreement made under this Act, except under section 46 and no person claiming under any such award or agreement shall be liable

MITESH SINGHANIA,RAIPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 1(2) RAIPUR, CENTRAL REVENUE BUILDING, RAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhuryआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.410/Rpr/2025 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2017-18 Mitesh Singhania Singhania Bhawan, Subhas Road, Near Telghani Naka, Raipur (C.G.)-492 001 Pan: Avops1474P .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(2), Raipur (C.G) ……""यथ" / Respondent

TDS u/s 194DA and based on such information in 26AS Statement, CPC made an upward adjustment while processing the Return u/s 143(1) and raised Demand, hence this Appeal Further to your specific queries reply is as under: Q1. Whether any rectification order u/s 154 against the Intimation u/s 143(1) or the subsequent order u/s 154 for the present