BLOCK RESOURCES COORDINATOR RAJIV GANDHI SIKSHA MISSION,PATAN vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, TDS, BHILAI

In the result, grounds raised in all these three appeals are partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Arun Khodpiaआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.33, 34 & 35/Rpr/2020 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Years: 2011-12 & 2012-13 V. Block Resources Coordinator Ito (Tds) Rajiv Gandhi Siksha Mission, Block Bhilai Patan, Bathena Road, Patan Dist. Durg – 491 111 Chhattisgarh

Section 201(1) be computed @ 1% as provided u/s 194C as PAN of the said deductee is available, the Learned AO has further erred in not giving credit of Rs. 1, 571/- which has been paid by the assessee merely due to the reason that the same could not be mentioned in the quarterly TDS Statement u/s 200(3

BLOCK RESOURCES CENTRE RAJIV GSANDHI SIKSHA MISSION,DHAMDHA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, TDS, BHILAI

In the result, grounds raised in all these three appeals are partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Arun Khodpiaआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.33, 34 & 35/Rpr/2020 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Years: 2011-12 & 2012-13 V. Block Resources Coordinator Ito (Tds) Rajiv Gandhi Siksha Mission, Block Bhilai Patan, Bathena Road, Patan Dist. Durg – 491 111 Chhattisgarh

Section 201(1) be computed @ 1% as provided u/s 194C as PAN of the said deductee is available, the Learned AO has further erred in not giving credit of Rs. 1, 571/- which has been paid by the assessee merely due to the reason that the same could not be mentioned in the quarterly TDS Statement u/s 200(3

BLOCK RESOURCES COORDINATOR RAJIV GANDHI SIKSHA MISSION,PATAN vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, TDS, BHILAI

In the result, grounds raised in all these three appeals are partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Arun Khodpiaआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.33, 34 & 35/Rpr/2020 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Years: 2011-12 & 2012-13 V. Block Resources Coordinator Ito (Tds) Rajiv Gandhi Siksha Mission, Block Bhilai Patan, Bathena Road, Patan Dist. Durg – 491 111 Chhattisgarh

Section 201(1) be computed @ 1% as provided u/s 194C as PAN of the said deductee is available, the Learned AO has further erred in not giving credit of Rs. 1, 571/- which has been paid by the assessee merely due to the reason that the same could not be mentioned in the quarterly TDS Statement u/s 200(3

MICKEY SHRIVASTVA,RAIPUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX -3(1), RAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: SHRI RAVISH SOOD (Judicial Member), SHRI ARUN KHODPIA (Accountant Member)

194C of the act and on account of payment to various transporters. ( Para-04 Page-04) III. Dis allowed expenses of Rs. 66,142/- on various expenses debited to the account.Para- 05 Page-04 5. CIT appeal decision; - The CIT appeal dismissed the appeal of the assesee and confirmed the addition, as above of AO. 6. The application of condonation

NISHANT JAIN,BILASPUR vs. ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE, BILASPUR

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

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Arun Khodpiaआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos. 510, 511 & 512/Rpr/2024 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2014-15, 2017-18 & 2018-19 Nishant Jain Ring Road No.2, Shanti Nagar, Near Sidhasikhar Vistar, Bilaspur (C.G.)-495 001 Pan: Agepj9793M .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. The Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle-1(1), Bilaspur (C.G.) ……""यथ" / Respondent

TDS. The payment may be for work done or mobilization advance or for advance for machinery purchase. They don't differentiate between the payment of gross receipts of advance made for machinery or mobilization advance. That during the year under consideration Rs.1,56,87,000/- amount has been received against mobilization advances and machinery advances from Executive Engineer Chhattisgarh Rural

NISHANT JAIN,BILASPUR vs. ACIT CIRCLE 1(1), BILASPUR

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

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Arun Khodpiaआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos. 510, 511 & 512/Rpr/2024 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2014-15, 2017-18 & 2018-19 Nishant Jain Ring Road No.2, Shanti Nagar, Near Sidhasikhar Vistar, Bilaspur (C.G.)-495 001 Pan: Agepj9793M .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. The Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle-1(1), Bilaspur (C.G.) ……""यथ" / Respondent

TDS. The payment may be for work done or mobilization advance or for advance for machinery purchase. They don't differentiate between the payment of gross receipts of advance made for machinery or mobilization advance. That during the year under consideration Rs.1,56,87,000/- amount has been received against mobilization advances and machinery advances from Executive Engineer Chhattisgarh Rural

NISHANT JAIN,BILASPUR vs. ACIT CIRCLE 1(1), BILASPUR

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

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Arun Khodpiaआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos. 510, 511 & 512/Rpr/2024 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2014-15, 2017-18 & 2018-19 Nishant Jain Ring Road No.2, Shanti Nagar, Near Sidhasikhar Vistar, Bilaspur (C.G.)-495 001 Pan: Agepj9793M .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. The Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle-1(1), Bilaspur (C.G.) ……""यथ" / Respondent

TDS. The payment may be for work done or mobilization advance or for advance for machinery purchase. They don't differentiate between the payment of gross receipts of advance made for machinery or mobilization advance. That during the year under consideration Rs.1,56,87,000/- amount has been received against mobilization advances and machinery advances from Executive Engineer Chhattisgarh Rural

NIKITA KINGRANI, DURG,DURG vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER-TDS WARD, BHILAI, DURG

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are dismissed in terms of our observations above

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Arun Khodpia

194C, 1941 of the Income-tax Act, 1961and other relevant sections. She was also required to file returns u/s. 200 of the Act. She had made requisite compliances, the returns were filed, however, the return for second quarter of F.Y. 2012-13 could not be filed within due date provided under the Act. 2. The Appellant received letter on 16/09/2022

NIKITA KINGRANI, DURG,DURG vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER-TDS WARD, BHILAI, DURG

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are dismissed in terms of our observations above

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Arun Khodpia

194C, 1941 of the Income-tax Act, 1961and other relevant sections. She was also required to file returns u/s. 200 of the Act. She had made requisite compliances, the returns were filed, however, the return for second quarter of F.Y. 2012-13 could not be filed within due date provided under the Act. 2. The Appellant received letter on 16/09/2022

NIKITA KINGRANI, DURG,DURG vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER-TDS WARD, BHILAI, DURG

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are dismissed in terms of our observations above

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Arun Khodpia

194C, 1941 of the Income-tax Act, 1961and other relevant sections. She was also required to file returns u/s. 200 of the Act. She had made requisite compliances, the returns were filed, however, the return for second quarter of F.Y. 2012-13 could not be filed within due date provided under the Act. 2. The Appellant received letter on 16/09/2022

NIKITA KINGRANI, DURG,DURG vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER-TDS WARD, BHILAI, DURG

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are dismissed in terms of our observations above

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Arun Khodpia

194C, 1941 of the Income-tax Act, 1961and other relevant sections. She was also required to file returns u/s. 200 of the Act. She had made requisite compliances, the returns were filed, however, the return for second quarter of F.Y. 2012-13 could not be filed within due date provided under the Act. 2. The Appellant received letter on 16/09/2022

NIKITA KINGRANI, DURG,DURG vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER-TDS WARD, BHILAI, DURG

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are dismissed in terms of our observations above

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Arun Khodpia

194C, 1941 of the Income-tax Act, 1961and other relevant sections. She was also required to file returns u/s. 200 of the Act. She had made requisite compliances, the returns were filed, however, the return for second quarter of F.Y. 2012-13 could not be filed within due date provided under the Act. 2. The Appellant received letter on 16/09/2022

NIKITA KINGRANI, DURG,DURG vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER-TDS WARD, BHILAI, DURG

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are dismissed in terms of our observations above

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Arun Khodpia

194C, 1941 of the Income-tax Act, 1961and other relevant sections. She was also required to file returns u/s. 200 of the Act. She had made requisite compliances, the returns were filed, however, the return for second quarter of F.Y. 2012-13 could not be filed within due date provided under the Act. 2. The Appellant received letter on 16/09/2022

BLOCK RESOURCES COORDINATOR, RAJIV GANDHI SIKSHA MISSION, BLOCK KANSABEL,JASHPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER (TDS), BILASPUR, BILAPSUR

Appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes, in terms of over aforesaid observations

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Jm & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No: 350/Rpr/2025 (िनधा"रण वष" Assessment Year: 2011-12)

194C of the Act and irregularity in filing of e-TDS returns. Resultantly, TDS demand of Rs.86,021/- (TDS-Rs. 29,215 interest- 25,042 and Fee u/s 234E- 31764) has been raised on the assessee. 4. Aggrieved with the aforesaid additions, the assessee preferred an appeal before the Ld. CIT(A), however, on account of non-compliance, the appeal

M/S BHARAT AGRO INDUSTRIES, ,RAIPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 1(3), RAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia & Shri N. K. Choudhryआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 263/Rpr/2017) ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2012-13) बनाम/ M/S. Bharat Agro Income Tax Officer, Ward 1(3), Raipur Industries Vs. Near Bajrang Power, Rajiv Gandhi Ward, Urla Sarora Road, Urla Industrial Area, Raipur (C.G.) "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aahfb8665M (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) ..

194C of the Act. Further, brokerage of Rs. 8010/- to Fair deal and Rs.7980/- to Goyal sales have been paid without making TDS . The above expenses are not allowable as per the provisions of section 40(a)(ia) of the Act. However, you have not disallowed such expenses

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, (CENTRAL)-I, RAIPUR vs. MESERS CHHATTISGARH STEEL & POWER LIMITED, RAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the revenue in ITA No

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Arun Khodpiaआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.91 & 92/Rpr/2020 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2012-13 & 2013-14 The Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax, Central Circle-1, Raipur (C.G.) .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. M/S. Chhattisgarh Steel & Power Limited. 142, Sahid Smarak, G.E Road, Raipur (C.G.) Pan : Aaccc7479G ……""यथ" / Respondent

3,185/- but the department had in its grounds of appeal wrongly stated that the entire amount of disallowance was vacated by the CIT(Appeals). 10. Ld. DR has assailed before us the order of the CIT(Appeals) on the ground that he had wrongly vacated the disallowances made by the AO, viz. (i) festival expenses: Rs.87

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (CENTRAL)-I, RAIPUR vs. MESERS CHHATTISGARH STEEL & POWER LIMITED, RAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the revenue in ITA No

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Arun Khodpiaआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.91 & 92/Rpr/2020 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2012-13 & 2013-14 The Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax, Central Circle-1, Raipur (C.G.) .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. M/S. Chhattisgarh Steel & Power Limited. 142, Sahid Smarak, G.E Road, Raipur (C.G.) Pan : Aaccc7479G ……""यथ" / Respondent

3,185/- but the department had in its grounds of appeal wrongly stated that the entire amount of disallowance was vacated by the CIT(Appeals). 10. Ld. DR has assailed before us the order of the CIT(Appeals) on the ground that he had wrongly vacated the disallowances made by the AO, viz. (i) festival expenses: Rs.87

THE DY. CIT-1(2),, RAIPUR (CG) vs. M/S. SAUMYA MINING LTD.,, RAIPUR (CG)

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

section 14A." 3. "Whether in law and on facts & circumstances of the case, the CIT(A) has erred in deleting the disallowance Rs.2,76,128/- made by the AO on account of sale of investment." 4. "Whether in law and on facts & circumstances of the case, the CIT(A) has erred in deleting the disallowance of Rs.9,11,062/- made