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

5 M/s. Chhattisgarh Steel & Power Ltd.Vs. ACIT, Central Circle-1, Raipur ITA Nos. 91 & 92/RPR/2020 expenses” of Rs. 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

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

5. With the aforesaid submissions Learned AR of the assessee submitted that Learned ITO(TDS), Bhilai was unjustified on facts and in law in treating the assessee as ‘assessee in default’ in respect of non-deduction of TDS without appreciating the fact that the TDS on the said payment amounts paid by the head Office of the assessee under

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

5. With the aforesaid submissions Learned AR of the assessee submitted that Learned ITO(TDS), Bhilai was unjustified on facts and in law in treating the assessee as ‘assessee in default’ in respect of non-deduction of TDS without appreciating the fact that the TDS on the said payment amounts paid by the head Office of the assessee under

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

5. With the aforesaid submissions Learned AR of the assessee submitted that Learned ITO(TDS), Bhilai was unjustified on facts and in law in treating the assessee as ‘assessee in default’ in respect of non-deduction of TDS without appreciating the fact that the TDS on the said payment amounts paid by the head Office of the assessee under

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

5. Shri S.R. Rao, the Ld. Authorized Representative (for short ‘AR’) for the assessee submitted a “chart” dated 06.09.2023, which revealed the period of delay involved in the filing of the respective appeals before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), NFAC, as under: 9 Nikita Kingrani Vs. DCIT, CPC-TDS, Ghaziabad ITA Nos.226 to 231/RPR/2023 5.1 Further

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

5. Shri S.R. Rao, the Ld. Authorized Representative (for short ‘AR’) for the assessee submitted a “chart” dated 06.09.2023, which revealed the period of delay involved in the filing of the respective appeals before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), NFAC, as under: 9 Nikita Kingrani Vs. DCIT, CPC-TDS, Ghaziabad ITA Nos.226 to 231/RPR/2023 5.1 Further

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

5. Shri S.R. Rao, the Ld. Authorized Representative (for short ‘AR’) for the assessee submitted a “chart” dated 06.09.2023, which revealed the period of delay involved in the filing of the respective appeals before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), NFAC, as under: 9 Nikita Kingrani Vs. DCIT, CPC-TDS, Ghaziabad ITA Nos.226 to 231/RPR/2023 5.1 Further

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

5. Shri S.R. Rao, the Ld. Authorized Representative (for short ‘AR’) for the assessee submitted a “chart” dated 06.09.2023, which revealed the period of delay involved in the filing of the respective appeals before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), NFAC, as under: 9 Nikita Kingrani Vs. DCIT, CPC-TDS, Ghaziabad ITA Nos.226 to 231/RPR/2023 5.1 Further

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

5. Shri S.R. Rao, the Ld. Authorized Representative (for short ‘AR’) for the assessee submitted a “chart” dated 06.09.2023, which revealed the period of delay involved in the filing of the respective appeals before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), NFAC, as under: 9 Nikita Kingrani Vs. DCIT, CPC-TDS, Ghaziabad ITA Nos.226 to 231/RPR/2023 5.1 Further

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

5. Shri S.R. Rao, the Ld. Authorized Representative (for short ‘AR’) for the assessee submitted a “chart” dated 06.09.2023, which revealed the period of delay involved in the filing of the respective appeals before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), NFAC, as under: 9 Nikita Kingrani Vs. DCIT, CPC-TDS, Ghaziabad ITA Nos.226 to 231/RPR/2023 5.1 Further

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

SURYA LAND DEVELOPERS, RAIPUR,RAIPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER-1(4), RAIPUR, RAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Judicial Ember

194C, work does not include manufacturing or supplying product by using material purchased from any other person, therefore, there was no obligation on the part of the appellant to deduct TDS. Hence, it is prayed that the disallowance of Rs.3,16,520/-may kindly be deleted. 3. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case

SMT. SARLA GUPTA,JAGDALPUR (CG) vs. I.T.O., JAGDALPUR (CG)

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee for assessment years

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya (Am) & Shri Ram Lal Negi (Jm) Assessment Year: 2011-12 Assessment Year: 2007-08 & Assessment Year: 2008-09 Smt. Sarla Gupta, The Income Tax Officer, W/O Late Mukesh Gupta, Aayakar Bhawan, Prop. M/S Electronics Traders, Behind Jhankar Tlkies, Vadhera Complex, Vs. Civil Lines, Jagdalpur (C.G.) Jagdalpaur (C.G.) Pan: Adcpg9930C (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri S.R. Rao (Advocate) Revenue By : Shri Sanjay Kumar (Dr) Date Of Hearing: 09/03/2018 Date Of Pronouncement: 25/05/2018

TDS default if the amount is payable. If, the amount is actually paid and the tax is not deducted section 40(a)(ia) of the Act does not apply. However, the AO rejecting the contention of the assessee inter alia made addition of Rs 45,83,010/- u/s 40(a)(ia) and determined the total income of the assessee

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

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

SHRI SHRI KAILASH CHAND AGRAWAL,KORBA(CG) vs. THE DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,, KORBA(CG)

Appeal of the assessee is partly allowed in aforesaid terms, with no order as to cost

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Jamlappa D. Battullआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos. 275/Rpr/2016 धििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2010-2011 Shri Kailas Chand Agrawal 53, Shri Balaji Bhawan, T.P Nagar Korba (C.G.) Pan : Acqpa 4988 B .......अपीलार्थी / Appellant बिाम / V/S. Dy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Income Tax Office, Mahanandi Complex, .……प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent Korba (C.G) Appearances Assessee By : Shri G. S. Agrawal Revenue By : Shri G. N. Singh सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Conclusive Hearing : 09/02/2022 घोषणा की तारीख / Date Of Pronouncement : 01/04/2022 आदेश / Order Per Jamlappa D. Battull, Am; The Present Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee Against The First Appellate Order Of Commissioner Of Income Tax - Appeals, Bilaspur [For Short “Cit(A)”] Passed U/S 250 Vide Order Dt 07/03/2016, Which In Turn Sprung From The Assessment Order [For Short “Ao”] Dt 18/03/2013 Passed By The Ld Assessing Officer [For Short “Ld Ao”] U/S 143(3) Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 [For Short “The Act”] For Assessment Year [For Short “Ay”] 2010-2011. Itat-Raipur Page 1 Of 10

194C; 37[(v) "rent" shall have the same meaning as in clause (i) to the Explanation to section 194-I; (vi) "royalty" shall have the same meaning as in Explanation 2 to clause (vi) of sub-section (1) of section 9;] (Emphasis supplied) ITAT-Raipur Page 5 of 10 ITA Nos. 275/RPR/2016 AY 2010-2011 6.5. The conjunctive & constructive interpretation

SHRI SHRI AJAY KUMAR AGRAWAL,AMBIKAPUR (CG) vs. THE INCOOME TAX OFFICER, AMBIKAPUR (CG)

Appeals of the assessee are allowed in terms of our aforesaid terms, with no order as to cost

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Jamlappa D. Battullआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos. 260 & 261/Rpr/2016 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2010-11 & 2011-12 Shri Ajay Kumar Agrawal, Juna Gaddi Road, Po: Ambikapur (C.G.) Pan : Acqpa 4988 B .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. The Income Tax Officer, Income Tax Office, Kharsia Road, Po: Ambikapur (C.G) .……""थ" / Respondent Appearances Assessee By : Shri G. S. Agrawal Revenue By : Shri G. N. Singh सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Conclusive Hearing : 04/02/2022 घोषणा की तारीख / Date Of Pronouncement : 14/03/2022 आदेश/ Order Per Jamlappa D. Battull, Am; The Present Appeals Are Filed By The Assessee Against The First Appellate Order Of Commissioner Of Income Tax - Appeals, Bilaspur [For Short “Cit(A)”] Passed U/S 250 Vide Order Dt 21/03/2016, Which In Turn Sprung From The Assessment Order [For Short “Ao”] Dt 04/03/2013 & 23/01/2014 Passed For Assessment Year [For Short “Ay”] 2010- 2011 & 2011-2012 By The Ld Assessing Officer [For Short “Ld Ao”] U/S 143(3) Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 [For Short “The Act”].

194C; 37[(v) "rent" shall have the same meaning as in clause (i) to the Explanation to section 194-I; (vi) "royalty" shall have the same meaning as in Explanation 2 to clause (vi) of sub-section (1) of section 9;] (Empasis supplied) 6.7. The conjunctive & constructive interpretation first proviso to Section 201(1) and second provision to section

SHRI SHRI AJAY KUMAR AGRAWAL,AMBIKAPUR (CG) vs. THE THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, AMBIKAPUR (CG)

Appeals of the assessee are allowed in terms of our aforesaid terms, with no order as to cost

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Jamlappa D. Battullआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos. 260 & 261/Rpr/2016 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2010-11 & 2011-12 Shri Ajay Kumar Agrawal, Juna Gaddi Road, Po: Ambikapur (C.G.) Pan : Acqpa 4988 B .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. The Income Tax Officer, Income Tax Office, Kharsia Road, Po: Ambikapur (C.G) .……""थ" / Respondent Appearances Assessee By : Shri G. S. Agrawal Revenue By : Shri G. N. Singh सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Conclusive Hearing : 04/02/2022 घोषणा की तारीख / Date Of Pronouncement : 14/03/2022 आदेश/ Order Per Jamlappa D. Battull, Am; The Present Appeals Are Filed By The Assessee Against The First Appellate Order Of Commissioner Of Income Tax - Appeals, Bilaspur [For Short “Cit(A)”] Passed U/S 250 Vide Order Dt 21/03/2016, Which In Turn Sprung From The Assessment Order [For Short “Ao”] Dt 04/03/2013 & 23/01/2014 Passed For Assessment Year [For Short “Ay”] 2010- 2011 & 2011-2012 By The Ld Assessing Officer [For Short “Ld Ao”] U/S 143(3) Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 [For Short “The Act”].

194C; 37[(v) "rent" shall have the same meaning as in clause (i) to the Explanation to section 194-I; (vi) "royalty" shall have the same meaning as in Explanation 2 to clause (vi) of sub-section (1) of section 9;] (Empasis supplied) 6.7. The conjunctive & constructive interpretation first proviso to Section 201(1) and second provision to section