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

6. The second issue raised by the assessee was pertaining to deduction of TDS @1% u/s 194C of the Act whereas the same should be @20% when the PAN number of the contractor are not available. It was the contention of the Learned AR that since the assessee has submitted the PAN on a later date, the finding ITA Nos.33

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

6. The second issue raised by the assessee was pertaining to deduction of TDS @1% u/s 194C of the Act whereas the same should be @20% when the PAN number of the contractor are not available. It was the contention of the Learned AR that since the assessee has submitted the PAN on a later date, the finding ITA Nos.33

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

6. The second issue raised by the assessee was pertaining to deduction of TDS @1% u/s 194C of the Act whereas the same should be @20% when the PAN number of the contractor are not available. It was the contention of the Learned AR that since the assessee has submitted the PAN on a later date, the finding ITA Nos.33

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

6. I have considered the grounds of appeal, gone through the order of the AO and perused the submissions of the appellant. I find that the AO has not pointed out any specific instance of defect in the vouchers while making the disallowances. The expenses claimed are related with the business of the appellant company and have been incurred

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

6. I have considered the grounds of appeal, gone through the order of the AO and perused the submissions of the appellant. I find that the AO has not pointed out any specific instance of defect in the vouchers while making the disallowances. The expenses claimed are related with the business of the appellant company and have been incurred

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

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

SHRI LAXMAN BHAI DAHYA BHAI PATEL,DURG vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER-1(1), BHILAI

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

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Arun Khodpiaआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No. 29/Rpr/2022 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2015-16 Shri Laxman Bhai Dahya Bhai Patel Padmanabhpur, Patel Complex, Durg (C.G.)-491 001 Pan : Aafl8291J .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. The Income Tax Officer-1(1), Bhilai (C.G.) ……""यथ" / Respondent

Section 194C of the Act, therefore, the A.O disallowed u/s 40(a)(ia) of the Act 30% of the said expenditure and worked out a disallowance of Rs.15,98,210/-(sic). However, the A.O while culminating the assessment vide his order passed u/s.143(3) dated 30.12.2017, inter alia, disallowed, viz. (i) assessee’s claim for deduction of tendu patta plucking

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

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

SHREE SITA EDIBLES LIMITED,DURG vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER , WARD 1(1), BHILAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed in terms of our aforesaid observations

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Rathod Kamlesh Jayantbhaiआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No. 151/Rpr/2018 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2013-14 Shree Sita Edibles Ltd. Behind District Court, Millpara, Durg. (C.G.)-491 001 Pan : Aapcs4417H .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. The Income Tax Officer-1(1), Bhilai (C.G.) ……""यथ" / Respondent Assessee By : Shri R.B Doshi, Ar Revenue By : Shri G.N Singh, Dr

Section TDS made mentioned as per form No. 16A Oct to Dec 5,00,000 10,000 @2% 194I Jan to March 6,00,000 40315 194I 1065760 194C

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

DINESH KUMAR MISHRA, KAWARDHA,KABIRDHAM vs. ITO-1(3), BHILAI, (ERSTWHILE ITO WARD KAWARDHA), BHILAI

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: 345/Rpr/2025 (िनधा"रण वष" Assessment Year: 2013-14)

TDS u/s 194C was deducted at Rs.21,92,390/- and u/s 194A for Rs. 9,26,829/-. It is also noticed by the Ld. AO that during the year under consideration, the assessee had deposited cash amounting to Rs. 3 ITA 345/RPR/2025 Dinesh Kumar Mishra vs. ITO-1(3), Bhilai, (Erstwhile ITO Ward Kawardha), Bhilai

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