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

194C as PAN of the said deductee is available, the Learned AO has further erred in not giving credit of Rs. 1,657/- 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). 3. Without prejudice to the above, on the facts

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

194C as PAN of the said deductee is available, the Learned AO has further erred in not giving credit of Rs. 1,657/- 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). 3. Without prejudice to the above, on the facts

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

7 M/s. Chhattisgarh Steel & Power Ltd.Vs. ACIT, Central Circle-1, Raipur ITA Nos. 91 & 92/RPR/2020 for the preceding assessment years 2009-10 and 2010-11 respectively, we do not find any infirmity in the order of the Id. CIT(A). Accordingly, the same is upheld and the ground raised by the Revenue is dismissed.” We, thus, finding no infirmity

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

7 M/s. Chhattisgarh Steel & Power Ltd.Vs. ACIT, Central Circle-1, Raipur ITA Nos. 91 & 92/RPR/2020 for the preceding assessment years 2009-10 and 2010-11 respectively, we do not find any infirmity in the order of the Id. CIT(A). Accordingly, the same is upheld and the ground raised by the Revenue is dismissed.” We, thus, finding no infirmity

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

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

7 Nikita Kingrani Vs. DCIT, CPC-TDS, Ghaziabad ITA Nos.226 to 231/RPR/2023 indefinitely for a period to be determined at the whims and fancies of the opponent?" In that decision, this Court has held that the delay of 285 days in preferring the appeal could not be condoned. It was held that the condonation of delay was not justified

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

7 Nikita Kingrani Vs. DCIT, CPC-TDS, Ghaziabad ITA Nos.226 to 231/RPR/2023 indefinitely for a period to be determined at the whims and fancies of the opponent?" In that decision, this Court has held that the delay of 285 days in preferring the appeal could not be condoned. It was held that the condonation of delay was not justified

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

7 Nikita Kingrani Vs. DCIT, CPC-TDS, Ghaziabad ITA Nos.226 to 231/RPR/2023 indefinitely for a period to be determined at the whims and fancies of the opponent?" In that decision, this Court has held that the delay of 285 days in preferring the appeal could not be condoned. It was held that the condonation of delay was not justified

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

7 Nikita Kingrani Vs. DCIT, CPC-TDS, Ghaziabad ITA Nos.226 to 231/RPR/2023 indefinitely for a period to be determined at the whims and fancies of the opponent?" In that decision, this Court has held that the delay of 285 days in preferring the appeal could not be condoned. It was held that the condonation of delay was not justified

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

7 Nikita Kingrani Vs. DCIT, CPC-TDS, Ghaziabad ITA Nos.226 to 231/RPR/2023 indefinitely for a period to be determined at the whims and fancies of the opponent?" In that decision, this Court has held that the delay of 285 days in preferring the appeal could not be condoned. It was held that the condonation of delay was not justified

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

7 Nikita Kingrani Vs. DCIT, CPC-TDS, Ghaziabad ITA Nos.226 to 231/RPR/2023 indefinitely for a period to be determined at the whims and fancies of the opponent?" In that decision, this Court has held that the delay of 285 days in preferring the appeal could not be condoned. It was held that the condonation of delay was not justified

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

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

TDS made u/s 194C thereon was also filed. The assessment of said company for assessment year 2010-11 was made by the Jt. Commissioner of Income-tax, Range-I, Raipur and in the course of assessment proceedings, the A.O. has found that the claim of sub-letting work to the appellant and its onward execution by the present appellant

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

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

EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, M P P W D DN,,RAJNANDGAON vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER (TDS), BHILAI

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

Bench: Shri Ravish Soodआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No. 294/Rpr/2023 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2011-12 Executive Engineer, M P P W D Dn P W Division (B/R) G.E. Road, Kailash Nagar, Rajnandgaon (C.G.)-491 441 Tan: Jbpe00177C .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. The Income Tax Officer (Tds), Bhilai (C.G.) ……""यथ" / Respondent

194C of the Act, as under : 3 Executive Engineer, M P P W D DN Vs. ITO (TDS), Bhilai 4 Executive Engineer, M P P W D DN Vs. ITO (TDS), Bhilai Based on the aforesaid fact, the A.O. held the assessee in default and saddled it with liability towards tax u/s. 201(1) of Rs. 85,199/- and interest

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