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

2 raised by the revenue is dismissed in terms of our aforesaid observations. (C). Re. Disallowance u/s 40(a)(ia) of transmission charges: Rs. 1,18,63,401. 18. It transpires on a perusal of the assessment order that the assessee company had debited an amount of Rs.1,18,63,401/- in its Profit & loss account towards transmission charges which

DOLPHIN PROMOTERS AND BUILDERS,RAIPUR vs. ADDL.CIT, RANGE-1, RAIPUR, RAIPUR

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood, Jm & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No: 58/Rpr/2024 (िनधा"रण वष" Assessment Year: 2011-12)

vi) As regards the remaining scrutiny assessments, it. is expected that 30% of assessments completed by the Range Head, 20% of the remaining scrutiny assessments completed by DC/ ACIT and 10% by ITOs will result in quality assessments. These benchmarks can be reviewed once the scheme has been in operation for some time, (vii) The parameters for determining whether

DISTRICT MINING OFFICER, DANTEWADA,DANTEWADA vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (TDS), RAIPUR, RAIPUR

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Arun Khodpia

24 January, 1997 issued by the CBDT wherein it was clarified "no demand visualized under section 201(1) of the IT Act should be enforced after the tax deductor has satisfied the officer incharge of TDS, The taxes due have been paid by the deductee assessee. However, this will not alter the liability to charge interest under 201C1A

DISTRICT MINING OFFICER, BEMETARA,BEMETARA vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (TDS), RAIPUR, RAIPUR

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Arun Khodpia

24 January, 1997 issued by the CBDT wherein it was clarified "no demand visualized under section 201(1) of the IT Act should be enforced after the tax deductor has satisfied the officer incharge of TDS, The taxes due have been paid by the deductee assessee. However, this will not alter the liability to charge interest under 201C1A

DISTRICT MINING OFFICER, BIJAPUR,BIJAPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (TDS), RAIPUR, RAIPUR

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Arun Khodpia

24 January, 1997 issued by the CBDT wherein it was clarified "no demand visualized under section 201(1) of the IT Act should be enforced after the tax deductor has satisfied the officer incharge of TDS, The taxes due have been paid by the deductee assessee. However, this will not alter the liability to charge interest under 201C1A

DEPUTY DIRECTOR (MIN & ADMIN), JAGDALPUR,BASTAR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (TDS), RAIPUR, RAIPUR

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Arun Khodpia

24 January, 1997 issued by the CBDT wherein it was clarified "no demand visualized under section 201(1) of the IT Act should be enforced after the tax deductor has satisfied the officer incharge of TDS, The taxes due have been paid by the deductee assessee. However, this will not alter the liability to charge interest under 201C1A

DISTRICT MINING OFFICER, DANTEWADA,DANTEWADA vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (TDS), RAIPUR, RAIPUR

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Arun Khodpia

24 January, 1997 issued by the CBDT wherein it was clarified "no demand visualized under section 201(1) of the IT Act should be enforced after the tax deductor has satisfied the officer incharge of TDS, The taxes due have been paid by the deductee assessee. However, this will not alter the liability to charge interest under 201C1A

DISTRICT MINING OFFICER, BEMETARA,BEMETARA vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (TDS), RAIPUR, RAIPUR

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Arun Khodpia

24 January, 1997 issued by the CBDT wherein it was clarified "no demand visualized under section 201(1) of the IT Act should be enforced after the tax deductor has satisfied the officer incharge of TDS, The taxes due have been paid by the deductee assessee. However, this will not alter the liability to charge interest under 201C1A

DEPUTY DIRECTOR (MIN & ADMIN), JAGDALPUR,BASTAR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (TDS), RAIPUR, RAIPUR

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Arun Khodpia

24 January, 1997 issued by the CBDT wherein it was clarified "no demand visualized under section 201(1) of the IT Act should be enforced after the tax deductor has satisfied the officer incharge of TDS, The taxes due have been paid by the deductee assessee. However, this will not alter the liability to charge interest under 201C1A

DISTRICT MINING OFFICER, BEMETARA,BEMETARA vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (TDS), RAIPUR, RAIPUR

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Arun Khodpia

24 January, 1997 issued by the CBDT wherein it was clarified "no demand visualized under section 201(1) of the IT Act should be enforced after the tax deductor has satisfied the officer incharge of TDS, The taxes due have been paid by the deductee assessee. However, this will not alter the liability to charge interest under 201C1A

DISTRICT MINING OFFICER, DANTEWADA,DANTEWADA vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (TDS), RAIPUR, RAIPUR

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Arun Khodpia

24 January, 1997 issued by the CBDT wherein it was clarified "no demand visualized under section 201(1) of the IT Act should be enforced after the tax deductor has satisfied the officer incharge of TDS, The taxes due have been paid by the deductee assessee. However, this will not alter the liability to charge interest under 201C1A

DISTRICT MINING OFFICER, DANTEWADA,DANTEWADA vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (TDS), RAIPUR, RAIPUR

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Arun Khodpia

24 January, 1997 issued by the CBDT wherein it was clarified "no demand visualized under section 201(1) of the IT Act should be enforced after the tax deductor has satisfied the officer incharge of TDS, The taxes due have been paid by the deductee assessee. However, this will not alter the liability to charge interest under 201C1A

DISTRICT MINING OFFICER, DANTEWADA,DANTEWADA vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (TDS), RAIPUR, RAIPUR

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Arun Khodpia

24 January, 1997 issued by the CBDT wherein it was clarified "no demand visualized under section 201(1) of the IT Act should be enforced after the tax deductor has satisfied the officer incharge of TDS, The taxes due have been paid by the deductee assessee. However, this will not alter the liability to charge interest under 201C1A

DEPUTY DIRECTOR (MIN & ADMIN), JAGDALPUR,BASTAR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (TDS), RAIPUR, RAIPUR

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Arun Khodpia

24 January, 1997 issued by the CBDT wherein it was clarified "no demand visualized under section 201(1) of the IT Act should be enforced after the tax deductor has satisfied the officer incharge of TDS, The taxes due have been paid by the deductee assessee. However, this will not alter the liability to charge interest under 201C1A

DISTRICT MINING OFFICER, BEMETARA,BEMETARA vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (TDS), RAIPUR, RAIPUR

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Arun Khodpia

24 January, 1997 issued by the CBDT wherein it was clarified "no demand visualized under section 201(1) of the IT Act should be enforced after the tax deductor has satisfied the officer incharge of TDS, The taxes due have been paid by the deductee assessee. However, this will not alter the liability to charge interest under 201C1A

DISTRICT MINING OFFICER, DANTEWADA,DANTEWADA vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (TDS), RAIPUR, RAIPUR

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Arun Khodpia

24 January, 1997 issued by the CBDT wherein it was clarified "no demand visualized under section 201(1) of the IT Act should be enforced after the tax deductor has satisfied the officer incharge of TDS, The taxes due have been paid by the deductee assessee. However, this will not alter the liability to charge interest under 201C1A

DISTRICT MINING OFFICER, BEMETARA,BEMETARA vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (TDS), RAIPUR, RAIPUR

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Arun Khodpia

24 January, 1997 issued by the CBDT wherein it was clarified "no demand visualized under section 201(1) of the IT Act should be enforced after the tax deductor has satisfied the officer incharge of TDS, The taxes due have been paid by the deductee assessee. However, this will not alter the liability to charge interest under 201C1A

DISTRICT MINING OFFICER, DANTEWADA,DANTEWADA vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (TDS), RAIPUR, RAIPUR

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Arun Khodpia

24 January, 1997 issued by the CBDT wherein it was clarified "no demand visualized under section 201(1) of the IT Act should be enforced after the tax deductor has satisfied the officer incharge of TDS, The taxes due have been paid by the deductee assessee. However, this will not alter the liability to charge interest under 201C1A

DEPUTY DIRECTOR (MIN & ADMIN), JAGDALPUR,BASTAR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (TDS), RAIPUR, RAIPUR

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Arun Khodpia

24 January, 1997 issued by the CBDT wherein it was clarified "no demand visualized under section 201(1) of the IT Act should be enforced after the tax deductor has satisfied the officer incharge of TDS, The taxes due have been paid by the deductee assessee. However, this will not alter the liability to charge interest under 201C1A