DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX( CENTRAL)-2, RAIPUR vs. MESERS SHREE JAGDAMBA CONSTRUCTION COMPANY, RAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia & Shri Pawan Singhआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos. 37 To 42/Rpr/2020 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2009-10 To 2014-15)

TDS and few others. The AO has not enquired and established that payments made by the assessee are not genuine. Purpose of section 40A(3) of the Act is to ensure that the payments which are not genuine are not allowed. The AO was also sent the set of account confirmation from all the recipients and his report was called

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX( CENTRAL)-2, RAIPUR vs. MESERS SHREE JAGDAMBA CONSTRUCTION COMPANY, RAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia & Shri Pawan Singhआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos. 37 To 42/Rpr/2020 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2009-10 To 2014-15)

TDS and few others. The AO has not enquired and established that payments made by the assessee are not genuine. Purpose of section 40A(3) of the Act is to ensure that the payments which are not genuine are not allowed. The AO was also sent the set of account confirmation from all the recipients and his report was called

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX( CENTRAL)-2, RAIPUR vs. MESERS SHREE JAGDAMBA CONSTRUCTION COMPANY, RAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia & Shri Pawan Singhआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos. 37 To 42/Rpr/2020 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2009-10 To 2014-15)

TDS and few others. The AO has not enquired and established that payments made by the assessee are not genuine. Purpose of section 40A(3) of the Act is to ensure that the payments which are not genuine are not allowed. The AO was also sent the set of account confirmation from all the recipients and his report was called

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX( CENTRAL)-2, RAIPUR vs. MESERS SHREE JAGDAMBA CONSTRUCTION COMPANY, RAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia & Shri Pawan Singhआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos. 37 To 42/Rpr/2020 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2009-10 To 2014-15)

TDS and few others. The AO has not enquired and established that payments made by the assessee are not genuine. Purpose of section 40A(3) of the Act is to ensure that the payments which are not genuine are not allowed. The AO was also sent the set of account confirmation from all the recipients and his report was called

PADMA PARAKH, RAJNANDGAON,RAJNANDGAON vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, TDS, BHILAI, BHILAI

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury & Shri Arun Khodpiaआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.560, 561 & 562/Rpr/2025 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2014-15 Padma Parakh Parakh Nursing Home, Lal Bagh, Rajnandgaon-491 441 (C.G.) Pan: Ajqpp8601H

TDS) ITA Nos. 560, 561 & 562/RPR/2025 was provided but, it did not provide for making of demand of such fee under Section 200A payable under Section 234E. Hence, considering the aforesaid peculiar facts and circumstances, we are unable to accept the contention of the learned counsel for respondent-Revenue that insertion of clause (c) to (f) under Section 200A

PADMA PARAKH, RAJNANDGAON,RAJNANDGAON vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, TDS, BHILAI, BHILAI

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury & Shri Arun Khodpiaआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.560, 561 & 562/Rpr/2025 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2014-15 Padma Parakh Parakh Nursing Home, Lal Bagh, Rajnandgaon-491 441 (C.G.) Pan: Ajqpp8601H

TDS) ITA Nos. 560, 561 & 562/RPR/2025 was provided but, it did not provide for making of demand of such fee under Section 200A payable under Section 234E. Hence, considering the aforesaid peculiar facts and circumstances, we are unable to accept the contention of the learned counsel for respondent-Revenue that insertion of clause (c) to (f) under Section 200A

PADMA PARAKH, RAJNANDGAON,RAJNANDGAON vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, TDS, BHILAI, BHILAI

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury & Shri Arun Khodpiaआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.560, 561 & 562/Rpr/2025 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2014-15 Padma Parakh Parakh Nursing Home, Lal Bagh, Rajnandgaon-491 441 (C.G.) Pan: Ajqpp8601H

TDS) ITA Nos. 560, 561 & 562/RPR/2025 was provided but, it did not provide for making of demand of such fee under Section 200A payable under Section 234E. Hence, considering the aforesaid peculiar facts and circumstances, we are unable to accept the contention of the learned counsel for respondent-Revenue that insertion of clause (c) to (f) under Section 200A

TOUCHSTONE SERVICES P. LTD.,RAJNANDGAON vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER (TDS), DURG

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Dr. Dipak P. Ripoteआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.68 & 69/Rpr/2021 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2013-14 & 2014-15 Touchstone Services P. Ltd., V The Income Tax C/O.Uday Raj Parakh, S Officer(Tds), Bhilai, “Mangaldeep”, G.E.Road, Ground Floor, Aayakar Rajnandgaon (C.G.) – 491441 Bhawan, New Civic Centre, Pan: Aacct 6932 F Bhilai, Dist. Durg(C.G) – 490006. Appellant/ Assessee Respondent /Revenue Assessee By None Revenue By Shri G.N.Singh – Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing 22/11/2022 Date Of Pronouncement 12/12/2022 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: These Are Two Appeals Filed By The Assessee I.E. Touchstone Services Pvt. Ltd., For The A.Y.2013-14 & 2014-15 Against The Two Separate Orders Of Ld.Cit(A)[Nfac] Dated 05.08.2021. Both These Appeals Were Clubbed, Heard Together & Disposed Of By A Common Order. For The Sake Of Convenience We Take The Appeal No.68/Rpr/2021 For A.Y.2013-14 Treated As Lead Case. The Assessee For A.Y.2013-14 Has Raised Following Grounds Of Appeal: “1) On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case, Cit(A) Erred In Upholding Demand Raised In Respect Of Levying Fee U/S 234E In Intimation U/S 200A For Default In Furnishing Tds Statements So Far As Period Prior To 01.06.2015 By Ignoring Binding Decisions Of Hon’Ble Jurisdictional It At, Raipur Bench In Cases Of "Chhattisgarh Gramin Bank & Others Vs. Ito (Tds) Dt. 23.06.2016 Reported In (2016) 29 Itj 310" And

TDS statements / returns in the present set of appeals for the period prior to 01.06.2015, was not empowered to charge fees under section 234E of the Act. Hence, the intimation issued by the Assessing Officer under section 200A of the Act in all these appeals does not stand and the demand raised by way of charging the fees under section

TOUCHSTONE SERVICES P. LTD.,RAJNANDGAON vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER (TDS), BHILAI

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Dr. Dipak P. Ripoteआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.68 & 69/Rpr/2021 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2013-14 & 2014-15 Touchstone Services P. Ltd., V The Income Tax C/O.Uday Raj Parakh, S Officer(Tds), Bhilai, “Mangaldeep”, G.E.Road, Ground Floor, Aayakar Rajnandgaon (C.G.) – 491441 Bhawan, New Civic Centre, Pan: Aacct 6932 F Bhilai, Dist. Durg(C.G) – 490006. Appellant/ Assessee Respondent /Revenue Assessee By None Revenue By Shri G.N.Singh – Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing 22/11/2022 Date Of Pronouncement 12/12/2022 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: These Are Two Appeals Filed By The Assessee I.E. Touchstone Services Pvt. Ltd., For The A.Y.2013-14 & 2014-15 Against The Two Separate Orders Of Ld.Cit(A)[Nfac] Dated 05.08.2021. Both These Appeals Were Clubbed, Heard Together & Disposed Of By A Common Order. For The Sake Of Convenience We Take The Appeal No.68/Rpr/2021 For A.Y.2013-14 Treated As Lead Case. The Assessee For A.Y.2013-14 Has Raised Following Grounds Of Appeal: “1) On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case, Cit(A) Erred In Upholding Demand Raised In Respect Of Levying Fee U/S 234E In Intimation U/S 200A For Default In Furnishing Tds Statements So Far As Period Prior To 01.06.2015 By Ignoring Binding Decisions Of Hon’Ble Jurisdictional It At, Raipur Bench In Cases Of "Chhattisgarh Gramin Bank & Others Vs. Ito (Tds) Dt. 23.06.2016 Reported In (2016) 29 Itj 310" And

TDS statements / returns in the present set of appeals for the period prior to 01.06.2015, was not empowered to charge fees under section 234E of the Act. Hence, the intimation issued by the Assessing Officer under section 200A of the Act in all these appeals does not stand and the demand raised by way of charging the fees under section

HE DISTRICT MARKETING OFFICER, CHHATTISGARH,RAIPUR vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, TDS, RAIPUR (CG)

In the result, the appeal of assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Dr. Dipak P. Ripoteआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.291/Rpr/2016 िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year : 2013-14 District Marketing Officer, The Ito (Tds), Chhattisgarh State Co-Operative Vs Raipur (Cg). Marketing Federation Limited, Near Hotel Atithi, Near Railway Station, Jagdalpur (Cg). Tan: Jbpc0191B Appellant/Assessee Respondent / Revenue Applicant By Shri Nikhilesh Beghani Respondent By Shri G.N. Singh Date Of Hearing 03/11/2022 Date Of Pronouncement 19/12/2022 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of Ld.Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeals)-I, Raipur, Dated 01.03.2016For Assessment Year 2013-14Emanating From The Order Of Ito (Tds) U/S 201(1) & 201(1A) Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Also Called As ‘The Act’)Dated 18.03.2014. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Ground Of Appeal: “Ground No.I That The Ex-Parte Appellate Order Passed By The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) ("The Ld.Cit(A)") Is Highly Unjustified, Bad In Law, Without Providing Reasonable Opportunity Of Being Heard & Not In Accordance With The Provisions Of Law. It Is

TDS statements / returns in the present set of appeals for the period prior to 01.06.2015, was not empowered to charge ITA No.291/RPR/2016, for A.Y. 2013-14 Dist. Marketing Officer, Chhattisgarh State Co-op. Marketing Federation fees under section 234E of the Act. Hence, the intimation issued by the Assessing Officer under section 200A of the Act in all these appeals

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)

TDS ITR, his statutory liability, under the Act. Motive of availing bonfide rights or intention. This type of tendency of the assessee may be opposed and rejected. Accordingly, ld. Sr. DR submitted that additional ground raised by the assessee may not entrained and decision of the CIT(A) deserves to be upheld. 21. We have considered the rival submissions, perused

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

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Arun Khodpia

TDS, The taxes due have been paid by the deductee assessee. However, this will not alter the liability to charge interest under 201C1A) of the IT Act till the date of payment of taxes by the deductee assessee or the liability for penalty under section 271C of the IT Act". However, this is the position of law insofar

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

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Arun Khodpia

TDS, The taxes due have been paid by the deductee assessee. However, this will not alter the liability to charge interest under 201C1A) of the IT Act till the date of payment of taxes by the deductee assessee or the liability for penalty under section 271C of the IT Act". However, this is the position of law insofar

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

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Arun Khodpia

TDS, The taxes due have been paid by the deductee assessee. However, this will not alter the liability to charge interest under 201C1A) of the IT Act till the date of payment of taxes by the deductee assessee or the liability for penalty under section 271C of the IT Act". However, this is the position of law insofar

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

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Arun Khodpia

TDS, The taxes due have been paid by the deductee assessee. However, this will not alter the liability to charge interest under 201C1A) of the IT Act till the date of payment of taxes by the deductee assessee or the liability for penalty under section 271C of the IT Act". However, this is the position of law insofar

DEPUTY DIRECTOR (GEOLOGY & MINING), RAIPUR,RAIPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (TDS/TCS), RAIPUR, RAIPUR

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Arun Khodpia

TDS, The taxes due have been paid by the deductee assessee. However, this will not alter the liability to charge interest under 201C1A) of the IT Act till the date of payment of taxes by the deductee assessee or the liability for penalty under section 271C of the IT Act". However, this is the position of law insofar

DEPUTY DIRECTOR (GEOLOGY & MINING), RAIPUR,RAIPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (TDS/TCS), RAIPUR, RAIPUR

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Arun Khodpia

TDS, The taxes due have been paid by the deductee assessee. However, this will not alter the liability to charge interest under 201C1A) of the IT Act till the date of payment of taxes by the deductee assessee or the liability for penalty under section 271C of the IT Act". However, this is the position of law insofar

DEPUTY DIRECTOR (GEOLOGY & MINING), RAIPUR,RAIPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (TDS/TCS), RAIPUR, RAIPUR

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Arun Khodpia

TDS, The taxes due have been paid by the deductee assessee. However, this will not alter the liability to charge interest under 201C1A) of the IT Act till the date of payment of taxes by the deductee assessee or the liability for penalty under section 271C of the IT Act". However, this is the position of law insofar