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

TDS on wheeling charges is not sustainable, hence the disallowance u/s 40 (a)(ia) of the Act is deleted and this ground of appeal is allowed.” We find that the aforesaid view of the CIT(Appeals) is supported by the order of the ITAT, Mumbai in the case of Chhattisgarh State Electricity Board Vs. Income Tax Officer

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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