ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE -1(1), BILASPUR vs. SOUTH EASTERN COALFIELDS LIMITED, BILASPUR

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Arun Khodpia

TDS on these payments? 4. Whether on the facts and circumstance of the case and on the points of the law Ld. CIT(A) was justified in deleting the penalty levied u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act by the A.O while disallowing prior period expenses of Rs. 41,42,000/- without appreciating the facts of the case that

SOUTH EASTERN COALFIELDS LIMITED,BILASPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE -1(1), BILASPUR

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Arun Khodpia

TDS on these payments? 4. Whether on the facts and circumstance of the case and on the points of the law Ld. CIT(A) was justified in deleting the penalty levied u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act by the A.O while disallowing prior period expenses of Rs. 41,42,000/- without appreciating the facts of the case that

SOUTH EASTERN COAL FIELDS LTD.,,BILASPUR(CG) vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE -1(1), BILASPUR(CG)

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Arun Khodpia

TDS on these payments? 4. Whether on the facts and circumstance of the case and on the points of the law Ld. CIT(A) was justified in deleting the penalty levied u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act by the A.O while disallowing prior period expenses of Rs. 41,42,000/- without appreciating the facts of the case that

SOUTH EASTERN COALFIELDS LTD,BILASPUR(CG) vs. DY.. C.I.T.-1(1), BILASPUR(CG)

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Arun Khodpia

TDS on these payments? 4. Whether on the facts and circumstance of the case and on the points of the law Ld. CIT(A) was justified in deleting the penalty levied u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act by the A.O while disallowing prior period expenses of Rs. 41,42,000/- without appreciating the facts of the case that

SOUTH EASTERN COALFIELDS LIMITED,BILASPUR vs. JT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (OSD), CIRCLE-1(1), BILASPUR

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Arun Khodpia

TDS on these payments? 4. Whether on the facts and circumstance of the case and on the points of the law Ld. CIT(A) was justified in deleting the penalty levied u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act by the A.O while disallowing prior period expenses of Rs. 41,42,000/- without appreciating the facts of the case that

SOUTH EASTERN COALFIELDS LIMITED, BILASPUR,BILASPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1(1), BILASPUR, BILASPUR

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Arun Khodpia

TDS on these payments? 4. Whether on the facts and circumstance of the case and on the points of the law Ld. CIT(A) was justified in deleting the penalty levied u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act by the A.O while disallowing prior period expenses of Rs. 41,42,000/- without appreciating the facts of the case that

SOUTH EASTERN COALFIELDS LIMITED, BILASPUR,BILASPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1(1), BILASPUR, BILASPUR

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Arun Khodpia

TDS on these payments? 4. Whether on the facts and circumstance of the case and on the points of the law Ld. CIT(A) was justified in deleting the penalty levied u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act by the A.O while disallowing prior period expenses of Rs. 41,42,000/- without appreciating the facts of the case that

SOUTH EASTERN COALFIELDS LIMITED, BILASPUR,BILASPUR vs. ASSISSTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1(1), BILASPUR, BILASPUR

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Arun Khodpia

TDS on these payments? 4. Whether on the facts and circumstance of the case and on the points of the law Ld. CIT(A) was justified in deleting the penalty levied u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act by the A.O while disallowing prior period expenses of Rs. 41,42,000/- without appreciating the facts of the case that

SOUTH EASTERN COALFIELDS LIMITED, BILASPUR,BILASPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1(1), BILASPUR, BILASPUR

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Arun Khodpia

TDS on these payments? 4. Whether on the facts and circumstance of the case and on the points of the law Ld. CIT(A) was justified in deleting the penalty levied u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act by the A.O while disallowing prior period expenses of Rs. 41,42,000/- without appreciating the facts of the case that

THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,CIRCLE 1(1)BILASPUR, BILASPUR(CG) vs. THE SOUTH EASTERN COAL FIELDS LTD., BILASPUR, BILASPUR(CG)

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Arun Khodpia

TDS on these payments? 4. Whether on the facts and circumstance of the case and on the points of the law Ld. CIT(A) was justified in deleting the penalty levied u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act by the A.O while disallowing prior period expenses of Rs. 41,42,000/- without appreciating the facts of the case that

THE SOUTH EASTERN COAL FIELDS LTD., BILASPUR,BILASPUR(CG) vs. THE DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,CIRCLE , 1(1)BILASPUR, BILASPUR(CG)

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Arun Khodpia

TDS on these payments? 4. Whether on the facts and circumstance of the case and on the points of the law Ld. CIT(A) was justified in deleting the penalty levied u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act by the A.O while disallowing prior period expenses of Rs. 41,42,000/- without appreciating the facts of the case that

SHRI SHRI NISHANT JAIN,BILASPUR(CG) vs. THE JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,RANGE-I, BILASPUR(CG)

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood, Jm & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am आयकर अऩीऱ सं./Ita No.199/Rpr/2016 (ननधाारण वषा / Assessment Year :2010-2011) Nishant Jain, Vs Jcit, Range-1, Bilaspur(Cg) M/S Landmark Engineer, Flat No.27, Shantinagar, Ring Road No.2, Bilaspur Pan No. : Agepj 9793 M (अऩीऱाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) ..

TDS provisions are applicable both in the situation of actual payment as well of the credit of the amount. It becomes very clear from the fact that the phrase, „on which tax is deductible at source under Chapter XVII- B‟, was not there in the Bill but incorporated in the Act. This was not without any purpose.” 15. We approve

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 2(1), , RAIPUR vs. SHRI RADHESHYAM AGRAWAL, RAIPUR

The appeal of the revenue is dismissed in terms of our aforesaid observations

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Arun Khodpiaआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.32/Rpr/2020 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2015-16 The Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax-2(1), Raipur (C.G.) .......अपीलाथ"/Appellant बनाम / V/S. Radheshyam Agrawal 27/B, Ankit Choubey Colony, Raipur (C.G.). Pan : Aczpa6544J ……""यथ" / Respondent

TDS a/w. interest) and the assessee was put into the possession of the property, therefore, the transfer was completed and hence, question of any part performance of the contract did not arise. Observing that the facts involved in the case of Balbir Singh Maini (supra) were distinguishable as against those involved in the present case of the assessee

PRIYESH SINGHANIA, RAIPUR,RAIPUR vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-1(1), RAIPUR, RAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury & Shri G. D. Padmahshaliआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.462/Rpr/2025 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2017-18 Priyesh Singhania 730/1, Radha Kunj, Opposite Vip Guest House, Pahuna, Shankar Nagar Main Road, Raipur (C.G.)-492 001 Pan: Aoups7838A ........अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. The Income Tax Officer, Circle-1(1), Raipur (C.G.) ……""यथ" / Respondent

TDS was deducted u/s 194DA which is applicable in the case where the maturity proceeds are not eligible for exemption u/s 10(10D). In view of the same, CPC included the amount of Rs.7,41,718/- within taxable income while' processing the return u/s 143(1) of the Act. The appellant claimed that the impugned Intimation u/s 143(1

MITESH SINGHANIA,RAIPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 1(2) RAIPUR, CENTRAL REVENUE BUILDING, RAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhuryआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.410/Rpr/2025 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2017-18 Mitesh Singhania Singhania Bhawan, Subhas Road, Near Telghani Naka, Raipur (C.G.)-492 001 Pan: Avops1474P .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(2), Raipur (C.G) ……""यथ" / Respondent

TDS was deducted u/s 194DA which is applicable in the case where the maturity proceeds are not eligible for exemption u/s 10(10D). In view of the same, CPC included the amount of Rs.7,41,718/- within taxable income while' processing the return u/s 143(1) of the Act. The appellant claimed that the impugned Intimation u/s 143(1

SHRI SHRI MITHILESH KUMAR,RAIPUR (CG) vs. THE DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 1(1), RAIPUR (CG)

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia & Shri Pawan Singh

254(1) of Income –tax Act PER PAWAN SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER: 1. This appeal by the assessee is directed against the order of Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-I, hereinafter called as “ld.CIT(A)” Raipur, dated 30.11.2015 for the A.Y. 2009-10. 2. Brief facts of the case are that assessee is an individual, engaged in business of trading

DISTRICT PROJECT LIVELIHOOD COLLEGE SOCIETY,GARIYABANDH(CG) vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER (TDS),RAIPUR, RAIPUR

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Jm & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am आयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos: 271, 272 & 273/Rpr/2025 (िनधा"रण वष" Assessment Years: 2016-17, 2017-18, 2018-19)

section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short “the Act”), all dated 11.02.2025, for the Assessment Year’s 2016-17, 2017-18, 2018-19, which in turn arises from the separate orders passed u/s 201(1) & 201(1A) of the Act, by the Income Tax Officer (TDS), Raipur, for respective assessment years, all dated 30.01.2019. District Project Livelihood

DISTRICT PROJECT LIVELIHOOD COLLEGE SOCIETY,GARIYABANDH (C.G) vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER (TDS),RAIPUR, AYKAR BHAWAN

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Jm & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am आयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos: 271, 272 & 273/Rpr/2025 (िनधा"रण वष" Assessment Years: 2016-17, 2017-18, 2018-19)

section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short “the Act”), all dated 11.02.2025, for the Assessment Year’s 2016-17, 2017-18, 2018-19, which in turn arises from the separate orders passed u/s 201(1) & 201(1A) of the Act, by the Income Tax Officer (TDS), Raipur, for respective assessment years, all dated 30.01.2019. District Project Livelihood