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

sections. She was also required to file returns u/s. 200 of the Act. She had made requisite compliances, the returns were filed, however, the return for second quarter of F.Y. 2012-13 could not be filed within due date provided under the Act. 2. The Appellant received letter on 16/09/2022 from the Income Tax Officer (TDS) Ward Bhilai requiring

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

sections. She was also required to file returns u/s. 200 of the Act. She had made requisite compliances, the returns were filed, however, the return for second quarter of F.Y. 2012-13 could not be filed within due date provided under the Act. 2. The Appellant received letter on 16/09/2022 from the Income Tax Officer (TDS) Ward Bhilai requiring

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

sections. She was also required to file returns u/s. 200 of the Act. She had made requisite compliances, the returns were filed, however, the return for second quarter of F.Y. 2012-13 could not be filed within due date provided under the Act. 2. The Appellant received letter on 16/09/2022 from the Income Tax Officer (TDS) Ward Bhilai requiring

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

sections. She was also required to file returns u/s. 200 of the Act. She had made requisite compliances, the returns were filed, however, the return for second quarter of F.Y. 2012-13 could not be filed within due date provided under the Act. 2. The Appellant received letter on 16/09/2022 from the Income Tax Officer (TDS) Ward Bhilai requiring

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”].

260 & 261/RPR/2016 AY 2010-11 & 2011-2012 (ii) "fees for technical services" shall have the same meaning as in Explanation 2 to clause (vii) of sub-section (1) of section 9; (iii) "professional services" shall have the same meaning as in clause (a) of the Explanation to section 194J; (iv) "work" shall have the same meaning as in Explanation

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”].

260 & 261/RPR/2016 AY 2010-11 & 2011-2012 (ii) "fees for technical services" shall have the same meaning as in Explanation 2 to clause (vii) of sub-section (1) of section 9; (iii) "professional services" shall have the same meaning as in clause (a) of the Explanation to section 194J; (iv) "work" shall have the same meaning as in Explanation

XANDER FINANCE PVT. LTD., MUMBAI,MUMBAI vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-1(1), RAIPUR, RAIPUR

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood, Jm & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No: 549/Rpr/2024 ("नधा"रण वष" Assessment Year: 2019-20)

section 205 r.w.s. 201 of the Income Tax Act, the default is on the part of deductor for which there are sufficient provisions in Income Tax Act to recover the TDS amount from the persons who as deducted it. The assessee, therefore, should not be penalized for the act of deductors. Ld. AR placed his reliance on the following judgments

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 2(1), RAIPUR vs. PSA CONSTRUCTION, RAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: SHRI RAVISH SOOD (Judicial Member), SHRI ARUN KHODPIA (Accountant Member)

260 Taxman 298 (SC) Where High Court upheld Tribunal's order confirming addition made to assessee's income in respect of unaccounted business receipts having regard to fact that gross profit declared by assessee was much lesser than ALLAHABAD Kaveri Rice Mills* v. Commissioner of Income-tax, Kanpur2006] 157 TAXMAN 376 (ALL.) HIGH COURT OF Section 143 of the Income

M/S BEC INFRA PRIVATE LIMITED,DURG vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-1(1), BHILAI

In the result ground no. 3 of the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood, Jm & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.66/Rpr/2020 (Assessment Year: 2014-2015) M/S Bec Infra Private Limited, Vs Circle-3(1), Raipur 47, Motilal Nehru Nagar, Durg Pan No. :Aagcm 0049 N (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) .. नििााररती की ओर से /Assessee By : Shri Nilesh Jain, Ca राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri Piyush Tripathi, Sr. Dr सुनिाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 20/04/2023 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 24/04/2023 आदेश / O R D E R Per Arun Khodpia, Am : The Assessee Has Filed This Appeal Against The Order Passed By The Cit(A)-Ii, Raipur, Dated 31.12.2019 For The Assessment Year 2014-2015. 2. At The Outset, Ld. Sr. Dr Submitted That The Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Delayed By 59 Days, Which Can Be Further Extended Since The Claim Of The Assessee That The Order Was Served After 38 Days Of Delay Was Not Supported By Any Documentary Evidence. As Per Appeal Memo In Form No.36, The Date Of Service Of Communication Of The Order Was 7Th February, 2020 & The Appeal Was Filed On 08.06.2020. On This Aspect, The Ld. Ar Submitted That This Was The Covid-19 Period & The Hon’Ble Apex Court Has Already Directed To Extend The Limitation For That Period, Therefore, The Delay May Be Condoned. The Submission Of The Ld. Ar Found Satisfactory & Acceptable & Accordingly, The Delay In Filing The Present Appeal By The Assessee Is Condoned.

Section 15.19 it shall be 60 days from the date of agreement i.e April’12. Accordingly, it was agreed to deliver the equipment by June’13. h) Appellant started importing the drawings and designs and incurred Rs. 1,88,99,712/- on importing drawing and design in preceding FY 2012-13. i) It was not charged

DY C.I.T..1(1), RAIPUR (CG) vs. SHRI ISMAIL MOHAMMED, RAIPUR (CG)

In the result, appeal filed by the revenue for assessment year 2011-

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya (Am) & Shri Ram Lal Negi (Jm) Assessment Year: 2009-10 The Dy. Commissioner Of Shri Ismail Mohammed, Income Tax-1(1), 24/347, Dr. Virdhi Gali Marg, Central Revenue Building, Jawahar Nagar, Civil Lines, Vs. Raipur (C.G.) Raipur (C.G.) Pan: Aispm8617R (Appellant) (Respondent) Revenue By : Sheetal Shashwat Verma (Dr) Assessee By : None (Written Submission) Date Of Hearing: 05/03/2018 Date Of Pronouncement: 06/06/2018

TDS? 3. “Whether in law and on facts & circumstances of the case, the learned CIT (A) has erred in deleting the addition of Rs. 22,897/- made by the AO on account of disallowance made out of various expenses?” 4. The Order of the Ld. CIT (A) is erroneous both in law and on facts.” 5. This case was fixed

SUBHASH MURARKA, RAIPUR,RAIPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(1), RAIPUR, RAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury & Shri Arun Khodpiaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.176/Rpr/2025 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year: 2017-18 Subhash Murarka C-1/85/186-R7, Swarnabhoomi, Raipur, Chhattisgarh Pan: Aeqpm4578P .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S.

TDS has been found to be made except for A.Y. 2017-18 Thus the total amount of Rs. 49,32,000/- stands unexplained looking to unproved credit worthiness of the creditors. Therefore, the above amount of Rs. 48,32,000/- Is added back to the total income of the assessee for the year as unexplained Cash credit

DY. C.I.T.1(1), BILASPUR(CG) vs. JSPL,, RAIGARH(C.G)

In the result, the appeal is partly allowed

Bench: : Shri N.S.Saini & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Judical Member Dcit-1(1), Bilaspur- Vs Jspl, 495004 Kharsia Road, Raighagh(Cg) Pan No. : Aabcj 4683 J (Appellant) .. Tsednepser Revenue By : Shri Sanjay Kumar, Dr Assessee By : Shri Mayank Jain, Ar Date Of Hearing : 12/01/2018 Date Of Pronouncement 15/01/2018 आदेश / O R D E R Per Shri N.S.Saini, Am: This Is An Appeal Filed By The Revenue Against The Order Of The Cit(A), Bilaspur, Dated 31.03.2014 For The Assessment Year 2009-2010. 2. The Sole Grievance Of The Revenue Is That The Cit(A) Erred In Deleting The Amount To The Extent Of Rs.2,10,89,707/- Out Of Disallowance Of Rs.3,36,18,098/- Made By The Ao Under The Head Corporate Social Responsibility Expenses. 3. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Is A Domestic Company, A Subsidiary Of Jindal Steel &.Power Limited (Jspl). It Derives Income From Power Generation & Mining. The Company Has Commenced The Commercial Generation Of Thermal Power From Its First Of The Four Units Of 250Mw Each From 08.12.2007. The Assessee Company Filed Its Income Tax Return For The Year Under Consideration Declaring

section 135 the Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) has been made mandatory for companies having net worth of Rs. 500 crores or more OR having turnover of Rs. 1000 crore or more OR having net profit of Rs. 5 crores or more during any financial year, such company has to expend minimum 2% of net profit in CSR activities

GRAMIN SEWA SAHAKARI SAMITI, KODEBOD,DHAMTARI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, DHAMTARI, DHAMTARI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee society in ITA No

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood

TDS debited to Paddy account whereas the assessee society had already added the same in computation of total income hence the same may be deleted. 2. That the CIT(A) has erred in completing the appellate proceedings without giving reasonable and sufficient opportunity of being heard to the appellant, which is against the principle of natural justice. 3. The appellant

GRAMIN SEWA SAHAKARI SAMITI, DOMA,DHAMTARI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, DHAMTARI, DHAMTARI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee society in ITA No

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood

TDS debited to Paddy account whereas the assessee society had already added the same in computation of total income hence the same may be deleted. 2. That the CIT(A) has erred in completing the appellate proceedings without giving reasonable and sufficient opportunity of being heard to the appellant, which is against the principle of natural justice. 3. The appellant

GRAMIN SEWA SAHAKARI SAMITI, SANKARDAH,DHAMTARI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, DHAMTARI, DHAMTARI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee society in ITA No

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood

TDS debited to Paddy account whereas the assessee society had already added the same in computation of total income hence the same may be deleted. 2. That the CIT(A) has erred in completing the appellate proceedings without giving reasonable and sufficient opportunity of being heard to the appellant, which is against the principle of natural justice. 3. The appellant

GRAMIN SEWA SAHAKARI SAMITI, KOSMARRA,DHAMTARI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, DHAMTARI, DHAMTARI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee society in ITA No

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood

TDS debited to Paddy account whereas the assessee society had already added the same in computation of total income hence the same may be deleted. 2. That the CIT(A) has erred in completing the appellate proceedings without giving reasonable and sufficient opportunity of being heard to the appellant, which is against the principle of natural justice. 3. The appellant

GRAMIN SEWA SAHAKARI SAMITI, SANKARDAH,DHAMTARI vs. INOCME TAX OFFICER, DHAMTARI, DHAMTARI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee society in ITA No

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood

TDS debited to Paddy account whereas the assessee society had already added the same in computation of total income hence the same may be deleted. 2. That the CIT(A) has erred in completing the appellate proceedings without giving reasonable and sufficient opportunity of being heard to the appellant, which is against the principle of natural justice. 3. The appellant

GRAMIN SEWA SAHAKARI SAMITI, MADELI,DHAMTARI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, DHAMTARI, DHAMTARI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee society in ITA No

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood

TDS debited to Paddy account whereas the assessee society had already added the same in computation of total income hence the same may be deleted. 2. That the CIT(A) has erred in completing the appellate proceedings without giving reasonable and sufficient opportunity of being heard to the appellant, which is against the principle of natural justice. 3. The appellant