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 was required to be made on the transmission/wheeling charges under any of the sections, i.e u/s.194C or u/s.194I or u/s.194J of the Act, therefore, no disallowance was called for in 13 M/s. Chhattisgarh Steel & Power Ltd.Vs. ACIT, Central Circle-1, Raipur ITA Nos. 91 & 92/RPR/2020 the hands of the assessee company

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

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Arun Khodpia

37 South Eastern Coalfields Group of cases (On penalty) persuade ourselves to subscribe to the imposition of penalty by the A.O, therefore, set-aside the order of the CIT(A) who had upheld the same. The penalty of Rs. 8587.95 lac imposed by the A.O under Sec.271(1)(c) is quashed in terms of our aforesaid observations. The additional ground

THE DY. CIT- CIR.-1(1),, BILASPUR(CG) vs. SOUTH EASTERN COALFILDS LTD.,, BILASPUR(CG)

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Arun Khodpia

37 South Eastern Coalfields Group of cases (On penalty) persuade ourselves to subscribe to the imposition of penalty by the A.O, therefore, set-aside the order of the CIT(A) who had upheld the same. The penalty of Rs. 8587.95 lac imposed by the A.O under Sec.271(1)(c) is quashed in terms of our aforesaid observations. The additional ground

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

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Arun Khodpia

37 South Eastern Coalfields Group of cases (On penalty) persuade ourselves to subscribe to the imposition of penalty by the A.O, therefore, set-aside the order of the CIT(A) who had upheld the same. The penalty of Rs. 8587.95 lac imposed by the A.O under Sec.271(1)(c) is quashed in terms of our aforesaid observations. The additional ground

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

37 South Eastern Coalfields Group of cases (On penalty) persuade ourselves to subscribe to the imposition of penalty by the A.O, therefore, set-aside the order of the CIT(A) who had upheld the same. The penalty of Rs. 8587.95 lac imposed by the A.O under Sec.271(1)(c) is quashed in terms of our aforesaid observations. The additional ground

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

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Arun Khodpia

37 South Eastern Coalfields Group of cases (On penalty) persuade ourselves to subscribe to the imposition of penalty by the A.O, therefore, set-aside the order of the CIT(A) who had upheld the same. The penalty of Rs. 8587.95 lac imposed by the A.O under Sec.271(1)(c) is quashed in terms of our aforesaid observations. The additional ground

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

37 South Eastern Coalfields Group of cases (On penalty) persuade ourselves to subscribe to the imposition of penalty by the A.O, therefore, set-aside the order of the CIT(A) who had upheld the same. The penalty of Rs. 8587.95 lac imposed by the A.O under Sec.271(1)(c) is quashed in terms of our aforesaid observations. The additional ground

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

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Arun Khodpia

37 South Eastern Coalfields Group of cases (On penalty) persuade ourselves to subscribe to the imposition of penalty by the A.O, therefore, set-aside the order of the CIT(A) who had upheld the same. The penalty of Rs. 8587.95 lac imposed by the A.O under Sec.271(1)(c) is quashed in terms of our aforesaid observations. The additional ground

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

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Arun Khodpia

37 South Eastern Coalfields Group of cases (On penalty) persuade ourselves to subscribe to the imposition of penalty by the A.O, therefore, set-aside the order of the CIT(A) who had upheld the same. The penalty of Rs. 8587.95 lac imposed by the A.O under Sec.271(1)(c) is quashed in terms of our aforesaid observations. The additional ground

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

37 South Eastern Coalfields Group of cases (On penalty) persuade ourselves to subscribe to the imposition of penalty by the A.O, therefore, set-aside the order of the CIT(A) who had upheld the same. The penalty of Rs. 8587.95 lac imposed by the A.O under Sec.271(1)(c) is quashed in terms of our aforesaid observations. The additional ground

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

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Arun Khodpia

37 South Eastern Coalfields Group of cases (On penalty) persuade ourselves to subscribe to the imposition of penalty by the A.O, therefore, set-aside the order of the CIT(A) who had upheld the same. The penalty of Rs. 8587.95 lac imposed by the A.O under Sec.271(1)(c) is quashed in terms of our aforesaid observations. The additional ground

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

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Arun Khodpia

37 South Eastern Coalfields Group of cases (On penalty) persuade ourselves to subscribe to the imposition of penalty by the A.O, therefore, set-aside the order of the CIT(A) who had upheld the same. The penalty of Rs. 8587.95 lac imposed by the A.O under Sec.271(1)(c) is quashed in terms of our aforesaid observations. The additional ground

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

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Arun Khodpia

37 South Eastern Coalfields Group of cases (On penalty) persuade ourselves to subscribe to the imposition of penalty by the A.O, therefore, set-aside the order of the CIT(A) who had upheld the same. The penalty of Rs. 8587.95 lac imposed by the A.O under Sec.271(1)(c) is quashed in terms of our aforesaid observations. The additional ground

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

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Arun Khodpia

37 South Eastern Coalfields Group of cases (On penalty) persuade ourselves to subscribe to the imposition of penalty by the A.O, therefore, set-aside the order of the CIT(A) who had upheld the same. The penalty of Rs. 8587.95 lac imposed by the A.O under Sec.271(1)(c) is quashed in terms of our aforesaid observations. The additional ground

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)

37. Considering the totality of the facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the view that JCIT, Hisar Range, do not have jurisdiction over the case of assessee and since he did not assume the jurisdiction legally and validly, therefore, the Impugned assessment order framed by him is vitiated and illegal and without jurisdiction. In view

BARBRIK DEE VEE JV, RAIPUR,RAIPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-3(1), RAIPUR, RAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed in terms of the aforesaid observations

Bench: Shri Ravish Soodआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No. 313/Rpr/2023 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2018-19 Barbarik Dee Vee Jv A-24, Ashoka Millenium, Ring Road No.1, Rajendra Nagar, Raipur (C.G.)-492 001 Pan : Aacab7461R .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. The Income Tax Officer-3(1), Raipur (C.G.) ……""यथ" / Respondent

37 of the Act. The expenditure' incurred consequent to failure to deduct or pay the TDS, as prescribed under the provisions of the Act, cannot be allowed as deduction. 20. In view of the-above elaborate discussion, 1 do not allow payment of interest for the delay in deposit of TDS as a deduction under section

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”].

37[(v) "rent" shall have the same meaning as in clause (i) to the Explanation to section 194-I; (vi) "royalty" shall have the same meaning as in Explanation 2 to clause (vi) of sub-section (1) of section 9;] (Empasis supplied) 6.7. The conjunctive & constructive interpretation first proviso to Section 201(1) and second provision to section

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”].

37[(v) "rent" shall have the same meaning as in clause (i) to the Explanation to section 194-I; (vi) "royalty" shall have the same meaning as in Explanation 2 to clause (vi) of sub-section (1) of section 9;] (Empasis supplied) 6.7. The conjunctive & constructive interpretation first proviso to Section 201(1) and second provision to section

SHRI SHRI KAILASH CHAND AGRAWAL,KORBA(CG) vs. THE DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,, KORBA(CG)

Appeal of the assessee is partly allowed in aforesaid terms, with no order as to cost

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Jamlappa D. Battullआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos. 275/Rpr/2016 धििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2010-2011 Shri Kailas Chand Agrawal 53, Shri Balaji Bhawan, T.P Nagar Korba (C.G.) Pan : Acqpa 4988 B .......अपीलार्थी / Appellant बिाम / V/S. Dy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Income Tax Office, Mahanandi Complex, .……प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent Korba (C.G) Appearances Assessee By : Shri G. S. Agrawal Revenue By : Shri G. N. Singh सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Conclusive Hearing : 09/02/2022 घोषणा की तारीख / Date Of Pronouncement : 01/04/2022 आदेश / Order Per Jamlappa D. Battull, Am; The Present Appeal Is 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 07/03/2016, Which In Turn Sprung From The Assessment Order [For Short “Ao”] Dt 18/03/2013 Passed By The Ld Assessing Officer [For Short “Ld Ao”] U/S 143(3) Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 [For Short “The Act”] For Assessment Year [For Short “Ay”] 2010-2011. Itat-Raipur Page 1 Of 10

37[(v) "rent" shall have the same meaning as in clause (i) to the Explanation to section 194-I; (vi) "royalty" shall have the same meaning as in Explanation 2 to clause (vi) of sub-section (1) of section 9;] (Emphasis supplied) ITAT-Raipur Page 5 of 10 ITA Nos. 275/RPR/2016 AY 2010-2011 6.5. The conjunctive & constructive interpretation first