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

Section provides as follows: - Form of appeal and limitation. "249. (1) Every appeal under this Chapter shall be in the prescribed form 61-and shall be verified in the prescribed manner 7[and shall, in case of an appeal made to the Commissioner (Appeals) on or after the 1st day of October, 4 Nikita Kingrani Vs. DCIT, CPC-TDS

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

Section provides as follows: - Form of appeal and limitation. "249. (1) Every appeal under this Chapter shall be in the prescribed form 61-and shall be verified in the prescribed manner 7[and shall, in case of an appeal made to the Commissioner (Appeals) on or after the 1st day of October, 4 Nikita Kingrani Vs. DCIT, CPC-TDS

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

Section provides as follows: - Form of appeal and limitation. "249. (1) Every appeal under this Chapter shall be in the prescribed form 61-and shall be verified in the prescribed manner 7[and shall, in case of an appeal made to the Commissioner (Appeals) on or after the 1st day of October, 4 Nikita Kingrani Vs. DCIT, CPC-TDS

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

Section provides as follows: - Form of appeal and limitation. "249. (1) Every appeal under this Chapter shall be in the prescribed form 61-and shall be verified in the prescribed manner 7[and shall, in case of an appeal made to the Commissioner (Appeals) on or after the 1st day of October, 4 Nikita Kingrani Vs. DCIT, CPC-TDS

M/S BHARAT AGRO INDUSTRIES, ,RAIPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 1(3), RAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia & Shri N. K. Choudhryआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 263/Rpr/2017) ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2012-13) बनाम/ M/S. Bharat Agro Income Tax Officer, Ward 1(3), Raipur Industries Vs. Near Bajrang Power, Rajiv Gandhi Ward, Urla Sarora Road, Urla Industrial Area, Raipur (C.G.) "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aahfb8665M (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) ..

61,036/- under s.143(3) of the Act vide order dated 20.03.2015. Thereafter, the PCIT in exercise of its revisionary powers issued show cause notice dated 17.03.2017 under s.263 of the Act requiring the assessee to show cause as to why the assessment so framed under s.143(3) of the Act should not be modified/revised on the ground that such

SHRI SHRI SUSHIL KUMAR AGRAWAL, KORBA,KORBA(CG) vs. THE JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,RANGE KORBA, KORBA(CG)

In the result, appeal of the assesee in ITA No

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Arun Khodpiaआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos. 93 & 94/Rpr/2017 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2010-11 & 2011-12 Shri Sushil Kumar Agrawal, Prop. Of M/S. Shrikishan & Co., T.P Nagar, Korba (C.G.) Pan : Acgpa4350B .......अपीलाथ"/Appellant बनाम / V/S. The Joint Commissioner Of Income Tax, Korba (C.G.) ……""यथ" / Respondent

TDS or under the mistaken belief that the methodology of splitting a single payment into parts below Rs. 20,000/- would provide him escape from the rigour of the provisions of the Act providing for disallowance. In either event, the appellant had not been a bonafide assessee who had made the deduction and deposited it subsequently. Obviously, the appellant could

SHRI SHRI SUSHIL KUMAR AGRAWAL, KORBA,KORBA(CG) vs. THE JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,RANGE KORBA, KORBA(CG)

In the result, appeal of the assesee in ITA No

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Arun Khodpiaआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos. 93 & 94/Rpr/2017 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2010-11 & 2011-12 Shri Sushil Kumar Agrawal, Prop. Of M/S. Shrikishan & Co., T.P Nagar, Korba (C.G.) Pan : Acgpa4350B .......अपीलाथ"/Appellant बनाम / V/S. The Joint Commissioner Of Income Tax, Korba (C.G.) ……""यथ" / Respondent

TDS or under the mistaken belief that the methodology of splitting a single payment into parts below Rs. 20,000/- would provide him escape from the rigour of the provisions of the Act providing for disallowance. In either event, the appellant had not been a bonafide assessee who had made the deduction and deposited it subsequently. Obviously, the appellant could

SHRI VIJAY KUMAR ROHDA,RAIPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(4), RAIPUR

In the result appeal of the assessee allowed

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood, Jm & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am आयकर अऩीऱ सं./Ita No.54/Rpr/2018 (ननधाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2013-2014) Shri Vijay Rohra, Vs Ito, Ward-1(4), Raipur Prop. M/S Laxmi Finance, Shop No.15, Dharam Market, Station Road, Raipur Pan No. : Acmpr 6057 J (अऩीऱाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) ..

TDS on the income received from Bajaj Finance was claimed in this year, income should also be included in this year. Submission of assesse 3 1. Difference between income credited in profit and loss a/c and that reflected in 26AS was not on account of commission from Bajaj Finance but due to: i) Accounting of commission income, net of service

GRAMIN SEVA SAHAKARI SAMITI MARYADIT,DHAMTARI(C.G) vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER , DHAMTARI, DHAMTARI(C.G)

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Arun Khodpia

TDS Rs. 4,15,517/- deducted from commission received on paddy procurement business 4. Disallowance of the assessee’s claim for Rs.5,54,758/- deduction of profit from PDS u/s.80P(2)(c)(ii) of the Act. 5. Disallowance of assessee’s claim for Rs. 23,15,409/- deduction of dividend income u/s.80P(2)(d) of the Act. After making

GRAMIN SEVA SAHAKARI SAMITI MARYADIT,DHAMTARI(C.G) vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER , DHAMTARI, DHAMTARI(C.G)

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Arun Khodpia

TDS Rs. 4,15,517/- deducted from commission received on paddy procurement business 4. Disallowance of the assessee’s claim for Rs.5,54,758/- deduction of profit from PDS u/s.80P(2)(c)(ii) of the Act. 5. Disallowance of assessee’s claim for Rs. 23,15,409/- deduction of dividend income u/s.80P(2)(d) of the Act. After making

GRAMIN SEVA SAHAKARI SAMITI MARYADIT,DHAMTARI(C.G) vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER , DHAMTARI, DHAMTARI(C.G)

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Arun Khodpia

TDS Rs. 4,15,517/- deducted from commission received on paddy procurement business 4. Disallowance of the assessee’s claim for Rs.5,54,758/- deduction of profit from PDS u/s.80P(2)(c)(ii) of the Act. 5. Disallowance of assessee’s claim for Rs. 23,15,409/- deduction of dividend income u/s.80P(2)(d) of the Act. After making

GRAMIN SEVA SAHAKARI SAMITI MARYADIT,DHAMTARI(C.G) vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER , DHAMTARI, DHAMTARI(C.G)

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Arun Khodpia

TDS Rs. 4,15,517/- deducted from commission received on paddy procurement business 4. Disallowance of the assessee’s claim for Rs.5,54,758/- deduction of profit from PDS u/s.80P(2)(c)(ii) of the Act. 5. Disallowance of assessee’s claim for Rs. 23,15,409/- deduction of dividend income u/s.80P(2)(d) of the Act. After making

GRAMIN SEVA SAHAKARI SAMITI MARYADIT,DHAMTARI(C.G) vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER , DHAMTARI, DHAMTARI(C.G)

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Arun Khodpia

TDS Rs. 4,15,517/- deducted from commission received on paddy procurement business 4. Disallowance of the assessee’s claim for Rs.5,54,758/- deduction of profit from PDS u/s.80P(2)(c)(ii) of the Act. 5. Disallowance of assessee’s claim for Rs. 23,15,409/- deduction of dividend income u/s.80P(2)(d) of the Act. After making

GRAMIN SEVA SAHAKARI SAMITI MARYADIT,DHAMTARI(C.G) vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER , DHAMTARI, DHAMTARI(C.G)

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Arun Khodpia

TDS Rs. 4,15,517/- deducted from commission received on paddy procurement business 4. Disallowance of the assessee’s claim for Rs.5,54,758/- deduction of profit from PDS u/s.80P(2)(c)(ii) of the Act. 5. Disallowance of assessee’s claim for Rs. 23,15,409/- deduction of dividend income u/s.80P(2)(d) of the Act. After making

GRAMIN SEVA SAHAKARI SAMITI MARYADIT,DHAMTARI(C.G) vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER , DHAMTARI, DHAMTARI(C.G)

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Arun Khodpia

TDS Rs. 4,15,517/- deducted from commission received on paddy procurement business 4. Disallowance of the assessee’s claim for Rs.5,54,758/- deduction of profit from PDS u/s.80P(2)(c)(ii) of the Act. 5. Disallowance of assessee’s claim for Rs. 23,15,409/- deduction of dividend income u/s.80P(2)(d) of the Act. After making

GRAMIN SEVA SAHAKARI SAMITI MARYADIT,DHAMTARI(C.G) vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER , DHAMTARI, DHAMTARI(C.G)

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Arun Khodpia

TDS Rs. 4,15,517/- deducted from commission received on paddy procurement business 4. Disallowance of the assessee’s claim for Rs.5,54,758/- deduction of profit from PDS u/s.80P(2)(c)(ii) of the Act. 5. Disallowance of assessee’s claim for Rs. 23,15,409/- deduction of dividend income u/s.80P(2)(d) of the Act. After making

GRAMIN SEVA SAHAKARI SAMITI MARYADIT,DHAMTARI(C.G) vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER , DHAMTARI, DHAMTARI(C.G)

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Arun Khodpia

TDS Rs. 4,15,517/- deducted from commission received on paddy procurement business 4. Disallowance of the assessee’s claim for Rs.5,54,758/- deduction of profit from PDS u/s.80P(2)(c)(ii) of the Act. 5. Disallowance of assessee’s claim for Rs. 23,15,409/- deduction of dividend income u/s.80P(2)(d) of the Act. After making

GRAMIN SEVA SAHAKARI SAMITI MARYADIT,DHAMTARI(C.G) vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER , DHAMTARI, DHAMTARI(C.G)

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Arun Khodpia

TDS Rs. 4,15,517/- deducted from commission received on paddy procurement business 4. Disallowance of the assessee’s claim for Rs.5,54,758/- deduction of profit from PDS u/s.80P(2)(c)(ii) of the Act. 5. Disallowance of assessee’s claim for Rs. 23,15,409/- deduction of dividend income u/s.80P(2)(d) of the Act. After making