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

1 dt. 17.11.2011; (2011) 30 CCH 578 (Cuttack) (Trib.) (vi) Chhattisgarh State Electricity Board vs ITO (2012) 143 TTJ 151 (Mum.) in ITA No. 20 to 23/BLPR/2010 (vii) DCIT vs Reliance Infrastructure Ltd. (2017) 50 CCH 78 (Mum. Trib.) ITA No. 1422/Mum/2015 and 1480/Mum/2015 dt. 02.06.2017. (viii) ITO vs Hindustan Zinc Ltd. (2013) 37 CCH 522 (Jodh. Trib

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

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Arun Khodpia

vi). Dilip N. Shroff Vs. JCIT (2007) 161 Taxman 218 (SC). 17 South Eastern Coalfields Group of cases (On penalty) 8. Per contra, the Ld. Departmental Representative (for short 'D.R') relied upon the orders of the lower authorities. It was submitted by the Ld. D.R that as the assessee was afforded sufficient opportunity in the course of penalty proceedings, thus

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

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Arun Khodpia

vi). Dilip N. Shroff Vs. JCIT (2007) 161 Taxman 218 (SC). 17 South Eastern Coalfields Group of cases (On penalty) 8. Per contra, the Ld. Departmental Representative (for short 'D.R') relied upon the orders of the lower authorities. It was submitted by the Ld. D.R that as the assessee was afforded sufficient opportunity in the course of penalty proceedings, thus

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

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Arun Khodpia

vi). Dilip N. Shroff Vs. JCIT (2007) 161 Taxman 218 (SC). 17 South Eastern Coalfields Group of cases (On penalty) 8. Per contra, the Ld. Departmental Representative (for short 'D.R') relied upon the orders of the lower authorities. It was submitted by the Ld. D.R that as the assessee was afforded sufficient opportunity in the course of penalty proceedings, thus

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

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Arun Khodpia

vi). Dilip N. Shroff Vs. JCIT (2007) 161 Taxman 218 (SC). 17 South Eastern Coalfields Group of cases (On penalty) 8. Per contra, the Ld. Departmental Representative (for short 'D.R') relied upon the orders of the lower authorities. It was submitted by the Ld. D.R that as the assessee was afforded sufficient opportunity in the course of penalty proceedings, thus

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

vi). Dilip N. Shroff Vs. JCIT (2007) 161 Taxman 218 (SC). 17 South Eastern Coalfields Group of cases (On penalty) 8. Per contra, the Ld. Departmental Representative (for short 'D.R') relied upon the orders of the lower authorities. It was submitted by the Ld. D.R that as the assessee was afforded sufficient opportunity in the course of penalty proceedings, thus

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

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Arun Khodpia

vi). Dilip N. Shroff Vs. JCIT (2007) 161 Taxman 218 (SC). 17 South Eastern Coalfields Group of cases (On penalty) 8. Per contra, the Ld. Departmental Representative (for short 'D.R') relied upon the orders of the lower authorities. It was submitted by the Ld. D.R that as the assessee was afforded sufficient opportunity in the course of penalty proceedings, thus

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

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Arun Khodpia

vi). Dilip N. Shroff Vs. JCIT (2007) 161 Taxman 218 (SC). 17 South Eastern Coalfields Group of cases (On penalty) 8. Per contra, the Ld. Departmental Representative (for short 'D.R') relied upon the orders of the lower authorities. It was submitted by the Ld. D.R that as the assessee was afforded sufficient opportunity in the course of penalty proceedings, thus

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

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Arun Khodpia

vi). Dilip N. Shroff Vs. JCIT (2007) 161 Taxman 218 (SC). 17 South Eastern Coalfields Group of cases (On penalty) 8. Per contra, the Ld. Departmental Representative (for short 'D.R') relied upon the orders of the lower authorities. It was submitted by the Ld. D.R that as the assessee was afforded sufficient opportunity in the course of penalty proceedings, thus

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

vi). Dilip N. Shroff Vs. JCIT (2007) 161 Taxman 218 (SC). 17 South Eastern Coalfields Group of cases (On penalty) 8. Per contra, the Ld. Departmental Representative (for short 'D.R') relied upon the orders of the lower authorities. It was submitted by the Ld. D.R that as the assessee was afforded sufficient opportunity in the course of penalty proceedings, thus

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

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Arun Khodpia

vi). Dilip N. Shroff Vs. JCIT (2007) 161 Taxman 218 (SC). 17 South Eastern Coalfields Group of cases (On penalty) 8. Per contra, the Ld. Departmental Representative (for short 'D.R') relied upon the orders of the lower authorities. It was submitted by the Ld. D.R that as the assessee was afforded sufficient opportunity in the course of penalty proceedings, thus

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

vi). Dilip N. Shroff Vs. JCIT (2007) 161 Taxman 218 (SC). 17 South Eastern Coalfields Group of cases (On penalty) 8. Per contra, the Ld. Departmental Representative (for short 'D.R') relied upon the orders of the lower authorities. It was submitted by the Ld. D.R that as the assessee was afforded sufficient opportunity in the course of penalty proceedings, thus

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

vi). Dilip N. Shroff Vs. JCIT (2007) 161 Taxman 218 (SC). 17 South Eastern Coalfields Group of cases (On penalty) 8. Per contra, the Ld. Departmental Representative (for short 'D.R') relied upon the orders of the lower authorities. It was submitted by the Ld. D.R that as the assessee was afforded sufficient opportunity in the course of penalty proceedings, thus

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

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Arun Khodpia

vi). Dilip N. Shroff Vs. JCIT (2007) 161 Taxman 218 (SC). 17 South Eastern Coalfields Group of cases (On penalty) 8. Per contra, the Ld. Departmental Representative (for short 'D.R') relied upon the orders of the lower authorities. It was submitted by the Ld. D.R that as the assessee was afforded sufficient opportunity in the course of penalty proceedings, thus

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)

9. After a thoughtful consideration to the aforesaid contention of the rival parties. On perusal of the material on record, we find that the present appeal was filed before the Ld. CIT(A) under pre faceless regime on 10.03.2014, which, thereafter, was migrated to National Faceless Appeals Centre, CBDT. It is evident from Form No. 35 filed by the assessee

DISTRICT MINING OFFICER, DANTEWADA,DANTEWADA vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (TDS), RAIPUR, RAIPUR

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Arun Khodpia

9) ( in favour of revenue). The appellant has quoted the case of the Hindustan Coca Cola Beverage (P.) Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax [2007] 163 Taxman 355(SC). "Circular No. 275/201/95/1T(B), dated 29.1.1997 issued by the Central Board of Direct Taxes would put an end to the controversy. The circular declares that no demand visualized under section

DISTRICT MINING OFFICER, DANTEWADA,DANTEWADA vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (TDS), RAIPUR, RAIPUR

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Arun Khodpia

9) ( in favour of revenue). The appellant has quoted the case of the Hindustan Coca Cola Beverage (P.) Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax [2007] 163 Taxman 355(SC). "Circular No. 275/201/95/1T(B), dated 29.1.1997 issued by the Central Board of Direct Taxes would put an end to the controversy. The circular declares that no demand visualized under section

DISTRICT MINING OFFICER, DANTEWADA,DANTEWADA vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (TDS), RAIPUR, RAIPUR

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Arun Khodpia

9) ( in favour of revenue). The appellant has quoted the case of the Hindustan Coca Cola Beverage (P.) Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax [2007] 163 Taxman 355(SC). "Circular No. 275/201/95/1T(B), dated 29.1.1997 issued by the Central Board of Direct Taxes would put an end to the controversy. The circular declares that no demand visualized under section

DISTRICT MINING OFFICER, BEMETARA,BEMETARA vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (TDS), RAIPUR, RAIPUR

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Arun Khodpia

9) ( in favour of revenue). The appellant has quoted the case of the Hindustan Coca Cola Beverage (P.) Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax [2007] 163 Taxman 355(SC). "Circular No. 275/201/95/1T(B), dated 29.1.1997 issued by the Central Board of Direct Taxes would put an end to the controversy. The circular declares that no demand visualized under section