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

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

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”].

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 III to section 194C; 37[(v) "rent" shall have the same meaning as in clause (i) to the Explanation to 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”].

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 III to section 194C; 37[(v) "rent" shall have the same meaning as in clause (i) to the Explanation 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

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 III to section 194C; 37[(v) "rent" shall have the same meaning as in clause (i) to the Explanation to section

DEPUTY DIRECTOR (MIN & ADMIN), JAGDALPUR,BASTAR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (TDS), RAIPUR, RAIPUR

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Arun Khodpia

1 C) on the Appellant to collect tax at source on Compounding Fee received on illegal mining. Prayed that there was no liability and demand be cancelled. Grounds of appeal 3. That under the facts and the law, the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) further erred in confirming the Order of the Ld. AO who raised demand

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

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Arun Khodpia

1 C) on the Appellant to collect tax at source on Compounding Fee received on illegal mining. Prayed that there was no liability and demand be cancelled. Grounds of appeal 3. That under the facts and the law, the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) further erred in confirming the Order of the Ld. AO who raised demand

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

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Arun Khodpia

1 C) on the Appellant to collect tax at source on Compounding Fee received on illegal mining. Prayed that there was no liability and demand be cancelled. Grounds of appeal 3. That under the facts and the law, the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) further erred in confirming the Order of the Ld. AO who raised demand

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

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Arun Khodpia

1 C) on the Appellant to collect tax at source on Compounding Fee received on illegal mining. Prayed that there was no liability and demand be cancelled. Grounds of appeal 3. That under the facts and the law, the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) further erred in confirming the Order of the Ld. AO who raised demand

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

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Arun Khodpia

1 C) on the Appellant to collect tax at source on Compounding Fee received on illegal mining. Prayed that there was no liability and demand be cancelled. Grounds of appeal 3. That under the facts and the law, the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) further erred in confirming the Order of the Ld. AO who raised demand

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

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Arun Khodpia

1 C) on the Appellant to collect tax at source on Compounding Fee received on illegal mining. Prayed that there was no liability and demand be cancelled. Grounds of appeal 3. That under the facts and the law, the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) further erred in confirming the Order of the Ld. AO who raised demand

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

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Arun Khodpia

1 C) on the Appellant to collect tax at source on Compounding Fee received on illegal mining. Prayed that there was no liability and demand be cancelled. Grounds of appeal 3. That under the facts and the law, the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) further erred in confirming the Order of the Ld. AO who raised demand

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

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Arun Khodpia

1 C) on the Appellant to collect tax at source on Compounding Fee received on illegal mining. Prayed that there was no liability and demand be cancelled. Grounds of appeal 3. That under the facts and the law, the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) further erred in confirming the Order of the Ld. AO who raised demand

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

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Arun Khodpia

1 C) on the Appellant to collect tax at source on Compounding Fee received on illegal mining. Prayed that there was no liability and demand be cancelled. Grounds of appeal 3. That under the facts and the law, the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) further erred in confirming the Order of the Ld. AO who raised demand

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

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Arun Khodpia

1 C) on the Appellant to collect tax at source on Compounding Fee received on illegal mining. Prayed that there was no liability and demand be cancelled. Grounds of appeal 3. That under the facts and the law, the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) further erred in confirming the Order of the Ld. AO who raised demand

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

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Arun Khodpia

1 C) on the Appellant to collect tax at source on Compounding Fee received on illegal mining. Prayed that there was no liability and demand be cancelled. Grounds of appeal 3. That under the facts and the law, the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) further erred in confirming the Order of the Ld. AO who raised demand

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

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Arun Khodpia

1 C) on the Appellant to collect tax at source on Compounding Fee received on illegal mining. Prayed that there was no liability and demand be cancelled. Grounds of appeal 3. That under the facts and the law, the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) further erred in confirming the Order of the Ld. AO who raised demand

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

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Arun Khodpia

1 C) on the Appellant to collect tax at source on Compounding Fee received on illegal mining. Prayed that there was no liability and demand be cancelled. Grounds of appeal 3. That under the facts and the law, the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) further erred in confirming the Order of the Ld. AO who raised demand

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

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Arun Khodpia

1 C) on the Appellant to collect tax at source on Compounding Fee received on illegal mining. Prayed that there was no liability and demand be cancelled. Grounds of appeal 3. That under the facts and the law, the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) further erred in confirming the Order of the Ld. AO who raised demand