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

deduction statements for the captioned quarters for A.Ys.2013-14, 2015-16 & 2016-17. Resultantly, the DCIT, Central Processing Cell-TDS levied late filing fees of Rs.30,371/-, Rs.29,631/-, Rs.37,609/-, Rs.30,774/-, Rs.16,800/- and Rs.14.202/-, respectively for the quarters above u/s.234E of the Act. 3. Aggrieved the assessee assailed the imposition of late filing fees u/s.234E

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

deduction statements for the captioned quarters for A.Ys.2013-14, 2015-16 & 2016-17. Resultantly, the DCIT, Central Processing Cell-TDS levied late filing fees of Rs.30,371/-, Rs.29,631/-, Rs.37,609/-, Rs.30,774/-, Rs.16,800/- and Rs.14.202/-, respectively for the quarters above u/s.234E of the Act. 3. Aggrieved the assessee assailed the imposition of late filing fees u/s.234E

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

deduction statements for the captioned quarters for A.Ys.2013-14, 2015-16 & 2016-17. Resultantly, the DCIT, Central Processing Cell-TDS levied late filing fees of Rs.30,371/-, Rs.29,631/-, Rs.37,609/-, Rs.30,774/-, Rs.16,800/- and Rs.14.202/-, respectively for the quarters above u/s.234E of the Act. 3. Aggrieved the assessee assailed the imposition of late filing fees u/s.234E

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

deduction statements for the captioned quarters for A.Ys.2013-14, 2015-16 & 2016-17. Resultantly, the DCIT, Central Processing Cell-TDS levied late filing fees of Rs.30,371/-, Rs.29,631/-, Rs.37,609/-, Rs.30,774/-, Rs.16,800/- and Rs.14.202/-, respectively for the quarters above u/s.234E of the Act. 3. Aggrieved the assessee assailed the imposition of late filing fees u/s.234E

SURESH KUMAR GUPTA, RAIPUR,RAIPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(1), RAIPUR, RAIPUR

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

Bench: Shri Ravish Soodआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos. 237 & 238/Rpr/2023 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2013-14 & 2014-15 Suresh Kumar Gupta Prop. M/S. Mittal Roadways, A-10, G.E Road, Tatibandh Raipur-492 001 (C.G.) Pan : Adcpg8248B .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-2(1), Raipur (C.G.) ……""यथ" / Respondent

condonation of delay read a/w. affidavit dated 07.09.2023, I find that the only reason given by the assessee to explain the aforesaid delay was that the requisite certificates in Form No.26A could not be obtained from the respective payees, viz. (i) Magma Fincorp Ltd.; and (ii) Religare Finvest Ltd. For the sake of completeness, the reasons stated by the assessee

SURESH KUMAR GUPTA, RAIPUR,RAIPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(1), RAIPUR, RAIPUR

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

Bench: Shri Ravish Soodआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos. 237 & 238/Rpr/2023 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2013-14 & 2014-15 Suresh Kumar Gupta Prop. M/S. Mittal Roadways, A-10, G.E Road, Tatibandh Raipur-492 001 (C.G.) Pan : Adcpg8248B .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-2(1), Raipur (C.G.) ……""यथ" / Respondent

condonation of delay read a/w. affidavit dated 07.09.2023, I find that the only reason given by the assessee to explain the aforesaid delay was that the requisite certificates in Form No.26A could not be obtained from the respective payees, viz. (i) Magma Fincorp Ltd.; and (ii) Religare Finvest Ltd. For the sake of completeness, the reasons stated by the assessee

MICKEY SHRIVASTVA,RAIPUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX -3(1), RAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

condonation of delay application and also admittance of his appeal by the Hon’ble court, confirms that attitude of the assessee. 10. The assessee has taken additional ground of appeal and challenged the jurisdiction and notice, with a motive to prevent the court to adjudicate the merit of the case. It is to put on records that the assessee

SHRI OM PARSHAVNATH DEVELOPERS PVT. LTD.,, DURG,DURG vs. ACIT-1(1), BHILAI, DURG

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee company is allowed for statistical purposes in terms of the aforesaid observations

Bench: Shri Ravish Soodआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No. 23/Rpr/2025 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2015-16 Shri Om Parshvanath Developers Private Limited Nadi Road, Ganjpara, Durg (C.G)-491 001 Pan: Aamcs7665N

deduction of traveling expenses of Rs.3,21,700/- : Rs.1,93,020/-, determined the income of the assesse company at Rs.32,66,754/-. 4. Aggrieved the assessee company carried the matter in appeal before the CIT(Appeals). As is discernible from the order of the CIT(Appeals), it transpires that he had observed that as the appeal filed by the assessee

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 4(1), RAIPUR vs. MESERSS CHHATTISGARH STATEELECTRICITY BOARD, RAIPUR

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Arun Khodpiaआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.31/Rpr/2020 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2006-07 The Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle-4(1), Raipur (C.G.) .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. M/S. Chhattisgarh State Electricity Board (Through Chhattisgarh State Power Holding Company Limited) Dangania Raipur Pan : Aabcc7876Q ……""यथ" / Respondent

condoned. 23. Admittedly, the appeal filed by the Revenue involves a delay of 3966 days, which, as stated by the Ld. A.R and, rightly so, is an inordinate delay. 29 DCIT, Circle-4(1), Raipur Vs. M/s. Chhattisgarh State Electricity Board Considering that the Revenue had delayed filing the present appeal before us, i.e., filed the appeal after the lapse

M/S BPS INFRASTRUCTURE, BALODA BAZAR,BALODA BAZAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(3), RAIPUR, RAIPUR

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

Bench: Shri Ravish Soodआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No. 315/Rpr/2023 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2019-20 M/S. Bps Infrastructure Village- Raseda, Tehsil-Baloda Bazar, Baloda Bazar-493 332 (C.G.) Pan : Aaofb5038R .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. The Income Tax Officer Ward-1(3), Raipur (C.G.) ……""यथ" / Respondent

deduction of delayed deposit of employees share of contribution towards ESI/PF was rightly made by the A.O u/s. 36(1)(va) of the Act, the CIT(Appeals) approved the adjustment made by the DCIT, CPC, Bengaluru u/s. 143(1) of the Act. 4. The assessee being aggrieved with the order of the CIT(Appeals) has carried the matter in appeal

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

deduction u/s80P(2). (vi) The entire afore said additions can be explained with the help of the following chart: The assessing officer had added Rs 2,79,470/ again on A/C of 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

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

deduction u/s80P(2). (vi) The entire afore said additions can be explained with the help of the following chart: The assessing officer had added Rs 2,79,470/ again on A/C of 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

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

deduction u/s80P(2). (vi) The entire afore said additions can be explained with the help of the following chart: The assessing officer had added Rs 2,79,470/ again on A/C of 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

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

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

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood

deduction u/s80P(2). (vi) The entire afore said additions can be explained with the help of the following chart: The assessing officer had added Rs 2,79,470/ again on A/C of 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

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

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

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood

deduction u/s80P(2). (vi) The entire afore said additions can be explained with the help of the following chart: The assessing officer had added Rs 2,79,470/ again on A/C of 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

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

deduction u/s80P(2). (vi) The entire afore said additions can be explained with the help of the following chart: The assessing officer had added Rs 2,79,470/ again on A/C of 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

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

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

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood

deduction u/s80P(2). (vi) The entire afore said additions can be explained with the help of the following chart: The assessing officer had added Rs 2,79,470/ again on A/C of 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

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

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

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood

deduction u/s80P(2). (vi) The entire afore said additions can be explained with the help of the following chart: The assessing officer had added Rs 2,79,470/ again on A/C of 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