DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1(1), RAIPUR vs. CHHATTISGARH STATE POWER TRANSMISSION COMPANY LTD., RAIPUR

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

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Arun Khodpiaआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos. 2 & 3/Rpr/2023 Co Nos. 19 & 20/Rpr/2023 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2016-17 & 2017-18 The Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle-1(1), Raipur (C.G.)

271(1)(c) of the Act w.r.t the delayed deposit by the assessee company of the employees share of contributions towards labour welfare funds, set aside the same. 23. In the result, the cross-objection filed by the assessee in CO No.19/RPR/2023 for A.Y.2016-17 is allowed in terms of our aforesaid observations. 24. Resultantly, both the appeal

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

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Arun Khodpia

u/s 271(1)(c) could not be sustained. 14. We have given a thoughtful consideration to the issue before us and after deliberating on the facts, are of the considered view, that the failure on the part of the A.O to clearly put the assessee to notice as regards the default for which penalty under Sec. 271(1

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

u/s 271(1)(c) could not be sustained. 14. We have given a thoughtful consideration to the issue before us and after deliberating on the facts, are of the considered view, that the failure on the part of the A.O to clearly put the assessee to notice as regards the default for which penalty under Sec. 271(1

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

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Arun Khodpia

u/s 271(1)(c) could not be sustained. 14. We have given a thoughtful consideration to the issue before us and after deliberating on the facts, are of the considered view, that the failure on the part of the A.O to clearly put the assessee to notice as regards the default for which penalty under Sec. 271(1

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

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Arun Khodpia

u/s 271(1)(c) could not be sustained. 14. We have given a thoughtful consideration to the issue before us and after deliberating on the facts, are of the considered view, that the failure on the part of the A.O to clearly put the assessee to notice as regards the default for which penalty under Sec. 271(1

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

u/s 271(1)(c) could not be sustained. 14. We have given a thoughtful consideration to the issue before us and after deliberating on the facts, are of the considered view, that the failure on the part of the A.O to clearly put the assessee to notice as regards the default for which penalty under Sec. 271(1

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

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Arun Khodpia

u/s 271(1)(c) could not be sustained. 14. We have given a thoughtful consideration to the issue before us and after deliberating on the facts, are of the considered view, that the failure on the part of the A.O to clearly put the assessee to notice as regards the default for which penalty under Sec. 271(1

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

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Arun Khodpia

u/s 271(1)(c) could not be sustained. 14. We have given a thoughtful consideration to the issue before us and after deliberating on the facts, are of the considered view, that the failure on the part of the A.O to clearly put the assessee to notice as regards the default for which penalty under Sec. 271(1

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

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Arun Khodpia

u/s 271(1)(c) could not be sustained. 14. We have given a thoughtful consideration to the issue before us and after deliberating on the facts, are of the considered view, that the failure on the part of the A.O to clearly put the assessee to notice as regards the default for which penalty under Sec. 271(1

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

u/s 271(1)(c) could not be sustained. 14. We have given a thoughtful consideration to the issue before us and after deliberating on the facts, are of the considered view, that the failure on the part of the A.O to clearly put the assessee to notice as regards the default for which penalty under Sec. 271(1

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

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Arun Khodpia

u/s 271(1)(c) could not be sustained. 14. We have given a thoughtful consideration to the issue before us and after deliberating on the facts, are of the considered view, that the failure on the part of the A.O to clearly put the assessee to notice as regards the default for which penalty under Sec. 271(1

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

u/s 271(1)(c) could not be sustained. 14. We have given a thoughtful consideration to the issue before us and after deliberating on the facts, are of the considered view, that the failure on the part of the A.O to clearly put the assessee to notice as regards the default for which penalty under Sec. 271(1

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

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Arun Khodpia

u/s 271(1)(c) could not be sustained. 14. We have given a thoughtful consideration to the issue before us and after deliberating on the facts, are of the considered view, that the failure on the part of the A.O to clearly put the assessee to notice as regards the default for which penalty under Sec. 271(1

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

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Arun Khodpia

u/s 271(1)(c) could not be sustained. 14. We have given a thoughtful consideration to the issue before us and after deliberating on the facts, are of the considered view, that the failure on the part of the A.O to clearly put the assessee to notice as regards the default for which penalty under Sec. 271(1

RAIPUR SECURITIES AND INVESTMENT LIMITED,RAIPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 3(1), RAIPUR

In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed on legal issue

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Rathod Kamlesh Jayantbhaiआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No. 164/Rpr/2018 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2014-15 Raipur Securities & Investment Ltd. Mig 21, Indravati Colony, Raipur (C.G.) Pan : Aaccr4419F .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. The Income Tax Officer-3(1), Raipur (C.G.) ……""यथ" / Respondent

u/s 271(1)(c) cannot be sustained: - CIT & Another vs Manjunatha Cotton & Ginning 359 ITR 565 (Kar.), SLP dismissed on 5.8.2016 vide (2016) 386 ITR 13 (St.). Manjunatha followed in CIT vs Samson Perinchery (Bom.) M.G. Contractor Pvt. Ltd. vs DCIT, ITA no. 7034 to 7038/Del./2014 order dt. 19.09.2016 of "E" Bench. Pr. CIT vs Smt. Baisetty Revathi

SOUTH EASTERN COALFIEDS LIMITED,BILASPUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, BILASPUR

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

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Arun Khodpiaआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No. 314/Rpr/2023 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2017-18 M/S. South Eastern Coalfields Limited Seepat Road, Sarkanda, Bilaspur (C.G.)-495006 Pan: Aadcs2066E .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. The Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle-1(1), Bilaspur (C.G.) ……""यथ" / Respondent

d) an order made under section 163 treating the assessee as the agent of a non- resident; (e) an order made under sub-section (2) or sub-section (3) of section 170; (f) an order made under section 171; (g) an order made under clause (b) of sub-section (1) or under sub-section (2) or sub-section

SHRI SWAPNIL KUMAR JAIN,CHAMPA (CG) vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER- JANJGIR, CHAMPA,

The appeal of the assessee is allowed in terms of aforestated observation

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Jamlappa D. Battull

section 271(1)(c) is calamitous, albeit commercial, consequences, the provision is mandatory and brooks no trifling or dilution therewith, as a result we are of the considered view that, having regard to the fact that in the instant case the SCN dt 14/01/2015 issued u/s 274 r.w.s. 271(1)(c) of the ITAT-Raipur Page

PRAKASH DAVARA,RAIPUR vs. ASSISTANT COIMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CIRCLE 4(1), RAIPUR, RAIPUR

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

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Arun Khodpiaआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No. 177/Rpr/2019 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2009-10 Prakash Davara, 08, Gitanjali Nagar, Shankar Nagar, Raipur (C.G.)-492 001 Pan : Acupd0169K .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. The Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax-4(1), Raipur (C.G.)

D.’ Costa (1982) 133 ITR 7 (Del) (v) CIT Vs. Sudershan Talkies (1993) 201 ITR 289 (Del) (vi) CIT Vs. Nihal Chand Rekyan (2000) 242 ITR 45 (Del) (vii) CIT Vs. Keshrimal Parasmal (1986) 157 ITR 484 (Raj) (viii) CIT Vs. Linotype & Machinery (1991) 192 ITR 337 ( Cal.) (ix) Surendra Prasad Singh