M/S. BHARAT COKING COAL LIMITED,DHANBAD vs. JT. CIT, TDS,, DHANBAD

In the result, grounds of appeal raised by the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Ratnesh Nandan Sahay

TDS Dhanbad, vide order dated 01/05/2018 (parallel orders for each year) and same being confirmed by CIT(A) NFAC vide order dated 30/01/2024 (parallel orders for each year). 2. That at the very outset we challenge the very initiation of the penalty proceedings vide notice dated 28/02/2018 (parallel notice for each year) to the extent that the same has been

ITO, TDS, RANCHI, RANCHI vs. M/S. CHHINAMASTIKA CEMENT & ISPAT PVT. LTD.,, RAMGARH

In the result, the grounds of appeal raised by the revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Ratnesh Nandan Sahay

Section 201(1)/201(1A) of the Act by holding that "Admittedly, in this case despite making contrary observation, the ITO/TDS has accepted the transportation payment as genuine that is why he has computed the TDS liability on those payments u/s 201(1) and interest u/s 201(1A). Therefore, it is not in dispute that the transportation payments has been

ITO, TDS,, RANCHI vs. M/S. CHINNAMASTIKA CEMENT & ISPAT LTD.,, RAMGARH

In the result, the grounds of appeal raised by the revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Ratnesh Nandan Sahay

Section 201(1)/201(1A) of the Act by holding that "Admittedly, in this case despite making contrary observation, the ITO/TDS has accepted the transportation payment as genuine that is why he has computed the TDS liability on those payments u/s 201(1) and interest u/s 201(1A). Therefore, it is not in dispute that the transportation payments has been

K M MEMORIAL HOSPITAL & RESERCH CENTRE (P) LTD,BOKARO vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-1,, HAZARIBAG

In the result, this ground of appeal of assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Ratnesh Nandan Sahay

TDS should be restricted to 30% of that amount under Section 40(a)(ia) of the Act. Accordingly, we also hold that the assessee is entitled to pay 30% of the total amount claimed under Section 40(a)(ia) of the Act. The Assessing Officer is accordingly directed to restrict the addition to 30% of ₹ 3.00 lacs which comes

HARDEEP SINGH,JAMSHEDPUR vs. ITO(TDS)J, JAMSHEDPUR

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed

Section 234E of the Act is charging provision i.e. substantive provision which could not be applied retrospectively, unless it is expressly provided in the Act, to levy the late fee for any delay in filing the TDS statement for the period prior to 01.06.2015. The counsel for the assessee has rightly contended that in the absence of enabling provisions

HARDEEP SINGH,JAMSHEDPUR vs. ITO(TDS)J, JAMSHEDPUR

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed

Section 234E of the Act is charging provision i.e. substantive provision which could not be applied retrospectively, unless it is expressly provided in the Act, to levy the late fee for any delay in filing the TDS statement for the period prior to 01.06.2015. The counsel for the assessee has rightly contended that in the absence of enabling provisions

M/S VIKAS SAMITIES,JAMSHEDPUR vs. CIT EXEMPTION, RANCHI

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed

section 234E of the Act is set aside and fee levied u/s 243E of the Act in both the appeals of Rs.19,551/- on account of late filing of TDS return in Form No.26Q for Quarter-IV for the Financial Year 2012-2013 relating to Assessment Year 2013-2014 and Rs.6,638/- on account of late filing of TDS return

M/S VIKAS SAMITIES,JAMSHEDPUR vs. CIT EXEMPTION, RANCHI

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed

section 234E of the Act is set aside and fee levied u/s 243E of the Act in both the appeals of Rs.19,551/- on account of late filing of TDS return in Form No.26Q for Quarter-IV for the Financial Year 2012-2013 relating to Assessment Year 2013-2014 and Rs.6,638/- on account of late filing of TDS return

PRAMOD KUMAR MANPURIA,RANCHI vs. DCIT CPC TDS , GHAZIABAD

In the result, all the three appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Gargआयकर अऩीऱ सं./Ita No.50 To 54/Ran/2018 Assessment Year: 2013-2014(Q-2-26Q) Assessment Year: 2013-2014(Q-3-26Q) Assessment Year: 2013-2014(Q-4-26Q) Assessment Year: 2014-2015(Q-2-26Q) Assessment Year: 2014-2015(Q-1-26Q) M/S Pramod Kumar Manpuria Vs. Dcit, Cpc(Tds), C/O Modern Funishers Ghaziabad, Up Sujata Chow, Main Road, Ranchi-834001 C/O L.K.Saraf & Co. Chartered 2Nd Accountants, Floor, Chauhan Mansion, Lalji Hirji Road, Ranchi-834001 स्थायी ऱेखा सं./ जीआइआर सं./ Pan/Gir No. : Acnpm 3796 Q (अऩीऱाथी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) यनधागररती की ओर से /Assessee By :Shri Saket Modi, Fca राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri P.K.Mondal, Acit(Dr) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 24/05/2019 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement 24/05/2019 आदेश / O R D E R These Appeals Have Been Filed By The Assessee Against The Common Order Of Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), Ranchi, All Dated 31.10.2017 For The A.Y. 2013-2014(Q-2-26Q), A.Y. 2013- 2014(Q-3-26Q), A.Y. 2013-2014(Q-4-26Q), A.Y. 2014-2015(Q- 2-26Q) & A.Y. 2014-2015(Q-1-26Q), Respectively. 2. The Common Grievance Of The Assessee In All The Appeals Is That The Cit(A) Has Erred In Dismissing The Assessee'S Appeal In Respect Of Levy Of Late Fee U/S.234E Of The Act.

Section 234E of the Act is charging provision i.e. substantive provision which could not be applied retrospectively, unless it is expressly provided in the Act, to levy the late fee for any delay in filing the TDS statement for the period prior to 01.06.2015. The counsel for the assessee has rightly contended that in the absence of enabling provisions

PRAMOD KUMAR MANPURIA ,RANCHI vs. DCIT CPC TDS , GHAZIABAD

In the result, all the three appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Gargआयकर अऩीऱ सं./Ita No.50 To 54/Ran/2018 Assessment Year: 2013-2014(Q-2-26Q) Assessment Year: 2013-2014(Q-3-26Q) Assessment Year: 2013-2014(Q-4-26Q) Assessment Year: 2014-2015(Q-2-26Q) Assessment Year: 2014-2015(Q-1-26Q) M/S Pramod Kumar Manpuria Vs. Dcit, Cpc(Tds), C/O Modern Funishers Ghaziabad, Up Sujata Chow, Main Road, Ranchi-834001 C/O L.K.Saraf & Co. Chartered 2Nd Accountants, Floor, Chauhan Mansion, Lalji Hirji Road, Ranchi-834001 स्थायी ऱेखा सं./ जीआइआर सं./ Pan/Gir No. : Acnpm 3796 Q (अऩीऱाथी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) यनधागररती की ओर से /Assessee By :Shri Saket Modi, Fca राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri P.K.Mondal, Acit(Dr) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 24/05/2019 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement 24/05/2019 आदेश / O R D E R These Appeals Have Been Filed By The Assessee Against The Common Order Of Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), Ranchi, All Dated 31.10.2017 For The A.Y. 2013-2014(Q-2-26Q), A.Y. 2013- 2014(Q-3-26Q), A.Y. 2013-2014(Q-4-26Q), A.Y. 2014-2015(Q- 2-26Q) & A.Y. 2014-2015(Q-1-26Q), Respectively. 2. The Common Grievance Of The Assessee In All The Appeals Is That The Cit(A) Has Erred In Dismissing The Assessee'S Appeal In Respect Of Levy Of Late Fee U/S.234E Of The Act.

Section 234E of the Act is charging provision i.e. substantive provision which could not be applied retrospectively, unless it is expressly provided in the Act, to levy the late fee for any delay in filing the TDS statement for the period prior to 01.06.2015. The counsel for the assessee has rightly contended that in the absence of enabling provisions

PRAMOD KUMAR MANPURIA ,RANCHI vs. DCIT TDS CPC , GHAZIABAD

In the result, all the three appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Gargआयकर अऩीऱ सं./Ita No.50 To 54/Ran/2018 Assessment Year: 2013-2014(Q-2-26Q) Assessment Year: 2013-2014(Q-3-26Q) Assessment Year: 2013-2014(Q-4-26Q) Assessment Year: 2014-2015(Q-2-26Q) Assessment Year: 2014-2015(Q-1-26Q) M/S Pramod Kumar Manpuria Vs. Dcit, Cpc(Tds), C/O Modern Funishers Ghaziabad, Up Sujata Chow, Main Road, Ranchi-834001 C/O L.K.Saraf & Co. Chartered 2Nd Accountants, Floor, Chauhan Mansion, Lalji Hirji Road, Ranchi-834001 स्थायी ऱेखा सं./ जीआइआर सं./ Pan/Gir No. : Acnpm 3796 Q (अऩीऱाथी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) यनधागररती की ओर से /Assessee By :Shri Saket Modi, Fca राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri P.K.Mondal, Acit(Dr) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 24/05/2019 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement 24/05/2019 आदेश / O R D E R These Appeals Have Been Filed By The Assessee Against The Common Order Of Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), Ranchi, All Dated 31.10.2017 For The A.Y. 2013-2014(Q-2-26Q), A.Y. 2013- 2014(Q-3-26Q), A.Y. 2013-2014(Q-4-26Q), A.Y. 2014-2015(Q- 2-26Q) & A.Y. 2014-2015(Q-1-26Q), Respectively. 2. The Common Grievance Of The Assessee In All The Appeals Is That The Cit(A) Has Erred In Dismissing The Assessee'S Appeal In Respect Of Levy Of Late Fee U/S.234E Of The Act.

Section 234E of the Act is charging provision i.e. substantive provision which could not be applied retrospectively, unless it is expressly provided in the Act, to levy the late fee for any delay in filing the TDS statement for the period prior to 01.06.2015. The counsel for the assessee has rightly contended that in the absence of enabling provisions

PRAMOD KUMAR MANPURIA ,RANCHI vs. DCIT TDS CPC , GHAZIABAD

In the result, all the three appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Gargआयकर अऩीऱ सं./Ita No.50 To 54/Ran/2018 Assessment Year: 2013-2014(Q-2-26Q) Assessment Year: 2013-2014(Q-3-26Q) Assessment Year: 2013-2014(Q-4-26Q) Assessment Year: 2014-2015(Q-2-26Q) Assessment Year: 2014-2015(Q-1-26Q) M/S Pramod Kumar Manpuria Vs. Dcit, Cpc(Tds), C/O Modern Funishers Ghaziabad, Up Sujata Chow, Main Road, Ranchi-834001 C/O L.K.Saraf & Co. Chartered 2Nd Accountants, Floor, Chauhan Mansion, Lalji Hirji Road, Ranchi-834001 स्थायी ऱेखा सं./ जीआइआर सं./ Pan/Gir No. : Acnpm 3796 Q (अऩीऱाथी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) यनधागररती की ओर से /Assessee By :Shri Saket Modi, Fca राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri P.K.Mondal, Acit(Dr) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 24/05/2019 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement 24/05/2019 आदेश / O R D E R These Appeals Have Been Filed By The Assessee Against The Common Order Of Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), Ranchi, All Dated 31.10.2017 For The A.Y. 2013-2014(Q-2-26Q), A.Y. 2013- 2014(Q-3-26Q), A.Y. 2013-2014(Q-4-26Q), A.Y. 2014-2015(Q- 2-26Q) & A.Y. 2014-2015(Q-1-26Q), Respectively. 2. The Common Grievance Of The Assessee In All The Appeals Is That The Cit(A) Has Erred In Dismissing The Assessee'S Appeal In Respect Of Levy Of Late Fee U/S.234E Of The Act.

Section 234E of the Act is charging provision i.e. substantive provision which could not be applied retrospectively, unless it is expressly provided in the Act, to levy the late fee for any delay in filing the TDS statement for the period prior to 01.06.2015. The counsel for the assessee has rightly contended that in the absence of enabling provisions

PRAMOD KUMAR MANPURIA,RANCHI vs. DCIT CPC(TDS), GHAZIABAD

In the result, all the three appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Gargआयकर अऩीऱ सं./Ita No.50 To 54/Ran/2018 Assessment Year: 2013-2014(Q-2-26Q) Assessment Year: 2013-2014(Q-3-26Q) Assessment Year: 2013-2014(Q-4-26Q) Assessment Year: 2014-2015(Q-2-26Q) Assessment Year: 2014-2015(Q-1-26Q) M/S Pramod Kumar Manpuria Vs. Dcit, Cpc(Tds), C/O Modern Funishers Ghaziabad, Up Sujata Chow, Main Road, Ranchi-834001 C/O L.K.Saraf & Co. Chartered 2Nd Accountants, Floor, Chauhan Mansion, Lalji Hirji Road, Ranchi-834001 स्थायी ऱेखा सं./ जीआइआर सं./ Pan/Gir No. : Acnpm 3796 Q (अऩीऱाथी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) यनधागररती की ओर से /Assessee By :Shri Saket Modi, Fca राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri P.K.Mondal, Acit(Dr) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 24/05/2019 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement 24/05/2019 आदेश / O R D E R These Appeals Have Been Filed By The Assessee Against The Common Order Of Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), Ranchi, All Dated 31.10.2017 For The A.Y. 2013-2014(Q-2-26Q), A.Y. 2013- 2014(Q-3-26Q), A.Y. 2013-2014(Q-4-26Q), A.Y. 2014-2015(Q- 2-26Q) & A.Y. 2014-2015(Q-1-26Q), Respectively. 2. The Common Grievance Of The Assessee In All The Appeals Is That The Cit(A) Has Erred In Dismissing The Assessee'S Appeal In Respect Of Levy Of Late Fee U/S.234E Of The Act.

Section 234E of the Act is charging provision i.e. substantive provision which could not be applied retrospectively, unless it is expressly provided in the Act, to levy the late fee for any delay in filing the TDS statement for the period prior to 01.06.2015. The counsel for the assessee has rightly contended that in the absence of enabling provisions

INDICO MOTORS PRIVATE LIMITED,JAMSHEDPUR vs. ITO(TDS), JAMSHEDPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Gargआयकर अऩीऱ सं./Ita No.324/Ran/2018 (नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year :2013-2014) (Financial Year 2012-2013) Indico Motors Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Ito(Tds), Jamshedpur M-25(P) & 26(P) Ivth Phase, Adityapur Industrial Area, Chamaria, Jamshedpur C/O: Ca Jagdish Khandelwal, 402&403, A.J.Tower, Q. Road, Bistupur, Jamshedpur-831001 स्थायी ऱेखा सं./ जीआइआर सं./ Pan/Gir No. : Aabci 4002 Q (अऩीऱाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) .. यनधागररती की ओर से /Assessee By :Shri Jagdish Khandelwal, Ca(Ar) राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri P.K.Mondal, Acit(Dr) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 21/05/2019 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement 21/05/2019 आदेश / O R D E R This Appeal Has Been Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), Jamshedpur, Dated 30.07.2018 For The Assessment Year 2013-2014. 2. The Sole Issue Involved In This Appeal Of The Assessee Is That The Cit(A) Erred In Confirming The Order Of Ao Levying Late Fee U/S.234E Of The Act For Delay In Filing Quarterly Statement. 3. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Filed Tds Return In Form No.24Q Financial Year 2012-2013 Relating To Assessment Year 2013-2014. Thereafter A Demand Was Raised In The Appeal Under Consideration On Account Of Late Filing Fee U/S.234E Of The Act. Thereafter

Section 234E of the Act is charging provision i.e. substantive provision which could not be applied retrospectively, unless it is expressly provided in the Act, to levy the late fee for any delay in filing the TDS statement for the period prior to 01.06.2015. The counsel for the assessee has rightly contended that in the absence of enabling provisions

RISHIRAJ HOMES PRIVATE LIMITED,JAMSHEDPUR vs. ITO(TDS), JAMSHEDPUR

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Gargआयकर अऩीऱ सं./Ita No.104, 206 & 207/Ran/2019 (नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year :2013-14, 2014-15 & 2015-16) Rishiraj Homes Private Limited Vs. Ito(Tds), Jamshedpur Contractors Area, Bistupur, Jamshedpur, C/O: Ca Jagdish Khandelwal, 402&403, A.J.Tower, Q. Road, Bistupur, Jamshedpur-831001 स्थायी ऱेखा सं./ जीआइआर सं./ Pan/Gir No. : Aaccr 7328 H (अऩीऱाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) .. यनधागररती की ओर से /Assessee By :Shri Jagdish Khandelwal, Ca(Ar) राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri P.K.Mondal, Acit(Dr) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 21/05/2019 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement 21/05/2019 आदेश / O R D E R These Three Appeals Have Been Filed By The Assessee Against The Separate Order Of Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), Jamshedpur, All Dated 05.11.2018 For The Assessment Years 2013-2014, 2014-2015 & 2015-2016, Respectively. 2. The Sole Issue Involved In All The Thee Appeals Of The Assessee Is That The Cit(A) Erred In Confirming The Order Of Ao Levying Late Fee U/S.234E Of The Act For Delay In Filing Quarterly Statement. 3. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Filed Tds Return In Form No.24Q Financial Year 2012-2013, 2013-2014 & 2014-2015 Relating To Assessment Year 2013-2014, 2014-2015 & 2015-2016, Respectively. Thereafter A Demand Was Raised In All The Three Appeals Under 2

Section 234E of the Act is charging provision i.e. substantive provision which could not be applied retrospectively, unless it is expressly provided in the Act, to levy the late fee for any delay in filing the TDS statement for the period prior to 01.06.2015. The counsel for the assessee has rightly contended that in the absence of enabling provisions

ANWESH KUMAR CHAKRABORTY,KOLKATA vs. ASSESSING OFFICER, JAMSHEDPUR

In the result, the grounds of appeal raised by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes only

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Ratnesh Nandan Sahay(Virtual Hearing) Anwesh Kumar Chakraborty, Assessing Officer, Flat No. 04, Ashabori Apartment, 11/1 Jamshedpur. Vs. Kolupara Lane, Dhakuria, Kolkata-700031 (West Bengal) Pan No. Aiqpc 6936 M Appellant/ Assessee Respondent/ Revenue

TDS deducted as given in Form 26AS amounting to 119350/-. 4. The appellant craves liberty to add, alter, any ground of appeal either at the time of hearing or before the date of hearing." Anwesh Kr Chakraborty Vs AO 2. Facts of the case, in brief, are that the assessee is an individual, who is deriving income from salary. Return

ACIT CIR-1 , DHANBAD vs. M/S BHARAT COKING COAL LTD, DHANBAD

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed and appeal by the assessee is partly allowed as well as cross-objection by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Sonjoy Sarma]

section 32(2) as amended by Finance Act, 2001 and were available for carry forward and set off against the profits and gains of subsequent years without any limit whatsoever.” 8. In the light of the judicial precedents on the issue especially that of the Hon’ble Gujarat High court in the case of General Motors India Pvt. Ltd. (supra

M/S BHARAT COOKING COAL LIMITED ,DHANBAD vs. ACIT CIRCLE-1 , DHANBAD

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed and appeal by the assessee is partly allowed as well as cross-objection by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Sonjoy Sarma]

section 32(2) as amended by Finance Act, 2001 and were available for carry forward and set off against the profits and gains of subsequent years without any limit whatsoever.” 8. In the light of the judicial precedents on the issue especially that of the Hon’ble Gujarat High court in the case of General Motors India Pvt. Ltd. (supra