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

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

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Ratnesh Nandan Sahay

iii. That the provisions of section 194A for deduction of TDS on interest was not applicable in the facts of the case of the assessee since only a notional/hypothetical entry of aforesaid amount of interest was made. The company was continuously running in loss and was under BIFR for declaration of sick company. M/s OIL, parent company of the appellant

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

M/S GOOD HEALTH FOOD PVT., LTD.,,RANCHI vs. ACIT, CENTRALISED PROCESSING CELL-TDS,, GHAZIABAD

Bench: Shri S.S, Godara

iii) Fatehraj Singhvi Vs. UDI (2016) 289 CTR 0602 (Karn) (HC) iv) Sibia Healthcare Pvt. Ltd. Vs. DOT (TDS) ITA No.90/Asr/2015. v) Shri Kaur Chand Jain vs. DCIT', ITA No.378/ASR/2015. vi) Gajanan Constructions vs. DCIT' (2016) 161 ITD 313 (Pune). 7. Per contra, the Ld. DR supported the impugned order with the support of a brief synopsis of case laws

M/S GOOD HEALTH FOOD PVT., LTD.,,RANCHI vs. ACIT, CENTRALISED PROCESSING CELL-TDS,, GHAZIABAD

Bench: Shri S.S, Godara

iii) Fatehraj Singhvi Vs. UDI (2016) 289 CTR 0602 (Karn) (HC) iv) Sibia Healthcare Pvt. Ltd. Vs. DOT (TDS) ITA No.90/Asr/2015. v) Shri Kaur Chand Jain vs. DCIT', ITA No.378/ASR/2015. vi) Gajanan Constructions vs. DCIT' (2016) 161 ITD 313 (Pune). 7. Per contra, the Ld. DR supported the impugned order with the support of a brief synopsis of case laws

M/S COMPREHENSIVE NEOMARKETING SYSTEM PVT.,LTD.,,RANCHI vs. ए. सी. आई. टी. सेंट्रलाइज्ड प्रोसेसिंग सेल-टी. डी. एस. , गाजिआबाद

Bench: Shri S.S, Godara

iii) Fatehraj Singhvi Vs. UDI (2016) 289 CTR 0602 (Karn) (HC) iv) Sibia Healthcare Pvt. Ltd. Vs. DOT (TDS) ITA No.90/Asr/2015. v) Shri Kaur Chand Jain vs. DCIT', ITA No.378/ASR/2015. vi) Gajanan Constructions vs. DCIT' (2016) 161 ITD 313 (Pune). 7. Per contra, the Ld. DR supported the impugned order with the support of a brief synopsis of case laws

SHREE BALAJI STEEL WORKS,JAMSHEDPUR vs. ACIT,

Bench: Shri S.S, Godara

iii) Fatehraj Singhvi Vs. UDI (2016) 289 CTR 0602 (Karn) (HC) iv) Sibia Healthcare Pvt. Ltd. Vs. DOT (TDS) ITA No.90/Asr/2015. v) Shri Kaur Chand Jain vs. DCIT', ITA No.378/ASR/2015. vi) Gajanan Constructions vs. DCIT' (2016) 161 ITD 313 (Pune). 7. Per contra, the Ld. DR supported the impugned order with the support of a brief synopsis of case laws

C.N.AUTOMOBILES,,RANCHI vs. ACIT,CENTRALISED PROCESSING CELL-TDS, GHAZIABAD

Bench: Shri S.S, Godara

iii) Fatehraj Singhvi Vs. UDI (2016) 289 CTR 0602 (Karn) (HC) iv) Sibia Healthcare Pvt. Ltd. Vs. DOT (TDS) ITA No.90/Asr/2015. v) Shri Kaur Chand Jain vs. DCIT', ITA No.378/ASR/2015. vi) Gajanan Constructions vs. DCIT' (2016) 161 ITD 313 (Pune). 7. Per contra, the Ld. DR supported the impugned order with the support of a brief synopsis of case laws

C.N.AUTOMOBILES,,RANCHI vs. ACIT,CENTRALISED PROCESSING CELL-TDS, GHAZIABAD

Bench: Shri S.S, Godara

iii) Fatehraj Singhvi Vs. UDI (2016) 289 CTR 0602 (Karn) (HC) iv) Sibia Healthcare Pvt. Ltd. Vs. DOT (TDS) ITA No.90/Asr/2015. v) Shri Kaur Chand Jain vs. DCIT', ITA No.378/ASR/2015. vi) Gajanan Constructions vs. DCIT' (2016) 161 ITD 313 (Pune). 7. Per contra, the Ld. DR supported the impugned order with the support of a brief synopsis of case laws

M/S GOOD HEALTH FOOD PVT., LTD.,,RANCHI vs. ACIT, CENTRALISED PROCESSING CELL-TDS,, GHAZIABAD

Bench: Shri S.S, Godara

iii) Fatehraj Singhvi Vs. UDI (2016) 289 CTR 0602 (Karn) (HC) iv) Sibia Healthcare Pvt. Ltd. Vs. DOT (TDS) ITA No.90/Asr/2015. v) Shri Kaur Chand Jain vs. DCIT', ITA No.378/ASR/2015. vi) Gajanan Constructions vs. DCIT' (2016) 161 ITD 313 (Pune). 7. Per contra, the Ld. DR supported the impugned order with the support of a brief synopsis of case laws

M/S COMPREHENSIVE NEOMARKETING SYSTEM PVT. LTD.,,RANCHI vs. ACIT, CENTRALISED PROCESSING CELL-TDS,, GHAZIABAD

Bench: Shri S.S, Godara

iii) Fatehraj Singhvi Vs. UDI (2016) 289 CTR 0602 (Karn) (HC) iv) Sibia Healthcare Pvt. Ltd. Vs. DOT (TDS) ITA No.90/Asr/2015. v) Shri Kaur Chand Jain vs. DCIT', ITA No.378/ASR/2015. vi) Gajanan Constructions vs. DCIT' (2016) 161 ITD 313 (Pune). 7. Per contra, the Ld. DR supported the impugned order with the support of a brief synopsis of case laws

SHREE BALAJI STEEL WORKS,JAMSHEDPUR vs. ACIT,

Bench: Shri S.S, Godara

iii) Fatehraj Singhvi Vs. UDI (2016) 289 CTR 0602 (Karn) (HC) iv) Sibia Healthcare Pvt. Ltd. Vs. DOT (TDS) ITA No.90/Asr/2015. v) Shri Kaur Chand Jain vs. DCIT', ITA No.378/ASR/2015. vi) Gajanan Constructions vs. DCIT' (2016) 161 ITD 313 (Pune). 7. Per contra, the Ld. DR supported the impugned order with the support of a brief synopsis of case laws

M/S GOOD HEALTH FOOD PVT., LTD.,,RANCHI vs. ACIT, CENTRALISED PROCESSING CELL-TDS,, GHAZIABAD

Bench: Shri S.S, Godara

iii) Fatehraj Singhvi Vs. UDI (2016) 289 CTR 0602 (Karn) (HC) iv) Sibia Healthcare Pvt. Ltd. Vs. DOT (TDS) ITA No.90/Asr/2015. v) Shri Kaur Chand Jain vs. DCIT', ITA No.378/ASR/2015. vi) Gajanan Constructions vs. DCIT' (2016) 161 ITD 313 (Pune). 7. Per contra, the Ld. DR supported the impugned order with the support of a brief synopsis of case laws

SHREE BALAJI STEEL WORKS,JAMSHEDPUR vs. ACIT,

Bench: Shri S.S, Godara

iii) Fatehraj Singhvi Vs. UDI (2016) 289 CTR 0602 (Karn) (HC) iv) Sibia Healthcare Pvt. Ltd. Vs. DOT (TDS) ITA No.90/Asr/2015. v) Shri Kaur Chand Jain vs. DCIT', ITA No.378/ASR/2015. vi) Gajanan Constructions vs. DCIT' (2016) 161 ITD 313 (Pune). 7. Per contra, the Ld. DR supported the impugned order with the support of a brief synopsis of case laws

C.N.AUTOMOBILES,,RANCHI vs. ACIT,CENTRALISED PROCESSING CELL-TDS, GHAZIABAD

Bench: Shri S.S, Godara

iii) Fatehraj Singhvi Vs. UDI (2016) 289 CTR 0602 (Karn) (HC) iv) Sibia Healthcare Pvt. Ltd. Vs. DOT (TDS) ITA No.90/Asr/2015. v) Shri Kaur Chand Jain vs. DCIT', ITA No.378/ASR/2015. vi) Gajanan Constructions vs. DCIT' (2016) 161 ITD 313 (Pune). 7. Per contra, the Ld. DR supported the impugned order with the support of a brief synopsis of case laws

SHREE BALAJI STEEL WORKS,JAMSHEDPUR vs. ACIT,

Bench: Shri S.S, Godara

iii) Fatehraj Singhvi Vs. UDI (2016) 289 CTR 0602 (Karn) (HC) iv) Sibia Healthcare Pvt. Ltd. Vs. DOT (TDS) ITA No.90/Asr/2015. v) Shri Kaur Chand Jain vs. DCIT', ITA No.378/ASR/2015. vi) Gajanan Constructions vs. DCIT' (2016) 161 ITD 313 (Pune). 7. Per contra, the Ld. DR supported the impugned order with the support of a brief synopsis of case laws

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]

10. We, after hearing the rival submission of the parties on this issue and material available on record, find that assessee has submitted most of the bills of expenditure before the ld. AO but due to fire in the office of the assessee, balance bills could not be produced at the time of hearing. Besides that the books

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]

10. We, after hearing the rival submission of the parties on this issue and material available on record, find that assessee has submitted most of the bills of expenditure before the ld. AO but due to fire in the office of the assessee, balance bills could not be produced at the time of hearing. Besides that the books