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

201(1) was raised for the year under consideration, because the proceedings were barred by limitation. As such since the proceedings for demanding Tax / TDS in itself are barred by limitation, any action for imposition of penalty is ab-initio void and illegal. iii. That the provisions of section

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

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

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Ratnesh Nandan Sahay

201(1) was raised for the year under consideration, because the proceedings were barred by limitation. As such since the proceedings for demanding Tax / TDS in itself are barred by limitation, any action for imposition of penalty is ab-initio void and illegal. iii. That the provisions of section

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

201(1) was raised for the year under consideration, because the proceedings were barred by limitation. As such since the proceedings for demanding Tax / TDS in itself are barred by limitation, any action for imposition of penalty is ab-initio void and illegal. iii. That the provisions of section

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

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Manish Boradi.T.A. No.130/Ran/2018 Assessment Year: 2014-15 M/S Bharat Coking Coal Ltd…………..…...…......................……...…..….. Appellant Finance Directorate, Ground Floor, Koyla Bhawan, Koyla Nagar, Dhanbad-826005. [Pan: Aaacb7934M] Vs. Acit, Circle-1, Dhanbad…..……………………….……….…………….. Respondent Appearances By: Shri M. K. Choudhary, Advocate, Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri Saumyajit Das Gupta, Cit-Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : August 26, 2022 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : September 20, 2022 Order Per Sanjay Garg: The Present Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 20.09.2017 Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), Dhanbad [Hereinafter Referred To As ‘Cit(A)’] Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Act’).

section 201. 4. That in view of the aforesaid circular of the CBDT, the consequential relief of aforesaid addition of Rs.132,20,00,000/- be given. 3. A perusal of the impugned order of the CIT(A) in this case reveals that the assessee had not pressed the above issue relating to disallowance u/s 40(a)(ia) in respect

SHREE BALAJI STEEL WORKS,JAMSHEDPUR vs. ACIT,

Bench: Shri S.S, Godara

1) and 201(1A) on the amount of TDS whereas in the present cases the issue were pertains to liability of late fee u/s 234E of the Act for delay in filing TDS statement which was inserted from 01.06.2015. 10. On similar facts; we have decided the same issue in the assessee's own case Sudershan Goyal vs. DOT (TDS

SHREE BALAJI STEEL WORKS,JAMSHEDPUR vs. ACIT,

Bench: Shri S.S, Godara

1) and 201(1A) on the amount of TDS whereas in the present cases the issue were pertains to liability of late fee u/s 234E of the Act for delay in filing TDS statement which was inserted from 01.06.2015. 10. On similar facts; we have decided the same issue in the assessee's own case Sudershan Goyal vs. DOT (TDS

SHREE BALAJI STEEL WORKS,JAMSHEDPUR vs. ACIT,

Bench: Shri S.S, Godara

1) and 201(1A) on the amount of TDS whereas in the present cases the issue were pertains to liability of late fee u/s 234E of the Act for delay in filing TDS statement which was inserted from 01.06.2015. 10. On similar facts; we have decided the same issue in the assessee's own case Sudershan Goyal vs. DOT (TDS

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

Bench: Shri S.S, Godara

1) and 201(1A) on the amount of TDS whereas in the present cases the issue were pertains to liability of late fee u/s 234E of the Act for delay in filing TDS statement which was inserted from 01.06.2015. 10. On similar facts; we have decided the same issue in the assessee's own case Sudershan Goyal vs. DOT (TDS

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

Bench: Shri S.S, Godara

1) and 201(1A) on the amount of TDS whereas in the present cases the issue were pertains to liability of late fee u/s 234E of the Act for delay in filing TDS statement which was inserted from 01.06.2015. 10. On similar facts; we have decided the same issue in the assessee's own case Sudershan Goyal vs. DOT (TDS

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

Bench: Shri S.S, Godara

1) and 201(1A) on the amount of TDS whereas in the present cases the issue were pertains to liability of late fee u/s 234E of the Act for delay in filing TDS statement which was inserted from 01.06.2015. 10. On similar facts; we have decided the same issue in the assessee's own case Sudershan Goyal vs. DOT (TDS

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

Bench: Shri S.S, Godara

1) and 201(1A) on the amount of TDS whereas in the present cases the issue were pertains to liability of late fee u/s 234E of the Act for delay in filing TDS statement which was inserted from 01.06.2015. 10. On similar facts; we have decided the same issue in the assessee's own case Sudershan Goyal vs. DOT (TDS

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

Bench: Shri S.S, Godara

1) and 201(1A) on the amount of TDS whereas in the present cases the issue were pertains to liability of late fee u/s 234E of the Act for delay in filing TDS statement which was inserted from 01.06.2015. 10. On similar facts; we have decided the same issue in the assessee's own case Sudershan Goyal vs. DOT (TDS

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

Bench: Shri S.S, Godara

1) and 201(1A) on the amount of TDS whereas in the present cases the issue were pertains to liability of late fee u/s 234E of the Act for delay in filing TDS statement which was inserted from 01.06.2015. 10. On similar facts; we have decided the same issue in the assessee's own case Sudershan Goyal vs. DOT (TDS

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

Bench: Shri S.S, Godara

1) and 201(1A) on the amount of TDS whereas in the present cases the issue were pertains to liability of late fee u/s 234E of the Act for delay in filing TDS statement which was inserted from 01.06.2015. 10. On similar facts; we have decided the same issue in the assessee's own case Sudershan Goyal vs. DOT (TDS

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

Bench: Shri S.S, Godara

1) and 201(1A) on the amount of TDS whereas in the present cases the issue were pertains to liability of late fee u/s 234E of the Act for delay in filing TDS statement which was inserted from 01.06.2015. 10. On similar facts; we have decided the same issue in the assessee's own case Sudershan Goyal vs. DOT (TDS

SHREE BALAJI STEEL WORKS,JAMSHEDPUR vs. ACIT,

Bench: Shri S.S, Godara

1) and 201(1A) on the amount of TDS whereas in the present cases the issue were pertains to liability of late fee u/s 234E of the Act for delay in filing TDS statement which was inserted from 01.06.2015. 10. On similar facts; we have decided the same issue in the assessee's own case Sudershan Goyal vs. DOT (TDS

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

1) and 201(1A) on the amount of TDS whereas in the present cases the issue were pertains to liability of late fee u/s 234E of the Act for delay in filing TDS statement which was inserted from 01.06.2015. 10. On similar facts; we have decided the same issue in the assessee's own case Sudershan Goyal vs. DOT (TDS

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

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

1) and 201(1A) on the amount of TDS whereas in the present cases the issue were pertains to liability of late fee u/s 234E of the Act for delay in filing TDS statement which was inserted from 01.06.2015. 10. On similar facts, we have decided the same issue in the assessee's own case 'Sudershan Goyal vs. DCIT (TDS