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

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

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’).

TDS and another one against the order under section 143(3) of the Act for disallowance under section 40(a)(i)/(ia) of the Act. The disallowance under section 40 is with respect to same issue on which order under section 201

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

section 201 or to impose penalty u/s 271C for default of non-deduction of TDS. 3. For that Ld. CIT(A) erred

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

section 201 or to impose penalty u/s 271C for default of non-deduction of TDS. 3. For that Ld. CIT(A) erred

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

section 201 or to impose penalty u/s 271C for default of non-deduction of TDS. 3. For that Ld. CIT(A) erred

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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.

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

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.

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

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.

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

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.

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

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.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Bench: Shri S.S, Godara

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

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

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