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 demand under section 201 or to impose penalty u/s 271C for default of non-deduction of TDS. 3. For that

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

TDS demand under section 201 or to impose penalty u/s 271C for default of non-deduction of TDS. 3. For that

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

TDS demand under section 201 or to impose penalty u/s 271C for default of non-deduction of TDS. 3. For that

SRI KRISHNA NUTRITIONS INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, RANCHI

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Ratnesh Nandan Sahay

TDS on the payments to the labour sardars, the Assessing Officer had invoked the provisions of Section 40(a)(ia) and had disallowed

SRI KRISHNA NUTRITIONS INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, RANCHI

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Ratnesh Nandan Sahay

TDS on the payments to the labour sardars, the Assessing Officer had invoked the provisions of Section 40(a)(ia) and had disallowed

SRI KRISHNA NUTRITIONS INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, RANCHI

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Ratnesh Nandan Sahay

TDS on the payments to the labour sardars, the Assessing Officer had invoked the provisions of Section 40(a)(ia) and had disallowed

SRI SITA RAM RAI,DHANBAD vs. ITO TDS WARD, DHANBAD

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

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Rajesh Kumari.T.A. Nos.13&14/Ran/2022 Assessment Years: 2013-14 & 2014-15 Sri Sita Ram Rai……..….…..…………..…...…......................……...…..….. Appellant 1, New Karmik Nagar, Ism Saraidhella, Dhanbad, Jharkhand - 826004. [Pan: Afipr2324B] Vs. Ito, Tds Ward-Dhanbad………………………….……….…………….. Respondent Appearances By: Shri Devesh Poddar, Adv., Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri Pranob Kumar Koley, Sr. Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : March 01, 2023 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : April 28, 2023 Order Per Sanjay Garg: Both The Appeals Have Been Preferred By The Assessee Against The Separate Orders Dated 15.03.2022 Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre [Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Cit(A)’] Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Act’). The Assessee In Both The Appeals Has Agitated The Levy Of Late Filing Fees U/S 234E Of The Act Along With Interest Thereupon Levied U/S 220(2) Of The Act. Since, Common Issues Are Involved In All The Appeals, Hence These Have Heard Together & Are Being Disposed Of By This Common Order. The Appeal In Ita No.13/Ran/2022 For Assessment Year 2013-14 Is Taken As Lead Case For The Purpose Of Narration Of Facts. 2. The Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Deducted Tax At Source (Tds) In Respect Of Certain Payments. As Per The Provisions Of 1

TDS). The assessee filed returns of the TDS belatedly. The Income Tax Authorities processed the return for the relevant

SRI SITA RAM RAI,DHANBAD vs. ITO, DHANBAD

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

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Rajesh Kumari.T.A. Nos.13&14/Ran/2022 Assessment Years: 2013-14 & 2014-15 Sri Sita Ram Rai……..….…..…………..…...…......................……...…..….. Appellant 1, New Karmik Nagar, Ism Saraidhella, Dhanbad, Jharkhand - 826004. [Pan: Afipr2324B] Vs. Ito, Tds Ward-Dhanbad………………………….……….…………….. Respondent Appearances By: Shri Devesh Poddar, Adv., Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri Pranob Kumar Koley, Sr. Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : March 01, 2023 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : April 28, 2023 Order Per Sanjay Garg: Both The Appeals Have Been Preferred By The Assessee Against The Separate Orders Dated 15.03.2022 Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre [Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Cit(A)’] Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Act’). The Assessee In Both The Appeals Has Agitated The Levy Of Late Filing Fees U/S 234E Of The Act Along With Interest Thereupon Levied U/S 220(2) Of The Act. Since, Common Issues Are Involved In All The Appeals, Hence These Have Heard Together & Are Being Disposed Of By This Common Order. The Appeal In Ita No.13/Ran/2022 For Assessment Year 2013-14 Is Taken As Lead Case For The Purpose Of Narration Of Facts. 2. The Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Deducted Tax At Source (Tds) In Respect Of Certain Payments. As Per The Provisions Of 1

TDS). The assessee filed returns of the TDS belatedly. The Income Tax Authorities processed the return for the relevant

DEVPRABHA CONSTRUCTION PRIVATE LTD.,,DHANBAD vs. PCIT, DHANBAD

In the result, this appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Ratnesh Nandan Sahay(Virtual Hearing) Devprabha Construction Private Ltd., P.C.I.T., Dev Villa, Behind Radha Swamy Arcade, Dhanbad, Vs. Saraidhela, Dhanbad-828127. Aayakar Bhawan, Luby Pan No. Aaecb 2652 A Circular Road, Dhanbad-826001 (Jharkhand) Appellant/ Assessee Respondent/ Revenue

TDS not deducted, out of which AO has conducted enquiry and verified only 5 persons. b) Hire Charges have

ACIT,C.C.-1, RANCHI vs. M/S KOIRA ORES PRIVATE LIMITED, GIRIDIH

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Sonjoy Sarma]

TDS u/s,194A or 194J was deducted .Accordingly, the AO show-caused the appellant whether the said amount was included

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]

TDS was not deducted in violation of provision of section 40(a)(ia). The disallowance made is unjustified and illegal

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]

TDS was not deducted in violation of provision of section 40(a)(ia). The disallowance made is unjustified and illegal

MOUNT OLIVE'S WELFARE TRUST,GUMLA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER (EXEMPTIONS) WARD- RANCHI, RANCHI

In the result, appeal of the assessee stands allowed

Bench: the Tribunal was due to the fact that after corona virus

TDS clearly shows that the requirement of deduction of TDS in respect of trust came into effect from

JHARKHAND STATE BEVERAGES CORPORATION LIMITED,RANCHI vs. ACIT, C.C.1, RANCHI

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

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Ratnesh Nandan Sahayjharkhand State Beverages A.C.I.T., Corporation Limited, Central Circle-1, Vs. Utpad Bhawan, Kanke Road, Ranchi. Ranchi-834008. Pan No. Aaccj 5622 N Appellant/ Assessee Respondent/ Revenue

TDS, the Assessing Officer had disallowed 30% of the said expenses on which the TDS had not been

MOTOREX FINANCE PVT LTD ,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD-4(1), KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Ratnesh Nandan Sahaymotorex Finance Pvt. Ltd., I.T.O., 1A, Grant Lane, Kolkata-700012 (West Ward 4(1), Vs. Bengal). Kolkata. Pan No. Aaccm 1042 R Appellant/ Assessee Respondent/ Revenue

TDS and the Assessing Officer has not disturbed the TDS either in fact the Assessing Officer has accepted

BADRINATH SALES PRIVATE LIMITED,ADITYAPUR, WEST SINGHBHUM vs. DCIT/ACIT CIRCLE 1 JSR, JAMSHEDPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

TDS had also been deducted on such\npayment and other proofs like PAN and bank statement indicating\nsuch payments

CCL ,RANCHI vs. DCIT CIR-1 , RANCHI

TDS had been\ndeducted and the same was liable to be disallowed .\n18. In reply, the Ld.AR submitted that

CCL,RNCHI vs. ACIT CIR-1 , RANCHI

TDS had been\ndeducted and the same was liable to be disallowed\n18. In reply, the Ld.AR submitted that