TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Assessee's appeal dismissed for failing to collect TCS under section 206C on illegal mining activities and storage operations.</h1> <h3>District Mining Officer, Dantewada Office of the Collector Mining Versus The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax (TDS), Raipur (C.G.)</h3> The ITAT Raipur dismissed the assessee's appeal regarding demand under section 206C(1C) and (6)(7) for failure to collect TCS on illegal mining, storage ... Demand u/s. 206C(1C) and (6) & (7) - assessee was to be held as being default for not collecting tax at source (TCS) a/w. interest on illegal mining, illegal storage and illegal transportation u/s. 206C(1C) and (6) & (7) and for its failure to deduct tax at source in respect of contribution towards District Mining Fund (DMF) - HELD THAT:- Issues involved here had been deliberated at length in the cases of District Mining Officer, Bemetara Vs. DCIT (TDS), Raipur (C.G) & ORs. [2023 (8) TMI 31 - ITAT RAIPUR], therefore, no infirmity did emerge from the order of the CIT(Appeals) who had rightly followed the same and dismissed the appeal of assessee. Issues:Appeals against orders passed by Commissioner of Income-Tax (Appeals) regarding liability for TCS under Sec.206C(1C) and (6) & (7) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 for assessment years 2021-22 & 2020-21.Detailed Analysis:Issue 1: Liability for TCS on illegal activitiesThe Assessing Officer (A.O) held the assessee liable for not collecting tax at source (TCS) on illegal mining, storage, and transportation under Sec.206C(1C) and (6) & (7) of the Act, raising a demand of Rs. 5,79,001. The CIT(Appeals) upheld the A.O's view citing a previous ITAT order. The CIT(Appeals) dismissed the appeal, stating that the A.O's order was compliant with the law and the ITAT's decision. The ITAT affirmed the CIT(Appeals)'s decision, finding no infirmity, and upheld the order.Issue 2: Liability for TCS on District Mining Fund (DMF) contributionsRegarding the contribution towards DMF, the A.O directed verification of whether the appellant received contributions towards DMF from leaseholders. If the leaseholders paid directly to DMF, no TCS was required. However, if the appellant received contributions, TCS was necessary. The CIT(Appeals) followed the ITAT's order and directed the A.O accordingly. The ITAT upheld the CIT(Appeals)'s decision, considering the issues were covered by the ITAT's earlier order.Conclusion:The ITAT dismissed the appeals, upholding the CIT(Appeals)'s decision, as the issues were already addressed in a previous ITAT order. The ITAT found no reason to deviate from the earlier findings unless there were changes in law or new evidence. The appeals were dismissed for both assessment years 2021-22 and 2020-21 based on the previous ITAT order's applicability to the present cases.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
