SUPREME TRANSPORT COMPANY,INDORE vs. ITO TDS-II, INDORE

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessees are allowed

Bench: Shri B.M. Biyani & Shri Paresh M. Joshi

Assessment-Year [“AY”] 2013- Page 1 of 23 M/s. Supreme Transport Company ITA No. 914 & 917/Ind/2024 – AY 2013-14 Financial Year 2012-13 / Q2 – 24Q & Q3-24Q] 14, the assessee has filed the captioned two (2) appeals on the grounds mentioned in Form No. 36 (Appeal Memo). This is the 2nd round of litigation for the same issue. The brief

DISTRICT ORGANISOR TRIBAL WELFARE BHOPAL,BHOPAL vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER (TDS)- 1, BHOPAL, BHOPAL

In the result appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyani

Assessment Years: 2012-13 to 2017-2018) District Organiser Tribal Welfare ITO (TDS)-1 Bhopal, Bhopal B- Block, Old Secretariat

DISTRICT ORGANISOR TRIBAL WELFARE BHOPAL,BHOPAL vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER (TDS)- 1, BHOPAL, BHOPAL

In the result appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyani

Assessment Years: 2012-13 to 2017-2018) District Organiser Tribal Welfare ITO (TDS)-1 Bhopal, Bhopal B- Block, Old Secretariat

DISTRICT ORGANISOR TRIBAL WELFARE BHOPAL,BHOPAL vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER (TDS)- 1, BHOPAL, BHOPAL

In the result appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyani

Assessment Years: 2012-13 to 2017-2018) District Organiser Tribal Welfare ITO (TDS)-1 Bhopal, Bhopal B- Block, Old Secretariat

DISTRICT ORGANISOR TRIBAL WELFARE BHOPAL,BHOPAL vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER (TDS)- 1, BHOPAL, BHOPAL

In the result appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyani

Assessment Years: 2012-13 to 2017-2018) District Organiser Tribal Welfare ITO (TDS)-1 Bhopal, Bhopal B- Block, Old Secretariat

DISTRICT ORGANISOR TRIBAL WELFARE BHOPAL,BHOPAL vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER (TDS)-1, BHOPAL, BHOPAL

In the result appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyani

Assessment Years: 2012-13 to 2017-2018) District Organiser Tribal Welfare ITO (TDS)-1 Bhopal, Bhopal B- Block, Old Secretariat

DISTRICT ORGANISOR TRIBAL WELFARE BHOPAL,BHOPAL vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER (TDS)- 1, BHOPAL, BHOPAL

In the result appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyani

Assessment Years: 2012-13 to 2017-2018) District Organiser Tribal Welfare ITO (TDS)-1 Bhopal, Bhopal B- Block, Old Secretariat

DEEPAK PAREKH,USA vs. DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX CPC, BENGALURU

Appeal is allowed for statistical purpose

assessment year 2022-23 on 24.07.2022 declaring a total income of Rs.3,49,729/-, claiming a refund of Rs.29,69,840/- due to claim of TDS. TDS claim of Rs.14,59,120/- was denied to the assessee as it was deducted in the hands of the assessee's wife but claimed by the assessee.\n2. During the year under consideration

SHRI CHAMAN KUMAR GOYAL,BADWAHA vs. THE ITO (TDS)-2,INDORE, INDORE

In the result, the appeal of assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyanishri Chaman Kumar Goyal Ito (Tds)-2 Goyal Oil Mills Barwaha Indore Vs. Barwaha, M.P. (Appellant / Assessee) (Revenue) Pan: Ahvpg 2117 N Assessee By Shri Ram Gilda, Ar Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 27.09.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 09.10.2023

assesse has paid only Rs. 40,00,000/- which is less than the minimum consideration of the immovable property provided in sub-section (2) of section 194IA. Thus, what is relevant for threshold limit is the consideration actually paid or stamp duty valuation of immovable property. When the assessee has paid only Rs.40,00,000/- then the assessee

THE ACIT (CENTRAL)-1, INDORE vs. DILIP KUMAR MAHENDRA KUMAR JAIN HUF, INDORE

In the result Revenue’s appeal is dismissed

Bench: Hon'Ble Kul Bharat & Hon'Ble Manish Boradassessment Year: 2011-12 Dilip Kumar Mahendra Acit (Central)-1, Vs. Kumar Jain, 6, Near Jagdale School, Indore Janki Nagar, Indore (Revenue ) (Appellant) Pan No.Aaehd1394J Revenue By Shri Harshit Bari, Sr.Dr Appellant By Shri Mahesh Agrawal, Adv. Date Of Hearing 05.01.2021 Date Of Pronouncement .02.2021 O R D E R

TDS deducted on interest. Appellant has filed copies of confirmations of M/s Agrawal Cotex, M/s Shree Annapurna Ginning Factory and M/s Shiv Shakti Trading Co. On perusal of the evidences filed by the appellant it is also observed that no amount was given in cash and also the interest paid was through cheques directly to the lender by the borrower

VIJAY KUMAR GOYAL,BARWAHA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER TDS II INDORE, INDORE

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyanivijay Kumar Goyal Ito, 48, Narmada Barwala Nfac Vs. Mp Delhi (Appellant / Assessee) (Respondent/ Revenue) Pan: Asrpg8655L Assessee By Shri Ram Gilda, Ar Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 07.05.2024 Date Of Pronouncement 08 .05.2024

assesse has paid only Rs. 40,00,000/- which is less than the minimum consideration of the immovable property provided in sub-section (2) of section 194IA. Thus, what is relevant for threshold limit is the consideration actually paid or stamp duty valuation of immovable property. When the assessee has paid only Rs.40,00,000/- then the assessee

PRADEEP PINJANI,BHOPAL vs. ITO-1(2), BHOPAL

Appeal is allowed as mentioned above

TDS u/s 194-IA filed by purchaser of property. This Form is for\n\"value of consideration” for which the property was sold by assessee and it is\nnothing to do with costs/exemptions claimable by assessee in computing\ncapital gain. Therefore, the query raised by AO during assessment-\nproceeding was also qua the “value of consideration” and not for\ncosts/exemption

BAL BHAVAN SCHOOL,BHOPAL vs. DCIT EXEMPTION, BHOPAL

Appeal is allowed as mentioned above

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyaniassessment Year: 2014-15 Bal Bhavan School, Dcit (Exemption), 1, Shyamla Hills, Bhopal बनाम/ Bhopal Vs. (Assessee/Appellant) (Revenue/Respondent) Pan: Aaaab3678G Assessee By Ms. Nisha Lahoti, Ca Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 15.05.2024 Date Of Pronouncement 10.06.2024

TDS deducted by assessee. (vi) It is submitted that by making a payment of Rs. 14,65,992/- on account of rent, there is a hefty tax burden of more than 30% in the hands of payees whereas the assessee’s income was anyways exempt u/s 11. In such a situation, why would the assessee and the specified persons make

SHRI SURINDER SINGH BHATIA,INDORE vs. THE JCIT- 3, INDORE

Appeals are allowed/statistically allowed in terms indicated above

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri B.M. Biyani(Conducted Through Virtual Court) Assessment Year: 2010-11 &

blocked in business assets like fixed assets and working capital in the form of cash, bank, stock, sundry debtors. He submitted that the CIT(A) has, therefore, rightly concluded that borrowed funds have been used for giving loans to sister concerns/family members. 20. We have considered rival submissions of both sides and perused the orders of lower authorities. After

SHRI SURINDER SINGH BHATIA,INDORE vs. THE JCIT RANGE-3, INDORE

Appeals are allowed/statistically allowed in terms indicated above

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri B.M. Biyani(Conducted Through Virtual Court) Assessment Year: 2010-11 &

blocked in business assets like fixed assets and working capital in the form of cash, bank, stock, sundry debtors. He submitted that the CIT(A) has, therefore, rightly concluded that borrowed funds have been used for giving loans to sister concerns/family members. 20. We have considered rival submissions of both sides and perused the orders of lower authorities. After

RAJ KUMAR PALIA,BHOPAL vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX - ITARSI, CAMP AT BHOPAL, BHOPAL

Appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri B.M. Biyani & Shri Paresh M. Joshiassessment Year:2009-10 Raj Kumar Paliya Dcit/Acit M/S. Da Construction

TDS. Ld. Counsel of the assessee also submitted that no amount was payable as on 31st March, 2009. Therefore, provisions of Section 40(a)(ia) are not applicable in the light of the decision in the case of Dy. CIT vs. Veera Associates, 55 taxmann.com 466 (Vizag). 14. We have heard both the sides and find from the details that